M1 Garand v. M1A, which one and why?

Status
Not open for further replies.
According to the m14 manual, the full auto feature could be enabled by installing the full auto kit, if it had been approved for that unit. (There was also a funky "winter trigger kit" available, as well as the "grenade launcher kit", which to a certain extent anticipated the "lego rifle" abilities of the M-16/AR-15 platform.

Sidebar:
----------------------
The m16 has the opposite: a kit that can be installed to PREVENT full auto/burst fire, which regulations I've read said MUST be installed for domestic deployments.
----------------------

In general, I understand that the full auto feature is discouraged in the military, as the m14 was famed as nearly impossible for most people to control when firing full auto.

The M1A, on the other hand, is ALMOST an m14, but the reciever was specifically designed for the civilian market so that the full auto kit COULD NOT be installed, and thus obtain the ATF blessing.

IIRC, CMP was also brought on, and issued a waiver so that m1a's could be used in matches.

BTW, I'm a little surprised @ all the springfield/m1a bashing in this thread, but hey, to each his own.
 
I was in the same predicament about a year ago. Ended up buying a new, loaded, SS, walnut stock SA M1A from my dealer at a decent price, and an M1 Garand from a reputable armorer. The M1 is SA 1945 vintage, with a new barrel and new stock, and all USGI parts. The M1 will be a present for my Grandson.

M1A: Great, no problems, really like it. It does extremely well with Australian surplus ammo, and even better with Black Hills. I plan to use it in matches.

M1: Had some functional problems, then some accuracy problems. All fixed now, and it shoots fine with Danish surplus that I bought last year for very little $$ and it included the bandoleers and the end blocks.

About the M1 problems. I could say that I wished I had not had the problems. But the truth is that in the process of solving them, I learned a WHOLE LOT about the rifle that I probably would not have learned if everything had worked just right from the beginning.

If you want to learn the good and the bad first hand, visit www.battlerifles.com

For sure: Whichever you get, you will enjoy it!

Alex
 
Both are good.

I'm a diehard M1 nut and told my wife I want to be buried with my match Garand:D

The M1a is just an upgrade of a M1.

The faults of the M1 in combat were:
8 rd capacity
no top off
weight- I took mine hunting once. I will never complain about the 12ga anymore.

The M1a are answers to those problems
20 rd mag
change mags when fighting slows
a little less weight

The bottom line is I think the M1 is more defensive and the M1a is more offensive. You can still get 30.06 AP. Which takes a whole lot to stop.

The M1 one is still winning wars though. Hatti. The M1a never won a war.
If I had to chose running out the door. I would chose the one I can hit the target the most.
 
I bought a Garand off a buddy some 23 years ago. Glass-bedded and some match parts. Shoots about two MOA, for my old eyes. Maybeso better, for young and healthy eyeballs.

I bought an M1A Match in 1984. Shot real good. But, a guy came along and wanted it worse than I did, so I let him buy it.

I still prefer the Garand. "Just 'cause."

:), Art
 
I like them both, but if forced to choose, I'd go with the M1. I got a SA/SG through the CMP. It was produced in the latter stages of WWII and has been rebuilt, but still looks good and shoots about 2 MOA.

Personally, I like the en-bloc clips, and I picked up a SLED from Brownells that makes single shots very slick. The price of high-cap mags for M14-style rifles is getting into the "Wow!" range, while clips are cheap and readily available.

As far as match shooting goes... neither is a first choice anymore. Nearly all of the top shooters have switched to the AR. Some people don't like it, but it's a reality. ARs are cheaper and have some distinct competetive advantages.

Like I said, I like them both, and may get an M1A (or equivalent from another builder) someday... but for now I'm happy with the Garand. BTW... you can always pick up the Garand in .30-06, and then have it rebarreled to .308 if surplus .30-06 becomes prohibitively expensive. Then again, there's always reloading.
 
I gotta go with the ole' Garand on this one. The M1 is just a nicer rifle aesthetically and from a shooters standpoint I feel it balances nicer. It also oooozes history and cool factor and to add icing on the cake you get that wonderful PING sound.

Yes an argument could be made for the M1A as far as a
SHTF scenario but let's be honest even if society breaks down for a few days or a week do you really think that hunkering down with an M1A vs. an M1 Garand is really going give you any real advantages. If a total CF and breakdown of society as we know it occurs having a weapon of any type will do and assuming you survive for any length of time you will be able to pick others up along the way.

Now post apocalyptic movie scenarios aside an M1 Garand is plenty of firepower for anything you will ever likely face, which will likely be nothing, and at the range it is just so much fun ..... which you will hopefully face very often.

Go with the original, go with the Garand.

Chris
 
The M1 has a stacking swivel.
You need 3 M1's to stack them.
You can buy 3 M1's for the price of a M1A.

Coincidence?


The M1 is also prettier to look at IMHO.
 
Which has more soul: some newly-minted replica from Illinois, or an actual veteran of the great World War Two?
 
Which has more soul: some newly-minted replica from Illinois, or an actual veteran of the great World War Two?
Click to expand...

I was on the Garand forum (http://www.battlerifles.com) looking for the answer to my question, who makes new other than Springfield and found out that:

1. The new SPringfields (and others) are REPLICAS, and not quite the same as a real Garand, using cast parts, not as strong etc.

2. Someone also said that they cannot be used in a CMP match . . . not sure that's true but if so, makes them less attractive.

So it's more than just soul!

Two companies make "new" Garands from WWII USGI parts and usually new barrels and wood:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/

and

Orion 7 - http://www.m1garand.com

both look like pretty small companies. Not cheap, but if I am laying out $1200 for new, I think I'd pass on the Springfield Garand.

Their advice over there for newbies is to get a CMP rifle as the best value.

Problem for some of us is getting in that 50 shots to qualify. (see http://www.civilianmarksmanshipprogram.com/)
 
It may not be 50/50, but I am one of the unlucky ones.

As the owner of a 4 month old M1A I suggest buying something else. M1 or FAL. Springfield Armory has had 20 years to figure out how to make a reliable rifle and they are still not there. My M1A would not seat a fully loaded mag (several) and it was only 97% reliable. It came with a broken stock. The stock was replaced before I bought it. After 3 range trips the hammer began to follow the bolt forward after each shot. Fortunately it did not go full auto at the range. The problem was reproducable with a empty gun, so it was not bad trigger control. I had to send it back and they fixed the out of tolerance problem by replacing the trigger group and bolt with USGI parts. That tells me something about their ability to make parts. Well it is much better in that I can seat a fully loaded mag now and the hammer stays back after each shot, but it is still only 97% reliable. It fails to eject. I called them and they told me it is not expected to be reliable with surplus ammo. I have tried South African, Portugese, and Austrailian. They wanted me to send it back again but I told them military rifles should work with military ammo and I was not going to send it back again as I think it just needed a USGI extractor and ejector. I made the replacement of those parts. Going to the range soon. Wish me luck.

If you don't like problem solving and visiting UPS I would get the Garand AND a FAL for the same price.
 
I suspect that 24 rounds of 30-06 in M1 clips takes up less space than 20 rounds of .308 in an M1A mag.

Can anyone confirm?

I'm beginning to lean toward the opinion that the M1 is actually a better rifle, all the way around--the only place the M1a wins is weight and perhaps accuracy. And I don't think that the accuracy edge is significant in the issue versions of both.
 
The M1 has a stacking swivel.
You need 3 M1's to stack them.
You can buy 3 M1's for the price of a M1A.

Coincidence?
Click to expand...
Or you can buy two M1s and a 1903 Springfield which also has a stacking swivel and shoots the same ammo as the M1.

Further coincidence?
 
M1 vs. M1A

Well first let me say I am no expert,[the older I get the less I know] But I do have a bit of experience shooting both the M1 and M14/1A in competition.Here is the armory list:

1: M1A Super Match Built by a very good friend who prefers to remain nameles. 7.62

2: M1A standard with skim bedding, trigger work and NM sights. 7.62

3: U.S. Army M14NM, Springfield Mfg. 7.62

4:CMP M1, Springfield mfg.[1955,end of the line] been restocked and tightened up the gas system a bit, smoothed up trigger. 30-06

5:M1 Springfield mfg.[early 42] built into full on match rifle by Arrington accuracy in Az. 7.62

I started highpower with rifle #2 and did reasonably well for a newbie. However I yearned for the historic robustness of the Garand and aquired rifle #5. It was a serious learning curve. The M14 type Rifle is a little easier to shoot in rapid fire due to slightly less recoil thanks to the gas system, this also makes the M1 a little less forgiving if you have a sloppy position, however any .30 cal. will let you know in a hurry if your position isn't right. Rifle #5 and #1 shoot almost identically, I say almost because the Arrington M1 is the most acuurate rifle I own. With 168 MK's and 42.0 of 4895 off the bench it will shoot a ragged hole at 200. Now keep in mind this is from a bench and not a field position[god I wish!!]

The CMP M1 holds 2MOA easy with handloads and cuts it a little closer with the right recipe, better than most of us can shoot from a field position. Same for the standard M1A. Again the M14 type rifle is a little easier for me to shoot well but I still prefer the Garand for the following reasons. 1: offhand, few rifles balance like an M1 in offhand and I have shot my best offhand scores with this type of rifle. 2: Rapid fire: ok the 14 belts you a little softer but the M1 has the fastest slickest reload there is, you don't take anythig out, you just put stuff in. This gives you several seconds too look through your spotting scope and check your wind and target. No fumbling with a box mag. 3: If you d0 even reasonbly well with an M1 at a match people take notice, if you do really well its a real kick in the pants because you did it with a "REAL" rifle, and there in lies the whole point to shooting in the first place........the fun factor. If I had only one rifle for all purposes {perish the thought!!} it would be John Cantius Garands great arm of freedom and democracy.....the U.S. Rifle, Cal.30 M1
 
A possible advantage of the Garand is that reloading can be way faster than the M1A. With the Garand you pull the trigger eight times and PING! You grab another enbloc, slam it in, move your thumb real fast and you are done. You can police up your clips later, although you might lose them. They are incredibly cheap though.

With the M1A you have to remove the 20-50 dollar magazine, put it away, get a new one and put it in, then chamber a round.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

J
  • Locked
M1 Garand or M1A
2
Replies
45
Views
3K
NEtracker
N
C
  • Locked
M1A vs M1 Garand
2
Replies
47
Views
5K
gazelle
G
S
  • Locked
Garand or M1A
Replies
16
Views
777
FPrice
F
nwilliams
  • Locked
Ok Experts: Compare M1 Garand to M1a
Replies
2
Views
560
Telperion
T
D
  • Locked
M1A vs. M1 Garand
2
Replies
26
Views
8K
Garandimal
Garandimal
Back
Top