Springfield M1A or FNAR?

[RocTrac]

Within $50 of each other and can't make up my mind. What do you think? I am more interested in reliability and accuracy. The weapon will be serving double duty as a hunting and home/personal defense. But really more just to satify my evil gun lust. Thanks in advance and any suggestions will be welcome.

[G.A. Heath]

Think about weight, availability of parts/Accessories, accuracy, and such. I own an FNAR and dearly love the rifle, and I would not trade it for an M1A (Although I plan to buy one in the future). Also the M1A has sights, and you need to install optics in order to use the FNAR.

[The Annoyed Man]

I don't have an FNAR, but I do own a couple of nice AR15s, and I also own an M1A, recently purchased. I don't even try to compare them as they are vastly different rifles. As to the iron sights on the M1A, I have aging eyes, and I was able to flog a 10" square steel plate at 200 yards with the iron sights the other day. I have a scope for it, but the side mount hasn't arrived yet. That said, I'm pretty confident of being able to hit anything from smallish game on up at 200 yards with the irons.

I was looking for a good scope at a reasonable price and I settled on SWFA's SS10X42HD, a fairly new model. It's a fixed power scope with mil-dot reticle, adjustments in .1 mil on both the windage and elevation knobs, and the new HD glass which is normally found only on much more expensive scopes. It has roughly 157 MOA of vertical travel in elevation adjustment, meaning it will take the .308 out to 1,000 yards without running out of elevation travel. HERE IS A REVIEW.

If you do decide to get an M1A, this scope would be well worth considering. And I'm not taking away from the FNAR; it's a fine rifle. But the M1A is a fine shooting rifle AND a piece of history. Something to consider.

[G.A. Heath]

Essentially what I am saying is that the FNAR will cost more to get shootable than that $50 difference. To get the FNAR shootable you will need a scope and rings/mount for it. The M1A has iron sights so its almost ready right out of the box (you just need to clean, inspect, and load it). Both are damn nice rifles, 20rd magazines for the FNAR cost about $35 more than the M1A 20rd mags. With all this said I would not trade my FNAR for an M1A, but I do plan on getting one in the future.

[RocTrac]

In my checking around it seems that the FNAR mags are difficult to find and when you do they are very expensive. The lack of BUIS is an issue with me. I have also been looking at a couple of .308 AR sytle rifles.

[The Annoyed Man]

When I bought my M1A (at Euless Guns & Ammo), they had a heavy barreled FNAR on the shelf right next to it. The price difference was only $20, with the FNAR being the higher priced of the two. In any case, $20 is not enough to make a difference to me when both rifles were priced over $1700 at EGA. I suspect that the FNAR may be slightly more accurate, based on the barrel weight, and they claim .5 MOA out of the box, but the M1A is still a pretty accurate rifle. As far as the one requiring optics while the other doesn't, that is true, and it does give the M1A additional practicality, but that didn't really play into my decision making since I knew I was going to scope the M1A anyway if I bought it. My decision was based entirely on emotion and aesthetics.

I actually handled the FNAR that day, and if money were no object, I would have bought both of them. I've been kind of checking them out from afar, and the thought of a really accurate self-loader with a removable box magazine is attractive to me. In fact, I also checked out an AR10 that day — another .308 battle rifle I've had my eye on — and it was $700 less. But even though the M1A also meets those criteria, my decision for the M1A was based purely on having lusted for one ever since I saw my first M14 when I was a kid. They are beautiful rifles to me. I realize that beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and if it functions really well, then form following function has its own beauty (which explains why AR15s are so attractive to me, because they are basically ugly rifles); but for me, the M1A has looks that go beyond its function.

I know that might be silly romantic claptrap to some, but I'm a rifle guy. I enjoy shooting pistols and have fun at it, but I love me some rifles.

[longhorn_92]

Reasons why I chose the M1A:

** There are a lot more aftermarket support
** Easier to find magazines
** Easier to field strip and clean
** Much more common operating system
** Battle proven design
** Better sights - you don't even need a scope.
** Weighs less
** Sexier

[The Annoyed Man]

Reasons why I chose the M1A:

** Sexier

Yessssssssss.

[RECIT]

I have an AR10 style rifle myself and still lust after an M1A. I will have one! I want the SOCOM 16 more than a full length M1A, but the attraction is there for sure. I would go with the M1A myself obviously, but the FNAR is a fine rifle. I have never shot one but handled plenty before I bought my AR10 style rifle. I bought the AR10 over the FNAR the first time and I will buy an M1A over the FNAR again.

[bdickens]

Hmmm.... Should I get an M1A or an FNAR?






Yes!

[The Annoyed Man]

Hmmm.... Should I get an M1A or an FNAR?






Yes!

Money being no object, I'd say "heck yeah!"