I want a 7.62 / .308

[carlson1]

I like the ideal of the Colt LE901.

I was just coming here to post that recommendation. The Colt LE901 is a complete .308 rifle but with a proprietary to Colt upper it can be converted to run 5.56 as well, same lower. All you have to change out besides the complete upper is the buffer and buffer spring(and mags and ammo obviously).

You would need to add an adapter of some sort, the magazines are different size.

The adapter is provided. You also must change out the buffer and buffer spring, but it is also supplied.

[The Annoyed Man]

I want to add something in 7.62 / .308 to my collection. I am trying to decide between something on an AR frame vs. an M1A style.

I know there are as many opinions as there are options but I wanted to get some feedback frome some of you who already own one or both in terms of pros / cons or lessons learned:

Thanks in advance for your input...

Let 'er rip!!!

I love my M1A, but perhaps I'm a little nostalgic as I had an M14 in my room in college, and shot the M14 while I was in the military. It's somewhat heavy compared to an AR, and more unwieldly (unless you get a SOCOM version), but it's a blast to shoot.

What VMI77 says.

I had a beautifully set up M1A, and during a moment of pre-senile dementia, I traded it for an AR10 SASS rifle. This AR10 is very customized and extremely accurate, but I would trade that AR10 back for a decent M1A in a heartbeat. I even hung onto 5 M1A magazines on the odd chance that I could get another one. I just can't decide if I want the 18" Scout Squad, or a 22" model.

If resale value means anything to you the M1A will hold its value better than the AR10......if for no other reason than there just aren't as many of them around. I have $3K in this AR10 without the optic, and I just don't think I can get that much for it if I sell it. It has a Noveske 18" N6 barrel, and a Noveske Bolt group. Noveske trued the upper receiver and mounted the barrel. It has a Magpul PRS stock with a monopod and a Troy Battle Rail, and a honed 2 stage match trigger with about a 1.5 lb letoff. I once watched my son put 4 rounds into one hole with it at 100 yards. It is a NICE AR10..........but it isn't an M1A. The M1A comes to the shoulder more naturally, and the iron sights are first rate. Even with my aging eyes, I had no trouble ringing a 10" square steel plate at 200 yards with the iron sights, before I ever got a scope for it. And the M1A isn't necessarily heavier. My AR10, set up as it is with a big scope on it, weighs some stupid amount, like 15 lb or so. My M1A weighed about 10 lb with a scope mounted.

The M1A is possibly more fragile than the AR10. It's not a delicate gun, but the AR10 is pretty much indestructible. You don't want to shoot extremely hot loads in the M1A or you might bend the operating rod. But as long as you keep within its design parameters, it is an extremely reliable and accurate semiauto .308.

[RJGold]

I really appreciate all of the input on this.

I have a follow up question for the M1A folks:

Is there any benefit (or advantage) of going with a vintage (of some certain year model) M1A vs those available now (current year model)?

Just curious if there's anything better about an old one than a new one (other than nostalgia).

Thanks again for all the input.

[ripnbst]

I'd say the advantage goes to current production guns. The older ones can be ruined by running ammo currently produced. Back in the day ammo wasn't loaded as hot as it is today. Running current production loads through an old gun will bend the operating rod.

[MechAg94]

I really appreciate all of the input on this.

I have a follow up question for the M1A folks:

Is there any benefit (or advantage) of going with a vintage (of some certain year model) M1A vs those available now (current year model)?

Just curious if there's anything better about an old one than a new one (other than nostalgia).

Thanks again for all the input.

https://www.wideners.com/itemview.cfm?dir=700|1076" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The main alternative is going with other manufactuers like LRB or Fulton Armory over Springfield. The others are going to be more expensive. I don't know if the difference is worth it or not.

[markthenewf]

I'd say the advantage goes to current production guns. The older ones can be ruined by running ammo currently produced. Back in the day ammo wasn't loaded as hot as it is today. Running current production loads through an old gun will bend the operating rod.

That is most certainly not true. The new production M1A's use imported MIM parts which have been docmented by me and others to fail from time to time. Just google "M1A hammer broken" and see. If it wasn't an issue, then companies selling fully forged/machined parts would have no reason to exist. Yes, I'm sure someone will chime in saying that MIM is the answer and that I got a bad batch, blah, blah, blah. I'm over it and avoid MIM like the plague. But I digress: when I buy an M1A, I want American parts assembled in the US. I don't care if it's got a lifetime no-hassle warranty, if the failing part is to be replaced with the same spec part, then forget it. I'm sure there are other issues and this is why I eventually told SA to take a hike and give me my money back.

I eventually got a DSA FAL and that thing has yet to let me down even after some exploding steel cased TULA ammo.

That being said, TAM is correct as well: AR10's are pretty tough as well. If I were doing it all over, I'd really just look into an Armalite AR10. It's an AR platform, so you can slap a lot of stuff on it (if you want) and the newer ones are also set up to take PMAGs.

[The Annoyed Man]

I'd say the advantage goes to current production guns. The older ones can be ruined by running ammo currently produced. Back in the day ammo wasn't loaded as hot as it is today. Running current production loads through an old gun will bend the operating rod.

That is most certainly not true. The new production M1A's use imported MIM parts which have been docmented by me and others to fail from time to time. Just google "M1A hammer broken" and see. If it wasn't an issue, then companies selling fully forged/machined parts would have no reason to exist. Yes, I'm sure someone will chime in saying that MIM is the answer and that I got a bad batch, blah, blah, blah. I'm over it and avoid MIM like the plague. But I digress: when I buy an M1A, I want American parts assembled in the US. I don't care if it's got a lifetime no-hassle warranty, if the failing part is to be replaced with the same spec part, then forget it. I'm sure there are other issues and this is why I eventually told SA to take a hike and give me my money back.

I eventually got a DSA FAL and that thing has yet to let me down even after some exploding steel cased TULA ammo.

That being said, TAM is correct as well: AR10's are pretty tough as well. If I were doing it all over, I'd really just look into an Armalite AR10. It's an AR platform, so you can slap a lot of stuff on it (if you want) and the newer ones are also set up to take PMAGs.

Mark is at least partly right about the MIM. My M1A broke off a hammer foot in under 100 rounds. On the upside, SA had the rebuilt fire control group turned around and back to me in 8 days, and they used a forged mil-spec hammer per my request at no extra charge. My original thread here: viewtopic.php?f=23&t=30357&p=351522&#p351522. I suspect that the vast majority of M1As sold will never break any parts at all, but when they do, it will most likely be a hammer foot, and it will mostly likely be a MIM part. As I pointed out in that old thread:

The Annoyed Man,

I know absolutely nothing about this rifle or what MIM technology means.

That said, the rifle looks very much like an M14 to me, that is to say, very appealing.

The various M-14's I carried were robust, but not ah, bullet proof. I've had more than one come apart or malfunction due to parts failure. Of course, these were G.I. issue and no doubt had enormous use before I had my hands on them.

If your model is a civilian variant I too am interested in acquiring one, but if your recent negative experience is common, that creates some pause in my consideration...

Have you at this point determined your problem with the rifle typical for this model or an aberration?

Thanks!

Abraham, yes, the M1A is a civilian, semi-automatic only, variant of the M14. "MIM" means "Metal Injection Molding" (note that there is a trigger in the picture). And, as this link says:

"I mean, if they use MIM parts in jet engines at 30,000 feet going Mach 2, what makes people think MIM parts are inferior for a firearm?"

I don't think that MIM as a concept is necessarily inferior technology. What I do think is that when manufacturers look to MIM as a cost cutting measure, the temptation to cut too much cost can lead to sloppy quality control.

I don't think that the M1A is an inherently fragile and undependable rifle. I suspect that its degree of reliability is probably similar to the M14 variant you handled in the military. In other words, it has whatever reliability is inherent in a battle rifle of post WW2 design, which was in many ways a refinement of a WW2 contemporaneous design. The M1 Garand (the M14's predecessor) did not have a particular reputation for unreliability, and it was firing a larger, more powerful cartridge. In the other thread I posted at Sniper's Hide forum, there were a few responses from people who had opinions about MIM versus USGI parts, but only a couple who had actually experienced or witnessed a similar failure. And, I received a PM here from BobCat, who told me among other things:

FYI I saw a very similar failure at the range a few weeks ago - in a USGI hammer from a USGI trigger group.

So I would be hard pressed to attribute the failure to MIM as a technique, and perhaps more to this being simply a flawed part in my rifle to begin with.

My principle daily carry weapon is a Kimber, which uses a number of MIM parts. I've never experienced a part failure in that pistol, and I've shot pretty close to 1500-1800 rounds through it. I stake my life on it when I carry it.

That said, of those M1As out there which have experienced parts failures, hammer failure appears to be a common type of breakage. But I don't think that they fail so often as to give the M1A design a reputation as a fragile rifle.

None of that stuff matters to me in terms of wanting another M1A. I want one because I love them. I don't need it to fight a war with it. I've already got an AR10 and two bolt rifles in .308, plus 2 AR15s and a 12 guage riot gun if I do need to fight a war.......and I don't ever want to fight a war. I just want an M1A, and I regret offloading the one I had.

Interestingly, the current issue of Gun-Tests magazine has a .308 semiautos comparison article comparing the Socom II M1A to the new Ruger SR-762 gas-piston AR10: http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/26_9/fe ... 326-1.html (requires subscription to read full article). They said that accuracy was a virtual tie between the two rifles. They offered the following conclusions about each rifle:

Ruger:

For most buyers, familiarity with the platform will likely be this rifle’s greatest selling point. Our choice of using a low-power extended-eye-relief scope, rather than taking advantage of the lengthy top rail and mounting a true precision riflescope, likely penalized the Ruger. But, in our opinion, the rough and unnecessarily heavy trigger was likely a greater detriment to accuracy. So if we were to buy this rifle, we would plan on an adding an aftermarket trigger.

M1A Socom II:

What the data do not show was that the Socom 16 was a ball to shoot. And if you cannot tell from the photos, this weapon was built like the proverbial brick you-know-what. If we were looking for a truck gun or other handy application, we think the Socom 16 is the deluxe model for chores that require stopping power. Top to bottom, the rifle is truly compact (more so with the smaller magazines) and throwing the Socom 16 to the cheek and shoulder was as fast as it was pleasing.

They said that the design of the Ruger's gas-piston system worked really well at mitigating .308 recoil, but the M1A is also a gas-piston design, and I can testify that the M1A is not a hard recoiling rifle. So the Ruger system would have to recoil significantly differently for them to notice that difference.

I still want an M1A and don't care a fig about the Ruger.......

[cheezit]

Did I miss the cheepist option 7.62x54r. A 91/30 is under 150 and lots of fun.

[Dave2]

That being said, TAM is correct as well: AR10's are pretty tough as well. If I were doing it all over, I'd really just look into an Armalite AR10. It's an AR platform, so you can slap a lot of stuff on it (if you want) and the newer ones are also set up to take PMAGs.

Some of them are... It's the AR-10A. The regular AR-10 still uses their proprietary mags.

(Really, why anyone would make a modern rifle that doesn't take PMAGs is beyond me, but I'm not a gun designer...)

[The Annoyed Man]

That being said, TAM is correct as well: AR10's are pretty tough as well. If I were doing it all over, I'd really just look into an Armalite AR10. It's an AR platform, so you can slap a lot of stuff on it (if you want) and the newer ones are also set up to take PMAGs.

Some of them are... It's the AR-10A. The regular AR-10 still uses their proprietary mags.

(Really, why anyone would make a modern rifle that doesn't take PMAGs is beyond me, but I'm not a gun designer...)

Rock River .308s......at least some of them.......also use a proprietary magazine. I might be wrong, but I suspect what's happened is that the .308/7.62 rifles have not been under anywhere near the same pressure to standardize as the .223/5.56 rifles because the .308s aren't a standard-issue military weapons platform.

I am just speculating here, but one of the lessons from combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been that the 5.56 cartridge is thought by a lot of people to be inadequate to desert and mountain warfare.....lacking the oomph at longer ranges that a .30 caliber cartridge has. Until now, AR10s are only in limited use, as a sniper/DMR type of platform. Is it possible that the defense department, desiring to retain the training and manual of arms of the AR platform, but requiring a more robust cartridge, might start swapping out M4s for M110s (or whatever they'll call them).....possibly but not necessarily in .308, or maybe in .260 Remington or something like that? If something like that were to happen, the AR10 making industry would be more or less forced into magazine standardization.

Just a thought.......

[The Annoyed Man]

Something different in a .308/762 caliber I ran across. Could be fun......if there's enough beer.........

[cheezit]

Tam I saw that some were yesterday. Tanker pistol thought it was rather cool.

[The Annoyed Man]

Tam I saw that some were yesterday. Tanker pistol thought it was rather cool.

It still requires beer............ and some Absorbine Jr. for afterwards.

By "requires beer", I mean "there's not enough beer in the world....."

[RJGold]

Something different in a .308/762 caliber I ran across. Could be fun......if there's enough beer.........

[ Image ]

I need a "like" button!!!

[RJGold]

That being said, TAM is correct as well: AR10's are pretty tough as well. If I were doing it all over, I'd really just look into an Armalite AR10. It's an AR platform, so you can slap a lot of stuff on it (if you want) and the newer ones are also set up to take PMAGs.

Some of them are... It's the AR-10A. The regular AR-10 still uses their proprietary mags.

(Really, why anyone would make a modern rifle that doesn't take PMAGs is beyond me, but I'm not a gun designer...)

Rock River .308s......at least some of them.......also use a proprietary magazine. I might be wrong, but I suspect what's happened is that the .308/7.62 rifles have not been under anywhere near the same pressure to standardize as the .223/5.56 rifles because the .308s aren't a standard-issue military weapons platform.

I am just speculating here, but one of the lessons from combat in both Afghanistan and Iraq has been that the 5.56 cartridge is thought by a lot of people to be inadequate to desert and mountain warfare.....lacking the oomph at longer ranges that a .30 caliber cartridge has. Until now, AR10s are only in limited use, as a sniper/DMR type of platform. Is it possible that the defense department, desiring to retain the training and manual of arms of the AR platform, but requiring a more robust cartridge, might start swapping out M4s for M110s (or whatever they'll call them).....possibly but not necessarily in .308, or maybe in .260 Remington or something like that? If something like that were to happen, the AR10 making industry would be more or less forced into magazine standardization.

Just a thought.......

You're probably on to something here. There has been no historical 7.62 (NATO) option mass produced in the US. When I was in the Army, our 7.62 weapons were the M-60 (belt fed) and the M-14 sniper rifle. I don't think there's been any mass produced 7.62 options added since then.

Other countries have 7.62 weapons as their primary infantry weapon (FN-FAL for example).

If every US soldier were carrying 7.62, you'd see standardization of civilian options.

My two cents.