Garand or M1A?

[AZ Jeff]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Id take a 30 for almost every scenario, over a 5.56. I agree with Nightcrawler.

 

[Boats]

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?

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]

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]

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]

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]

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, 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]

To get back to the original question,

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!

You can save up for the M1A later.

 

[Bostonterrier97]

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]

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]

Well put, AZ.

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

I happen to think the M1 is WAY COOL!

stellarpod

 

[AZ Jeff]

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........

 

[Dizos]

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.