M1-garand vs M14
- Thread starter Gun_nut
- Start date
- Status
The Real Hawkeye
member
I have had both. Today I have two Garands and no M1A/semi auto M14. Guess which I prefer.Gun_nut said:i prefer m1 garand faster loading better hitting power and range and faster to reload with the en-block clips but m14 has a 20round detachable clip but you have to have it loaded at a angle...what do you people think?
bernie
Member
I agree with you Gun nut. I prefer the M-1. I do not believe that it has any appreciable increase in hitting power. I do agree that loading with en blocs is just as quick if not quicker for me to reload. I also think that the M-1 carries better because you do not have a bulky magazine at the balance point. I have had both, and really do prefer the original M-1, not the M-14 (product improved M-1 ).
).M14 slightly more reliable,more accurate,if you wish you can top off the mag at any time with stripper clips.The difrence between M2 30-06 ball (the Garand is not rated to fire 30-06 hunting ammo)and 7.62 Nato is negligible.The Garand is better balanced and can be quickly loaded BUT you'd have to load 3 times to every M14 mag. The Garand kicks out it's clips which can become lost or damaged.I love my Garand but the M14 is the better rifle.
well the garand kicks out clips so the operator can reload faster so they cannot take time to take clips out in war.. and a enblock clip is reallly chaep to mass produce just a little peice of metal so nothing really is lost. and heres a picture of my m1 garand with the living room in the background....
View attachment 33971
View attachment 33971
Last edited:
The M1 does have more battle experience, but in any situation that I am likely to encounter, I know 20 rounds will likely cover it. Not sure about 8 rounds. I wouldn't grant any power/range advantage to either since neither my M1 nor M1A are scoped. I don't have any issue putting in magazines. Just like with putting in clips fast, all it takes is practice. I would say the disposable nature of the clips is an advantage, but starting capacity wins for me. I would be happy with either, but would take my M1A first.
mustanger98
Member
I like my M1 Garand. It loads fast and easy, PING, re-loads fast and easy, may eject the clip so it lands on top of my Stetson which is good for comic relief at the range. I haven't had to worry about mags costing so much since I have so many clips... 400 at least, maybe closer to 500.
I won't argue appreciable difference in power at range because I don't have access as a rule to a range beyond 100yds. However, I've heard from long-range shooters that a M1 will be good to 1000yds while an M-14's 7.62mm will play out just past 800yds. How many of us actually shoot that far? Don't know, but wouldn't it be fun to try?
My Granddaddy had some influence in my decission to aquire an M1. He's a WW2 vet and as I've said in other threads, he told me there's nothing obsolete about the M1.
That said, I have nothing against the M-14.
I haven't had to worry about mags costing so much since I have so many clips... 400 at least, maybe closer to 500.I won't argue appreciable difference in power at range because I don't have access as a rule to a range beyond 100yds. However, I've heard from long-range shooters that a M1 will be good to 1000yds while an M-14's 7.62mm will play out just past 800yds. How many of us actually shoot that far? Don't know, but wouldn't it be fun to try?
My Granddaddy had some influence in my decission to aquire an M1. He's a WW2 vet and as I've said in other threads, he told me there's nothing obsolete about the M1.
That said, I have nothing against the M-14.
geekWithA.45
Moderator Emeritus
I know it's heresy in some quarters, but I vote for the son of the M1, the M14.
The improvements are incremental, but they are definitive.
The improvements are incremental, but they are definitive.
StrikeEagle
Member
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2004
- Messages
- 709
I own both and enjoy them both. But I LOVE the M1. Something about the handling, the operation and yes, the looks just satisfies me deep down.
My vote goes to the M1 Garand over the M-14.
StrikeEagle
My vote goes to the M1 Garand over the M-14.
StrikeEagle
Shot expert rifleman in the Navy in 1992 with the M-14, own a Garand, the only difference is the capacity and the loading. They are both nearly as reliable as the AK and both are accurate. However, I believe the M-14 can be made more accurate than the Garand. I wanted an M1A, but for the price settled on a hi-cap battle rifle in the PTR-91 for nearly half the price.
Last edited:
Swampy
Member
Sorry, but YEP.....
Already proven that the M1 loads much faster than any other battle rifle in existence.
It takes MUCH fewer hand motions to load an M1 than anything else out there.
Shooting an M1 alongside an M14(M1A), sustained AIMED fire, the M1 keeps up with the M14 in number of rounds downrange. This has been proven both in side by side shooting trials and in various computer models.
Go to any big NRA or CMP Highpower event and watch the rapid fire stages. The guys shooting the M1's (few of them that there are nowadays..) are always the first to be back on the trigger after the reload. Faster than M14's..... faster than AR's, faster than turnbolts. Note: I have and do shoot M1's, M14, and AR15 in NRA-CMP Highpower events.
Now, which one would I prefer if I could only have ONE rifle for the rest of my life...???? Dunno'. Probably a toss up in all PRACTICAL considerations, but I'm probably betting that I'd choose the M1 in 7.62 Nato chambering......
Just my 2 bits....
Best to all,
Swampy
Garands forever
Father Knows Best
Member
amprecon said:
?
? Um, why?wayne in boca
Member
I think he meant to type in PTR91,the US manufactured clone of an HK91 by JLD.Nice rifles.
I have both an M1A and a Garrand. They are both rack grade. I prefer the Garrand for the ergonomics and most of the reasons already mentioned. The flat bottom on the Garrand works better for acquiring rapid improvised rests. The center of mass of the Garrand can be readily placed solidly over a pack or a branch or a knee.
SnakeEater
Member
Doesn't anybody factor in the M14's gas system improvements over the M1? How about lack of a flash suppressor on the M1? The inability to top off the clips? These may be minor disadvantages but in combat they DO matter. I'll take the M14.
Steve499
Member
When I'm shooting my M1-A, I like it better than my M-1 Garand. When I shoot my Garand, I prefer it. Does that mean I'm fickle?
Steve
Steve
The Real Hawkeye
member
Gun Nut, nice Garand. Here's mine. Aren't they great looking guns?Gun_nut said:
Last edited:
Sorry, meant the PTR-91, yes by JLD Enterprises, HK-91 clone. As far as making the M-14 more accurate, it's just based on what I've heard about the Camp Pendleton matches where they used Accurized M-14's mostly. I also read that an accurized M-14 outshoots an accurized Garand, said to be something to do with the .308 cartridge case being shorter.
When I was a teen, I bought a new Springfield Garand for about $127. That's right, $127. It was 1964. I shot at a local range and became a pretty good shot with it. So, when I went into the army in 1970 as a reservist who had to qualify with both the M16 and M14, my drill sargeant was pretty amazed that I qualified as an expert with both. He and I had a good 'ole time one night after my graduation from basic, talking about these rifles around a bottle of "white lightnin'." I have a recollection that he favored the M1 and I favored the M14.
Nevertheless, all these years later, I opted to get a 1953, HRA-built Garand. this was an emotional decision, based on my having owned one as a kid.
As for "better," depends on the context. I'm not going into combat, so for me, the aesthetics, history, and personal preference selects the Garand.
Nevertheless, all these years later, I opted to get a 1953, HRA-built Garand. this was an emotional decision, based on my having owned one as a kid.
As for "better," depends on the context. I'm not going into combat, so for me, the aesthetics, history, and personal preference selects the Garand.
- Status
