one bullet
Single-Sixer
Are these high quality rifles? Would like to have one but was wondering what the difference was in the new production vs military issue? Besides price of course.
Springfield M1A
- Thread starter one bullet
- Start date
Help Support Ruger Forum:
wapiti22
Blackhawk
They are very good quality. And Springfield has a no questions guarantee. If it doesn't work, they will fix it. They are fun to shoot and very accurate. But, beware...... you can go through a lot of .308 ammo in a real hurry.
KurtC
Single-Sixer
The M1A comes in different grades: Standard, Loaded, National Match and Super Match. They also have different models, such as the Socom, Scout and M21.
Other than the military one being select-fire, the primary difference is that the military M14 had a forged receiver and the M1A has a cast receiver. Most parts are interchangeable.
Other than the military one being select-fire, the primary difference is that the military M14 had a forged receiver and the M1A has a cast receiver. Most parts are interchangeable.
bai78
Bearcat
ruger9two said:
I couldn't resist SOOOooo I just got one of each! :lol:
dfletcher
Blackhawk
I had a Loaded and now have a Scout. Neither was/is particularly accurate but I bought it for "OK" accuracy and fun so I suppose it's fine. Neither extracted worth a damn and after about 100 rounds the Scout simply stopped. I replaced the factory extractor with a PB original off EBay and all is well. I use an ARMS 18 mount with a 1X to 4X, switched out the factory "2X4" stock for a slim version and treated it with Pilkingtons and Fairtrimmer for the old look. I added an SMLE repro cheekpiece and a fake "happy switch" .
http://www.sparrowhawkm14.com/id10.html
http://www.sparrowhawkm14.com/id10.html
bobski
Hunter
too much gun. not enough distance to see what made it famous.
montegomx70
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Feb 29, 2012
- Messages
- 384
beautiful rifle,but to pricey for me, i am looking at a dsa fal,myself, a grand cheaper.
David Bradshaw
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 933
A few notes on the M1A, John Garand's M1 and, to answer a question from MonttegomX70 on the DSA Fal....
M1A (faux M14): good ones are super accurate and very reliable. Difficult as a hunting rifle for it weight and required offset and/or high scope mounting. Shorter gas system superior to its parent M1. (What's the world coming to when an M1A isn't accurate?)
Garand (real M1): generally great accuracy and reliability. If you rebarrel to .308 after shooting out the old .30-06 barrel, you will find the the .308 shoots cooler, tends to be very accurate, operating rods last longer, and the gas plug is less apt to loosen. Never ceased to amaze me how a Garand will shoot dead nuts, morning noon and night. Best iron sights ever put on a rifle (copied onto M14).
Scopes and Garands don't get along very well, as the clip loads from the top and the optical ergonomics are a stretch. Garand about a pound heavier than the M14/M1A.
Repro Garand receivers for Springfield Armory Illinois are cast by Ruger in NH.
DSA FAL: Julian Hatcher told us that the FN FAL failed U.S. Army trials----the M14 passed----but he forgot to tell us why. It took me trying to get along with a DSA FAL to find out. The glowing magazine reports are a disgrace. The Israelis didn't like FAL's in the sand. But it is a few other items which lay the FAL far below the mighty M1 Garand, a good M1A, and the eat-any-ammo-including-all-manner-of-reloads HK 91.
FAL:
* heavy
* poor choice for scope
* accuracy far below M1/M1A/M14/HK 91
* loves to throw fliers (loose chamber?)
* tilt-lock rear bolt lockup
* head separations with reloads
If I had to carry a semi-auto in griz country, it would be an M1 Garand, HK 91, or anM1A----not a "hunting" semi-auto, nor a FAL.
Someday our WW II Garands will be worth something. At my last piano shoot, where we played another upright piano to death with gunfire, every man and woman wanted to shoot John Garand's beautiful warhorse. All good Garands are gov't arsenal rebuilds.
Stay away from gun show cannibal junk. I've never seen a real Garand at a show. If you buy an M1, buy a genuine Gov't rebuild. Or, at least the SA Illinois clone. By now, you may think I behold the Garand a true masterpiece. You are right.
David Bradshaw
M1A (faux M14): good ones are super accurate and very reliable. Difficult as a hunting rifle for it weight and required offset and/or high scope mounting. Shorter gas system superior to its parent M1. (What's the world coming to when an M1A isn't accurate?)
Garand (real M1): generally great accuracy and reliability. If you rebarrel to .308 after shooting out the old .30-06 barrel, you will find the the .308 shoots cooler, tends to be very accurate, operating rods last longer, and the gas plug is less apt to loosen. Never ceased to amaze me how a Garand will shoot dead nuts, morning noon and night. Best iron sights ever put on a rifle (copied onto M14).
Scopes and Garands don't get along very well, as the clip loads from the top and the optical ergonomics are a stretch. Garand about a pound heavier than the M14/M1A.
Repro Garand receivers for Springfield Armory Illinois are cast by Ruger in NH.
DSA FAL: Julian Hatcher told us that the FN FAL failed U.S. Army trials----the M14 passed----but he forgot to tell us why. It took me trying to get along with a DSA FAL to find out. The glowing magazine reports are a disgrace. The Israelis didn't like FAL's in the sand. But it is a few other items which lay the FAL far below the mighty M1 Garand, a good M1A, and the eat-any-ammo-including-all-manner-of-reloads HK 91.
FAL:
* heavy
* poor choice for scope
* accuracy far below M1/M1A/M14/HK 91
* loves to throw fliers (loose chamber?)
* tilt-lock rear bolt lockup
* head separations with reloads
If I had to carry a semi-auto in griz country, it would be an M1 Garand, HK 91, or anM1A----not a "hunting" semi-auto, nor a FAL.
Someday our WW II Garands will be worth something. At my last piano shoot, where we played another upright piano to death with gunfire, every man and woman wanted to shoot John Garand's beautiful warhorse. All good Garands are gov't arsenal rebuilds.
Stay away from gun show cannibal junk. I've never seen a real Garand at a show. If you buy an M1, buy a genuine Gov't rebuild. Or, at least the SA Illinois clone. By now, you may think I behold the Garand a true masterpiece. You are right.
David Bradshaw
bobski
Hunter
308...as we know we mean 7.62mm. aka: the Mk2 garand. navy issue actually.
bobski
Hunter
a garand was never made in 308. they were all designed to shoot 7.62nato.
mattsbox99
Hunter
The CMP rebuild Garands in .308 are .308, although 7.62x51 is safe to shoot in it.
Like David Bradshaw, I strongly prefer the Garand. I have one of the CMP Specials on order now.
Like David Bradshaw, I strongly prefer the Garand. I have one of the CMP Specials on order now.
Otony
Blackhawk
bobski said:
The U.S. Navy converted quite a few to 7.62x51
David Bradshaw
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 933
FAUX M14
I was told many years ago by a Navy shooter that the Navy couldn't procure suitable numbers of M14's. Thus, the Navy converted M1's for team use. Followed by "Springfield Armory, Inc." M1A's, which receivers at that time came from Brazil. The Navy shooter told me that the Brazilian receivers were not up to genuine Springfield Armory forgings; among wear problems, stripping of sight elevation serrations from the left "ear." (I have seen the serrations worn on M1 Garands, but Lord, those receivers have been through some barrels! And any old-time steel shooter can tell how I like to lubricate adjustable sights!)
Failure of Navy to receive M14's is a mystery, as the Marines got 'em. Aren't the Marines organized under the Navy?
One night at his dinner table in New Hampshire, Bill Ruger extolled the fine rifles that had come out of Springfield Armory, production which ended with the M14. Bill Ruger was offended that a commercial enterprise had appropriated the name "Springfield Armory."
M14 vs M1A
TRW M14's are classy. Nothing quite like a real M14 with the slim, light, laid-up fiberglass stock, which I think was made by Chet Brown.
The Springield Armory, Inc., M1A's which I've shot are reliable and very accurate. Weight and ergonomic scope mounting remain challenges in attempts to make this a hunting rifle. Ruger understood these obstacles and that the .308 receiver did not submit to shaving much weight off the Garand .30-06 while preserving durability.
CARTRIDGE SEMANTICS
I don't get into the semantics of .308 Winchester vs 7.62x51mm NATO. The rounds interchange. Same applies to the 9mm Luger----a.k.a. 9x19mm, 9mm Parabellum, 9mm NATO, Nine Mike Mike, etc.
FN FAL and DSA FAL
FN and DSA FAL's are much better made than graymarket junk----analogous to cheap imitations of the HK 91. Way I see it, the rear-locking bolt prevents the FAL from performing in league with the M1/M14/M1A and Heckler & Koch G3/91.
.... Or the seldom encountered, very accurate Valmet and Galil .308 variants of Mikhail Kalashnikov's AR. Valmet proved a lightweight .308 is doable with the compact bolt and gas system of the Kalashnikov.
AR 10 VARIANTS
Heavy, much bulkier than an AR-15. Examples I have shot aren't close to M1/M1A/HK 91 reliability. Nor are they close to FAL reliability. It may prove easier to work out the bugs than to reduce its ponderous weight.
David Bradshaw
I was told many years ago by a Navy shooter that the Navy couldn't procure suitable numbers of M14's. Thus, the Navy converted M1's for team use. Followed by "Springfield Armory, Inc." M1A's, which receivers at that time came from Brazil. The Navy shooter told me that the Brazilian receivers were not up to genuine Springfield Armory forgings; among wear problems, stripping of sight elevation serrations from the left "ear." (I have seen the serrations worn on M1 Garands, but Lord, those receivers have been through some barrels! And any old-time steel shooter can tell how I like to lubricate adjustable sights!)
Failure of Navy to receive M14's is a mystery, as the Marines got 'em. Aren't the Marines organized under the Navy?
One night at his dinner table in New Hampshire, Bill Ruger extolled the fine rifles that had come out of Springfield Armory, production which ended with the M14. Bill Ruger was offended that a commercial enterprise had appropriated the name "Springfield Armory."
M14 vs M1A
TRW M14's are classy. Nothing quite like a real M14 with the slim, light, laid-up fiberglass stock, which I think was made by Chet Brown.
The Springield Armory, Inc., M1A's which I've shot are reliable and very accurate. Weight and ergonomic scope mounting remain challenges in attempts to make this a hunting rifle. Ruger understood these obstacles and that the .308 receiver did not submit to shaving much weight off the Garand .30-06 while preserving durability.
CARTRIDGE SEMANTICS
I don't get into the semantics of .308 Winchester vs 7.62x51mm NATO. The rounds interchange. Same applies to the 9mm Luger----a.k.a. 9x19mm, 9mm Parabellum, 9mm NATO, Nine Mike Mike, etc.
FN FAL and DSA FAL
FN and DSA FAL's are much better made than graymarket junk----analogous to cheap imitations of the HK 91. Way I see it, the rear-locking bolt prevents the FAL from performing in league with the M1/M14/M1A and Heckler & Koch G3/91.
.... Or the seldom encountered, very accurate Valmet and Galil .308 variants of Mikhail Kalashnikov's AR. Valmet proved a lightweight .308 is doable with the compact bolt and gas system of the Kalashnikov.
AR 10 VARIANTS
Heavy, much bulkier than an AR-15. Examples I have shot aren't close to M1/M1A/HK 91 reliability. Nor are they close to FAL reliability. It may prove easier to work out the bugs than to reduce its ponderous weight.
David Bradshaw
bobski
Hunter
the problem is the .308 and 7.62, I.D. are not the same and one has higher pressures than the other due to brass thickness . to mix them between guns is not recomended. one can be loaded with the hotter round, the other cant.
will they chamber in each gun? sure. so can a 45 in 410. not wise, but it can. same with the 308/7.62 debate.
when i shot on the navy rifle team, we were forbidden to use 308 in the 7.62 crane guns.
will they chamber in each gun? sure. so can a 45 in 410. not wise, but it can. same with the 308/7.62 debate.
when i shot on the navy rifle team, we were forbidden to use 308 in the 7.62 crane guns.
Backlighting
Single-Sixer
- Joined
- Jun 9, 2012
- Messages
- 122
While in the Army I trained with the M1A (M 14). Great gun, wish I had one now.
David Bradshaw
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 933
The .308 and the 7.62x51mm were intended to duplicate the .30-06. To accomplish this in a smaller case, pressure was raised. Works fine with service bullets. The .30-06 slams the door hard on the 7.62x51mm when heavy hunting bullets are introduced. That is why the .308 cannot touch the .30-06 among hunters who mean business against big game.
If we're about defining cartridges, there is no such thing as a "9mm NATO." A half century before NATO existed, there was a cartridge called the 9mm Luger. Some folk sweat when they hear the .45 Colt described as ".45 Long Colt." No less an historian than William B. Ruger said "Long Colt."
We know that there is military 7.62x51mm and 9mm Luger loaded to higher than SAAMI pressures. When insisting on distinctive nomenclature, perhaps the respective pressure specification should be noted. Some British Radway Green 7.62 is too hot for some non-bolt action .308's; the stupendously reliable HK 91 eats it up like candy. Nor is today's "extreme energy" hunting ammo intended for non-bolt action rifles, including military self loaders.
When I said that the only semi-auto I would trust in griz country would be a Garand, an M1A, or the HK 91, I spoke words of respect for their reliability.
David Bradshaw
If we're about defining cartridges, there is no such thing as a "9mm NATO." A half century before NATO existed, there was a cartridge called the 9mm Luger. Some folk sweat when they hear the .45 Colt described as ".45 Long Colt." No less an historian than William B. Ruger said "Long Colt."
We know that there is military 7.62x51mm and 9mm Luger loaded to higher than SAAMI pressures. When insisting on distinctive nomenclature, perhaps the respective pressure specification should be noted. Some British Radway Green 7.62 is too hot for some non-bolt action .308's; the stupendously reliable HK 91 eats it up like candy. Nor is today's "extreme energy" hunting ammo intended for non-bolt action rifles, including military self loaders.
When I said that the only semi-auto I would trust in griz country would be a Garand, an M1A, or the HK 91, I spoke words of respect for their reliability.
David Bradshaw
David Bradshaw
Blackhawk
- Joined
- Sep 11, 2012
- Messages
- 933
Looked up .308 cartridge and chamber drawings on SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers Institute).
Found chamber drawing for 7.62x51mm NATO chamber, but not the cartridge. A comparison of chamber drawings suggests that datum line of the 7.62 NATO is .013-inch longer than the .308.
DATUM: HEADSPACE SPECIFICATION
DATUM----cartridge----measurement is taken from cartridge head to the middle of the shoulder of a bottleneck case.
DATUM----chamber----measurement is taken from breechface to the middle of the shoulder.
The .308 and 7.62 NATO cartridges interchange in civilian and military firearms. If the 7.62 case has a longer datum line, in swapping factory and arsenal rounds between rifles, I haven't found it. The NATO chamber is listed as having a .013"-longer datum line. Unless the NATO cartridge datum is longer, it means 7.62x51mm NATO is meant to stretch. Realize, that military ammo is not designed for reloading, neither is all civilian brass designed for reloading.
Military brass has thicker walls for use in loose chambers, particularly machine gun chambers. As a contributor stated, a head separation hazard exists when commecial .308 is fired in a 7.62 NATO chamber, which allows for .013"----longer between breechface and chamber shoulder.
SAAMI
.308 Win----62,000 PSI piezo. Proof----83,000-89,000 PSI piezo.
NATO
7.62x51mm----58,000 PSI piezo. Proof----67,000 PSI piezo.
RELOADING
I have reloaded GI as well as commercial brass for decades without a problem. I prefer GI 7.62 brass in applications where I don't want to fill the case, notably various silhouette cartridges, such as the 7mm/308x1-3/4".
When I loaded for the .44 Auto Mag, I made the rimless case from GI 7.62 and .30-06 brass, a rather tedious process which, besides trimming, required inside reaming.
Springfield Armory, Inc., M1A
I have shot these very accurate rifles with with commercial as well as military ammo, without a hitch. Most handloads have been with U.S. military brass. As with a few other military rifles, to prevent potential slamfires, use of military-type primers (heaviet cup) is stronly recommended. If I get any dope as to which spec the M1A chamber is reamed, I'll pass it along.
While the M1 Garand is an obsolete, and the M1A nearly so, no battle rifles so combine their POWER, TRIGGER, SIGHTS, and ACCURACY, with RELIABILITY. That combination is never obsolete.
David Bradshaw
Found chamber drawing for 7.62x51mm NATO chamber, but not the cartridge. A comparison of chamber drawings suggests that datum line of the 7.62 NATO is .013-inch longer than the .308.
DATUM: HEADSPACE SPECIFICATION
DATUM----cartridge----measurement is taken from cartridge head to the middle of the shoulder of a bottleneck case.
DATUM----chamber----measurement is taken from breechface to the middle of the shoulder.
The .308 and 7.62 NATO cartridges interchange in civilian and military firearms. If the 7.62 case has a longer datum line, in swapping factory and arsenal rounds between rifles, I haven't found it. The NATO chamber is listed as having a .013"-longer datum line. Unless the NATO cartridge datum is longer, it means 7.62x51mm NATO is meant to stretch. Realize, that military ammo is not designed for reloading, neither is all civilian brass designed for reloading.
Military brass has thicker walls for use in loose chambers, particularly machine gun chambers. As a contributor stated, a head separation hazard exists when commecial .308 is fired in a 7.62 NATO chamber, which allows for .013"----longer between breechface and chamber shoulder.
SAAMI
.308 Win----62,000 PSI piezo. Proof----83,000-89,000 PSI piezo.
NATO
7.62x51mm----58,000 PSI piezo. Proof----67,000 PSI piezo.
RELOADING
I have reloaded GI as well as commercial brass for decades without a problem. I prefer GI 7.62 brass in applications where I don't want to fill the case, notably various silhouette cartridges, such as the 7mm/308x1-3/4".
When I loaded for the .44 Auto Mag, I made the rimless case from GI 7.62 and .30-06 brass, a rather tedious process which, besides trimming, required inside reaming.
Springfield Armory, Inc., M1A
I have shot these very accurate rifles with with commercial as well as military ammo, without a hitch. Most handloads have been with U.S. military brass. As with a few other military rifles, to prevent potential slamfires, use of military-type primers (heaviet cup) is stronly recommended. If I get any dope as to which spec the M1A chamber is reamed, I'll pass it along.
While the M1 Garand is an obsolete, and the M1A nearly so, no battle rifles so combine their POWER, TRIGGER, SIGHTS, and ACCURACY, with RELIABILITY. That combination is never obsolete.
David Bradshaw
Similar threads
