# ar 10 m1a



## Superman70

I have decided to get an auto. I want a designated shooter style gun with optics. I want to be 600 yard capable. Anyone have any experience with one or both of these styles. I figure A 1600 dollar budget for the bare rifle. Do you need small base dies for thee autos.


----------



## DIHLON

I have a S&W M&P 10 that is my hunting rifle. It will supposedly perform well beyond 600 yards, but I've never attempted anything close to that range. I paid around $1,360 for it and added about another $400 into it. I would choose the AR platform over the M1A, but that is just my personal preference. I use the small base dies for reloading.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

AR platform for sure. 600 yards should be no problem for a .308. I really like 18-20 inch bbl for DMR type rifles.


----------



## THE JAMMER

Man I gotta tell ya I love my M1A. Just the nostalgia of the thing. Plus I am lucky enough to have one with a wood stock that actually has the original cut out in the stock for select fire switch. Don't have the switch (wish), but I got the slot. The gun is a shooter. It will shoot .5-.75 MOA if I do my part. That's why they resurrected them in the sand box. However, I will admit to thinking very hard about building an AR 10. It got the AR build bug lately, and it is permeating my body. Need a new project.


----------



## boltmaster

personally i would get a match grade M1A.....solid at 1000 yds. it will be heavier than an AR though


----------



## CHARLIE

boltmaster said:


> personally i would get a match grade M1A.....solid at 1000 yds. it will be heavier than an AR though


X2 But saying that I am old school so the black guns dont do a thing for me.


----------



## capt mullet

The M1A will feel better with less recoil when shooting it. The heavier platform in my opinion really reduces the recoil and it is a joy to shoot even when shooting 100 or more rounds in a session. 

If you already have an "AR" type platform then get the M1A just to have it since no else does. 

The M14/M1A is a very reliable platform. Maybe even more so than an AR. 

Mine shoots flawlessly with a few tweaks of course!


----------



## MrG

Jammer,
Excuse my ignorance here but how in the hounddog do you shoot that thing with the scope so high?


----------



## Jungle_Jim

MrG said:


> Jammer,
> Excuse my ignorance here but how in the hounddog do you shoot that thing with the scope so high?


He has too add a big *** cheek piece to it.

The truth is that AR10 style weapons dominate the shooting competition world. The military fielded M14s in several forms in the beginning of the GWOT because they didn't have enough AR10 style weapons like the KAC SR25 or Larue OBR for the soldiers. M1As are great rifles and were dominate 50 years ago. Not anymore. AR platform is more accurate and more reliable. If they weren't they wouldn't be used so much.


----------



## CHARLIE

More accurate and reliable Wow.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

Charlie, my post not a put down. I love M1A rifles It was just a statement of fact. The AR platform has evolved into a superior weapon over time. Today's 7.62 ARs that are built correctly are more accurate and reliable than almost any other typeof rifle.
I went to a long range precision shooting class last year, there was not one M1A in the class. Many people are going away from bolt guns to the AR for precision long range shooting in the 7.62 caliber because of the ability to hit targets faster without loss of accuracy.

https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4


----------



## CHARLIE

Jungle Jim

Well being from the era when the M16 began to take over he military world I just have a bad impression from those old weapons. Not to say the newer stuff is not superior. I just havent and dont intend to get involved with them. Heck I wouldnt even know how to load one. I will accept that after a little "tinkering" LOL the black gun could out perform an older type military rifle.I am not sure about reliability of the "off the shelf" as is military rifle old vs new. But as I have said I have no interest in the newer "black" guns therefore I really am dumb regarding what they can do. Really have no clue as to what you are talking about when you throw all those letters and numbers out referring to models of the new black guns. See I admit it. See I am dating myself when I tell you my truck gun at the deer lease is a 30 carbine. Great pig gun to 100 yards and you caint hurt it. LOL. 
Sorry I am just a old dynasour (sp). I support you and the newer stuff. Hang in there.. and Good shootin


----------



## Ernest

There is no doubt, none, that the AR platform is inherently more accurate than the M1A. Zero. Plus, the Ar platform does not suffer from the powder limitations associated with the M1A. There is no operating rod to damage with the wrong pressure curve. 

Further, the M1A, while a great weapon, does not offer greater reliability than the AR platform.


----------



## capt mullet

CHARLIE said:


> More accurate and reliable Wow.


I will translate that "wow" for you

wow =I dont think so!

While the AR10 is coming in to its own. The reliabilty and accuracy of a supermatch m14 will out perform most AR10's


----------



## capt mullet

While an AR10 could be more modular the weight and unreliability in combat conditions is why the M14 is more reliable. While the AR platform may have issues with sand in the desert the M14's do not . They are robust rifles that keep on going. Their large costs to make are their downfall. Accuracy is close because of the design of the AR but supermatch M14s are just as accurate if not more than most ARs


----------



## Jungle_Jim

capt mullet said:


> While an AR10 could be more modular the weight and unreliability in combat conditions is why the M14 is more reliable. While the AR platform may have issues with sand in the desert the M14's do not . They are robust rifles that keep on going. Their large costs to make are their downfall. Accuracy is close because of the design of the AR but supermatch M14s are just as accurate if not more than most ARs


None of those statements are correct. They were correct 25 years ago but not now and haven't been for a long time.

If you want to compare "super match" rifles I'd bet my paycheck that a Larue OBR, any OBR will out shoot any supermatch ever made.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

CHARLIE said:


> Jungle Jim
> 
> Well being from the era when the M16 began to take over he military world I just have a bad impression from those old weapons. Not to say the newer stuff is not superior. I just havent and dont intend to get involved with them. Heck I wouldnt even know how to load one. I will accept that after a little "tinkering" LOL the black gun could out perform an older type military rifle.I am not sure about reliability of the "off the shelf" as is military rifle old vs new. But as I have said I have no interest in the newer "black" guns therefore I really am dumb regarding what they can do. Really have no clue as to what you are talking about when you throw all those letters and numbers out referring to models of the new black guns. See I admit it. See I am dating myself when I tell you my truck gun at the deer lease is a 30 carbine. Great pig gun to 100 yards and you caint hurt it. LOL.
> Sorry I am just a old dynasour (sp). I support you and the newer stuff. Hang in there.. and Good shootin


Charlie, I completely understand. I also understand why you wouldn't want to learn or spend time getting to know all the new stuff. I don't want you or any of the readers here to think I don't like or have a poor opinion of the M1A. I love those rifles, however they are antiquated. They are heavy. To use a scope on one you must add a huge cheek riser. The M14 series of rifles was not designed for use with optics. If you remove the old wooden stock and replace it with a modern chassis that allows scope use without major mods you get the reliability problems associated with the ones shown in that video I posted.

The Knight's Armament SR25 and the Larue OBR, LWRCI REPR, and few others are winning the long range battles, competitions and accuracy contests. They are super reliable and are designed for use with optics.

I know a lot of guys that are older that have a poor opinion of the AR styled rifles because of what happened shortly after their introduction.

Good shooting to you too sir.

Jim


----------



## CHARLIE

Jim

Just a note..

It has been a pleasure "shooting the bull" with you. Just a good exchange of opinions and no BS. I enjoyed it.


----------



## capt mullet

Accuracy between the 2 is questionable and may lean toward the AR10 on more modern AR10's even though these 2 platforms are basically the same age

But as far as reliabiliy is concerned you can read about the reliabilty of the M14EBR vs M110 in various forums and the consensus is that the M14 is more reliable and less prone to failure from dirt, sand and battle conditions

Accuracy is arguable and I wont argue it 

Sorry Jungle Jim I still dont agree with your opinion that the AR is "superior" because it is simply not as reliable and therefore not superior. 

It wasnt as reliable in the 50s when both guns were designed and it is still isnt today. 

It may be more popular at the training centers but that doesnt mean it is superior.

I love my AR platform and I happen to be selling my M1A now but from what I read on other forums the AR10 (M110) is not a "superior" weapon to the M1A ( M14)

Just a note

This a forum to discuss such things so I hope nobodies feelings are hurt over what is their favorite guns.

The long history or service of the AR10 vs M14 is widely known and can be debated as such and read about all over


----------



## capt mullet

Dont get me wrong I am not saying the M14 is superior

Apples and oranges chevys and fords!!

The DI system and bolt configuration of the AR platform hurts its reliability while the open bolt of the M14 is more reliable by design. 

The AR platform is more accurate than the the m14 by design.

They can both be taken up to their limits of reliability and accuracy with modern day gunsmithing techniques but the facts still are the same no matter how good our techniques are.


One is more reliable and the other is more accurate!

But to say the M110 is more superior than the M14EBR is incorrect.


----------



## THE JAMMER

I love them both. How bout that. However, like I have said about shotguns: a #6 pellet traveling at 1200 fps, does not know whether it came out of a 12 ga or a 410. Therefore a .5 moa bullet does not know whether it came out of an M1a or an AR10. When you are saying the ar10 is more accurate, are you talking .35" vs. .4" ???

Just a guess but I would bet that if you took one of each, and shot them side by side one day the M1A might be .1 moa better, and the next day the ar10 would be .1 moa better. 

I agree with the statement that the ar10 is slowly replacing the bolt guns, because they have become almost as accurate (practically speaking). Remember the mind set change of the sniper over the last 20-40 years. 30-40 years ago is was one shot, one kill, head shot. Today it seems to be moving more toward center mass shooting, and if you don't totally kill the target with the first shot, so what- it will just generate other new targets that will be trying to help the wounded guy. So the total .5" right between the eyes shots don't seem to be as important today. Plus the ranges at which shots are being taken, kinda preclude that.

It's all relative- get them both- weight is pretty close to the same. Reliability is probably about the same. It would be interesting to do a survey of the guys who are actually using them in the field as to which is more reliable. My gut tells me the M1A might win that one.

Yes I do have to put a big high pad on my m1a to get up to the scope, but once I am there, it is extremely comfortable. Plus with the higher scope that puts my second dead on range much farther out, if I am sighted in dead on at 100 yes, because when the bullet hits the 100 yd mark it is moving upward at a higher angle than it would if the scope were just 1.5" above bore, therefore coming back down to line of sight farther out. There is a reason that EVERY ballistic program out there has "height above bore" as one of the inputs. And if you don't think it makes a difference, play with a program one day by changing height above bore, and see the large differences it makes. Did anyone notice the "big *** cheek piece" Chris Kyle had on his gun in American Sniper????

Bottom line: like I always tell my wife, "I just need another gun." It's like why do I need a 270 if I already have a 30-06??? BECAUSE !!!!!


----------



## Jungle_Jim

CHARLIE said:


> Jim
> 
> Just a note..
> 
> It has been a pleasure "shooting the bull" with you. Just a good exchange of opinions and no BS. I enjoyed it.


I feel the same way sir


----------



## Jungle_Jim

capt mullet said:


> Dont get me wrong I am not saying the M14 is superior
> 
> Apples and oranges chevys and fords!!
> 
> The DI system and bolt configuration of the AR platform hurts its reliability while the open bolt of the M14 is more reliable by design.
> 
> The AR platform is more accurate than the the m14 by design.
> 
> They can both be taken up to their limits of reliability and accuracy with modern day gunsmithing techniques but the facts still are the same no matter how good our techniques are.
> 
> One is more reliable and the other is more accurate!
> 
> But to say the M110 is more superior than the M14EBR is incorrect.


 I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue. A friend of mine, John Johnston over at Ballistic Radio just fired a KAC SR15 20164 times without cleaning the gun, with no malfunctions. It would still shoot 1 moa or better at the end of the test. That speaks volumes about reliability of the modern AR platform.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

THE JAMMER said:


> I love them both. How bout that. However, like I have said about shotguns: a #6 pellet traveling at 1200 fps, does not know whether it came out of a 12 ga or a 410. Therefore a .5 moa bullet does not know whether it came out of an M1a or an AR10. When you are saying the ar10 is more accurate, are you talking .35" vs. .4" ???
> 
> Just a guess but I would bet that if you took one of each, and shot them side by side one day the M1A might be .1 moa better, and the next day the ar10 would be .1 moa better.
> 
> I agree with the statement that the ar10 is slowly replacing the bolt guns, because they have become almost as accurate (practically speaking). Remember the mind set change of the sniper over the last 20-40 years. 30-40 years ago is was one shot, one kill, head shot. Today it seems to be moving more toward center mass shooting, and if you don't totally kill the target with the first shot, so what- it will just generate other new targets that will be trying to help the wounded guy. So the total .5" right between the eyes shots don't seem to be as important today. Plus the ranges at which shots are being taken, kinda preclude that.
> 
> It's all relative- get them both- weight is pretty close to the same. Reliability is probably about the same. It would be interesting to do a survey of the guys who are actually using them in the field as to which is more reliable. My gut tells me the M1A might win that one.
> 
> Yes I do have to put a big high pad on my m1a to get up to the scope, but once I am there, it is extremely comfortable. Plus with the higher scope that puts my second dead on range much farther out, if I am sighted in dead on at 100 yes, because when the bullet hits the 100 yd mark it is moving upward at a higher angle than it would if the scope were just 1.5" above bore, therefore coming back down to line of sight farther out. There is a reason that EVERY ballistic program out there has "height above bore" as one of the inputs. And if you don't think it makes a difference, play with a program one day by changing height above bore, and see the large differences it makes. Did anyone notice the "big *** cheek piece" Chris Kyle had on his gun in American Sniper????
> 
> Bottom line: like I always tell my wife, "I just need another gun." It's like why do I need a 270 if I already have a 30-06??? BECAUSE !!!!!


 Great post! I love M1As! I agree with "Get both". When you add in the modularity of the AR to accuracy and reliability of the system you get a superior product. That's all I am saying.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

I am thankful there are still paces on the internet where men can debate these issues and it doesn't devolve into name calling and ****. I appreciate this place and you guys very much.

Signed,
JJ (Ar fan)


----------



## Fordzilla06

capt mullet said:


> The M1A will feel better with less recoil when shooting it. The heavier platform in my opinion really reduces the recoil and it is a joy to shoot even when shooting 100 or more rounds in a session.
> 
> If you already have an "AR" type platform then get the M1A just to have it since no else does.
> 
> The M14/M1A is a very reliable platform. Maybe even more so than an AR.
> 
> Mine shoots flawlessly with a few tweaks of course!


I'd have to disagree with recoil. The AR will have a buffer the M1A will not. The weight of the rifle will have way less effect of knocking down recoil than a buffer will. Th AR is going to kick way less than the M1A.


----------



## Ernest

The large reciprocating mass of the M1A operating system is what hurts accuracy. Like the FAL or the AK based weapons. 

Moreover, the reliability of the "modern" weapons is enhanced by the dust cover for the action. AR, AK, FAL, HK, MAS-49, AUG, AR-180/18, Stoner 63, the Daewoo K2, and so on. The M1A has an exposed action. This decreases reliability in the field. Hence, this type of exposed action has been abandoned by basically all modern armed forces.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

Did anyone even watch the video I posted? It supports Ernest's statement.


----------



## THE JAMMER

Jungle_Jim said:


> I am thankful there are still paces on the internet where men can debate these issues and it doesn't devolve into name calling and ****. I appreciate this place and you guys very much.
> 
> Signed,
> JJ (Ar fan)


Likewise. It's making me want to pull my M1a out of the safe, dust it off, and shoot it this weekend. Think I'll do that.

The "wish I had another gun for every gun that I have" Jammer


----------



## MechAg94

Jungle_Jim said:


> I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on the issue. A friend of mine, John Johnston over at Ballistic Radio just fired a KAC SR15 20164 times without cleaning the gun, with no malfunctions. It would still shoot 1 moa or better at the end of the test. That speaks volumes about reliability of the modern AR platform.


 We have to include the cost component here. The KAC rifles are way out of the price range the OP was considering.


----------



## MechAg94

IMO

The M1A has the edge in reliability. They will eat good ammo, crappy ammo, and anything inbetween. You might have some limitations on the edges of 308 loads, but my M1A's have been very good with surplus or store bought ammo.

I think AR10's have the edge in accuracy at the high end but in the $1600 or less price range, I think it is pretty much even. The advantage of the AR10 flattop is you have a better platform for a scope and you can upgrade the rifle later with better barrels, triggers, stocks, and hand guards. For the M14, it has some of the best iron sights out there. It will outshoot many scoped rifles out to reasonable ranges with just the irons. Upgrades over the stock rifle are more difficult but you start out pretty good. 

I think weight is about the same and all depends on the AR10 build. 

To me, it falls back to what style of rifle you prefer. I lean to the M14.


----------



## CHARLIE

Well the M14 or M1A is just another Garand which makes it better. Remember thats the gun that won the war. LOL Just ask General George Patton. Good shootin guys.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

MechAg94 said:


> We have to include the cost component here. The KAC rifles are way out of the price range the OP was considering.


I agree Kacs cost a lot, my point was about reliability.


----------



## Superman70

Thanks for all of the input. First off I just want to build this style of gun because I don't own a single auto. All bolt guns and single shots. I don't see it ever doing anything but punching paper. I also feel like I can get a m14 match or super match used and come in around 2 k overall. Most of the good platform rifles seem to cost a of more. The only draw back that I can see is flexability .Both of these guns are plenty capable in the reliability and accuracy dept. I learned that on marine corps rifle ranges. Back in my time spotters were carrying m14s and the shooters had bolt guns.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

Superman70 said:


> Thanks for all of the input. First off I just want to build this style of gun because I don't own a single auto. All bolt guns and single shots. I don't see it ever doing anything but punching paper. I also feel like I can get a m14 match or super match used and come in around 2 k overall. Most of the good platform rifles seem to cost a of more. The only draw back that I can see is flexability .Both of these guns are plenty capable in the reliability and accuracy dept. I learned that on marine corps rifle ranges. Back in my time spotters were carrying m14s and the shooters had bolt guns.


? You are 44 years old correct?


----------



## Superman70

Yessir


----------



## Jungle_Jim

I found this article about the M14 and thought you guys might find it...interesting.

http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/t...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> I found this article about the M14 and thought you guys might find it...interesting.
> 
> http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/t...l&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer


 I really think we're talking about two completely different situations, here: a spotty combat reliability record vs. viability as an accuracy platform isn't an argument that the M16/AR-15 wants to get into, either... Even as a DMR rifle, the military is still going to a different set of parameters than civilians will to determine "reliability"..

Both of them have a very good record as a precision-accuracy platform, to the point that you're probably not going to legitimately be able pick a winner in that arena. The one thing that AR platform will win there is in it's modular construction: spend enough money on high-end components, and you can put together a pretty spectacularly accurate rifle in your garage with fifty' bucks worth of tools and some youtube videos.. The M14, on the other hand, doesn't have that luxury; if you want an equivalently accurate gun on that platform, you're probably into real gunsmith work, and you're going to be severely limited on the scope of off the shelf "high end components" by comparison.. I really don't think you'd be able to pick winner on anything but individual rifles: consider the whole platform, and that'd be pretty tough, and essentially impossible to prove..


----------



## Superman70

I guess I'm getting old. I had forgotten all about that upper hand guard bedding. Guess I will go platform. Now to decide , fast twist 223, 6.5 creedmore, or 308.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

Superman70 said:


> I guess I'm getting old. I had forgotten all about that upper hand guard bedding. Guess I will go platform. Now to decide , fast twist 223, 6.5 creedmore, or 308.


All of them will work, depends on what you want the bullet to do when it gets there. I have no problem hitting 600 yard bulls eyes with a 14.5 barreled LWRC in 5.56. In my opinion an 18-20 inch bbl precision AR will be pretty good to 800 with the right bullet. Now if I am trying to anchor a hog that far away 6.5 or .308 is the ticket....


----------



## Superman70

Just gonna poke a hole in some paper or maybe a coyote at most. 

Bolt guns and single shots with blued metal and nice wood for hunting.


----------



## T_rout

I'm in the research phase of building a 308. There's so many options my brain hurts from trying to decided! 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Jungle_Jim

Superman70 said:


> Just gonna poke a hole in some paper or maybe a coyote at most.
> 
> Bolt guns and single shots with blued metal and nice wood for hunting.


18-20 inch .223 will do that just fine and at about half the cost of .308.


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> 18-20 inch .223 will do that just fine and at about half the cost of .308.


You can do that with a .22 or .17 as well, cheaper than the .223..

Silly argument to get into.


----------



## Bass-Tracker

capt mullet said:


> I will translate that "wow" for you
> 
> wow =I dont think so!
> 
> While the AR10 is coming in to its own. The reliabilty and accuracy of a supermatch m14 will out perform most AR10's


I have a supermatch built by Warbirds I shoot in highpower matches & it will hit the 10 ring at 600 yards all day long with iron sights.
I never could shoot a pistol gripped rifle as well as my M1A but that's me.

.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

dwilliams35 said:


> You can do that with a .22 or .17 as well, cheaper than the .223..
> 
> Silly argument to get into.


 Sigh.... If you back to the original post you will see that he is looking for a rifle that is 600 yard capable. A .22 or .17 will not do that.

What is silly is when people post stuff and don't keep it in context.


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> Sigh.... If you back to the original post you will see that he is looking for a rifle that is 600 yard capable. A .22 or .17 will not do that.
> 
> What is silly is when people post stuff and don't keep it in context.


 My point is that it's all relative: you give and take with anything. A .17 is probably a reasonable alternative to a .223 within its own element, a .22 can do the same thing within its element. The .223 vs. .308 is similar: they've both got their own strengths and weaknesses within their own elements.. That IS the context. The .17 and .22 was just an extreme example that the cost argument you offered is ancillary at best. Not even in the same ballpark ballistically, just by virtue of the simple mass of the bullet in question. A .22 will go 600 yards too: most reasonable people recognize that it pretty much sucks at doing it consistently, with any usable energy when it gets there. Ditto the .223 and .308 argument. A .223 will get there, if you're just looking to punch a hole in paper. Don't count on rolling a hog. Or a coyote, just to keep it in context.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

dwilliams35 said:


> My point is that it's all relative: you give and take with anything. A .17 is probably a reasonable alternative to a .223 within its own element, a .22 can do the same thing within its element. The .223 vs. .308 is similar: they've both got their own strengths and weaknesses within their own elements.. That IS the context. The .17 and .22 was just an extreme example that the cost argument you offered is ancillary at best. Not even in the same ballpark ballistically, just by virtue of the simple mass of the bullet in question. A .22 will go 600 yards too: most reasonable people recognize that it pretty much sucks at doing it consistently, with any usable energy when it gets there. Ditto the .223 and .308 argument. A .223 will get there, if you're just looking to punch a hole in paper. Don't count on rolling a hog. Or a coyote, just to keep it in context.


Holy **** man. If you go back one page you will see that I said exactly that. 
*"All of them will work, depends on what you want the bullet to do when it gets there. I have no problem hitting 600 yard bulls eyes with a 14.5 barreled LWRC in 5.56. In my opinion an 18-20 inch bbl precision AR will be pretty good to 800 with the right bullet. Now if I am trying to anchor a hog that far away 6.5 or .308 is the ticket.... "*

Plus, I call BS. You are trying to start an argument. If you were aware that we had already discussed going 600 yards your post about .17 and .22 doesn't make sense. .22 will GO 600 yards but it won't be accurate at 600 yards. You need to read the thread and realize that there has a been a discussion. Each post does not stand on its own.


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> Holy **** man. If you go back one page you will see that I said exactly that.
> *"All of them will work, depends on what you want the bullet to do when it gets there. I have no problem hitting 600 yard bulls eyes with a 14.5 barreled LWRC in 5.56. In my opinion an 18-20 inch bbl precision AR will be pretty good to 800 with the right bullet. Now if I am trying to anchor a hog that far away 6.5 or .308 is the ticket.... "*
> 
> Plus, I call BS. You are trying to start an argument. If you were aware that we had already discussed going 600 yards your post about .17 and .22 doesn't make sense. .22 will GO 600 yards but it won't be accurate at 600 yards. You need to read the thread and realize that there has a been a discussion. Each post does not stand on its own.


 I believe you're the one that introduced .223/5.56 into it to begin with? This has been a discussion about .308's until that.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

dwilliams35 said:


> I believe you're the one that introduced .223/5.56 into it to begin with? This has been a discussion about .308's until that.


You are wrong on that too. The OP posted this
*"*
*I guess I'm getting old. I had forgotten all about that upper hand guard bedding. Guess I will go platform. Now to decide , fast twist 223, 6.5 creedmore, or 308. "*

So I asked him what his purpose was with the gun. He said poking holes in paper and maybe the occasional coyote.

You are doing a great job at failing to read and stirring the pot.


----------



## Superman70

I didnt mean to cause an argument. I decided against the m1 because of the hand guard. I like to junk shoot from time to time in the clear cuts in our hunting club. Just set up and guess the range of different stumps and try to hit it in as few of shots as possible. The gun will be a fast twist 223. In wont be shooting at animals at 600. Thats not my cup of tea. 18 to 20 inch barrel because I cant hold a really short gun steady. Thats my problem not the guns. 1 in 8 twist for 69 grain bullets.


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> You are wrong on that too. The OP posted this
> *"*
> *I guess I'm getting old. I had forgotten all about that upper hand guard bedding. Guess I will go platform. Now to decide , fast twist 223, 6.5 creedmore, or 308. "*
> 
> So I asked him what his purpose was with the gun. He said poking holes in paper and maybe the occasional coyote.
> 
> You are doing a great job at failing to read and stirring the pot.


 Terribly sorry if I posted something that had a whiff of disagreement with some point you may have had. After you wrote a post celebrating this forum's ability to have a discussion without it devolving into name calling, I figured you could handle it. I guess I was wrong again.


----------



## dwilliams35

Superman70 said:


> I didnt mean to cause an argument. I decided against the m1 because of the hand guard. I like to junk shoot from time to time in the clear cuts in our hunting club. Just set up and guess the range of different stumps and try to hit it in as few of shots as possible. The gun will be a fast twist 223. In wont be shooting at animals at 600. Thats not my cup of tea. 18 to 20 inch barrel because I cant hold a really short gun steady. Thats my problem not the guns. 1 in 8 twist for 69 grain bullets.


 What's the difference between a short gun and a long one? You're still holding it in the same place, and the optics are in the same place. I can see a 24" bull barrel or something having some extra mass out there, but does a couple of inches really make any significant difference to you, or do you just figure it's mental?


----------



## Superman70

Dont know. It may be mental block. I just seem to chase the bull more with the shorter guns. I tend to like a little more weight out front on my guns. May solve the weight issue with a suppressor.


----------



## Jungle_Jim

dwilliams35 said:


> Terribly sorry if I posted something that had a whiff of disagreement with some point you may have had. After you wrote a post celebrating this forum's ability to have a discussion without it devolving into name calling, I figured you could handle it. I guess I was wrong again.


A grown man would just admit they made a mistake and move on. I didn't call you any names. We didn't have a disagreement. You posted some stuff that was flat wrong. If you want to keep posting ******** just post up some pics of your 600 yard .22 or .17 targets...
Jim


----------



## dwilliams35

Jungle_Jim said:


> A grown man would just admit they made a mistake and move on. I didn't call you any names. We didn't have a disagreement. You posted some stuff that was flat wrong. If you want to keep posting ******** just post up some pics of your 600 yard .22 or .17 targets...
> Jim


Are you stalking me or something?


----------



## Jungle_Jim

dwilliams35 said:


> Are you stalking me or something?


Don't flatter yourself.


----------

