The latest Small ARms Review has an atricle about the Fulton M1A.  I'm pretty disappointed though as they don't seem to say much despite having three pages devoted to it.  It's very atypical for SAR -- usually their articles are very in-depth and informative.  They have a heading teaser asking if the it's worth the price to go with Fulton, but they never answer that.  They don't seem to answer anything -- it's more like a large brochure for Fulton.  I was really interested in this given that I'm trying to decide between a Springfield or a Fulton and I figured SAR would help iron this out for me -- but no such luck.

The article reminded me of the kind of articles you get in "regular" gun rags -- very disappointing.

This does not bode well for SAR.  I am absolutely dissappointed with the vast majority of the gun rags.  It is rare, if ever you read an article that gives anything other than glowing accolades for whatever they "test".  Remember: bad review means loss in advertising.  Objectivity has its price.  This is no dig at Fulton -- in the least; rather, a sad commentary about the publishing business.  

Quoted:

Anything less than that is called "damning with faint praise", and the item may very well be disappointing.


Yeah, I was thinking exactly that.  Maybe the extra money of the Fulton isn't worth it.

They certainly do have a decent rep around here.   What bothers me is that you never really hear anything worthwhile about WHY they are that good.  The only thing I ever hear is that they use GI parts.  Ok, that's great but why should I pay a bunch more just because of that?  I never hear about SA rifles being junk or that the parts break, just that theoretically Fulton is better because "they use GI parts".  Another thing that has me concerned is that Fulton's website actually talks about why Springfield isn't as good.  To me that's usually a red flag of an inferiority complex.

I really don't know.  I don't have an M1A yet, but I plan on buying one -- I just want to do as much research as possible so I don't wish that I bought something else.

After all this I'm thinking of buying a DSA FAL instead

Quoted: The latest Small ARms Review has an atricle about the Fulton M1A.  I'm pretty disappointed though as they don't seem to say much despite having three pages devoted to it.  It's very atypical for SAR -- usually their articles are very in-depth and informative.  They have a heading teaser asking if the it's worth the price to go with Fulton, but they never answer that.  They don't seem to answer anything -- it's more like a large brochure for Fulton.  I was really interested in this given that I'm trying to decide between a Springfield or a Fulton and I figured SAR would help iron this out for me -- but no such luck. The article reminded me of the kind of articles you get in "regular" gun rags -- very disappointing.

I think SAR has jumped the shark and joined the rest of the gun zines, not worth the paper they are printed on. I thought the cover was very misleading, leading headline "U.S.M14 Back in Action!" then a nice picture of a GI with an M14. Where did they cover any of this inside the mag, nowhere, you get a fluff piece on Fulton and one little blurb about the Beta C mag. A waste of money if you ask me.

Quoted: Quoted: The latest Small ARms Review has an atricle about the Fulton M1A.  I'm pretty disappointed though as they don't seem to say much despite having three pages devoted to it.  It's very atypical for SAR -- usually their articles are very in-depth and informative.  They have a heading teaser asking if the it's worth the price to go with Fulton, but they never answer that.  They don't seem to answer anything -- it's more like a large brochure for Fulton.  I was really interested in this given that I'm trying to decide between a Springfield or a Fulton and I figured SAR would help iron this out for me -- but no such luck. The article reminded me of the kind of articles you get in "regular" gun rags -- very disappointing. I think SAR has jumped the shark and joined the rest of the gun zines, not worth the paper they are printed on. I thought the cover was very misleading, leading headline "U.S.M14 Back in Action!" then a nice picture of a GI with an M14. Where did they cover any of this inside the mag, nowhere, you get a fluff piece on Fulton and one little blurb about the Beta C mag. A waste of money if you ask me.

Wow -- I thought this thread was dead for sure, which disappointed me because I wanted to hear more from the rest of you on Fultons.  Yeah, this mag was disappointing for sure, but I think it's an exception to the rule (so far).   Hopefully they'll pick up again.

After reading this I'm kind of thinking that I should save the money and get a Springfield Scout instead of a Fulton.