The M1 Garand was superior to the M14

aterry33

Member
Joined
Mar 22, 2009
Messages
1,037
Reaction score
28
Location
Charlotte, NC
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?
 
Register to hide this ad
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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
 
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"!

P2160009.jpg
 
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.
 
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"
 
However, you could argue that the .30-06 has better ballistic performance than the .308 NATO.


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
 
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.
 
Back
Top