M1A: How much better than a Garand?
- Thread starter .45&TKD
- Start date
- Status
General Geoff
Member
If you already have a FAL and a PTR91, I would say not worth buying, unless you're a particular fan of the Garand-style action.
Z-Michigan
Member
If you like the Garand, no.
Really they are two fairly different rifles despite the name and history, but if you're happy with the Garand and not feeling a burning need for the M1A, I'd stay with your current set.
Of course personally I would (oh wait, I actually did! Seriously!) trade that PTR-91 for a M1A in a heartbeat, but I'm not sure you were asking about that.
Really they are two fairly different rifles despite the name and history, but if you're happy with the Garand and not feeling a burning need for the M1A, I'd stay with your current set.
Of course personally I would (oh wait, I actually did! Seriously!) trade that PTR-91 for a M1A in a heartbeat, but I'm not sure you were asking about that.
I own both and I feel the M1 Garand is superior to the M1a in the most critical areas. To me that includes dependability, maintainability, accuracy, and power of the cartridge. The M1a has an edge in firepower but to me thats less important than the other things. There are those that would challenge the accuracy point, but I think if you were to take 10 above average milsurp Garands, and 10 current standard M1a's and fired for groups the M1's would win out.
For a hunting weapon the M1a slightly better where it is lighter and easier to find and load 5 round mags.
For a hunting weapon the M1a slightly better where it is lighter and easier to find and load 5 round mags.
Baba Louie
Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2002
- Messages
- 3,831
About 2.5X if based on ammo count between reloads.
I do like the continuation or evolutionary aspects of the M1A when compared with your Garand, so from that POV, I might opt to trade off say, the PTR for a good M1A to join my Garand, but that's just me. M1As do allow you to mount a scope rather easily, which is nice if you want to glass, so I guess you could/should add that to the "how much better than a Garand" factor if optics are important to you.
briansmithwins
Member
- Joined
- Aug 1, 2005
- Messages
- 4,631
Depends what you're doing. Since the M14 design is a product improved M1 I'd most likely go that way.
I'm not fond of the patent White gas cutoff piston system as it's unnecessarily complex, in my opinion, OTOH, the roller bearing on the bolt and the ability to actually top off it off fix serious flaws in a combat rifle.
BSW
I'm not fond of the patent White gas cutoff piston system as it's unnecessarily complex, in my opinion, OTOH, the roller bearing on the bolt and the ability to actually top off it off fix serious flaws in a combat rifle.
BSW
Flatbush Harry
Member
I have a few of each...I trust the M1 Garand a bit more, although that is a bit because of experience on the one hand and complete milspec on the other.
FH
FH
skidooman603
Member
I couldn't let my safe be without a few Garands..that said however I have to disagree with the earlier poster who gave accuracy edge to Garand over M1A. Mine M1A is a NM but even a standard M1A is "apples to apples" more accurate than it's papa.
wayne in boca
Member
An M14/M1A is a product-improved Garand.The improvements were largely invented by Garand himself.I have several of each,and it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference when firing one.The Garand just runs out of ammo a lot quicker.Since putting down accurate fire is the objective of a military rifle,I would have to say the M14/M1A is a lot better rifle.
Hangingrock
Member
I’ve had both. The M1A is no M14. Comparing the M1 to the M1A when enhancements are made for competitive shooting the M1A is usually superior to the M1.
Birddog1911
Member
I have to agree with others; if it were me, I'd sell the PTR to get an M1A. Ultimately, you have to decide for yourself. I bought a Loaded model, and now it is essentially a NM, minus the bedding, yet. I've made every other modification for accuracy.
The Garand was such a fundamentally sound design that the improvements of the M14 are easy to over look.
However, the M14 operating rod is shorter and stiffer, the gas system is better, and the trigger assembly locking mechanism is 100% better. The lugs on Garand trigger assemblies deform and the whole action becomes loose in the stock.
The roller on the bolt lug is a real function improvement. Just like roller lifters are a real improvement over solid lifters.
The original M14 was designed to meet an unrealistic and unobtainable weight goal of 7 pounds. The original M14 stocks were easier to snap at the wrist after a buttstroke than a Garand . The M14 issue barrel is very light and not stiff enough for best accuracy. Garands were infact more accurate with their heavy barrels than M14's with service rifle barrels. Aftermarket stocks are stiffer, aftermarket barrels are better.
The selector mechanism on the M14 is a kludge, but it works. It does make it more difficult to disassemble the rifle.
Everyone ought to have at least one M1a.
Z-Michigan
Member
When the M14 came out, 7.62x51mm ammo had identical performance to .30-06 military ball, based on the powders available at the time. It's only more recently that .30-06 hunting loads have exceeded those levels due to further improved powders. So, at the time of introduction, power and range were identical. But the M14 was shorter and had 2.5x the ammo capacity. BTW, even now you can't safely use the hottest .30-06 loads in a Garand, due to its design.
Birddog1911
Member
Unless you're referring to the fact that the M14 has an opening at the mag well, I don't see how it would be easier to get dirt in the action compared to a Garand. They have the same bolt design.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
M14 advantages
1. increased modularity of assembly, fewer loose parts to lose during field strip/cleaning.
2. Improved bolt design, less wear and failure, especially when the rifle is fired full automatic.
3. Full automatic capability, we all know that wasn't such a great idea now, but back then it was considered the major improvement over the Garand.
4. Detachable box magazine, increased cartridge payload, ability to clip load magazine while attached to the firearm retained.
Magazine failure or breakage does not render the weapon unservicable as is the case with the M1, the operator simply replaces the magazine with one of his carried spares.
5. 7.62X51, when standard ball cartridges are used the ballistics are nearly identical to .30/06, the difference in ability only noted past 600 yards and very few combat engagements take place past 600 yards.
The 7.62X51 weights less per cartridge than the .30/06 meaning greater number of rounds could be carried, same applies to the stripper clips, two five round loaded stripper clips weight less than one eight round en-bloc clip.
6. Improved gas system moved away from the muzzle using a seperate piston and a shorter, stiffer operating rod.
Gas piston could/can be easily replaced in the field instead of replacing the whole operating rod, the shorter, stiffer operating rod much less suseptible to bending or failure.
I love the M1 Garand but from a combat standpoint the M14 is unquestionably the better rifle.
1. increased modularity of assembly, fewer loose parts to lose during field strip/cleaning.
2. Improved bolt design, less wear and failure, especially when the rifle is fired full automatic.
3. Full automatic capability, we all know that wasn't such a great idea now, but back then it was considered the major improvement over the Garand.
4. Detachable box magazine, increased cartridge payload, ability to clip load magazine while attached to the firearm retained.
Magazine failure or breakage does not render the weapon unservicable as is the case with the M1, the operator simply replaces the magazine with one of his carried spares.
5. 7.62X51, when standard ball cartridges are used the ballistics are nearly identical to .30/06, the difference in ability only noted past 600 yards and very few combat engagements take place past 600 yards.
The 7.62X51 weights less per cartridge than the .30/06 meaning greater number of rounds could be carried, same applies to the stripper clips, two five round loaded stripper clips weight less than one eight round en-bloc clip.
6. Improved gas system moved away from the muzzle using a seperate piston and a shorter, stiffer operating rod.
Gas piston could/can be easily replaced in the field instead of replacing the whole operating rod, the shorter, stiffer operating rod much less suseptible to bending or failure.
I love the M1 Garand but from a combat standpoint the M14 is unquestionably the better rifle.
Birddog1911
Member
Well written, Onmilo. Something tells me you've been in this argument before.
I am sure this has been pounded out alot by folks who spend alot more time than me fussing over such things, but I simply feel the M1 is a better rifle and I have both. It's track record is hard to argue with. How is the m1a gas system better when all I have to do to clean an M1 is remove the op rod by hand and swab it out? I don't need a drill bit and there is no separate piston. Simple. Folks are fudging the numbers if they think the 7.62 Nato was the ballistic equivalent of the 30-06. Close but no cigar charlie! My relative said a reason they liked the M1 was because if they were lined up right you could kill 2 and injure 3 with one round. Thats why I like the M1. He fought all the way across France on foot. When he got home he said take a 30-06 sight it in 4 inches high at 100 yds and leave it alone. That tells you the range he was used to shooting with that rifle IN COMBAT. 308 is a hell of a round but I will take the '06. Thank you. I go with field proven over theoretical stuff.
sumbitch i kinda flame out sometimes. nothing against u m14 guys its a great platform.
sumbitch i kinda flame out sometimes. nothing against u m14 guys its a great platform.
Last edited:
Birddog1911
Member
MS, you seem to be forgetting the fact that the M14 is a battle proven rifle as well. Shorter time, yes, but still battle proven. And the ballistics doesn't lie; the 7.62x51 and the .30 US are ballistically almost the same to 600 yards, well within combat ranges.
Now I love the Garand as well, but my go to rifle is my M1A, lighter rifle, lighter recoil, more accurate, greater capacity.
Now I love the Garand as well, but my go to rifle is my M1A, lighter rifle, lighter recoil, more accurate, greater capacity.
RockyMtnTactical
Member
- Joined
- Oct 21, 2006
- Messages
- 3,539
The M1A/M14 is the gun that the M1 Garand should have been in the first place. It's much better IMO.
The problem with the military arguement is that the OP is asking about personal use. I don't think you gain over twice the value with a m1a over an m1 for the average joe to play with on the weekends. Sure it may be a better rifle for certain requirements, but if you have those requirements you typically know if its worth the extra money.
- Status
