Sooooo I was wondering if any of you guys own these. I bet my last dollar some of you do. My local shop has a SA one for 1500. Synthetic stock, I believe 18 inch barrel.
Is this weapon to be considered as a semi auto precision rifle? Anyone have any pics or thoughts on em? I personally would LOVE to own one, but man I can build a new AR and get a new handgun with 1500 bucks. 
edit: Anyone know what length the sniper uses in the blackhawk down movie?
Have you used the search feature?
I am not going to lie man. EVERY single board I have EVER been on has never worked as far as search goes. I search M1A I get hits on 1911. No joke
Really?
I get thisâŚ
Nary a 1911 link to be found.
My Search Fu is fail sir. No joke I must be doing something wrong. LOL Thanks for the links though!
Unless you want an M1A for a specific reason, I recommend against one. They CAN be made to shoot accurately with enough time and money but the juice is not worth the squeeze.
You need to have it skim bedded rather often if you stick with a standard wooden stock if you want to maintain absolute accuracy. Probably every ~1500 rounds or so. Iâm not big into these guns so donât quote me on that.
The other option is a chassis like the Sage which utilizes tension bedding. IMO they all suck ergonomically as well as from a maintenance standpoint. Also keep in mind that the rifle is not designed to be scoped. There are mounting solutions, but again, itâs all after the fact so theyâre not ideal.
Add all this to the cost of bring that rack grade rifle up to mil-standard with quality parts and youâre going to be over the $2,000 mark.
You might as well get a GAP-10 / LMT MWS etc etc etc. at that point if youâre looking for a precision 7.62 rig.
Iâve got an M1 rifle and two M1As. I too recommend against them unless you have a specific reason, such as wishing to shoot Service Rifle or a Garand match or nostalgia. They are woefully obsolete and the methods of optics mounting are contrived at best. A flat top AR10 is much more versatile and effective.
I have an Armscorp NM, I would not trade it for any gun in the world, love it to death. It will hold minute of man groups at 800 meters from the prone position with surpluss ball all day long.
I will advise against buying a Springfield weapon to many issues. Look for an older Armscorp with GI parts or buy a new LRB or 762 firearms weapon.
+1 on this. Current Springfields are hit and miss. Iâve heard some good things about Armscorp. LRB is absolutely top notch for these rifles. Some amazing things here. http://www.lrbarms.com/m14rifles.html
Not true. They were designed to take a scope right from the beginning, just not very well. Matter of fact, years ago I read one article that stated when the US first unveiled the M14 and demonstrated itâs ability to accept a scope, the Soviets were concerned what impact it would have if the average American infantryman were so equipped.
The M14 is a fine rifle, but itâs not an AR and requires a different approach to maintenance
Technically true but what I was getting at is that optics were obviously not âpriority numero unoâ when they designed the receiver. I donât know the history of the platform well enough to really get insider the designerâs heads, but I get the impression that the provisions for optics mounting were of secondary importance and perhaps an afterthought.
I still donât consider it âdesigned to be used with optics.â Designed to accept optics but be a pain in the ass about it may be a better way to put it.
Yes, the scope mount was more of an afterthought, but it was a better system than anything we had before and it may have been more of a propaganda stunt to rattle the cage of the Soviets. It was the best they could do without re-designing the whole rifle and decades before they developed the Picatinney rail. At the time, there were forward thinkers that felt optics should be widely issued to our soldiers & marines and they wanted our next rifle to have that capability. When Eugene Stoner developed the AR-10, it was with the idea optics could be mounted. Awkward though the M14 was to mount optics, it was till good enough for the Army to build a successful sniper rifle.
My point isnât whether or not the M14 is a practical rifle to mount optics to, only that it was intended to do so from the beginning
Honestly based on your post it sounds like you want one because it looks cool. If thatâs the case then fair enough, Iâve purchased guns for the same reason. However make sure itâs what you want. They are not ideal for precision shooting. The ones the Army has used in that role were basically stopgaps until a ground-up semiautomatic sniper weapons system, which ended up being the SR25/M110, could be fielded. The M14-in-a-chassis builds are not highly regarded by those that have had them issued. I donât know of any unit that still uses them. To get a Springfield Armory M1A up to snuff will get you into the price range of a better, more accurate, more modern design like a SCAR heavy or one of the AR-10 style rifles.
If youâre not going to mount optics and are happy with a 2-4MOA gun then an M1A is a pretty fun rifle. Like ICANHITHIMMAN said youâre better off looking for one with USGI parts and ideally a forged receiver. Another option to scratch that itch could be to get a CMP Garand for less than $1000.
I was sold on an M1A for a long time. They looked cool, they have nostalgia, mags are relatively cheapâŚ
But thats about it. As far as being practical as a fighting rifle it really isnât. If I had a well rounded collection with a few semi auto AR-10 variants or a SCAR I wouldnât mind an M1A but for my first semi auto .308 I chose the SCAR 17.
You wonât regret itâŚwell, you may regret seeing your bank account take a nose dive 
They didnât really âdesign the receiverâ, they adapted it from the M1 rifle and the M1 was not designed for optics. In fact, the M1 is really a bolt action rifle, think 1903A3 with the bolt handle removed, a gas piston slung under the barrel and the two connected by a rod.
Here are some picks from 2006 of my Armscorp NM. I suppose the reason I ended up with this weapon is it was the first rifle I fired during my time in the service.
+1.
I wanted one for a long time also.
Last weekend I helped a friend with his, putting a Sage EBR stock.
It looks really cool, but its got ALOT of problems.
I hear accuracy isnt all that great
Keep an eye on the barrel tension screw with the Sage chassis. The instructions are a little weakâŚbut the proper method is to tighten it down until it just touches the barrel. Then lock it down with the set screw on the right side of the stock. If this screw is not tensioned properly youâll get accuracy issues. You may be tracking on all this, but I figure it canât hurt to point out.
Iâve used the EBR with success in the past. Itâs not an ideal system, but it works.
I owned a SA M1A Natl Match a few years ago. They can be made accurate but like a 1911 to get a âgood oneâ you have to spend a lot of money, and have someone who knows what they are doing perform maintenance on them to keep them running & accurate. The supply of quality parts has been dwindling and youâre going to pay.
For nostalgia they are a fine weapon but with the options out there I would not buy one for serious use. Maybe for service rifle matches or whatever they shoot them in as a hobby.
Have 4 of them
2 M14s Polytechâs
1 Armscorp M21
1 Springfield M1A
Best Battle Rifle ever designed, very reliable platform and a serious caliber
good and bad with everything, do your homework before purchasing