M1A Standard or Loaded? - Page 1

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M1A Standard or Loaded?

Posted: 3/29/2015 1:45:52 PM EDT

Does anybody here either own or has shot extensively both the M1A standard and loaded?

I'm looking to buy an M1A in the near future and was wondering if anybody could tell me if they notice much of a difference in terms of accuracy between the two.

Loaded has a tuned trigger and NM barrel with a tighter rear peep, all of which could be nice, but I'm just unsure if any of that will make THAT much of a difference to me.

Posted: 3/29/2015 8:35:23 PM EDT

[#1]

I have the loaded, my buddy has the standard. I really like the trigger and barrel on the loaded. I actually prefer the standard rear sight to the NM on the loaded. I find that the NM is too small and I have trouble getting a good sight picture through the tiny pinhole. His standard came with a NM front sight post and standard rear sight, which I think is the better sight setup. Not sure which features are most important to you, but that is what I found from shooting them both.

Posted: 3/30/2015 6:43:09 PM EDT

[#2]

I have the standard model and I have NO problems with it.... But, I've never fired a loaded model too compare it with.

Posted: 4/2/2015 4:05:08 PM EDT

[#3]

I've had a polytech with a GI weight barrel and I have a loaded. The loaded is certainly more accurate. But the Poly was more fun to shoot in other positions other than the bench. Like offhand. The poly balanced way better. The loaded is too front heavy, IMHO. But has shown good accuracy.

My best group from the Loaded:

Posted: 4/2/2015 5:42:02 PM EDT

[#4]

When I got mine, the loaded got you an extra mag, Synthetic stock, Douglas air gauged stainless steel match barrel, National Match sights, and National match trigger.

Mine needed an immediate extractor, spring, and rear sight replacement, but Springfield hooked me up very quickly. They gave me a new sight and I only had to send my bolt in to get the new extractor parts. The rifle makes me look good and it is sexy as hell.

A good two stage trigger will definitely make THAT much difference. You also do not want to be a better shot than your barrel allows you to be.

If you are gonna pussy out and run a scope, the sights won't matter much.

Posted: 4/2/2015 6:51:18 PM EDT

[#5]

Quote History

Quoted:

If you are gonna pussy out and run a scope, the sights won't matter much.

View Quote

I dont have an absolute intention of mounting an optic on it, but just wanted something that if I chose to put an optic on it would still be quite adequate. I'm no super-shot by any means, so going past the loaded into the NM or SM is unnecessary for me, but I do want something that will serve me well if I choose to put an optic on it.

I know the irons are great on it, but I want my options open

ETA: Mostly just interested in how much difference the NM barrel and other goodies make over the standard

Posted: 4/3/2015 5:14:49 PM EDT

[#6]

If you're goal is to shoot it prone or from a bench for competition or just a relaxing day of shooting for groups, I'd go loaded all the way. If you want to hump it through the woods and shoot a deer or hog, I'd be all over a standard. Or even the shorter barreled versions like a Bush, or what's the other version of the 18.5".... you know, that one. Or the socom.

Scout is the word I was looking for.

But just the standard would be a pretty sweet deal too or any shooting. It just might not be as accurate as a loaded. You never know though.... if a barrel likes a certain kind of ammo......

Posted: 4/3/2015 8:25:45 PM EDT

[#7]

Quote History

Quoted:
If you're goal is to shoot it prone or from a bench for competition or just a relaxing day of shooting for groups, I'd go loaded all the way. If you want to hump it through the woods and shoot a deer or hog, I'd be all over a standard. Or even the shorter barreled versions like a Bush, or what's the other version of the 18.5".... you know, that one. Or the socom.

Scout is the word I was looking for.

But just the standard would be a pretty sweet deal too or any shooting. It just might not be as accurate as a loaded. You never know though.... if a barrel likes a certain kind of ammo......

View Quote

It's definitely a rifle I would be using for hunting so the extra pound or so of weight savings would be nice

Posted: 4/6/2015 11:55:32 AM EDT

[#8]

I have a wood stocked standard M1A which came with a NM front sight that I added a NM rear aperture to. A week ago I took it out with my 168grn target loads and shot at a 10" steel plate at slightly over 400yds. While I didn't hit it every time (averaged 1 hit out of every 2.5 shots), with 67yr old eyes and a 5-7mph quartering headwind, I'm thrilled with it's performance as I could barely see the white target but hit it with iron sights. I think the accuracy is there if you have good ammo and take the time to sight and fire correctly.

Posted: 4/7/2015 2:07:29 AM EDT

[#9]

I have both. With iron sights I have noticed no difference between them in the way of accuracy. The trigger on my standard is every bit as good as the loaded. I prefer the GI rear sight aperature. Although I like a NM front for precision shooting. The lighter barrel of the standard is preferable to me for every use.

The only down side to the standard I have found is mine evidently has a much more generous chamber than the loaded, though the head space is similar. In any event the brass comes out of my standard stretched like crazy, not so with the loaded.

Personally I would buy a M14 clone from a different manufacturer than SAI due to my experiences with poor workmanship and QC on my M1As.

Posted: 4/7/2015 2:12:07 AM EDT

[#10]

... I've one of each. Ordered my NM with the blackened barrel, so they look nearly identical sans the bipod mount. Both perform very well, but I prefer the national match

Posted: 4/7/2015 2:20:43 PM EDT

[#11]

Personally I would get the loaded version. ( Buy once, cry once. ) The trigger only would be a desired upgrade to me.... and sooner or later I would want to upgrade the barrel. I won't want to wonder if the "Loaded" version should have been my choice...

Having been spoiled from the get go, ( SAI M21 ) I know that the more accurate it is the better.

With all that said... this forum has a TON of excellent info.

IM sent.

Posted: 4/7/2015 5:44:39 PM EDT

[#12]

Have you considered a 19.25" barrelled rifle from James River Armory? It will be cheaper than an LRB but the quality will far exceed that of a SAI standard or loaded. If you want to scope it later, you can get their XM21 receiver which has an integral scope rail already milled into the receiver. You wouldn't have to mess with side mounted scope mounts.

http://www.jamesriverarmory.com/products/product/50-rockola-m14f-carbine.html

Tony.

Posted: 4/7/2015 10:12:14 PM EDT

[#13]

I got a loaded and to be honest, replaced the "two-stage" trigger with a GI trigger and hammer set. I could tell no difference in pull or break. Maybe I just got lucky. It is good as it is today and quite accurate, though I need to get it out to long ranges. Hard to find a good place around Greenville. I am waiting on a friend to get some property ready.

I bought my loaded for the barrel. I do like the sights, but did out a scope on. If I want to go back to irons, at least I already have the loaded sights.

Posted: 4/8/2015 1:43:20 AM EDT

[#14]

Quote History

Quoted:

It's definitely a rifle I would be using for hunting so the extra pound or so of weight savings would be nice

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you're goal is to shoot it prone or from a bench for competition or just a relaxing day of shooting for groups, I'd go loaded all the way. If you want to hump it through the woods and shoot a deer or hog, I'd be all over a standard. Or even the shorter barreled versions like a Bush, or what's the other version of the 18.5".... you know, that one. Or the socom.

Scout is the word I was looking for.

But just the standard would be a pretty sweet deal too or any shooting. It just might not be as accurate as a loaded. You never know though.... if a barrel likes a certain kind of ammo......

It's definitely a rifle I would be using for hunting so the extra pound or so of weight savings would be nice

The only problem with the "Loaded" and hunting is the small aperture. Finding a deer in the woods would be tough. Like finding a deer in a 20x scope at 30 yards. There is simply too small of a field of view.

This leads me to a quick question. I don't want to hi jack the OP's thread but how hard is it to switch out the NM aperture for a standard one?

Motor1

Posted: 4/8/2015 7:11:18 AM EDT

[#15]

Quote History

Quoted:

The only problem with the "Loaded" and hunting is the small aperture. Finding a deer in the woods would be tough. Like finding a deer in a 20x scope at 30 yards. There is simply too small of a field of view.

This leads me to a quick question. I don't want to hi jack the OP's thread but how hard is it to switch out the NM aperture for a standard one?

Motor1

View Quote View All Quotes

View All Quotes

Quote History

Quoted:

Quoted:
If you're goal is to shoot it prone or from a bench for competition or just a relaxing day of shooting for groups, I'd go loaded all the way. If you want to hump it through the woods and shoot a deer or hog, I'd be all over a standard. Or even the shorter barreled versions like a Bush, or what's the other version of the 18.5".... you know, that one. Or the socom.

Scout is the word I was looking for.

But just the standard would be a pretty sweet deal too or any shooting. It just might not be as accurate as a loaded. You never know though.... if a barrel likes a certain kind of ammo......

It's definitely a rifle I would be using for hunting so the extra pound or so of weight savings would be nice

The only problem with the "Loaded" and hunting is the small aperture. Finding a deer in the woods would be tough. Like finding a deer in a 20x scope at 30 yards. There is simply too small of a field of view.

This leads me to a quick question. I don't want to hi jack the OP's thread but how hard is it to switch out the NM aperture for a standard one?

Motor1

It's not hard at all. It takes 5 minutes but you have to re-zero the rifle. It's covered here...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MzPw9BD56hU

Tony.

Posted: 4/8/2015 11:20:59 AM EDT

[#16]

Thanks Tony, I'll check it out.

Motor1

Posted: 4/9/2015 12:20:50 PM EDT

[#17]

Quote History

Quoted:

I have both. With iron sights I have noticed no difference between them in the way of accuracy. The trigger on my standard is every bit as good as the loaded. I prefer the GI rear sight aperature. Although I like a NM front for precision shooting. The lighter barrel of the standard is preferable to me for every use.

The only down side to the standard I have found is mine evidently has a much more generous chamber than the loaded, though the head space is similar. In any event the brass comes out of my standard stretched like crazy, not so with the loaded.

Personally I would buy a M14 clone from a different manufacturer than SAI due to my experiences with poor workmanship and QC on my M1As.

View Quote

You might want to talk to Springfield about that because my standard chamber doesn't stretch my brass like that. It comes out just like the brass from my Winchester 88.

Posted: 4/9/2015 3:37:45 PM EDT

[#18]

Motor1, just speaking from experience. Wear a brimmed hat. If you get the sun to the rear, the rear ap lights up like a spot light and you can't see jack. Even with a GI ap. I missed a deer once because of it with my Garand. It would've been so cool to get a deer with it. But it was the only chance I had. I only took the Garand once because I walked a lot and it was freaking heavy.

But I think a hat with a brim would've solved my problem.

[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M1A Standard or Loaded?

Armory » M1 / M14 / M1 Carbine

Warning

Confirm Action

About AR15.COM

Stay Connected

Newsletter

Contact Us