In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
AR-10A2 or M1A - Show of hands
Tazmutt
Member Posts: 862 ✭✭✭✭
My next real gun purchase (.22 pumps do not count as gun purchase, ask my wife ) will be a .308 semi. I am torn between the Ar-10 and M1A.
If you were going to buy one, just to have and to hold, to shoot at leisure, for sh*ts and giggles and I guess to have in case the unthinkable ever happens (homeland war) which you you choose ?
And / or, should I spend 1/2 the mula and go with an L1A1 or similar ?
Ima gonna read every post, tally up the counts, weigh each + / - and HAVE one or the other by years end ...
Lawd, I hate these tough decisions ... Makes my head spin
If you were going to buy one, just to have and to hold, to shoot at leisure, for sh*ts and giggles and I guess to have in case the unthinkable ever happens (homeland war) which you you choose ?
And / or, should I spend 1/2 the mula and go with an L1A1 or similar ?
Ima gonna read every post, tally up the counts, weigh each + / - and HAVE one or the other by years end ...
Lawd, I hate these tough decisions ... Makes my head spin
Comments
I myself would go for the M1A.
TOOLS
When I was a child, I thought as a child. But now that I am growen, I just wish I could act like a child and get away with it.
http://www.reesesurplus.com/
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
There was a simple reason that the army chose the M14...it was a better rifle than the AR-10 then and still is today. Although the new manufactured AR-10 rifles are much better than the collection of AR-10 parts which were slapped together as rifles in the 1980's, I still do not feel that they can match the quality of an M1A. You can choose your level features with an M1A- from basic to super match and the level of technical support between the two rifles cannot be compared. While the AR-10 is nice to shoot, it just won't hold a candle to the M1A as far as accuracy is concerned. We have not even got to the subject of parts availability and spare magazines!
Nearly every L1A1 I have seen is a mass of parts which someone decided to call a rifle. I had Enterprise Arms bulid an L1A1 for me using a new parts kit, a brand new barrel and one of their recievers. It shoots great, but it was not cheap. Inch pattern parts are hard to find and expensive when you do, so are spare magazines. I'd skip the L1A1 unless you want to go the custom built route that I took. I think that you'll get far more opinions in favor of the M1A.
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"
Mark T. Christian
Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
If I'm wrong please correct me, I won't be offended.
The sound of a 12 gauge pump clears a house fatser than Rosie O eats a Big Mac !
Guns only have two enemies: Rust and Liberals....
... go with the M1A, its the only one I still have.
=================================================================
Just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you!kimberkid@gunbroker.zzn.com
? otherwise, you'll find an excuse.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
"LIFE IS NOT A JOURNEY TO THE GRAVE WITH THE INTENTION OF ARIVING SAFELY IN ONE PRETTY AND WELL PRESERVED PIECE, BUT, TO SKID ACROSS THE LINE BROADSIDE, THOUGHRLY USED UP, WORN OUT, LEAKING OIL, SHOUTING GEROMINO!!"[br/]
but if you dont have one yet get the M1A
Mudge the concise
I can't come to work today. The voices said, STAY HOME AND CLEAN THE GUNS!
In regard to the Army tests of the 1950s when the M14 was chosen, there is no doubt that the tests were slanted to select the M14. History has proven that the FN-FAL was the best rifle of the three (over 30 million fielded), yet the Army selected the M14 over it and the AR-10. The AR-10 has been vindicated millions of times by being adopted by the Army in the form of the AR-15/M-16, and has been the service rifle for about 40 years now.
The AR-10 did fail when the Army subjected it to extensive full-auto fire with no maintenance. Eventually the complex titanium muzzle brake can failed (as I recall, the story is that the can was coming loose and the ArmaLite people were not allowed to tighten it so eventually it got loose enough to be hit by bullets and failed), causing the composite barrel to burst. It had nothing to do with "Bakelite" parts. The AR-10 had no Bakelite parts. The plastic parts were fiberglass, as they were on early AR-15/M16 rifles, not Bakelite. The barrel was not too thin. (Perhaps the reference of "thin barrel" was to the composite barrel of the test AR-10 rifles, which had a thin steel liner in an alloy sleeve.) I have an early Sudanese AR-10 and its original steel barrel is larger than the barrel on my early M1A.
The M14 served as the service rifle for the shortest time of any adopted rifle. The early M14 rifles were plagued with problems, including cracked receivers, etc.. The M14 was essentially an improved M1 with a removable magazine. (The BM59 was an M1 with a removable magazine.)
The AR-10 rifles produced in the 1950s (with all-steel barrels and no muzzle brake) and adopted by the Sudan and Portugal gave outstanding service under severe conditions. Many were found still in service in Africa as late as the 1980s and probably beyond.
All of this may be irrelevant to the current commercial rifles. It is unlikely that any will have to serve in severe field conditions in the hands of recreational shooters. It therefore comes down to which one feels best to the buyer, and the importance of certain other features such as magazine availability and cost.
I have an original Sudanese AR-10 (with a CKA lower receiver), a current early AR-10A2, an early M1A and a Steyr FN-FAL (and a Knight Stoner SR-25, but those rifles are so expensive that they do not fit in this discussion). While I am a big fan of the AR-10, I have to admit that the FN-FAL is more comfortable to shoot. To me, the M1A is the least comfortable shooter of the bunch. The acccuracy of the service rifle versions of all three is about the same. In the target versions, the accuracy is also about the same, with the differences between individual rifles probably greater than the diference between brands.
The magazine situation GREATLY favors the FN. Magazines can be had for under $10. M14 magazines can still be had for $40 to $50, sometimes less. Modified magazines for the AR-10 are not hard to get, but cost more since they start with an M14 magazine. There is no reason to send in M14 magazines anymore. ArmaLite sells conversion kits with new bodies and followers. The original M14 spring and floor plate are used and it is just a matter of assembling the new parts into an AR-10 magazine. The M14 body can be saved for reassembly back into an M14 magazine when desired.
If considering an FN clone, the parts kit guns have only their low price to recommend them. Buy a DSA clone if considering the FN. The DSA rifles are outstanding in quality and have lots of options. The DSA rifles are, in my opinion, by far the highest quality of the current rifles.
The standard M1A is the least expensive of the three, but the standard rifles for all three are close enough in cost that it should not be the deciding factor.
If I were buying my first one now, I would put the M1A third, and would have a very tough time deciding between the DSA FN-clone and AR-10. My heart says AR-10, but my head says the DSA FN-clone, largely because of the magazine situation and the outstanding quality of the DSA rifles.
Any rifleman should have at least one of each. Which one to buy first is the decision of the moment.
BM59? LOL!
Whatcha' gonna' do for spare parts for that antique? Pray?
Seriously, I tend not to bash people on their selection of rifle, but saying the BM59 is the way the M1A was meant to be or some such nonsense just cracks me up.
BM59...Bwahahahahahahahaha!
Stand And Be Counted
Frankly, the best info I have is that, despite the Stoner gun's perceived flaws, the M14 was chosen more because of military traditionalism than the best analysis of the tests, and that the Stoner gun was probably their second choice.
I haven't even talked about the nub which deflects the path of ejected brass or the infamous "forward assist." Because those things were later "improvements." The Stoner design was not perfect by a long way, it's true. But today, these are some fine guns, and I think particularly in .308, where they are among the lighter guns in the caliber.
Trivia: The latest edition of GUNS & WEAPONS FOR LAW ENFORCEMENT has two Sig 5.56 "subcarbines" on the cover, which it identifies as a new category of rifle -- the mini rifle-caliber carbine. Makes me salivate.... Anybody care to guess if these new folding-stock shorties will appear in .308? The ones shown on the cover have just been approved for American LEO purchase only. We civilians lose out -- so far.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
In principle I agree, but I think you're a little too hard on the Beretta. Gun shows, online auctions, have made it possible to find almost anything a person needs, with a little diligence and patience. Frankly, if I had either an AR-10 or a MB59, I wouldn't need enough mags for the whole world -- just for me. I've got a Star PD which I love, and I have always found just one more mag for it when I've wanted one, even in the Starvel. And I've never paid more than $25.
If you're going to laugh at the Beretta that hard, better laugh at the Garand too, because they're quite similar, apparently with many interchangeable parts, and if one is laughable the other must be too....? (stir) I've looked at the Beretta and would not be sorry to have one in my collection. Certainly if I had one I wouldn't worry that I owned junk.
Let me add that we recently determined the M1A to be at least a 9 lb gun (probably empty), so weight will be a factor for some of us.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Edited by - offeror on 09/07/2002 21:34:08
"Just my opinion."
I think if you took the time to look at the web site I listed, you will find all the spare parts you could ever need for the BM59 and at very reasonable prices. Not only that, they are essentially an M1 Garand (with a detatchable magazine) and many parts are interchangeable. Or, Sarco has early BM59 parts sets, if there is ever a hint of desperation.
As they (genuine Beretta BM59s) were imported by Springfield Armory between 1982 and 1989, I would hardly consider them antiques. If you check your firearms price guides under "Springfield Armory" you will see they are considerably more expensive than an M1A. Even more expensive than Match Grade M1As. There is good reason for that.
What advantage is there to a genuine Beretta BM59 over an M1A? Well, we could start with the forged receiver, as opposed to the cast receiver found on the M1A. If you've ever looked an a Beretta BM59, you will fine the quality is far superior to the Springfield Armory M1A.
Oh, by the way, one interesting note. Do you happen to know who the original owners of Springfield Armory, Inc. happened to be? I'm not talking about the REAL Springfield Armory who really did make US military firearms starting so long ago. I'm talking about the Springfield Armory who made, and has made the famous M1A copycats of the M14. The original owners of the Springfield Armory, Inc. you are all familiar with were the Reese family. Now let's see. Interested in a BM59? They are still available, brand new, from Reese Surplus. That's the reesesurplus.com I noted in my link. Are you beginning to see the connection?
As Judge Dread pointed out, the BM59 is an M1 Garand chambered for 7.62 NATO with a detatchable magazine. It is built to military specifications down to the metalurgy, such as the forged receiver over the cast receiver. Reese Surplus has all the spare parts a person would need at very reasonable prices, if whatever you happen to need isn't a M1 Garand part in the first place.
Anyone who has ever actually held a Beretta BM59 will agree the quality is superior to the M1A. Either that, or they are liars. Unfortunately, most people know so little about them, they tend to speak of them based only from rumors they have heard rather than actual first hand experience. I'd recommend the next time you go to a decent sized gunshow, you look around for one, one of the original Berettas. After you look at it, I doubt you'll be laughing very much.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
I'll check one out before I put my foot in my mouth for a second time.
Stand And Be Counted
The misinformation continues. The defense of the BM59 has been well covered, so nothing further needs to be done to correct the record on it, except to clarify that the price of BM59 rifles is collector-driven more than shooter-driven. I do not think the market price necessarily reflects intrinsic value over M1A rifles and the like.
It is not difficult to find "full capacity" (which I assume to mean pre-ban magazines holding 20 rounds) AR-10 magazines for current AR-10 rifles. There are usually some on the auction site, and, as I said, the magazines are based on M14 magazines, so the basis for a current AR-10 is as easy to find as finding an M14 magazine. The conversion kits that allow conversion of M14 magazines into AR-10 magazines are also readily available. (I need to qualify my previous post to say that ArmaLite is now requiring surrender of an M14 magazine body before it will ship a conversion magazine body. It is therefore wise to buy up some of the conversion kits on the auction site so one can retain the M14 magazine body in case one wants to convert back.)
Finding pre-ban magazines for original AR-10 rifles is also not terribly difficult. Some of the original "waffle" magazines show up on the auction site from time to time, and magazines from the Knight Stoner SR-25 will work as well. Original aluminum "waffle" magazines seem to bring from $60 to $90, while the SR-25 steel magazines bring $100 to $125. There always seemed to be a lot of original AR-10 magazines condidering how few rifles were made. I stocked up in the 1980s for a few dollars each.
The comments about the controversy and shortcomings of the M16 do not apply to the AR-10, and are really irrelevant to this discussion. The M16 story is a very interesting one, again involving the Army asking for features that Stoner did not design and did not want added to his AR-15 desgin. The problems with the early M16 can be traced to the Army wanting to use ball powder to achieve a bit higher velocity, and stabilize bullets better at subzero temperatures (while a jungle war was going on!). The Olin ball powder had different burning characteristics than the Dupont IMR powder around which the rifle was designed. The result was increased fouling, increased port pressures, increased cyclic rate and corroded chambers, etc.. The modifications to the M16 (into the M16A1) were in response to the problems caused by the ball powder, not to correct basic design flaws. The M16 controversy would be a good topic for another thread.
If a museum curator referred to Bakelite (Bakelite is a brand name) on an M16, he must not be a very good curator. There has never been any Bakelite on an M16 or AR-15, etc.. That is not to say that the early plastic handguards were not too fragile for a military rifle. They were, and were subsequently changed in the A2 versions to be stronger and interchangable between left and right. The curator may have been incorrectly using the word Bakelite to describe the early plastic handguards, which do resemble Bakelite.
It is also true that the M16 barrel was thin, but it was fine until used as a pry bar to open crates. The ever-resourceful GI would use the early-style three-prong flash hider to break crating bands by twisting the band in the flash hider until it broke. That resulted in some bent barrels. By the time the Army got done with the 6-pound AR-15, an 8-pound plus M16A2 resulted. I am not sure that was progress. Again, the M16 issues do not apply to the AR-10, original or current.
My vote is still FN-FAL/DSA clone, AR-10 and M1A, in that order.
Edited by - JudgeColt on 09/08/2002 03:23:35
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Correct me if I'm wrong; my back is strong.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
Might be. The current Blue Book listings seem to support that possibility. My old "para-military" file is at my office as I write, but I will see if I find any old literature that would shed some light on the matter when I have a chance.
I want to appologize up front to JudgeColt as I did not mean to insult his AR-10. His honor owns one of the early semi auto rifles built on a CKA (Central Kentucky Arms) receiver. These receivers were manufactured from MACHINED STEEL and are bullet proof! Judge, I owned an H&H Enterprise gun (the judge is now shaking his head in sorrow)
with a Sudanese type lower reciever and after the seam in the receiver split I became somewhat disgruntled! I should not have implied that all AR-10's from that era were junk. This is the second post where I have to admit to the Judge that I made a mistake and it will probably not be the last! I ask his honor for mercey.
That said I still think that Tazmutt (anyone still remember HIM) will be better served by the M1A. I think that the prevailing opinion by we "expert's" is that the Garand (M1, M1A, BM-59/62) "system" is a better choice for Tazmutt than the Stoner(AR-10) "system". Gene was a genius and the AR-10 was ahead of its time. John C. was also a genius and his M1 was also a great leap ahead when it was adopted in 1936. I think that both of these men's designs will continue to inspire such heated debate when Tazmutts grand kids log on to this site someday!
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"
Mark T. Christian
Very sorry for the mix-up in name, I have no excuse. I have respected you as one of the true experts for some time on this board, I must have been writing in a hurry.
Mark C and JudgeColt,
I think if you look at the advertizer's index in SGN, and look for Reese Surplus you will find their ads. They are quite a bit smaller than they were a year ago, and I don't have one handy 'cause I'm on the road on business. However, I think their ads still say in quite bold print "Have you ever seen a real Beretta BM59" and something to the effect that theirs are not the pieced together fireams from parts sets. I'm sure if you look at their web site, you will see plenty of indication what they are selling is genuine Beretta, with the exception of a folding stock they have that they make clear is after market.
My BM59, serial# 18XX, is marked both Springfield Armory and Beretta. In addition to the receiver, the parts (such as trigger group, barrel/gas system parts, etc) are all stamped PB, which you might recognize as Beretta identifiection. I'm sure it's possible that Springfield Armory did assemble some here, but I can't help but wonder about the abundance of Beretta marked parts on mine.
Again, Reese is advertizing that they are selling the real deal, and mine certainly appears all Beretta. Of course, you could contact them and confirm this. You might notice in their description of some of them (including the BM62, BM69, and Nigerian models) they state "very few imported". If they were assembled here on imported receivers, there wouldn't be any reason to differentiate models, as the receivers are the same.
As far as the price/collectability, considering what they are offering I think they are very nice bargains right now. Given the quality I have seen on them, the options available, and the obvious collectability, IMHO, they are a much better value than the current SA line for just a tad more money.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
DWS, again, I'm on the road on business and will have to check the editions of gun values I looked at when I get home. However, I am sure they are listed under Springfield Armory, and if you look at when they were discontinued, you will see that it coincides with the '89 ban. I would question, if they were not being imported, why did they discontinue them when they did?
Also, I have seen BATF recommendations regarding the discontinuance of their importation, and this coincided with the '89 ban. I'll see if I can find a link on that, showing the BATF recommendation regarding their importation back around '89.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
No way I want to get into a pissing contest with anybody- I'm having too much fun on this site. But I thought the reason that the sales of BM-59 and FAL type rifles by Springfield Armory in 1990 was because the company had gone out of business! It reformed into its present company (Springfield inc.) in 1992. Now going broke can realy put a damper on your gun sales regardless of any bans!
I'm looking at the Resse Surplus ad in Shotgun News. Is this the BM-59 you say you own? If it is it is different than the rifle I thought that we were discussing and I owe you an appology. I thought we were talking about the rifles from the early eighties, not a current import tewnty years later. I mis-read your post and am very sorry! The blue book says that the original Springfield BM-59's were made in Italy and machined and assembled by the Springfield Armory factory. This was the rifle that I got. I should have waited and bought one of these Reese rifles as they sound very sweet. I won't be able to get another unrestricted BM-59 here in California (I'd have to set one aside for police sales only) so I envy you and your real Beretta BM-59. Enjoy it and I'm sorry about the confusion.
"Trust me, I know what Im doing!"
Mark T. Christian
RSI in Geneseo, IL was making up BM59/BM62 rifles in the mid-90's. These were made from original Beretta parts, but there were subtle differences from the Berben/Springfield guns. They also produced E series Garands, BM61s and BM69s.
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
I sent it along with the BM-59 when I sold it to a dealer in Kentuckey. Does that sound anything like the manual you got with your BM-62? It was not a MILITARY looking book, more like a collection of pages stapled together.
I think you and I are on the same page here, but I'm still curious about boeboe's rifle. Either he's not telling us everything about it or he's got something pretty special. I hope moderator NUNN does not pull the plug on this before we find out more about it. Looks like it's past my bed time!
"Trust me, I know what I'm doing!"
Mark T. Christian
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
I hate to be so brief about this, because itis turning into an interesting thread and I'd like to find out more myself. Unfortunately, I am in Connecticut on a business trip, and my lap-top modem took a dump. Soat this time, I'm working off a business center computer at a Best Western and the keyboard is messed up and typing is difficult.
As for my BM59, I thought I'd just start by posting a link to the old gunbroker auction I bought it on, and give you some confirmation on it. Here is the link.
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=4322304
Now, as you can see, the seller in this auction represented it as a Beretta BM59. What I received was this firearm, andthe receiver is marked both Springfield Armory and Beretta. And, as I said, the detail parts are all (or most) marked with the PB impression. Of course, I'm not saying every screw is marked but every assembly and detail I have looked at leads me to believe the PB markings are genuine and as intended. I had no reason to doubt this was, as advertized, a Beretta BM59, and it does appear that way to me.
After receiving it, I became very much interested in buying another from Reese, as I did, and still do believe the quality to be much better than the M1A's I have looked at. That opinion has been echoed by knowledgeable friends and dealers who have looked at it. Now, perhaps it is just my own eye making what I own seem better than the next guy, and my friends making me feel good. But I can tell, after shooting this and apraizing the quality, I don't want an M1A, unless I happen to get a real good deal on it somehow. As I said, I'm thinking most seriously about another BM59, or 62, or 69.
Of course, before I send the money to Reese, I'd like as much information as I can get. And I appreciate that we can have this sort of discussion to learn as much as I can before spending my money. Information on the BM59 seems very limited, internet searched produce little results. So anything I can learn here will be accepted in good faith as long as it seems reasonable. And that Reese, or perhaps Springfield Armory assembled some of these here is certainly a possibilty I would like to know more about.
Understand, whatever I learn will not affect my opinion of the BM59 I boughtin as much as I believe it is a very fine rifle, where ever it was really assembled.
And sorry I am computer handicapped at this time. I will be home Friday and will be more able to respond.
http://www.gunbroker.com/auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=4322304
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
- Life NRA Member
"If cowardly & dishonorable men shoot unarmed men with army guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary...and not by general deprivation of constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878
I did find a Springfield Armory 14 January 1981 retail price list for the BM-59. (No pictures.) The term "price list" is misleading because the rilfes are not priced! The price list says that "differing economic conditions" make it impossible to publish prices. There is a direction to contact your local dealer for current prices.
The price list says the the BM-59 is a "rare, hand-forged beauty." The Standard, Alpine, Alpine Paratrooper, Nigerian and Nigerian Alpine are listed without prices. The accessories are priced. The folding stock was available for $168, while the Nigerian stock was available for $102. Magazines were $35, bipods $47, slings $10, grenade launchers (!) $46. An original Pietro Beretta 4-language poster/brochure for the BM-59 was offered for $22.
I therefore regret that I cannot add anything more to the BM-59 story.
M1A
Reserving my Right to Arm Bears!!!!
While I realize I could spend about 1/2 for a FN clone, to this point I have NO, ZIP, ZERO guns in my collection that do not say MADE IN USA.
Soooooooooo, the struggle goes on. I enjoyed very much and appreciate all your input. Will let the bd know of my final decision.
Over the weekend, on another site, saw a "lightly used" (200 rds) M1A, loaded, National Match for $950 ...OWWWWeee ! And on GB, new Ar-10A2 for $929. Makin Tough !
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
To err is human, to moo is bovine.
Just my biased opinion!
RSI has been advertizing their Beretta rifles for more than seven years. THESE ARE PARTS GUNS, and are the "real deal" only because they use Beretta parts (I also know they have/had OEM stocks that are not Beretta). They bought a huge inventory of Beretta BM parts from someplace in 1995 I believe, selling original BM59 mags for $30ea.
The black butt pad intrigues me. Does your rifle stock have a grooved forearm like the BM62?.
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.
Edited by - DancesWithSheep on 09/11/2002 21:44:57
Why does man kill? He kills for food. But not only for food; frequently, he must have a beverage.