What do you like better and why?

The M14... Partially because I've never jammed my thumb in one.

I'll take the M1 Garand as it just feel's better to me. I've been lucky and never got M1 thumb {yet} . I do like the 20 rnd. box mag on the M1A1 though it just seem's a little lite in the bbl. to me maybe if mine had a heavy bbl. I'd like it better.

The M14 largely because it handles better and is more accurate out of the box - at least in my experience. My first high power competition was with the National Match M1 and I did not think the M14 could possibly replace it and the .30-06. However, a little experience with the NM M14 convinced me that it and the 7.62 were superior in just about every respect.

Interesting, what is the difference between M14 and a M1A1?

Probably because I went through Basic with the 14, I prefer it. I like the box magazine and the fact you can load 3 rounds if that is all you have.. You can not top off the Garand.

I think you are referring the the M1A being produced by the commercial firm, Springfield Armory. The M1A is a civilian version of the M14 and it has none of the full-auto fire mechanism of the M14. Originally, Springfield Armory used a lot of surplus M14 parts in the M1A, but I think they produce most of the parts now. The M1A is available in a variety of configurations that are far removed from the original military M14.

Springfield Armory

The M1A is Springfield Armorey's famous civilian legal version of the US military's M14 select-fire(full-semi-auto) rifle

The M1 is a legend unto itself, and the predecessor of the M14 in military service. The M1 is a semi-auto 8 shot toploader.

The M14/M1A is a superb piece of gear. An expensive rifle, but worth every penny

The Garand/M1 rifle is available from the CMP for reasonable prices(used military). Still made new by Springfield Armory as well.

I own 3 M14 style rifles and one M1 rifle. Cost-wise, a M1 from the CMP is money well spent, plus a historical and functional work of art.

For a fighting gun...go with an M14, for a target gun...go with an M14, to impress your shooting peers...go with an M14. For fun and historic value, hunting, etc....get an M1. Thinking about it....buy both styles of rifle.

I prefer the M14; ease with reloading. My personal preference is with the National Match from Springfield Armory. But I have owned 2 other Loaded Models.

I have an M1 and an M1a.
The M1 was the first semiauto rifle I used in NRA High Power matches.
The M1a was next.
I did my best match shooting with the M1a and it is the most consistently accurate rifle I own.

I like the M1 but the M1a just suits me better. It was easier for me to load the box magazine than the en-bloc clip of the M1. The National Match sights on the M1a also helped me shoot better.

I’d take the M14 over the M1. Used both plus the variation of the M1 converted to 7.62 mm NATO by the Navy. The M14 twenty round box magazine is simply a better system than the M1 eight round clip. Also the gas system of the M14 in my opinion was better. At my last duty station GITMO part of my duties was marksmanship instruction to sailors that made up a component of the base defense force. The sailors weren’t that enthusiastic and complained about the accuracy of the rifles. In order to prove a point we’d fire their rifle and their complaints in regards to accuracy would be more subdued. Accuracy wise issued rifles my personal opinion both were equal for the intended usage. Conducted a limited test of several of each rifle type and would give the accuracy edge to the M14.

Match rifle I had a M1 built by Clint Fowler with a triple lugged receiver and a Springfield M1A (supposed civilian version of the M14) Super Match. They both shot exceptionally but the M1A Super Match had the edge.

If I were to build a M1A/M14 to day it would not be with a Springfield receiver. All related parts GI except for the stock and barrel.

If I were to build a gas gun for a cross the course shooting today it would be on the AR platform.

I trained with the M14 in the Army, learned that rifle inside out and backwards, and always shot perfect to near-perfect scores at rifle qualifications.

I started buying CMP M1 rifles about 10 years ago, and I have participated in several matches. Even with my old grampa eyes I can still turn in very respectable scores with the M1.

Tough choice between the two. I think it would depend primarily upon the intended use. Properly maintained and competently handled, either one will still win a match, bring home the venison, or win a war.

__________________
Life of the party until 8:00PM

Got both.



Both are great rifles , both have their good & bad points , but the M-1A (M-14) is a much improved rifle. Generally more accurate and reliable , easier to mount optics , easier to load differing amounts of ammo in 5,10,15,20rd mags. Strippers clips can be used to load or top off 5rds at a time. Gas system is easier to clean and maintain.

It is quite easy to load from 1 to 8 rounds in the Garand with the standard clips. Also, topping off is easily done as well. It just takes some training and practice.

The military doesn't always use all the features available in their equipment, the try to keep stuff GI proof.

I like them both and for sport shooting, it's a toss up....I'm limited to 10 rounds in Cali so 8 in the stripper is fine by me...and I even like loading it that way better than the mag...especially since I usually shoot from the bench anyway....but cheap military suplus 30-06 is getting old and decent stuff is expensive...so I'd go with the 308.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

I have a CMP Garand and an old Federal Ordnance M14A (one of the early good ones). Love 'em both, but I prefer the M14 for all the reasons already mentioned.

I like Garand better, it is a better shooting rifle, More control over the M14 being that it is automatic and if not for the Garand the 14 would not exist. One more thing, I load my ammo so going through 8 round as opossed to 20 at a time is more economic and I don't feel so badly after a day at the range.

Had both, sold the M1A and kept two garands, one Navy trophy in 7.62 Nato and one 1940 vintage Springfield in .30 M-2. The Garand for me has enough firepower, handels and balances much better than the M1A. Firepower I got with my AK's and AR-15's, but power can be found in a .30 cal.

__________________
Stay safe people!

M14. Detachable magazine, semi or full auto, slightly lighter, easier to field strip and reassemble. Besides it is what I trained with and carried a long time ago.

I do own an M1 and enjoy shooting it but of the last 3 issue rifles I would always vote for the M14

Have both, but just love the "ping"

__________________
I’m your Boogie Man, uh huh.

I have both (well, an M1A anyway) and love them both. However, I lean towards the M14 simply because I lived with the guy for 8 weeks in the summer of '69 when I was just shy of 18 years old. Some went for flower power that summer, but I went for M14 power.

One day they took my M14 away causing me to be very lonely. So, I set out to get one from one of the other guys. Geez . . . look at that head of black hair . . .

__________________
1st Signal Brigade, RVN '70

I have one Springfield, Inc M1A and five M1 Garands. I probably take a Garand out over the M1A eight times to one.

The main reason? The Garand is much more "fun" to shoot in range sessions than the M1A. There are many practical reasons (all stated above) for the M1A being a superior weapon to the Garand when considered as a battle implement, but those advantages don't matter when plinking offhand at claybirds on edge sitting on the 100 yd berm.

Part of the "fun" factor is all the history and mystique surrounding the M1 Rifle and the role it played in WWII and Korea, and the supporting role it had in postwar Germany, South Korea, Italy, Denmark, Greece, and South America. WWII was won because the American doggies and jarheads carried and used them to potential, because the M1 Rifle was superior to any rifle the Axis fielded, and because the American Military/Industrial complex and the American workers behind it had the capacity to produce them in endless quantities.

This past summer while on vacation in Germany, an elderly relative of the folks we were visiting was a young Wehrmacht solder in 1945. He was forunate to be captured by the American army and when marhed to the American rear area he and his fellow German POWs were completely astonished at the overwhelming volume of the US logistic effort. NOTHING was in short supply in the American army. Goods and supplies, fuel, weapons, ammunition, food, and the 6x6 trucks to carry it all -- the now-elderly ex-POW said that he knew in March of 1945 when captured that it was only a matter of time.

The M1 Rifle was an integral part of that. Each time I pick one up, history seems to come alive for me. My late father carried one in the South Pacific from Fall 1943 through the Occupation of Japan in late 1945 and into April 1946 when he was sent home and discharged. That's another story.

The other reason I like the M1 Rifle? I REALLY stocked up on 30-06 ammo over the past 15 years and calculated recently that I could shoot at least two eight rd en bloc clips every weekend for the next 25 years and still have a couple thousand rounds left over. I'd be 80 then, and probably wouldn't be too interested in shooting if I were still alive.

The M14/M1A is also an outstanding weapon that unfortunately never got the chance to be fully integrated into US military history before being cancelled by McNamara. Troops who used the M14 in VN respected them, even if they did not like the weight of the M14. Further, an M14 in FA mode is tough if not impossible to control, and most were locked in semi-auto mode. And the M14 has enjoyed a renewed respect as the weapon of choice for the Designated Rifleman position in infantry platoons in Iraq and Afghanistan.

But it's just not as iconic as the M1 Rifle . . .

"You don't have a thing if you ain't got that 'ping'!"

JMO,

Noah

Sir, I have both and much prefer the Garand. It's my favorite rifle, period.

The M1A's a neat rifle, but its big, expensive box magazine is constantly getting in my way. Also, GI M14 receivers are Class 3 items, so most of us are left with commercial imitations of varying dimensions and metallurgy. Many commercial versions require considerable fiddling to get them "right."

The M1's chief drawbacks stem from age and hard use. Often barrels and stocks need to be replaced, along with springs and other small parts, but most are readily available and cost less than equivalent M14 parts. Yes, the M1's innards are somewhat complex, but less so than those of a Smith revolver. The vast majority of parts drop right in, no fitting required. M1 clips are readily available for $1 or less; quality M14 magazines typically run $35 and up.

In match-prepped rifles, the '14 is usually a bit more accurate, but it takes a skilled shooter to prove it. A match M1 is also easier and less expensive to build. Even in GI trim, an M1A typically costs half again more than an equal condition Garand.

So, bottom line: The '14 (and its commercial siblings) is simpler and holds more rounds, but the M1 is superior in almost every other way.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I have both a 1945-vintage DCM M-1, and a 1992-vintage M1-A NM...

I like them both, for different reasons. As Noah noted (and thanks for that great post, BTW!) there is the history and heritage of the M-1. On a practical level, I find the M-1 somewhat more comfortable to shoot..it just feels better to me, better balanced I suppose, without the detachable magazine protruding. And a buddy who is a ballistics engineer at Aberdeen Proving Ground (and has forgotten more about guns that all of us put together will ever know LOL!) points out that the M-1 is less susceptible to being damaged, especially at the muzzle, due to its lack of a flash suppressor.

The M-1A, however, is unquestionably easier to load, and my own NM rifle is much more accurate than my GI M-1.

I really can't pick one over the other, and I can't imagine my gun collection being complete without either one...

I feel very strongly both ways. I cut my teeth on the M1 when I was just 14 in high school ROTC, and shot it competitively in the Army. I can still take it apart and assemble it blindfolded.

At the same time, I appreciate the improvements made in the M14, and the additional firepower the 20-round magazine gives.

Nostalgically, I'll take the M1. Realistically, the M14 is better.

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

This is apparently an actual M14 that's been "locked" into Semi-Auto mode only. The little round knob under the rear sight right where the receiver meets the stock is the locking device. The actual selector was a short, wide-Y winged thingie that the operator rotated to select betw. FA and SA. Also, the disconnector bar that was external to the rifle and tripped when in FA mode by the "hook" on the lower edge of the operating rod cam enclosure has been removed.

Noah

I fired a FA M14 some years ago and did not find it hard to control--in short bursts. An educated trigger finger helps, and I'd been shooting FA firearms whenever possible for years by then.

I have met a couple of men who carried the M14 in Vietnam. They both said they had no trouble controlling them in FA either.

I have M1s (plural) and a M1A. For some reason you "need" both. I can see why the military went for the M14, which was basically a "product-improved" Garand. The M1 is 9 pounds of living history and still delivers impressive power and accuracy. It doesn't hurt that my father carried one in the ETO or that I learned the manual of arms on it in ROTC. I have had some good times shoving in clips and hearing the PING.

God Bless John Garand.

Amen! One of the true unsung heroes of American history...

The M-1 for the history, the M-14 for nostalgia-Fort Dix, Summer of 1967, C-4-2.

Who said nothing good ever came from Canada . . .

__________________
1st Signal Brigade, RVN '70

What is wrong with Springfield recievers?

I shot both rifles in Boot Camp. and prefer the M14/M1A style.
I trainrd primarily with the M14, and could hit what I aimed at. The M1
was probably very used, and lacked accuracy.
I didn't know anything about firearms at the time, so I'm going by impressions. Even then, I could see that the M14 was an improved M1,
and the ease of reloading was the tipping point for me.
TACC1

I presently own a Springfield M1 and for 4 years was issued a NM M14. For reasons I cannot explain I prefer the M1.

I would pick the M-14. Got pretty good with it back in the day....

__________________
4th SQD 7th CAVALRY