M1 Garand .30-06 v. Springfield M1a .308

Status
Not open for further replies.
I own a M1a standard that shoots very close to 1" groups at 100 yds with a scope.

I own a 5.8 mil collector grade garand that will shoot close to 1" groups without a scope.

That being said I have been around other Garands and ALL were closer to 1 moa than 2 moa even the ones that had been used ALOT

I have heard that some M1As go 2 or more MOA but I have never heard that of the Garand or seen it.
 
I own both the Garand and the M1A. My Garand was bought almost new, Korean era gun and my M1A is a standard with Walnut. Personally I believe the Garand has a lot of history and garners a lot of attention but the M1A shoots more accurately.

M1A1.jpg
M1Garand.jpg
 
A Garand is Normandy beaches, The bulge , crossing the Rhine, Iwo Jima,Guadual canal,victory in Europe ,Victory in Japan . Gee ! I don't know.
 
I have not shot an M1A.

The longest successful shot that I've ever made through iron sights was with a Garand. I have quite a time hitting that same 600 yard gong with my scoped rifles as it is, but that old fella had really tweaked every bit of accuracy out of his milsurps and it still amazes me to this day. He made it look easy with pretty much every single shot, but I went through the whole 8 rounds with only a single hit to speak about.
 
I would have to say the M1A just because isn't the M1A pretty much a improved garand. ( but the NM M1As run high on the budget )
 
If all things being equal is about budget, I suggest you take you M1A budget and buy a M1 from CMP. Then convert to 7.62 NATO with a new barrel and spend time working out the kinks and doing the accurizing. Once you have lived with it for a year or so and shot it with your mods as they progress, I suspect you will end up close to MOA for the budget of a store bout 2 MOA gun and have a lot of fun along the way :)
 
I own both the Garand and SA M1A in NM trim. The Garand has a new Kreiger barrel and shoots the same as the M1A with a Medium weight Wilson NM barrel.

Look at service rifle comps, first the m1903 ruled, then the Garand, followed by the M1A. Now days it's the AR.
 
I'd go with the M1 Garand over the M1A. There is a cost difference between the two with the M1 Garand being the least expensive in most cases. The sole reason I prefer the M1 is that I always thought it was a better looking piece. To me the M1A has always been butt ugly. It's just a personal preference. If I have to look at the thing I may as well get what looks go to me.
 
M1 all the way

I own M1's and there is nothing like them, proud owner of a 43'. Most shooters will not be able to out shot the M1 and the history is something that can't be overlooked as well. Get an adjustable gas plug on it and you can shoot a wider load range as well. You will be hard pressed to find a species that hasn't been taken with an 06 at some point.
 
I buy 8 Mauser and "308" ammo and the main reason to not buy a CMP M1 is that I don't want to have to buy a case of rifle ammo...however, now I have to concede that I want a M1 also. I wonder how much the cost will be to have a "Rack" Grade M1 re-barreled to "308" by a good gunsmith?
 
Garands in 30-06 kick more than M1a’s.


I might argue this. I shot M-14’s in matches before I ever shot a M-1.

I would like to remind some posters that a “M-1A” is a marketing ploy by Springfield Armory Inc. and is not the Springfield Armory owned by the government until it was closed. A M-1A is Springfield Inc.’s version of a semi auto M-14. M-14's were able to fire in full auto.
 
I'd shot a Garand a fair amount before I went into the Army and played with one in Basic. So I found a good deal on one in 1982. $200. A skillfully-done weld-up, but glass-bedded and with some Match parts. Around 1.5 MOA off the bench rest with my old eyes.

Along about '84 I bought an M1A Match. I could shoot it about the same, maybe a smidgen better. But somehow I just never could feel affectionate toward it like I could the Garand.

I still have the Garand. :)
 
Which one would be better to have in your truck or car if you happened to be caught up right in the thick of a multiple felons with assault rifles attack in a major city (like that event in Mumbai, India)? Seems to me either would be fine as the person there matters far more than which one of these two tools.
 
Last edited:
I think part of the issue is "all things being equal"? How do you plan to equalize things? Plastic stock for the M1? What "new barrel" - Criterion or Douglass, or ... If the new barrel brings the throat back to civilian chamber dimensions so you can get land contact without exceeding COL, you might get a better shooting M1 than a factor M1A? But, to what end?

If you are going to shoot competition, you'll have to build each rifle to the rules. If it's just a fun toy, you can build it any way you want.

I sense that the OP's looking for "best value"? A better comparison might be a BM59 and an M1A. But, finding an original Berretta reconfigured M1 will be tough and expensive. Of course, as an investment it will appreciate in price while you look at it. Not sure an M1A will do that :rolleyes: A carefully rebuilt M1 done by the owner MIGHT get the investment back :scrutiny:, but it might not :banghead:

In terms of why to own and shoot one - that's entirely in the hands of the buyer/shooter :)
 
Didn't Springfield Armory offer a Carlos Hathcock version of the M-1a?Even though he used a Winchester Model 70 most of the time?I imagine that version of M-1a would be super accurate.
 
Didn't Springfield Armory offer a Carlos Hathcock version of the M-1a?

It was a scoped supermatch (lugged reciever) with adjustable stock and bipod, I think. One of the reviews mentions an adjustable trigger as well.

As for the original question, the local Garand/M1A smith that I use feels that a .308 Garand is able to keep pace with an M1A, but that they will both edge out a .30-06 Garand, and that's with all of accuracy modifications. From other sources, I've heard that the M1A requires less frequent tune-ups from the armorer to stay accurate than the Garand does.

This is all hearsay, by the way. I have a Garand with a Criterion barrel with no national match modifications except for the trigger and it makes a 2moa group at 200yards. I do not yet have an M1A to compare it to.

-J.
 
i have a book written by scott duff, who is widely considered the worlds leading authority on several different service rifles, 2 of which if im not mistaken are the m1a and the m1 garand.... in his book if i remember correctly he actually said the garand lends itself to "accurizing" better than the m1a/m14 design. something about a more generous recoil bearing, alignment bearing surfaces.

i will see if i can look it up.

i own a couple of garands and have never owned an m1a, although i'd looove to get one at some point....

ive always heard, just through hearsay, that the m1a is more accurate. the only thing ive ever actually read in print by an expert said just the opposite.

if i could only own one, it would be the garand. just something about the way it feels when it fires. it's just perfect. perfect.
 
"The stock front sight on a Garand is so broad that it makes shooting tight groups an issue".

Strange because several high master class highpower shooters I know use even wider front sights than those found on a Garand.
 
When you ask about the accuracy of these two rifles there are a lot of "ifs" involved.

If the SA Inc M1a rifle you pick up at the gun show happens to be put togather correctly at the factory, which will be just an accident, if you buy the standard or loaded model it will be a good shooter.

On both the Garand and M-14 type rifle EVERYTHING effects the accuracy. Stock fit. Hand guard fit. Gas cylinder fit and on the M1a flash suppressor fit.

You can take both rifles and install the best barrel money can buy but they can still be a 6 MOA rifle if everything else is not right.

They can have huge zero differences from cold to hot if everything else is not perfect.

I have seen Garands shoot as much as 15 inches higher at 100 yards hot than when cold because of improper wood fit. M-14 type rifles can do it also just from a gas cylinder or flash suppressor that loosens up when hot.
 
The stock front sight on a Garand is so broad that it makes shooting tight groups an issue
I missed this statement way back in Dec.


You will find this complaint in the American Rifleman of the 50’s, and in Hatcher’s Book of the Garand.

The target of the period, the 5V, had been developed in tandem with the 03. At least I believe this because the target is about the same width as an 03 post. Anyone who has ever looked at the 03 post will notice just how thin it is, and that was a characteristic of 1873 Trapdoors and Krag’s. Thin sights and tiny rear notches were what was used on rifles and handguns.

Maybe the idea was down the same path that nasty medicine is better than nice medicine, therefore accurate shooting can only be conducted if you can’t see your sights or the target.

I have shot on the 5V with an 03, and my recollection you took a 6 OC hold, there was not enough of the target for a flat tire or center hold.

I have shot on the 5V with a Garand and the standard combat post and it was OK at 200 yards, little difficult at 300 yards, and very hard at 500 yards. The 5V black is just a pinpoint at 500 yards and it is very hard to center on the wide post. This is why you find those 0.063” “National Match” front sights for Garands and M1a’s, these were for use on the 5V.

I think the 5V went out somewhere 1968 to 1970. It only hung around because Army shooters were obstinately resistance to change and the Army was bringing the big money to the table. There is not much change to the first, but the second sure changed. It had been noted for years that the 5V target was inadequate to discriminate between shooters: one year the winner of the service rifle at the National Matches won by one point, but the second place shooter had 73% more “V”’s. Clearly the second place shooter was a harder holder. If you ever shot on the 5V, match winners are determined by V count. You may win if you drop a point, drop two points and you might place, drop three points and you are out of it. Once the DCM money was cut by Congress for the National Matches and everything, which was 1968, the NRA was able to dump these old archaic targets.

Target shooters confused the thin blade of the 03 with precision, complained about the wide post of the Garand, and it took an act of Congress and the NRA to replace the 5V with a wider decimal target.

Below is the old 500 yard target above the 500 yard 5V. The old 500 yard target had a 12 center ten ring, at 600 yards the seven ring was blackened out, but the same ring dimensions were kept.

At the 500 yard matches I shot, all the post shooters preferred the 600 yard target at that distance as it was much larger and much easier to locate a flat tire or center hold in the bull.

The match director at one 500 yard match, he preferred the 500 yard target because he shot an aperture front and he knew the difficulties post shooter had with that target! :neener:

Reduced600Ydabove5V.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top