Video: The Legendary M1A — Springfield Armory

M1A Rifle

Recently, The Shooter’s Log reported on the release of M1 rifles (Initial Release and Ordering Update) to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). Several readers left comments regarding price, availability, and quality. As opposed to new, the M1s from the CMP are pieces of history. Many of those M1s will be scooped up by collectors, other buyers have intentions such as home defense or competition. Whatever your intention, the M1 has been serving Americans since it replaced the M1903 Springfield in the 1930s, and saw service into Vietnam. Later, the M1 was replaced by the select fire M14. For those who want a new M1A—the civilian version of the M14—Springfield’s Master Gunsmiths are on the job. See what goes into building an M1A and check out Springfield’s limited time offer to get three free additional magazines with a purchase of a new M1A.

From 1959 to 1970 the M14 served with distinction as the standard-issue rifle of the United States military. When Springfield Armory in Geneseo, IL made the civilian legal variant—the M1A—available to the public in 1974, shooters were finally able to enjoy the same rifle that so many servicemen had utilized in the past.

The Standard Series is a faithful semi-auto only recreation of the original M14. Keep in mind that the Standard M1A is as well suited for a day at the range as it is for filling that special place in your military collection. All the design features that the Armed Services found essential for a battle rifle make the Standard M1A a great shooter. The windage and elevation-adjustable rear sight minimizes the effort required to zero the rifle. The two-stage military trigger, detachable box magazine, op-rod, and roller cam bolt call to mind the rich history of the M1A while providing functional ease of operation and legendary reliability.

You may be looking for a special addition to your collection, or you may be looking for a hard-working rifle that will pull duty on the range, in the treestand, or from your truck. The Standard M1A is ready for its next mission—are you up to the challenge?


Springfield M1A
Caliber 7.62X51MM NATO (.308WIN)
Length 44.33″
Front Sight National Match .062″ Blade
Barrel 22″; Twist 1:11″; RH; 6-Groove Carbon Steel
Weight 9.3 lbs.
Rear Sight Military Aperture .0690 w/ MOA Adjustment For Both Windage and Elevation
Magazines one 10-Round, Parkerized Steel
Stock Highlander Camo Composite
MSRP $1,704

Did you serve with the M1 or M14? Do you shoot an M1 for competition, plinking, hunting, or another cause? Share your answers in the comment section.

The Mission of Cheaper Than Dirt!'s blog, The Shooter's Log, is to provide information—not opinions—to our customers and the shooting community. We want you, our readers, to be able to make informed decisions. The information provided here does not represent the views of Cheaper Than Dirt!

Comments (70)

    1. @ auggie.

      Get the British-made FAL (i.e. L1A1) it was built to use Imperial Units and not Metric Units. The additional weight, absorbs much of the Recoil…

    1. Henry: Of course, you’re right. But the article is about the M1A, and I figured that those who read these are pretty savvy shooters (like yourself) and would know the difference. BTW: My M1A is actually designated as the M1A-A1 – what Springfield called the shorter 18″ barrel “Tanker” model (aka “Bush Rifle”), (basically, what they call the “Scout” today, but with a wood stock, which I prefer), and was originally intended for carrying by tank crews (hense, its name). I think this is the model that some Special Forces units used. Kinda interesting. My M1A-A1 is a dandy rifle, which I like only slightly better than the M1 Garand (which I trained with in the Service). I do prefer its platform (the same platform as the M1 Garand, M1 carbine, and Mini-14), more than the AK or AR platforms. I don’t have a Mini-30 but have seen it in action, and it seems to be a nice rifle also – looks much like the Mini-14 only slightly larger and in a more potent caliber (7.62×39).

  1. There were very few models of the American made Garands made in .308. I want to say they were made for the Navy for some reason.

    Then someone came up with an adapter to change the caliber from 30.06 to .308.

    The a it worked one inserted the adapter into the chamber and fired a blank round to seat the adapter. If you acquire a new to you M-1 Garand CONGA-RATS! If it is in .308 have a competent gunsmith check it out and see IF it is an original in .308 or has the adapter…….BEFORE you fire it. The adapters have had some issues failing…..cracking or some other potential catastrophic failures.

    IF someone is interested in building their own M-1 Garand, one can order complete parts kits and other parts.
    You can find several other firearm kits to build various firearms. You will have to get the frame/receiver from someone with an FFL license…..

    One more question on the FNL/SLR ( I think it is called.)It is .308 Rifle the British used for man years…… you can find complete parts kits for them ….. the trouble is with which receiver you get either centimeter or inch……
    I have heard some nasty things about the rifle BUT it was used for so many years and is probably still used in parts of Africa.
    So…..anyone familiar with the rifle and its quirks?

    1. I revived rather extensive expierance with the FN/FLR some years ago, I found it to accurate, a stable an ergonomic platform, easily maintained in the field, and very reliable in extreme field conditions. I is a heavy rifle but well suited to field use. It’s weight is a plus when operated in the full auto mode but it shines in semi auto at any .308 engagement envelope. With optics employed and in the hands of a LD marksman it has excellent accucery and repeatable shot placement. There is a “heavy” barrel version I understand that has a reputation for “bolt” action accucery. Hope this is helpful.
      It ranks with other iconic battle rifles that have made there way into civilian use such as the M1A, 1903A3, AR’s, AK’s and is rebound in the Dark Continant as the African Rifle.

    2. Strongly disagree on any FAL being equal in any way to the M1A or the M14 .I have had several FAL rifles .They are made of stamped metal ,heavy ,very clunky and rattly and has lots of play in the design .The M1A along with the old M14 are precision rifles when set up right and in the hands of the right shooter and the actions are very tight and solid .And is far more accurate then the FAL rifle by far especially beyond 300 meters and out . Not that the FAL did not serve its purpose nor was the design bad but very outdated and not a precision type rifle as most M1A rifles are out of the box .JMHO.

    3. Thanks….I have always loved the weapon looked and always wanted one or more versions..

      I know that the rifle had to work, be reliable, accurate. in order to survive for so long…..From what I take on the History of the “African Rifle”….It has been around since sometime in the 1950s IF I recall correctly.
      I found some info on the rifle here and why it was being put down…… it is due to the one being “home built”…..and the factor made rifles have none of the issues.

      I would still love to own one eventually ….. preferring one of the heavy barrels MAYBE…….

      Thank you for the information………all info and help is/are greatly appreciation!

      IF you will allow me to use a wiki site…. the FN/FAL was in a US Government test against the M-14/M1-A in the 1950s. The US Choose the M-14 over the FN/FAL……. The FN/FAL saw production all over the World and saw action in at least 90 Countries.

    4. It lost out to the M14 because the M14 is the far better rifle then any FAL hands down,then they got stupid and went to the M16 and have struggled to replace it for the last 5 decades but they keep on using the POS AR platform .No matter how much the troops complain about it’s lack of power or its proven lack of . .

  2. Anyone know about the Italian version of the M-14/M-1A that was imported in the mid 90s or maybe earlier…… I cannot recall their designation something like BR-59 ? IF I recall correctly there was the full size version and a smaller version….. value to a dealer was around $350-$450 or somewhere in that range…..
    M-1 Garands started around $225.00 and went up in price depending on the grade…….

  3. TomC and your Doppler Keep your insults to yourselves and I could not possibly care any less!
    I could not possibly care any less about either of you and your attacks.

    Both of you suffer from a serious attack of Stupid.
    I am a Veteran and love to see WANNABEES SHOW their BS.
    PERSONALLY I do not care anything about your attempted insults!
    Do Both of us a favor You leave me alone and KNOW I have no interest in Dancing with you!…….AT LEAST I HOPE YOU REALIZE and LEAVE ME THE F**K ALONE!!!
    Have a NICE DAY!

  4. The mini-14 is basically a scale model of the M14. To scale it up to .308 they would basically have to produce a full size M14 — which, of course, they could do but it wouldn’t have been a “mini” anything.

    And before the trolls jump in, yes, I know they could have produced perhaps a “midi-14” somewhat smaller than the M14, but it would still have been bigger than the Mini.

    It’s not just a matter of making the receiver a quarter-inch longer and the bore a hair more than 2mm wider — to keep the mechanical design the same, any rifle using that design and firing .308 would have been bigger than the Mini-14. Most likely Ruger decided that there simply wasn’t enough market for an Almost-14 rifle.

    1. Well said TOM C just as an example just look at the M1 Garand and the .30 M1 Carbine pretty much operate the same and are very similar in design in many ways as well as different .If it had fired the same .06 the Garand did or even the .45 ACP which i know was not the concept or reason for building it of course just saying it would have had to haVE been made larger killing the purpose of building it .However i think if ruger experimented at present time with a .308 cal ruger mini 14 type design platform the Ruger .308 carbine i would call it it may catch on and fly off the shelves as the .308 has surged in popularity for sporting ,hunting ,and defensive purposes .

    2. Another reason i say exactly now is the time for RUGER maybe to consider a 20 round RUGER .308 CARBINE with wood or polymer stock options and a scout rail like the NEW RUGER RANCH bolt action scout guide rifle .It has done very well on the open market .Just imagine a ruger mini 14 style but in .308 it will be a tad larger but still in scout rifle type platform . And i think with a detachable 20 round mag option would fly off the shelves of all gun stores . I wish i were a machinist still and had the tooling to do it i would myself work on a design of a ruger .308 semi auto scout carbine of my own .IT WOULD SELL .

    3. @ Damian.

      Not a Ruger, but may fulfill your needs. Pathan 44-Bore (AK-type) in 7.92×33 kurz. Available through Khyber Pass Firearms, Distributor within the US is Atlantic Firearms. They may or may not be able to get it…

    4. @secondius,
      Are you speaking of the new STG-44 style rifles? Yes i want 1 in original 7.92 kurz but not at the price they are asking lol.Can buy 2 NM MIA’S for what the price tag is on those new STG rifles .

    5. I have a M1A (.308), a mini-14 (.223), a M1 Carbine (.30), and trained (and shot “Expert”) with the M1 Garand (.30-06), and all are perfect just the way they are. Well, except that the M1 Garand could have been made with a high-capacity box magazine instead of the 8-round stripper clip that loudly “dings” when it spits it out after the last round is fired. Oh, that’s right, they did, and they called it the M1A!

    6. Actually they did make an M1 Garrand, in .308, with a 20 round box magazine — but they called it the BM-59 (the B stood for Beretta, who built them) and 59 was the year they were adopted by the Italian Army and Navy.

      By the way, done properly reloading an M1 is as quick or quicker than reloading an M14 (the real name for the M1A)

    7. You are right on all counts: About the quickness of reloading of the M1 Garand and the M1A (I know first-hand, and assuming the clips and mags are pre-loaded), but you still end up with 8 rounds in the Garand (which is a fabulous rifle), verses 20 rounds in the M1A (an equally fabulous rifle), and no “ding” with the M1A. Although the Garand may have a slight edge because of the slightly more potent .30-06 round (at least at very long ranges). I do remember the Beretta version in .308, but heard at the time there were some problems with it. And, of course, we all know the M14 is the select-fire military rifle. while the M1A is the semi-auto civilian version.

    8. I have a winchester M1 carbine i will probably never part with along with my SA garand both are 43 dated .

    9. Although not the potent .308 (7.62×51), Ruger makes a .30 caliber rifle known as the Mini-30 (in 7.62×39 – the same caliber as the AK-47, which has ballistics similar to the .30-30 Win.), and has the same basic platform as the Mini-14, only a little larger. With its ballistics close to .30-30 ballisics, the Mini-30, would probably make a good rifle for hunting or defense. Having shot my .30-30 quite a bit (a model ’94 carbine), and being very familiar with the basic platform (M1, M1A, Mini-14), I believe the Ruger Mini-30 in 7.62×39 would probably be up to the task.

  5. Curious….. Has anyone handled an AR-10 AND the M-1A and actually compared them by putting them through their paces???

    Anyone have a Ruger Mini-14 and HOPES Ruger would make one in .308 Winchester/ 7.62 NATO?

    1. Some years back Ruger released an ad/statement telling the public they were going to market the Mini-14 in 7.62 mm Nato/.308 Win. Unfortunately, it didn’t happen, there were problems with it and so produced it in 7.62x39mm.
      Hope that helps.

    2. YES and i thought the AR-10 was junk but i own a few M1A’S and a SA Garand and winchester M1 carbine . I just last yr purchased the new SOCOM CQB M1A with 16.25 “barrel .The rifle shocked me for a short .308 barrel caliber rifle it was effective out to 500 meters with my leatherwood LER scope and with my EOTECH halo sight i almost never missed at 200 meters and it has the recoil of a standard AK but the firepower of the .308 the archangel stock could be better but i plan to desert camo it and get some M14 wood for it for the range you just cannot go wrong with the M1A in my book .Many do not like the CQM SOCOM but as a former Army CAV troop i think it is a great CQB rifle and will go out to 500 meters and more if needed .Stay away from the old AR-10 i say JMHO.

  6. @Damian — You must be F’ing kidding!! “Our riflemen are the best in the world…” What country do you come from? Perhaps Switzerland – but damn well not the USA. I love my country and I served the US military both in uniform and as a civilian training specialist for over four decades. The US Army has not seriously taught rifle marksmanship to regular soldiers (including infantrymen) in more years than anyone has been on active duty. (We abandoned teaching rifle marksmanship very shortly after we abandoned giving them real rifles.) We do have a handful of elite riflemen who are among the best in the world, but as an overall military force we have riflemen who can hit anything beyond 250m only by accident armed with a close quarter battle carbine that is basically ineffective beyond that range. The Marine Corps does a little better at teaching rifle marksmanship but have chosen to saddle most of their riflemen with the same problems as the Army.

  7. @Hind Behind

    What Army were you in?
    I never had a problem with the M-14!
    With open sights, I could hit what I was shooting at out to 600 yards.
    SF, Seals, Marines & Army still are using them today!

    1. I could do the same with the M16-A1 with open sights – and as fast as I could pull the trigger.

      However, if we went to war, I would much rather carry my 30-06. Much more ammo – FMJ, Tracers, AP, API, AP w/CS crystals, etc
      Alittle more damage is some times needed in war, especially since 90% or more will be carrying AR’s.
      Semper Fi

  8. OPINIONS ARE LIKE BUTTHOLES ,EVERYONE HAS 1 PAL .I love my SOCOM CQB guess it is the man operating said rifle the 1 i have is a great close quarters rifle out to 500 meters with my Leatherwood LER scope it hits steel all day and with my EOTECH HALO i almost never miss my target at 200 meters . It is not made for sniping it is made to stop LAV’S and to bust through concrete walls which it will with ease .AK’S are ugly as hell but been effective for near 75 yrs now .Not about looks when you need power ,accuracy ,and wall busting power .And i duracoated my stock desert camo looks great to me and all who see it at range .

  9. LOL that is the dumbest thing i have ever heard of @Hide Behind lol c mon man i have never heard of 1 instance of an M14 OR M1A wood stock breaking while diving to the ground TOTAl BS AND I HATED MY M4 WHEN SERVING IN THE army cav .And they started breaking out the old M14’S and putting optics on them for longer range in the deserts of the ME because our M4’S AND M16A2’S were crap past 300 meters in those conditions so you are full of BS and doubt you ever held or shot a real SA M1A or the M14.The plastic AR rifles should be for rear end troops in M4 platform such as the old M1 .30 CARBINE did in ww2 and korea along with the vietnam conflicts.Besides that it is crap for knock down power on HAJI’S and crap for past 300 meters for effectiveness.

  10. @ TomC.

    Technically not true! The “NRA Museum” has one M1A Semi-Automatic Rifle and one M1A Scout Rifle! Unless they were “Gift Donations”…

    1. @Secundius – to the best of my knowledge, all the modern firearms in the NRA Museum are donations – mostly from the manufacturers, occasionally from importers, distributors, collectors, or interested members.

  11. It is the CMP (Civilian Marksmanship Program) that sells used military weapons to the public, not the NRA.

  12. Lots of B’S out there , rifle was heavy, had a weak spot on stock that could break if grunt hit rifle but. First to cushion fall or dive, good round but military ammo at that time was notoriously pure an. As to quality control,
    He’ll when have not military Industrial, in cahoots with crooked military brass and politicos not ripping off public.
    Now accuracy, no different then than today 99% of military are piss poor shooters and sure as he’ll not riflemen, and the M14 as it came was no more accurate than military required 4 inches@ 100 and not all m-14 would do even that.
    The army lied so much about marksmanship, DI lifers just putting in time,, at 100 they passed blind men who the f cared about 200-300, but for the Marines.
    Had to Buy a m-14 National Match, not therein of mill Springfield sold, and had to tune rifle and ammo for it.

    1. @HideBehind — if you think anyone ever broke an M14 stock while diving to the ground you must know some guys who were 800 pound infantrymen. And, of course, you must have never seen the plastic and alloy toy that replaced it. I was at Fort Jackson the first time a company of Basic Trainees tried doing the Horizontal Butt Stroke with M16 rifles — just about the only ones who DIDN’T break the receiver were the ones who completely missed the wood post.

    2. TomC

      Trainees tried doing the Horizontal Butt Stroke with M16 rifles — just about the only ones who DIDN’T break the receiver were the ones who completely missed the wood post..”

      Broke thee RECIECVER???? The Upper or the Lower??? I can see breaking the stock……….. But I cannot understand how one breaks the RECIECVER , ESPECIALLLY MIL SPEC T-XXXX Aluminum ……

    3. Yes the RECEIVER, not the stock. Take a closer look at an M16 — or any “mil-spec” AR. The weakest point is NOT the stock itself, the weakest point is the lower receiver where the buffer tube screws in.

      Hold an M16 (or any AR with a full fixed stock) with the hand guard in your left hand, and your right hand on top of the stock just behind the receiver. Starting with the rifle in about the port arms position, Use your left hand as the pivot point to swing the rifle up and forward with all the strength of your right arm, aiming to strike the side of the enemy’s head with the toe of the stock. CRUNCH! Unfortunately that crunching noise is the buffer tube ripping out of the threaded part of the lower receiver.

      I don’t know if they are making buffer tubes weaker now – I do know they are NOT making the lower receiver any heavier or stronger and I know that they stopped bayonet drills with the M16 rifles at Fort Jackson the day the first company training with M16s tried it. The current manual still has the butt stroke but the procedure is different (although I’d still be leery of counting on it).

    4. I can see where something had to give and it would be the buffer tube breaking/cracking off…..Did the receiver break right where it was threaded into the receiver or as further into the receiver.
      I saw the remains of an M-16 that fell around 30 feet when the sling came loose. The guy had reported to the Armory for over a month so he was not in any trouble……

      We had what now MIGHT be considered an M-4 then again MAYBE NOT but we called it a GAU……it had a metal Aluminum collapsible stock. something I have not seen in many ears…….It had the 4 inch flash suppressor……
      I have a 4 inch Stainless Steel flash suppressor with a bayonet lug to put on a Mini-14 Ranch…..just a matter of finding time and proper tools to put it on. the again I might just leave it as it is.
      BTW Thank you for the reply and info!

    5. On the M16’s that were broken doing a Horizontal Butt Stroke, I only got a good look at one of them before they were all hauled away for examination. That one the stock was partly off the buffer tube, the buffer tube was bent, the rear of the upper receiver was partly bent & partly stripped where the buffer tube had been ripped out at an angle. At that time (1968) I was a private who had just finished basic on hold waiting for orders to AIT. I had never handled an M16 because we trained with the M14 during my cycle so at the time I didn’t know what any of the parts were called.

      We were the last cycle at Fort Jackson who trained entirely on the M14. The other companies that started after we did, trained with the M14 but were given M16s when they arrived at the rifle range, then they cleaned and turned in the M16 after firing and carried their M14s back to the cantonment area. The next cycle after mine at our battalion was the first cycle that got issued M16s for all of basic.

      And, yes from 1969 into the mid-1970’s the military had a number of various experimental shorter rifles based on the M16. The Army bought some from Colt that were marked CAR-15 or XM-something that had various length short barrels and collapsing stocks. I believe the GAU numbering system started with the Air Force who also bought some various shortened versions for aircrews. The assortment of shortened M16 “carbines” eventually led to the adoption of the M4.

    6. An M16 receiver can easily be broken because it does have one major weak spot in the front takedown pin area. It has two flanges/projections in front of the holes where the pin is inserted.

    7. @HIDE BEHIND,
      More total BS our riflemen are the best in the world and that has been proven over n over again .All of our infantry troopers or marines are crack shots and decorated marksmen when they grad from boot camp you are a pure poser i am starting to fully believe that now just by reading that single post you made .And i will face off with you with my M1A and your choice of semi auto weapon at the 500 meter line and shoot circles around most anything of semi auto design you show up with all day long .STOLEN VALOR IS A CRIME YA KNOW and i think you are nothing but a liar .srry JMHO.

  13. While in the Corps I was armed with the M-1, then the BAR and the M-14 with the selector switch to replace the BAR. I honestly must say I was pleased and confident of all three, although I must admit I considered it a blessing to turn in the 20 lb. BAR for the 9 lb. M-14!

  14. I just read your article on the M1A being part of the CMP program! I was just wondering what the price will be when I complete the program and shooting test! Thanks again for your help and responses!!! Jeff

    1. @Jeff, the M1A is not, never has been, and never will be “part of the CMP program” — I’m not sure where you think you got that but it wasn’t from the article here.

  15. I was drafted in July of 1968 and ended up on Tank Hill B-!-! Fort Jackson. It was there I was introduced to my friend..the M-14. We ate slept and even showered with it. We learned to care for her and even shoot her.

    I left for Vietnam in Feb. of the following year and was issued another. I did love that rifle, even though it was heavy and carrying all the ammo was an issue LOL. Later our unit was notified that we were to be issued the NEW and IMPROVED M-16. I held out as long as I could to hold onto that M14 but they actually had to come to me to take it away and give me Mattie Mattel. I missed her. Excellent rifle the M-14. I do want to purchase one to add to my list of “Vietnam Era” rifles that I own. I have, and reload, plenty of ammo to feed her. I also own and shoot a DPMS Oracle LR-308.

    1. Gary, I bought a surplus M-14 stock for my M1A about three years ago and if I remember correctly I either got it from Gun Parts Corp. or Sarco…I can’t remember which. It cost me under $30 + shipping and came with the metal insert and has the selector switch cutout. It’s in dire need of refinishing but it will look great when done…anything is better than the black composite stock it came with. (you did mean the M1A, correct?)

  16. I was issued the M14 in the summer of 1962 as a Marine, but our rifles were semi auto only. I never saw a full auto M14. My understanding was that they were very hard to control. Sometimes on training courses we would be issued M1’s for the day, because they didn’t want us to break the new rifles. As issued the upper plastic hand guard was not very durable. The M1’s we were issued for the training days were worn out and usually jammed after three rounds, I see M1As on the rifle range a lot. Saw two yesterday, one with a wood stock and the other had a fiberglass ? stock.

  17. Being a “Wheelchair Driver”, I prefer a “Bullpup Configuration” for easier handling. I already have a Bullpup in .30-06 that uses BAR Magazines…

  18. I have the new M1A socom CQB model it has the recoil of a standard AK in .308 win/7.62 N with the SA designed muzzle brake and is a lotta power in 1 persons hands in a combat situation and probably the best CQB rifle on the civie market if the SHTF .It would be my go to rifle .

    1. The “SOCOM” model was Springfield’s way of proving that you could start with a good rifle, that was a thing of beauty — keep all its flaws, replace all its good parts, and make the ugliest piece of mall ninja tactikool crap imaginable.

  19. The NRA bought all of the M1As for ONE USD $1.00 Bill….OR was that ONE USD $ per rifle? either way one Hell of a Mark up!

    Making a profit is ONE THING, But they gang banged and gangraped
    anyone that paid the NRA’s MARK UP on them!
    That was one of the things that turned me AGAINST the NRA!
    I took my money elsewhere…….UNTIL the recent school shooting un Florida……..The students wanting to BAN the AR-15 are being led by someone….perhaps George Soros, Bloomberg,….etc.
    Now I do like other things the NRA has done….. but for the first time in many years I decided I am going to join the NRA.
    I have not changed my mind about what the NRA did to Veterans and the M-1A…….The NRA should have given Veterans DIBS/First Option and let them have them at cost of say $100.00 USD!
    Years ago late 80’s early 90s I had a friend with an FFL and I could have purchased M-1 (AND I MEANT TO ORDER SEVERAL) for $220.00 for standard and $250.00 or maybe more for a SELECT grade.
    Unfortunately I never did get to order them……

    So how much is the NRA going to soak everyone for these M-1 Garands and these 1911s?
    Perhaps it is OK with a lot of members that think it is fair to everyone
    for the NRA to increase and make such a profit ESPECIALLY from Veterans!!
    Don’t ever count me as One of them.
    Most likely I will get flamed for such an attitude. Go ahead, I earned the Right and Title to be called a Veteran… did many others of untold numbers in here did….It is just my idea of what is FAIR and RIGHT!

    1. @Yosemite — I’m not sure exactly what you are jabbering about, and obviously neither are you. Your babble isn’t even a good grade of trolling because everyone here knows that everything in your ranting nonsense is total crap.

      1. The NRA never bought or sold M1A rifles

      2. The NRA has NOTHING to do with the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP) which is who sells the government M1 rifles and will be selling some M1911 pistols later this year or next year.

      3. And to be clear, the CMP also never bought or sold any M1A rifles.

    2. Hey moron the NRA is NOT selling rifles! The CMP, a government corporation is. Get your story straight before flaming the NRA, the ONLY people protecting OUR rights!! You should be flamed for being such an idiot!!

      No need for you to be such a rabid mouth jerk POS!
      I read the article years ago, so I might have made a mistaken then again maybe YOU DID!!!
      Then there is post from TomC. what do you have to say about him and his post?


      March 24, 2018 at 7:40 pm | #

      @Jeff, the M1A is not, never has been, and never will be “part of the CMP program” — I’m not sure where you think you got that but it wasn’t from the article here.

      So Jackass which of us is wrong???

    4. @Yosemite: Are you that stupid or just an illiterate troll?

      Apparently besides not being able to recognize the difference between the CMP and the NRA, you are obviously unable to comprehend that there the M1, and the M1A are totally different rifles.

      The M1 was a military rifle, some of which have been and still are being sold by the Civilian Marksmanship Program (CMP). These rifles have nothing to do with the M1A or the NRA. The NRA does not build or sell rifles.

      The M14 was a military rifle, originally withdrawn from active US military service about 1967-1969, a few of which have been put back in active military use to make up for the failings of the M16/M4 “rifles”. ALL military M14 rifles are legally machine guns, a very small number of real M14 rifles did make it into the National Firearms Act registry being legally owned by civilians but no more real M14 rifles will ever reach civilian hands.

      The M1A is Springfield Armory’s semiautomatic copy of the M14 rifle. They chose to call their semiauto version the M1A so that they could trademark the name preventing any other company from using that name. ONLY Springfield Armory makes M1A rifles. The M1A is not identical to the military M14, but it is very similar and most military M14 parts will fit on the M1A.

      Several other companies made semiautomatic copies of the M14 which are basically the same design as the M1A. Most (perhaps all) of these companies call their version an M14 even though it is not really the same as the military M14 (as mentioned earlier, these other companies cannot call their rifles an M1A). These other “M14” rifles vary in quality from the Chinese Norinco rifles (no longer able to be imported into the US) to the James River Armory rifles built on Bula Defense forged receivers. There are also a handful of small builders and gunsmiths who build or modify precision versions of these rifles.

      I realize that Yosemite obviously cannot read or comprehend the above explanation (just as he cannot read or comprehend anything else here) but hopefully this will clarify a few points for those who can read and comprehend English.

    5. @Jozef
      Yes, Yosemite is an idiot
      and, yes, EVERYTHING in his rant is total fiction

      BUT NO, the NRA is NOT “the only people protecting our rights” They are just the best known and unfortunately the best funded of several organizations supporting our firearm rights.

      I say “unfortunately” the best funded because of the FACT that every single anti-gun piece of legislation passed by Congress in the last 50 years passed with the support and blessing of the NRA… And, of course, recently the NRA has moved from its long-standing position of supporting anti-gun legislation as a so-called compromise, to actually PROPOSING anti-gun legislation (I hope you do remember the NRA statement calling for a ban on bump stocks after the Las Vegas shooting – Yes it was “our” NRA that first proposed a ban on bump stocks!) Just as the NRA actively supported the so-called Assault Weapons Ban and has actively supported EVERY other piece of anti-gun legislation passed by the US congress in the past 50 years.

    6. @Josef

      I got the info years ago sometime in the late 70s -early 80s…..
      THAT is all I can tell YOU and ANONE Else about it. Perhaps someone old enough to remember those days can find out more about it.

      As for the NRA and the banning “Bump-Stocks” does nothing but take money from the people making and selling them.
      One can do the same with a rubber band or a piece of string……. I don’t approve of EVERYTTHING the NRA has done……certainly they have done A LOT of Good!
      BUT the are not the only ones and
      at least I am spending money supporting ANti-2nd legislation
      I contact my Congress and Senate Critters every time I am notified of impending/upcoming legislation.
      You have no reason to start crap with me unless you just want to prove your a Know It all and never make mistakes. and all round general braggart Wannabee Pogue. But that is our business and none of mine nor m care!
      Have a Great Life and keep Fighting The Good Fight

  20. I used the M1 Garand at the end of grunt training. Our company also had fun with the BAR.Full auto with the BAR was kick ass.When I was in Nam. I saw an Arvan solider try to shoot a BAR from his hip.Let me say when he fired different actions took place.Bar went one direction his 82 Igear went another way and he went a different way.I used the M14 rifle good weapon.The only problem was the weight.Then we were blessed with AR 15 or was it called the M16.Either way it was a piece of s—.

  21. Whoever said the M14 replaced the M3 & M3A1 SMGs is crazy. The M3 & M3A1 were both still in active use decades after the M14 was originally pulled from active service.

    He is right that “there are still companies in the United States that can put that much effort into building a product” — but I’m not at all sure that Springfield Armory is one of them.

    1. I carried the M-14A during the Viet Nam Conflict and outside of the weight of the weapon and ammo for it I loved shooting it and even with open military sights I qualified as a sharpshooter by firing the different yardages of 200, 300, and 500 metters

    2. I trained with the M-14 in basic at Fort Benning, summer of 1969. Great rifle! I shot high Sharpshooter in my first time using the weapon. With a little more training and one-on-one, I could easily have scored Expert with the rifle. It is that good and that accurate, even when using a weapon that had been through many trainees before me. If my drill sergeant ever found out that I no longer know the serial number of my piece, I would be in BIG trouble. “Sir, the M-14 is a gas operated, semi-automatic rifle that fires a 147 grain….” Knew the weapon well. It is my favorit to shoot 50 years later.

    3. It was the Army training film for the M14 that said it would replace the M13 submachine gun.
      Springfield Armory doesn’t make firearms, all their firearms are made by outside vendors!

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Your discussions, feedback and comments are welcome here as long as they are relevant and insightful. Please be respectful of others. We reserve the right to edit as appropriate, delete profane, harassing, abusive and spam comments or posts, and block repeat offenders. All comments are held for moderation and will appear after approval.

Discover more from The Shooter's Log

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading