How is M1 Garand better than 1903 Springfield?
- Thread starter AirPower
- Start date
- Status
Andrew Wyatt
Member
well, it depends on which one you get.
the o3A3 is more shootable because it has better sights.
the o3A3 is more shootable because it has better sights.
You've asked two separate questions.
1. As a battlerifle, the M1 Garand is superior because (a) it's semi-automatic and (b) has an eight round capacity.
2. Is it worth getting a 1903 Springfield? Yes. It is a very collectable US military rifle with lots of history to it. Many consider it a very beautiful firearm.
I have a Springfield and H&R M1 Garand and 1903 and an 03A3. I need more.
1. As a battlerifle, the M1 Garand is superior because (a) it's semi-automatic and (b) has an eight round capacity.
2. Is it worth getting a 1903 Springfield? Yes. It is a very collectable US military rifle with lots of history to it. Many consider it a very beautiful firearm.
I have a Springfield and H&R M1 Garand and 1903 and an 03A3. I need more.
30Cal
Member
From Capt John Thomason's book Fix Bayonets!
They're pretty neat, IMO. The rear sight on the 1903A3 is simpler and easier to shoot with, but I personally like the looks of the original M1903 better (with the high-hump handguard and finger-grooved stock). Plus, it's the one that went ashore at Guadalcanal. The M1903A3s never saw much service and the majority of them remained stateside during the 2nd world war.
I really like both the M1 and M1903 and I think eventually that you'll need one of each.
Ty
Thomason held the Springfield in very high regard. There's a couple of other really neat passages in the book.
They're pretty neat, IMO. The rear sight on the 1903A3 is simpler and easier to shoot with, but I personally like the looks of the original M1903 better (with the high-hump handguard and finger-grooved stock). Plus, it's the one that went ashore at Guadalcanal. The M1903A3s never saw much service and the majority of them remained stateside during the 2nd world war.
I really like both the M1 and M1903 and I think eventually that you'll need one of each.
Ty
Swamprabbit
Member
As far as civies like us are concerned, neither is better than the other - they're just "different". So, get both!
30Cal
Member
I think it's "US Rifle Model 1903." The difference in value between the m1903A3 and the M1903 isn't much if any.
The correct bayonet would be a 16" M1905. They're pretty spendy these days as most of them were cut back to 10".
Ty
The correct bayonet would be a 16" M1905. They're pretty spendy these days as most of them were cut back to 10".
Ty
George S.
Member
You can always get one (or more!!) of each!! I have a Springfield Arsenal Garand and I just got a Remington M1903A3. Both of these types of battle rifles are steeped in US military history. The Model 1903 dates to before WWI and the Garand went into service toward the end of the 1930's. The M1, 03, and 03A3 saw extensive service in WWII and Korea, and I think the 03A3 even saw some use in Vietnam as a sniper rifle (03A4)
As far as bayonets, the blade length changed at different times and it would depend on when the particular rifle was made or issued to units. My M1 is a April 41 date and typically would have had the longer bayonet if it was issued in 1941. Later M1's had a 10" version as did the 03A3. Bayonet length can get somewhat confusing and the early 16" ones are very expensive.
The great thing about these rifles is that you can shoot the same M2 Ball ammo in both and it will provide very good accuracy out hundreds of yards.
As far as bayonets, the blade length changed at different times and it would depend on when the particular rifle was made or issued to units. My M1 is a April 41 date and typically would have had the longer bayonet if it was issued in 1941. Later M1's had a 10" version as did the 03A3. Bayonet length can get somewhat confusing and the early 16" ones are very expensive.
The great thing about these rifles is that you can shoot the same M2 Ball ammo in both and it will provide very good accuracy out hundreds of yards.
VG
Member
Just to show that different people collect for different reasons, I have several Garands but don't have an 03. I have a Mauser, instead.
The reason is that I like to take new or new to mislurp shooters out with a Mauser (I usually take a Yugo M48 that's in great shape, although not identical to the K98) and let them shoot a few rounds, load it, figure ot the sights, etc. It's interesting because the 8mm brass and 30.06 brass are pretty similar.
Then, I let them load and shoot the Garand. With 8 rounds, autoloading, lower recoil, and long radius peep sights easily adjusted to realistic battle ranges, the dfference in rate of fire and accuracy is usually quite significant.
The Springfield is an interesting rifle for many reasons, and a big part of our history, but it was a derivative of the Mauser design.
The reason is that I like to take new or new to mislurp shooters out with a Mauser (I usually take a Yugo M48 that's in great shape, although not identical to the K98) and let them shoot a few rounds, load it, figure ot the sights, etc. It's interesting because the 8mm brass and 30.06 brass are pretty similar.
Then, I let them load and shoot the Garand. With 8 rounds, autoloading, lower recoil, and long radius peep sights easily adjusted to realistic battle ranges, the dfference in rate of fire and accuracy is usually quite significant.
The Springfield is an interesting rifle for many reasons, and a big part of our history, but it was a derivative of the Mauser design.
El Rojo
Member
Another vote for both. I have both. I shoot the Garand more. The main argument for the Garand can be summed up in one little word.
PING!
If you don't know what I mean, ask.
PING!
If you don't know what I mean, ask.
wanderinwalker
Member
You absolutely need one of each, at least!
For general shooting, plinking, match, I like the M-1 because it is just easier to shoot. I have used an 03A3 in Garand matches and it works well also, but the short stock and long bolt-action make it difficult for me to work in a hurry.
One of these days I am going to find a nice sporterized 03 and be in hog-heaven. Although a nice Mauser 98 in sporter configuration could just as easily follow me home...
For general shooting, plinking, match, I like the M-1 because it is just easier to shoot. I have used an 03A3 in Garand matches and it works well also, but the short stock and long bolt-action make it difficult for me to work in a hurry.
One of these days I am going to find a nice sporterized 03 and be in hog-heaven. Although a nice Mauser 98 in sporter configuration could just as easily follow me home...
Blackcloud6
Member
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 608
El Rojo beat me to it! 
But I'll reinforce:
PIIIIIIIINNNNNGGGG!
Need I say more?
But I'll reinforce:
PIIIIIIIINNNNNGGGG!
Need I say more?
I've got several of both.
I shoot the 1903A1 and 1903A4 more than the M1 Garands. I'll give the M1 the edge on firepower, but the 1903 Springfield the edge on accuracy. And some 1903 variants, like the 1903A4 below, can be exceptionally accurate.
I shoot the 1903A1 and 1903A4 more than the M1 Garands. I'll give the M1 the edge on firepower, but the 1903 Springfield the edge on accuracy. And some 1903 variants, like the 1903A4 below, can be exceptionally accurate.
Erik Jensen
Member
there goes Gewehr pullin' out the big guns again. *envy*
*envy*Since I can't shoot 'em...
They closed my range at Kennedy Space Center for lead contamination. The other range I go to is closed due to hurricane damage from Frances and Jeanne. So I make more ammo, and re-arrange the rifles in the safes until such time as I can go shooting again. The pictures help with the withdrawals.
They closed my range at Kennedy Space Center for lead contamination. The other range I go to is closed due to hurricane damage from Frances and Jeanne. So I make more ammo, and re-arrange the rifles in the safes until such time as I can go shooting again. The pictures help with the withdrawals.
cracked butt
Member
I have an 03A3 and an M1.
I can't say which is better, I use them for different purposes.
I shoot cast lead loads out of my 03A3, something I can't easily do out of my M1.
I shoot the M1 for matches- its somewhat less accurate than the 03A3- but its much faster to shoot, has less recoil, and the semiauto action allows me to get back on target faster- I shoot higher scores with the M1.
Both are good rifles.
I can't say which is better, I use them for different purposes.
I shoot cast lead loads out of my 03A3, something I can't easily do out of my M1.
I shoot the M1 for matches- its somewhat less accurate than the 03A3- but its much faster to shoot, has less recoil, and the semiauto action allows me to get back on target faster- I shoot higher scores with the M1.
Both are good rifles.
I have a few M1s, a couple 1903s and one 1903A3. I shoot them a lot. At least once a week.
IMO the evolution of the US military rifles during that time period gave a very definite improvement over it's predisessor (sp). The 1903's sights are by far the worst of the bunch. The battle sight is zeroed at 547 yards if I remember correctly. The peep sight is small and far from your eye. The sight radius is much smaller since the rear sight is half way down the barrel. The battle sight notch is very tiny and difficult to see, at least for me. The front sight is thin. It provides very good accuracy on the range, but I think it would be very hard to pick up in poor light or with a cluttered background. As much as I hate to admit it, the internet rumors are true: America fielded a target rifle with the 1903.
The 1903A3 has a much more practical and usable rear sight.
The M1 has better sights than the 1903. It is semi-auto. And, it seems easier to shoot. I know that I shoot mine better. I am not sure why this is, maybe it is not even true, but we have vintage military rifle matches at our local club. One day we have a bolt action rifle match and the next weekend we have the semi-auto match. We have only had one semi-auto match so far, but at that match the scores on average were a lot higher with the semi-autos than they are with the bolt guns. I shot the bolt action match for several years. My first time out with the semi-auto M1, I shot a score that was as good as I ever shot with my bolt guns. Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but it seems to imply that the semi-autos are easier to shoot well on average. It might be because you can concentrate more on shooting than on manipulating your rifle.
I agree with the post about being able to shoot different loads in the bolt rifles. The M1 requires specific ammo that takes a little skill to load safely. With the bolt guns I am able to shoot cast bullet loads, very light loads, and use a much wider variety of bullet weights and powder charges. Lately I have been doing a lot of shooting at 25 meters (see my post Cook or Riflemen). It seems kind of silly to me to shoot full powered ammo at 25 meters. With the bolt gun I can shoot greatly reduced charges. Obviously this provides a number of advantages: cheaper to shoot because the powder charges are much lighter, far less recoil, longer brass life.
I wouldn't want to have to choose between them for my purposes. I probably shoot them both about the same amount and really enjoy them all. Shooting these rifles a lot provides insight into what the soldiers of the first half of the 20th century had to work with. It is immediately obvious that having the semi-auto rifle is a huge advantage over the bolt gun. And for me, it is equally obvious that I would rather be in combat with a rifle that has a 20-30 round detachable magazine than with an M1 with an 8 round en-bloc clip.
IMO the evolution of the US military rifles during that time period gave a very definite improvement over it's predisessor (sp). The 1903's sights are by far the worst of the bunch. The battle sight is zeroed at 547 yards if I remember correctly. The peep sight is small and far from your eye. The sight radius is much smaller since the rear sight is half way down the barrel. The battle sight notch is very tiny and difficult to see, at least for me. The front sight is thin. It provides very good accuracy on the range, but I think it would be very hard to pick up in poor light or with a cluttered background. As much as I hate to admit it, the internet rumors are true: America fielded a target rifle with the 1903.
The 1903A3 has a much more practical and usable rear sight.
The M1 has better sights than the 1903. It is semi-auto. And, it seems easier to shoot. I know that I shoot mine better. I am not sure why this is, maybe it is not even true, but we have vintage military rifle matches at our local club. One day we have a bolt action rifle match and the next weekend we have the semi-auto match. We have only had one semi-auto match so far, but at that match the scores on average were a lot higher with the semi-autos than they are with the bolt guns. I shot the bolt action match for several years. My first time out with the semi-auto M1, I shot a score that was as good as I ever shot with my bolt guns. Maybe this doesn't mean anything, but it seems to imply that the semi-autos are easier to shoot well on average. It might be because you can concentrate more on shooting than on manipulating your rifle.
I agree with the post about being able to shoot different loads in the bolt rifles. The M1 requires specific ammo that takes a little skill to load safely. With the bolt guns I am able to shoot cast bullet loads, very light loads, and use a much wider variety of bullet weights and powder charges. Lately I have been doing a lot of shooting at 25 meters (see my post Cook or Riflemen). It seems kind of silly to me to shoot full powered ammo at 25 meters. With the bolt gun I can shoot greatly reduced charges. Obviously this provides a number of advantages: cheaper to shoot because the powder charges are much lighter, far less recoil, longer brass life.
I wouldn't want to have to choose between them for my purposes. I probably shoot them both about the same amount and really enjoy them all. Shooting these rifles a lot provides insight into what the soldiers of the first half of the 20th century had to work with. It is immediately obvious that having the semi-auto rifle is a huge advantage over the bolt gun. And for me, it is equally obvious that I would rather be in combat with a rifle that has a 20-30 round detachable magazine than with an M1 with an 8 round en-bloc clip.
As a military weapon, the M1 is superior. As eventually proved at Camp Perry, the M1 is no slouch in the accuracy department as well.
As a shooter both are nice, the M1 recoils less and has better sights. I've shot the M1903 with the 1905 target sight on it, as well as the 1903A3, and the 1903A3 is the way the Springfield should have been made for battle use.
I personally have a British Lee-Enfield, No.4 Mk1 which is superior to the Springfield as a battle rifle (10 shots, faster bolt, less recoil, MUCH better sights).
As collectables, both are.
As a shooter both are nice, the M1 recoils less and has better sights. I've shot the M1903 with the 1905 target sight on it, as well as the 1903A3, and the 1903A3 is the way the Springfield should have been made for battle use.
I personally have a British Lee-Enfield, No.4 Mk1 which is superior to the Springfield as a battle rifle (10 shots, faster bolt, less recoil, MUCH better sights).
As collectables, both are.
- Status
