M1 Garand vs the M1A/M14 - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


M1 Garand vs the M1A/M14

This is a discussion on M1 Garand vs the M1A/M14 within the The M14 forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; Here is good comparison, a short ladder done on the same day, same POA different POI. Guess which one shot tighter. I end up with ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

25Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 18th, 2017, 05:55 PM   #16
Lifer
 
Bamban's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Austin, TX
Posts: 4,901

Awards Showcase

Here is good comparison, a short ladder done on the same day, same POA different POI. Guess which one shot tighter. I end up with 47.5 with the M1 and 47.9 with the 14. I was using 0.4 incrememt when the 14 showed 47.7 and 48.1 close to each other I loaded 47.9 and it landed next to the other 2.

Shooting all done at 200 on the bench with irons.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 20140227_162841.jpg (1.14 MB, 38 views)
File Type: jpg 20140227_162851.jpg (1.02 MB, 33 views)

Bamban is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 18th, 2017, 06:46 PM   #17
Lifer
 
Jersey Devil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: United States
Posts: 3,351
A quick sidenote regarding the op rods.......both rifles should have properly aligned op rods to improve overall accuracy, of course, but getting a properly aligned op rod in an M1 is a bit trickier than doing the same in an M14. Why?? Because the M1 has a bend in the rod, of course, and thus is a bit harder to align just right.....especially because different rods have ever-so-slightly different bend angles.

That said, I'll take a TRULY properly tuned M1 chambered in 7.62mm NATO please!

Jersey Devil is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 08:35 AM   #18
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,636

Awards Showcase

Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
This is a highly subjective topic, and personally I think bedding is most important, esp with an M1. Your average "rack grade" M1 Garand likely has slightly worn or "D" shaped trigger guard lugs, so the stock-to-receiver lock-up is generally an issue that adversely impacts accuracy. M14s don't suffer from this issue.

From a broader perspective, I think the historical record is pretty clear about the intrinsic accuracy difference b/t the M1 and M14 based on the different cartridges..

(excerpt)


...I have no reason to doubt the information in that article, and hence the accuracy edge goes to the M14.

One anecdote that supports this article, back in the late 1960s the Air Force M1 shooters at Camp Perry were using 30-06 match M1s, and getting thoroughly beaten by the Navy M1s that were chambered in 7.62 NATO, so the Air Force subsequently re-barreled a lot of their match M1s in 30-06 into the newer 7.62 between 1970-1972 or so (barrels were either SA barrels made in 1965-66, or RIA made in 1969 and a few in 1970).

In fact, according to Jim Adell (Navy retired, and a former Navy M1 rifle team shooter), the famous Navy M1 match builder, Don McCoy, was ordered to provide the Air Force with a bunch of "his" SA 7.62mm Navy match barrels that were air-gauged and found to be of match quality. He apparently was not happy about that...but the Air Force wanted to move to 7.62 for the match rifles, and so they got those Navy barrels. Their was plenty of M72 match 30-06 and M118 match 7.62x51mm ammo during that time, and thus the ammo was more or less equal and available, but clearly the Air Force was motivated to switch calibers on their match M1s during the transitional period that is discussed in that article (circa mid to late 1960s).

Moreover, Rock Island Arsenal was also tasked with making a batch of 7.62mm barrels for the Air Force premium grade match rifles in 1969 and 1970, presumably to replace their match 30-06 barrels as they wore out. These RIA barrels in Air Force match M1s are stamped as being chambered for the "M118" round. I guess the Air Force agreed with what Mr. Bobbitt stated regarding 30-06 vs. 308W accuracy in match-prepped M1s...and they were apparently tired of the Navy shooters beating them at Camp Perry.

Bottomline: The 7.62 NATO/308W is a more efficient cartridge, and consistently showed better accuracy with top competitive shooters 40+ years ago in more or less equally prepared match M1 Garands utilizing more or less equal quality match ammo. Personally speaking, I like both platforms, but I think the historic information in that article shows that the M14 is more accurate by virtue of its more efficient 308W/7.62x51mm round.
With all do respect too the Good Cdr. Adell I doubt Chief McCoy was ordered too hand over rifles too the USAF there is a strict protocol that needs too be followed. A few things come too mind Don was already retired USN and was a Civil Service Employee but being a pre-war sailor young Officers suggest to the Chief, but Chiefs will still do what they do without much fallout after all they really do run the Navy.

The USAF and the Navy traded parts, as parts are consumable when there worn out they get replaced, on a as needed basis. Not all Service Rifle Teams had the same budget allocation and sometimes parts were unabtainium. This is how the trade and barter system works. I have something you want and you have something I need. With the Navy kicking rear ends and SA closing in 68 that's how the USAF got there grubs on a few Navy barrels. When RIA set up SA's machinery then the USAF got new tubes, as they were now the new parts comptroller for everyone.

As for the RIA barrel having the M118 that has nothing too do with the then NM ammo, its nothing more the barrel steel heat lot number that RIA used. In fact every USGI M1/M14 barrel has a steel heat lot number, check it out I bet yours does too....

Now a few small reasons why the M1 in 7.62, is the better Target rifle. The sight radius is longer because the barrel is longer. That longer barrel also really helps keep the bullets velocity up so the bullet jams the wind better and cuts down on the flight time too target. Some are under the impression this doesn't matter a click here a click there it does matter and it all adds up in the end when you miss a slight let off.

The M14's gas port location is 13.297in in the barrel and 21.805 for the M1 no matter how you slice it that's a 8.5in difference in gas port location, the M1 is always going too shoot the same ammo faster without added pressure at the chamber due too the added barrel length but it also going too feel softer doing it at the same time. This softness of recoil also aids the shooter in the long run as there not so tired. Advantage M1.

FWIW, Gus Fisher said this a long time ago, it wasn't until Mac stocks, heavy barrels and double lugs came along that the M14NM met the Navy's M1 in 7.62 on equal terms, then it boiled down too the who's, who and what shooter was on what rifle.

My .02

Phil McGrath is offline  
 
Old May 19th, 2017, 10:10 AM   #19
Grunt
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Location: corte madera,ca
Posts: 83

Awards Showcase

It's not likely that any one in this discussion shooting in a leg match could shoot the difference anyway.

Thanks from Roadkingtrax
1911a1 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 10:45 AM   #20
Automatic Rifleman
 
Random Guy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: No. VA
Posts: 127
Quote:
With all do respect too the Good Cdr. Adell I doubt Chief McCoy was ordered too hand over rifles too the USAF there is a strict protocol that needs too be followed. A few things come too mind Don was already retired USN and was a Civil Service Employee but being a pre-war sailor young Officers suggest to the Chief, but Chiefs will still do what they do without much fallout after all they really do run the Navy.
I have to defer to Jim Adell as he told me the story years ago. They didn't swap rifles, but somehow the Air Force talked the Navy out of a few dozen SA 7.62x51mm barrels that Don McCoy had set aside for Navy match rifles, but was according to Jim, "ordered" to give them to the AF guys. He mentioned these barrels had already been air-gauged for straightness and thus they were reserved for Navy Grade A and Grade B team rifles, hence McCoy's reluctance to hand-over/barter those barrels...at least that is what I was told.

Quote:
As for the RIA barrel having the M118 that has nothing too do with the then NM ammo, its nothing more the barrel steel heat lot number that RIA used. In fact every USGI M1/M14 barrel has a steel heat lot number, check it out I bet yours does too..
Phil, I respectfully disagree with you on that topic. The "M118" is found on all 1969 and 1970 RIA match barrels made for the AF, and I'm about 99% confident it has to do with the chamber reaming done for the AFPG rifles. Long story short, but typical Navy Mk 2/Mod 1 barrels headspace around 1.637-1.638" (SA barrels dated 1965-1966). (This is also the same size chamber found on USGI M14 barrels - its largeish). I have two Navy Grade B match rifles, with the same SA barrels, but they were chamber reamed to 1.630 and 1.631". Its a much tighter chamber that typical 7.62x51mm NATO chamber.

FWIW, the two top two M1s are CMP sold Mk 2/Mod 1 Navy Garands, the bottom rifle in the glass bedded birch stock is one of my two Navy Grade B match Garands.


It it my understanding that Rock Island Arsenal only made a couple of hundred match barrels for the AF team rifles, and they too were reamed to tighter/match chambers, hence the M118 designation. I haven't gauged one personally, but I would guess they are in the 1.631" range, just like the Navy Grade B match barrels. (A local collector has an AFPG with a 1969 RIA barrel, maybe one day he''ll sell it to me and I can confirm my understanding....;-)

FWIW, Bill Ricca did a good analysis on the RIA barrels for the GCA about 6 or 8 years ago, but I don't have that article handy, but please see the chart - typically the steel heat lot number is to the left of the part number, whereas the RIA barrels are always marked "month" "year" & "M118" is to the right of the barrel. At least for the 4 or 5 that I have seen on the CMP auction site, etc.

http://www.billricca.com/7.62mm_barrels.htm

Their are pro and cons to both the M1 and M14 platforms, but I still say the historical record is pretty clear from 40 years ago, the M14 has an advantage over the M1 via the 7.62 NATO cartridge fired, all other things being equal....

Thanks from XM25Ren

Last edited by Random Guy; May 19th, 2017 at 02:43 PM.
Random Guy is online now  
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:00 AM   #21
Old Salt
 
Roadkingtrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Covfefe-stan
Posts: 1,039
I can't believe this is even a discussion anymore.

M1's still going to P100 in the last couple years. Not because the rifle is more accurate than an M1A...but because the shooter put it there.

Roadkingtrax is online now  
Old May 19th, 2017, 11:56 AM   #22
Old Salt
 
Douglas Haig's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: Southeast
Posts: 1,945
Quote:
Originally Posted by Instructor View Post
As for "holding qualities" have been told that the Garand is easier to shoot off hand than the M14 and with my limited experience versus others I did seem to shoot better off hand with it than the 14, seemed more natural to me if that makes sense.
It would seem so, your support hand would be on the weapon, using an m1a your support hand would be bottom of magazine which could introduce some side to side wobble.

Douglas Haig is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 12:28 PM   #23
Fire Team Leader
 
gunny8940's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: PA
Posts: 222
Navy Garands

Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
In order for this too be a legit top of the food chain "Battle Royal", the M1 should be chambered in 7.62 not the 30.06 that is the norm...

Do we agree?
Yes.

The Navy Garands chambered in 7.62X51 are very accurate. I have two and they group well.

They are designated: U.S. Navy MK2 MOD 0 and MK2 MOD 1

The MOD 0 has a chamber insert to convert 30.06 to .308. FWIW these inserts some times were ejected with the spent round. The next round of .308 jammed in the chamber.

The MOD 1 has a .308 chamber.

The MOD 0 usually has a WWII barrel.
The MOD 1 has a 7.62X51 barrel

Gunny

gunny8940 is offline  
Old May 19th, 2017, 07:34 PM   #24
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,636

Awards Showcase

Quote:
Originally Posted by Random Guy View Post
I have to defer to Jim Adell as he told me the story years ago. They didn't swap rifles, but somehow the Air Force talked the Navy out of a few dozen SA 7.62x51mm barrels that Don McCoy had set aside for Navy match rifles, but was according to Jim, "ordered" to give them to the AF guys. He mentioned these barrels had already been air-gauged for straightness and thus they were reserved for Navy Grade A and Grade B team rifles, hence McCoy's reluctance to hand-over/barter those barrels...at least that is what I was told.



Phil, I respectfully disagree with you on that topic. The "M118" is found on all 1969 and 1970 RIA match barrels made for the AF, and I'm about 99% confident it has to do with the chamber reaming done for the AFPG rifles. Long story short, but typical Navy Mk 2/Mod 1 barrels headspace around 1.637-1.638" (SA barrels dated 1965-1966). (This is also the same size chamber found on USGI M14 barrels - its largeish). I have two Navy Grade B match rifles, with the same SA barrels, but they were chamber reamed to 1.630 and 1.631". Its a much tighter chamber that typical 7.62x51mm NATO chamber.

FWIW, the two top two M1s are CMP sold Mk 2/Mod 1 Navy Garands, the bottom rifle in the glass bedded birch stock is one of my two Navy Grade B match Garands.


It it my understanding that Rock Island Arsenal only made a couple of hundred match barrels for the AF team rifles, and they too were reamed to tighter/match chambers, hence the M118 designation. I haven't gauged one personally, but I would guess they are in the 1.631" range, just like the Navy Grade B match barrels. (A local collector has an AFPG with a 1969 RIA barrel, maybe one day he''ll sell it to me and I can confirm my understanding....;-)

FWIW, Bill Ricca did a good analysis on the RIA barrels for the GCA about 6 or 8 years ago, but I don't have that article handy, but please see the chart - typically the steel heat lot number is to the left of the part number, whereas the RIA barrels are always marked "month" "year" & "M118" is to the right of the barrel. At least for the 4 or 5 that I have seen on the CMP auction site, etc.

http://www.billricca.com/7.62mm_barrels.htm

Their are pro and cons to both the M1 and M14 platforms, but I still say the historical record is pretty clear from 40 years ago, the M14 has an advantage over the M1 via the 7.62 NATO cartridge fired, all other things being equal....
Ahhh, there is a difference between trading whole rifles like you said, then trading off barrels and I can see where Don would be a little ticked off about trading barrels that had been graded as prime tubes. But sometimes you have too pinch your nose and take your medicine, too get what you want in the long run.

RIA made there 7.62mm M1 barrel for one month 6/69 and there legend reads the same as any USGI barrel. Maker= RIA, Drawing # 11686320 SPL, Month and Year made= 6/69, Steel lot number= M118. I have not seen another RIA barrel made and I was at the CMP's release of the Navy/USAF rifles at the Western Games 2008 and I've seen plenty of both Navy Mk2's and AFPG 30.06 and 7.62mm side by side. The different Drawing number is a revision in the Gas Port, the RIA barrel uses a .0995 G/P and the Navy used a .1065 G/P.

The Navy's SA 65 dated barrels used were too replace sleeved 30.06 barrels and were done by H&R/AMF. The Navy's 3/66 dated barrel were sent too the SAMCU and were used for Team rifles, thus the 3/66 barrel is lacking the H&R/AMF stamping. What barrels were later traded too the USAF will have a small AFPG between the gas cylinder rings.

Phil McGrath is offline  
Old May 20th, 2017, 04:51 AM   #25
Automatic Rifleman
 
Join Date: Apr 2017
Location: Houston Texas Area
Posts: 161
Quote:
Originally Posted by art luppino View Post
Wanted to kick this subject off for the Weekand, "Which of the two rifles are the most accurate".. It is a subjective question, but there is objective evidence to support choosing the Garand. That statement gives away my poition..

Added material to assist replys: Standard M1 vs Standard M1A/M14.
I call the standard models Rack Grade Rifles sometimes..

To narrow down this subject please stick with the Match conditioned models. Also, being a Match rifle implies the barrel is of Match quality.

Getting it started:

1. The single most important feature in M1 accuracy is a properly aligned opt rod..
Where does any of the sniper prepared models fit in this discussion, wether in wood or a chassis?

ManxumFoe is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > The M14

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For Sale: M1A/M14 Lots Of Parts And Tools DennisHostetler PX 28 July 8th, 2012 06:51 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List