JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
Messages
5,298
Reactions
10,217
This afternoon, I was out shooting one of my M1A's. I had the same nagging thought about that flash suppressor. It's way out there. My feeling for some time has been that this is an appendage that is in hazard's way. And once dislodged, you've also lost your front sight which is attached to it.

I don't like the bayonet attachment on either the M1 Garand or the M14 design. On the M1 Garand, the ball stud that fits into the gas cylinder plug isn't as sturdy as a ring that encircles the barrel. And being locked onto the gas cylinder, this entire arrangement isn't nearly as sturdy as, say, an '03 Springfield. The M14 design bayonet mount isn't very sturdy because it attaches to the flash suppressor only, which I've already opined was a relatively fragile design.

Also, there is the matter of the (again) relatively long forward end of the M14 barrel. Barrel steel isn't all that hard; service barrels aren't all that thick. Knowing what I do about how soldiers abuse equipment, it isn't too difficult to imagine one of these barrels getting bent from prying, horsing around with a bayonet fixed, etc.

Then there is the ammo feed design of both rifles. Some people have complained that the 8 round en bloc design has its limitations. No argument, the M1 Garand was an early yet successful entry as a fielded army semi automatic rifle. So the detachable magazine on the M14 design was supposed to be an improvement. In some ways, yes. But the magazine in the M14 needs to be angled in such a position in the well in order for it to lock in. Sometimes they need a little fussing to get it locked.

I suppose we can assume that in the all-volunteer army, soldiers in the main tend to be gun-wise. That wasn't the case in the days of the M14. I can imagine panicked rookie soldiers trying and having difficulty with changing mags in the M14 in combat.

My own US Army experience started with the M14 rifle. I used it in training and it was the rifle issued to me at my first permanent duty station. These were taken away and replaced with the M16 design circa April or May 1970. In Vietnam, I had the M16 design. I have no army experience with the M1 Garand but I own some and have acquired some experience with that design.

The original M14 flash suppressor that I complain about makes the rifle, in my opinion, abnormally long and therefore a bit unwieldy in some situations. However, I notice now that aftermarket suppressors are available that are some shorter. No, I'm not going for the so-called SOCOM design.
 
I don't like the bayonet attachment on either the M1 Garand or the M14 design. On the M1 Garand, the ball stud that fits into the gas cylinder plug isn't as sturdy as a ring that encircles the barrel
post-4884-1230984416.jpg
Standard M1 bayonet that encircles the barrel.
4a4408ca3d0017280001ba7df697cd35--m-garand-rifles.jpg
Crappy type KM5A M1 bayonet fits into gas plug
The M14 is a superior rifle to the M1 because of it's gas system design. Piston and op rod
are 2 pieces in the M14. Weaknesses of the Garand is it's one piece op rod / gas piston
is prone to damage.:confused: Rotating the M14 magazine into place I never thought was an issue?
If you are use to the M16 mag change it may seem strange to rotate magazine into place.
M14 is a little easier to modify to NM specs. getting it to shoot sub MOA than a M1.;)
 
Also, there is the matter of the (again) relatively long forward end of the M14 barrel. Barrel steel isn't all that hard; service barrels aren't all that thick. Knowing what I do about how soldiers abuse equipment, it isn't too difficult to imagine one of these barrels getting bent from prying, horsing around with a bayonet fixed, etc.
Service barrels are thinner to save on weight. Lugging around a full sized rifle with a bull barrel is detrimental to patrols and long hikes. Example: My FAL has a thin barrel but is still 13 pounds with optic on it. If it had a thicker barrel, it would be even heavier.
So the detachable magazine on the M14 design was supposed to be an improvement. In some ways, yes. But the magazine in the M14 needs to be angled in such a position in the well in order for it to lock in. Sometimes they need a little fussing to get it locked.
Lock in magazines are more robust than straight insert magazines. It isn't great ergonomically, but great for durability.
 
Service barrels are thinner to save on weight. Lugging around a full sized rifle with a bull barrel is detrimental to patrols and long hikes. Example: My FAL has a thin barrel but is still 13 pounds with optic on it. If it had a thicker barrel, it would be even heavier.

Lock in magazines are more robust than straight insert magazines. It isn't great ergonomically, but great for durability.
Yeah both my fals - a 16" carbine and my rifle are heavy. I certainly would not choose one to hunt game with one over a standard bolt rifle. But my m1a is not light either
 
GMERKT - I was ready to send you a sympathy card when I read that you had been out shooting one of your M1A's! I am so sorry that you have to go through that, my friend. Really - heartfelt sympathy here, I know how bad it can be, so I'll just answer your question too... :-0

MY ANSWER - If you absolutely must choose between the M1 Garand and the M1A/M14 - choose neither, and run fast... You are choosing from a horrible selection of POOR CANDIDATES - this platform, and it's related models, is the real definition of an outdated, outclassed, over-hyped and over-mythologized hunk of junk compared to the many far-superior contemporary designs and product offerings in the same calibers... (here we go... I bet that'll get the juices flowin' and the lips flappin'...)

Now - that said, let me say this - When I got started, I was lucky enough to know a few good and experienced people... I am still a proud owner of multiple M1 Garands and M1A/M14 Civvies. My collection currently includes 2 Springfield models: a beautiful Custom NM; and a SOCOM16 running in a Sage EBR Stock, and I still retain 2 hi-end competition receiver-based builds - a Forged LRB w/Lug; and a Barstock SEI - both builds are planted in JAE Stocks and I've got over $3.75k into each of these custom rifles (without optics). My surplus Garands consist of some of the best hand-picked stuff available from the store at Camp Perry (circa 20+ years ago, and excellent specimens - even for then); and also a beautiful Lend-Lease ship-back in spotless and nearly unfired condition (the red paint stripe is a bit worn off, though).

I'm a life member of ORPA, and I started my competitive shooting experience in High-Power rifle at Camp Perry (way back when Barb Smith was running it), and thus was immediately bitten by the bug. One of my first experiences was getting to watch a Military Team's exhibition shooting fist sized groups at 1k - with their accurized match grade M14's and no optics! I was just blown away watching them, and had to learn how to do that.

Over the following 8-10 years, I wrestled with the M14 platform, spending countless dollars trying to find a way to keep my gun working properly, accurately, and consistent over various shooting conditions (NONE of which would I consider "Battlefield") at various matches and traveling to and from. (... If you've ever pulled 3rd or 4th relay and had to hump your gear into those god-forsaken pits at Camp Perry in 20 degree weather, you know what I mean :) But if you were a hi-power shooter back then, no matter where you came from, you always ended-up at Camp Perry sooner or later and got to shoot some really challenging wind calls (or did so back then, I'm out of that for too long now to know).

So, back then, I too was easily suckered into the myth that the M14 platform was a superior design and other such hogwash, and I wasted too much money and too many hours trying to realize that performance with consistency.

The over-hyped myths and the actual rifle design... Over time, real-world experience, and much research, I have come to understand just how little these two things have in common... I don't need to reprint the real research and technical data... If you know what I mean, great... If you are already fuming in disgust (or just disagree) I suggest you start here (try this link) - and don't flame me, I'm just expressing my WELL-Researched and highly experienced opinion of this topic... If you believe otherwise, consider doing your own research on the platform itself.

Now - I do know that it's possible to make a case-transported safe-queen perform pretty well at the range. And if that's all you're worried about, then go for it... But there are still people arguing that this big set of broken promises and even worse execution called the M14 rifle be re-issued as a military weapon, which is absurdity defined in my book - there already exists numerous rifles that outclass and outmatch this completely antiquated design that never should have been approved for manufacture to begin with... But don't get me started on the politics and lies that wasted our tax-dollars to give us the ridiculous M14 to begin with, and the taxpayer fortune spent trying to get the damn thing working correctly either... Arrgh.. But - I digress... Apologies...

The truth on this is that I really haven't used my M14/M1 rifles for anything in years - except period-correct shoots. I do love showing them off, though - they are great conversation starters and they look incredible in their full dress. Each time I do, I vividly recall the years of heartache it took to get them working, then reworking them to keep them working consistently at competition level.
 
The M1 Garand was a pretty good design, but was outdated by the end of WWII. The FAL was easily better than the M14 in the battle rifle role, and indeed it worked well for the Australians in Vietnam where they had to make each shot count due to poor logistics. However, the U.S was stubborn and the FAL did not live up to the potential it originally had, we were stuck with the mentality of a full power rifle round, while the FAL was designed originally for an intermediate cartridge. As a result, the FAL too was outdated by virtue of being chambered for a rifle round instead of intermediate, all because the U.S was not going to include it in the trials unless it was rechambered for 7.62 NATO.

That aside, its still a good rifle. Not the best, I doubt there is a rifle that is best at any specific thing as its always situational and even subjective.
 
I still believe that the 1911 in 45acp is superior to any 9mmx19 and I believe given the choice I will always take a 7.62 over a 5.56. I use what I have faith in. Faith comes from what works for me.
Call me a dinosaur.
 
I still believe that the 1911 in 45acp is superior to any 9mmx19 and I believe given the choice I will always take a 7.62 over a 5.56. I use what I have faith in. Faith comes from what works for me.
Call me a dinosaur.

Experience and empirical testing works better than faith for me.

That said, of course .45 ACP is better - but I would rather have my SIG P227 or even my G21 than a 1911 any day - 14 rounds > 8 rounds.
 
OK, I'll toss a wrench in the monkey works! I had the opportunity to run the Garand for real just like my Grand Dad did and I was impressed with it. Reliable, strong, and VERY accurate consistently with decent ammo! Not overly heavy and balanced well! Compared the the much more finicky M1A, the Garand was a wet dream come true! TO put all this in context, we went to war out gunned with the then Bland New M-4 Carbine and its M855 ammo, a disaster in the makings, and we desperately needed longer range and harder punch with accuracy to spare. the Mil FLAT OUR REFUSED issuing AR-10s and initially even M-14s, so, we did what had to be done and swiped a crate full of arsenal referb Garands all dated 1944 and went to work for several months! Flash forward and some one finally relented a bit and we had two full racks of FAL's issued! Boy did that rifle change things for the better. We thought the Garands were great, boy did that FN show how old the M1 really was! Then they took our FN's because they were not a proper 'Murican rifle, how dare we run that furin junk, so we got M-14s. and all the problems that came with them. I don't care how good you are, you cannot get a M-14 or M1A to shoot consistently in combat conditions, and worse if equipped with an optic! They just don't run! At the very least the Garand would always run, and could be counted on for acceptable accuracy WAY out past the damn M-4! My take away, the Garand was in a class by it's self when it first came into service, it was the first practical Semi auto battle ready rifle and it just plain worked! The FAL was a noticeably better design, those FN boys sure did their home work! Its not the best now, but its 60 years old and can still dance with the best today, and in some situations outshine them! The M1A is a very nice rifle, it does work, but it takes some time and tuning to keep it running, and it doesn't like optics unless you go to some sort of hard barrel mounted rail system, which gets in the way when things get sporty!
What would I choose today, Normally its a FAL, but the more I dig, the more convinced the AR 308 type is THE Shiznit! JMHO
 
I've got nothing of value to add except to welcome you to the greatest site on planet earth and I'm happy your here as this thread has provided much wisdom and made for great reading thus far.

Following this one, if you please.
 
This is fun. Post #6, oh, you'll have to do better than that to get to me. Eh, it's just a hobby, I don't have to use either weapon to defend myself. Yet. Or again? I've got some of both, enjoy both as a hobby. You guys with the FAL's, L1A1, whatever, I could never love a rifle with the operating handle ON THE LEFT SIDE! Nor the G3. My good friend whom I've known for over 50 years and now lives in NM, he has some of each. Or should I say, one FAL and several G3's and he loves them. But as my dear old daddy said, "Son, we can't all like the same thing. If we did, we'd all be married to the same wife and that'd never work out."

I've got the black rifles, some .223's, one in .300 BLK (couldn't resist that as a dink-around project), and does this qualify as a battle rifle, an Armalite (legacy) AR-10 in 7.62 NATO, it's a scaled-up AR-15, not like the original Fairchild AR-10 with the charging lever inside the carry handle. I confess, I tend to like US-type military rifles. I've had German crap before and outgrew it; even went for an FN49 in 8mm, heavy beast. It's long gone.

I'm not a match shooter. I'm more like what you might call a Service Grade shooter. If I can hit the black ball at 100 yards, I count that as good enough. Especially now that I have arthritis and peripheral neuropathy. I try to shoot one local match per year, a Modified CMP High Power Service Rifle match at the Everett Sportsmen Range. This year, we may need a periscope to shoot the match.

About that flash suppressor on the M14. When I was a boy soldier in BCT at Fort Ord, Calif, we had the M14. The first day we went to the range at the beach (impact areas in the Pacific Ocean), the drill sergeant said, "If any of you little duds have a problem with your rifle, take it over to the tech in the ordnance van and he will take a look at it." Well, the flash suppressor on my piece was loose, it wobbled around some. I took it over to the ordnance van as suggested. The ordnance soldier in there looked at my rifle for about 15 or 20 seconds and said, "It's good enough" and handed it back to me. I was thinking, "If it's wobbly enough, bullets will graze it on their way out" and I only fired Sharpshooter at Ford Ord. Later, when I was sent to Fort Lost in the Woods, my rifle there was a like new M14, an HRA, I think it was, nicely rigid flash suppressor. Guess what, there I fired Expert. But the two ideas may not actually be connected, I have no science on it.

Yes, rifle barrels can get bent. Like trying to break the steel banding material on a pallet of C-rats. Yes, bayonets can be bent or broken off of a rifle, if somebody sticks one into a wooden bunker wall and twists it a certain way, it can break. Yes, Buck knives can break clean in two right at the cross guard when thrown against a bunker wall and they hit on an angle. I've seen pictures, no actual experience, of an M5 bayonet broken off of an M1 Garand gas cylinder. The M5 was the weak design I was thinking of in my OP; the older bayonets with the barrel ring are pretty sturdy on the M1 Garand. You know, a lot of people probably just don't know how rough on equipment soldiers can be, at least in my experience during my time.

Agreed, the op rod arrangement on the M14 is an improvement over the M1 Garand.
 
What would I choose today, Normally its a FAL, but the more I dig, the more convinced the AR 308 type is THE Shiznit! JMHO
They make scope mounts that go above the action... Not the greatest for optics, definitely not as easy as the FAL, but still easier than the G3 (rails need to be welded on top of the receiver).
The M1A is a very nice rifle, it does work, but it takes some time and tuning to keep it running, and it doesn't like optics unless you go to some sort of hard barrel mounted rail system, which gets in the way when things get sporty!
Today I'd still choose the rifle proven by 90+ NATO countries, with the rightfully earned "Right Arm of the Free World" nickname. :rolleyes:

My issue with the M14 is you can tell they just wanted to save money by using old tools. It was already outdated by the time the FAL was made, and the FAL was made outdated because the U.S wanted to keep a full power rifle round instead of going with an intermediate cartridge at the time (the FAL was designed for 7.92x33 Kurz, but was chambered for the .280 British by the time it was presented to the U.S).

That being said, if the U.S did adopt the FAL in .280 British, who knows if the M16 would have been created. The AR-10 would have existed still, and but who knows where it would have ended up being now.

You guys with the FAL's, L1A1, whatever, I could never love a rifle with the operating handle ON THE LEFT SIDE!
Are you a left handed shooter? For semiautos, left side is the best spot for right handed people, better if it can fold. There are things about the FAL I dislike, and I can even make a list of them. However, the left side charging handle is what makes me prefer it over the M14 (among other things).
 
About that flash suppressor on the M14. When I was a boy soldier in BCT at Fort Ord, Calif, we had the M14. The first day we went to the range at the beach (impact areas in the Pacific Ocean), the drill sergeant said, "If any of you little duds have a problem with your rifle, take it over to the tech in the ordnance van and he will take a look at it." Well, the flash suppressor on my piece was loose, it wobbled around some. I took it over to the ordnance van as suggested. The ordnance soldier in there looked at my rifle for about 15 or 20 seconds and said, "It's good enough" and handed it back to me. I was thinking, "If it's wobbly enough, bullets will graze it on their way out" and I only fired Sharpshooter at Ford Ord. Later, when I was sent to Fort Lost in the Woods, my rifle there was a like new M14, an HRA, I think it was, nicely rigid flash suppressor. Guess what, there I fired Expert. But the two ideas may not actually be connected, I have no science on it.
The two are related. If a muzzle device is loose enough to wobble, it can affect accuracy. The bullet would hit, or rather graze, the muzzle device which will impact it. If it was just loose, then it would be one thing, but to actually wobble is bad. Keep in mind; however, the M14's accuracy requirement for the military was extremely loose, 3 MOA? Still passed, 4 MOA? Still passed, and so on. So even with a wobbly flash hider, if it was under say 7.5", it was good enough and passed.

Of course with the M14 a lot is involved if you want to improve its accuracy. And some work (not much) to keep it that way.
 

Similar threads

Upcoming Events

Oregon Arms Collectors March Gun Show
Portland, OR
Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top