-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
I've been thinking of an M1A
- Thread starter grey
- Start date
I'm very interested in that Rock-Ola. Never heard it before, but I dig how it's forged and "as close" as you can get to a GI model. I got my expert rifleman ribbon with a M14 when I was a young seaman (I know I said seaman).
Sweeney
NES Member
The actor who played Shughart in BHD is a member over on teamm14.com... 'Mr Strong'
The Sadlak mount is a modified copy of the BPT mount as is the SEI and others. I have an original BPT on my bush rifle. Mitch (BPT) endorses the Sadlak. Just an FYI...
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Last edited:
Just curious, why?
Here's a good thread on it.
http://m14forum.com/accuracy/102087-sadlak-vs-bassett.html
But basically two reasons. It mounts the scope lower and it can be removed and reinstalled and more closely maintain zero.
Sweeney
NES Member
Joe, SA started out in San Antonio, TX then moved to Devine, TX. When it was sold the operation was moved to Geneseo, Il. in 1974. I believe serial numbers below 27xx are the coveted 'Devine' M1As.
I've never heard of them being machined in NH but I think I know who would...
A good resource; http://photos.imageevent.com/badger...icalfolder/M14 RHAD Online Edition 070603.pdf
Lee Emerson is over on TeamM14, user name 'Different'.
Last edited:
Well, its my first M1A, or M14 clone. Ive done a bit of research and didnt find a reason (for my uses anyway) to pay for a forged receiver. I couldnt find one incident of the cast receiver failing. It would be neat to have one, but I cant justify it, yet ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
. Im going to shoot the shite out of it and see what happens. I hope I made a better decision than my first AR...
. Im going to shoot the shite out of it and see what happens. I hope I made a better decision than my first AR...
StevieP
NES Member
Well, yeah. It depends on what you're comparing. If, in your mind, you're comparing a semi-automatic battle rifle with a bolt-action hunting rifle, it's apples to oranges.
The OP is looking at M1A's, but in particular had settled on the Scout Squad model. (http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=36)
But if you're considering the purpose of a 'scout' rifle (yeah, I've wasted some lunch hours' productivity reading up on Col. Cooper's concept) then you'd see the similarities and not p'shaw my comments so quickly.
The scout rifle concept calls for a general/multi purpose, handy, relatively short-barreled .308 with box magazines, threaded muzzle, and forward-mounted optics with long eye relief low-powered optic and/or iron sights.
In this regard, the M1A Scout Squad and the Ruger Gunsite Scout are very similar. Except the Ruger is more than two pounds lighter and with an even shorter/handier 16" barrel, which is STILL more accurate than the M1A's 18" one. The Ruger's trigger is pretty nice, too.
An M1A may be 'robust' but it's hard to argue the rugged reliability of the M77/Mauser bolt action in the Ruger, too.
I guess it really depends on your wants/needs/budget, and intended use. If your gun is primarily a bench rest or target shooter, then the weight maybe even has an advantage. If you just have GOT TO HAVE the M1A because it's awesome, then that's reason enough, too!
But if you're going to take it deer, bear, or pig hunting, and carry it through swamps or up and down hills for mile after mile just to take one or two shots, you'll appreciate the lighter weight.
In a tactical situation, if you need to sustain a rate of fire such that you NEED the semi-automatic, then you're not in a situation that the Scout rifle was intended for anyway, which is to run and gun, take a shot or two, and get the hell out of there.
And you can buy a shitload of .308 fmj for the price difference between a bolt gun and semi-auto.
Last edited:
This is where it starts. And I don't mind the option of sustained rate of fire either. Plus, it might be a workout program, You know, carry it around like those joggers with little barbels and such. I have an AR for lightweight work. This one's for the power
Glockster30
NES Member
![[thumbsup]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/044.gif "Thumbs Up [thumbsup]")
Well, its my first M1A, or M14 clone. Ive done a bit of research and didnt find a reason (for my uses anyway) to pay for a forged receiver. I couldnt find one incident of the cast receiver failing. It would be neat to have one, but I cant justify it, yet
I'm no metallurgist, but investment casting gets used for things like turbine impellers. Also, metallurgy has come a long, long way since the M14 (which is really a Garand 2.0) was developed with a forged receiver.
I wouldn't worry about the receiver falling apart.
I have the M1A Scout and have shot the Ruger Gunsite, and I thought they were quite different. With the M1A, you can stand there and do very very good follow ups if you have to, while the Ruger you are messing with the bolt and taking yourself off target, and taking your hand off the trigger. The reason the difference is so noticeable is the brake that comes on the M1A Scout, which is quite good. On mine I actually mounted an SEI Navy brake which is even better. The Ruger Gunsite I fired had a flashhider and the muzzle bounce was significant. Coupled with its 16" barrel, it was not pleasant or easy to work, even when compared to a Rem 700 with 18" or 20" barrel. Shooting 308 out of 16" barrels is a loud, bright, concussive experience (I am a former owner of a SOCOM 16, so I know it is doable, but I hated that rifle too, mostly due to accuracy). The longer 18" barrel of the M1A Scout softens the 308 round somewhat for you as well as the environment (even with brake). A Ruger Gunsite with a brake installed would still be pretty nasty for individuals near the shooter.
The way I look at it, the Ruger Gunsite is a hunting rifle that has medium accuracy and a strange scope mount option. You are getting a bolt action that you will not really be able to mount a legitimate scope on (the receiver scope mounting options for that rifle take some strange rings, it isn't a rail like you normally get on a bolt action). The scope you mount on the scout mount will not have the best power (3x perhaps). So you won't be taking the long shots, such as you could with a standard Remington 700 with a Leupold mounted on the receiver which is probably 10x or more. So while the barrel may be 1 MOA, the gun most likely will not be, and you will not be able to hold that out to longer ranges effectively (forget about ranging using your scope, no hash marks on IER). So in my mind, why not just get a normal Savage or Rem bolt action, mount a normal scope, and be able to accurately reach out to 500 yards? It seems like the Ruger Gunsite solves a problem people don't have (though this is what most people say to the entire scout rifle concept).
Meanwhile, the M1A Scout is a legitimate intermediate range battle rifle. You can put out serious heat very fast. Run a 5 or 10 round mag for hunting, 20 for fun. You can get a match trigger or have your trigger sent out for work. It may not hold 1 MOA but it will hold within 2 MOA, and its a battle rifle so who cares, you aren't going to try to make 500 yard shots with it. It moves really well in the woods, and you can drop it all you want (have done so on many occasions). Oh, and don't worry about rain, it will be fine. Cleaning is somewhat optional, just wipe it down once in a while. The rifle solves a legitimate task, which is a heavier caliber yet relatively short battle rifle.
If you hunt on the ground like I do, then the M1A Scout is what you'd want for going after bear or boars. That follow up shot is very very necessary at times, and if you bump into something within 20 yards (this happens often in bear hunting), do you really want to be playing with the bolt as it either comes at you or takes off into the brush?
Recently I haven't been able to take my eyes of the M1A. I can feel it getting worse every day. I'm not sure what I can do about it anymore. I'm pretty sure the Scout version with the wood stock is the one for me. I've always been a synthetic stock guy but this gun's different. It just looks and feels better in wood. I'm not sure how much longer I can go on living like this
I've never shot one before but I did have a mini 14 for a while. I know, different gun but I liked the action. What do people who own one think? What configurations do you have? I'd like to hear some opinions of M1A owners
i think the new s.a. ones are overpriced and so so quality . hate to rub it in but in 1984 picked up a heavy barrel and stock match grade [ built around 1982],which went for $800 new then from a guy that needed $ for $600; trw parts ,4 20 rd mags and b-square scope mount: added original gi bipod [$80] and 3x9 leupold scope [$160]. had it ever since; a bit heavy but great off the bench. best accuracy is with168 gr. match bullets and 4895 powder reloads. i would also look at dsa fal; i have the carbine version: it is only the size as a ar carbine and in 308: dsa quality is top notch. hear a lot of good things about james river army; they are expensive but if the quality is there that would be the way to go. prices are way up on everything military; i am speaking from from a era when a m1 garrand or carbine went for $150.
Last edited:
$800 in 1982 dollars is $1950 in inflation adjusted 2013 dollars. Bud's has the NM M1A for $1922 reserve price (as in you get it for $1922 when it comes back in stock).
As for quality, I bought my M1A about 5 years ago and have had no problems with it.
Yeah but for $600 he got one with upgrades, extra magazines, and scope mount. Even adjusted for inflation that's a pretty decent deal.
Similar threads
