The M1 Garand was superior to the M14

[johngalt]

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.

 

[sipowicz]

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.

 

[mkk41]

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.

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

 

[m1gunner]

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.

 

[Vulcan Bob]

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!

 

[ACP230]

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.

 

[kraigwy]

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.

 

[perpster]

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

1) a name (Garand)
2) M1 Thumb

 

[NE450No2]

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.

 

[Ron H.]

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?

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.

 

[n4zov]

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.

 

[buckeyeshooter1]

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?

M14 is the newer and better design.

 

[FlYFiShErMaN]

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.

 

[calmex]

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.

 

[Dennis The B]

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.

 

[Peter M. Eick]

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.

 

[Harrison]

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.

 

[bishopm14]

Have both types. My screenname should explain my preference.

 

[2krkrider]

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.

 

[ImprovedModel56Fan]

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.