M1-garand vs M14

[Grunt]

Got both Garands and M1As and won't get rid of either ones. However, I do think the M-14 is the better rifle.
First, the short stroke, self-regulating gas system of the M-14 is an improvement over the long stroke, non-adjustable gas system of the Garand. What does this mean to us? Less mass moving during recoil making for a more accurate system and fewer problems of bent operating rods.
Second, the M-14 comes standard with an excellent flash suppressor whereas the Garand comes with a bare muzzle. Fire them at night and you can see where it's a MAJOR benefit in favor of the M-14. Yes, I know you can use a T-37 flash suppressor on the Garand (and it too is an excellent flash suppressor as well) and that in some less-free areas of the country (what, you mean you're reading this and still living there??? ) you have to have a muzzle brake rather than a flash suppressor on the M1A but I'm comparing each rifle as-issued.
Third, while the Garand can be loaded faster, the M-14 has to be reloaded less often. The Garand does have the advantage of being able to get lower to the ground and has sleek, sexy lines but I still say the magazine of the M-14 is a superior system in that it's also a lot less complicated than the Garand.
Fourth, the .308/7.62 NATO is a more efficent cartridge than the .30-06. Sure you get about 100fps more with the .30-06 but if you look at the records at Camp Perry, every record set by the .30-06 has been broken by the .308 and it's also a round that can be used in a short action rather than the long action of the Garand.
Finally, if you like, it's a lot easier to put a scope on an M-14 than it is to put a scope on a Garand. Sure, scoping an M-14 is nowhere nearly as easy to scope as a good bolt rifle or an AR but it's still a lot easier to put an ARMS, BPT or Smith 3-point mount on an M-14 than any system made to scope a Garand.

 

[Chris Rhines]

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.

I don't buy it, and my (admitedly limited) experience in CMP indicates the same - detachable box magazines are by and large quicker to load than enblocs.

To load an AR from empty, you punch the magazine release with your right forefinger while grabbing the empty magazine with your left hand. Insert the magazine, press the bolt latch with the left thumb, left hand returns to the foreend, reacquire the target and shoot. I can do this in 1.5 seconds, bang-to-bang, and have done so on the clock.

M14 loading is similar - placement of the controls is a little different, but the procedure is the same.

To load a Garand from empty, you take the rifle down from the shoulder to about around waist level, while grabbing a spare enblock. Seat the enbloc with the right hand, yank your hand out of the way, reshoulder the rifle, reacquire the target, and shoot.

The actual loading process is fast, but you've got to break your cheekweld, drop the rifle, then reshoulder it before shooting. I've never tried it on the clock, but I can't see anyone doing this in under two seconds, bang-to-bang. Keep in mind, also, that you're only loading eight rounds.

I would really like to see a couple of well-practiced shooters go head to head, AR, AK, M1, M14, and whatever else, all against a shot timer.

- Chris

 

[MechAg94]

I think I have to say that I don't really think the M1A is a better rifle, I just would favor the M1A if I needed it. The big down side for me is finding a good way to carry multiple M1A mags. I have satchel that holds 10 or so, but I would prefer a vest or something that I could run with. I don't prefer belt pouches. For the M1, you just have to throw a few bandoliers over your shoulder. The other plus for my Garand is the bayonet. My M1A does not have a lug as it was bought during the AWB.

Was the Garand speed loading done using cloth bandoliers or bandoliers at all? Those cloth bandoliers don't like to let go of the clips sometimes.

 

[jagdpanzer347]

I personally have never fired an M1A/M14,although I would like to add one to my collection at some point. Would probably feel about equally well-armed with either. One of the things I really like about my CMP M1 is the fact that it has served with our armed forces. Holding it,I wonder how it got each little nick in the stock or rub mark in it's parkerizing. Could have been a training rifle it's whole life but I like to imagine it being some GI or marine's companion at Bastogne or Iwo Jima. Absolute blast to shoot a piece of American history.

 

[MaceWindu]

The big down side for me is finding a good way to carry multiple M1A mags. I have satchel that holds 10 or so, but I would prefer a vest or something that I could run with.

Ask and you shall receive....Mace's M1A Bush rig...





Mace

 

[The Real Hawkeye]

That's awesome! Do they make them for other rifles, like the ARs?

 

[Father Knows Best]

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.

If the supposed accuracy advantage has to do with the cartridge, then there's an easy solution -- rebarrel a Garand for 7.62x51. It's about the easiest conversion around.

 

[MaceWindu]

That's awesome! Do they make them for other rifles, like the ARs?

Yes! The rig itself is pouch-less and you have to build it into any config. you want. I am currently building my second for the AR series...


MaceWindu

 

[MaceWindu]

If the supposed accuracy advantage has to do with the cartridge, then there's an easy solution -- rebarrel a Garand for 7.62x51. It's about the easiest conversion around.

Now I saw my first "Tanker" Garand about 2 weeks ago and fell in love! but, If I had the choice for some one to give me cover fire with a Garand or M1A/ M14, not a hard choice....

M14 HOLDS MORE BULLETS...

Mace

 

[Onmilo]

Back to the original point oft the thread,,,,
I own several variations of both M1 Garands and M1A/M14 type rifles.
I prefer the looks of the M1 to the M1A, but for shooting the M1As outperform the M1 rifles.

Am M1 can be reloaded faster, and with a larger payload than any of the other weapons used during the Second World War.
An M1 can generally be reloaded faster than an M14 but with a smaller payload, meaning you can begin firing before the M14 shooter if both rifles run dry at the exact same time, but you will run dry again before the M1 shooter does.
In the long run, the M14 will actually outperform the firepower of the M1 in the semi automatic, sustained fire role.
An M16 can be reloaded even faster than and M1 and with a much larger payload.

 

[Gun_nut]

View attachment 33995heres a friend of mine with my m1garand View attachment 33994 with me standing by him with my sks

 

[DevLcL]

You should learn the use the term "vs" less and replace it with "and".

Theres no reason to not have both.

-Dev

 

[Grunt]

The other plus for my Garand is the bayonet. My M1A does not have a lug as it was bought during the AWB.

Uh, you do know that you can change the flash suppressor now back over to one with a bayonet lug on it, right? Hell, you can even swap out the factory stock for a folding Springfield BM-59 style, Choate folder or even the new Sage and McMillan collapsable stocks as well. This of course is assuming you live in a free state and not in one of the occupied territories.

 

[mustanger98]

HOW IS THE M14 MORE RELIABLE AND MORE ACCURATE?

I won't address reliability issues (what issues?) here, but my analasys of my reading says it's not so much the rifle as it is the difference in ammo, the 7.62 having a half in shorter case and so a shorter powder collumn and therefore more reliable ignition/burn. Thing is, my reading also says this improvement in accuracy is noticed in MATCH conditions, not field conditions. Also, the 7.62 only holds a slight edge and that's only to 800meters whereas the .30-06 ball rounds in M2 and match loadings (150gr and 172gr respectively) hold the advantage out to 1000yds.

I still like my M1.

 

[KriegHund]

Garand Weight: 4.32 kg
M-14 Weight (loaded): 5.1 kg

Weights similar.

About the only advantage i see in the M-14 is that you can do tactical reloads.

 

[mustanger98]

Everybody wants to talk "tactical reloads". There's a thread on the general discussion forum that asks the question "has tactical gone too far". Opinions vary, but en blocs are a lot more fun.

 

[Average Joe]

Choosing between the M1 and M14. is like asking which child do you like better !

 

[KriegHund]

Everybody wants to talk "tactical reloads". There's a thread on the general discussion forum that asks the question "has tactical gone too far". Opinions vary, but en blocs are a lot more fun.

Dunno, ide rather go in somehwere knowing i have a full mag then thinking i have either 2 or 3 rounds left, and having to discharge them to get 8 rounds...

 

[mustanger98]

Dunno, ide rather go in somehwere knowing i have a full mag then thinking i have either 2 or 3 rounds left, and having to discharge them to get 8 rounds...

That's what all the Garand's detractors say. And I'm not even talking about combat in my situation. (Don't give me that "but it's a combat rifle so you must be thinking combat" BS. There's other reasons to shoot a Garand, such as it's a great rifle to own and shoot on its own merits.) But... if you're headed somewhere you're unsure of or sure you'll need a full mag, you'll go in with a loaded 20rd or 30rd mag. IF I WERE headed into the same kind of place with my Garand, assuming I was low in the magazine, and assuming I had time, I'd eject that clip and pocket the ammo, then load a fresh clip and be sure I had full clips in my jacket pockets where I could get too 'em. Seems to me I can carry four or five clips in the space it takes you to carry one M-14 mag. Which is actually better depends on the opinion of the individual dealing with it.

 

[Bwana John]

I have and like both.
I shoot better offhand with the Garand.
I can sustain a higher rate of aimed fire with the M-1A.

The Enblock clip on the M-1 is so aniquated that it's not even funny.

 

[444]

I regularly compete in matches using military type rifles where reload times as well as accuracy and all the rest are a factor.
The last one I competed in, I used a CMP M1 and won the match against perhaps 40 other shooters from 4-5 different states. I point this out as eveidence that I have some skill with an M1.
I believe that in these matches, the M1A (M14) would be a significant advantage.
I probably can reload an M1 faster than I can reload an M1A (since I have never really trained with an M1A, although I own one: I believe that if I did train with the M1A that I could easily match my reloading times with the M1). But that is only one small part of the story. Reloading takes time, no matter how fast you are. With an M1, you need to reload far more often. Logic tells me that it can be no other way. There is no possible way that someone with an M1 can fire 20 rounds just as fast as I can fire 20 rounds out of an M1A: all I have to do is fire, the guy with the M1 has to do that PLUS do two reloads. It aint gonna happen. In these matches I shoot a typical senario would be to engage a target (steel plate) at an unknown range (200-800 yards), from an improvised position, as many times as you can in a given time frame. Not having to reload the rifle at all is a HUGE advantage. I find that I can usually fire about a dozen, aimed shots at longish range in the time allotted using an M1. I believe that if I didn't have to reload, I could almost certainly get off an additional 3-4 shots.

As far as a combat rifle, the fact that you can not top off the magazine on an M1 seems to me like it would be a big issue. I have been told that it isn't, but I can't process that in my mind. With the M14 you can do a tactical reload quickly and easily. Not so with the M1.

As a sporting rifle, I agree, the M1 is more enjoyable to use.

Of course, I can't think of the guy that is currently working on one of my rifles: he was an armor for the Marine Rifle Team (the big team). He says that the M1 can be accurized to be a better shooter than the M1A in his catalog. Somebody help me out here, what is his name: he is in the south east somewhere.

FWIW, I own three M1s and one M1A.

 

[Swampy]

Of course, I can't think of the guy that is currently working on one of my rifles: he was an armor for the Marine Rifle Team (the big team). He says that the M1 can be accurized to be a better shooter than the M1A in his catalog. Somebody help me out here, what is his name: he is in the south east somewhere.

Gus Fisher, who is one of the premier M1 gurus over on Jouster as well as a renowned M1 gunsmith, and ALSO was a one time armorer on the Marine Teams, also states that the M1 is capable of better accuracy than is the M14 platform, hands down, WHEN EQUAL TECHNIQUES AND TECHNOLOGY are applied.

Gus is somewhere in the Midwest I believe..... could be wrong.

Best regards,
Swampy

Garands forever

 

[444]

Roland Beaver.

My memory is horrible.

 

[cracked butt]

$500 for M1 $1500 for a M1A? There is no way that more magazine capacity for hypotheticals like blue helmeted zombie hordes is worth an extra $1000 to me.

 

[mustanger98]

$500 for M1 $1500 for a M1A? There is no way that more magazine capacity for hypotheticals like blue helmeted zombie hordes is worth an extra $1000 to me.

And for a situation like that, an M1, being 8rd enbloc-fed, will make holes just as well as any M1A, as will any crankbolt or levergun or even single-shot. But we all know certain people don't want to admit that, and they're usually the ones who don't like Garand actions and .30caliber. But that's another debate to the one this thread was started on.