The M1A is a nice rifle. It is accurate, reliable and tough. I love mine and it will shoot around 1 MOA (National Match grade)all day long with quality ammunition. It is not a combat rifle (mine) since with all the NM mods it is a heavy mother, and not balanced for fast reactive shooting. With the M14E2 stock (with a pistol grip) and the GI contour barrel, the M14 is a better combat rifle than the NM and SuperMatch models, but a E2 type stock in fiberglass would be even better. the McMillan M2a stock used on the Marine Corps DMR is a nice stock ergonomically, but FAR too heavy for a combat rifle. The USGI fiberglass stocks are light and tough enough, but I'd love to see a real pistol grip on that sucker.
Either the FN FAL or the Armalite AR10 are better designed (in my opinion) for combat riflery. Their ergonomics are better for fast shooting. The FN FAL, while giving up some accuracy potential to the AR10 is much less expensive and the MAGS are downright CHEAP. You could by 20 or 30 FAL mags for the price of 5 M14 or AR10 mags, and for a combat rifle, that is a BIG advantage.
If I were looking for a 7.62 combat rifle I'd look at a DSA FAL rifle with a carbine length barrel and their heavy duty scope mount dust cover. Attaching a good Aimpoint or Trijcon sight to that would yield a darned nice rifle in my opinion and you'd probably still be out ahead of an SA Inc. M1A or Armalite AR 10. Add 10 magazines for each into the equation and your are WAAAAAY out ahead with the DSA FAL.
You can also build a damned good FAL from parts kits for much less money, but unless you are real handy, the learning curve might be a little steep and reliability issues and safety issues could be a concern (even if they are not a reality, YOU could be concerned about them thus eroding your faith in the rifle).