M1 Garand Accuracy?
- Thread starter brian94954
- Start date
- Status
cracked butt
Member
kiaghi7- don't get shorts in a knot over my post. I own both the 03A3 and M1. I've shot both in several high power matches. The '03 as you said wins hands down in pin point accuray, but I've yet to figure out how to hold it as tight on target as the M1 in rapid fire portions of matches. I have to lift my head from the stock slightly and break my cheek weld everytime I cycle the bolt in order to prevent the long bolt from punching me in the nose- I have no problem getting 10 shots off in 60 seconds, but accuracy suffers becase of the constant breaking of the cheek weld and repositioning my head on the stock. With the M1 I have no problems, I actually get more time to put the sight on target, and is faster for me to reload.
??? sorry if I came off as harsh, I meant it in a level tone and not scolding or anything, just saying was all 
I agree with you that for repeated fire, the M1 would have less manipulation and fussing with it since the action does it all for you and all
what I recommend to get similar results with your '03 is to not do anything more than to avoid the bolt coming back and nocking you while cycling it... that way you could maintain your position and even posture and still cycle the bolt... if you have an rubber ascussion on your scope (if you use one) that can let you stay plenty far back as to avoid the bolt, and keep your whole body in fine position to go through the motions over and over... for Iron sites just learn how far your throw is on the bolt and keep clear so that you can cycle without moving anything much but your hand...
I guess we just have to remember that at the end of the day, the '03 is meant to be something you take your time with and ease into each shot, it can't fire quickly by nature and fighting against that only gives you a headache and doesn't change how the gun works
keep at it though, investment of effort with it will reap great rewards in the end
I agree with you that for repeated fire, the M1 would have less manipulation and fussing with it since the action does it all for you and all
what I recommend to get similar results with your '03 is to not do anything more than to avoid the bolt coming back and nocking you while cycling it... that way you could maintain your position and even posture and still cycle the bolt... if you have an rubber ascussion on your scope (if you use one) that can let you stay plenty far back as to avoid the bolt, and keep your whole body in fine position to go through the motions over and over... for Iron sites just learn how far your throw is on the bolt and keep clear so that you can cycle without moving anything much but your hand...
I guess we just have to remember that at the end of the day, the '03 is meant to be something you take your time with and ease into each shot, it can't fire quickly by nature and fighting against that only gives you a headache and doesn't change how the gun works
keep at it though, investment of effort with it will reap great rewards in the end
Swampy
Member
kaighi7,
Admitting that the average '03 will beat the average M1 in pinpoint accuracy....
BUT cracked butt is correct. When shooting an '03 from FIELD POSITIONS (prone and sitting) with a sling it's nigh on to impossible for a person of normal build to keep positive cheek weld when operating the bolt.
Proper sight picture with the irons mandates a head position much closer to the receiver than done when standing or shooting from a bench. When you operate the bolt, you have to move your head.
I can remember just fine that the very Highpower course of fire that we use today with the M16, M14, and M1 was first introduced by the CMP and NRA way, way back in the early 1900's (LONG before the first auto-loader came on the scene).... and guess which rifle was the predominate service rifle used back then... the '03. The rapid fire stages were a part of the game to train shooters in the necessity to shoot quickly and accurately. When the m1 came along later it proved quite handily that even though it's not quite up to the '03's base standard for pure accuracy, in the "real world" where rapid firing is necessary, it's head and shoulders above the '03.
Not long after it became the issue rifle the M1 became the "top o' th' heap" rifle both in GI service and on the competition range.... all in spite of the '03's edge in pure accuracy. That pure accuracy edge could not make up the difference of rapid follow up shot accuracy that the M1 had.
They both have their high points and low points..... but if pure accuracy from a solid position in slow fire was the prime criteria for a battle rifle, the Army would still be issueing the '03 today.
BTW, I own both M1's and '03's and shoot Highpower as my main game.
Best to all,
Swampy
Admitting that the average '03 will beat the average M1 in pinpoint accuracy....
BUT cracked butt is correct. When shooting an '03 from FIELD POSITIONS (prone and sitting) with a sling it's nigh on to impossible for a person of normal build to keep positive cheek weld when operating the bolt.
Proper sight picture with the irons mandates a head position much closer to the receiver than done when standing or shooting from a bench. When you operate the bolt, you have to move your head.
I can remember just fine that the very Highpower course of fire that we use today with the M16, M14, and M1 was first introduced by the CMP and NRA way, way back in the early 1900's (LONG before the first auto-loader came on the scene).... and guess which rifle was the predominate service rifle used back then... the '03. The rapid fire stages were a part of the game to train shooters in the necessity to shoot quickly and accurately. When the m1 came along later it proved quite handily that even though it's not quite up to the '03's base standard for pure accuracy, in the "real world" where rapid firing is necessary, it's head and shoulders above the '03.
Not long after it became the issue rifle the M1 became the "top o' th' heap" rifle both in GI service and on the competition range.... all in spite of the '03's edge in pure accuracy. That pure accuracy edge could not make up the difference of rapid follow up shot accuracy that the M1 had.
They both have their high points and low points..... but if pure accuracy from a solid position in slow fire was the prime criteria for a battle rifle, the Army would still be issueing the '03 today.
BTW, I own both M1's and '03's and shoot Highpower as my main game.
Best to all,
Swampy
??? I think if I read that right
you're saying that the '03 is not a fast shooting rifle that has the advantage over the M1 in pure accuracy for upmost precision... and that the M1 has the advantage in firing faster, while not being quite as precise at the '03... I think that's the basic idea of it...
well that's what I was saying too, I'm glad we are in agreement
as for moving your head to cycle the '03, well that is often up to the shooter aswell and how they embrace the gun...
if the person has to move their head when cycling the bolt as the case may be, then it's often a matter of having to or the bolt would knock their nose/cheek, but if the shooter is more withdrawn from the bolt throw area it's quite possible to shoot and cycle without ever moving one's head... but also that is a matter of preference by the shooter, and if a shooter has a prefered way to hold the rifle (as basically every shooter does weather or not they even know it), change in posture is often destructive to the shooter's performance...
in the end, the possiblilty of shooting and cycling the bolt without loosing contact with the gun is up to the shooter to work out the "how to" on their own...
you're saying that the '03 is not a fast shooting rifle that has the advantage over the M1 in pure accuracy for upmost precision... and that the M1 has the advantage in firing faster, while not being quite as precise at the '03... I think that's the basic idea of it...
well that's what I was saying too, I'm glad we are in agreement
as for moving your head to cycle the '03, well that is often up to the shooter aswell and how they embrace the gun...
if the person has to move their head when cycling the bolt as the case may be, then it's often a matter of having to or the bolt would knock their nose/cheek, but if the shooter is more withdrawn from the bolt throw area it's quite possible to shoot and cycle without ever moving one's head... but also that is a matter of preference by the shooter, and if a shooter has a prefered way to hold the rifle (as basically every shooter does weather or not they even know it), change in posture is often destructive to the shooter's performance...
in the end, the possiblilty of shooting and cycling the bolt without loosing contact with the gun is up to the shooter to work out the "how to" on their own...
cracked butt
Member
The problem with rifles with an aperture sight is that aperture sights don't have eye relief like a scope. If the sun is above or behind you the aperture can get awfully small if there is any glare off it at all. You have to be close to it to use it. Unless I have a plastic surgeon somehow create a groove that is about a 1" wide and 1" deep between my right eye and nose, There is no way I could could cycle the bolt without moving something.
I shoot almost nothing but iron sights, and I hold each rifle the same way, and reference my cheek weld the same way on every rifle wheter its a springfield, M1 or Mauser ninetywhatever.
I shoot almost nothing but iron sights, and I hold each rifle the same way, and reference my cheek weld the same way on every rifle wheter its a springfield, M1 or Mauser ninetywhatever.
I gotcha like I said, that is the preference of the shooter, and like you said, outside of major reconstructive surgery there isn't really much of a way around it for your situation...
but I guess you should just use the '03 for when you have a situation where you are free to take your time and adjust yourself as necessary for each shot...
best of luck
like I said, that is the preference of the shooter, and like you said, outside of major reconstructive surgery there isn't really much of a way around it for your situation...but I guess you should just use the '03 for when you have a situation where you are free to take your time and adjust yourself as necessary for each shot...
best of luck
Badger Arms
Member
I STRONGLY disagree with the comment about glass bedding. Glass bedding is the single most effective method for improving the accuracy of the Garand and does not effect reliability at all. In fact, it makes it more durable when butt-stroking people, not that I've ever done that. It also makes the stock sturdier when utilizing the bayonet. Another effective accuracy enhancer involves tightening the fit of the front sight housing to the barrel. Since this part also involves the bayonet mount, this should make the bayonet system stronger.
Some other modifications surely decrease reliability, but you can halve your groups usually with the above two modifications. One that I've heard of but not yet tried is to epoxy the rear barrel band to the barrel with high-temp epoxy. I can't imagine how that would be a negative thing.
brian94954
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Messages
- 5
Hi Swampy,
Just curious, how much difference between those averages?
-Brian
Just curious, how much difference between those averages?
-Brian
ReadyontheRight
Member
Brian, this is a 100 yard group from my 1903A4.
And the 1903A4 was simply a variant of the 1903A3 fitted with a low-power, 2.5x scope. This was M2 ball ammo, off the bags, 3 rounds fired as smooth as I could cycle the bolt and get that fat chisel point reticle lined up on the bullseye:
I don't doubt that an accurized M1 Garand could do that, especially if it's an M1C or M1D. But of all the M1 Garands and 1903 variants I've owned, I'll give the nod to the as-issued bolt gun in group size. That really doesn't mean much when the lead's flying overhead, though, because the M1 Garand is a better gun for rapid aimed fire. All the extra parts and pieces hanging off that barrel and recoiling back and forth, while not so great for accuracy's sake, tend to keep you in one piece and non-leaking after the firefight's over.
And the 1903A4 was simply a variant of the 1903A3 fitted with a low-power, 2.5x scope. This was M2 ball ammo, off the bags, 3 rounds fired as smooth as I could cycle the bolt and get that fat chisel point reticle lined up on the bullseye:
I don't doubt that an accurized M1 Garand could do that, especially if it's an M1C or M1D. But of all the M1 Garands and 1903 variants I've owned, I'll give the nod to the as-issued bolt gun in group size. That really doesn't mean much when the lead's flying overhead, though, because the M1 Garand is a better gun for rapid aimed fire. All the extra parts and pieces hanging off that barrel and recoiling back and forth, while not so great for accuracy's sake, tend to keep you in one piece and non-leaking after the firefight's over.
brian94954
Member
- Joined
- Feb 26, 2004
- Messages
- 5
Gewehr98,
Nice shooting. I think I've seen a picture of your '03A4 around here before. Beautiful.
But I'm thinking more like the average unscoped '03A3 vs. the M1 at 100yards, prone. Of course the '03 will be slightly more accurate, but they would be fairly close. Maybe range from 1.5 - 2.5 inch groups for the M1903 and 2 - 4 inch groups for the M1. Am I correct?
Nice shooting. I think I've seen a picture of your '03A4 around here before. Beautiful.
But I'm thinking more like the average unscoped '03A3 vs. the M1 at 100yards, prone. Of course the '03 will be slightly more accurate, but they would be fairly close. Maybe range from 1.5 - 2.5 inch groups for the M1903 and 2 - 4 inch groups for the M1. Am I correct?
Biff
Member
Brian
Why don't you just find a nearby CMP affiliated club and shoot a few highpower matches. Quite a few clubs will loan M1s to participants!
Besides, its just plain fun!
Why don't you just find a nearby CMP affiliated club and shoot a few highpower matches. Quite a few clubs will loan M1s to participants!
Besides, its just plain fun!
Steve in PA
Member
- Status
