Garand vs M14?
- Thread starter BruM
- Start date
- Status
Dr.Mall Ninja
Member
the m14 is the better battle rifle, the M1 garand has better history. Trust me people praise the M1a plenty around here.
bernie
Member
Having had both, I would presume cost. The CMP supplies reasonably priced semi auto battle rifles, but and M1A is in a whole other price category.
skidooman603
Member
I LOVE both. The M1A has the capacity and accuracy advantage but the M1 Garand is why you aren't speaking german 
possum
Member
i like both of them but i love the m1a/m14 by far the best. i like the fact that it is magazine fed, more ammo avaliable at one time, i like the looks, i like the way they shoot. and i love shootin em.
jonnyc
Member
I've shot my friend's M1A plenty, and I have a CMP Garand on the way. I'm looking forward to experiencing the difference.
N.Schafer
Member
Cause it goes PING!
MachIVshooter
Member
Or Japanese.
The M1 is more popular due to lower cost and a romantic history. Nothing wrong with the M-14/M1A at all. But when was the last time you saw one for $600?
Hatterasguy
Member
- Joined
- Jan 4, 2010
- Messages
- 1,604
They are both pretty much the same, and both great rifles.
Wasn't the mil-spec M14 always select fire, or is there a semi-auto only version? That would exclude the M14 from almost all of the general gun purchasing public. Anybody in any state can own a Garand because it's semi-auto only and can not be made to fire full auto. Plus, vastly larger numbers of Garands were made during WWII.
Welding Rod
Member
I have had both and am a little embarrassed to say I sold the Garand and kept the M1A.
The Garand is all about history. However for me, shooting trumps nostalgia.
The Garand is all about history. However for me, shooting trumps nostalgia.
I would pick the M14/M1A over a Garand. Not knocking the Garand at all...FYI. However, I recently sold off my M1A's and all parts and bought a DSA STG58 FAL. I have NEVER been happier with a .30 Cal. battle rifle....ever. I wish I had gone FAL years ago.
Having said that, the Garand and the M14/M1A are proven, reliable and sensible weapons. My tastes have changed over the years and I now simply prefer the FAL system. Give the FAL some thought.
Having said that, the Garand and the M14/M1A are proven, reliable and sensible weapons. My tastes have changed over the years and I now simply prefer the FAL system. Give the FAL some thought.
Mainly because of it's history and the fact that it was always featured in the numerous WWII movies and also in the tv series "Combat". It was a very efficient well made rifle although rather heavy. Being semi auto it allowed soldiers to bring heavy fire on the enemy while still being accurate aimed fire. It also kicked out the empty clip when the last round was fired which cut down on reload time while also telling the shooter it was time for a reload.
I personally like both rifles but like the looks of the M1 just a little more.
I personally like both rifles but like the looks of the M1 just a little more.
junkman_01
member
How do you think the M14 came about? ANY rifle can be converted to fire full auto. The Italians did it after WW2 to the Garand design and called it the BM 59.
Last edited:
jpwilly
Member
Or Russian! Yea, they thought about it!
Good point but when was the last time you saw an M1a that shot 30-06 SPG?
They are both excellent rifles but one is less of an investment and still has more nostalgia.
Benelli Shooter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 16, 2005
- Messages
- 115
I will give a different spin on things. I like the Garand MUCH better. It has some major advantages over the M14:
1. Ammo is easier to carry. Enbloc clips can be stuffed everywhere.
2. Ammo is lighter to carry. No magazine weight.
3. Enbloc clips are faster to reload.
4. Box magazines for full size rounds are large, clumsy, and slow.
5. No empty magazines to worry about, retrieve and store.
6. Enbloc clips are cheap and plentiful.
7. Quality of the Garand is WAY superior to an M1A from Springfield Armory. All parts are mil spec. The reason why people rant and rave about Springfield Armory is that people have to use it so much. Their business model is to use the customer as their final Q.A. inspector.
8. Balance is better on a Garand.
9. You can buy 2 or 3 nice Garands for the price of a NICE M14 (not Springfield Armory).
10. 30-06 is a much more powerful round than the wimpy .308 (just kidding on this one).
Flame away. My basic point is that box magazines on battle rifles are not superior to the Enbloc clip when you look at the big picture.
1. Ammo is easier to carry. Enbloc clips can be stuffed everywhere.
2. Ammo is lighter to carry. No magazine weight.
3. Enbloc clips are faster to reload.
4. Box magazines for full size rounds are large, clumsy, and slow.
5. No empty magazines to worry about, retrieve and store.
6. Enbloc clips are cheap and plentiful.
7. Quality of the Garand is WAY superior to an M1A from Springfield Armory. All parts are mil spec. The reason why people rant and rave about Springfield Armory is that people have to use it so much. Their business model is to use the customer as their final Q.A. inspector.
8. Balance is better on a Garand.
9. You can buy 2 or 3 nice Garands for the price of a NICE M14 (not Springfield Armory).
10. 30-06 is a much more powerful round than the wimpy .308 (just kidding on this one).
Flame away. My basic point is that box magazines on battle rifles are not superior to the Enbloc clip when you look at the big picture.
Blasphemous
Member
I haven't shot either one, but this is a good thread. I've been shopping for both and haven't made up my mind.
bernie
Member
+1 Benelli Shooter! I answered cost further up the post, because I think that is really what drives more shooters to the M1 Rifle. However, I have had all kinds of different battle rifles, and prefer the M1 for all of the reasons that you stated.
az_imuth
Member
I have a SA Loaded M1A that is a wonderful rifle and has been 100% trouble free. It is amazingly accurate with the iron sights, tough as nails, and leaves little to be desired in regard to a full-sized battle rifle. However, I can say the same thing about each of the M1's in the picture below and they didn't cost near as much as the M1A. In fact, the SA, HRA and WRA combined were several hundred bucks less than the M1A. And to top that off, the M1's have a history that no commercial production clone can ever match.
Now, I'm not knocking the M1A because I love it and have no plans to ever get rid of it, but I feel like cost is a BIG factor in choosing one over the other.
Now, I'm not knocking the M1A because I love it and have no plans to ever get rid of it, but I feel like cost is a BIG factor in choosing one over the other.
az_imuth
Member
You are absolutely right...I'll get right on that!
AmEngRifles
Member
I am a little surprised Springfield Armory continues to be the only current manufacturer of the M-14 style rifle. You would think someone would be able to produce a quality, American made M-14 clone and knock Springfield Armory down a peg by offering it for hundreds less! Hell, the services are back to using it, so who is casting those receivers, or are ALL U.S. Government M-14's still running with decades old receivers?
Agree with so many other posters. I have both. Enjoy many features of the Garand, but when it comes down to it, the M-14 is a product improved Garand and those improvements were made with real world combat experience. So while I would feel pretty comfortable with either rifle, just the fact that I could find 7.62 x 51 easier than 30.06, I would be grabbing my M1A f I could only carry one rifle.
Agree with so many other posters. I have both. Enjoy many features of the Garand, but when it comes down to it, the M-14 is a product improved Garand and those improvements were made with real world combat experience. So while I would feel pretty comfortable with either rifle, just the fact that I could find 7.62 x 51 easier than 30.06, I would be grabbing my M1A f I could only carry one rifle.
- Status
