My Uncle is seeing fit to return some of my hard earned cash to me this year, and I'm considering investing in a Scout. The Interwebs seem full of......um......opinions, most of them appear to be written by people living in their mom's basement and playing too much Halo. Anyone here have one? What is your opinion? How is the workmanship and accuracy? Would you buy one again, or go a different route? Did you mount optics, and if so, what was your choice and why? What loads give you your best performance?

Thanks in advance for your help. I don't want to drop that kind of cash and get a bunch of surprises.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

When I had M1A's I tried mounting a scope, didn't like the bolt on the side of the receiver style. Unless you use some type of riser on the stock your cheek will be high off the stock. Keep in mind the bare bones unloaded rifle will weigh about 8 1/2 lbs unloaded. "Pogo sticks" are fun to shoot!

I have shot a Springfield M1A and yes it is a little on the heavy side but if I had choice between an AR-308 and the M1A I would take the M1A. it just feels more comfortable shouldering it. I think the short versions of the M1a look really neat but I would bet they are really loud also

If your experience leads you to the shortened .308/7.62 M-1A Scout, I believe you'll be pleased overall, although it may not be your cup of tea if you walk in to one blind.

The Scout is my personal-favorite version for casual plinking, and I've owned one & shot a few others. Compact for it's lineage, the Scout is heavier than it looks. Add a scope on the supplied/mounted pic rail, and it gets even heavier. Workmanship is pretty good overall, considering the fact that it's not meant to be "pretty", but functional.

An extended-eye relief, low magnification scope suits the carbine well. I still prefer the open/apeture sights for my casual applications. Accuracy is very satisfactory for all field conditions, although it's probably not the best for any type of match or competition work. Never working-up a load for my specific rifle, it shot as poorly as 2 1/2", and as well as 1 1/4" groups (10 shot, benched) with some I had loaded for other .308s I have. These were tested with a 2.5-8x Pentax EER I owned at the time, and promptly removed after load selection.

I would own another, if I could justify the current $1,500.00 market price, among the several other .308s I already own & value more highly.

Good luck, and good shooting!

__________________
Virtute et armis

I have owned an old Federal Ordinance M14A for many years and a few years ago bought a Springfield Socom 16.
The Socom is an outstanding rifle, but I do kinda wish I'd gone with the Scout Squad rifle instead.
The full size rifle is a bit long and awkward. But would be the best choice if you're looking for a long range target rifle.
The Socom is at its best in the self defense/ CQB role.
But I do believe that if you're only going to have one M1A type rifle as an all around, do-it-all gun that the Scout Squad equipt with a fairly low maginification EER scope would be an excellent choice.
BTW: Springfield is doing a promotion right now. Buy any M1A by April 30 and get 3 20 round mags free.

Am not an expert but I like the M1A platform in the standard length and Scout. The SOCOM is a little much (too short) for me.
I prefer open sights rather than scoped, but if you go the optic route, a cheek piece (lace on works) helps with cheek weld, etc.
In my limited experience, the SADLAK mount seems to work good. The ARMS does also. Bassett Machine is reportedly good, the Springfield Armory (any gen), not so good.
One reason I don't care for scoped M1A's is the empty cases has been known to hit the scope and/or mount. I think the ARMS seems to mount the lowest. I don't know if this would cause a jam of the ejected case but anything is possible. I've heard of "tuning" (aka; grinding) the extractor to eject more out than up. I knew a guy once that said he did this on a Mini 14 and it helped. Doesn't seem to damage the scope or mount other than in looks.
Of course a SOPMOD stock can alleviate both the mount and check piece problems.
Just my opinion.

Thanks guys, this is very helpful. I am strongly leaning toward getting one as soon as the check gets deposited to my account. I may wait a month or so for the scope and see how I like the standard sights. Is there any real advantage to going to a national match rear sight on this gun? It will not be for competition, I plan on using it for plinking/hunting/neighborhood defense.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Just checked the bank account, and my uncle has come through!WOOHOO! Looks like a stop at the LGS tonight! I'll post pics as soon as possible.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

IMO and for the uses you mentioned, I'd stay with the standard sights.
Depending on the distances you'll be shooting, I may even be tempted to open up the rear aperture a little.

I had a scout that I added NM and USGI parts to as well as SEI parts. It was accurate and fun but was heavy. I prefer it to the socom because the scout uses the standard gas system. The socom has a modified system to accommodate the 16" barrel. I ended up selling my s out because I feel the AR10 platform is a better choice for everything other than nestalgia. Don't get me wrong, it a quality piece but is just a bit behind in the AR10. If nastalgia matters, then the Scout is hands down winner. Wood and steel is classic but weight, accuracy, cost, flexibility, parts, mags, optics mounting, etc all favor the AR10.

I've owned a number of M1A rifles over the years. All were full length, all worked well. I used them for hunting, NRA High Power and general purpose use. I still have two but I've never owned one of the shorter models. Every one that I've owned has been extremely satisfactory.

My son is a deputy sheriff. He is issued an AR-type rifle for carry in his vehicle but he's allowed to use something else if he wants to pay for it. He chose an M1A scout rifle for duty use and never looked back. He chose the Scout because 1)it's short enough to stand on its butt in a rifle rack in a pickup but still uses the full length gas system 2) he is often alone, maybe miles from help and any trouble he finds himself in will likely involve multiple bad guys, vehicles and no help for a long time. 20 rounds of 7.62 with 5 backup magazines fills the bill nicely. 3) the rifle is wonderfully reliable and has the best iron sights out there. Optics might be nice but they aren't necessary. There are more reasons, but you get the point.

Buy the Scout rifle. You will not regret it.

Oh Ya you will love it. I consider it one of the nicest rifles made. Check out the aftermarket stocks from Sage EBR! I have a super match and the first thing I bought was a bipod for it cause it's HEAVY!

I believe you learned two things here.

1) The Springfield M1A Scout is a great rifle.
2) Don't loan any more money to your uncle.



Seriously, I have one and love it. I get a real kick out of the EER scope also.

I have the SOCOM 16. It's short and stocky and a little on the heavy side. If you are accustom to an AR, it will feel like a tank by comparison.

I have a Leupold FX-II 2.5x28mm Scout scope on mine.

I picked my Scout up tonight, I'll try to get some pics up soon. It has the green fiberglass stock and a fairly nice recoil pad. I plan on breaking it in before I make a decision on a scope, but if I do scope it that Leupold looks like the way to go. Now for more mags!

Thanks for all your help!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

The M14 was my service rifle, and the standard (non-match) iron sights were fine for me. I qualified expert with the irons on a very worn rifle on a rainy day where we couldn't see any silhouette targets beyond 250 meters. I found a got a very comfortable, consistent spot weld with the irons, and when I was later issued a new rifle, it was easy hitting silhouettes with it. I shot 87 out of 90 on a pop-up silhouette course with targets popping up randomly anywhere from 50 to 350 meters. Anywhere within 250 meters, I wouldn't want a scope on man sized or deer sized targets. For smaller targets, longer ranges or old eyes, a scope would help, but you're going to need an add on cheekpiece.

I found the recoil and noise not bad at all, an advantage of its 22" barrel and the 9.5 lb empty weight. I loved it, and if 308 ammo weren't so expensive, I'd have an M1A with iron sights to blast away every trip to the range.

Good for you. You'll like it. A couple thoughts- Scope mounts, I like the ARMS mount. I have used it on both my full size M1a's, and it is a secure mount, with no brass malfunction issues.

A lace on cheek pad, like shown on one of mine, helps with eye alignment.

Magazines - Don't buy Springfield mags. They are $50 or so. Buy Checkmate mags for half the price. They are the supplier for Springfield, and are current military issue.

Shooting factory loads, Prvi 168 grain match have been just as accurate in mine as Federal Gold Medal, but about $8 - $10 bucks cheaper a box, and the brass is excellent quality for reloading.

Stick to a medium burn rate powder for reloading. H4895 works well with this rifles gas operating system with 147 thru 169 grain bullets.

Larry

Attached Images

m1a.jpg (157.3 KB, 82 views)

If you work and don't lend money to your Uncle Sam every week, they put in jail. He is talking about his tax return.

i will dare to pass on to you my hard found favorite M1A load. My rifle was a 4 digit serial numbered SA with a fiberglass stock and standard sights. It was used for steel comp at 200 yds and 100 yd deer targets and bullseye.
Most will raise an eyebrow but my favorite for comfort and accuracy.
37 gr of Reloader 7. 110 gr Spitzer. An MOA load with irons.
Best of luck with your new rifle!
Jim

I had a standard M1A until I no longer had access to an outdoor range. I love the big walnut stock and long barrel. I prefer this configuration to the scout. It just feels more authentic. But the Scout is an awesome rifle and I would like to have one.

Photos Dammit!!!!

My first M1a was a Scout squad with wood stocks , Leupold fwd scope and QR mounts but prefer the full length version so traded it for a pre ban Springfield.

If I need a shorter .308 I prefer the HK G3 with 18" barrel and telescoping stock or FN FAL Paratrooper.

****** cell phone pic attached. Handling it reminds me of an updated Tanker Garand.

Attached Images

20150226_204527.jpg (74.6 KB, 108 views)

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Looks nice!

Where're going to need a range report of course...

Late to the party but I'm going to be the only nay sayer here. The SA M1A is not the same as it was in the 60s or even the early 90s. The current Springfield Armory, which has no connection to the original, used to use surplus forged parts to build their M1As. When parts ran out they switched to MIM and cast. (I might be off on the MIM but the receiver is definitely cast) Has been that way for years. Sometimes, more often than they should, the castings suck and instead of BANG they go BOOM!

I'm on their website now and it seems they changed the layout. The old site had a section of all the ammo you should NOT use in their rifles

The match models are tuned differently than the standard guns, and most semi autos have some ammunition that should be avoided.

That the current guns should be regarded as grenades is silly.

The walnut stocked scout version is my favorite but they're just a bit too bulky for my tastes.

Ammunition with bullet weights over about 180 grains and ammunition loaded with slower powders, such as IMR 4350 and others like it, should never be used in an M1A/M14 or in a Garand for that matter. This has nothing to do with cast receivers or MIM parts. It's because such ammo causes excessive port pressures. This overworks the operating rod and may result in excessive bolt speed, bent or broken op rods, and other issues. As far as cast receivers are concerned, Springfield has always used cast receivers. I've never heard of a catastrophic failure of such a receiver when using appropriate ammunition. I've seen a couple of case head failures in ammo that was overly hot and the rifles handled those loads just fine. Cast receivers are just not a problem.

The went to cast a while ago but for a long time they did use surplus parts where they could including receivers.

It wasn't a specific type of ammo they listed. It was flat out named. ..like
DO NOT USE
American Eagle
Hot Shot
PMC

This is just an example, I don't remember the actual names.

This is just two of the many images I found a long with a host of threads

I've only been using these rifles for about 30 years so I can't say Springfield NEVER used milled receivers though I know they have used cast receivers for many years. I do know, though, that Springfield has NEVER sold rifles built on surplus GI receivers as ATF would never permit that. All M14 GI receivers were capable of full auto fire and, thus, classified as machine guns by ATF. As far as ATF is concerned, once a machine gun, always a machine gun, no matter how the receiver might be modified to allow only semi-automatic operation. That's one of the reasons, among many, why M14 rifles will never be released to the public through CMP as the Garands were. If Springfield ever sold rifles on milled receivers, they got them from a commercial source, not as GI surplus.

It's not the original springfield armory company, it was sold years ago. The quality has been questionable. There has been some posts in the past about owners having problems with functioning and the accuracy being way off. Some have sent there new m1a's back a few times before there problems were repaired. Plus the cast receiver turns me off.

I had the cash to purchase a new SA M1a and almost bought one but my LGS had a rack full of the brand new, newly imported, Russian Izmash Saiga in 308win. with a 16" chromed lined bore and chamber. The cost was just $289? My first one benchrested at 100yds using the surplus south African 308 ball ammo. She shot 1 1/2" groups constantly with the two of us shooting it with iron sites.(no scope) the Russians @ izmash did say they focused on making the saiga more accurate than its ak brothers. And the American calibers are a tad more accurate over the Russian calibers.
Here's a very affordable, very accurate, brand new Russian ak/akm rifle that has the battle field proven dependability and reliability in any weather or climate in a sporting rifle. Now I'm not sure how far the 16" barrel can shoot accurately and how far the 21" barrel saiga can shoot accurately also. I'm thinking when the accuracy of the 16" barrel drops off the 21" barrel should take over and shine. The 1 1/2" groups @ 100yds using surplus ammo is impressive with the 16" barrel. Plus it's light. It will serve us as a plinker, a hunting rifle and preform well at the range.

Now my choices for a m1a/m14 I narrowed down to purchasing a Chinese norinco m14s because of its 5100 steel forged receiver/bolt and it's forged chrome lined bore. I did install the national match op rod spring guide and the heavy duty wolf op rod spring. I haven't benchrested it yet. The norinco m14 is one of the best platforms to do a build from. The used like new norinco cost me under $400.

My only other choice for a M14 would do a complete new build with a forged receiver and top shelf parts. Which would be my next move.

It's recommended to not shoot the heavier bullets. The 168gr is the limit on the m1a/m14 do to the semi auto cycling I been told. Plus on reloading I use the IMR 4895 gun powder and the cci-34 NATO primers in all my semi auto rifle. The burn rate is perfect for the cycle timing of the semi auto functioning. The NATO primers are for the floating firing pins. There a tad hotter and harder.

Top picture is of an M1 Garand receiver (read the upside down heel stamp) Cal .30 M1, etc. Since the serial is blurred, we can't tell if its one of the later 7 million range serial numbered, Australian made, cast commercial receivers. So, it's likely a forged USGI receiver, and not relevant to this topic. Even the forged Garand receivers sometimes cracked when firing rifle grenades before corrective measures were enacted.

And as someone else said, SA Inc. never used surplus receivers for the M1A. They've always been cast. And in all honesty, the cast receivers themselves have a pretty good record for durability in the 40-45 years M1As have been around.

I will certainly post a range report when I get the opportunity. I have heard and read ofsome of the accuracy issues, but the fixes are straight forward and inexpensive. I'm not too worried about the cast/forged debate. I really prefer milled parts, but try to fi d that in a factory gun that is even close to affordable!

Overall I'm very pleased with the little feller. It should suit my uses perfectly.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Simple rules to go by with the m1a/m14.

Don't shoot heavier bullets. Stay to 168gr upper limit. I load the military surplus bullets from 145gr to 147gr mostly. Use the correct burn rate gun powder the IMR 4895 is the only one I use for all my semi autos.

I hope you get a good one and you take care of it. Lube it with moly.
If you change anything use the national match stuff. Enjoy it.

That broken cracked receiver looks like over travel from the bolt. Caused by the hotter maybe heavier weight bullets. The heavier bullets cause a lag time before the bullet starts to move out of the case when it's fired this causes a higher peak time in the chamber pressure.
There's more gas pressure operating the bolt. It slams the bolt stop with more force than it can handle.

I installed the NM op rod spring guide and the stronger heavy duty wolf op rod spring. Just to play it safe.

A10,
Congrats on your new Scout. I like them but must admit I prefer the walnut to plastic. I'm old school I guess.
Having owned several M1A's, including a Devine, Norinco, Fed. Ord. Fulton Armory and various SA, Inc. models, the only one I currently have is an early SA receiver with all GI parts (TRW mostly) and GI stock with selector cut out. I had an E2 stock and M2 bipod but sold them.
Anyway, the one I'd like to try is the LRB forged model... maybe someday if my "uncle" pays me.

I like walnut and steel as well Jack, but I also like having a stock on a field gun that I won't worry about getting scratched up or wet. Wet is a big deal here on the rainy side of the state. If the finish gets worn, I'll just sand and paint it.

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

I've had them in all sizes from SOCOM to Supermatch and the Scout is my all-time favorite. I currently have both a SOCOM and a Scout and the SOCOM will be leaving soon. The Scout just feels "right" to me. The SOCOM is too short and chunky, the full-size is a little long and unwieldy, and the Scout is just darned handy. Both my SOCOM and Scout wear Leupold 2.5 Scout scopes which are suitable for my intended 0-400 yard shooting. Accuracy is as described above by others, but mine have never been worse than about 1-3/4" at 100 yards, ammo dependent of course. I'm currently a fan of the synthetic stocks for anything I drag thru the woods, and my Scout lives happily in Mossy Oak.
They're all good and it probably just boils down to preference.

Attached Images

	Squad d - Copy.JPG (200.2 KB, 39 views)
	unnamed (1).jpg (56.3 KB, 29 views)

There is a m14 site with tons of info.

Your going to get hooked I'm sure. The bigger ones are heavier but consider how steady they are and how far they can shoot.
Just look up some camp perry stats.

I use the Bushnell banner scopes with the mechanical vertical turret. The BDC option gives me out to 500yds with no error. The bullet drop compisation allows me to dope the scope for the distance. I have used the older Bushnell scopes with the BDC option since the mid 90's.
I purchased the Bushnell banner for my m14 and 21" barreled saiga. You just install the vertical marked turret for the bullet weight your using. It comes with the extra turret rings.

I have the BDC option scopes on my 338wm and my 30-06 hunting rifles.

That Mossy Oak looks good but I'd be afraid I'd lean it against a tree and never see it again!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

Normally I prefer a nice wood stock, but.........
When I bought my Fed Ord M14A (used), it had a Boyd black & gray laminate Target stock on it. It looked great, I loved it. The problem was that the older I got, the heavier it got. I finally decided I'd had enough and about two years ago I replaced it with a Springfield black composite stock. That alone shaved about a pound and a half off the gun. It still shoots great, feels better in my hands and I don't have to worry about dinging it. With guns like these, practical beats pretty every time.

Greyfox, I looked in the mirror and realized that needed to be my motto, too. Practical beats pretty.

I painted the norinco Brown plastic stock with the brownells aluma Hyde II
epoxy paint. I used 0000 steelwool the heated the stock and shot it. It's a very tough finish. I did buy a USGI m14 wood stock but I haven't fitted it yet. I did pick up a good muzzle brake. I purchased every 308/7.62 headspace gauge so I can keep an eye on the headspace. The gun appears to still be unshot. I picked up the original norinco tripod.

My lgs let me shoot his full auto select fire m14. I learned to hold the muzzle down within the first few seconds of firing it. What a beast. The $10k price tag at the time wasn't out of my range. But then he insulted me when he said I couldn't afford it. I was in my dirty work clothes it was after work. I'm sorry I'm a blue collar worker working for a white collar corporate engineering group. I'm not rich by any means but I could buy a few FA M14's at that time. Never judge a man's wealth by his looks.

A couple more pics, with a proper sling....I guess they call the stock color Flat Dark Earth. Looks functional. The gun appears to be Parkerized. Straight up utilitarian.

Attached Images

	20150302_163730.jpg (142.4 KB, 41 views)
	20150302_163748.jpg (146.5 KB, 35 views)

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

I AGREE. MILLED OR CAST, THEY ARE ALL COMMERCIAL RECEIVERS. I LOVE THE LOOKS OF THE SHORTENED "TANKER" M1 GARANDS, THE SCOUTS, AND THE GIBBS "ENFIELD .308 JUNGLE RIFLE". I OWNED A GIBBS, WHICH WAS A VERY NICELY DONE REMAKE OF A SHORTENED ENFIELD, RECHAMBERED IN .308. BEING A BOLT RIFLE, IT WAS NOT AMMO SENSITIVE AT ALL. THIS TYPE OF RIFLES ARE BEST DESCRIBED AS CLOSE QUARTERS BATTLE RIFLES. THE GIBBS LACKED THE ACCURACY TO KEEP ME INTERESTED, SO I TRADED UP TO A SPRINGFIELD M1A…..

THIS BABY SATISFIED MY ITCH FOR A .308, WITH TARGET (NOT COMBAT) ACCURACY @ 300 YARDS--THE LONGEST RIFLE RANGE THAT I HAD ACCESS TO. I DON'T CARE FOR EER SCOPES ON HANDGUNS, PREFERRING TO USE AN AIMPOINT OR MY NEW FAVORITE, THE ULTRA DOT 30MM RED DOT. DIALED IN AT ITS SMALLEST SIZE DOT, I CAN WALK SHOT GROUPS AROUND INSIDE THE CONFINES OF A SLOWFIRE BULLSEYE X RING AT 50', INDOORS…..

I WOULD LOVE TO TRY OUT A SCOUT WITH A RED DOT. I THINK THAT IT WOULD BE A VERY HANDY AND PRACTICAL PACKAGE. IN ANY EVENT, I WISH THE OP THE BEST OF LUCK WITH HIS PURCHASE, AND LOOK FOWARD TO A RANGE REPORT…..

Attached Images

1931438_103341383014691_6397534_n.jpg (59.9 KB, 20 views)

__________________
'Nam 1968-69.DAV,VFW,NRA Inst.

A thing of beauty, doncha think.

Looks nice.

Range day today. I put about 80 rounds down range, firing at 50 and 100 yards. The gun is no doubt more accurate than I am. Windage was dead center (as it should be), and elevation adjustment seemed to go right by the book. My only issue was some verticle str7nging, but I think thats just me. Most groups at,100 yards wew around 1 1/2 by 4ish. Quite honestly, I'll take it, for now anyways. 50 yards fared a bit better, about 1 by 1 1/2, still stringing a bit vertically. I will probably put a scout scope on and see what happens. Overall I'm very pleased!

Oh, and Springfield already sent my 3 mags. A very quick delivery!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

My scout wears the Leupold scout scope and it's good out to 300-400 yards. I think you'll like that setup. Enjoy.

Is yours the fixed power scope? I've been considering the variable power one, but I like the longer eye relief of the fixed. Decisions decisions!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....

As someone who likes the utility of Scout Scopes I can tell you the Eye Relief can be critical. Because of this you will want to do some measuring of your exact eye position with the rifle held at the shooting position. I would also suggest having someone put a piece of masking tape on the stock position right in line with your eye. Then measure from that tape to the theoretical position of the eyepiece on the scope. Something else to keep in mind is that with variable powder scout scopes the eye relief will vary with the magnification. Once you have the numbers you can then start contacting various manufacturers to get the exact eye relief of any shope you are considering.

BTW, Scout (or Handgun) scopes I have that are possible candidates are as follows.

First, Nikon's 2x20 EER Handgun Scope. This one has a generous range of eye relief allowing use at 9 to about 14 inches. The optics are also superb in terms of sharpness. This scope features the Nikoplex reticle so there isn't any reference marks for elevation.

Second is Nikon's 2.5-8x28 EER Variable Powder. Eye relief at 8X is limited to just 9-10 inches and it goes long at low power to a 12.5-13.5 inch range. As a result you will have to slide your head back on the stock when using it at low power. The BDC reticle on this scope is set up for the 308 Winchester so at full power it's useful for long range shooting.

Weaver 4x28 Classic Scout Scope. This was the only Scout Scope I was able to find that would work on the short Scout rail on my Rossi M92. Eye Relief for this scope is listed at 8.5 to 9.5 inches but with careful eye positioning it can be used at 10 inches. It's also proven to be a good value for the money but it features a basic Nikoplex style reticle so there aren't any reference marks for elevation correction.

The other option is to use the supplied iron sights, which are actually quite good as long as you have good eyesight. The sights on my Ruger Gunsite are basically a match to those on the Scout Rifle and for me they are effective out to about 50 yards but beyond that my aging eyesight becomes a real limitation. Twenty years ago when I had 20/10 vision I wouldn't think about putting a scope on one of these rifles, now some kind of optical aid is essential for accurate shooting past 50 yards.

Good information, thanks Scooter!

__________________
Even older, even crankier....