'EBR' version of the M1A for today's times

[AJMD429]

Nice article on the M1A and a 'modern' EBR iteration of it...

http://www.americanrifleman.org/article ... tle-rifle/

[sore shoulder]

After long deliberation over several platforms of .308, I decided if I ever get one it will be an M1A. This is due to the fact it has been a standard issue in the past and is still being issued in a minor role and parts and accessories are nearly on the same level as the AR15.

[olyinaz]

They've sure uglified a fine looking rifle, but I don't doubt the effectiveness of the modifications.

[Sixgun]

That's OK, I'll stay with my wood version. -6

[OldWin]

As a long time M1A fan I gave the sage a long, hard look. I think it is great for a DMR or sniper role but just adds too much weight and bulk for all round use. The Vltor or Choate stock are lighter and more compact. That said, I think the old GI synthetic is hard to beat and nearly indestructible.

My .02

[AJMD429]

Yeah I think I like the regular wood version better too.

[2ndovc]

Love my M1As just as they are.






jb

[JerryB]

WHAT????? is that in the lower left corner????

[MrMurphy]

That stock works, but the gun ends up weighing (with accessories) nearly 14 lbs.

Remember the M1A is NOT milspec. If you want a close-to-original-M14, get a Fulton Armory gun, the parts are a lot closer in make to the real thing and won't break so much.

[FWiedner]

Don't much care for any version of the arm that doesn't incorporate walnut and blued steel.

I'm not sure I even care for the look of the 'EBR' model. No elegance.

[MrMurphy]

The people who designed it didn't care about elegance, they cared about making sure the special operations guys using them had a way to put all the modern stuff on and make it work.

These days, a rifle without the ability to mount a white light, IR laser/illuminator and multiple optics or a bipod is so far behind it's not even funny. Even the Marines updated the M16 to the A4, which gave it a freefloat rail system and a flat top upper for the ACOG.

[FWiedner]

The people who designed it didn't care about elegance, they cared about making sure the special operations guys using them had a way to put all the modern stuff on and make it work.

These days, a rifle without the ability to mount a white light, IR laser/illuminator and multiple optics or a bipod is so far behind it's not even funny. Even the Marines updated the M16 to the A4, which gave it a freefloat rail system and a flat top upper for the ACOG.

It's ugly, and by every report too heavy.

Quite an improvement.

[MrMurphy]

They had specifications from the end-users.

They met them.



Most people, including me, agree, it's too heavy. Which is why the SCAR-H (Mk 17) was created, it does all that without the weight, more reliably and more accurately.


The M14 stays in the system because it's free, and of the current (last decade) wars, I've rarely run into anyone who carried an M14 and actually desired to do so. Ammo limitations among other things meant most of them spent a lot of time riding in Humvees from all I've been told.

The only M14s my unit had were purely ceremonial.

[AJMD429]

I guess it all points out the fact that we have several classes of buyers, based on potential use.

There are folks in and out of the military who are seeking a powerful and accurate firearm for use mostly out in the 400-800 yard range (or whatever) and don't mind paying for that capability with lots of extra weight. They don't really want a 30-pound setup for 800-1,600 yard shots, but want more than a 10 pound rifle for the under-400 yard range. So they settle for a 20 pound rifle for 400-800 yard shots.

Then there are those of us like myself, who aren't likely to make any 'critical' 400-800 yard shots, but just appreciate the craftsmanship and design and beauty of military firearms. I'm much more attracted to an M1A in a traditional wood stock for that reason, because I don't need any trappings to make it 'tactical'.

[3leggedturtle]

They've sure uglified a fine looking rifle, but I don't doubt the effectiveness of the modifications.

Had the same thoughts. But I'm sure survival and hitting targets effectively helped them modify it the way it is shown. Reliability and function trumps eye appeal any day.

[Grizz]

spent some time handling a standard springfield M1A with standard synth stock at the LGS. Points well and light enough.

I find that a pistol grip is nearly a necessity now because of the condition my hands are in. It gives me much more positive control than the customary rifle grip. I would need a scope for stuff outside my vision zone. For some reason I can't see gongs at 400 yards any more. Don't know why. How do you mount a scope on a standard M1A?

I find the 22" barrel + flash hider makes an unwieldly length for me to pack around in the bear woods of Alaska. Again, the more compact guns are easier to maneuver. They had a very good price and a couple of extra mags available that would have given me 65 rounds of nato on tap. I almost bought that rifle, but the caveats outweighed the desire again. Utility is my main criteria.

Still looking. They had a gunsight scout in the store, but I'm a fan of the semi-autos and hi-cap mags because they freak out the retards.

Grizz

[jeepnik]

I would never make my Scout/Squad look that ugly. It's just fine with black synthetic stock and a "scout" scope. And, it would probably out shoot that conglomeration of parts, just because of the stock.

[MrMurphy]

Grizz, since the M14 is effectively based on a 1936 design, there's no easy way to scope one. I know, I've tried, and spent much of a year working through every single possible variety for a dozen or two guys (who 'did' have M14's issued) heading to Afghanistan and Iraq.


The two real solutions are 1. Smith Enterprises and 2. ARMS Inc.

Smith works, though it requires usually using an AR-type mount 'backwards' over the action for correct eye relief. I used to recommend the Smith mount with the LaRue LT104 or LT139, any similar mount would likely work, though the huge-optic types (anything bigger than 40mm objective) might not clear.


ARMS can work. Problem is, it's ARMS. They break. All the time. You can rely on them to. Friend of mine, first tour in Afghanistan had an ARMS mount literally shatter while simply driving around (they were not in contact) and his scope fell off his M4. Not exactly warm fuzzy making. I refuse to use ARMS products because they have a well known rep for breaking, losing zero, etc.

They do make one of the few 'other' options, but the Smith mount is far superior.

There's a few others out there, but those two tend to work the best.

If you're not going for a magnified scope, you can use a fore-arm type mount like the Ultimak rail. That would let you mount an Aimpoint or other red dot type, or say a fixed 2X Scout scope, and effectively. Those are really hard to screw up. But the over-the-action traditional scopes are very hard to mount effectively on an M14.

The side-of-the-action mounts exist, but I've never seen one hold up well in use, which is why Smith made theirs.

For handiness, the 18" tends to work well without lighting drapes on fire across a room with muzzle blast.

[OldWin]

Mr Murphy,
As you mentioned, it's hard to effectively mount a conventional scope on the rifle and I don't care to have the action covered.
I chose to use the Ultimak on my scout/squad in place of the factory mount. It's lower and doesn't draw heat like the factory mount.
As the owner of several scout rifles, I like this concept. I use an Aimpoint T1 or a 2x scout scope on the Ultimak.

[2ndovc]

WHAT????? is that in the lower left corner????

That is Jackson my Rat Terrier. Best alarm system I've ever had, ten pounds of pure terror!

jb

[Remington40x]

During the recent excitement over firearms regulation, I finally acquired my first ever semi-automatic rifle. It was a Springfield Armory M1A (the "loaded" version with the walnut stock). I'm extremely happy with it and find it much more in keeping with my idea of an EBR than the M-16 variants, if only because of the 7.62x51 chambering. It doesn't have all that extra stuff on it, but it's sufficient for my purposes and allowed me to scratch the EBR itch.

That all being said, I still think that if I had to bug out with only one rifle, it would be my late father's early 1950s Winchester Model 94, which is about the best combination of portability and ease of carry with power I own. Plus, I just like lever action rifles better than all others, with the exception of double rifles, which are neither affordable nor easily fed.

[AJMD429]

How do you mount a scope on a standard M1A?

Dunno if you mean it has to be in the 'non-scout' position, but I got a nicely made aluminum replacement handguard (my gun had the nice walnut stock but crappy looking fiberglass handguard they use, so I wanted to replace it anyway). The one I got has a rail on top so a scout scope can be mounted securely. I forget the details but it secures with some screw/clamp arrangement to it doesn't move about.

I can post a picture if that is something you'd be interested in.

[Grizz]

Thanks for the offer Doc. I saw a scout set up on one of the pictures. I've decided to pass on that Springfield and keep watching. I'm with the guys who respect the 7.62 nato round. I'll see what comes along. Still aiming to freak out the retards.

Grizz

[AJMD429]

Thanks for the offer Doc. I saw a scout set up on one of the pictures. I've decided to pass on that Springfield and keep watching. I'm with the guys who respect the 7.62 nato round. I'll see what comes along. Still aiming to freak out the retards.

I like your attitude.

I've always thought the 7.62/308 was a "man's gun" even though I truly enjoy the 5.56/223, and if I had to deal with Zombies I still might grab an AR-15 of some sort. However, if something serious needs 'thumped', the M1A or Garand immediately comes to mind, along with the 1911 in 45 ACP (instead of a '92 in 9mm). I guess that means I'm getting old...