Garand or M1A?


PDA






Jmurman
June 3, 2003, 07:26 AM
I am trying to decide between the two. It will be my only rifle of this type. Any comments?

If you enjoyed reading about "Garand or M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
stellarpod
June 3, 2003, 07:44 AM
It may be your first, but I seriously doubt it will be your last! :D

I'd go with the Garand. The history behind this weapon just gives it more appeal in my opinion. And I promise it will garner more nosalgic smiles from the older crowd when your at the range.

M1A's are nice too. I just prefer the Garand.

Oh, and you can pick one up for a heckuva lot less than the M1A.

stellarpod

shermacman
June 3, 2003, 07:47 AM
Fired 'em both, love 'em both. The Garand of course is a military classic. I find a strong sense of history and pride just looking at one. But I have to admit that if I were looking for a SHTF rifle the M1A out performs the Garand in almost every area. Although I have never been bitten by the M1 thumb, loading a Garand is a project compared to the M1A. For nostalgia: Garand. For fire power: M1A. For love of firearms: get a second job so you can get both!

Daryl
June 3, 2003, 07:55 AM
I have both and if I had to give one up, it would be the M1A. There is just something special about the Garand.

FPrice
June 3, 2003, 08:25 AM
This comes up every now and then, which rifle to buy.

My advice is generally to buy the Garand first because they just seem to be getting rarer and more expensive every day. At least the military versions are and those are the only ones I would consider.

However, a more practical suggestion is to get whichever one offers itself up first to you. I have a sneaking suspicion that you will eventually want and will get one of the other also. It just seems to happen that way.

Swampy
June 3, 2003, 08:36 AM
Jmurman,

For reasons already stated, go with the M1.... Accurate, hard hitting, long ranged. rugged.

What more do you need???


shermacman wrote:

the M1A out performs the Garand in almost every area. Although I have never been bitten by the M1 thumb, loading a Garand is a project compared to the M1A.


Truly a matter for debate here..... ;)

I own and shoot both Garands and M1-A's. Both are great weapons. BUT.....

The Garand is much easier to get into a good low prone position. No awkward mag sticking down. Better concealment, better cover.

Also the reloading issue. Once you have the process down, you can reload a Garand in MUCH less time than an M1-A.

The process of picking up a clip and inserting it in the magwell of an M1 is faster than the M1-A, where you FIRST have to grab & remove the empty mag, drop it or set it down, then go for the new one, being careful to rock it properly into place till it locks, then pulling the oprod handle back to release the bolt.

Both systems can be learned to a fine "tee".... but because it "self empties" and then "self closes", the Garand is naturally faster to reload.

I choose to (mostly) shoot NRA Highpower with a Garand instead of the newer M1-A or AR15 types (fully Match upgraded, of course). My reload time is LESS than half that of the M1-A shooters I share the firing line with.

I read a very long report on the Garand in the "GUNS Combat 2000 annual isse". The author, Chuck Karwan, well familiar with both weapons and a Viet Nam vet who carried the M14 in numerous jungle firefights, decided to do a "sustained rate of fire test" between the Garand and M14 types.

He had himself timed as he fired and reloaded both weapons several times.

Making a computer model with his average reload times.... he found that the Garand could stay with the M14 (M1-A) virtually shot for shot over the long haul, simply because it relaods so much faster.

Having said all this, I'd have to admit that I'd be hard pressed to make a choice between the two in a true SHTF scenario....... But if I suddenly found myself needing firepower and the only thing available was a Garand, the only thing I'd feel sorry for was whoever it was that made me go for a rifle in the first place.

Can you say, "What's cover against .223 is only concealment against 30-06"?? :)

Best regards,
Swampy

Monte Harrison
June 3, 2003, 09:16 AM
This is the rifle grampa carried in the Big One. For history and pride of ownership, gotta go with the Garand. And here is where you have to get it from:
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm

http://www.odcmp.com/images/m1_small.jpg

Steve Smith
June 3, 2003, 09:36 AM
Over the course of one or two mags the Garand DOES have a faster reload speed. However, consider a situation that the CMP NTIT (Rattle Battle) simulates, lots of bad guys, lots of ammo, little time. Try firing 30 ACCURATE rounds out of a Garand in 50 seconds on a man sized sillhouette at 600 yards. The 20 round box has its advantages in some situations.

A low prone position may be obtained with the M1A.

shermacman
June 3, 2003, 10:53 AM
Swampy, when I was talking reloading time I did not mean pre-loading! Having a dozen pre-loaded M1 clips all set up nice and neat in the comfort of a suburban home is one thing. Rummaging through a box and loading a clip in the field is another. Maybe it is just me, but I just can't get the hang of banging .30/06 rounds into the butt end of the Garand so they line up all nice and neat with bad guys firing over my head. (Which happens all the time :rolleyes:) Also imagine firing three shots from a run, dropping low for cover and wanting to refill the clip...not easy. Your point about low prone position is right on the money. Funny thing is, everytime I get a chance to fire a rifle my order of preference is always M16 if I have to, M1A OK and Garand any time I can!

Handy
June 3, 2003, 11:09 AM
One issue I'd research first is the availability of good parts. While the M1A is still being produced, an awful lot of the internal parts are cheaply made and causing problems lately. I would not be surprised to find that GI spec parts for the Garand are actually more common.

Once you add up the costs of having the reliable parts and several quality GI mags, you might be scared off the M1A by total price.

My top choices for a gun of this type would be either a dirt cheap Danish Garand for $400 from the CMP, and a .308 rebarrel, or this $995 US/Chinese part Armscorp M14 rifle from Sarco:

http://www.sarcoinc.com/r285.html

Both seem like solid platforms to upgrade as necessary for what you decide to do with the gun.

If you want a match rifle, there are a number of good places that will sell you $2000 worth of either design.

uglymofo
June 3, 2003, 11:11 AM
You haven't mentioned your requirements. Garands are classic, 'accurate', and cheap(er) than M1A's. Mags for M1A's can be had for as little as ~$35 (from Coles), but that's still way more expensive than the Garand's.

However, if accuracy is important, "out of the box" CMP's will group anywhere from 2" - 5" at 100yd. For about $500. Some 'smiths can tweak an M1A for about another $1000 to get 1" groups.

A Springfield Armory M1A rack grade will shoot 3-4" for ~$1000. There are about 4 levels of Springfields, each getting better for more money. The top of their line is the Super Match, which you can find NIB preban from private parties for ~$1700. These'll shoot 1/2 MOA groups with reloads (3/4 MOA with Federal Gold Medal). (There are higher priced Springfields, but they won't shoot any better.) Fulton Armory offers the same grades for about the same monies, but finding private party sales is harder.

Lastly, reloading costs will be less with the M1A as it uses fractionally less powder.

However, a more practical suggestion is to get whichever one offers itself up first to you. I have a sneaking suspicion that you will eventually want and will get one of the other also. It just seems to happen that way. This is not true....I've been able to resist buying an M1 for years:) Heretic! Heretic!

dude
June 3, 2003, 11:12 AM
my .308 Garand ran about $850 after the barrel swap and tuning............it is now my favorite&most shot rifle of the collection.

I started with a CAI, used it's 'new' reciever, nice SA internal parts and cool beater but good wood.

Swampy
June 3, 2003, 11:21 AM
shermacman wrote:

Swampy, when I was talking reloading time I did not mean pre-loading! Having a dozen pre-loaded M1 clips all set up nice and neat in the comfort of a suburban home is one thing. Rummaging through a box and loading a clip in the field is another.


Hey guy, who goes into the field with only ONE loaded clip??? :D You should have at least a dozen loaded clips in a bando or on a belt along with the rifle.... ready to slap in at the first "PING" !!!

Would you be caught in the field with only ONE loaded 20 round mag for an M1-A???? Or would you carry a belt with some pre-loaded mags ready to rock???

Nobody goes into the field with all of their "ready ammo" already in the rifle..... at least nobody in their right mind ;)

Load those clips & mags at HOME, before you go out to make noise, or into a situation where you might potentially need to "shoot back" at some two legged vermin....

Also..... magazine prices.
M1-A mags..... $35 and up.
Garand clips.... $1 or less. You can buy M1 clips for .50 or .60 cents each in bulk lots of 40 or 50. Load up and have ready to fire an entire GI CAN of ammo for the price of ONE M14 magazine.

Best regards,
Swampy

Bostonterrier97
June 3, 2003, 12:06 PM
M1 Garand

Pros: Stronger Reciever
more powerful
has a lower shooter profile when prone
Faster to reload an En Bloc Clip than a 20 round Mag on the M1A
En Bloc clips are cheaper than M14 Mags
Longer sight radius.

mohican
June 3, 2003, 04:34 PM
If you want to use a scope, a M1a may be a little easier. That being said, I have 200-300 yard groundhog and stray cat kills with my Garand with BSQUARE side mount.

Dizos
June 3, 2003, 05:13 PM
Once you have the process down, you can reload a Garand in MUCH less time than an M1-A.

? With the M14 you get 20 shots before having to reload Is the Garand really 2 1/2 times faster to reload? Having an uninterupted stream of 20 rounds would be major tactical advantage too. I also personally prefer the .308 round. I would take a M1A over a Garand.

-- Jeff

Swampy
June 3, 2003, 05:59 PM
Dizos wrote:

Is the Garand really 2 1/2 times faster to reload?


YES !!!..... for the reasons stated above.

A LOT fewer hand motions required to accomplish the mission = less time.

BTW, I shoot a Garand chambered in .308 in Highpower competition, where a faster reload can make the difference in getting all 10 of your Rapid Fire rounds off or in watching the target drop into the pits after the 9th shot....... :( In a typical 80 round Match you have four 10 round Rapid Fire strings where you must do a reload. Being slow is not an option....

Having competed in Highpower with all three of our US Service Rifles... Garand, M14 (M1-A), and M16 (AR-15), I can quite easily make the conclusion that the Garand is by far the fastest to reload, the M14 is the slowest. The M16 falls somewhere in the middle.

As an aside..... I'm also having a Garand made up as a "plinker" in .308 so's I can blast with cheap Nato Milsurp. :D

Just more of my ramblings,

Swampy

Jmurman
June 3, 2003, 08:10 PM
how do you get a Garand set up for 308?

aerod1
June 3, 2003, 08:43 PM
I have both and the thought of giving either one up brings me to tears.
Buy the Garand now, and you WILL buy the M1A later...trust me.
And then of course you must consider an M1 carbine.....trust me.
You will be forever addicted and once again you can......trust me.

Jim Hall

FPrice
June 3, 2003, 09:01 PM
"how do you get a Garand set up for 308?"

Two ways.

1. Get a .308 insert which goes into the chamber, will only allow .308 ammunition to be chambered and fired.

2. Have the rifle re-barreled to a .308 barrel with the appropriately-sized chamber.

I think that the latter is considered to be the best method, although much more permanent.

Swampy
June 3, 2003, 09:39 PM
Jmurman wrote:

how do you get a Garand set up for 308?

Hey guy.... Check out the thread next door, in this same forum, entitiled "WHAT TO DO WITH A SHOT OUT BARREL".

It addresses this very issue in some considerable detail.

Best regards,
Swampy

M1911
June 4, 2003, 08:55 AM
I am trying to decide between the two. It will be my only rifle of this type. Any comments?Get them both. Seriously, I doubt you'll stop after you've gotten one of them.

Of the two, I'd say that the M1A will be more accurate and lighter. I like the fact that the Garand doesn't have the protruding (and expensive) magazine that gets caught on stuff. Surplus .308 is easier to find than surplus M2 ball.

foghornl
June 4, 2003, 09:14 AM
Mil-Surps are absolutely addicting.....About 5000x more than the various "recreational pharmaceuticals".

But to stay with the thread....Buy the US Rifle Cal .30 M-1, popularly known as 'The Garand' FIRST.

I bought an International Harvester made 1955 vintage M-1 first.
Then, since I wanted something from "the other side", I bought a Mosin-Nagant M-44 carbine (1954 Romanian made). And I have a Springfield 1911-A1. Since I probably can't buy a Gewehr 43, I'll need some sort of Mauser, and a Japanese Arisaka, and a Swiss K-31, one of the Italian Carcano turnbolts and a Kalishnikov of some sort. . . . . .

Fatelvis
June 4, 2003, 01:00 PM
Although I own, and enjoy shooting both, the M1As ability to carry AT LEAST 250% more ammo, and the ability to top off the magazine, gives it a big advantage over the Garand. You might be able to reload a split second faster for a Garand, but you`ll have to reload more often. Under the stress of combat, your motor skills go down the toilet, making reloading ALOT more difficult than at the range. Not being as concerned about a reload, frees your mind a bit, to concentrate on target aquisition. This, in my opinion, makes the M14 a superior battle rifle.

dude
June 4, 2003, 03:16 PM
JFTR- I have never even though about 'rapid' firing my .308 Garand..................... nor attempted to RAMBO reload

AZ Jeff
June 4, 2003, 03:17 PM
FPrice answered Jmurman's question of "how do you get a Garand set up for 308?" as follows:

>Two ways.

>1. Get a .308 insert which goes into the chamber, will only >allow .308 ammunition to be chambered and fired.

>2. Have the rifle re-barreled ............
**************************************************

I must warn everyone who does not know this--the .308 insert method is considered by those knowledgable on the U.S Service Rifles to be UNSAFE TO USE.

Back in the 1960's, the Navy originally conceived the idea of inserting a spacer into the chamber of .30/06 barreled M-1's, thereby creating an updated rifle capable of shooting the then NATO standard .308 round. (Many M1's were in use on ships at the time, and there were not enough M14's to equip the Navy properly, and the M14 was out of production.)

The Navy's idea turned out to be less than perfect. The inserts had a nasty habit of being extracted WITH THE FIRED CASE. This would cause the next .308 round to enter a VERY OVERSIZED chamber intended for .30/06. The Navy tried knurling the chamber insert and chamber itself, but nothing would guarantee the insert would stay put.

In the end, the Navy paid AMF (the bowling pin guys) to rebarrel a bunch of M1's with new .308 barrels, and got what they needed, just at a bit higher price than they planned.

These spacers show up on the surplus market even today, 30+ years later. They are BAD JU-JU in a gas operated autoloading rifle. The first symptom you will have that the insert has left the chamber will be the split case on the next round fired!!

If you want an M1 in .308, the ONLY way to do it is to REBARREL IT.

Fatelvis
June 4, 2003, 03:36 PM
Dude, NEVER thought about rapid firing? Then why not get a bolt rifle (they tend to be more accurate) or a single shot? Lets consider what these rifles were designed for.

dude
June 4, 2003, 03:50 PM
no, never

I do have a nice Styer 98 Mauser also in .308 that shares ammo with my Garand!


I am guilty of doing some RAMBO shooting with my 30 Carbine though

Handy
June 4, 2003, 04:11 PM
There's a guy who goes by Navy Joe here that has alot of Navy armorer experience. He's seen and used the chamber adapters on many occasions.


To paraphrase what he's said on the topic; they do work loose, but they don't hurt anything but the brass. The gun even continues to fire, even accurately.


Suffice it to say, chamber inserts aren't a very good solution. But they aren't "unsafe", as they don't do damage to the gun, and certainly not the shooter.

Let's please not confuse "work incorrectly" and "unsafe".

Swampy
June 4, 2003, 04:36 PM
Handy wrote:

Suffice it to say, chamber inserts aren't a very good solution. But they aren't "unsafe", as they don't do damage to the gun, and certainly not the shooter.

Let's please not confuse "work incorrectly" and "unsafe".


Unsafe the man said, and Unsafe he meant...

Consider the following scenario, which is reported to have happened during the Navy's tries at putting the .308 insert rifles into service, and reportedly the main reason why they, the NAVY, considered the insert to be UNSAFE, and then REMOVED them from service.

Seaman Jones is firing his .308 insert equipped M1 on the base range (or anywhere for that matter), along with other Sailors doing the same.....

Unbeknownst to him, on his last shot the insert had come "unstuck" in the chamber and was ejected with the brass casing...... As the bolt moved forward to pick up another .308 round it pushes the cartridge out of the magazine and into the chamber BUT WITHOUT THE EXTRACTOR RIDING OVER THE CASES RIM like it would normally do when a properly headspaced round is stopped at it's proper place in the chamber.

Since this .308 cartridge is not held at it's rim by the bolt, and is most likely floating as much as 1/2 inch in front of the bolt face in the now (again) 30-06 chamber, when Seaman Jones next pulls the trigger he gets NOT the expected "BANG", but a "click"......

What does Seaman Jones do??? Why he immediately does WHAT HE WAS TRAINED TO DO..... an "immedate clearnace"..... by racking back the op-rod handle to eject the "defective" round and chamber a new one.

Guess what??? With one LIVE round still in the chamber, and a NEW one coming in behind it, where do you think the tip of the new rounds nose is most likely to go???.....

RIGHT INTO THE PRIMER OF THE LIVE ROUND !!!!

Do I really have to explain what happens next???? :( Very bad ju-ju...

An out of battery fire is catastrophic enough when it only involves ONE cartridge.... how about two??

UNSAFE the man said, UNSAFE is what he meant, and UNSAFE is what they are.......

What are the chances of this happening??? Probably pretty slim..... but is it worth taking the risk just to save a few bucks??? Not to me it's not. I have only one face and I'd like to keep as handsome as it is for as long as I can.....

I'm with AZ Jeff on this one.... again.

Garands forever...... safely please.

Swampy

Combat-wombat
June 4, 2003, 06:38 PM
I've never fired either one, but I think the Garand is a little bit more powerful than the M1A. The M1A is expensive, but what I like about it is it can accept pre-ban 20 rnd. mags. If you're looking for something cheap that has historical appeal, go for the Garand. If you want something more tactical, go with the M1A.

AZ Jeff
June 4, 2003, 06:45 PM
Although I am a fan of being prepared for most contingencies, I gotta ask--

How many of us are going to encounter a situation where a .30 cal autoloading rifle fed by a 20 rd box magazine is going to be markedly superior ("tactically speaking") to one fed by an 8 round en bloc clip?

I think it's time for the tin foil hats if one thinks that situation is even REMOTELY possible.

Even IF it's remotely possible, and a SHTF scenario actually unfolds, a .30 cal rifle will be at a marked DISADVANTAGE to a .223 cal. rifle, no matter what magazine size is employed in the .30 cal. The places where a .30 would stand out in general just DON'T exist in our society and culture.

(Unless you are hiding from the Black Helicopters in the Bitterroot Wilderness of Montana!!)

Nightcrawler
June 4, 2003, 07:12 PM
a .30 cal rifle will be at a marked DISADVANTAGE to a .223 cal. rifle, no matter what magazine size is employed in the .30 cal.

More power, range, and penetration is a disadvantage?

Handy
June 4, 2003, 07:22 PM
I think Jeff means that "More power, range, and penetration" aren't going to be nearly as much of a factor as the amount of ammo you can carry or how quickly you can fire it.

Which is true in an urban or suburban setting, but much of America is wide open, encouraging the use of longer range techniques. Given that, an accurate .30 autoloader might be of better service for both close and real long range use.

I think the mag thing, for these two guns is a wash. What the Garand looses in capacity it makes up for in speed and clip cost.

AZ Jeff
June 4, 2003, 07:29 PM
In this hypothetical SHTF scenario, where do you guys figure you will be where you will need to hold off the mongolian hordes at range?

If you are out in the boonies, the only adversary I can think of that will be around in quantity would be an unfriendly gov't agency, and those guys will use tools that a .30 cal won't help counteract.

In an urban setting, rioters or the like are more probable, and there, a .30 brings nothing to the party.

Nightcrawler
June 4, 2003, 07:31 PM
You know, with proper load-bearing gear, I can carry twelve 20 round FAL mags. Does twelve 30-round AR mags give you more ammo? Yes, but in what scenario that you're at all likely to encountery does one imagine that one would need more than 240 rounds of ammunition? Hell, the standard USGI loadout is only 180 rounds.

In a SHTF scenario, where there's much discourse and anarchy in the streets, complete with chaos and carnage, (which is ESPECIALLY likely in the dinky town I live in), I would expect any sane person would prefer to stay home and defend their property/family until things settled down, instead of running around like some kind of wannabe-lone-wolf-commando, BY ONESELF, with no backup of any kind.

Need more rounds on target? Bring a friend. Two guys with 50 rounds each beats one guy with 100 rounds any day.

Regardless of what the .30 caliber rifle may or may not offer, I'll stick with the FAL over any 5.56mm rifle, if given the choice.

Fatelvis
June 4, 2003, 07:51 PM
Id take a 30 for almost every scenario, over a 5.56. I agree with Nightcrawler.

Boats
June 4, 2003, 08:18 PM
The Garand repulsed SS Nazis, Banzai charges, North Korean invaders, and Chinese human wave attacks with 8 round clips. What'd the M1A/M-14 ever do again?:evil:

The Garand will still handle about anything a civilian will ever face and do it with aplomb. I like the caliber better than 5.56 and it is a far superior buttstroker than any AR/AK. The only area in which the Garand undoubtedly suffers by comparison is mounting optics.

AZ Jeff
June 4, 2003, 08:28 PM
What started this twisting of this thread was a remark by one poster that a 20 rd. mag fed M14/M1A is "tactically superior" to an 8rd. fed M1 Garand.

To which I queried "what scenario would exist where this purported superiority would be useful"?

I suggested that those scenarios are few and far between, bordering on non-existent.

I still stand by my statement, .223 versus .30 cal not withstanding.

Fatelvis
June 4, 2003, 08:45 PM
AZ, IM the one who started the twisting, because it was within the lines of the question asked. And I dont agree that the 30 is at a disadvantage from the 223, that you stated earlier. By the way, whos the one who brought the 223 round into this?

Handy
June 4, 2003, 09:00 PM
The .30 disadvantage is weight.

A 9 to 10 pound .308 rifle with 4 mags and 80 rounds loaded weighs the same as an AR15A2 with 7 mags and 210 rounds. (Based on an HK study.)

Ask a vet which one he'd take to an unknown fight. Ammo is life.

Nightcrawler, you say your vest can load 12 Fal mags. That's 240 rounds. Since similar size .223 mag pouches hold three mags in the same space as two Fal mags, that's 18 mags. And 18 thirty round mags is 540 rounds. You're at a 300 round disadvantage!


We can do this all night, but the point really was: Does it matter what kind of feed system you have on a rifle that's yesterday's news for an assault weapon? The mag system on the M1 and M14 are equally good (or equally dated) and should not be a major criteria in selection.

Nightcrawler
June 4, 2003, 11:24 PM
Nightcrawler, you say your vest can load 12 Fal mags. That's 240 rounds. Since similar size .223 mag pouches hold three mags in the same space as two Fal mags, that's 18 mags. And 18 thirty round mags is 540 rounds. You're at a 300 round disadvantage!

MMmm...actually, the .223 version of that vest holds 12 mags two; it's a twelve mag vest. Hence the comparison.

And again, a trooper with an FN P90 SMG could carry three 50-rd mags in the same bulk of three 30rd M16 mags. That's 150 rounds for every 90 5.56x45mm.

You could carry a 500 round brick of .22LR in the same ammo pouch as three M16 mags. That's 500 rounds per 90 of 5.56mm.

Yet our military is not being re-eqipped with the FN subguns, despite the fact that one can carry more ammo, they have less recoil, are lighter, etc., at the price of effective range and penetration. Every advantage that the M16 has over a FAL or an M14, the P90 has over the M16 or M4 carbine.

We've already discussed this, (http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?s=&threadid=15436) and indeed we could go on all night. But, since it's contrary to the original topic of the thread, I'm bowing out now. Didn't mean to hijack it.

But just so you know, I've met several Vietnam vets that preferred the M14 over the M16A1. Don't make generalizations, as it's ALL really personal preferance.

Monte Harrison
June 5, 2003, 08:51 AM
and to reiterate, because the Garand can be acquired for half the price of the M1A, and because the clips are dirt cheap, and because just owning a Garand puts you in closer connection to genuine honest-to-God HEROES,

GET THE GARAND!
http://www.odcmp.com/images/web_images/M1poster.gif
You can save up for the M1A later.

Bostonterrier97
June 5, 2003, 10:13 AM
I would like to see a smaller version of the M1 Garand with a 16 inch barrel made..chambered for 5.56 NATO.

A Mini Garand..

AZ Jeff
June 5, 2003, 10:54 AM
I am really sorry I started the diversion of this thread, but the statement made by another poster was that the M14/M1A was "tactically superior" to the M1 Garand, and hence is a better choice.

If I remember correctly, the ORIGINAL POSTER was asking if he should buy an M1A or an M1 Garand as his first .30 caliber autoloading rifle.

To me, that implies that the potential purchaser is NOT buying this for law enforcement nor military purposes. He is a "civilian". As such, tactical values applied to military arms are pretty meaningless, because a civilian is NOT likely to be presented with a scenario that calls for the type of tactical approaches used by LEO's or military personnel.

To claim otherwise is delusional thinking.

Thus, the concept that the 20 rd. box magazine on the M14/M1A has a "tactical" advantage for the civilian shooter is pretty meaningless, and thus is not a justification for saying the M14/M1A is superior choice to the M1 Garand.

Now if one were to say the "coolness factor" is higher on the M14/M1A, that's a reasonable justification.........

stellarpod
June 5, 2003, 04:05 PM
Well put, AZ.

That is, up until the point that you implied the M1A has a higher "coolness" quotient than the M1. :D

I happen to think the M1 is WAY COOL! :cool:

stellarpod

AZ Jeff
June 5, 2003, 04:29 PM
Stellarpod,

I agree with your assessment of M1's completely.

An M1 is an expecially good choice for those desiring a US Mil. gas operated autoloader on a budget, ESPECIALLY if one goes the CMP route.

Your run of the mill commercial M1A from Springfield is just not of the same quality as a mil-surplus M1 Garand, at least not unless you replace a bunch of commercial parts with their military contract equivalents.

Add to that the fact that an M1 can be had for less than HALF the price of the lowliest version of the M1A, and it makes it pretty hard to claim that the ability to carry those extra 12 rounds in the magazine is worth $400+ dollars.

Then again, for some, "coolness" is worth any price........:rolleyes:

Dizos
June 5, 2003, 05:43 PM
I regret using the term "tactical advantage" since I have never been in combat (or trained for combat) so my statements are pure speculation.

I personally decided on the M1A over the M1 because it is weighs less, because I find the .308 a more managable caliber and because I felt the increased ammo capacity to be an advantage. I have handled and shot the M1 and greatly admire the rifle. I prefer the M14 style rifle. I use it for hunting deer and elk, plinking, and recently shot my first Natl. Match. I would love to try out the M1 in .308.

I realize that a combat scenario is unlikely for civilians in the US, but I like that my rifle is fully capable. Things change.

-- Jeff

BTW many "genuine honest-to-God HEROES" carried the M14 in Viet Nam.

If you enjoyed reading about "Garand or M1A?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!