Home Forums Hunting & Shooting AR and Tactical Rifles is an M1A a tactical rifle?

I have been around tactical rifles (23 yrs active duty, still in) and was curious if you think a M1A is a tactical rifle?
The reason I ask is I just purchased a M1A scout in walnut to be my all around rifle. It passed several test.
1. Has a nice walnut stock, the wife likes it and things my ARs are scary.
2. When I had it out, others approach me, when I'm carrying my AR on my property I get a different look. (Texas rural area)
3. The caliber will handle anything I want. Going to really make it my hog rifle.
4. I like the history and feel of the rifle and it's looks.

Ideas for setting it up with a scope. Looking for something that is quick, can take close in and a little far out as well. Ideas?

Mounted a scope on the reciever of mine, It was a goat rope. Not a fan of forward mounted scopes. Skip it if you can.

I'd go with either a red dot sight or a scope in the 1-4 power range or a fixed power scope at 3 or 4 power. for short to medium range work that should do just fine. as far as brand of scope both Burris and Leupold make great quality scopes with a great warranty.

I have a aimpoint red dot and I tried the "forward mount" on the scout, I did not like it at all. It put the rifle out of balance for me.
I would like to mount a low power scope that is quick.

I have a M1A SOCOM 16. I really like the feel of the rifle, and it shoots good with factory loads, but not a fan of the forward mount either. I had an eotech on mine, and it was just awkward to have it so far forward, I don't think i would like a normal scout scope on it either. The other problem I have with that set-up is the need to raise the cheek weld up so you can get proper alignment without having to have your chin on the stock. I rigged up something that worked for me, but it didn't look the greatest. The cheek pad was very functional though and I have/had plans to make something better, just didn't get around to it yet.

For now I'm going to shoot it with the standard iron sights (Ghost ring rear and post front, m-16 style) because the cheek weld is perfect for me, and I don't mind the iron sights, I will just lose long distance accuracy (over 150 yards or so); so will not be shooting the rifle to it's full potential.

I planned on this being a hog hunting/deer gun, for 300 yard or less shots, but probably not with out at 3-9 or 4-12 scope. I might look into a standard over the receiver type scope mount (and fashion up a better looking cheek pad) after I get a few other rifle projects finished up first.

Edit: However, if I was going to do this purchase over again, I would probably buy the longer barreled Scout model over the SOCOM 16. I think the SOCOM or SOCOM II would more fit the "tactical" rifle craze and (as mentioned below) the other more common/desired models would lean more toward the "battle rifle" definition. But I guess my idea of Tactical is CQB and "urban" combat vs. other possible war fighting scenarios.

It's more of battle rifles I think.

My take from having shot them for a number of years in competition, that for field use, get the sights touched up( or not) to make sure they are firm and track well.

Then get a detach scope mount and zero the scope.

Most of what you need to do with a rifle like that can be done with irons.

Then pop the scope on if need be, though you may need to tweak the sights some, but maybe not. Some of the mounts are pretty repeatable.

IMHO often if I can't get it done with irons, I"m leaning away from the semi platform towards an M40 type for those situations.

I use an EOTech on my M1A SOCOM 16. With Federal Classic 150 grain SP, it makes a fine hog rifle indeed.

Any rifle is a Tactical rifle if it is all you have. I would rather have the M1A over some of the so called Tactical rifles pushed by some of the Week-End Commandos

I have been looking at Basset and Arms mounts, but I have not ruled out irons, but I would like a low power scope, but still up in the air.

The M-1 is without peer THE battle rifle. It is in my opinion, not a tactical rifle because of the weight and they just seem to me to be born to wear open sights.

It depends on what your tactics are?

Wish I still had my Scout-Squad! It shot sub-MOA with 168 Fed GM and the Springfield brand scout scope.

With an Aimpoint CompML forward mounted I zeroed it to hit on top of the dot at 100 yards. That put it dead on at 200 yards and it fell out of the bottom of the dot at 300.

Hold on the neck of an B-27 and it would drop them in a nice cluster on the chest at three football fields.

Oughta kill swine just swell.

Sold mine to buy my daughter's first car...bad swap.

The ARMS is a good mount as far as holding the scope in place more or less. Then you will need to get a riser for the stock or your chin will be the other thing still up in the air.

Basset is what I run, and it holds a zero pretty decent if you are careful about putting it on the same way each time. The hardened inserts are a great improvement over SAs non inserts

M1 is way different than the M1-A IMHO. Similar but different enough that I don't consider teh two the same in the context of this thread at all.

Probably not in the tactical rifle class. .308's are different animals if for no other reason their weight and power. I had one about twenty years back, a good rifle it was. I did put a scope on it, used an ART mount, but the result was less than I'd hoped for and eventually I went back to iron sights. With 30 minutes of drill press and file work the sights on this rifle can be sharpened up considerably.

I'll give you my take, FWIW. I have both an early SA M1A Supermatch, and an LRB M14SA. The LRB is what I would consider more utilitarian, or "tactical" if you prefer.

I had it built with an 18" Criterion Chrome lined barrel/chamber because I think that in a hard use rifle, that's essential. Others here will disagree I'm sure, but it's my rifle. The barrel has the standard USGI flash suppressor. I also elected to have a non bedded GI fiberglass stock, brown in color, instead of a wooden one, again because I prefer that for a hard use rifle. Those were options that I chose from the factory. Total cost for the rifle with those options was $2400, but that was four years ago, and the price has since increased.

I have a friend who is a former AMU armorer who installed a Sadlak Industries "Airborne" steel scope mount. This is a three point mount that will replace the stripper clip guide, but keeps the rear sight intact. IMO it is one of the best mounts available for the M14/M1A series of rifles. It is based on the original Brookfield design by Mitch Mateko (sp) that was made in the 60's for the Army's M21 sniper rifle program. The downside to this mount is that it absolutely requires a MilSpec receiver, which the SA versions are most definitely not. They have a kit which you can get to determine how out of spec your receiver is so that they can match the mount dimensions to your receiver. It costs $5 and is refunded when you purchase the mount.

Into the mount/rings I placed a Burris 1.5-6 XTR. I absolutely love this scope. It has a BDC illuminated reticle, which also has a circle dot for use for quick action shots. Your choice of scope is of course personal preference, but for what I intended this rifle to be used for, it's perfect.

Another downside to placing optics on the M14/M1A is the stock/jaw weld that results. In order to get a better "join" between my cheek and the stock, I put a cheekpiece on the butt which raises it an inch and a half. It works well, and unlike the AR with an A2 upper, you don't have to worry about interfering with the charging handle.

Once I had all the pieces together I went to the range and found that Radway Green ball ammo would shoot into 4 MOA, which was kind of disappointing. I was somewhat relieved when my handloads shot into 1.5 MOA using IMI Match cases/IMR 4895/CCI 34/Nosler 150 gr BT. I asked my AMU buddy what he could do to improve accuracy, and of course he said "change barrels". I didn't want to do that, so he put a unitized gas cylinder on it and relieved the heat shield where he found some binding between the heat shield and the stock. I didn't have him do a trigger job on it, as it pulls right at 5# with a two stage pull, and the second stage is right at 3#, which I find great for me. The results of all of this decreased groups by 1/2 MOA, which is outstanding IMO given the restrictions of chrome lined barrel, unbedded GI stock and 5# trigger.

All in all, I am highly satisfied with it, and it is my primary hunting rifle now. I have killed two hogs on two of the three 24 Hour Campfire pig hunts I have attended, and I shot an 8 point whitetail on my property with it on Thanksgiving day this year. All of these have been shot with the load above. Hope this helps.

I've always thought of the M1A's as tactical/marksman/hunting/very cool rifles.

A M1A/M14 rifle has been on my want list for a very long time and became a reality this last week. I bought a M1A Loaded and it arrived at my transfer dealer yesterday! Unfortunately I was out of town and didn't get to pick it up. Hopefully Monday.

I know there are a lot of folks that think the AR-10 style rifle is the way to go and it probably is but an AR-10 wasn't on my bucket list

Terry

I got rid of my Socom recently. I bought it in case I had to chew up someone behind cover. It was the ideal weapon say for dismantling cement block or shredding a car. I shot nothing but Lake City Ball out of mine, and had an Aimpoint on the rail. I found it to be extremely heavy, and while I never found out, I would imagine the concussion indoors had I needed it would of been as disabling as being hit by the 7.62 round. I've gone to an AR gun for the zombie hoards, but its a piston Ruger, although well done, it starts at 8 pounds, and will probably weigh as much as the Socom by the time I'm done adding do dads to it.