M1A thread

>>31056600
>Mistake
That's for you to decide once you fire XXX rounds through it

>Will it last?
It will last as long as you're willing to make it. Take care of it properly, and it will take care of you. Maybe you'll be able to hand it down to your kids.

idk on accuracy or quality, you could probably find a few reviews and breakdowns of it on googlechan

>>31056600
>Are they really as accurate and well built as everyone says?
No, it's a very open action that lets shit in there to cause the weapon to malfunction, also it's no more accurate than anything else, and less inherently accurate than the AR design.

File: Polytech M1A 2.jpg (915KB, 1508x880px) Image search: [Google]

915KB, 1508x880px

>>31056667

>>31056600
just buy a quality ar-15 or a quality ar-10 if you want a .308 rifle that badly.

springfield armory is a shit company.

>>31056600
You'll be fine. M1A haters are invariably manlets or AR fanboys.

>>31056704
>springfield armory is a shit company.

Citation needed

>>31056600
>Are they really as accurate and well built as everyone says?
theyre marginally less accurate than other battle rifles unless glass bedded and the action is very exposed, making it easier to jam.

>>31056837
>the action is very exposed, making it easier to jam.

Funny how I've never heard this about the Garand

>>31056853
Funny how it doesn't matter what fuddlore you grew up with.

>>31056853
>Funny how I've never heard this about the Garand
thats extremely true with the garand. the m1A action is almost an exact copy of the garand action

>>31056870
The Garand had a reputation to work in all battlefield conditions in every theater of war from Europe, Pacific Islands, Korea, and Vietnam. Both rifleman and Gernal alike loved the Garand and it's an American icon.

Go fuck yourself you lying scumfuck.

>>31056894
>muh fuddlore stronk
Doesn't matter what your hick father told you, it's an open action.

>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mrPjlcJ3rtY
Get fucked corn boy.

>>31056894
what was considered an excellent machine 75 years ago doesnt even compete with the technology of today.

>>31056858
>Implying
I actually didn't grow up with any lore, dumbass. I only know one person directly who owns one and I haven't seen him in a couple years. I have little in the way of information on Garand operation or its mechanics. Maybe instead of being a shitfag on an anonymous train graffiti website, you can rise above and provide your experience for others to learn from.

Faggot.

File: Socom16 ODG.jpg (47KB, 1000x513px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 1000x513px

>>31056922
OP here. Does it really need to compete? Its going to be killing paper targets and deer, not north korea...

>>31056961
i own a garand and most of my collection is milsurp. buy whatever tickles your pecker. i was just answering your question.

>>31056944
>provide my experience
You imbly anecdote means jack shit.

Google it and see it jam and jam and jam again to mud and sand when other rifles keep trucking.

>>31056922
That's not what being argued, yes compared to a modern rifle it's horrible antiquated tactically. Anon thinks that it's a bad rifle because the action design leaves it semi-open and it will jam. Which is why they were not successfully used in the sands of Iwo Jima

>>31056984
>when other rifles keep trucking.

Like which? The FAL? The AK?

>>31056986
it operated well in those conditions compared to other rifles of the time. it does not perform well by the standards of today. it is more open than modern rifles and it will unarguably jam more as a result. if that doesnt bother you or you feel you will never subject that gun to any situation where that could be a concern, then it makes no difference.

>>31056994
See >>31056912
No, it's not a garand, but it's a very similar action.

>>31056894

Yes, Garands were reliable compared to other semi-automatic rifles of the day. A somewhat reliable gun is significantly better than jam-o-matics like the G43, SVT-40, and the weird shit that the Italians were producing.

However, it's significantly less reliable as compared to modern semi-auto 308 rifles. A SCAR 17 or a properly assembled 308 AR will generally be more tolerant of the elements.

>>31056600
Barrel is a little short for deer hunting. You might appreciate the improved velocity and accuracy at longer ranges which a longer barrel would provide. If you're a relatively new shooter, learning on a high power semiauto rifle will almost guarantee you'll develop bad shooting habits and unnecessarily spend too much money on wasted ammo. About the only thing the Springfield M1A SOCOM is great at is looking tacticool -- it's not really a reliable enough iteration of the M14/M1A platform for a SHTF rifle.

You honestly would likely be better off with a solid bolt gun and good scope for it. Put time in at the range learning. You can get a better battle rifle later.

>>31056984
>when other rifles keep trucking
Literally only ARs. AKs, FALs, etc all jam to shit when exposed to a bit of sand or mud.

>>31057104
This OP.
Shooting 308 out of a 16" is handicapping the round, akin to putting a governor on a sports car.
Get a bolt gun in 308 with a 20 inch barrel.
If you're worried about weight while hunting, get a tapered or lightweight barrel, and go quite slow at the range, because as the barrel heats up it will likely lose accuracy.
This is not a concern while hunting, because you're lucky to get 2 shots off before the deer runs away if you miss.
If you're dead set on the M1A action, get an M14 with a longer barrel.

>>31057191
>>31057104
OMG people with helpful suggestions and relevant content on 4chan!

This is OP btw, thank you for the advice. Is there a place where you can like rent or test guns like this before you buy? All the ranges areound me only have ar15s.

>>31057272

I was gonna suggest the ranges. Some have more rifles you can shoot, or if someone you know has said rifle, then take theirs for a test run. Otherwise, rely on Youtube reviews and imagine yourself firing it and if you'd like it.

File: punch.png (29KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 236x236px

>>31056600
>Am I making a mistake by investing in this rifle?

Yes.

>>31056600
>Will it last?

Maybe.

>>31056600
>Are they really as accurate and well built as everyone says?

No one says they are accurate, and they aren't.

>>31056600
The gun will work, but I personally think buying a 16" battlerifle as your very first gun is less than ideal.

I'm guessing you have a lot of expendable income, but in my own opinion, a Ruger Mini-14 in your caliber of choice would do all of the same things fur much less.

It's your money though, and the SOCOM 16 is pretty badass.

>>31056676
>it's a very open action that lets shit in there to cause the weapon to malfunction
True, but it's not like OP is gonna be crawling through the mud of Somme with this thing.

>>31056894
The Pacific was a nightmare for almost every gun there, high humidity and volcanic sand does not a happy rifle make, the M1 suffered like all the other guns there.

It did fine in Europe because it wasn't a sopping wet trench war that time around.

>>31056944
So you don't have the personal experience or even a proper anecdote? You're just gonna argue "because" ?

>>31056961
You could probably take on N.Korea with a break barrel airgun tbhfam

>>31057104
>Barrel is a little short for deer hunting
It should be enough.

File: mini-14s.jpg (58KB, 825x408px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 825x408px

>>31057962
Pic related, a Mini-14 for reference.

It'd have a similar action, but it's lighter, cheaper and easier to shoot than a SOCOM16, it also has 30rd magazines available (though personally, I prefer 20rd mags for their lower clearance).

Also available in 7.62x39mm and .300BLK if you want that.

>>31057272
>All the ranges areound me only have ar15s.
Just for the sake of arguing, you could reliably take deer with an AR15.

>>31056704
But ar a shit

>>31058379
Good post, faggot.

File: 831_M14SA_22_cl_GI_Walnut.jpg (57KB, 831x324px)

57KB, 831x324px

>>31056600

go with the classic Nam look, OP

>>31056667
>>31056680
Omg my dick

>>31056600
Get the M1A Scout instead!

>>31059764
If he wants to hunt deer he might want something easier to scope. The SOCOM and Scout Squad variants have integral rails. The full size requires advanced fuckery to mount an optic.

File: il_570xN.548039242_jqnp.jpg (141KB, 570x760px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 570x760px

>>31060763

>>31056600
Its battle tested thats all you need to know. get one with a forged receiver and it will last forever.

>>31057962
>mini-14
why would you tell him to buy one of the most inaccurate rifles made as his first gun? and he already said he's going to be hunting with it.

File: tiger034web.jpg (57KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x480px

>>31059764
if you get lucky you can get a nice tiger striped walnut and you can make it look like this.

>>31056600
m1a sucks, get a real m14

Springfield M1a rifles are allergic to dust. even a small amount will cause major malfunctions. Piece of shit unless you just want it for an expensive range toy.

File: db3y9ar.png (107KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

107KB, 500x500px

>>31064134
>get a real m14

Buy the M1A OP. Its an excellent firearm.

BUT having said that.

For your first rifle, i think you should go with a scoped bolt action and learn to shoot on that. My first rifle was a savage model 11 in .243 winchester. You have a lot of options to choose from if you are looking in the price range of an M1A.

>>31064215
he's kind of right though. springfield's dont even have a forged receiver.

>First gun ever
>Better make it the retard CODkiddy version of the worst battle rifle readily available
Seriously?

>>31064373
>I only own an ar: the post.

>>31064350
not him or anyone else. and both are a stupid idea for a first rifle in IMO but how do jump from 1500 bucks to tens of thousands for a transferable machine gun? especially if hes only kinda right and not even alright.

>>31064420
I'm pretty sure he means buying the civi version of the m-14.

>>31064443
oh, so the m1a

>>31064488
no only springfield armory has m1a's. yes its basically the same gun.

File: 762d15.jpg (57KB, 540x332px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 540x332px

>Springfield M1a

not even once

>>31064585
how much you want to bet this faggot didnt clean the oil out of the barrel before he shot it or loaded his own rounds. this is user malfunction not gun malfunction.

>>31064627
>3 Springfield Schekels have been deposited into your account

>>31056600
I can't comment on reliability as I've only shot one at a range (no issues fwiw) but it was one of the best shooting guns I've ever laid hands on. My friend got it used so I'm not sure how old it is, but it looks fairly new. His has a match barrel as well which probably contributes, but that thing shoots straight as a laser and is massively satisfying to use. That Garand action might not be the most modern system out there, but you fall in love when you chamber the first round.

Gushing aside, it is a really hefty weapon. The Socom is a tad lighter as I recall, but if weight is a concern make sure you get a chance to handle one before you buy and see how it feels. All that weight means it manages recoil well, but it'll wear you out after a while. Overall I think they are fantastic though, and if I could I would buy one right now. I like the Scout version, a little shorter than normal but not as short as the socom.

>>31064707
go back to arguing which console is better on /v/ this hobby doesn't deserve your presence.

>>31064730
good advice. it is a heavy weapon almost 7 pounds with a walnut stock. socom has a short barrel and a composite stock and weighs in at about 5 pounds.

>>31064790
Umm, try closer to 10lbs

>>31064790
>Standard M1a
>7 pounds in a wood stock
>Socom M1a
>5 pounds
Nigga what in the fuck are you smoking? The standard with a walnut stock is just over nine pounds unloaded

to be honest I was guestimating. Its a heavy gun. I didnt break out the scale or anything.

>>31064924
to expnd on that you can shoot this gun all day because it doesnt blow out your shoulder. Its just one of those guns you end up shooting 200 rounds through in a day because its just so fun to shoot.

>>31064585
>>31064488
>>31064443
>>31064215
>>31064134
what is the difference between the m14 and springfield M1A?

>>31064411
>I love buying BRs in shitty configurations
>The Scout? What's that?
Stick to your vidya, dipshit.

>>31064790
>socom has a short barrel and a composite stock and weighs in at about 5 pounds.
You idiot, the SOCOM manages to weigh just as much as a typical M1A (~9 lbs. empty), all while having shittier balance and a retarded proprietary gas block.

>>31065259
basically manufacturer. Springfield was the original manufacturer and created the civi m-14 and called it the m1a. and they hold the rights to the designation. Dont listen to the idiots saying Springfield is garbage. now that being said, springfield doesnt use a forged receiver. to be fair its only needed with an automatic.

>>31065322
>worst battle rifle ever made.
thats why navy seals still use them huh?
>>31065349
read the thread.

>>31065390
Do you even own guns?

>>31065352
That's wrong and retarded.
Current Sprinfield has the trademark for M1A. They had absolutely nothing to do with the military Springfield and never made any parts or rifles for the military.
When the surplus parts dried up they started contracting out the manufacture to other companies. No real way of knowing what QC the parts have now.

>>31065443
except its the same fucking company.

>>31065390
>worst battle rifle ever made.
Yeah, I kinda said worst one readily available (which it is), and if you want to be a dipshit and appeal to authority, the SEALs also used the dogshit ELCAN Specter, and we all know how that thing flies.

If you're a smart person, and you simply need an M1A, you get a standard or a Scout. If you're a retarded moron with more money than sense, you get the SOCOM. That's why it's called the SOCOM. Because it appeals to kids who blindly follow "muh specops" trends without ever looking into it. Like you, really.

>>31065452
Not even him, but you're a fucking idiot.

>>31065452
No it's not.
Sprinfield Armory the military supplier was shut down. A commercial firm started up making M14s then was bought out and the name changed to Springfield Armory.
The current comany has NO ties to the previous.

>>31065457
the goalposts arent even in the same game.
>>31065470
did somebody buy the company that I'm not aware of? you google faggots kill me.

>>31065259
m14 is select fire

>>31065482
going to need a source on that before I believe it.

>>31065457
socoms are cheaper than standards though.

>>31065520
Maybe do some research on your own?
Lee Emerson's "M14 Rifle History and Development"
I was wrong on the name change. It was done to keep the ATF off his back and was before he sold the company.
>The U. S. Army Springfield Armory had closed down in April 1968. During the NRA
National Matches at Camp Perry in the summer of 1968, the closure of Springfield
Armory was a topic of discussion among the attendees including Elmer Ballance, Karl
Maunz and Melvin Smith. These three men and an unnamed fourth person, held two or
three meetings during August 1968 in one of the wood huts used to house civilian
competitors. During one of these meetings, there was a Buckeye beer case full of Melvin
Smith welded M1 Garand receivers wrapped in newspaper in the middle of the hut. It
was in this meeting that Karl Maunz voiced his suggestion to name the business venture
that would produce commercial M14 type rifles, “Springfield.” This was agreed to by the
four men present. That particular wood hut still stood in February 2005.
Subsequent to this, Mr. Ballance began the process to acquire the name “Springfield
Armory” for production of his commercial version of the M14 rifle. In late 1969, Mr.
Ballance commenced work on making the dream of civilian M14 type rifles become
reality.

>>31065520
HURRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRR
http://www.springfield-armory.com/about/

>>31065452
>Springfield Armory located in Springfield, IL
>Springfield Armory, Inc. located in Geneseo, IL
They're completely unrelated in every way other than name. Springfield Armory doesn't even exist anymore and hasn't for decades.

>>31065554
I said a source. you make a claim I'm going to need a source. if you cant do that then fuck off.

>>31065557
>>31065559
I stand corrected. Still dont understand the hate for the rifle. Its a great gun.

>>31065617
I'd still disagree.
I owned an scout for 2 years before I sold it and my overall impression is that it was mediocre.
Moreso the Springfield version, but the design in general.

Other "battle rifles" of the time outclass it in just about every way, not to even mention modern alternatives that blow it away, and overall it's quite plain and unimpressive.

>>31056600
I have the scout squad and can consistently hit a 1 foot plate at 1000 yards with good ammo. Never had a failure but I don't really abuse it. Field stripping is kind of a pain

>>31065640
I dont believe this for a minute. also you keep calling it a battle rifle. it was a machine gun.

>ITT: /brg/ vs. /arg/: two cancers that leaked from their containment zone
This thread devolved into a complete shitstain. OP, you wanna go durr hunting, get a standard barrel M1A instead of a 16". Of course, there's also lighter rifles and calibers that are suitable for hunting durr. AR-10s are good, but so are AR-15s in a 6mm caliber configuration if you can't hunt with .223. Savage Arms, Tikka, and Remington make great bolt guns to take out durr and are affordable for your wallet so you can buy ammunition, optics and cleaning kits

>>31065640
>>31065617
>>31065587
>>31065559
>>31065554
>>31065489
>>31065551
>>31065487
>>31065482
>>31065352
can you comment on this thread and the questions that I had? >>31063824

Was the M14 more reliable and durable than the Springfield M1A?

How did the M1A fair in the pacific? Was it better or worse than the initial m16?

>>31065689
I dont know. fun factor is definitely a factor here and to be honest bolt actions arent the funnest funs.

>>31065761
it was a machine gun. it was adopted by the military late wwII and was used mostly in Vietnam.

>>31065798
oops, that's what I meant. How did it perform in Vietnam?

>>31065820
well nobody was throwing them down and picking up ak's if thats what you mean.

File: 800px-JunctionCity1967SupplyDrop.jpg (104KB, 800x1006px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 800x1006px

>>31065820
Ignore the guy calling it a machine gun he's trolling you.

There was no M1A in the Vietnam War, the US Army was issued the M14 from 1959. The M16 begun to be issued in 1964, not fully replacing the M14 until 1970 in combat roles.

There was no real complaints about the M14 besides it being fairly heavy and a bit uncontrollable on automatic fire, it performed well and reliably.

It is correctly known as a battle rifle or automatic rifle.

The M1A would be properly called a battle rifle.

>>31065761
basically its the civi version of the m-14. you can buy m-14's and some of them have forged receivers but they are all civi versions regardless. you cant buy a real m-14 unless you have a ton of money and the proper paperwork.

>>31065889
I was saying it was an automatic rifle, you were saying its the worst battle rifle when in reality it was originally automatic google boy.

>>31065957
not me fagot

>>31065689
>>ITT: /brg/ vs. /arg/: two cancers that leaked from their containment zone
Ironically they both get mad at the M14 platform for being better than their preferred raifus at certain things. I figure if it pisses off the two worst threads on /k/ that much it's gotta shoot as sweet as a short-rail CZ75.

>>31066028
well then you forgot to mention they got too hot and the stock had to be redesigned. I just hate the fuck out of faggots that shit on any gun. unless its deserved. Its like the faggots that talk shit on .22

>>31056600
its a great choice for beginners because you can get a trainer sight. which will allow someone to observe your sight while you shoot and help you learn how to shoot correctly.

File: 15379137527_700d7cef79.jpg (76KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 500x375px

Just get a SCAR

>>31065520
there is no way you are actually this fucking stupid. like, a retarded monkey knows the Springfield Armory of today is in no way affiliated with the original M1903/M1 Garand/M-14 Springfield Armory save for the name they bought the rights for. end yourself you noguns memespewing hick.

>>31066323
the ironing.

>>31066323
>bought the patent.

>>31066335
>>31066344
>samefagging this hard
>still insists they're the same company
end. your. self.

>>31066427
stupid ass.

>>31066461
>"da M1A SOCOM IS about 5 lbs. guis"
>"show proofs SA was sold off"
>calls other stupid
post your guns, fucktard.

>>31066475
already did
>>31064069

>>31066492
https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1358067
try again, kid.

>>31066510
>https://www.ar15.com/archive/topic.html?b=1&f=5&t=1358067
wow you found my post.

>>31066558
so fucking stupid.

>>31066558
>M1A
>sweet shooting
Ahahahahahaha, man, have I got some bad news for you.

>>31066055
>M14 platform
>sweet shooting
Ahahahahahaha, man, have I got some bad news for you.

>>31066532
Did these other two posters find it as well?
http://desuarchive.org/k/search/image/zEdjjvtdx6GK9e0rQoNLVA/

>>31066563
>"the M1A SOCOM weight less than most SMGs guis"

>>31066583
>AR-15 bro! its ar-15 or nothing!
sub moa if bedded.

>>31066630
>5
>pounds

did the M14 in semi automatic have more recoil than the M1 garand?

>>31066630
You have to continuously upkeep the stock to keep it anywhere near that accurate. The M-14 is hardly known for its accuracy. Also, my favorite rifle in my possession in an M1 Garand, so suck my dick. <3

>>31066630
>if bedded
>Spend time/money bedding yourself or having it done
>Gun gets knocked over/dropped
>Bedding ruined
It's not 1988 anymore. You can buy a gun out of the box that will print better groups than full custom shop M1As will, at about or less the same price and without being half as finnicky and delicate.

>>31066709
Less. .308 has less recoil than .30-06 in standard military loadings, and the weight of the magazine absorbed a little bit more.

I got an M1A pretty recently, I really enjoy it OP. I'd probably steer away from the short barrel, kind of neuters the cartridge.

Also, first rifle? Go build a nice AR man, learn to shoot on a littler cheaper ammo before you go to 7.62 NATO

>>31066630
>if bedded
WEW
E
W

>>31066806
I think it was something like every 200 rounds that the stock had to be tuned again. A real picky cunt of an affair.

>>31066825
you dont even know why a gun needs to be re-bedded ar-buddy. do you wear tactical gear to the range too?

>>31066862
>you dont even know why a gun needs to be re-bedded
Kinda when things get unsettled. You know, potentially from things like recoil and the like.
>ar-buddy
I don't own an AR, but keep trying Herr NoGuns.

>>31066825
Doesn't sound far off.
I remember the old miserable bastards at the high power matches who treated their M14/M1A like the one ring and wouldn't dare let anybody else touch the precious while they bragged about how much money they had sunk into bedding it and having a stock fitted.

They also had more problems than any other gun and were always scurrying off the line cursing and saying they had to go back and adjust this or that.

File: 0007937c-642.jpg (24KB, 642x361px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 642x361px

>>31066862
>FIVE
>POUNDS

>>31066895
>They also had more problems than any other gun and were always scurrying off the line cursing and saying they had to go back and adjust this or that.
were new military m14 also like that or is this because the gun is surplus and old?

>>31066930
No, the M14 is a pretty decent design all around, as decent as the M1 at least.
Their problems in competition were due to the fact that they had a ton of tight fitting/hand fit parts mixed and matched in on a very tightly built gun to squeeze accuracy, happens with a lot of competition guns.
And the M1/M14 is a notoriously difficult gun to bed properly, and the bedding jobs don't last particularly long from everyone I've talked to.

>>31066862
You don't have a fucking clue what you're talking about, but this whole thread is kind of an indicator of that fact.

>>31066993
did soldiers using M14s also need to rifle bed their weapons every 200 rounds? what were the repercussions if they didn't?

>>31067021
No. It's all super competition must-get-sub-MOA gucci horse shit. This is a prime case of "rifle is fine" and people taking ricer tweakers' complaints too seriously.

>>31067048
I think he's fucking with you dude.

>>31066895
bedding a stock costs about $100 bucks.
>>31067001
I'm feeling the same about you people.
>>31067021
you only rebed the rifle after you have taken the stock off to clean it 3-4 times. its only 100 bucks to get it redone.

>>31067048
ah I see, thanks for answering

>>31067052
I'm not. I'm very new to firearms and not that informed about them. I very recently just bought my first firearm.

>>31067062
>bedding a stock costs about $100 bucks.
Is this like how the M1A weighed 7 pounds and the SOCOM weighed 5 pounds? I have a feeling it is. Retard.

File: 1317039695696.jpg (31KB, 500x358px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 500x358px

>>31061998
>>31064350
>>31065352
>>31065923
OP here why is forged better? Wouldn't milled billet steel be stronger? And wouldn't a precision milled piece be lighter as well?

>>31064373
>>31065457
>>31066279
I said I'm from /g/... not /v/, learn the difference. That's why I made this thread because I don't know shit about rifles and war guns and I DON'T just want to be tacticool. And I really don't want to get an AR15 or SCAR because they're just TRYING SO HARD to be army cool... and its now what I want. I was looking at the M1A because it has an action that seems to have stood the test of time, and could be multi-purpose, I was interested in the SOCOM because lighter and negligible amount of muzzle velocity loss. If you dislike this gun or think I shouldn't get one, could you kindly list some models I should research instead?

>>31064585
How does that even happen? Weak barrel metal? Do guns regularly do this?

>>31061941
>>31060763
>>31059764
>>31057104
>>31064292
I actually have a scope allocated for in my budget. But I think I need something with a rail of some sort so I can add a scope for hunting (if that's even a realistic option).

Can I add a new question to this thread too? If I take this to a range, would the average gun owner think of me as 'wew lad.jpg' or would they think I am serious and a worthwhile part of their community?

File: 1274465753023.gif (1MB, 477x252px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 477x252px

>>31067169
> I really don't want to get an AR15 or SCAR because they're just TRYING SO HARD to be army cool
> I was interested in the SOCOM because lighter

>>31067169
>OP here why is forged better? Wouldn't milled billet steel be stronger? And wouldn't a precision milled piece be lighter as well?

They don't use billet steel. They use fucking castings.

>>31067197
Fellow /g/entooman here. I suspect OP would lean towards the same size M1A even if it was called Fluffy Bunny 16 instead of SOCOM 16. After dealing with the tech industry's tendency towards XTREEM naming for a few years the shine wears off.

>>31067451
I think the other thing was the implication that the SOCOM 16 is lighter. It isn't by any means.

>>31067468
Oh well then it's just dumb. The only reason to go below 18" on .308 is for significant weight savings or because you want a flamethrower.

>>31067527
>it's just dumb
That's the general consensus about the SOCOM 16, it's a front-heavy turd that really doesn't give you anything beneficial and handles noticeably worse than the Scout. The kind of person that gets it is the kind of person who unironically buys Alienware, if that helps a /g/fag understand things better.

File: m1abingo.jpg (133KB, 684x615px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 684x615px

The scout is the gaming laptop of the gun world
Get the standard and put in smith enterprises parts

Also, here you go. No m1a thread is complete without

>>31067197
>>31067468
OP again. Well that's dumb, I thought for sure smaller means lighter...

>>31067558
>Front Heavy
Wouldn't a 22inch barrel be even more front heavy?

>>31058367
Even the new, post-manufacturing line overhaul Minis are still rather inaccurate. Best to avoid, IMO.

>>31058367
>Just for the sake of arguing, you could reliably take deer with an AR15.

Depends on how big the deer are where OP lives. Whitetail deer on the northern plains and in Canada are often too large to be taken reliably and humanely with .223/5.56. Most mule deer are also too large.

>>31066279
He could buy 2 M1As for the price of 1 SCAR, and actually find both M1As in stock.

>>31058367
>Just for the sake of arguing, you could reliably take deer with an AR15.
Reliably but possibly not legally. A lot of states restrict anything below .24 or .25, so unless you're willing to spend M1A money on a fancy upper and ammo more expensive than .308...

>>31067583
Heh, looks like I need to make a calguns account.

>>31067619
Not from a balance perspective.

>>31067337
Op again, fucking why? If its 1600+ they can afford to do better than that...

>>31067654
Yeah, we hunt in dense timber of the UP Michigan. I would not be ok hunting with something that small. I originally wanted a 30-06, but I actually saw that rip the back legs off a deer, so prob overkill.

>>31067699
>dense timber of the UP
As someone who has done backpacking in the Porkies, a fucking 12 gauge pump action shotgun for $400 will do just fine in woods that dense. You aren't gonna be getting many shots past 100 yards, which is where a rifle becomes better than a shotgun.

just stick to playing with computers you are too """smart""" to play with guns

>>31067784
There is huge, HUGE overlap between /g/, /a/, /k/, and /tg/. Don't be a condescending asshat.

>>31067831
and there's plenty of non faggots on your precious message board. sorry to ruin your safe space.

maybe you missed this great post of intellectual masturbation

>>31067169
>>31067169

>>31067689
I own a chicom m14 and they are heavy. Cutting 6 inches off the barrel will make the rifle less front heavy.

File: M14Receiver_Prints-2.png (2MB, 1971x1377px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1971x1377px

>>31067699
>Op again, fucking why? If its 1600+ they can afford to do better than that...

Because they're still the cheapest M1A you can get in the states unless you somehow find a Norinco, so they can take whatever shortcuts they like in production without it really hurting them.

The only real options for making M1A receivers are to use castings or forgings. Cutting fucking pic related on a CNC mill from billet steel would be a time-consuming nightmare.