Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 12/11/2005 9:26:52 AM EDT
I know this is a touchy subject.... but I still have not figured out why everyone hates them so much
I have heard people say that the GI parts are superior to new made parts because Springfield is trying
to make the guns cheaper,etc. Even if they are made cheaper, how does this make them inferior to the GI
guns ?

If you DON'T like the newly manufactured Springfield Garands, could you tell me why in a civil manner ?

If you DO like the newly made Garands, tell me why...

I just thought it would be nice to get this out of the way for the day when I decide to buy a Garand.

I like the idea of having a new made Garand, but some people just don't like them and I cannot figure out why.

Please feel free to explain why you prefer GI over new, or vise versa.

No need to get all steamed about the subject, I am just looking for answers

Thanks Garand owners.... also, a nice review from someone with both GI issue and a new Garand would be greatly appreciated.
Pros/Cons, etc...

Link Posted: 12/11/2005 11:01:12 AM EDT
The receivers on new SA Garands are cast steel rather than forged. It is my understanding that as USGI parts dwindle, SA will switch over to newly manufactured stuff. Compared to USGI stuff made when the Garand was a front-line rifle and QC meant something (the soldier's life), newly made Garand parts are for people who have lots $$$.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 11:51:28 AM EDT
I do not own one, but a good friend of mine does, and we have shot it extensively with great accuracy and no problems whatsoever. he has maybe 1000 rounds through it without a bobble.
It is a beautifully made piece, and the fact that it has a cast reciever doesn't necessariy mean that it is in any way unserviceable. Springfield M-1A recievers, Ruger recievers and many FN-FAL from FN were cast and have held up fine. Having said that, for $1100 I can buy two nice used Garands from the CMP. Mine is an original SA from CMP and it shoots beautifully. If I were to buy an SA-INC new Garand it would be in .308 or .243 just for fun. It is a matter of personal choice.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 12:31:27 PM EDT
Garand receivers are DIFFICULT to make properly and Springfield, INC. has a poor track record casting them.

My sources are Dr. Walt and Clint from Fulton Armory. I'd suggest that you ask them.

Dennis Jenkins
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 1:00:31 PM EDT
You cannot reproduce an M1, just like you can't reproduce a K98, a Mosin Nagant, or a Ford Model T.

All of them were from a different era, and the QC needed to bring them up to GI spec would put them out of range for pretty much anyone.

The weapons were also products of their time. That is what makes an M1, and other weapons from the Golden Age of Gunmaking so special - they all have a soul. I hope someone understands what I mean.
Link Posted: 12/11/2005 2:46:42 PM EDT
I think that, if someone invested in the equipment, it wouldn't be too difficult to mill parts for new production rifles... but it could be expensive, and it becomes a cost/benefit argument.

Cast parts are not all bad, but they will likely have a higher number of failures than milled parts. For now, the hesitation would be that there are plenty of ways to get a good USGI M1 for the same or less money than a new production M1.

Maybe when the CMP dries up, and prices on USGI rifles rise, maybe we'll see some change? Who knows?
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 10:08:47 AM EDT
Most everyone at surplusrifles.com hates the SA Inc M1 for the following reasons.

1. Cast receiver
2. No historical value.
3. Uses USGI refinished parts that depleted the supply of USGI parts on the market.
4. Poor QC/out of spec parts.
5. It looks different that a USGI rifle. For example it has a commercial stock that is too fat in some areas
Link Posted: 12/17/2005 5:32:01 PM EDT
Mainly the cast receivers and their related problems.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:27:28 AM EDT

Originally Posted By gewamser:
Having said that, for $1100 I can buy two nice used Garands from the CMP. .



That is why I'd pass on one. The only plus side for the SA Garand is the life time warranty, which down the road might be worthwhile, but until then and since CMP garands are at the prices they're at right now, I'd just get one of those and pop a new barrel on if you want it in a different caliber.

Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:29:22 AM EDT

Originally Posted By CK1:
The receivers on new SA Garands are cast steel rather than forged. It is my understanding that as USGI parts dwindle, SA will switch over to newly manufactured stuff. Compared to USGI stuff made when the Garand was a front-line rifle and QC meant something (the soldier's life), newly made Garand parts are for people who have lots $$$.



They already have with their M1As. They used to be made of USGI parts and they have started using new parts.
Link Posted: 12/19/2005 11:32:25 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 12/19/2005 11:33:48 AM EDT by twonami]
cause I don't trust anything they make with the exception of their pistols
Link Posted: 12/20/2005 12:26:11 PM EDT
also arent their receivers made in the little UK (Australia)
Link Posted: 12/21/2005 7:28:12 AM EDT
Speaking strictly for myself, I wouldn't be interested in anything like that because my interest is the aspect of historical artifact.

To me a new made M1 of parts put together last week on a new made repro receiver just holds no historical signifcance to me.

But I am one of those guys who buys historical arms for what they represent, I don't care if I shoot them. If I see something at a show or where ever, I don't even look at the bore, because I don't care. I feel that if I find something that is correct, and grabs me, I could care less if the bore is a sewer pipe. Take Enfields...I find an all original, all matching 1914 or 1915 Lithgow, I couldn't care less if the bore was solid with rust, to me its a great find...a possible Gallipoli gun, early production Lithgow, and you don't see too many, so I'll grab it....

I've seen guys turn down beautiful, collectible, original pieces because the bore wasn't mirror bright
Top Top