Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles M1a or AR10 for medium rangee

Which would be more accurate? I would like to have an accurate .308 but my eyes need a scope. Iron sights are no good for senior citizens eyes.
I already have an AR 15 from the old carry handle days.

For scope use, I'd go with the AR-10.

I would roll with the AR for a few reasons.

- Ease/strength of optics mounting.
- Stock ergonomics with optics.
- Easily floated barrel, no bedding to deal with.
- Ease of mounting bipod without barrel issues.
- Lots of aftermarket support.

I had an M1A, and they are nice rifles, but for optics and accuracy, they are a lot more fussy and expensive to get right.

Here's a pic of my old M1A with optics mounted. Look at the distance from the comb up to the scope. It's a hot mess. And I have the scope mounted as low as possible with an ARMS-18 base.




In direct comparison, here's a pic of my AR15....everything is easy, and where it needs to be.

MontanaMarine covered it.

As a former M1A owner I'd say go with the AR10.

Depends on which M1A and what type of scope you like. I happen to like the VX2 1.5-4X Scout Scope I have on my Squad Scout. It mounts very low and comes off to allow the use of iron sights.
The M1A Loaded models do have a version with a fully adjustable stock which allows the use of any scope type. See Springfield Armory's website for details.
As to accuracy, Gun Tests magazine tested a stainless Loaded with iron sights that shot an average of .6 MOA for five, five shot groups at 100 yds. with factory Federal, 168 gr. Match. So they can be quite accurate with ammo they like.
I might add that while the AR guns are easy to scope, the scope sits high over the bore. Which requires that one be very careful not to cant the rifle. E

I worked with a couple different standard m1a's in the late 1980's and as memory serves, they shot right around moa pretty consistently out of the box with preferred handloads. I went for quite a few years after that without one and have more recently worked with a couple more (a scout/squad and another standard). My experience with these more recent ones is they don't shoot as well as what I remember.

I'm fairly new to the AR platform and both a varmint configuration and carbine outshoot the m1a I currently have. As Montana Marine indicated, the m1a's do take some effort to get dialed in - mine's been a work in progress and I'm getting close, but it's not a moa rifle. The stock positions your eye perfect for the peep / post sights, but a raised cheek rest is needed for an optic unless you shoot with a chin weld vs. cheek weld (I've added one since I took the following pic and it does make a big difference).

If accuracy and optics are primary goals, the AR will get you there with less effort. That said, I do enjoy shooting the m1a more (but then I enjoy shooting a Garand more than any of them ). What I'm fiddling with these days:

Another vote for the AR-10, given I own two of them

Having had both, AR-10 hands down, and I really like M1a's. The part about needing a scope is the absolute clincher. M1a's do not scope well.

Both my M1a's were accurate rifles but my DPMS LR-308 was just ridiculous. That thing was a beast but boy did it shoot.

I handled an M1a today. Sort of like the Bush Rifle I had, but the stock was plastic not glass and it had a forward scout mount. If I lived in pig country......