Despite the obvious differences like weight and clip feed, what are some of the performance differences between the two? I see many professional shooters still using the M1 over the M14.

I shot on a few Navy teams during the late 60's/early 70's and we used M1s rebarreled to 7.62 The word was that they were considered more accurate than the M14. This theory is also advanced in a book I have on the M14 that I got from Scott Duff. I don't have it here at work, so can't quote it exactly. Basically it seems that the belief was that the M1 could be more accurate, but did not retain that level of accuracy as long as an M14. I do know that when one goes sour, it really is bad. My .02 from about 6 years worth of shooting one in competition. I also own a 14 and find that I can hold steadier in off hand with the M1, something about that Mag in the way and the lighter front end. Otherwise I see little difference. Hopefuly M1Tanker will chime in, although I'm not sure if he is old enough to have used the M1 , BTW, I shot on the first Navy team to use the M16 and the custom specials we used were a far cry from the standard M16 in '72. The Black Rifle has come a long way since then.

The M1 was (and is) a great weapon. About it’s only draw back is the extremely complicated en-bloc clip mechanism. I believe that the M14’s more straight foward and simple magazine gives it a bit of an edge in reliability and ruggedness.

As for accuracy, I doubt there is a whole bunch of difference in the two assuming that both are set up the same with comparable barrels and bedding.

I shot both the M1 and the M14 in the period from 02/1962 through 06/1966 so I think I can speak a bit to both. I make no claims to being an 'expert' although the Navy issued me a ribbon that says I am (was?).
As I see the M1, it was as Patton said "the greatest" especially in its time frame - nothing even close. I think the M14 was a marked improvement over the M1 in many ways, especially the ones that had been 'overhauled' and wore the Unertl scopes. As for drawbacks, I know of one glaring fault with the M14 you seldom see mentioned and that is the magazines and ammo. Standard load up was a mag in the rifle and 4 more in/on the harness for a total of 100rds all up (5x20 if you're a bit slow), and beleive me, 100 rds goes quickly in a fire fight. Now for the muddy part: the ammo for the M1 came already clipped, eight rounds en bloc and ready to stick in the rifle. The 7.62 rds came loose and had to be loaded into the mags to then be loaded into the M14. You could sure see a lot of bloody fingers from trying to stuff rounds down into the mags.
As to the M16, all my experience was early on and all bad. Someone should have been tried and shot over that fiasco. The gun, accuracy, the ammo, everything about it was a piece of crap. I understand it quickly became much better with the forward assist, better ammo, etc but I can state for certain there was much room for improvement.
Back to the M1 vs the M14 - I liked both of them. I own and shoot M1's today and wish I had an M14. As to a combat rifle, I would take the M14 over the M1 but not by much and would not feel undergunned with either. It was a waste to make the M14 select fire as it was way too light to be effective but it sure did send some ammo downrange - twenty rounds out in a heartbeat! Of course, you needed a wheel barrow to haul ammo and a working party to load mags but other than that.....

TrapperP,

I was in the Marine Corps when we still used the M14’s and the ammo we were issued came on 10 round stripper clips in bandoliers. Once you get the hang of it you can load a 20 round mag in the blink of an eye with the mag either in or out of the rifle...and without tearing up your fingers.

I see the M-1 as a Stutz Bearcat. A very fine product for its day. I see the M-14 as as a Ferrari "Enzo". Also a very fine product for ITS day (current). Isn't much doubt which I would rather have in a race, or in combat, today.

Question...Isn't the M-14 basically an M-1 Garand modified to improve the magazine system?

quote:

Originally posted by Alberta Canuck:
I see the M-1 as a Stutz Bearcat. A very fine product for its day. I see the M-14 as as a Ferrari "Enzo". Also a very fine product for ITS day (current). Isn't much doubt which I would rather have in a race, or in combat, today.

Question...Isn't the M-14 basically an M-1 Garand modified to improve the magazine system?

Basically...Yes. Detachable magazine, shorter action for 7.62mm, and selective fire capability. The latter is most certainly NOT for the faint of heart!

Rick 0311
Are you sure the 308 ammo was not in 5 round clips?

quote:

Originally posted by N E 450 No2:
Rick 0311
Are you sure the 308 ammo was not in 5 round clips?

I’ve seen it come in both five and ten round clips in cloth bandoliers and each bandolier had the little filler clip that allowed you to load the mags just like you would through the clip slot on the receiver. You can still buy both five and ten round M14 stripper clips. We used to use the buttplate to shove against, that’s why you find allot of issue wooden stocks with the butt area all scratched up.

Never seen any 10 round US 308 clips.

Go to Numrich Arms and look for item # TD931390. Sarco also sells them as does Northridge Surplus and several other outfits.

I went from a 1968 Marine built Garand in 7.62 to a Rock River AR-15. The M-14 is pretty much a Garand with modifications. The Garand is great but the AR gives me better Rapid Fire groups. I think the biggest reason that the Garand is used as much is that it was easier to get at one time and still better than the commercially avaiable M-14.

The FAL is better than both of them

quote:

Originally posted by MajorCaliber:
The FAL is better than both of them

An interesting opinion, one held by many individuals and a number of countries.

BUT, having used both, thanks to the militaries of a couple of countries, I disagree.

I do not find the FAL nearly as handy to carry (or fire), not particularly easier to clean, and certainly no more accurate. I prefer the M-14 sights for my own use. As they both use the same cartridge, there is nothing to choose from there either. About the only clear cut advantages I can see for the FAL are 1) that it is easier to pick up "spares" for the FAL in Afrika if you happen to be active there and are cut off from unit supply, and 2) if you have ammo of unknown quality, you can usually adjust the gas port on the FAL enough to get it to function.

quote:

Originally posted by Gentleman Jack:
Despite the obvious differences like weight and clip feed, what are some of the performance differences between the two? I see many professional shooters still using the M1 over the M14.

Well, there was a statistically significant INCREASE in average scores shot by average soldiers after the M14 was issued, as opposed to the M1. Whether this was due to the M14 being more accurate than the M1, or to the 7.62mm NATO ball ammo being more consistent (which it IS) than the M2 ball .30/'06 round, I am not sure anyone knows!

Gentleman Jack
The M 14/M1-A is a better fighting rifle.
But the Garand is just plain fun to shoot.
A Tanker Garand is a good, fun, field rifle. Either in 30-06 or 308. For a fella who knows how to use one it is good for a civilian protection rifle too, it is just that a 20 round magazine full of 308's is never a bad thing.

Yeah I have a HK 91 for that.

Gentleman Jack
The H&K 91 is one of my favorite rifles of all time. I have taken quite a few deer, turkey and a few antelope with it, as well as using it for 3 gun matches, and as a work rifle.
Still.... a Garand is a lot of fun to shoot.

quote:

Originally posted by Gentleman Jack:
Yeah I have a HK 91 for that.

You're fortunate to have one of those! Excellent rifle!!

Thanks, it does bring me joy! Too bad I have only shot it once in like 8-9 years.

Gentleman Jack
ONCE IN 8 OR 9 YEARS!!!!!
Shame on you. Take that rifle out and shoot it. ASAP.

Hello;
One thing I have always wondered about is how the lighter M-14 barrel stands up to sustained fire, compared to the Garand. Comparing the two, while the barrel diameters are fairly close near the muzzle, the barrel of my M1 appears to be a lot thicker under the hand guards.
Grizz

quote:

Originally posted by Grizzly Adams:
Hello;
One thing I have always wondered about is how the lighter M-14 barrel stands up to sustained fire, compared to the Garand. Comparing the two, while the barrel diameters are fairly close near the muzzle, the barrel of my M1 appears to be a lot thicker under the hand guards.
Grizz

Two other points here: the M14's were altered to select fire (Bad for barrels!) and the ammo was hotter, .308 vs 30-06. Combined into 'all the above' I think the barrels had to suffer. I would also like to know if the barrels were different between the M14 and the M15. I know the book says the M15 had heavier barrel, butt stock, etc but I never fired one - I never even saw one! - so have no frame of reference. Just curious. another point I wonder about - the production of the M14 ceased in 1964 - did it ever crank back up or are the rifles being used now for snipers, etc. ones manufactured before 1964? No one seems to know the answer here either.

The military kept most of their M14’s and have dusted them off and brought them back into service in Iraq and Afghanistan. The SEALS had been using them even before then.

The one my son has been using in Iraq was made by Harrington and Richardson...and the other four in their company are three Winchesters and one TRW.

I don’t know of any “newly†manufactured “M14’sâ€...but I’m sure there are some Springfield Armory M1A’s being used by the military also.

quote:

Question...Isn't the M-14 basically an M-1 Garand modified to improve the magazine system?

Well, the bolt and carrier/op rod work about the same, except the gas is taken off closer to the chamber and the op rod is straight, and much less susceptible top bending.

An interesting fact is that several early M1 Garand prototypes were built with 20-round magazines, to which the Army objected:

A.. "Protruding mag. interferes with the standard manual of arms...
B. Protruding magazine necessitates a change to the standard prone position. (This was at the time that the "War to End All Wars had already been fought [we won!!]) so the Army was looking for a parade ground and rifle range weapon, not a combat arm! Poor John C. had to rework his design to eliominate the detachable 20-round mag., and incorporate the 8-round, en-bloc clip that the M1 ended up with.

So troops during WWII (unforseen!!) had to reload after 8 rounds rather than 20.......

I like the M1 and M14/M1A, and start with 8 clicks of elevation from mechanical zero (bottom) on both before I even squeeze the trigger. This setting will put you "in the black" at 200 yards with either, however I'm refering only to the M2 and M59 loads with 150 grain bullets. With a velocity averaging 2750 FPS, there is no real difference between the two loads, rifles, or sight settings, other than the M14/M1A is graduated in meters, not yards.

Regarding match loads, I haven't seen large quantities of M118 or M852 in a decade and I don't remember the last time I saw the M72, however it is my shoulder felt opinion that the M14/M1A has less recoil than the M1. I'll say the same about my 168 grain reloads too. For that reason alone, along with the flash suppressor, box magazine, op-rod roller, and flip-up but plate hook, I favor the M14/M1A.

P.S. It's only fair to say I like 03s too.

my match rifle is a 308 m-1 with match stock,op rod , med weight ss barrel. match sights and is bedded with trigger job. i have shot match grade m 14 and the box is better off hand but i prefer the m-1 hands down. i like the weight/balance ratio better. the m-14 has some improvements on the m-1 but its all a matter of prefrence to the shooter.

quote:

Originally posted by Gentleman Jack:
I see many professional shooters still using the M1 over the M14.

Really?

Who?

In the realm of "professionals" I see the police and the military. None use M1s. None.

Even if you include service rifle competitors, it still doesn't wash. Nobody who is winning on a consistent basis in NRA HP is using either an M1 or an M14. They are all using AR15s.

In high power rifle competitions, there are just as many Garands as M14s in the ones I have seen. I dont classify police/military as professional shooters because we are not.

quote:

Originally posted by Gentleman Jack:
In high power rifle competitions, there are just as many Garands as M14s in the ones I have seen. I dont classify police/military as professional shooters because we are not.

That may be at your local club. And your club is then a rarity. I can't remember the last time I saw a Garand on the line at the matches at my club (Miami Rifle & Pistol Club), the Central Indiana HP Shooters matches at Camp Atterbury, the Ohio state matches at Camp Perry, or the National Trophy Matches. There are still some M14 die hards, but not many.

In any case, the days of the 30 caliber service rifle as the top choice in competition have been over since the mid 1990s.

AR15s rule.

HP Shooter-

You are giving the absolute straight poop (the true facts) on the current use of M-1's in current HP matches.

Matter of info, wouldn't you agree one of the reasons there are now separate "Garand" matches is to give them a modern venue where they can score competitively?

That is , they can compete with each other, as well respected but outdated technology, and not have to go up against the boys with the AR platforms, who would wipe their...noses...for them in a heart-beat if they all were fired shoulder to shoulder in the same class.

Great old rifles, but not the 1st choice at ANY open HP match I've seen in the last 20 years.

Excellent info here guys, thanks!

AC, Garand matches are an odd duck of sorts. I think the CMP sat around thinking of a way to stimulate the sales of surplus M1s and M1903s, and came up with the Garand, Springfield, and Vintage Military Rifle (for foreign bolt actions) match rules. They have been hugely successful, judging by the number of participants in all three matches during the Nationals.

I say the Garand matches are an odd duck because the rules forbid every single National Match modification that the rules for NRA Highpower and CMP Excellence In Competition Matches allow for the M1.

So the National Match M1 is left really without a home, except in California where it is impossible to purchase a new AR15.

There are still a few shooters using Match Garands, usually either they already have one and haven't got an AR yet or they have are distinguished and shoot it for fun. Most of the Garand's I have seen for the Garand matches are built from parts or more than one gun. The Garand match was supposed to be a rack or combat gun.

I went to Paris Island November 1962,was issued an m-14 and qualified expert with it several times.But for a time after boot camp used an m-1 extensively.I always thought the m-1 to be a little more rugged and tolerated dirt and sand better.But I thought the m-14 pointed and handled much better.The m-14 had one bad quirk and that was that the flash suppresor could get bent and deflect rounds.I have always heard and read that the .308 was inherently more accurate than the 30-06.My choice would be m-14 hands down but the m-1 was a fine old weapon.w/regards