Page 1 of 2
FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 4:45 pm
by Abraham
I'm maaaaaybe buying an FNAR, but I would like to know if the M1A is a better rifle.
Anyone know the differences?
Thanks!
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 5:57 pm
by Terlingueno
The M1A is based on the Garand action. The FNAR is based more or less on the BAR. The M1A is graceful and a beauty. The FNAR is the most butt ugly rifle I have ever seen.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 6:28 pm
by RECIT
What is the intended purpose of these fine rifles. I am partial to the M1A cause they rock, lots of parts and upgrades available, mags are affordable, scope mounts are a plenty, and they come with iron sights. My vote goes for the SOCOM model w/ or w/out the rail. Short barrel, night sights, muzzle break, and plenty of punch.
The FNAR is... accurate. I have never shot one but handled quite a few at shows and local shops.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 7:49 pm
by G.A. Heath
I own an FNAR and have shot a few M1A's. To describe the FNAR I would say it is the most fugly, heaviest, and accurate 7.62x51 (.308) I have ever shot. Now the M1A is also accurate, has style, and doesn't weigh as much although recoil is much more pronounced with the M1A. Decide what you want the gun for and then get the one that best fits your needs. And its based on the Browning BAR hunting rifle.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Mon Dec 13, 2010 8:14 pm
by McKnife
Not to hijack, but have you ever researched the FN FAL?
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 1:13 am
by Zoomie
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 7:16 am
by dicion
the FNAR may be ugly, but you can't argue with it's performance.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:20 am
by bigred90gt
Just on aesthetics alone, I prefer the FNAR. Having never fired either one, if I had to choose just by looking at them, I would without a doubt end up with the FNAR.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:50 am
by Abraham
Thanks one and all for the help.
As to it's looks, the FNAR actually appeals to me in it's looks, but then I think Glocks look fine too, beauty being in the eye of the beholder and all that...
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 10:52 am
by The Annoyed Man
On the day that I bought my M1A Loaded, there was a heavy barreled FNAR on the shelf right next to it. They were within $20 of one another in price -
both being over $1,700.00. At that price point, $20 isn't enough to make a difference. They both had stocks of roughly the same color, and they both had roughly the same size and heft.
I knew that the NFAR would be the more accurate of the two. FN
guarantees .5 MOA for the heavy barreled rifle. Very few rifle makers will guarantee that for a
bolt action rifle, let alone a semi-auto, and the FNAR gives the impression of being built like a bank vault. OTH, the FN is an
unproven quantity in terms of ruggedness. It
looks reasonably rugged, and it is based on the modern BAR action which has a good reputation for reliability as a hunting rifle, but the FNAR has no real track record as a TEOTWAWKI rifle.
The M1A/M14, at least the "Loaded" version, will shoot to 1 MOA-1.25 MOA using most commercial ammo, and can be coaxed down to .5 MOA with the right load. It is actually battle tested, both in its current format, and as the M1 Garand action in WW2 - the greatest battle implement ever devised, according to General Patton. It is easy to break down and clean, and its mechanisms are simple and easy to understand. Like today's AR15 and the AK47, the M1A was built for unsophisticated soldiers, with no particular previous history of riflemanship, to be able to feed, care for, and to be combat-effective with it. The fact that it is reasonably accurate for a battle rifle is bonus points.
The FNAR has its own "charm," but its visual design leaves me cold personally. OTH, I have wanted an M1A/M14 since I was in high school in the 1960s. It was a no-brainer. I bought the M1A. The NFAR may be the better rifle (or not), but if it is, it isn't better by much. My ultimate impression is that the FNAR is a technocrat's rifle, while the M1A is a rifleman's rifle.
I chose the M1A, and I have no regrets. I love showing off my M1A:

Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:24 am
by Abraham
TAM,
It IS a beauty!
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 11:47 am
by Commander Cody
TAM, I'm with you on the M1A. I'd love to have a M21, but just don't know where to get one.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 2:16 pm
by KinnyLee
Commander Cody wrote:TAM, I'm with you on the M1A. I'd love to have a M21, but just don't know where to get one.
http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/prod ... s_id/27527" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Now you have no excuse.
Always wanted a Scout. +1 on the M1A
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 3:41 pm
by Commander Cody
Like everyone else... it's out of stock. And no one knows when they will be in stock.
Re: FNAR vs. M1A
Posted: Tue Dec 14, 2010 4:42 pm
by Carry-a-Kimber
Commander Cody wrote:TAM, I'm with you on the M1A. I'd love to have a M21, but just don't know where to get one.
http://www.impactguns.com/store/706397031312.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;