M14 Forum banner

41 - 60 of 85 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,830 Posts
As far as durability, I would be perfectly fine with any of my M1 Garands or my LRB M14's....and this is not on the list, but my one good ol' 1903A3 would be worthy as well, I can work that bolt and fire pretty fast!GI6Oh, and hit the target too!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts
IMO this is an apples to oranges discussion. You're taking 1930's technology (albeit damn good technology) and putting it up against mid 1950's technology. Most would go with the newer technology, as would I. To put this in another perspective, it's like asking car aficionados if they would rather drive cross-country in a 1936 Chevy or a 1955 Chevy. MOST would pick the '55 Chevy, due to the improvements made over the previous 19 years to the ride, power, handling, and performance. Some nostalgic or die-hards would still pick the '36 Chevy for their own personal reasons but given the two choices, going wither newer technology is almost always the way to go. There are always wild cards to anything though, technology included. Interesting thread nonetheless!

OK, but the M14 to Garand is not apples to oranges. Its more like .. Fuji apples to Red delicious, or something. The point it, the M14 and the Garand are certainly related. Arguably, the M14 is not '50s technology, it is updated 30's technology. So does this mean we'd all be better off just getting .308 FN SCARs? Heck, the price difference isn't even that great if you're talking about a more expensive M1A build.

On top of that, but the M1A is not even updated 30's technology. It is a later period reproduction of a gun made in the 50's, that was an updated version of the M1.

So, the question is.. do we want a modern made, mass produced (SAI) rifle that is not metallurgically as durable as the M1, which can be had much cheaper, but worn. Or do we bite the bullet, spend more money and get an LRB M14. But if we're going to do that, then again why not that SCAR (it being so fancy and modern and such?).

Me? I researched and considered several rifles before I bought my SAI. I read manuals and articles on the FAL, Dragunov and RPK rifles, the M1A/M14, AR10, .. you name it. I resisted the M1A for awhile because I thought for $1500 I could do better.. but at the end of the day, I realized that the only rifle that fit all my criteria - both "must have" and "would be nice" - was some sort of M14 clone, and the price difference over a something like a DSA FAL or AR10 was nothing. I thought about waiting and trying to find a nice early model SAI with some, or mostly USGI parts.

But then, you know.. I have no battle rifle GI4 .. so I decided to pick up a new model Loaded and SOCOM16, shoot the crap out of them and make sure I like the platform in my hands as much as I liked it on paper. I like it more so!

I've been slowing replacing parts in my guns with USGI stuff and keeping the SAI parts as spares. Sooner or later I'm sure I'll end up buying an LRB receiver, putting all the USGI stuff in there, and putting the SAI parts all back together. Thats part of the illness..

But, to bring this thread a bit more back around to the original topic.. the USGI parts replacement is relatively low on my to-do list when it comes to apocalyptic readiness. I'm more focused on getting a decent store of food and ammo together. And I've been researching gas mask technology. I'm not too concerned about tear gas myself. I've been exposed to it, and while not pleasant, it didn't kill me. My wife is asthmatic. My understanding is certain types of tear gas can choke her right out. So, I need to get those.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
OK, but the M14 to Garand is not apples to oranges. Its more like .. Fuji apples to Red delicious, or something. The point it, the M14 and the Garand are certainly related. Arguably, the M14 is not '50s technology, it is updated 30's technology. So does this mean we'd all be better off just getting .308 FN SCARs? Heck, the price difference isn't even that great if you're talking about a more expensive M1A build.

On top of that, but the M1A is not even updated 30's technology. It is a later period reproduction of a gun made in the 50's, that was an updated version of the M1.

So, the question is.. do we want a modern made, mass produced (SAI) rifle that is not metallurgically as durable as the M1, which can be had much cheaper, but worn. Or do we bite the bullet, spend more money and get an LRB M14. But if we're going to do that, then again why not that SCAR (it being so fancy and modern and such?).

Me? I researched and considered several rifles before I bought my SAI. I read manuals and articles on the FAL, Dragunov and RPK rifles, the M1A/M14, AR10, .. you name it. I resisted the M1A for awhile because I thought for $1500 I could do better.. but at the end of the day, I realized that the only rifle that fit all my criteria - both "must have" and "would be nice" - was some sort of M14 clone, and the price difference over a something like a DSA FAL or AR10 was nothing. I thought about waiting and trying to find a nice early model SAI with some, or mostly USGI parts.

But then, you know.. I have no battle rifle GI4 .. so I decided to pick up a new model Loaded and SOCOM16, shoot the crap out of them and make sure I like the platform in my hands as much as I liked it on paper. I like it more so!

I've been slowing replacing parts in my guns with USGI stuff and keeping the SAI parts as spares. Sooner or later I'm sure I'll end up buying an LRB receiver, putting all the USGI stuff in there, and putting the SAI parts all back together. Thats part of the illness..

But, to bring this thread a bit more back around to the original topic.. the USGI parts replacement is relatively low on my to-do list when it comes to apocalyptic readiness. I'm more focused on getting a decent store of food and ammo together. And I've been researching gas mask technology. I'm not too concerned about tear gas myself. I've been exposed to it, and while not pleasant, it didn't kill me. My wife is asthmatic. My understanding is certain types of tear gas can choke her right out. So, I need to get those.
In my opinion the M1 and M14 are timeless firearms, like the pump shotgun and 1911. Old designs, but not obsolete.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
127 Posts
One other advantage of the M14 is as long as you keep your last magazine you can reload it with stripper clips which are quite disposable.
Of course there is also the Beretta BM-59, forged receiver, some part interchangeability with the M1, and .308 chambering.
 

·
Rest in Peace
Joined
·
17,536 Posts
The 7.62 gives you an advantage in distance of shots as well as knock down power. A CMP M1 converted into 7.62 you will have much less money into then a M1A. Also consider about $25 for a M1A magazine whereas I bought bulk M1 enblocs for $1 each. A small magnet on a string will help you find either mags or enblocks.

Either will do the job if you practice.

JMO,
HH
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
708 Posts
M-14. Reliability, steel, (no plastic or aluminum) and goes bang every time. Plus ammo is available both off the shelf and surplus.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
87 Posts
If I understood right then to play in your scenerio and as you stated the point is to take our country back. so in order to do that we need to increase our numbers, then i would take someone that has no guns and give him my M1 and i would take my M21 to the hillsGI7
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
71 Posts


Class dismissed. DI5

I really can't contribute more than what has been aptly said by others. I qualified with the M1 and later the M14. My bias trumps reason.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
116 Posts
I own 3 x M14s and 8 x M1 Garands and love them equally! I believe both will experience a similar failure rate in an austere combat environment. The failure rate is an important factor to consider but I think the question that should be asked is: "Which rifle has a greater rate of fire?

The M1 Garand has a sustain rate of fire of 30 rounds per minute. A M14 semi automatic has a estimated rate of fire of 104 rounds per minute. The opposing Comunist conventional force that will be used to subdue you will be armed with AK 47s (all automatic variants) with a rate of fire in excess of 700 rds per minute.

If I am limited to the two choices, M14 or M1 Garand, I will opt for the rifle with a greater rate of fire and in this case it is the M14 semi-auto...preferbaly engaging targets at 700-1000 meters, but this can be debated in another thread.

Keep defending our great Nation through positive political discourse and voting for politicians who support the NRA!

Dragoon 15
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,363 Posts
Garands are nice, don't get me wrong...But the ability to reload or top off is severly limited. Good stuff in 1940, and servicable now, but outclassed by the M14, IMO.

My choice would be neither, however. Both WAY too big and heavy to haul around, and heavy to feed, both rather unwieldy in an urban sit, again my opinion. I'll stick with my M4...RNGR2
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,166 Posts
I choose the M14 for the improved gas system and the ability to more easily reload mid-magazine. All else is equal as far as I'm concerned. Sight radius is nearly the same, slight advantage to the M1.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
569 Posts
I slightly prefer a Garand. The Service Grade Special, is a rifle in test-fired condition, 99% plus finish, with a new walnut stock--for $895. I keep several cans of ammo, all clipped in spam cans. No need for $25. magazines. Both are great rifles IMO.

Charlie
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
112 Posts
I think as a number of people pointed out, the engagement distance plays a big part. If you are having rifle duels at 500 yards--it doesn't matter, M1 or M14.

If you are engaging at 25-50 meters, which is where 98% of urban fighting takes place, having 8 rounds, a slow as hell reload, etc, is going to get you killed. The Garand kicked ass against 8mm bolt action mausers. That is what Patton was referring to.

By 1944, the Germans had figured out that the best weapon for urban fighting was a mid powered cartridge, a 30 round detachable magazine. Sound familar? StG44 which (for all pratical purposes) becomes the AK-47. Thank God Hitler was stuck in 1915, and thought it was more important that a rifle be good at 500 or 1000 meters than at 100 meters. Which is where most small arms killing takes place.

You really want to clear a house--or even a city block--with an M1 or M14? Penetration is a huge bonus, but they are long, heavy, shot to shot time is slow. You want the shortest lightest rifle you can carry, with as much ammo as you can squeeze in your magazines.

The M14 survives today as a rifleman's rifle. As a scoped, medium to long range engagement rifle. And that is where it truly shines. Under 100 meters I'll take an AK or M4 any day of the week. Under 200 meters, even.

Most of the snipers I knew who did serious killing in Iraq had a preference that may surprise some people--the 5.56 SPR. 18" barrel loaded with 77 grain SMKs. Not much good over 700 yards, but they all said that even at 600 yards it fragmented and made nice holes in people. More importantly, if things went bad, it would take care of business at 10 yards as well. They ran 20 round mags for shooting low off a bipod, and when SHTF, they switched to the 30 rounders in their vests.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
507 Posts
I don't believe in the SHTF scenarios.
BUT... I would grab my M1a. It is a very good all purpose rifle. With a great history.
As mentioned it's easier to mount stuff to.
The only thing I need to do is put the sling back on.
IMHO The Garand converted to 308 tends to be problematic.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
362 Posts


Class dismissed. DI5

I really can't contribute more than what has been aptly said by others. I qualified with the M1 and later the M14. My bias trumps reason.
:) But with respect to ole Blood and Guts, he didn't live to see the M14, nor did he face the AK47.

I love the Garand, I have one - and I intend to get at least one more that will get modified. As a collector of firearms, one of my goals is to have a complete John Garand family.. I want examples of the many variations on Garand's design.

If my opponents are armed with manual action guns (bolt, or lever action) I would be happy to grab my Garand. But faced against opponents armed with semi-auto ARs and AKs, the risk of them closing on me and having a massive advantage is too great. In comparison to the Garand, the power of the AR is laughable, and the accuracy of the AK is non-existent. But inside 100 yds? The power of the AR is enough to get it done. The worst AK I've ever seen shot 8" at 100 yds. Thats still enough to group on a human torso.

I can not think of a single advantage that the M1 has over the AR/AK that the M1A/M14 does not also have. And the 20rds of 308 and removable mag make up a great deal of the capacity difference. The 308 provides a power/penetration/distance advantage over the assault rifle calibers, and doesn't give up much in the capacity area. Thats why I chose an M1A as my battle rifle.. it provides real advantages over the two most likely weapons of my attackers.

If I knew my attackers where going to have Garands? I lose the power advantage, but I still grab the M1A knowing that I have the capacity/ROF advantage.

Heck, John Garand himself experimented with removable mags on the M1. That because they were NEEDED.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,628 Posts
:) But with respect to ole Blood and Guts, he didn't live to see the M14, nor did he face the AK47.

I love the Garand, I have one - and I intend to get at least one more that will get modified. As a collector of firearms, one of my goals is to have a complete John Garand family.. I want examples of the many variations on Garand's design.

If my opponents are armed with manual action guns (bolt, or lever action) I would be happy to grab my Garand. But faced against opponents armed with semi-auto ARs and AKs, the risk of them closing on me and having a massive advantage is too great. In comparison to the Garand, the power of the AR is laughable, and the accuracy of the AK is non-existent. But inside 100 yds? The power of the AR is enough to get it done. The worst AK I've ever seen shot 8" at 100 yds. Thats still enough to group on a human torso.

I can not think of a single advantage that the M1 has over the AR/AK that the M1A/M14 does not also have. And the 20rds of 308 and removable mag make up a great deal of the capacity difference. The 308 provides a power/penetration/distance advantage over the assault rifle calibers, and doesn't give up much in the capacity area. Thats why I chose an M1A as my battle rifle.. it provides real advantages over the two most likely weapons of my attackers.

If I knew my attackers where going to have Garands? I lose the power advantage, but I still grab the M1A knowing that I have the capacity/ROF advantage.

Heck, John Garand himself experimented with removable mags on the M1. That because they were NEEDED.
Losing the power advantage? The 308/7.62NATO packs the same punch in a slightly smaller case. That is why it was adopted.
308/7.62 NATO with a 147 gr bullet at 2800 fps(MV), vs 152 gr bullet at 2805 fps(MV). Pretty much equal. However, since the 7.62's bullet is a boat tail as opposed to the -06's flat base, down range the 308 actually gains and surpases the -06. We are speaking of Military loads here.
30-06 does not become really come into its own until the heaver bullets are used, but the Garand is somewhat limited to not more than 172 - 175 gr. Even so, the 308/7.62 comes very close. I really doubt that any thing you hit with a 308 or 30-06 will notice the roughly 100 fps difference.
There isn't enough power difference between the two rounds to speak of.

While I love my Garands, I will probably reach for the M14 type rifle. My eyes I think will prefer the scope that I can put on it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
84 Posts
I don't believe in the SHTF scenarios.
BUT... I would grab my M1a. It is a very good all purpose rifle. With a great history.
As mentioned it's easier to mount stuff to.
The only thing I need to do is put the sling back on.
IMHO The Garand converted to 308 tends to be problematic.
Well if you have mexican drug trafficers enter your ranch it would qualify as SHTF. This is happening periodically on our border as we speak.

For this: M14 scoped (QD mount) and bipod for long range engagement while vehicles and personnel approach. Then remove the scope and bipid; you can flex the M14 to the close battle with 20rd mags.

Difficult to get this flexibility out of the M1.

If you need a long range hunting weapon M14 is just better rifle with a scope.

And when drug induced Zombies come for your flesh after a major crisis; M14 has superior firepower.

If your drafted into a makeshift militia when the government is in dissaray; M14 fires more common round, and your compatible with law enforcement and military.
But Walmart will supply both M1 and M14
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
158 Posts
In my humble opinion the biggest advantage the M14 has over the M1 in this situation is the ability to put a scope on it without a huge fuss. The enemy will not likely know the difference.
 
41 - 60 of 85 Posts
Top