Yeah Joe, put me in that group, and you know how old I am.
M1/m14
- Thread starter Joe Kent
- Start date
sipowicz
Member
It's interesting to see the types of people that are into different types of guns. When I go to the range, there are lots of young, inexperienced shooters burning up 223 round in their black rifle....on the other end, the older guys with their M1As and Garands are more laid back, more learned about their guns, and a hell of a lot more fun to hang with...
CW3PA
US Veteran
M-1 Garand
I'll vote for the M-1. It may be a bit on the heavy side, but it has the range & knock down power for almost any occasion. It will punch through most barriers with the right ammo.
As an aside; when I was in Group I carried everything from the M16A1 to the BAR & found the CAR15 to be the handiest. The absolute worst was the G3 (.308) with the collapsable butt stock & minuscule butt plate.
I'll vote for the M-1. It may be a bit on the heavy side, but it has the range & knock down power for almost any occasion. It will punch through most barriers with the right ammo.
As an aside; when I was in Group I carried everything from the M16A1 to the BAR & found the CAR15 to be the handiest. The absolute worst was the G3 (.308) with the collapsable butt stock & minuscule butt plate.
GatorFarmer
Member
I read a book one time ( I wish I could have kept it but it belonged to someone else and the edition was out of print) that was written just prior to WWII and there was much discussion about "if the new-fangled Garand semi-auto would hold up as well as the venerable 1903 in service". The author seemed to indicate that the Marines, in particular, were loathe to give up their '03's for the "new" gun.
I guess WWII settled the question . . . . .
Surprisingly, it did not. Military History magazine had an article on the subject once. Some diehard old Marines didn't like the M1 Garand right up through Korea, complaining that it would freeze up and just become a single shot anyway.
Plenty of people didn't like the M1 during WW2 and not just die hard bolt action fans, taking an M1 carbine or SMG of various types in preference if at all possible. Of course the real hot ticket for the "operators" of the day was a captured Stg 44 in the ETO.
In the Pacific, you were the "cool guy" if you laid your hands on a Thompson or even an M3 Grease gun.
The happy switch was a popular accessory in WW2, to the point that people were field modifying M1 carbines for full auto fire. (See Richard Matheson's autobiographical novel of late war infantry combat in the ETO.)
High capacity weapons were also sought after by some Marines who'd modify their Springfields to take BAR mags. This seems to be a forgotten/lost modification but shows up in some period accounts and war time combat paintings. I belive that there is also a passing reference to it in "The Thin Red Line" (the novel, not the movie) which was written by an Army veteran who served on Guadalcanal.
By 1945 it was hoped to replace the M1 Garands with a selective fire weapon taking 20rd box mags that could interchange with the BAR for the invasion of Japan. When the invasion never happened, and budgets were slashed, the Garands lasted longer, not being phased out of some National Guard units until the early 80s. Contemporary accounts of the Army from that phase viewed the National Guard poorly with references to "the National Guard and their old M1 rifles". See "At War with the Dragons" about a series of field training excercises circa '81 or '82 against the mock Soviets at that national training center for reference and an interesting view of the Army in the early Reagan years in general.
Bah. New fangled repeating rifles and smokeless powder. Who needs 'em. Lazy kids today. First with their fancy show off percussion caps, then around '60 or so, showing up with those Henry repeating rifles and tearing the ranges all up. Sharps carbine was bad enough, then they had to go and get repeaters.
Sir, I'm just a callow youth of 43, but the M1 is my favorite rifle, hands down. It's hard to find a better combination of trigger, sights, accuracy, balance, power, and comfort. I shoot M1s competitively in both NRA high power and JCG matches. The AR is easier in the rapids, but doesn't fit me as well as the old wood gun, especially in offhand. The '14 is fine, but that big expensive box mag is always getting in the way.
That said, though, the M1 would not be my first choice for running and gunning and fast shooting at short ranges. ARs and AKs are better suited to that sort of thing. Different tools for different jobs.
JMHO, FWIW.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
That said, though, the M1 would not be my first choice for running and gunning and fast shooting at short ranges. ARs and AKs are better suited to that sort of thing. Different tools for different jobs.
JMHO, FWIW.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Hey, if this guy liked the M1, who would argue?
I first handled an M1 Garand in 1953 as a member of my high school ROTC unit. I can still field strip and reassemble one blindfolded. I still put a few rounds downrange now and then with both of these beauties:
I first handled an M1 Garand in 1953 as a member of my high school ROTC unit. I can still field strip and reassemble one blindfolded. I still put a few rounds downrange now and then with both of these beauties:
I went through Basic and AIT with the M-14. I would still like to have one. I do have an EBR because I got a good deal on one several years ago. Also have a Garand I got from the CMP.
TXSWFAN
Member
Does anyone here own a full auto M1 or M14?
The Last Standing Knight
Member
I read a book one time ( I wish I could have kept it but it belonged to someone else and the edition was out of print) that was written just prior to WWII and there was much discussion about "if the new-fangled Garand semi-auto would hold up as well as the venerable 1903 in service". The author seemed to indicate that the Marines, in particular, were loathe to give up their '03's for the "new" gun.
I guess WWII settled the question . . . . .
"Chesty" Puller was not fond of the Garand and prefered the M1903. Now look at what is considered a "Marine's Rifle", an M1 Garand with bayonet. Just look at 8th& I's silent drill team!
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 6,720
A fully automatic M-1. Not very practical with that 8 round en bloc clip.
Originally the M-14 was to have a heavy barrel companion, the M-15, to
fill role filled by the BAR, the M-15 never went into production. There was the M-14E2, with a straight line stock to give better control, they only had those in the Army in Europe. Hard to control, I was told.
I trained in BCT on the M-14-mine was an H&R, but I don't recall the SN.
I will get my own "some day". Never cared for the M-16, don't like the design, the cartridge lacks range and punch IMHO. I have 2 M-1s with 6 digit SNs.
Originally the M-14 was to have a heavy barrel companion, the M-15, to
fill role filled by the BAR, the M-15 never went into production. There was the M-14E2, with a straight line stock to give better control, they only had those in the Army in Europe. Hard to control, I was told.
I trained in BCT on the M-14-mine was an H&R, but I don't recall the SN.
I will get my own "some day". Never cared for the M-16, don't like the design, the cartridge lacks range and punch IMHO. I have 2 M-1s with 6 digit SNs.
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Oct 25, 2006
- Messages
- 6,232
- Reaction score
- 6,720
Re the M14E2 the only individual I ever met who handled one was just back from a tour of duty with 7th Army-I talked to him in the mess hall in 1970 when I was in language school in D.C. I rememeber asking about the firing he said it was hard to control, the unit armorer came up with some sort of homemade muzzle brake to control the climb.
Jim in Wisconsin
Member
I have 4 M1's (SPR.,WIN., IHC., and H&R) no EBRs. The only .223 I own is a very accurate Savage Mdl. 10 in it's proper role as a varmint rifle.
Marshall 357
Member
I have been told that the M-14 jammed more that the M-1 Garand. Is this true?
ACP230
Member
I shot both rifles in High Power matches.
Both were very reliable.
I did better with the M1-A because I always had trouble loading the en-bloc clips into the M1 correctly.
I have fired an M14 on full auto at a range. It wasn't hard to control as long as bursts were kept to three or four rounds. I'd shot quite a few other FA firearms by then and had a fairly well-educated trigger finger.
I met a guy who said he'd carried a M14 with the full auto parts installed in Vietnam. He said he had, "...no trouble," controlling it.
On the other hand I know a guy who'd been in Germany in the service.
He claimed to have trouble controlling an M3 "Grease Gun." He only fired one once.
(The greaser has one of the slowest rates of fire ever in a FA firearm.)
Both were very reliable.
I did better with the M1-A because I always had trouble loading the en-bloc clips into the M1 correctly.
I have fired an M14 on full auto at a range. It wasn't hard to control as long as bursts were kept to three or four rounds. I'd shot quite a few other FA firearms by then and had a fairly well-educated trigger finger.
I met a guy who said he'd carried a M14 with the full auto parts installed in Vietnam. He said he had, "...no trouble," controlling it.
On the other hand I know a guy who'd been in Germany in the service.
He claimed to have trouble controlling an M3 "Grease Gun." He only fired one once.
(The greaser has one of the slowest rates of fire ever in a FA firearm.)
dennis40x
US Veteran
Not in my experience
bmcgilvray
Member
The AR 15 doesn't satisfy my personal definition of a high power rifle. I have one but don't take it too seriously. It's pleasingly accurate but the cartridge is just weenie.
The M1A has proven to be very dependable and accurate in some limited high power shooting.
My personal favorite is the M1. I've shot it the most. I like it's historical association.
The M1A has proven to be very dependable and accurate in some limited high power shooting.
My personal favorite is the M1. I've shot it the most. I like it's historical association.
TXSWFAN
Member
If you want the .308 in an AR platform, just step up to the AR10. Here's my hog/deer set-up. 6x ACOG scope and a suppressor so it's hearing safe.
I like the M1 and M14, but own neither (My siblings got those). I do have a EBR, but it's one job is for throwing .223 at the local Prarie Dogs. I will eventually have those and a Thompson, but there are a few things on the list ahead of those.
GatorFarmer
Member
Nice ACOG. Is that a Docter red dot piggy backed or one of the micro Aimpoints?
How does the suppressor do on muzzle flash at night, can any be seen? I'm thinking of building up an M4 clone SBR and putting a can on it on the theory that it'd be useful at night.
Crazy K38
Member
you know I am only 20 but I would take the Springfield socom m1 over a EBR
Evil Dog
US Veteran
I'd have to vote for an M1A as for me the M14 is unobtainable. Fired an M1 once and that was enough... didn't like getting beat to death.
Denver Dick
US Veteran
I have 5 M1 rifles, 1 M1A and two AR15s. I'm 6'5" tall and 265 lbs. I just like the feel of a battle rifle. While I appreciate the attributes of the black rifle, for me it's the M1 or M1A.
TXSWFAN
Member
It is a Dr. Optic riding on top. It's for those close encounters. Zero flash out of the suppressor. Which is good because I use the same can on my 6.8 night vision set up. On the .308, the decibels average 135. I don't know what the reading is with subsonic ammo, but you can hear the bolt cycle. It's real quiet that way.
