The M1 Garand was superior to the M14

[scorvers]

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.

 

[Tam 3]

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

Regards,

Tam 3

 

[MTKTM]

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.

 

[Joe Kent]

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.

 

[BLACKHAWKNJ]

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.

 

[Pilgrim]

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.

 

[RABULL]

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

 

[NE450No2]

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...

 

[walnutred]

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.

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.

 

[mike from st pete]

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?

 

[Tracer_Bullet]

Tough choice. I have a Garand made in '42 and a SA M1A Scout Squad and I like them both. The Garand is faster to reload, but the M1A carries more than twice the ammo and I'm just as accurate with either using iron sights. I guess that the rifles in their original configurations would be a wash to me. Of the two rifles I own, the Garand looks nicer with its wood stock, but the Scout Squad is more practical with its fiberglass stock. Also the Scout Squad has a mount for a scope or red-dot built in, so if the zombies were coming I would have to go with the M1A Scout Squad.

 

[Bat Guano]

A few years ago I went to and shot in a plate match for M1s; two man teams competing with steel plates at 200 yards, prone. After seeing what good shooters can do with Garands I am a little reluctant to throw the word "obsolete" around too freely.

I own and shoot the Garand, M1A, and M4gery and they all have their strong and weak points. I can't pick a favorite US service arm any more than I can pick a favorite child; I love 'em all.