User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 8:39:42 AM EDT
[#1]
I have both but I own only one M1a and 6 M1 garands. I enjoy shooting my garands more but the M1a is more accurate. Of course, my garands have poor stock fit and some need new barrels, which the M1a is not lacking.
I find that I like the recoil impulse on the garand better then the M1a. Seems like the M1a has more muzzle flip and my garands seem more well balanced then the M1a. If I had to pick one to go into combat with tomorrow, it would be the M1a mainly because of the larger mag capacity and the ammo is slightly lighter. Just personal opinion. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 11:03:08 AM EDT
[#2]
I own both and have been a life long civilian. I have a real fondness for the Garand, however, the M14 (a Polytech) is a new member to the collection and hasn't been shot all that much. Need to replace the rear sight on it and just haven't gotten around to doing it yet.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 12:19:15 PM EDT
[#3]
I can't hit the broad side of a barn with my M1A, but the Garand makes me look like I can't miss, so I have 5 of them. The Garand feels more balanced while shooting. I can practically balance the M1A with 1 finger in front of the mag, but when I shoulder it, it feels all wrong. I can shoot Greek HPX in the garand, and 168 Sierra handloads in the M1A, and its still no contest in favor of the Garand. Different strokes for different folks, but this is my experience, and i've not been Gov't trained on either.
GregM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 1:23:57 PM EDT
[#4]
Of the two, I favor my M1A, probably because it was the first real rifle I bought, and I have had it longer. I shoot it better, and just feel more comfortable with it overall.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 2:41:54 PM EDT
[#5]
I carried an M14 in the US Army (TRW 1490317 and it was a great rifle).
I bought myself an M1A in 1978 and carried it for years. I used to deer hunt with it, target shoot with it, fun shoot with it and figured I'd never find another rifle that fit me like that M1A. Then I got a CMP M1. Then another, and another and............. I have not fired the M1A or even carried it in just over 4 years. The M1 just fits me so good its like it was made for me. I'll keep my M1A but I'm carrying the M1 Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/6/2011 2:58:17 PM EDT
[#6]
Have both and can't decide conclusively. While I wouldnt choose my M1 to go into a combat/SHTF scenario with, if I was forced to use the M1 I definitely wouldn't want to be on the recieving end if I was the opfor.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 2:01:55 PM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
Have both and can't decide conclusively. While I wouldnt choose my M1 to go into a combat/SHTF scenario with, if I was forced to use the M1 I definitely wouldn't want to be on the recieving end if I was the opfor. I am just the opposite. I would carry the Garand over the M1A (if forced to choose with only those two options) in a combat situation. The Garand fits me better, and I shoot it better. Many think that the removable mag is an advantage but I think its just the opposite. i shoot a lot of big match 3 Gun and i have used the Garand a good bit in club matches and while I have to do a reload every 8 rounds, my two reloads are much quicker than the mag change that the M1A shooter must perform. Enblocs are easy to keep at hand or on the rifle and conversely the box mag has to be carried in a pouch and cant be drawn until the empty is removed from the rifle. Thats a big advantage to the Garand shooter. Plus, they are just cooler. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/7/2011 2:41:05 PM EDT
[#8]
I own both, and I can tell you that while I enjoy shooting both, shooting the Garand is just more sexy. I love the look and feel of the rifle. I certainly like shooting the M1A, and I use that rifle at work, but every time I shoulder the Garand, I really like how it handles, functions, and I know I will be hitting the target every time.
So +1 on the Garand, and that is why i own several. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 5:16:17 AM EDT
[#9]
If we're talking about going into "combat" with one or the other, i'd have to pick the M1A, even though I can't shoot mine well. The reason for me is the inability to top off the Garand. Lull in fighting or about to make a move forward, put in a fresh mag with the M1A and save the partial mag. With the Garand, you have to shoot it empty and reload. I agree reloads with the garand are easier and faster for me. Try replacing a partial garand clip with a fresh one, and 30-06 rounds will be falling all over the place, I was reminded of this last weekend when I tried to do it *again* without success.
GregM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 5:28:04 AM EDT
[#10]
...
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 7:29:25 AM EDT
[#11]
I do not currently own an M1A, but I have owned 3 in the past. I do currently own an M1 Garand. I love shooting both and as far as just enjoying the shooting experience, I don't prefer one over the other. However, the Garand has one thing that no other rifle has of which I am aware. That last round ping. I cannot quantify it, nor even adequately describe it, but that ping just gets me right where my soul resides.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 9:07:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Quoted:
If we're talking about going into "combat" with one or the other, i'd have to pick the M1A, even though I can't shoot mine well. The reason for me is the inability to top off the Garand. Lull in fighting or about to make a move forward, put in a fresh mag with the M1A and save the partial mag. With the Garand, you have to shoot it empty and reload. I agree reloads with the garand are easier and faster for me. Try replacing a partial garand clip with a fresh one, and 30-06 rounds will be falling all over the place, I was reminded of this last weekend when I tried to do it *again* without success. GregM You "top off" by grasping the rifle in your weak hand with your thumb depressing the clip latch while you energetically pull the bolt handle back ejecting the clip and any remaining rounds. Then reload. I have done this often at a dead run as a planned reload while moving to another position during a match. I have never seen a picture of a WW2 soldier with a dump pouch. In a combat situation why worry about a few loose rounds and an enbloc clip? Thats what bandoliers full of ammo are for... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 10:53:26 AM EDT
[#13]
I would take a M1A any day! It feels much better in my hands then the Garand. That rifle always felt too thick and clunky. Not that it isn't an outstanding rifle, but if I had to go old tech I'd choose an Enfield.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 4:02:46 PM EDT
[#14]
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we're talking about going into "combat" with one or the other, i'd have to pick the M1A, even though I can't shoot mine well. The reason for me is the inability to top off the Garand. Lull in fighting or about to make a move forward, put in a fresh mag with the M1A and save the partial mag. With the Garand, you have to shoot it empty and reload. I agree reloads with the garand are easier and faster for me. Try replacing a partial garand clip with a fresh one, and 30-06 rounds will be falling all over the place, I was reminded of this last weekend when I tried to do it *again* without success. GregM You "top off" by grasping the rifle in your weak hand with your thumb depressing the clip latch while you energetically pull the bolt handle back ejecting the clip and any remaining rounds. Then reload. I have done this often at a dead run as a planned reload while moving to another position during a match. I have never seen a picture of a WW2 soldier with a dump pouch. In a combat situation why worry about a few loose rounds and an enbloc clip? Thats what bandoliers full of ammo are for... IF there is a very good supply chain to keep you supplied and is VERY reliable, then I'm with you but if you did this several times during a fire fight, you might leave a couple of clips worth of ammo on the ground. Being that a typical soldier may only carry 192 rds or so as a battle load out, leaving 16 or so rounds on the ground isn't going to help you very much if you start to run low. It won't take very long to go through that much in a firefight. If I top off the garand, I would reserve a leg pouch for the extra ammo and would only top off behind cover. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 4:07:15 PM EDT
[#15]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have both and can't decide conclusively. While I wouldnt choose my M1 to go into a combat/SHTF scenario with, if I was forced to use the M1 I definitely wouldn't want to be on the recieving end if I was the opfor. I am just the opposite. I would carry the Garand over the M1A (if forced to choose with only those two options) in a combat situation. The Garand fits me better, and I shoot it better. Many think that the removable mag is an advantage but I think its just the opposite. i shoot a lot of big match 3 Gun and i have used the Garand a good bit in club matches and while I have to do a reload every 8 rounds, my two reloads are much quicker than the mag change that the M1A shooter must perform. Enblocs are easy to keep at hand or on the rifle and conversely the box mag has to be carried in a pouch and cant be drawn until the empty is removed from the rifle. Thats a big advantage to the Garand shooter. Plus, they are just cooler. I can't see how reloading the garand is faster then the M1a. Maybe you can do it fast if clips are readly available in front of you but you still have to remove the rifle from your shoulder when the man with the M1a is still shooting and sighting from his firing position. If you had to dig each clip out of a bando or a cartridge belt, like you'd carry the ammo in a combat role, I would think that the garand shooter would be much slower then the M1a shooter, at least I would be. If the M1a's mags are layed out like the garand's clips, I think that I could reload an M1a almost as fast as a garand and overall faster as I'd only have to reload every 20 rounds. That being said, I still love the garand and would not feel too outgunned if I had to use one in combat. I'd grab my 6.8 AR if I had a choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 6:33:39 PM EDT
[#16]
Cartridge belts were not often used in WW2 because they were a pain to retrieve enblocs from... Infantrymen stuffed their pockets with enblocs prior to action. My uncle jumped into France and Holland (101st) with all the pockets on his uniform full of loose enblocs...in fact they sewed re-inforcment material on the pockets to keep them from tearing on the jump. So the Garand shooter is going to have easy access to ammo...how many 20 round mags can you carry in your pockets? Plus you have to retain them.
If the M1A shooter can assume they will have a resupply of .308...then the Garand shooter can assume the same...so the clips go on the ground. Might have to try some filmed head to head runs at the range... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/8/2011 6:55:25 PM EDT
[#17]
Search you-tube and you will find a video of a shoot off between the M1 and the M14.
The M14 put more rounds downrange in one minute than the M1 did with both firing semi auto only. More videos from the guys who metal detect the old battlefields reveals quite a few enbloc clips with three or four live rounds in the clip or laying in the direct area indicating that ejecting the partial clip and replacing it with a full one was a common practice and the partial clips were routinely dropped on the ground which also indicates a sufficient supply of clipped ammunition was available. I have heard this from WW2 veterans also and the battlefield remains just confirms the practice. The vets also told me if time was available, guys would police up the partial clips and use the ammunition to refill machinegun belts as there never seemed to be enough belted ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2011 12:55:22 AM EDT
[#18]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
If we're talking about going into "combat" with one or the other, i'd have to pick the M1A, even though I can't shoot mine well. The reason for me is the inability to top off the Garand. Lull in fighting or about to make a move forward, put in a fresh mag with the M1A and save the partial mag. With the Garand, you have to shoot it empty and reload. I agree reloads with the garand are easier and faster for me. Try replacing a partial garand clip with a fresh one, and 30-06 rounds will be falling all over the place, I was reminded of this last weekend when I tried to do it *again* without success. GregM You "top off" by grasping the rifle in your weak hand with your thumb depressing the clip latch while you energetically pull the bolt handle back ejecting the clip and any remaining rounds. Then reload. I have done this often at a dead run as a planned reload while moving to another position during a match. I have never seen a picture of a WW2 soldier with a dump pouch. In a combat situation why worry about a few loose rounds and an enbloc clip? Thats what bandoliers full of ammo are for... IF there is a very good supply chain to keep you supplied and is VERY reliable, then I'm with you but if you did this several times during a fire fight, you might leave a couple of clips worth of ammo on the ground. Being that a typical soldier may only carry 192 rds or so as a battle load out, leaving 16 or so rounds on the ground isn't going to help you very much if you start to run low. It won't take very long to go through that much in a firefight. If I top off the garand, I would reserve a leg pouch for the extra ammo and would only top off behind cover. That's what dump pouches are for. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2011 7:33:39 AM EDT
[#19]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Have both and can't decide conclusively. While I wouldnt choose my M1 to go into a combat/SHTF scenario with, if I was forced to use the M1 I definitely wouldn't want to be on the recieving end if I was the opfor. I am just the opposite. I would carry the Garand over the M1A (if forced to choose with only those two options) in a combat situation. The Garand fits me better, and I shoot it better. Many think that the removable mag is an advantage but I think its just the opposite. i shoot a lot of big match 3 Gun and i have used the Garand a good bit in club matches and while I have to do a reload every 8 rounds, my two reloads are much quicker than the mag change that the M1A shooter must perform. Enblocs are easy to keep at hand or on the rifle and conversely the box mag has to be carried in a pouch and cant be drawn until the empty is removed from the rifle. Thats a big advantage to the Garand shooter. Plus, they are just cooler. I can't see how reloading the garand is faster then the M1a. Maybe you can do it fast if clips are readly available in front of you but you still have to remove the rifle from your shoulder when the man with the M1a is still shooting and sighting from his firing position. If you had to dig each clip out of a bando or a cartridge belt, like you'd carry the ammo in a combat role, I would think that the garand shooter would be much slower then the M1a shooter, at least I would be. If the M1a's mags are layed out like the garand's clips, I think that I could reload an M1a almost as fast as a garand and overall faster as I'd only have to reload every 20 rounds. That being said, I still love the garand and would not feel too outgunned if I had to use one in combat. I'd grab my 6.8 AR if I had a choice. When I do try to "top-off" a Garand, I usually sprinkle the ground with 30-06 ammo, they like to part ways with the clip when its missing a few rounds. If i'm prone with mags laid out and don't plan on moving, then yeah, the M1A mags are a quicker reload. I dunno, getting the enbloc clips in is just very fast for me when i'm up and moving with the rifle......Just my experience. I reload a Garand with my right hand, reload a M1A with my left...the left hand doesn't work as well as the right hand I guess. I do have more time with the Garand, but rapidly catching up on round-count with the M1A, maybe i'll improve my reloading skills with muscle memory. GregM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/9/2011 12:57:11 PM EDT
[#20]
I personally prefer my M1 over my M1A. I've only got one of each, and I plan to get a 2nd M1 early next year. I don't see any more M1As in my future.
The M1 points more naturally for me, and has better balance (for me). As far as handling is concerned, I greatly prefer the M1. There's no magazine hanging down to catch on stuff. With the balance point near the magazine, it's more comfortable to move and shoot with the M1 over the M1A. While in a timed competition, I have no doubt that the M1A's 20 round capacity will allow me to keep up a somewhat higher retained rate of fire, I can keep my M1 running just fine. Empty clip flies out, new clip inserted within seconds. Maybe if the M1A had a better mag design (the 308 AR pattern works quite well), that would help it in my comparison, but hte M1A's is just too clunky to remove and re-insert. Maybe I just need to practice more, but the M1 was simple and smooth the first time I did it. My M1A is approximately 1/2 MOA more accurate than my M1, but in the real world I don't see that as a big difference. They've both currently got NM sights on them. Grizz |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 3:15:39 AM EDT
[#21]
I own (1) of each and love them both, I sent my Std M1A back to SA to have a Scout conversion so we will see when the project gets done if I like one over te other
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 6:41:55 AM EDT
[#22]
I like the Garand better personally. More sentimental than anything-my grandfather trained on the Garand in the Marines, plus the fact that the Garands on the market are a true service rifle while the M1A's are little more than a faithful clone-as close as can be legally owned without NFA peperwork, but still a clone(not that there's anything "wrong" with that). I like the history attached to the real thing.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 3:43:30 PM EDT
[#23]
I've always had a preference for the m14 pattern rifle on nostalgia alone.
The pro's on the m14 in my book; -lighter -quicker pointing -higher capacity -looks cool as hell -I think easier to make accurate (not easy, just easier than the garand) The pro's on the M1 - balances very well and is a better off hand shooting rifle for me due to the balance -in combat, you can get in the dirt lower (doesn't mean a thing until bullets are coming in your direction) -faster reload assuming you run her dry and reload then. The distinct advantage on the garand is it ejects the clip for you and may or may not drop the bolt on a loaded round for you. (most of mine need a love tap on the op rod handle) yeah the 14 holds more but strictly on the reload the garand is faster as you don't have to rock a mag out, get it out of your hand in some manner (drop or retain) and grab and rotate a fresh one in the mag well. For me the mag wells on the rock in place are a Pita, hey I grew up on the AR platform. I would feel well armed with either but side by side, I'd pick the 14. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/10/2011 6:43:12 PM EDT
[#24]
I prefer the M1, personally. I shoot it better than I shot my M1A. I'm much more accurate with my M1 for some reason.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 2:55:07 PM EDT
[#25]
Your Garand is an actual USGI rifle.
Your M1A is a copy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:03:21 PM EDT
[#26]
Quoted:
I do not currently own an M1A, but I have owned 3 in the past. I do currently own an M1 Garand. I love shooting both and as far as just enjoying the shooting experience, I don't prefer one over the other. However, the Garand has one thing that no other rifle has of which I am aware. That last round ping. I cannot quantify it, nor even adequately describe it, but that ping just gets me right where my soul resides. No need to place a tracer in a mag when you empty a Garand clip. I'm a traditionalist, Garand for long shots, and a .45 for close in. There is just something about the feel and the recoil of both. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 3:35:50 PM EDT
[#27]
Quoted: Your Garand is an actual USGI rifle. Your M1A is a copy. They are all mass poduced. Therefore they are all copies. They are all made from parts pulled randomly from a pile, rack, belt, or box. They are all parts guns. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/12/2011 4:42:42 PM EDT
[#28]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Your Garand is an actual USGI rifle. Your M1A is a copy. They are all mass poduced. Therefore they are all copies. They are all made from parts pulled randomly from a pile, rack, belt, or box. They are all parts guns. WTF are you talking about? He has a 1954 HRA. That's not a copy. That's a real USGI rifle made to real USGI specs. An M1A is a copy of a USGI rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 5:39:05 AM EDT
[#29]
Yep. LarryG is right.
An M1 Garand from CMP or wherever you got it is almost certainly a fully milspec rifle with either a Springfield, HRA, or Winchester receiver and parts made for government contract. If you are lucky had have an older M1A or a top end M14 clone like an LRB or Smith Enterprises, your rifle may have all USGI M14 parts but the receiver is a copy. In M1A's, they're all investment cast, and not USGI spec. Even the forged receivers like LRB are not USGI spec because they don't have the little lug on the bottom. Most NEWER M1A's don't even have mil-spec M14 parts in them, or if they do, they only have a few. An M1 Garand, in 99% of instances is a USGI rifle. An M1A, is 100% a clone of an M14 and is not milspec. -David Edgewood, NM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 11:55:25 AM EDT
[#30]
Quoted:
Yep. LarryG is right. An M1 Garand from CMP or wherever you got it is almost certainly a fully milspec rifle with either a Springfield, HRA, or Winchester receiver and parts made for government contract. If you are lucky had have an older M1A or a top end M14 clone like an LRB or Smith Enterprises, your rifle may have all USGI M14 parts but the receiver is a copy. In M1A's, they're all investment cast, and not USGI spec. Even the forged receivers like LRB (that's what I have) are not USGI spec because they don't have the little lug on the bottom. Most NEWER M1A's don't even have mil-spec M14 parts in them, or if they do, they only have a few. An M1 Garand, in 99% of instances is a USGI rifle. An M1A, is 100% a clone of an M14 and is not milspec. -David Edgewood, NM I understand what your saying but does it matter, not try to sound like a smart ass but a cast receiver is just as good as the forged, right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 12:08:17 PM EDT
[#31]
Most would argue that a cast receiver is inferior to a forged receiver. Forging aligns the grain of the metal increasing its strength. Casting has the potential to introduce microscopic voids in the metal that reduce strength, as well as not aligning the grain. Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) claims to have experienced a Springfield Armory investment case receiver that stretched after quite a few rounds. Pretty sure it was an M1 Garand receiver. Anyway, milspec was for forged. Casting is cheaper. It's likely that you'd have to shoot more rounds than the average lifetime to tell the difference between forged and cast.
-David Edgewood, NM |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 2:01:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Not something I'd recommend trying to copy/repeat but if you read Hatcher's Book of the Garand you'll run across the test.
The test. The test was to determine what pressure was required to blow up an M1 Garand receiver (since there was no record of one having blown up in spite of several years of combat in all climates/conditions with millions of rounds fired before, during and after WW2). The started with standard GI ball ammo and tested it in an M1 Garand, an armory pressure test gun (so they could record the chamber pressures caused by the hot loads they were going to test with) and a rebarreled (to 30.06) Arisaka. They eventually reached a point where the Arisaka receiver failed and they were afraid of blowing up the pressure test gun. However, since the M1 Garand was still going strong they continued to add powder to the rounds in steps and calculated the pressures based on the pressure rise vs. powder charge they'd seen while using the pressure test gun. At a point of over 150,000 psi the case of a round ruptured and released gas/brass into the M1 Garand action. The stock was detroyed, the trigger housing and some of the small parts were damaged/distorted. They installed the receiver and barrel along with the replacement trigger housing/small parts in a new stock and continued the test with standard GI ball ammo and the rifle functioned just fine. I wouldn't do that with my Garand and I'd bet a cast M1A receiver wouldn't get anywhere near those pressures before it gave up. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 5:02:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. LarryG is right. An M1 Garand from CMP or wherever you got it is almost certainly a fully milspec rifle with either a Springfield, HRA, or Winchester receiver and parts made for government contract. If you are lucky had have an older M1A or a top end M14 clone like an LRB or Smith Enterprises, your rifle may have all USGI M14 parts but the receiver is a copy. In M1A's, they're all investment cast, and not USGI spec. Even the forged receivers like LRB (that's what I have) are not USGI spec because they don't have the little lug on the bottom. Most NEWER M1A's don't even have mil-spec M14 parts in them, or if they do, they only have a few. An M1 Garand, in 99% of instances is a USGI rifle. An M1A, is 100% a clone of an M14 and is not milspec. -David Edgewood, NM I understand what your saying but does it matter, not try to sound like a smart ass but a cast receiver is just as good as the forged, right? Most would argue that a cast receiver is inferior to a forged receiver. Forging aligns the grain of the metal increasing its strength. Casting has the potential to introduce microscopic voids in the metal that reduce strength, as well as not aligning the grain. Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) claims to have experienced a Springfield Armory investment case receiver that stretched after quite a few rounds. Pretty sure it was an M1 Garand receiver. Anyway, milspec was for forged. Casting is cheaper. That's why SA casts its receivers. I prefer forged (voted with my wallet), but it's likely that you'd have to shoot more rounds than the average lifetime to tell the difference between forged and cast. -David Edgewood, NM Thanks 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 6:15:34 PM EDT
[#34]
There are very few things the government does that is better than something done by the private sector. But in THIS case the USGI Garand is much better quality than the commercial product.
If we could buy real USGI M-14 rifles from the CMP just like we do with Garands for the same price how many M1a rifles would SA Inc sell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/13/2011 6:18:26 PM EDT
[#35]
Quoted:
There are very few things the government does that is better than something done by the private sector. But in THIS case the USGI Garand is much better quality than the commercial product. If we could buy real USGI M-14 rifles from the CMP just like we do with Garands for the same price how many M1a rifles would SA Inc sell? Amen. As indicated by how many Garands SAI sells... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2011 6:05:19 AM EDT
[#36]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. LarryG is right. An M1 Garand from CMP or wherever you got it is almost certainly a fully milspec rifle with either a Springfield, HRA, or Winchester receiver and parts made for government contract. If you are lucky had have an older M1A or a top end M14 clone like an LRB or Smith Enterprises, your rifle may have all USGI M14 parts but the receiver is a copy. In M1A's, they're all investment cast, and not USGI spec. Even the forged receivers like LRB (that's what I have) are not USGI spec because they don't have the little lug on the bottom. Most NEWER M1A's don't even have mil-spec M14 parts in them, or if they do, they only have a few. An M1 Garand, in 99% of instances is a USGI rifle. An M1A, is 100% a clone of an M14 and is not milspec. -David Edgewood, NM I understand what your saying but does it matter, not try to sound like a smart ass but a cast receiver is just as good as the forged, right? I don't think anyone well argue that Forged is not superior to Cast. As far as the M1A goes there are hundreds of thousands SAI made cast receiver M1A's in service. 99.999% do not have a problem. The cast SAI receivers are fine. I have one that's been shooting for 31 years and a second that I have been shooting for 22 years. I've worn out extractors, recoil springs, ejector springs, one piston, one bolt roller and a lot of brass. The cast receivers are like new. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2011 7:54:06 PM EDT
[#37]
I would have no problem trusting my life to a cast receiver. Mine works just fine.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/14/2011 8:46:24 PM EDT
[#38]
I can't imagine being without my LRB M14's or my Springfield and H&R M1's, I'm very comfortable with both M1 and M14. I do shoot the M1 better when shooting standing off-hand. Must be something about the balance. If I had to really choose, it would have to be the M14, but only because of the 20 round capacity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/15/2011 4:41:54 AM EDT
[#39]
Quoted:
Amen. As indicated by how many Garands SAI sells... I never could understand why people bought those things. I watched a guy at a gun show lay out $1,300 for one. For that kind of money he could own a Garand built by someone who actually gives a damn about the quality on a real USGI receiver using known good in spec parts hand fitted and done right. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2011 6:09:45 AM EDT
[#40]
Quoted:
There are very few things the government does that is better than something done by the private sector. But in THIS case the USGI Garand is much better quality than the commercial product. If we could buy real USGI M-14 rifles from the CMP just like we do with Garands for the same price how many M1a rifles would SA Inc sell? A few, not many, as indicated by numbskulls actually buying SAI Garands. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/17/2011 6:17:03 AM EDT
[#41]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Amen. As indicated by how many Garands SAI sells... I never could understand why people bought those things. I watched a guy at a gun show lay out $1,300 for one. For that kind of money he could own a Garand built by someone who actually gives a damn about the quality on a real USGI receiver using known good in spec parts hand fitted and done right. OR, one could buy TWO Service Grades Garands or ONE and a bunch of ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/19/2011 5:46:39 PM EDT
[#42]
Quoted:
Your Garand is an actual USGI rifle. Your M1A is a copy. +1
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2011 2:58:17 AM EDT
[#43]
I own both M1 and M1A rifles.
While I don't consider the M1 to be a viable combat rifle anymore, I do consider the guns to be excellent pleasure shooting rifles. An M1 converted to 7.62X51 is even better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/20/2011 3:32:30 AM EDT
[#44]
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Yep. LarryG is right. An M1 Garand from CMP or wherever you got it is almost certainly a fully milspec rifle with either a Springfield, HRA, or Winchester receiver and parts made for government contract. If you are lucky had have an older M1A or a top end M14 clone like an LRB or Smith Enterprises, your rifle may have all USGI M14 parts but the receiver is a copy. In M1A's, they're all investment cast, and not USGI spec. Even the forged receivers like LRB (that's what I have) are not USGI spec because they don't have the little lug on the bottom. Most NEWER M1A's don't even have mil-spec M14 parts in them, or if they do, they only have a few. An M1 Garand, in 99% of instances is a USGI rifle. An M1A, is 100% a clone of an M14 and is not milspec. -David Edgewood, NM I understand what your saying but does it matter, not try to sound like a smart ass but a cast receiver is just as good as the forged, right? Most would argue that a cast receiver is inferior to a forged receiver. Forging aligns the grain of the metal increasing its strength. Casting has the potential to introduce microscopic voids in the metal that reduce strength, as well as not aligning the grain. Kenneth Royce (aka Boston T. Party) claims to have experienced a Springfield Armory investment case receiver that stretched after quite a few rounds. Pretty sure it was an M1 Garand receiver. Anyway, milspec was for forged. Casting is cheaper. That's why SA casts its receivers. I prefer forged (voted with my wallet), but it's likely that you'd have to shoot more rounds than the average lifetime to tell the difference between forged and cast. -David Edgewood, NM 250,000 rounds is the service life for a cast M1A receiver supposedly, 450,000 for a GI one. Either round count is more then the average person will shoot in several lifetimes out of it. One big difference is that the M14 barrel, IF USGI sourced, is chrome plated unless it is A NM one. It's more forgiving of ammo pressure differences unlike the Garand which is very limited unless you use a Schuster gas plug. The M1A scopes easier then the Garand. Older M1As are very nicely built, my highest is a 48K range one, the others are 4 digit ones. No complaints. One difference that goes to the M1A is the fact that you can buy very nice aftermarket stocks that are not affected by moisture and even the fiberglass USGI one is easily found on the net and is an improvement over the Garand stock for hard use. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/21/2011 6:02:45 PM EDT
[#45]
I've owned 2 M1a's. First was a loaded model, shot nicely, but I don't like the harsher recoil from the short piston gas system vs. the garand op rod. 2nd M1A was a Socom, didn't function reliably unless the gas system was banged into place and tightened all the way down. Didn't appreciate that quality. I've got two m1 garands now, one is a very nice Korean War 5.4 million serial number, CMP purchase at some point but no papers. Got a good deal on it in Texas from a guy who bought several similar garands from an estate. Has original barrel and mostly SA parts in very good condition. My shooter garand is a gun I bought for 1k off of a member here. Nicely rebuilt by Dean's in TN I believe (if i remember correctly), has a nice laminate stock, and refinished in a beautiful parkerizing job with Criterion barrel. It's a shooter, and looks great too! I'll probably sell the 5.4 million SA at some point, since I don't shoot it. Will keep the shooter. Probably won't buy another M1a in my lifetime.
|
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
