Okay... I was at the range today and I was outnumbered on this one. I love the Garand, but a group of fellow shooters were arguing vehemently that it is superior to the M14/M1A. I have to disagree on that one.

The M14 is lighter, has a box magazine, doesn't ping (for what that's worth), and with the Garand, you can't "top off" the clip while loaded (actually you can but that's a whole nother story).

Anyways... Which one do you pick?

__________________
Aaron Terry

I'm a 14 guy.

I wish I could chime in with an opinion but I just don't have enough experience with the M1.
I can say that I fell in love with the M14 on the first trip to range at Ft. Leonard Wood. Our first task was to fire a five shot group from a rest to determine W/E adjustments. I was mighty impressed with that group.

__________________
Regards, Ron
USASA 1965/69

Both. The M1 is handier, doesn't require the management of magazines, and clips are easier to stash here and there. Very rugged.

The M14 holds more ammo, can be topped off, and will accept optics better. Probably a better gas system.

Also depends if you are considering either weapon as a squad weapon or an individual weapon and the job at hand. Some very good people hold differing opinions and I would not presume to tell them they are wrong.

Both are legendary.

Hi:
Being I have a M1 Garand and not a M14 (can't afford a M14) I think the Garand is better.
When I had a M1903A3 and not a Garand, The M1903A3 was better.
Jimmy

I have shot M1As, but I don't have a lot of experience with them. I do have a Beretta BM-59, which is basically a Garand with a removeable box magazine, chambered in .308 and has a full auto mode of fire.

I also have a Garand and a Garand in "Tanker" configuration.

I love the Garands, but I'd probably choose the M1A, or my BM-59.

I wonder if the group of shooters were basing their opinion on the "Top Ten" TV show about military rifles that's been aired several times.

I enjoy them both very much. The M-14/M-1A is pretty much just a Garand with an enginering degree. If it was a SHTF situation, I'd grab the 20 rd. M-1A over the eight round Garand.

I went through basic and AIT with the 14 but currently own the Garand. Based on my experience, I would vote for the 14 for the reasons already stated.

My uncle told me that you would be surprised how fast that you could run across a rice paddy with a M1.

Have never fired the M-14/M-1A so no opinion there. The M-1 however felt like it would beat me to death.

In Boot camp, we were issued M14's. Thought they were a pretty
good rifle. I'd only fired a 25-06 and a shotgun prior to service.
In Camp Pendleton, they had us firing the M1. Even as a novice, I could see the similarities. I did not shoot the M1 as well, and had no use for the 8rd clip. I could see why they had improved the M1 to become the M14.
Given a choice, I'd go with the M14, but you would be well armed indeed with either one.
TACC1

Any other former Marines here that trained with both?
TACC1

Well , having qualified expert with one , I used the M-14 as a Navy EOD , carried one for in-port watchs and now own several civvie version M-1As. I was shooting mine today in fact.
And yes , I also own several M-1 Garands. I've owned at least one since way before I enlisted.

For all practical purposes , I've vote for the M-1A. Simpler gas and mechanical system. Easier to field strip for cleaning.I definately feel the -14 is more accurate 'as-issued' and having a match-prepped version , the accuracy potential is better overall.

As yes , 20rds in a detachable box mag with 2 reloading options is nice to have too.

That said , for most non-uniformed combatant situations , I would not necessarily feel under-gunned with the "greatest battle impliment ever devised"!

Like others here I did basic training with the 14. Bought a DCM Garrand. I have to rate the M-14 as the better system. However, you could argue that the .30-06 has better ballistic performance than the .308 NATO.

__________________
Infected by Smith&Wesson

I got both of them at one time, now I only have a M1 Garand, sold the M14/M1A some yrs ago when money was tight.

I found the M14/M1A generally more accurate, quite easy to handload, will shoot 2" group all day, the Garand on the other hand while its a joy to shoot, never was as accurate as the M14/M1A and is quite picky when it come to handloads, mine prefer heavy bullets, best it can do with M2 150 gr. ball is 3"-4" @ 100yds.

Anyhow I still love my Garand, it got the feel of a classic battle rifle, the M14/M1A is like a transition model between the older WW2 era blue steel and hard wood rifle and the morden "black rifle"

I'll go for that discussion (I never argue).

Other than the fact that the 7.62x51 NATO M80 ball round uses a 147gr boat-tail bullet vs the 30-06 M2 ball 150gr flat base , the muzzle velocity is almost the same.

Word is that many WWII riflemen actually preferred the 30-06 AP (a 166gr bullet) ammo as it was more accurate at longer ranges. I've also heard that towards the end of the war , the black tip AP ammo was issued loaded in en-bloc clips almost exclusively.

At one point I was issued a NM M14, which ironically I used to qualify for a then $120 DCM Garand. I prefer the Garand for reasons I cannot explain.

I like the M1 Garand better! Why.........because I don't have an M14 (LOL). They are very similar in design and operation, but I would be hard pressed to argue the point that the M14 is probably the better "combat" weapon. It holds more rounds, is able to be topped off, and is a bit lighter. That said, I love my Garand and my M1 Carbine as well. I only wish the CMP was allowed to sell us the surplus military M14's but that will never happen because of the full auto feature on them. They are both great guns. I don't think that ANYBODY here will argue the point that the Garand is a whole bunch of fun to shoot.

chief38

Which one will let you get your head lower to the ground and still aim and fire?

I carried/shot a M1 in basic training. It is plain that the M14 is just a 'improved' M1. I think the 20rd. detatchable mag. make it better as a military weapon. As far as 30-06 vs .308 I really can't see much if any differance.

When shooting offhand, I like the M1 better. The magazine hanging out the bottom of the M1A gets in the way.

Plus it's just cool how the M1 ejects the clip.

But for accuracy I'll take the 1903A3 over either.

__________________
Common sense isn't so common.

I like em both and actually prefer the stripper clip with no mag since we are limited to 10 rounds anyway in Cali...but 50 plus year old surplus 30-06 is on the downslide so I would go with the 308.

__________________
Thirty characters. Exactly...

Most of the time when shooting my M-1A , I use a 5rd mag. Especially from the bench.

My preference has always been for the Garand.

It is more "hand friendly", no projections hanging out to snag flesh or fabric when handling the weapon.

Easier to load without taking the gun off target.

Disposable clips with 2 sets of feed lips on each clip as opposed to one on the (easily damaged) box mag.

My training and early rifle years were with a single shot rifle, 8 is plenty for me.

I don't see any practical difference in accuracy between the 2 rifles, they both shoot the same for me.


IMHO, the only downside of the Garand that was fixed on the 14 is moving the front sight from the removable gas tube to the barrel. Although it somewhat shortened the sight radius, it got rid of the wandering front sight due to wear on the gas tube.

Had a few M1 Garand's and a few M1A's, now only have two Garand's, and no M1A's. One a pre war in .30-06 and one Navy trophy in 7.62 Nato. I think this show's how I feel!

__________________
Stay safe people!

I have both and shot both in NRA High Power matches. I prefer the M1A. I have no plans to get rid of the M1, however.

I went to basic, AIT, and the 82nd when we were using the M14s, I liked it then.

Since, I've been shooting high power for almost 30 years using the M1A super match, shooting for the NG. I went to the USAMU Sniper school and taught sniper schools using the M21 (M14).

I got a CMP (then DCM) garand in 80 or there abouts. I love it.

For serious shooting, I'll take the M1A, for just out and out fun I'll take the M1.

I'll not part with either.

The M-1 because it comes with two features the M-14 / M1A doesn't:

1) a name (Garand)
2) M1 Thumb

__________________
NRA Life Member

I have shot both a fair amount. Also I have shot 18" barreled versions of both a bunch as well.

I think for serious Combat I would refer the 20 round magazine of the M14/M1 A.

But I have carried a 308 Tanker M1 Garand on the road while traveling, especially to CA. and did not feel "undergunned".

Having a bunch of ammo already in 8 round clips is not a bad system for most uses.

Especially for one trained in the manual of arms for the M1.

You can top one off with a new 8 round clip pretty quick.

Sir, if you're comparing the actual military rifles in like condition, the M14 has the edge because of its greater simplicity and capacity. (BTW, the M14 is only lighter than the M1 when both are empty. A fully loaded M14 actually weighs a bit more than a fully loaded M1. The M14 is also longer than the M1.)

If you're talking about what's readily available today, the M1 wins hands down. It's mainly a cost/quality issue.

Springfield Inc. M1As have almost no GI parts in them any more and are basically expensive "M14 look-alikes." The older used M1As have mostly GI parts, but command prices equal to or above what the new guns cost. You can have a boutique M14 type built with all GI parts on a commercial receiver, but then the cost really escalates--$2,000 is the low end today. Good USGI M14 parts are very expensive (when you can even find them), as are quality magazines.

M1s are cheaper, and good GI parts (including receivers) are still available at decent prices, though some particular bits are getting harder to find. True, many M1s on the market today are well-worn veterans, and some are really beat. However, you can still rebuild a clapped-out M1 for less than a new M1A costs. And that's not even considering the clips vs. magazines cost differential.

If you just want an M14 type, by all means, get one. But you'll be money ahead to get an M1.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I was involved in the Army's markmanship program when the switch was made from NM M1's to the M14. It was not a happy day because I loved the M1 and thought the new rifle could never be its equal. I was dead wrong! It didn't take long to find out that the M14 was a far superior match rifle to any M1. It's basic design made it much easier to accurize, it held its zeros better, it was easier to load, handling was far superior, and it had fewer reliability problems. In addition it fired a cartridge that was designed from the ground up to function in autos and it provided superior accuracy to the .30-06 in that role. I cannot think of a single advantage the M1 holds over the M14.

Also the military is still using the M14 as a sniper rifle because of the traits I have mentioned. If the M1 had been a better rifle for that role, it would now be serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.

M14 is the newer and better design.

I have owned and competed with both rifles, both at the DCM/NRA level as well as with the Army and they both have their strong points. I like them both at the Service Rifle or slightly modified Match Rifle levels. Accuracy is even, if both are are gone through: NM or after market bbl, NM sights, re-stocked with composite stocks and/or glassed issues stock at the key points with the receiver. Bottom line: they can both be built so accurate, they will shoot better than the shooter.

I had both, and used both in rifle competitions when I lived in Canada. Mainly, we had metal plates that were 18 inches in Diameter made of 3/8th or better steel going out to 400 for the iron sight matches, and 800 for the scoped matches with a 1,000 yard START plate that was shot with some scoped sniper type rifle. These were team matches, and you got to blast a lot of ammo because there were a lot of plates out there and you had to knock 'em down faster than any of the other teams to win.

Personally, I found that the two rifles ended up being about the same, except that the M-14 was easy to scope and I used it for the scoped matches quite a bit. I found that the military style mount I was using returned to zero nicely if I removed the scope for an iron sight match, but generally I used the Garand for iron sight and the 14 for scoped matches. I never felt I lost (or won) a match that would have come out differently had I used the other rifle.

I found, perhaps, that the M-14 would start to "drift" a bit once the barrel got super hot and I never really noticed this condition with the Garand. I liked both rifles, and would really love to have either down here.

I've owned both the M1-A, and I currently own two M1's. One M1 is chambered in .30-06, and the second is an armory rebarrel to 7.62mm NATO. I first qualified with an M1, and then later on with the M14. Both are superb rifles. The ballistic differences are minimal, especially considering the distance at which targets are usually engaged.

The M1-A is also a fun rifle to shoot. I agree about the magazine v. clip, in that the magazine has its advantages.

However, in the end I'll probably find another M1-A. The designs of both rifles suit me to a tee.

M1A's for me.

I never really had a desire to own an M1. I know it is odd but true.

I have had as many as 6 M1A's but now I am just down to the SuperMatch and the NationalMatch. I figured I have both ends covered.

__________________
SWCA 1646

Went through basic with the M-14 and carried one my first tour in Korea, in 1965. I have shot M1s. For one thing the M-14 is a more accurate weapon. In service rifle national match, they never could tune the M1 to where it could compete and consistently win against a well tuned M-14. Just like the AR/M-16 is more accurate and beats the M-14 at service rifle match. You don't see either M1 or M-14 winnig at Camp Perry.

Have both types. My screenname should explain my preference.

Shortly after I got my M1 I had the pleasure of talking with a man who carried a M1 across France. He said the M1 was better than the M-14 because you could stay much closer to the ground while fighting with the M1. He also muttered some profainty about thick Army buttons as he expressed how important being low to the ground was to him.

FN FAL. I shoot mostly pistols, and heavy military rifles feel awkward and heavy to me, even though I am capable of shooting them fairly well. Not so the FN, even though it weighs just as much. I once looked up the new-fangled word "ergonomic" in a dictionary, and it was illustrated with a picture of an FN LAR 50.00.

I know that match M14s can be had which are probably more accurate than an out-of-the-box FN, but I'd still rather have the easier-to-operate FN.

On the other hand, who am I to be advising anyone about military rifles? Just thought I'd let you know that there ARE other opinions.

As a battle rifle, the M1 is better. No finicky clips, top load so you can stay low, and heavy with a steel buttplate for close quarters fighting. Accuracy is not as big a factor on the battlefield as much as rate of fire. I'd like to see a camparison of experienced M1 shooters against M14 shooters to see how fast and accurately they can lay down a field of fire.

Qualified with both. Competed with both. Have 6 M1s, zero M1As. What M1Gunner said in post #24.

Regards,

Tam 3

I qualified with both the M14 and M16 in Army BCT. I liked the 14 a lot better then. I'm now a big fan of AR15s too, but if I could only have one rifle it'd be my SA M1A, without batting an eye. Great gun.

I've never fired a Garand, but want to. I wish I'd picked one up when they were less expensive. One of these days.

I started with the 1903 progressed to the M1,M14/M1A and then the AR. By far and away the M1 and M1A are my very most favorites with the Springfield a very close 2nd. That being said, there is an M4 clone with a light and dot sight in my own "ready rack" backed up by a M1A Socom and Remington 11/87 Police 12 ga. Strange as it must be to the members of our forum, I just plain like most things that go BANG.

I trained on the M-14 in BCT in 1967, I recall older sergeants then and later saying the M-14 was not as rugged as the M-1, later I read Ezell's book, he said there were quality control problems with M-14 manufacture that they were never able to solve, and the M-14 vs M-16 tests in the early 1960s were rigged in favor of the M-14. The idea of an 8.5 pound rifle being used as a Squad Automatic Weapon is one of those ideas that Sounds Great in Theory, but Doesn't Work in Practice. The design features of the M-14-box magazine, stripper clip guide, moving the gas port back were improvements on the M-1 but on the whole the M-14 never quite measured up to what it was supposed to.

you can get M14 thumb just as easy as M1 thumb.....don't ask me how I know.

I qualified expert with the M14 back in '67 and I like it a lot. I have an M1 now and have put thousands thru it.

Similar but different. Each is good.

__________________
ASA/NSA 67-71
NRA Benefactor

I have and like both but I would have to go with the M-14/M1A rifle....

For a General Purpose iron sighted Civilian rifle a "Tanker" M1 Garand, in 30/06, or 308 is a pretty good pick.

There is nothing wrong with a full sized rifle either, but them Tankers are just so handy...

Several years ago I was assisting with the Spring DCM shoot at Camp Perry. As part of the trainign program at the time everyone was loaned a M1 Garand to use and the required ammo. My job was to supervise a couple of the M16 lanes. If someone would rather shoot the M16 than the Garand we had a couple M16's and would exchange the M1 ammo for M16 ammo. One of the perks was at that time we were allowed to keep any M1 ammo turned into us.

I had two older gentle men come to my lane and I asked if they wanted to shoot the M16 instead. "No" they replied "we specifically came to shoot the M1's one more time". During the practice time they went rapid fire and laid down a field of fire that was impressive, and I was competing with both M16A1's and NM M14s at the time on an Army Precision Rifle Team.

When they finished I complimented them and asked if they had ever shot the M1 in competition before. They looked at each other and one replied "I guess you could say that. But they didn't give any awards for second place where we competed". "And Daxned little for 1st place" added the other.

Based on what I've seen if your talking AIMED fire there is little practical difference in the M1 and the M14.

Totally uninformed opinion.
Full auto M14 was not an improvement over the M1. The shorter, lighter round meant more could be carried at the same weight, not many but more than .30'06. 20 round box magazine vs 8 round en-block, but loaded the same way from the top? Not big improvements if you ask me, but what do I know?