Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com

Firearm & Gun Forum - FireArmsTalk.com (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/)
-   General Rifle Discussion (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/)
-   -   Springfield M1A (http://www.firearmstalk.com/forums/f18/springfield-m1a-9603/)

junho806 01-03-2009 03:34 AM

Springfield M1A
 
i was thinking about picking one up
probably the scout squad for CQC
how are they?
are they worth it?

Dillinger 01-03-2009 04:40 AM

Personally I would stick with that AR you built for any CQC you MIGHT find yourself in.

As a collector weapon - it deserves it's place, and rightfully so.

As a modern firearm designed for personal protection - It's not in my top ten....

YMMV

JD

hillbilly68 01-03-2009 11:19 AM

Just build another AR for the money (maybe a .308 version?). Or go with the full M1A IMO.

stalkingbear 01-03-2009 02:39 PM

Actually I think they make a lot of sense (just not for cqc), and am a huge fan of M1As overall. Springfield Armory rifles ARE up to any task I could possibly imagine, with the exception of close quarters. They're too heavy and cumbersome for extremely fast handling. Now as longer range, or allround use, they flat whip the AR15's butt-for the simple reason of the 7.62x51mm (.308) cartridge being much more powerful with excellent penetration qualities. You really don't NEED the long barreled version as the shorter barreled version will provide almost the velocity of it's longer brother. Like they said-close range, go with a lightweight AR, but for main rifle, or for longer range work-the M1A is all you'll ever need. I personally saw what the .308 could do when using the M-40. The M1A does offer vastly increased penetration, but at a cost of heavier weight and more recoil.

CA357 01-03-2009 03:41 PM

I have an SA M1A Scout. It's accurate, dependable and delivers a serious round. I believe the 18" barrel will do the job at any range likely to be necessary. I bought it because it was the best choice for me.

However, if you are thinking of truly close quarters, I would recommend the SOCOM. With the 16" barrel, it handles like a carbine. I really wanted one, but the Scout fills my requirements better.

And they're really cool too. ;)

Dillinger 01-03-2009 04:10 PM

*bites tongue - leaves thread*

matt g 01-03-2009 05:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillinger (Post 59120)
Personally I would stick with that AR you built for any CQC you MIGHT find yourself in.

As a collector weapon - it deserves it's place, and rightfully so.

As a modern firearm designed for personal protection - It's not in my top ten....

YMMV

JD

Seriously? The M14 platform is ultra reliable, especially in it's modern, updated form. It's more accurate than any .223 Rem/5.56 NATO could ever be, due to the heavier round. 7.62 NATO's terminal ballistics are far superior to the 5.56 NATO. It's more capable of delivering accurate, sustained fire than the AR platform is capable of. And when an 18" barreled M14 is paired with newer furniture, like McMillan's M14 stock, Vltor's Modstock or Sage EBR stock, it becomes perfectly capable of being used indoors and in tight quarters, even when equipped with a suppressor.

http://www.mcmfamily.com/images/rifles/m1a.jpg

http://www.vltor.com/images/SocomGre...und615x432.jpg

http://www.smithenterprise.com/image...4-DSCN1169.jpg

Quote:

Originally Posted by CA357 (Post 59194)
I have an SA M1A Scout. It's accurate, dependable and delivers a serious round. I believe the 18" barrel will do the job at any range likely to be necessary. I bought it because it was the best choice for me.

However, if you are thinking of truly close quarters, I would recommend the SOCOM. With the 16" barrel, it handles like a carbine. I really wanted one, but the Scout fills my requirements better.

And they're really cool too. ;)

This thread is pretty typical. There really are 2 types of people in this world. Those that dislike the M14 platform and those that have handled and fired it.

I'd avoid the SOCOM and SOCOM II at all costs though. The quality is spotty, as they're over produced and there have been many reports of problems with the gas system and shortened barrel.

I'd actually avoid the Springfield Armory INC rifles all together as there are several manufacturers out there that produce a higher quality rifle for not too much more money. The M14 is like the 1911, quality levels go from borderline junk to stupid high quality with stupid low tolerances for a stupid high price. My choices for an M14 would be either Smith Enterprise or Fulton Armory. Expect to pay half again what you would for the Springfield Armory INC rifle though.

The Current generation of M14s being fielded by all 5 services are either old Springfield Armory (not SAI) rifles that have been updated and tuned by Smith Enterprise or all new Smith Enterprise rifles.

stalkingbear 01-03-2009 07:20 PM

I do feel for close quarters, unless you really need that kind of power/penetration, you would be a lot better off with an AR15. They are much handier and easy to manipulate in tight quarters. Where the M1A gets the edge is long range or if you need to penetrate car bodys and have plenty of energy left afterwards.


Quote:

Originally Posted by Dillinger (Post 59211)
*bites tongue - leaves thread*


matt g 01-03-2009 07:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stalkingbear (Post 59239)
I do feel for close quarters, unless you really need that kind of power/penetration, you would be a lot better off with an AR15. They are much handier and easy to manipulate in tight quarters. Where the M1A gets the edge is long range or if you need to penetrate car bodys and have plenty of energy left afterwards.

For close quarters, you'd be better off with a shotgun than an AR. 5.56 NATO is consistently put down for over penetration at typical combat ranges. If you drill someone with an AR at 10 feet, you still stand the chance of them being able to act, as a clean 5.56mm hole isn't going to lead to catastrophic wound instantly.

7.62 NATO, on the other hand, carries close to double the muzzle energy of the 5.56 NATO, with only a smaller amount of muzzle velocity. A larger object traveling at a similar speed, will always cause much more trauma.

The M14 platform is more versatile than most people give it credit for. This is why there was a huge push 6 or 8 years ago for updated designs for the Navy, Coast Guard and Marine Corps. These demands netted the Mk. 14 Mod 0 EBR and the M39 EMR.

Through use of proper furniture, optics and optic mounts, the M14 can be built into a rifle that can go from being used for everything from kicking in doors to long distance sniping.

It's better to have more power than you need and not fully utilize it, than it is to not have enough power and find out about the problem at the wrong time.

Dillinger 01-03-2009 10:42 PM

Alright, I am back merely because Matt has requested it of me personally to come back and re-affirm my points.

FOR THE RECORD: I HATE this argument with a purple passion, because there is no RIGHT answer.

People who love the platform, are going to continue to love the platform. If you love the platform, and believe in it, then so be it. I am not here to change your mind.

People who don't, like those of us in the shop, are going to continue to point out the flaws that exist in a platform that hasn't evolved with the state of accurate shooting to a point to continue to be a consideration if you are comparing apples to apples.

The big thing I keep reading is that this weapon has an edge in long range shooting. No, it doesn't. It has an advantage in MULTIPLE SHOT long range shooting, but only over a bolt gun chambered in the same cailber and only slightly in Rate of Accurate Fire.

7.62 x 51mm is a better round, at range, than the AR-15 with the .223/5.56mm cartridge. But, you have to factor in the fact that the military doesn't use hollow point ammo and you have to factor in the fact that the military 7.62 x 51mm is a 173gr. ball round and not the more standard, civilian 168gr BTHP.

A hollow point, both at close range and at long range will do more damage as a hollow point then it will do in a comparably equipped ball round.

Yes, .223/5.56mm in ball ammo is going to punch through someone at close range and leave little wound channel for the Tango to bleed out. Hence the reason for multiple rounds on target and one of the key reasons for the faster firing M4.

The whole purpose of the M4 was to put 2 to 5 rounds, in center mass, in the blink of an eye. We aren't talking round for round comparisons in a CQB setting. We are talking about the overall damage of a force on force situation.

Now, here are some facts about the M1A:

This is a gas operated, bent operating rod cycling action. That means it is "more reliable" than a standard, non sealed, gas operating system that uses just gas to cycle the action.

However, the bent operating rod, on sustained fire, leads to barrel harmonics that affect follow up accuracy. Think I am kidding? Get your hands on one and fire three shots as fast as you can pull the trigger, from a standing, slinged up position and see what your group looks like.

In addition, since the operating rod must go from stop & locked, to motion ( reverse ) , to recoil (cycling the action and moving back forward ), to stop, to lock, to motion again means that the weapon simply will not fire with the same cyclic rate of that of a gas operated system like the M4. It's physically impossible due to physics.

The weapon is heavy, right out of the box, unloaded and without optics, you are looking at a 10 pound weapon. Even with "advances" in the M1A design the new M-21 Sniper System comes in at 11.5 pounds and the M-25 White Feather Addition ( which is a joke because Carlos never used an M1A ) comes in at 12.8 pounds ( and that is with the Chandler Brothers Fiberglass stock and "Special" features ). Jesus the Socom-16 comes in at 9.3lbs from the factory!

Now, you take a 18" barrelled anything that weighs in around 10-11 pounds and go from low ready, to up and smoking in the blink of an eye and tell me how that feels. Then do it about 100 times a day for weeks on end and tell me how you feel about it.

Quote:

It's more capable of delivering accurate, sustained fire than the AR platform is capable of
First, we were discussing the M1A, and I assume this statement is about the M-14, but it's not accurate either. I would put one of my built AR-15s in 5.56mm against an M1A or M14 in a shear test of how fast you can empty a magazine into any man sized target, any day of the week and would gladly put a case of beer on the results.

Bottom line is this: From a pure, rifle building standpoint. A stable platform, outside the influence of any external forces, like an operating rod driven system, is ALWAYS going to shoot better than one that is susceptible to outside influences. Barrel Harmonics, Recoil driven inertia, felt recoil by the shooter for the larger caliber in a lighter than design weight for the round, all of that is going to play into how well it will shoot.

Adding a short bull barrel, and a custom cut chamber, and match grade ammo, and a tuned trigger and the best optics to both platforms isn't going to change that fact.

If you like the rifle - more power to you. Buy all that you want. You can even buy mine as I won't be adding one to my arsenal. This is merely one person's opinion that is based on what MY personal term of "accurate" is.

Accurate is not a rifle that can shoot MOA when sub moa is capable. Accurate is not .5MOA if .25 MOA is capable.
Accurate is not .25MOA if I can squeeze .15MOA out of it.

End of the day, having the biggest, baddest, most manly round in the world isn't going to do you any good if you can't get it on target before your opponent gets his on you.

If you want a shining example of that played out in a daily theater, just take a look at the CQB Battles that feature the AK versus the AR. :cool:

JD


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:51 AM.

Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.