swiftak
Member
I agree that its a history thing with the Garand. I have an M1A and I want a Garand.
Garand vs M14?
- Thread starter BruM
- Start date
- Status
Blasphemous
Member
Nice quip Skipbo and nice dog... oh yea, the rifle is awesome too.
DMK
Member
With the Garand, you can get a 100% USGI rifle from CMP. Everything original, exactly like it was issued to your dad, grandpa, uncle, etc.
With the M14... Oh wait, you can't buy an M14 except for the rare few and some Chinese copies. OK, you can buy an M1A. It may have some USGI parts.
That doesn't make the M14/M1A a bad rifle. But if you wanted to buy one right now, basically you only have clones available. The Garand from the CMP is 100% the real deal.
That said, I still want an M1A someday.
With the M14... Oh wait, you can't buy an M14 except for the rare few and some Chinese copies. OK, you can buy an M1A. It may have some USGI parts.
That doesn't make the M14/M1A a bad rifle. But if you wanted to buy one right now, basically you only have clones available. The Garand from the CMP is 100% the real deal.
That said, I still want an M1A someday.
Vern Humphrey
Member
The M14 has significant advantages over the M1. I trained on the M1 and carried one during my first tour in Viet Nam (after my issued M2 carbine got wrapped around a tree.) On my second tour, I bullied my battalion commander into getting my company two accurized M14s (pre-M21 sniper rifles) and kept one for myself. So I have used both in combat.
1. The M1 was a high-risk item. It was difficult to manufacture -- so much that during WWII only Winchester and Springfield Armory could produce M1s meeting Army standards. Much of this was due to the overly complicated en block clip mechanism.
2. The M14 gas system is much improved over the M1's direct impingement system. The M14 uses a short-stroke hollow piston. The piston is open at the front, like a water glass, and gas is vented into the interior of the piston. As it moves back, the hole in the piston moves out of alignment with the hole in the gas cylinder. This makes for a much smoother gas action -- in essense, the M14 is driven by expanding, not by impinging gas.
3. The gas piston design makes the system self-adjusting. Too high a pressure, and the piston moves fast, cutting off the flow. Too low pressure, and the piston moves more slowly, allowing more gas to enter. That's why the M14, unlike the FAL, doesn't need an adjustable gas regulator.
4. The short-stroke piston strikes a counter-weight, which smooths out the action even more. The counter-weight operates the action as inertia carries it back.
5. Unlike the M1 with its camming surfaces, which had to be greased, the M14 uses roller bearings at critical points.
6. The 7.62X52 NATO round achieves the same ballistics as the M2 Ball .30-06, but with a case 1/4" shorter. When you are manufacturing billions of rounds, the savings in brass are enormous.
7. While the M14 was capable of full-auto fire, this was accomplished by the installation of a selector switch. Selector switches were issued separately. Wise company commanders locked them in the company safe -- and forgot the combination!
1. The M1 was a high-risk item. It was difficult to manufacture -- so much that during WWII only Winchester and Springfield Armory could produce M1s meeting Army standards. Much of this was due to the overly complicated en block clip mechanism.
2. The M14 gas system is much improved over the M1's direct impingement system. The M14 uses a short-stroke hollow piston. The piston is open at the front, like a water glass, and gas is vented into the interior of the piston. As it moves back, the hole in the piston moves out of alignment with the hole in the gas cylinder. This makes for a much smoother gas action -- in essense, the M14 is driven by expanding, not by impinging gas.
3. The gas piston design makes the system self-adjusting. Too high a pressure, and the piston moves fast, cutting off the flow. Too low pressure, and the piston moves more slowly, allowing more gas to enter. That's why the M14, unlike the FAL, doesn't need an adjustable gas regulator.
4. The short-stroke piston strikes a counter-weight, which smooths out the action even more. The counter-weight operates the action as inertia carries it back.
5. Unlike the M1 with its camming surfaces, which had to be greased, the M14 uses roller bearings at critical points.
6. The 7.62X52 NATO round achieves the same ballistics as the M2 Ball .30-06, but with a case 1/4" shorter. When you are manufacturing billions of rounds, the savings in brass are enormous.
7. While the M14 was capable of full-auto fire, this was accomplished by the installation of a selector switch. Selector switches were issued separately. Wise company commanders locked them in the company safe -- and forgot the combination!
Got both. Enjoy both.
Thanks for making these distinctions Vern, as I am not familiar with any of these rifles.
With the M1 operating through direct impingement, did the gases tend to foul the bolt and eventually cause stoppages the way that it does (or did?) on the M16?
With the M1 operating through direct impingement, did the gases tend to foul the bolt and eventually cause stoppages the way that it does (or did?) on the M16?
Art Eatman
Moderator In Memoriam
IIRC, the Garand cost $94--in WW II-sized dollars. Coffee was a nickel, and a decent house was in the four-digit cost range. Plain-vanilla new cars around $1,000.
Vern Humphrey
Member
No. In the case of the M1, direct impingement refers to the gas impinging on the piston surface of the operating rod. This gives the M1 a rather slap-bang action, so much so that early M1 operating rods tended to break and a radius had to be cut at the junction of rod and camming block.
d2wing
Member
- Joined
- Nov 10, 2008
- Messages
- 6,441
I owned a Garand and was issued an M14. I would prefer the M14 if I could get a real one. The M14 could be fired full auto, but the full auto setting was blocked on some models. I wish as do many other vets that they were available as surplus like the Garand. They are a little smaller and lighter than a Garand. Both have thier merits. Either one is a great rifle, the Garand has more historical value, I personally like the M14 if I could get a real one at a decent price. But I can't.
MeanStreaker
Member
You might want to see if one "fits" you better than the other. I have chosen the M14 mainly due to magazine capacity. I shoot it well enough for my purposes - keeping all hits on a 500 yard target.
You also can't beat the flip up butt plate! Seriously. That design feature is a God send for helping me firm up my prone position.
You also can't beat the flip up butt plate! Seriously.
That design feature is a God send for helping me firm up my prone position.When I took up reading the THR (and other boards), I was surprised at the enthusiasm for the M1 combined with comparatively little mention of the M14. However good the M1 is, the M14 is also a great rifle. The explanation is the availability of M1 thru CMP, etc, the unavailability of M14 since the US Gov't kept them off the market. (Clinton seems to get the blame.) If surplus M14s were available for $500, there would be a ton of interest.
I trained with the M14 in basic training and I think that the training battalion rifles were semi-auto only, and that the auto-capable version had a bipod. It was a long time ago, though, and I can't be sure. The only full auto in basic that I remember was an exercise with the M-16s which was supposed to illustrate that you can't hit the broad side of a barn blazing away with from the hip.
I trained with the M14 in basic training and I think that the training battalion rifles were semi-auto only, and that the auto-capable version had a bipod. It was a long time ago, though, and I can't be sure. The only full auto in basic that I remember was an exercise with the M-16s which was supposed to illustrate that you can't hit the broad side of a barn blazing away with from the hip.
I will always be fond of my Garands. They are not tack drivers in rack grade configuration, but can be made to shoot very well in a match version.
Rack Grade Garand
Match Garand
Having shot the Garand and the M1a in competition, out to 1000 yards, I found the M1a just easier to shoot. A M1a also holds its match tune longer than a Garand.
The M14 was a product improved Garand, whatever weaknesses the Garand had were fixed. The strengths that the Garand had were kept.
I received my Distinguished and a Regional Gold with a Super match, and shot this SuperMatch a number of years in the Nationals at Camp Perry.
All things being considered, I will keep the M1a over the Garand.
Rack Grade Garand
Match Garand
Having shot the Garand and the M1a in competition, out to 1000 yards, I found the M1a just easier to shoot. A M1a also holds its match tune longer than a Garand.
The M14 was a product improved Garand, whatever weaknesses the Garand had were fixed. The strengths that the Garand had were kept.
I received my Distinguished and a Regional Gold with a Super match, and shot this SuperMatch a number of years in the Nationals at Camp Perry.
All things being considered, I will keep the M1a over the Garand.
Last edited:
Birddog1911
Member
I say, get both!
Al LaVodka
member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2009
- Messages
- 1,040
Was ist das? Wiederholen sie das, bitte. Aber Ich spreche deutsche!...the M1 Garand is why you aren't speaking german
Gott Mit Uns
Al
Jeremy2171
Member
I like them both so much I just made the best of both worlds....
Birddog1911
Member
Wait a second! A Garand receiver and stock with M14 barrel group??
Match14
Member
Come to think of it I don't think any US service rifles that had wood stocks had checkering.
Also FYI LRB Arms and Armscorp are two other brands of M14 clone.
Also FYI LRB Arms and Armscorp are two other brands of M14 clone.
MTMilitiaman
Member
I like the M1 Garand, but I love my M1A!
ACP230
Member
I have one of each and no plans to get rid of either.
I did find it easier to shoot NRA Highpower matches with the M1A, however.
(En-bloc clips and I don't get along so well.)
I did find it easier to shoot NRA Highpower matches with the M1A, however.
(En-bloc clips and I don't get along so well.)
- Status
