M14 Forum


What is the M1 capable of with a scope?

This is a discussion on What is the M1 capable of with a scope? within the M1 Garand Accuracy forums, part of the Rifle Forum category; Originally Posted by AKA Hugh Uno I am a bit confused about the "with glass" part. Despite what most people think, at 200 yards or ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > Rifle Forum > M1 Garand Accuracy


Like Tree94Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old November 27th, 2012, 08:14 PM   #31
Fire Team Leader
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA Hugh Uno View Post
I am a bit confused about the "with glass" part. Despite what most people think, at 200 yards or less there is and should not be ANY difference in "accuracy" (group size) between scopes and iron sights (assuming a good prone-match or bench shooter). I guarantee that at 100 or 200 yards, given the same exact rifle and ammo with and then without a scope (off a bench and rear bag anyway!), my groups would be the same (or smaller) than yours.

Even at NRA Long Range matches, the scores at Camp Perry between the scoped classes and iron sight shooters at 1000 yards are closer than you think. (like around 2 INCHES if you were to compare "group" sizes and not scores--best I recall anyway)

Also, the statement (above) about "The m1garand is the most accurate semi auto platform made maybe not the lighest but deffinatly the most accurate,and with glass there awesome" is patently untrue. While I have at least a half-dozen M1's (including both a Fowler .06 and Leisinger .308 match rifles--and have owned MANY more over the years), there was (and is) a GOOD reason that military match and then civilian match shooters switched over to M14/M1A in the 60's and then AGAIN to ARs in the late 80's/early 90s. Each time, the scores in matches dropped significantly. The M1 is "heavy" because it is (comparatively) COMPLICATED. It doesn't bend, twist, and stretch like an AK!, but it isn't nearly as rigid when fired as an M14 (or AR).

The M1 is a great rifle and can be made to shoot very well, but the M14/M1A out of the box OR tweaked will easily have the advantage over an M1 (and not just because of the .308 being a bit more accurate than the .06 round as a rule). Out of the box, I would expect a decent "stock" M1A to shoot match ammo pretty close to 1.5, maybe a bit less. Even a very nicely set up and assembled stock M1 (new/mint barrel, etc.) isn't likely to do nearly this well (more like 1.75 to 2.0). Likewise, the AR15 dominates the match firing line because it is not only easier to shoot it is more accurate than the M1A/308 rifles.

This is a 10 shot 100 yard group (using my "practice" match ammo) and I could (easily) repeat this (or BETTER with true match loads) pretty much forever with an AR (no scope of course).

I have ARs and M1 Garand and a SA M1A. My ARs with Wylde chamber and handloads will put them inside a dime at 100yds. They are deadly!!! I mean deadly!!!

My M1 is too finiky and will shoot 1rd round wild and the rest of the 7 handloads inside a 2" circly at 200yds. And, I do have a Schmidt Bender 2.5 x 10 scope on it. My M1 is my only rifle that is finiky. Maybe you have one that is not, but at 63 I am about blind and must use scope. Many of this forum have the same problem with M1 flyers. And, remember, if you drill and tape M1 receiver, you may be sorry later on. Just a suggestion.

tank1949 is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 27th, 2012, 08:25 PM   #32
Fire Team Leader
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Pensacola, Fl
Posts: 177
Quote:
Originally Posted by arcticdog View Post
To the OP's post, watch this:



Uh, don't know where you got the "inherently inaccurate" stuff from. It is a more challenging rifle to shoot than a .223 Rem, but there's alot of satisfaction in doing it.


That is sooooo coollllllllll And ya damn sure cant do that with an AR!!!!!!!

tank1949 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:07 AM   #33
Master Gunner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by tank1949 View Post
That is sooooo coollllllllll And ya damn sure cant do that with an AR!!!!!!!
you can't?

("only" 860 yards, but on a SMALLER target and tighter group. I only spent looking for it on youtube. plenty more out there


AKA Hugh Uno is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:45 AM   #34
Lifer
 
nf1e@snet.net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Preston,CT
Posts: 2,633
[QUOTE=AKA Hugh Uno;991758]you can't?

("only" 860 yards, but on a SMALLER target and tighter group. I only spent looking for it on youtube. plenty more out there

[
Somehow, I don't think the AR would have much of an effect at 1k yds.
Might be a tighter group, but to what end. I suppose it might penetrate a cardboard target. If we are talking effective range, the AR is about 1/2 of that the man's rifle.

Thanks from meterman
nf1e@snet.net is online now  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:53 AM   #35
Master Gunner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e@snet.net View Post
Somehow, I don't think the AR would have much of an effect at 1k yds.
Might be a tighter group, but to what end. I suppose it might penetrate a cardboard target
. If we are talking effective range, the AR is about 1/2 of that the man's rifle.
Since a 77 grain SMK will STILL be going about 1100-1200 fps at 1000 yards, this translates to about 250 foot pounds of energy (IIRC more than a .38 special +P and close to .357 Magnum levels!). Hmm, I guess will this logic, you would say a .38+P at point blank range is "ineffective"! (sheesh)

BTW, 99% of people have never fired at anything beyond 100/200 yards and they would lucky to hit the right TARGET FRAME at 600 yards.

Where I used to shoot a good bit:


Last edited by AKA Hugh Uno; November 28th, 2012 at 05:44 AM.
AKA Hugh Uno is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 05:23 AM   #36
Fire Team Leader
 
Skeet6's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 188
[QUOTE=AKA Hugh Uno;991773]
Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e@snet.net View Post
Where I used to shoot a good bit:
Camp Smith! Hugh, I am sure that you enjoyed the knowledge gained from having each and every wind flag in a different direction, right? Learning the wind there (my first matches were shot there) initially made my first few competitions at Forbes that much easier at 600... much less knob turning and head scratching...

(Of course at Smith we ALSO contend with the 600 yard line being wayyyyy above the target level, in addition to being wayyyy off to the left. When moving back to 600, we are actually shooting at the adjacent target to our number board, though it seems "lined up" from the firing line...) We are having some difficulty obtaining dates currently. We are hoping to have more in 2013.

Mike B

Thanks from AKA Hugh Uno
Skeet6 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 05:45 AM   #37
Lifer
 
nf1e@snet.net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Preston,CT
Posts: 2,633
My appologies to yoko ono. My small mind was only considering current military ammo. I would still choose the M1 over the mouse gun for 1000yds.

Thanks from meterman
nf1e@snet.net is online now  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:03 AM   #38
Master Gunner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 912
Quote:
Originally Posted by nf1e@snet.net View Post
My appologies to yoko ono. My small mind was only considering current military ammo. I would still choose the M1 over the mouse gun for 1000yds.
happens all the time, people get embarrassed by posting up bad facts and the name-calling and back-filling begins.

BTW, besides the fact that nobody in any of the videos of postings was shooting "current military ammo," the difference in winning scores between the Porter Trophy (Svc Rifle/AR15/M16 at 1000) and Leech Trophy (any rifle/sights at 1000) this year at Camp Perry was ONE point (100/6x vs. 99/3x).

Hugh

AKA Hugh Uno is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 08:29 AM   #39
Lifer
 
nf1e@snet.net's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: New Preston,CT
Posts: 2,633
Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA Hugh Uno View Post
happens all the time, people get embarrassed by posting up bad facts and the name-calling and back-filling begins.

BTW, besides the fact that nobody in any of the videos of postings was shooting "current military ammo," the difference in winning scores between the Porter Trophy (Svc Rifle/AR15/M16 at 1000) and Leech Trophy (any rifle/sights at 1000) this year at Camp Perry was ONE point (100/6x vs. 99/3x).

Hugh
Thanks Huggy,
Not being a paper popper, I would be unaware of who does what to whom and with what. I show up at Perry annually just for the CMP store and commercial row.
Art

Thanks from Divepanama and meterman
nf1e@snet.net is online now  
Old November 28th, 2012, 10:28 AM   #40
MGySgt USMC (ret)
 
Gus Fisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,067

Awards Showcase

OK, I'm going to have to correct some bad scoop/myths that were stated here about the M1 VS the M14. The Armed forces teams went over to the M14 because it was the more current service rifle and not because it was more accurate than the M1 Garand when the parts were similar.

Back in the early 70's when we used the NM M14 "Light" barrels or NM barrels that were of the same contour as the GI barrels, we could NOT get them to shoot as well as the M1 Garands with the GI contour NM barrels. The "issue" contour M14 barrels were just TOO light and would not hold as good of groups.

YES, when we used FULLY HEAVY NM M14 barrels, they outshot the M1 NM barrels in STANDARD contour. However, when we put HEAVY NM M1 barrels in Garands, they shot as well as the M14 heavy barrels, if not better.

When we began using McMillan Fiberglass stocks, yes, the M14 was ahead by A LITTLE. Of course, I don't think McMillan ever made a Fiberglass stock set for the Garand. Had McMillan done that, I doubt there would have been a difference between rifles.

The one thing we could do on the M14 that we could not do on the Garand was DOUBLE Lug and Double Torque Screw the Garand. Yes, I know Don McCoy made some triple lug Garands, but the results were not that great for the work needed to modify them.

And yet, when we tested some NM Garands built with full heavy Krieger barrels in Laminate stocks against the results from our Double Lugged M14's in the 1980's from our expensive machine rest and 10 round groups at 300 yards, the difference in accuracy was so small that almost no human shooter could have realized the difference. I would venture to guess if there were McMillan stock sets for the Garands,the difference in accuracy would have been some M14's or M1's shot better than the other rifles.

In the 70's, we built some Heavy Barrel M16's that were "Scarey Accurate" at 200 and 300 yards, but the 55 gr. bullets went everywhere at 600, no matter what we did to the rifles. It took the 75 and 80 grain bullets before the AR's accuracy really took off at mid to long range. It also took a MAJOR change in what was allowed in an "NRA Approved Service Rifle" for the AR/M16 before they took over. That change was allowing the AR15 barrel to be fully free floated, by use of the free float tubes.

Gus Fisher is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 10:56 AM   #41
Master Gunner
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 912
uhh, most of the slightly of-topic "discussion" was about comparing OFF THE RACK/STOCK rifles. If you want to compare a stock M1 vs. a stock M14, fine, have at it. While you are at it, feel free to address the statement made that the STOCK M1 rifle was "the most accurate semi-auto platform in existence" "no doubt about it," etc.

But, with regard to MATCH RIFLES, the use of .308 rifles in the 60's resulted in the changing of the 600 yard TARGETS in 1966 and then at 1000 yards in 1971. Scores (including possibles) went up, too many ties for 1st place, tie-breakers, etc.

At 600 yards of less, the .308 EASILY has the accuracy advantage over 30.06 (assuming same/similar rifle/twist/bullet). At 1000 yards, you can debate things a bit, but then you have to factor in recoil, etc.

Finally, if this gentleman wants to cut and mod out an M1 to be some "Urban-Sniper" thingee, AND if 200-600 yards is his accuracy criteria, AND, he remains absolutely set on an M1, THEN he ought to CHAMBER it in .308 (not .06).

PS, your criteria for what constitutes(ed) a "major change" is also amusing. Logically, this means you assume that GLASS BEDDING and UNITIZING HANDGUARDS etc. on an M1 (rendering it unsuitable for actual combat use in the process!), to be "MINOR" modifications, yet simply changing out a handguard (that is used NOW in some A4 RIS systems) in an AR/M16 is "major" change.. (funny stuff!)


Last edited by AKA Hugh Uno; November 28th, 2012 at 01:58 PM.
AKA Hugh Uno is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 03:33 PM   #42
Lifer
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 4,034

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA Hugh Uno View Post
Since a 77 grain SMK will STILL be going about 1100-1200 fps at 1000 yards, this translates to about 250 foot pounds of energy (IIRC more than a .38 special +P and close to .357 Magnum levels!). Hmm, I guess will this logic, you would say a .38+P at point blank range is "ineffective"! (sheesh)

BTW, 99% of people have never fired at anything beyond 100/200 yards and they would lucky to hit the right TARGET FRAME at 600 yards.

Where I used to shoot a good bit:
The 77SMK(bc.362) isn't all that great a performer @1000yds, the 80SMK(bc.420) is only marginaly better, the 90SMK(.504) gets the nod but, the .223 case capacity is small getting them running fast enough so that they don't run out of gas on the big end is the real problem without overpressures at the chamber near the shooter face, and the barrel needs a tight 6.5 twist for stability.

A 30.06 M1 shooting the 168 Berger Hybred(bc519) even at 2700fps is going too pass up the 90SMK down range and not get blown arround like a spitball cought in the wind. A 30.06 M1 with 185 Berger LRBT(bc569) at 2600fps is a easy no brainer too, both are high BC bullets that can be safly used in a M guns with out rifle issues.

I too have quite a bit of range time @ 1000 yds, and .223/5.56 Service rifle @1000yds is a poor choice and step backwards.

Thanks from arcticdog, Bamban, tonyben and 2 others
Phil McGrath is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 04:16 PM   #43
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Austin, TX, USA
Posts: 5,199
That it is.

An accurized M1 rifle is a satisfying shooting experience. A GOOD shooting as-issued one is more satisfying. Don't do anything else to that one but clean it, keep grease on it, and keep the gas plug tight. The 180 gr SMK Mexican Matched into the M72 round was a fine 800-900-1,000 yd load, too.

Thanks from arcticdog and nf1e@snet.net
bd111 is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 06:07 PM   #44
Lifer
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 4,034

Awards Showcase

Talking

Quote:
Originally Posted by bd111 View Post
That it is.

An accurized M1 rifle is a satisfying shooting experience. A GOOD shooting as-issued one is more satisfying. Don't do anything else to that one but clean it, keep grease on it, and keep the gas plug tight. The 180 gr SMK Mexican Matched into the M72 round was a fine 800-900-1,000 yd load, too.
Whoops, put the breaks on there Big Guy thats half true I wouldn't MM with the 180SMK today your better off using the 175SMK. When Sierra made there bullets in Whittier Ca. the 180gr SMK bc.505 had a bearing lenth of .400 a BT angle of 9*, doing the MM was ok with the GI 173gr bullet as the two bullets were so close in design, after there move too Sadila Mo. Sierra changed the 180SMK into what is now the 175SMK bc.496 bearing lenth .390 BT angle 9*.

So Sierra not wanting too have a bighole in there bullet line up needed a new 180SMK(bc496) to carry on with, the 180 SMK's bearing lenth was streched from .400 to .462 and the Bt angle changed from 9*, out to 12* also shared with the 168SMK, so the box may say 180SMK but there is a Old and a New 180SMK and the two bullets are not anywhere near related to each other the same.

Ever wonder why the old time guys bragged about how well the old 180SMK flew in Service Rifles, and how the New 180SMK falls short today? Now you know the why.

Thanks from Bamban and nf1e@snet.net
Phil McGrath is offline  
Old November 28th, 2012, 07:06 PM   #45
MGySgt USMC (ret)
 
Gus Fisher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Virginia
Posts: 7,067

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by AKA Hugh Uno View Post
uhh, most of the slightly of-topic "discussion" was about comparing OFF THE RACK/STOCK rifles. If you want to compare a stock M1 vs. a stock M14, fine, have at it. While you are at it, feel free to address the statement made that the STOCK M1 rifle was "the most accurate semi-auto platform in existence" "no doubt about it," etc.

But, with regard to MATCH RIFLES, the use of .308 rifles in the 60's resulted in the changing of the 600 yard TARGETS in 1966 and then at 1000 yards in 1971. Scores (including possibles) went up, too many ties for 1st place, tie-breakers, etc.

At 600 yards of less, the .308 EASILY has the accuracy advantage over 30.06 (assuming same/similar rifle/twist/bullet). At 1000 yards, you can debate things a bit, but then you have to factor in recoil, etc.

Finally, if this gentleman wants to cut and mod out an M1 to be some "Urban-Sniper" thingee, AND if 200-600 yards is his accuracy criteria, AND, he remains absolutely set on an M1, THEN he ought to CHAMBER it in .308 (not .06).

PS, your criteria for what constitutes(ed) a "major change" is also amusing. Logically, this means you assume that GLASS BEDDING and UNITIZING HANDGUARDS etc. on an M1 (rendering it unsuitable for actual combat use in the process!), to be "MINOR" modifications, yet simply changing out a handguard (that is used NOW in some A4 RIS systems) in an AR/M16 is "major" change.. (funny stuff!)
Wow, more myths and non fact/ supposed facts.

I was obviously not comparing STOCK rifles when comparing the NM M1 and NM M14 rifles as it was pretty clear I mentioned NM rifles when comparing the early NM M1 and M14 rifles because I wrote about NM barrels. STOCK rifles were not equipped with NM barrels except for Sniping rifles and they were not STOCK rifles.

The 5v target was changed to the 10 X because so many shooters were shooting "possible" scores, not because of the 7.62 mm cartridge. Yes, the 7.62mm did turn out to be more accurate out to 600 yards, BUT the NM M14 did not beat out the NM M1 for quite a few more years.

In 1969, Army Staff Sergeant Terry Daugherty won the National Trophy Individual Rifle Match with an M1 Rifle. (NM M14 rifles had been around for 7 years at that time.) Further that same trophy was won in 1971-74 and again in 1977 by NAVY shooters and they were shooting the M1 against all the Army and Marine Shooters who were using NM M14's.

http://www.odcmp.com/Competitions/NTIRifleHistory.pdf

Oh, I CLEARLY stated in the earlier post, the NM M14 did not begin to overtake the NM M1 UNTIL full heavy barrels began to be used in NM M14's. I was in the "NM game" for the Marine Corps as of 1973 and was first on THE Marine Corps Rifle Team as an Armorer in 1975. BTW, 1975 was the FIRST year a full heavy barrel was fully authorized in the M14 by the NBPRP JUST before we took off for the Nationals that year. The Army had been using them for a year or more and we kept challenging their use and finally FORCED the NBPRP to either allow/deny full heavy barrels, officially. Even so, a NAVY shooter beat all the Marines and Army shooters with NM M14's in the NTI match in 1977 with a Garand.

In 1975, the BEST NM M14 rifle with a NM "light barrel" we issued on THE Marine Corps only shot a 4 3/8" by 4 7/8" 10 round group at 300 yards and MOST rifles we issued shot at or over 5". This was FAR poorer than the NM M1's we had been issuing prior to when the Army and Marine Corps agreed to use the NM M14 as the "Service Rifle," only a few years earlier. We finally got official NBPRP authorization for and put the first 10 full heavy barrels on Marine Corps NM M14's right before we took off for Camp Perry that year and we added the first rear lugs on 5 of those 10 rifles because we had never used a rear lug before and were not sure how they would work. Don McCoy had been using the rear lugs on NM Navy Garands for some time before that and that's where we STOLE the idea of the rear lug.

Glass bedding was not a combat worthy development for STANDARD infantry rifles? I laugh at that because Springfield Arsenal began USING glass bedding to reinforce STANDARD Infantry Garand wood rifle stocks in the 60's, after it was proven on the NM scene that glass bedded stocks held up BETTER for recoil than plain wooden stocks. Glass bedding was also used on Infantry M14 wood stocks to repair worn bedding surfaces for the trigger housing and to repair other areas of the stocks like cracked front ends or cracks in the rear of the stocks - for as long as the standard M14 was issued and that was at least 1972 in the Marine Corps.

Glued handguards supposedly not combat worthy? Well, sorry, you have that wrong as well if you think that made them less combat worthy for that reason alone. The REASON glued handguards were never allowed for Infantry rifles was because (1) The handguards would not be able to be as easily replaced when cracked broken by lesser trained Armorers and (2) The sheer cost of doing it was not considered economically worthwhile. Oh, I'm not talking about taking the liner out of the Front Handguard on an M1 as that WOULD have caused lesser combat robustness. However, we learned how to glue the front handguards without taking the liners out. A glued front handguard MIGHT have more easily cracked when struck by a blow from an enemy's rifle in hand to hand fighting, though that would be hard to prove. However, a glued FHG would have kept a lot of standard handguards from cracking from recoil because glued handguards were fitted more carefully than standard FHG's. Of course, the fiberglass M14 handguard made all of that a moot point.

As to the emboldened section in your post above, I did somewhat adress it when I wrote the issue 5.56mm 55 grain bullets flew all over the place at 600 yards. Actually, they did not do a whole lot better at the 500. The 62 grain bullets that came out later FINALLY allowed the M16 to almost equal the 500 yard performance of the M1 or M14 in STOCK or Service Grade rifles. Of course, they did not allow anywhere NEAR the same performance at 1,000 yards. Also, the mid to long range performance of the M16A1 was also very much hindered by the really poor sights and by the very thin barrel. These things were addressed and somewhat improved in the M16A2 and that made the rifle more capable of accurate fire out to and including the 500 yard line with the 62grain issue bullet. I would VERY MUCH like to see the 75 grain 5.56mm bullet become the STANDARD bullet in our NATO ammunition. Actually, I was all for the change to 6.8 mm, but that got tanked due to the cost of changing over all the M16's on active service. Oh, and I already addressed the real reason the AR has taken over NM shooting was because of the allowance of free floated barrels. Until they change over to having free floated barrels and 75 grain bullets on ALL M16's, the M16 is still not as accurate at 500 yards as the M1 or M14.

Gus Fisher is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > Rifle Forum > M1 Garand Accuracy



Search tags for this page
4ftx4ft archery targets
,
burris 536
,
heritage foundation
,

how accurate should an m1 garand be with 2.5 scope at 100 yards

,
joko@snet.net
,
leisinger garand modification
,
m1 garand cantlever scope mount
,
m1 scoped accuracy
,
sand sock
,
what accuracy to expect with scoped garand
,
you tube s&k scope mount for garand
,
zeroing m1 garand 30-06 with b square mount
Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
***Carlos Hathcock USMC Sniper Scope louie Optics 6 August 22nd, 2012 07:33 AM
mounted a leatherwood scout scope... cynergyou Modern M14 1 August 6th, 2012 06:12 PM
Why do I need an expensive scope??? DefendTheConstitution Optics 37 December 3rd, 2010 03:48 PM
First time mounting a scope with the ARMS #18 mount/#22 rings WarEagle Optics 8 July 23rd, 2009 05:02 PM
Super Sniper (?) scope help! coyotewillie The M14 14 October 5th, 2005 08:06 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List