M1A or Garand

[plainsdrifter]

Kinda want a Garand because I like the '06, I like older guns and also have a Rem 1903a3 and a lever 06' plus a lot of new '06 ammo and also happened to get can of AP M2 in 8 round clips. hehe
But if I'm gonna drop a grand or so I kinda want a more modern rifle that can utilize larger magazines. But I don't really want a .308.
Ya know this could well be the last gun I buy..... cough, so I want to make sure I be happy.
I don't otherwise have a large caliber semi auto, just a couple Ar's in .556 so the need is there.
Need advise from those who own both.

 

[CapnMac]

Garand, hands down. Either caliber.

 

[Risky buisness]

I have both, and my favorite is the M1. Certainly the concept of ' more mag capacity ' is fine, but 8 sure has been plenty for me and 20 in a box mag just means more weight. Actually using a Garand and becoming familliar with loading them soon turns into taking virtually no time at all to do. I like the shootability of the M1over the M1A as well, and the rifle comes to point much better for me as well. The historical aspects mean something to me as well, as my old man used one bsck in the day. I prefer the 06 cartridge over the 308 for no particular reason and reload bunches for both.
Their was an attempt by the Italians after WW2 to utilize a box mag similar to a BAR for the M1s they inherited and the early versions were in 06 later changed in the BM59. Plenty of M1 mechanics out there that may be able to add that feature if you must. Best of luck with your choice.

 

[tommy.duncan]

I own both also.
I really like shooting both but my M1A is my favorite rifle in my safe.
My father carried the M14 in Nam and I got to learn this rifle from a combat veteran.
I have a 44 Winchester garand and it is amazing, but I will always reach for my M1A first. YMMV

 

[plainsdrifter]

I have a CMP order ready to go for a Garand. Clock is ticking last i looked.

 

[mshootnit]

I have both. If you are going to hunt with it get an M1A because it can be scoped. If you want a piece of WWII history for range fun get a Garand.

 

[NIGHTLORD40K]

BM59s are out there if you look a bit. Best of both worlds.

 

[hso]

I have a Garand, an M1A, FAL, and an "AR10".

Kinda want a Garand

I don't really want a .308

I kinda want a more modern rifle that can utilize larger magazines

Beretta BM59


Basically an "improved" Garand that takes box magazines. It comes in 7.62 NATO, though.

Otherwise, go for the venerable and war tested Garand.

 

[W.E.G.]

The question should be, which one to get FIRST.

In the context of M1-A versus M1, the .308 cartridge does everything the 30-06 can do.
Given a gun of unlimited strength, you can get a little more velocity from the '06. But that is NOT the case with the Garand. The Garand is not the gun to test the limits of 30-06.

Pricing for one versus the other, given equal condition, the prices are very similar.

The key question - and always is - WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO WITH IT?
I think that question drives the decision. There are quite a few Garand matches that require use of a Garand. Many fewer matches limited to the M1-A.

 

[plainsdrifter]

I'm lovin that Beretta. That might get me movin if I can find one.

 

[hso]

Many fewer matches limited to the M1-A.

Lots of Service Rifle Matches in this area outnumbering Garand Matches, but I don't think the OP is thinking about matches anyway or he'd probably have gotten something before "his last rifle".

Dunno what he has against the 7.62 NATO round if he's not going to shoot a ton.

Your point about 30.06 loadings and Garands is very valid. The loading for the Garand isn't at the upper limits for the caliber.

 

[entropy]

Range rifle: Garand. That *Pting* sound makes me (and many others) smile everytime.
Serious rifle, if you want a .308 for that; M1A, though a Garand will serve in that capacity just fine also.

 

[plainsdrifter]

What would I do with it?
More defensive than historical collector.

 

[gbw]

I have both and I’m glad as I like them both, but not equally.

Although the reason is unclear to me I like shooting the M1A better. Maybe because the receiver is shorter? I really don’t know. I use 10 rd mags, the longer ones (20s) just get in the way. But if all I had was the Garand I’d still be very happy.

Standard wood stock Springfield M1A, and a 1955 HRA ‘Service Grade Special’ Garand from CMP. This is a nearly new all original metal HRA Garand, with a CMP stock. Both have been accurate and reliable over several years and hundreds of rds each.

Really no wrong choice here.

 

[Charlie98]

BM59s are out there if you look a bit. Best of both worlds.

Does anyone make magazines for those, yet? BM59's were/are like the Bren 10... it's a great firearm, but good luck finding a magazine for it.

The question should be, which one to get FIRST.

That's my spin on it.

I have an M1 Garand... a very early 6 digit Springy. I LOVE shooting that gal... a very physical rifle to shoot. Everything is Slam! Bam! Clack! Chink! Pow! ...and then, of course... PING! It is a VERY rewarding rifle to shoot.

I have an M1a... a shorty one, with a 16" barrel. Although it shares it's heritage with the Garand, it is altogether a different rifle to shoot. Again, very physical, but in a more streamlined way.

Get the Garand, first, and particularly if you have a nose under the CMP tent... plus, you already load for the .30-06. THEN get an M1a.

They pair well together, too. My last pseudo military rifle get together...

 

[Gun-Reck]

Hands down the M1 rifle.

What they won't tell you, is that clipped .30-M2 ball is lighter and more compact than 7.62×51mm-M80 in magazines:

Rifle / Cartridge / Cartridge weight / Weight of loaded magazine / Max. 10 kilogram ammo. load
M1 Rifle (1938) / 30 M2 / 417 gr (27.0 g) / 08 rd clp @ 248 g (0.546 lb) / 40 clps @ 9.93 kg (21.9 lb) for 320 rds
M14 (1959) / 7.62×51 / 393 gr (25.5 g) / 20 rd mag @ 750 g (1.65 lb) / 13 mags @ 9.75 kg (21.5 lb) for 280 rds

​

 

[valnar]

If you need a rifle to be a rifle, the M1A. If want it for historical purposes, the Garand. If I could only have one in the 21st century, and had no other rifles, I'd get the M1A. If I have other modern rifles, especially in your .30-06 caliber, then get the Garand.

ie. In a vacuum, M1A > Garand. But not all decisions are in a vacuum.

 

[trackskippy]

Ive had a number of both and both are/can be good shooters, depending on what you want out of them.

The military matches are fun if you want something more than just bench or casual shooting, and want to actually learn how to shoot the guns.

If I had to pick one, it would be one of the M14's done by someone other than Springfield. The exception there would be very early Springfield rifles. They were pretty well done. The last Springfield I had, a SOCOM, was basically junk. Id also go with a standard version of the rifle if you go that route.

If you go with the M1, you need to do your research and understand what they are, and what they arent. You also need to understand how to load them and why, especially loading single rounds. If you reload, you need to do your homework there too.


The BM59's are cool guns, but youre going to pay if you can find one. Last couple I saw on GB were in the $3-4K range.

 

[drobs]

Had both, sold the Danish Var M1 Garand, kept my M1A. I just couldn't find reasonable 30-06 to fire at the time and I didn't want to go through hassle of joining the CMP (and I'm a veteran). Also sold the full length M1A and replaced it with an 18 inch barrel Bush rifle (pre-scout). I find the shorter barrel Bush / Scout M1A altogether more handy.

 

[Dave DeLaurant]

I've got the Russian assortment (oneovich), the M1 having been rebarrelled at CMP to also take 7.62x51.

If given no other option, I'd probably keep the Garand over the M1A but they both have their place for me.

 

[Gun-Reck]

If one was looking for "a more modern (battle) rifle that can utilize larger magazines"?

These are now in the $1,200 range, with a case.

​

 

[shooter1niner]

I have had both. I shoot both equally as well. IMO the 7.62x51 is the ballistic equivalent of the .30-06 out to about 500 yds.. Both are great battle rifles.

I find the M1A to be more pleasing to my eye.

 

[Risky buisness]

I'm lovin that Beretta. That might get me movin if I can find one.

May not have to hunt down a BM59, Shuffs parkerizing builds a variation of the BM59, but uses, I think, M1A magazines. Might be worth while if nothing more than cool factor.

 

[25-5]

A3O3, M1, and M1A NM. Love em all. Shooting wood and steel history is my thing.
M1A has easy on off scope. Like irons mostly though.
Mag capacity not an issue for me.
A different caliber is fun. .308 is easier to reload than .30-06.

 

[Ignition Override]

plainsdrifter: Because you --already--have plenty of M2 Ball, or 30-06 ammo, the answer for you might be simple.

But in contrast to your quandary, I chose the M1A for my "family" because the "NATO Battle Rifle" Bug (= Buy the Whole Set) bit me hard:..... and already had the PTR-91 (HK/G3 clone) and a FAL; primary rifles used by many dozens of countries.

And to a large extent, the M1A shares:
1) the appeal of a Garand.
2) Really like the walnut on this Standard model by Springfield.
3) Shares ammo with the FAL and PTR.

4) used in Full Metal Jacket (movie)…and our beloved Corps!