Springfield M1A comments

[robvious]

literally bought my first one 9/10/2001.. lots of ammo & magazines to be had... until the next day... a NM M1A... iron sights out to 600 yards can hit what I wanted... awesome rifle..

 

[67tempest]

When my brother was a dealer he had an M14 which I fired on several occasion's. I have to agree that when fired in full auto the M14 is pretty useless, in semi it's a completely different animal.

 

[Bob Smalser]

Keep in mind that full-auto was a 1950's service rifle feature that ALL of NATO fell for, as the FAL and G3 also had it. All failed from the simple physics of insufficient mass, although as late as 1969 when I did Basic we were using full auto in under-arm "walking fire" attacks on trench lines, and that was the last time I ever used full auto, although we still were armed with M14's in the 5th Mech and other stateside Europe-oriented units as late as 1973.
My over-the-course gun used to shoot around 5000 rounds a year and is on it's third barrel. It's a 1989 Clint McKee gun using all GI parts on a Krieger barrel, and i over 10,000 rounds I haven't had a single malfunction I can remember not attributable to a worn-out magazine.

 

[Grayfox]

The M1A is my preferred battle rifle. I have 3 Springfields and an old Federal, Ordnance. The FO is an early gun with an excellent receiver and all G.I. parts.
Bear in mind that these were designed as military rifles. Tack drivers they ain't. But with decent ammo they'll shoot about 2" at 100 yards. Plenty combat accurate.
My favorite is the Scout/Squad rifle. The 18" barrel just hits the sweet spot for me in carry, balance and performance.

 

[rwsmith]

got one , brand new, built back in the mid seventies, 100% GI parts except of course the receiver, really nice GI walnut stock , and national match bedded ., shoots like a match rifle, If you get a good one it is a joy to shoot, but can get expensive now a days when loading and shooting six to ten 20 round mags worth.

Reloading is highly recommended.

 

[Phenix]

I've had an interest in these lately, but know almost nothing about them. I'm not a warrior, don't want one for defense or an end of the world situation and don't suffer from paranoia. I don't want a "truck" gun; not exactly sure what that is and I'm not going to buy a truck. I enjoy shooting at paper targets. I'm not much for gadgetry or aftermarket stuff and these rifles look horrible with a scope or other optics, like most military-type rifles do. What are your thoughts on out-of-the-box accuracy, handloading, favorite bullets, powders, etc?

Sounds to me like you just made a strong case for NOT buying one.
Get an M-1 Carbine and some 5 and 15 round magazines instead. A lot more fun, lighter, handier, and you can reload your fired brass using carbide dies (No case lubing/de-lubing)
A 110 grain FMJ or JSP at around 1,950 FPS is nothing to sneeze at.
The .30 Carbine round is a surprisingly hot little cartridge.

 

[Phenix]

I've had an interest in these lately, but know almost nothing about them. I'm not a warrior, don't want one for defense or an end of the world situation and don't suffer from paranoia. I don't want a "truck" gun; not exactly sure what that is and I'm not going to buy a truck. I enjoy shooting at paper targets. I'm not much for gadgetry or aftermarket stuff and these rifles look horrible with a scope or other optics, like most military-type rifles do. What are your thoughts on out-of-the-box accuracy, handloading, favorite bullets, powders, etc?

I was issued a couple of different Army National Match M-14 rifles and a bunch of supporting equipment to go with them years ago when I shot with the MO Army National Guard High Power Rifle Team. Had them signed out for a couple of years on a Hand Receipt for me to keep at home between matches. Was also issued lots of Lake City Match 7.62 white box ammo to practice with on my own time, and shoot in matches.
Both guns had been gone over and tuned by armorers that knew what they were about. Very accurate rifles.
As good as they were, I could never develop a love for them. They were heavy, bulky, and kind of awkward to carry around a lot (to me).
As far as .30 caliber American military rifles go, I always much preferred the M-1 .30 Carbine and Springfield bolt-action 03A3 .30-06 for rifles for fun shooting and general use.
My favorite 7.62 X 51 (.308 Win.) military-type rifle is the Belgian FN-FAL with it’s adjustable gas system, hands-down. It is easier to carry around because it is slim and trim so you can wrap your hands around it better than the M-14 or Garand.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

Yes, the M-14 was designed to correct some of the shortcomings of the M-1 Garand and replace it, the M-1 Carbine, the BAR. There was a heavy barrel version, the M-15, it was approved but never put into production. There was the M-14 E2, an attempt to make the M-14 more controllable in full auto-pistol grip stock, bipod, better muzzle brake.

 

[JimFr]

A lot more fun, lighter, handier, and you can reload your fired brass using carbide dies (No case lubing/de-lubing) . . . . .

That’s not what I’ve experienced . . . .
I bought a Lee carbide die for the cartridge, thinking I wouldn’t need to lube cases . . .
WRONG! . . .
Cases bound-up in the die.
Read the instructions that came with the die, and Lee stated that cases STILL needed to be lubed!
So . . . No benefit to using the carbide die! (Bummer!)

 

[dmn57]

I've got a standard with a synthetic stock and a SOCOM with an M14 stock. Both are a lot of fun in their own way. Unfortunately, I just don't seem to find the time to shoot either as much as I'd like and am considering selling one or maybe even both in my effort to reduce my current inventory.

 

[rockquarry]

Sounds to me like you just made a strong case for NOT buying one.
Get an M-1 Carbine and some 5 and 15 round magazines instead. A lot more fun, lighter, handier, and you can reload your fired brass using carbide dies (No case lubing/de-lubing)
A 110 grain FMJ or JSP at around 1,950 FPS is nothing to sneeze at.
The .30 Carbine round is a surprisingly hot little cartridge.

I had a couple of M1 carbines years back. I had wanted one since I first became interested in guns in the early '60s. I enjoyed shooting the carbines with my handloads for about ten years. Always thought they were quite practical, looked far better than an AR, and I preferred shooting them over an AR. Like many other (not all) gun interests in the last sixty years, enthusiasm wanes and I move on to something else.

 

[Phenix]

That’s not what I’ve experienced . . . .
I bought a Lee carbide die for the cartridge, thinking I wouldn’t need to lube cases . . .
WRONG! . . .
Cases bound-up in the die.
Read the instructions that came with the die, and Lee stated that cases STILL needed to be lubed!
So . . . No benefit to using the carbide die! (Bummer!)

My RCBS carbide die works just fine with no lube.

 

[Tabby Lynn]

When I arrived at my unit in VN 5/66 they handed me a box with a brand new H&R M14 with the switch, I qualified expert with the M14 in basic and had been a shooter of military rifles as a civilian. The M14 fit like a glove, One magazine with the switch on satisfies your curiosity and you'll never use it that way again. They are beautiful rifles and have an added bonus of being able to beat a man to death in no time.
They are very accurate and function clean or dirty without fail. I'd give my eyeteeth for that weapon now.

I first shot the M14 during basic training in 1965, and immediately fell in love with it. I qualified as M14 Expert out of basic. After AIT I ended up in Viet Nam (no surprise there) and since I had qualified as Expert was issued a M14 to be used for airfield defense during mortar or ground attacks, which were frequent. The M14 was a perfect firearm for this purpose. The AK47 had a similar effective range of 600 yards so when engaging the enemy we were on an even keel with the rifles. Then towards the end of my first tour, the Army in it's infinite wisdom took away our M14s and issued the new M16s. This immediately put us at a disadvantage since the effective range of the M16 was 200 yards less than the AK47. This disadvantage continued into my second tour. I spent 30 years in the Army, for 25 of those years I was a marksmanship instructor/RSO. I also was a member of several unit and installation rifle teams. We shot across the National Match Course using match grade M14s out to 600 yards and M16s out to 400. The M14 was steadfastly accurate from the first time I shot one until the last. The M16 improved over the years from the junk that we were issued in Viet Nam to a somewhat reliable and accurate rifle after many improvements and modifications. It remained disadvantaged in the max effective range department outgunned by those still using the AK47. I for one am glad to see that the military finally returned to a more effective cartridge, the 6.8 X 51. For those who bemoan the fact that the rifles are heavier, the ammo heavier so that the soldier could not carry as much will find out that they don't really know what they were talking about. Soldiers who fought with the M1 Garand and M14 hauled along 12+ pounds of rifle when loaded, and in my case 5 ammo pouches, 2 magazines of 20 in each for 200 rounds, which was twice the basic load usually carried. Most of the men I served with carried way more than 100 rounds, and some more than my 200. Soldiers for the most part are not weak individuals and are able to carry a lot, especially when it comes to things that can save our lives. From what I have seen on the subject so far all the complaints about the new rifles come from the back seat drivers in the offices behind the lines (so to speak) not from the GI out on the perimeters and with boots on the ground. As far as reliability goes, if you don't take care of your weapon, it won't take care of you.

 

[rockquarry]

I first shot the M14 during basic training in 1965, and immediately fell in love with it. I qualified as M14 Expert out of basic. After AIT I ended up in Viet Nam (no surprise there) and since I had qualified as Expert was issued a M14 to be used for airfield defense during mortar or ground attacks, which were frequent. The M14 was a perfect firearm for this purpose. The AK47 had a similar effective range of 600 yards so when engaging the enemy we were on an even keel with the rifles. Then towards the end of my first tour, the Army in it's infinite wisdom took away our M14s and issued the new M16s. This immediately put us at a disadvantage since the effective range of the M16 was 200 yards less than the AK47. This disadvantage continued into my second tour. I spent 30 years in the Army, for 25 of those years I was a marksmanship instructor/RSO. I also was a member of several unit and installation rifle teams. We shot across the National Match Course using match grade M14s out to 600 yards and M16s out to 400. The M14 was steadfastly accurate from the first time I shot one until the last. The M16 improved over the years from the junk that we were issued in Viet Nam to a somewhat reliable and accurate rifle after many improvements and modifications. It remained disadvantaged in the max effective range department outgunned by those still using the AK47. I for one am glad to see that the military finally returned to a more effective cartridge, the 6.8 X 51. For those who bemoan the fact that the rifles are heavier, the ammo heavier so that the soldier could not carry as much will find out that they don't really know what they were talking about. Soldiers who fought with the M1 Garand and M14 hauled along 12+ pounds of rifle when loaded, and in my case 5 ammo pouches, 2 magazines of 20 in each for 200 rounds, which was twice the basic load usually carried. Most of the men I served with carried way more than 100 rounds, and some more than my 200. Soldiers for the most part are not weak individuals and are able to carry a lot, especially when it comes to things that can save our lives. From what I have seen on the subject so far all the complaints about the new rifles come from the back seat drivers in the offices behind the lines (so to speak) not from the GI out on the perimeters and with boots on the ground. As far as reliability goes, if you don't take care of your weapon, it won't take care of you.

Good post. With the Internet, we have more backseat drivers than ever before.

 

[Tabby Lynn]

Good post. With the Internet, we have more backseat drivers than ever before.

Unlike others, I don't drive from the back seat nor give advice on something that I know nothing about. That would be like talking through your butt, and we all know what comes out of the butt and it doesn't smell all that good.

 

[rockquarry]

Unlike others, I don't drive from the back seat nor give advice on something that I know nothing about. That would be like talking through your butt, and we all know what comes out of the butt and it doesn't smell all that good.

That's a good and most descriptive way of putting it.

Many have picked up a little information, maybe on YouDupe or other Internet sources, just enough (even if it's erroneous) to make them experts and critics, but their real experiences may be sorely lacking if they happened at all.

 

[Harv 24]

I first shot the M14 during basic training in 1965, and immediately fell in love with it. I qualified as M14 Expert out of basic. After AIT I ended up in Viet Nam (no surprise there) and since I had qualified as Expert was issued a M14 to be used for airfield defense during mortar or ground attacks, which were frequent. The M14 was a perfect firearm for this purpose. The AK47 had a similar effective range of 600 yards so when engaging the enemy we were on an even keel with the rifles. Then towards the end of my first tour, the Army in it's infinite wisdom took away our M14s and issued the new M16s. This immediately put us at a disadvantage since the effective range of the M16 was 200 yards less than the AK47. This disadvantage continued into my second tour. I spent 30 years in the Army, for 25 of those years I was a marksmanship instructor/RSO. I also was a member of several unit and installation rifle teams. We shot across the National Match Course using match grade M14s out to 600 yards and M16s out to 400. The M14 was steadfastly accurate from the first time I shot one until the last. The M16 improved over the years from the junk that we were issued in Viet Nam to a somewhat reliable and accurate rifle after many improvements and modifications. It remained disadvantaged in the max effective range department outgunned by those still using the AK47. I for one am glad to see that the military finally returned to a more effective cartridge, the 6.8 X 51. For those who bemoan the fact that the rifles are heavier, the ammo heavier so that the soldier could not carry as much will find out that they don't really know what they were talking about. Soldiers who fought with the M1 Garand and M14 hauled along 12+ pounds of rifle when loaded, and in my case 5 ammo pouches, 2 magazines of 20 in each for 200 rounds, which was twice the basic load usually carried. Most of the men I served with carried way more than 100 rounds, and some more than my 200. Soldiers for the most part are not weak individuals and are able to carry a lot, especially when it comes to things that can save our lives. From what I have seen on the subject so far all the complaints about the new rifles come from the back seat drivers in the offices behind the lines (so to speak) not from the GI out on the perimeters and with boots on the ground. As far as reliability goes, if you don't take care of your weapon, it won't take care of you.

The AK 47 was never a 600yd rifle... The sights and trigger were not ever going to make hits at 600. and it was never designed for long range. it was an Assault rifle with a 300 meter battle zero designed to shot if full automatic (why the first position on the selector level after safe was full)

 

[Tabby Lynn]

The AK 47 was never a 600yd rifle... The sights and trigger were not ever going to make hits at 600. and it was never designed for long range. it was an Assault rifle with a 300 meter battle zero designed to shot if full automatic (why the first position on the selector level after safe was full)

Believe what you want, by whomever was writing that bullshit, probably to make you feel better about having your M16 capable of 400 yards vs only 300 for the AK. Just like they say a M14 is incapable of engaging a target at 800 yards/meters. It was done quite often with much success. At 1000 yards many of the 7.62 NATO bullets would be tumbling, and not as accurate as you might like, but would stay in the scoring rings of a NRA 1000 yard target. The diameter of the 7 ring is 60 inches, which gives one a good chance of having the bullet wiz on by, but if it connected while tumbling it would be do some serious damage. The moral of this story, is don't believe everything you read.

If you had studied your Hunter Safety manual as a kid, providing you ever took hunter safety, the danger distance for a 308 is 3 or more miles (15,840 feet) and in some cases a 30-06 would wander out there to some 5 miles. (26,400 feet) Some people target shoot at 1 mile (1750 yards) or more.

 

[Harv 24]

Believe what you want, by whomever was writing that bullshit, probably to make you feel better about having your M16 capable of 400 yards vs only 300 for the AK. Just like they say a M14 is incapable of engaging a target at 800 yards/meters. It was done quite often with much success. At 1000 yards many of the 7.62 NATO bullets would be tumbling, and not as accurate as you might like, but would stay in the scoring rings of a NRA 1000 yard target. The diameter of the 7 ring is 60 inches, which gives one a good chance of having the bullet wiz on by, but if it connected while tumbling it would be do some serious damage. The moral of this story, is don't believe everything you read.

If you had studied your Hunter Safety manual as a kid, providing you ever took hunter safety, the danger distance for a 308 is 3 or more miles (15,840 feet) and in some cases a 30-06 would wander out there to some 5 miles. (26,400 feet) Some people target shoot at 1 mile (1750 yards) or more.

It's okay that you do not know or understand Soviet doctrine and what the AK-47 was designed for. And that you think an enemy Soldier using an AK-47 with the iron sights and firing COMBLOC 7.62x39 ball ammo with a 123 grain bullet is hitting man size targets at 600 yds.

I'll be backing out of this thread now...

 

[DBrainard]

Thank you- that's where my interest lies.

I just had to share. I can’t help myself.
They are left to right:
M-1 Garands, Winchester, H&R (CMP), Beretta (Ethiopian), International Harvester, Springfield, Springfield M-1D (CMP)

My Springfield M1A, heavily modified for hitting steel at 500 yards

Beretta BM-59’s:
BM-59 on a Springfield Reciever (CMP)
BM-59 Folding Stock on a James River Reciever
BM-59 Santa Fe Arms, the only Beretta commercially licensed production run