M1 Garand .30-06 v. Springfield M1a .308


PDA






HammeringHank
December 8, 2011, 10:25 AM
Can you tell me which rifle will shoot more accurate, all things being equal. A rebuilt M1 Garand with a new barrel .30-06 or a Springfield M1a .308. I am only interested in these rifles only. I will hand load for both rifles.
Thanking you in advance, Hank

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 Garand .30-06 v. Springfield M1a .308" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
HarleyFixer
December 8, 2011, 10:28 AM
Either rifle is capable of accuracy exceeding Your capability. Choose your poison. That is assuming that the rifle is set up properly.

303tom
December 8, 2011, 10:31 AM
Come-on, to Quote General George S. Patton "the greatest battle implement ever devised"
enough said.......

Steve in PA
December 8, 2011, 10:41 AM
You will get a Garand a lot cheaper than you will an M1a.

nbkky71
December 8, 2011, 10:53 AM
All things being equal, I'd give the edge to the M1A. The improved gas system, shortened operating rod and bolt roller system are all improvements over the M1 design.

I'm not bashing the M1 as it's a great rifle. Both rifles can be accurized and be made to shoot very accurately.

springer99
December 8, 2011, 12:23 PM
Pick the platform you like to handle the most. IMO there's no inherent difference in accuracy in either one. Both are great shooters.

Lightning12
December 8, 2011, 12:59 PM
The M1 Garand was designed to achieve 4 MOA accuracy only. They can accurized for tighter groups, but I don't know what all is involved. A new barrel will help, but it is not enough by itself to really improve the accuracy.

I don't see MOA spelled out for the M1A on the Springfield Armory website but most discussions I have seen refer to about 2.5 MOA accuracy for a Loaded version M1A. So there is a slight advantage.

You can also get a national match M1A that is capable of much better.

Unless you spend 3000 dollars for the national match M1A, with open sights for both rifles, you may or may not see that much difference. I have had both and I found that the M1A clearly shot a little more accurately at 100 yards, not a huge amount though, probalby because the sights were a little finer tolerance.

chaz

KodiakBeer
December 8, 2011, 01:22 PM
The stock front sight on a Garand is so broad that it makes shooting tight groups an issue. Just replacing that with a thin sight will bring groups down to 2 inches or better. That Mil-Spec front sight is broad so it can be picked up in low light. And even with that broad sight it's easy to hit a torso sized target at 400 yards. Battle rifles are for hitting people at battle ranges, not for shooting tiny groups on paper.

I doubt there's much difference in accuracy between the two rifles if they have the same sights.

1KPerDay
December 8, 2011, 01:28 PM
Both are capable of excellent accuracy. Without tweaks/work you're more LIKELY to get an M1A that's more accurate, IMO. The garand's handguards can influence accuracy.

If I could only own one, it would be the Garand, through. Coolest rifle ever made. :)

bergmen
December 8, 2011, 01:34 PM
Either rifle will serve as an excellent platform for building an extremely accurate weapon, it is six of one - half a dozen of the other.

My personal recommendation? Get both and make them projects for your own satisfaction. There are other attributes that contribute to accuracy that are not entirely resident wthin the firearm. Balance, fit to the shooter, sight acquisition, weight, quality of ammo, etc. all can effect accuracy.

I have a new M1A, my son has a Service Grade Springfield Special M1 Garand from the CMP. We are working up loads for both rifles right now and it won't be long before we will be seeing who can get the tightest group at 100 yards.

My prediction? There won't be a measurable difference but who cares? It is a terrific fun and enjoyable hobby and activity for Steven and myself.

Dan

henschman
December 8, 2011, 02:07 PM
M1A's have a bit of an edge due to less reciprocating mass (shorter op-rod), less stuff touching the barrel, and possibly even because of their slightly shorter barrel. They also have a protected crown due to the flash hider.

Whatever the reasons, M1As started beating Garands when they first became legal for high power matches, and it didn't take long for all the serious competitors to start using M1As (just like ARs later started beating M1As, and now are pretty much ubiquitous in that sport).

Anyway I have them both and love them both... mine are close enough that I can't tell the difference in accuracy. Both are standard models. The M1A is definitely much lighter weight than the M1, though that might mostly be due to the fact that it is in a light plastic stock while the M1 of course is in original wood.

DCoke
December 8, 2011, 04:11 PM
Unless you spend 3000 dollars for the national match M1A

I have the NM M1A and spent half of that amount....just sayin....

AK103K
December 8, 2011, 04:52 PM
I read an article in either Handloader or Rifle magazine a number of years back, and they were saying the Navy rifle team did a study on just this, and came up with a sort of compromise. They found the .308 to be 10% more accurate than the 30-06, and the M1 to be 10% more accurate than the M14 (they use the real thing). What they did then was, barrel M1's in 308, and seem to have done well doing so.

I have both a NM M1A, and a converted M1 in .308. For me, both seem to shoot about the same, and I doubt you could tell which gun shot which target if you compared them. I find the M1's to be the easier guns to shoot with, as you dont have to deal with the mag hanging down. I also find the M1's to be easier to reload in the stages requiring a reload. Other than that, theres really no difference.

Hangingrock
December 8, 2011, 05:40 PM
A long-long time ago I qualified at Parris Island with an M14 at ITR (infantry Training Regiment) used the M1 for all courses of fire. Having employed the M1 & M14 rifles for across the course rifle competition then later the Springfield M1A my impression is the M1 (rack grade) was less accurate period. Twenty plus years ago I had Clint Fowler build me a triple lugged M1 match rifle in 308Win. While accurate a comparable M1A Super Match was easier to maintain so the triple lugged M1 was sold off.

Double Vision
December 8, 2011, 06:29 PM
Lots of good answers and info here.
IMHO it's almost too close to call.
You wouldn't be disappointed with the M1 or M1A. Why not get one of each? :)
Good luck!

memphisjim
December 8, 2011, 06:36 PM
The bases have Been covered above another consideration is that the garand will be far cheaper and that's. Before you even factor in magazines

1KPerDay
December 8, 2011, 07:12 PM
Always a good choice.

cfullgraf
December 8, 2011, 07:12 PM
Garands have a history, if they could only talk. M1As can be had new.

My solution to the dilemma was to get one of each.

Onmilo
December 8, 2011, 07:22 PM
Since you said "all things being equal"
I have an M1, National Match accurized and in 7.62X51,(.308) caliber.
http://www.fototime.com/74931B4C79E9B3A/standard.jpg
And I own an M1A, again built to National Match Standards and in 7.62X51
http://www.fototime.com/CEE762632A4D0E1/standard.jpg

Both have standard weight premium quality barrels.

With all things being equal on the range, the M1A will shoot to tighter standards than the M1 Garand with the two guns very similar out to 300 meters.
The M1A is a consistently tighter shooting rifle at longer ranges.

conhntr
December 8, 2011, 08:36 PM
Im a m1 fan; but as im not a handloader id think the wide variety of 308 match ammo (weights and brands) compared to m1 suitable 30-06 options that wiuld be a big plus for the m1a or a 308 rebarreled m1!

Greek m2 does it for me though.

jcwit
December 8, 2011, 08:52 PM
Both rifles were made to be battleground accurate. Minute of man in normal field conditions.

While I own an M1 Garand, I trained with a M14, both were/are top notch. Neither was a sniper/benchrest rifle.

SlamFire1
December 8, 2011, 09:00 PM
Rack grade M1a's and Garands, neither are target rifles and I believe the acceptance criteria for factory M14's was that they were to shoot inside 3.5 inches at 100 yards.

I have a 1957 publication in front of me, for factory fresh NM 1957 Garands, fired with National Match ammunition, which grouped 0.6 inches at 100 yards in test barrels, out of a population of 665 rifles, 59.7% shot an average of 3 ten shot groups of 3.4 inches or less. I don't know how to calculate the number rejected, from the histogram, but rifles which grouped greater than the black, 4.2” were not sent to competitive shooters. That was a large number of rifles. The lowest average of 3 ten shot groups was 0.8 inches, the greatest average was 9.5”.

Garands were not glass bedded in 1957, that was a later modification. To me this data shows that a Garand, even in hand fitted stocks and metal parts, and carefully put together, was not that accurate. It took better barrels, glass bedding, all the later techniques to get them to shoot target grade accuracy.

Rack grade rifles are not target rifles. Even though I do not have acceptance data for service Garands, I am of the opinion that rack grade M14's were more accurate than rack grade Garands.

Target rifles are a different creature. If you perform all the match modifications, a Garand with a GI contour barrel is more accurate than a M14 with a GI contour barrel. In the 70’s a heavy M14 barrel was allowed in competition and the M14/M1a’s became the better target rifle in all particulars.

Garands in 30-06 kick more than M1a’s. A match Garand looses its tune sooner than a match M1a. M1a's are just easier to shoot.

Match Garand Targets fired in competition:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/TulaPrimers194-6XGarandMatch1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/M1GarandTarget193-6X4Dec2010.jpg

Rack Grade Garand shot prone in practice.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/M1Garand19roundsprone5925621.jpg

M1a, matched out except that barrel is a GI barrel, shot in competition.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/ReducedM1a156575HRAChromedbarrel185.jpg

JSNAPS
December 8, 2011, 09:49 PM
I love the m1a, but the garand holds a special place in my heart. for you may i recommend this: http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?model=16
Put a sage ebr stock and a scope and you will hit sub-moa if you do your part!

KingMedicine
December 8, 2011, 09:55 PM
I have owned both, Now i only own a M1 Garand.

Yeah, the M14 was amazing and a delight to shoot, but its just not a M1...

ApacheCoTodd
December 8, 2011, 10:02 PM
I gotta figure in a true all things being equal scenario - and the only one I can conjure with these two - if both were built by the same armorer to national Match specs, the M1A would come out on top as it seemed to do when competitive shooters had the option early on to shoot either.

With the parameters you pose - The SA coulda been built by a turd on his last day and the re-barreled might have the stars shine on it that day and be a tack driver.

mshootnit
December 8, 2011, 10:14 PM
I own a M1a standard that shoots very close to 1" groups at 100 yds with a scope.

I own a 5.8 mil collector grade garand that will shoot close to 1" groups without a scope.

That being said I have been around other Garands and ALL were closer to 1 moa than 2 moa even the ones that had been used ALOT

I have heard that some M1As go 2 or more MOA but I have never heard that of the Garand or seen it.

Rshooter
December 9, 2011, 11:14 AM
I own both the Garand and the M1A. My Garand was bought almost new, Korean era gun and my M1A is a standard with Walnut. Personally I believe the Garand has a lot of history and garners a lot of attention but the M1A shoots more accurately.

http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/ssgtward/M1A1.jpg
http://i225.photobucket.com/albums/dd69/ssgtward/M1Garand.jpg?t=1318090122

Welding Rod
December 9, 2011, 12:40 PM
My sample set of "1" indicates exactly the same thing.

FLNT4EVR
December 9, 2011, 04:57 PM
A Garand is Normandy beaches, The bulge , crossing the Rhine, Iwo Jima,Guadual canal,victory in Europe ,Victory in Japan . Gee ! I don't know.

CoRoMo
December 9, 2011, 05:05 PM
I have not shot an M1A.

The longest successful shot that I've ever made through iron sights was with a Garand. I have quite a time hitting that same 600 yard gong with my scoped rifles as it is, but that old fella had really tweaked every bit of accuracy out of his milsurps and it still amazes me to this day. He made it look easy with pretty much every single shot, but I went through the whole 8 rounds with only a single hit to speak about.

Brockak47
December 9, 2011, 09:45 PM
I would have to say the M1A just because isn't the M1A pretty much a improved garand. ( but the NM M1As run high on the budget )

BrocLuno
December 10, 2011, 12:03 AM
If all things being equal is about budget, I suggest you take you M1A budget and buy a M1 from CMP. Then convert to 7.62 NATO with a new barrel and spend time working out the kinks and doing the accurizing. Once you have lived with it for a year or so and shot it with your mods as they progress, I suspect you will end up close to MOA for the budget of a store bout 2 MOA gun and have a lot of fun along the way :)

madcratebuilder
December 10, 2011, 09:43 AM
I own both the Garand and SA M1A in NM trim. The Garand has a new Kreiger barrel and shoots the same as the M1A with a Medium weight Wilson NM barrel.

Look at service rifle comps, first the m1903 ruled, then the Garand, followed by the M1A. Now days it's the AR.

aka108
December 10, 2011, 10:32 AM
I'd go with the M1 Garand over the M1A. There is a cost difference between the two with the M1 Garand being the least expensive in most cases. The sole reason I prefer the M1 is that I always thought it was a better looking piece. To me the M1A has always been butt ugly. It's just a personal preference. If I have to look at the thing I may as well get what looks go to me.

ozekii
December 10, 2011, 02:35 PM
I own M1's and there is nothing like them, proud owner of a 43'. Most shooters will not be able to out shot the M1 and the history is something that can't be overlooked as well. Get an adjustable gas plug on it and you can shoot a wider load range as well. You will be hard pressed to find a species that hasn't been taken with an 06 at some point.

charlie echo
February 6, 2012, 02:55 AM
I buy 8 Mauser and "308" ammo and the main reason to not buy a CMP M1 is that I don't want to have to buy a case of rifle ammo...however, now I have to concede that I want a M1 also. I wonder how much the cost will be to have a "Rack" Grade M1 re-barreled to "308" by a good gunsmith?

P-32
February 6, 2012, 06:13 AM
Garands in 30-06 kick more than M1a’s.


I might argue this. I shot M-14’s in matches before I ever shot a M-1.

I would like to remind some posters that a “M-1A” is a marketing ploy by Springfield Armory Inc. and is not the Springfield Armory owned by the government until it was closed. A M-1A is Springfield Inc.’s version of a semi auto M-14. M-14's were able to fire in full auto.

Art Eatman
February 6, 2012, 12:04 PM
I'd shot a Garand a fair amount before I went into the Army and played with one in Basic. So I found a good deal on one in 1982. $200. A skillfully-done weld-up, but glass-bedded and with some Match parts. Around 1.5 MOA off the bench rest with my old eyes.

Along about '84 I bought an M1A Match. I could shoot it about the same, maybe a smidgen better. But somehow I just never could feel affectionate toward it like I could the Garand.

I still have the Garand. :)

lizziedog1
February 6, 2012, 12:16 PM
Which one would make a better "deer" rifle?

charlie echo
February 6, 2012, 12:39 PM
Which one would be better to have in your truck or car if you happened to be caught up right in the thick of a multiple felons with assault rifles attack in a major city (like that event in Mumbai, India)? Seems to me either would be fine as the person there matters far more than which one of these two tools.

BrocLuno
February 6, 2012, 12:53 PM
I think part of the issue is "all things being equal"? How do you plan to equalize things? Plastic stock for the M1? What "new barrel" - Criterion or Douglass, or ... If the new barrel brings the throat back to civilian chamber dimensions so you can get land contact without exceeding COL, you might get a better shooting M1 than a factor M1A? But, to what end?

If you are going to shoot competition, you'll have to build each rifle to the rules. If it's just a fun toy, you can build it any way you want.

I sense that the OP's looking for "best value"? A better comparison might be a BM59 and an M1A. But, finding an original Berretta reconfigured M1 will be tough and expensive. Of course, as an investment it will appreciate in price while you look at it. Not sure an M1A will do that :rolleyes: A carefully rebuilt M1 done by the owner MIGHT get the investment back :scrutiny:, but it might not :banghead:

In terms of why to own and shoot one - that's entirely in the hands of the buyer/shooter :)

Beak50
February 6, 2012, 01:33 PM
Didn't Springfield Armory offer a Carlos Hathcock version of the M-1a?Even though he used a Winchester Model 70 most of the time?I imagine that version of M-1a would be super accurate.

jr_roosa
February 6, 2012, 04:58 PM
Didn't Springfield Armory offer a Carlos Hathcock version of the M-1a?

It was a scoped supermatch (lugged reciever) with adjustable stock and bipod, I think. One of the reviews mentions an adjustable trigger as well.

As for the original question, the local Garand/M1A smith that I use feels that a .308 Garand is able to keep pace with an M1A, but that they will both edge out a .30-06 Garand, and that's with all of accuracy modifications. From other sources, I've heard that the M1A requires less frequent tune-ups from the armorer to stay accurate than the Garand does.

This is all hearsay, by the way. I have a Garand with a Criterion barrel with no national match modifications except for the trigger and it makes a 2moa group at 200yards. I do not yet have an M1A to compare it to.

-J.

FlyinBryan
February 6, 2012, 05:15 PM
i have a book written by scott duff, who is widely considered the worlds leading authority on several different service rifles, 2 of which if im not mistaken are the m1a and the m1 garand.... in his book if i remember correctly he actually said the garand lends itself to "accurizing" better than the m1a/m14 design. something about a more generous recoil bearing, alignment bearing surfaces.

i will see if i can look it up.

i own a couple of garands and have never owned an m1a, although i'd looove to get one at some point....

ive always heard, just through hearsay, that the m1a is more accurate. the only thing ive ever actually read in print by an expert said just the opposite.

if i could only own one, it would be the garand. just something about the way it feels when it fires. it's just perfect. perfect.

MythBuster
February 6, 2012, 07:41 PM
"The stock front sight on a Garand is so broad that it makes shooting tight groups an issue".

Strange because several high master class highpower shooters I know use even wider front sights than those found on a Garand.

MythBuster
February 6, 2012, 07:52 PM
When you ask about the accuracy of these two rifles there are a lot of "ifs" involved.

If the SA Inc M1a rifle you pick up at the gun show happens to be put togather correctly at the factory, which will be just an accident, if you buy the standard or loaded model it will be a good shooter.

On both the Garand and M-14 type rifle EVERYTHING effects the accuracy. Stock fit. Hand guard fit. Gas cylinder fit and on the M1a flash suppressor fit.

You can take both rifles and install the best barrel money can buy but they can still be a 6 MOA rifle if everything else is not right.

They can have huge zero differences from cold to hot if everything else is not perfect.

I have seen Garands shoot as much as 15 inches higher at 100 yards hot than when cold because of improper wood fit. M-14 type rifles can do it also just from a gas cylinder or flash suppressor that loosens up when hot.

SlamFire1
February 6, 2012, 09:06 PM
The stock front sight on a Garand is so broad that it makes shooting tight groups an issue
I missed this statement way back in Dec.


You will find this complaint in the American Rifleman of the 50’s, and in Hatcher’s Book of the Garand.

The target of the period, the 5V, had been developed in tandem with the 03. At least I believe this because the target is about the same width as an 03 post. Anyone who has ever looked at the 03 post will notice just how thin it is, and that was a characteristic of 1873 Trapdoors and Krag’s. Thin sights and tiny rear notches were what was used on rifles and handguns.

Maybe the idea was down the same path that nasty medicine is better than nice medicine, therefore accurate shooting can only be conducted if you can’t see your sights or the target.

I have shot on the 5V with an 03, and my recollection you took a 6 OC hold, there was not enough of the target for a flat tire or center hold.

I have shot on the 5V with a Garand and the standard combat post and it was OK at 200 yards, little difficult at 300 yards, and very hard at 500 yards. The 5V black is just a pinpoint at 500 yards and it is very hard to center on the wide post. This is why you find those 0.063” “National Match” front sights for Garands and M1a’s, these were for use on the 5V.

I think the 5V went out somewhere 1968 to 1970. It only hung around because Army shooters were obstinately resistance to change and the Army was bringing the big money to the table. There is not much change to the first, but the second sure changed. It had been noted for years that the 5V target was inadequate to discriminate between shooters: one year the winner of the service rifle at the National Matches won by one point, but the second place shooter had 73% more “V”’s. Clearly the second place shooter was a harder holder. If you ever shot on the 5V, match winners are determined by V count. You may win if you drop a point, drop two points and you might place, drop three points and you are out of it. Once the DCM money was cut by Congress for the National Matches and everything, which was 1968, the NRA was able to dump these old archaic targets.

Target shooters confused the thin blade of the 03 with precision, complained about the wide post of the Garand, and it took an act of Congress and the NRA to replace the 5V with a wider decimal target.

Below is the old 500 yard target above the 500 yard 5V. The old 500 yard target had a 12 center ten ring, at 600 yards the seven ring was blackened out, but the same ring dimensions were kept.

At the 500 yard matches I shot, all the post shooters preferred the 600 yard target at that distance as it was much larger and much easier to locate a flat tire or center hold in the bull.

The match director at one 500 yard match, he preferred the 500 yard target because he shot an aperture front and he knew the difficulties post shooter had with that target! :neener:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Targets/5V%20targets/Reduced600Ydabove5V.jpg

1KPerDay
February 6, 2012, 10:58 PM
What's a flat tire hold?

SlamFire1
February 6, 2012, 11:19 PM
Pictures of the various holds are at this URL.

http://www.ocabj.net/?p=760

saturno_v
February 7, 2012, 12:03 AM
Come-on, to Quote General George S. Patton "the greatest battle implement ever devised"
enough said.......


Patton never knew the AK-47......:D

d2wing
February 7, 2012, 12:26 AM
As for deer rifles, either are better than any other battle rifles are far as range due to accuracy and power. The .308 M14 copy would be handier due to less length and weight. Since either one can hit man size targets at 600 meters with open sights you are good.

1KPerDay
February 7, 2012, 12:28 AM
Pictures of the various holds are at this URL.

http://www.ocabj.net/?p=760
thank you.

DammitBoy
February 7, 2012, 12:33 AM
Every gun collector should have one of each.

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 12:35 AM
Patton never knew the AK-47......

actually heard a story about Mikhail Kalashnikov himself leading a group of visitors through a firearms museum. as they walked along the glass cases, behind the red velvet ropes, he showed and discussed the various stages of conception, the prototypes, the maturing evolution of what became the great kalashnikov rifle, from its meager and rough beginnings to what we all know today as the ak47.

then they came to a single small glass case with a single m1 garand, the only one in the museum, and he said to the group of onlookers:

"and this is what it looks like when you get it right the first time"

d2wing
February 7, 2012, 12:48 AM
Amen to that Fl'n. American military cares about soldiers going home to mama and voting.

saturno_v
February 7, 2012, 12:49 AM
actually heard a story about Mikhail Kalashnikov himself leading a group of visitors through a firearms museum. as they walked along the glass cases, behind the red velvet ropes, he showed and discussed the various stages of conception, the prototypes, the maturing evolution of what became the great kalashnikov rifle, from its meager and rough beginnings to what we all know today as the ak47.

then they came to a single small glass case with a single m1 garand, the only one in the museum, and he said to the group of onlookers:

"and this is what it looks like when you get it right the first time"

The Garand was just an intermediate evolutionery step between a bolt action battle rifle and the modern military autloading rifles (battle or assault)

It is glorified just because America happened to win WWII when it was the service rifle.

An important military firearm but not that particularly revolutionary.

A great advantage compared to your average bolt action of the time but the autoloaders that came after it do run circle around it....

I'm probably the only forum member on this site that actually had a Garand as its service rifle issue so I know what it means to lug one around for miles compared to just keep it in the safe and fire few shots at the range.....we did hate it and we tried to grab the BM-59 or better, the AR70, whenever we could....

Assuming that story is true, it can be probably attributed to Mr. Kalashnikov humble nature.

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 01:05 AM
Assuming that story is true, it can be probably attributed to Mr. Kalashnikov humble nature.
see my sig.

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 01:10 AM
An important military firearm but not that particularly revolutionary.

i would definitely call it revolutionary.

a semi auto standard issue service rifle, the first in the history of the world, millions strong?

d2wing
February 7, 2012, 02:48 PM
Hmm Garand out of service in 1957, AR70 appears late 1970's. American guns might be heavier because they were made to fight with, not run away with.

1KPerDay
February 7, 2012, 03:03 PM
hewwww boyyyy

saturno_v
February 7, 2012, 07:12 PM
Hmm Garand out of service in 1957, AR70 appears late 1970's. American guns might be heavier because they were made to fight with, not run away with.

have you ever marched all loaded up with your military gear and a Garand for miles?? No....I did and was not pleasant....

BrocLuno
February 7, 2012, 07:34 PM
Amen to that :(

FlyinBryan
February 7, 2012, 07:42 PM
i think he was commenting on the statement that you said you carried a garand as a service rifle, but when you could you would grab up a rifle that would not be introduced until 15 years after the garand was long gone.

to be honest every veteran who fought in an actual war with them loved them. just all the ones ive heard talk about them in person, in books, and on tv.

(really just my grandfather, my uncles that lived through ww2. one in the south pacific, and one in europe. my uncle sam was killed on luzon so i couldnt say about him or what he carried.) my uncle leslie (purple heart) and my uncle dub have both passed on, but were in total love with the garand.

lol, my uncle leslie said "everytime i got in a gunfight with my m1, i won"
(makes sense since he was alive to tell me)

i loved him and just lost him last fall.

saturno_v
February 7, 2012, 08:06 PM
think he was commenting on the statement that you said you carried a garand as a service rifle, but when you could you would grab up a rifle that would not be introduced until 15 years after the garand was long gone.

to be honest every veteran who fought in an actual war with them loved them. just all the ones ive heard talk about them in person, in books, and on tv.

(really just my grandfather, my uncles that lived through ww2. one in the south pacific, and one in europe. my uncle sam was killed on luzon so i couldnt say about him or what he carried.) my uncle leslie (purple heart) and my uncle dub have both passed on, but were in total love with the garand.

lol, my uncle leslie said "everytime i got in a gunfight with my m1, i won"
(makes sense since he was alive to tell me)

i loved him and just lost him last fall.


It definitely did give you an advantage compared to the bolt action of the time......in addition to that, two of the major Garand opponents, the Italian Mod. 91 and the Japanese Arisaka, were firing less powerful cartridges as well, giving less range and knock down capability...only the Mauser 98 round was a match for the 30-06....

If you enjoyed reading about "M1 Garand .30-06 v. Springfield M1a .308" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!