This is a table top review and comparison of the M1 Garand and the M14. We will start with a historical analysis and then move through a point-by-point comparison of the two. Enjoy!
In the early 2000's I went to patrol rifle school at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center and everyone in the class had M-4's with the exception of four officers from DNR who had DRMO M-14's. It was a blast when they would touch rounds off because you could seriously see the difference between the 5.56 -vs 7.62. Our 5.56 would make a slight ping when it hit steel but those 7.62's would seriously move the steel. I got to fire one once and I fell in love with the rifle right then
You only have to shoot an M14 once, usually a love or hate reaction. In my case it was total love ❤ 😍 Both of these rifle totally rock. Commie crushers extraordinaire!
Both great rifles. I'd take either one over an AR 15. I like the .30 cal and nothing beats wood and steel on a gun. I guess I'm old school. Of course you need a 1911 to go along with either of these great rifles.
@@gangoffour6690 a lot of people find that ridiculous. I think (especially considering special forces were using the m14 all the way into Afghanistan).i think its perfectly reasonable,30 cal reaches out much farther, hits harder and is fucking scary lol
M16 for the win, best rifle family ever invented, been in service longer than both of the featured rifles combined. .30-06 and 7.62 Nato are obviously superior calibers at range, but its beyond where all wars involving guns have ever been fought the vast majority of the time. The AR-15/ M16 family is superior in every other application be it military or civilian purpose except for large game hunting but the 5.56 can still get the job done there too if the range is reasonable. I know you most likely agree MarksmanTV, Im just ranting in general in response to othet commenters here.
Who are you kidding. The M16/AR platform is, was and always will be a piece of shit. I have 2 M1s, 2 M1as and an AR.Which do you think everyone wants to shoot at the range when I bring them out. Hint, sonny,it aint the AR. Go ahead and play with your black plastic toys.
@ The Third Pin: Re: "M16 for the win, best rifle family ever invented, been in service longer than both of the featured rifles combined" and "The AR-15/ M16 family is superior in every other application be it military or civilian purpose except for large game hunting but the 5.56 can still get the job done there too if the range is reasonable" Those are what are known as unsupported assertions. In plain language, your opinions. The comparison between the older .30-caliber weapons and the M16/M4 family of weapons is neither as clear-cut nor as open-and-shut as you seem to believe. Consider the following... First, let's start with the basics. The comparison between the M-1 and M14 on one hand and M-16 on the other isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Why? The former are battle rifles, whereas the latter is an assault rifle or battle carbine. The 30-06 and 7.62 NATO are full power full-sized rifle cartridges; the 5.56x45 NATO is an intermediate cartridge. The function of the weapons overlaps in that both are designed to be an infantryman's primary weapon, but they are - in engineering terms - designed somewhat for different roles and missions. Design-wise, assault rifles fulfill the following criteria: 1.Fire from a closed bolt, rather than an open bolt, as do most SMGs 2. Carbine-type rifle of relatively light weight and compact overall dimensions 3. Capable of select-fire operation 4. Fed from a "high-capacity" box magazine (high in comparison to older 5-shot bolt guns, early SLRs) 5. Fire a cartridge intermediate in range and power - between a pistol/SMG cartridge on one hand, and a full-power rifle cartridge on the other. One could add - a weapon optimized for use between 0-300 yards, as well, since that is the optimum performance envelope for most of this class of weapons. Assault rifles/battle carbines have their place, i.e., urban fighting, CQB, indoor use & room/house clearing, perimeter defense, etc. and also as arms for soldiers whose primary function isn't closing with and killing the enemy. But just as a hammer is not the only tool a seasoned carpenter or other tradesman needs, the same applies to the assault rifle. An M4 is great for many of the above uses, but is inadequate when ranges lengthen or greater power is needed, such as when fighting in the mountains or the desert, or when penetration of cover is needed (which by the way includes much urban fighting, not just out in the boonies). The Soviets learned it in the late 1970s and 1980s in their little adventure in Afghanistan, and we - the U.S.-NATO alliance - relearned it again after 2001: When our patrols armed with M16s and M4s went into Indian Country, the mujaheddin quickly learned to engage them from beyond 300 yards (or meters, as the case may be). The smart enemy doesn't engage you on your terms; he finds out where you are weak and hits you there. Which is how hajjis armed with obsolete Lee-Enfield .303 rifles have managed to cause so much trouble for our guys over there. A proficient soldier should have an array of weapons from to choose, depending on his mission and its nature. The M16 family of weapons may be the answer to some tactical/operational problems, but not all of them. Sometimes, size, power and reach matter. Which is why all of those mothballed M14s, G3s, and other 7.62 NATO battle rifles have been taken out of storage and send over there.
True man, even the AR10 is better than the M14. Light, reliable in sand, moondust or mud, and more accurate. Good thing we dropped the M14 early. It's a shame we even had to get it in the first place instead of the FAL or AR10.
Actually the M14 has been in continuous service in one way or the other since it's adoption, so no, the M16 hasn't been in use longer. Basic issue rifle, then the M21 sniper rifle variant of the M14, then the designated marksman rifle variant of it and the whole time it's been in the arms rooms of Navy ships even to this day, and no, the Navy just doesn't use them for line throwing, they're used in various capacity's on ships including security. Yes the M16 (or at least the M16 family) has been the longest standard issue service rifle in the US military but the fact is the M14 is the longest continuously serving rifle in US military history. And yes, the M16 is a better basic issue service rifle, better ergonomics, easier to train a recruit on, more rounds can be carried by a soldier, but there's a reason why the M14 has been in continuous use since it's adoption, because it can do things the M16 will never be able to do. And despite all the nonsense myths that get thrown around by people who've never even touched an M14 in their lives but they're experts because "they read it online" the biggest and only real downfall of the M14 was it's expense to manufacture, with it's forged and heat treated steel parts especially it's receiver it took people much higher skilled to make it than it takes to make M16's, the fact is the M14's expense to manufacture is why Robert McNamara pushed an underdeveloped M16 on troops that got a bunch of them killed, then he had to demonize the M14 to justify what he did which is where all the myths like warping stocks came from, him and cronies of his in the military and Congress started a bunch of nonsense myths about the M14 to cover his ass when in fact he was hot for the M16 because of how much cheaper he could buy them for. In the event anyone doesn't know the history of Robert McNamara he was made Secretary of Defense by JFK to reel in the spending of the "military industrial complex" that JFK's predecessor Eisenhower had warned everyone about and JFK made campaign promises he'd do something about, so he recruited Robert McNamara from Ford who'd streamlined their operations and cut costs there. You know, Robert McNamara, the same guy who tried to force the Air Force and the Navy to adopt the same fighter jet, the F111, Robert McNamara, the same guy who destroyed the career of an Admiral who testified to Congress that all the money and development time in the world wouldn't turn the F111 into a fighter, yea, that Robert McNamara, the same guy that ran the Vietnam War.
Chris this video should have way more traffic. These rifles are so elegant and majestic. The aesthetically clean lines and iconic silhouette are simple and instantly recognizable. That gorgeous black walnut and forged steel harken back to a bygone era when quality and craftsmanship were of the highest order. America came together in those years. That was the good old self righteous America. World War 2 was arguably the last war we fought for the right reasons with a moral high ground against an enemy that was universally considered evil and had to be defeated. God bless all those men and women who gave all so that evil could be vanquished and America could take it's rightful place as leader of the free world. The M1 rifle was dominant in World War 2. It was very innovative for it's time. The M14, although it's tenure as a standard issue service rifle was short, is still in use today in a limited capacity. They came in handy in Afghanistan. I love these American rifles. They are my most beloved service rifles overall. Though I would choose the Block 1 configuration of the M4A1 today, I would be confident should I be forced to depend on either of them. I currently have an M1A in inventory and will be acquiring an M1 soon. This video is excellent. I love your channel.
Great video, however I am a little surprised that you stated that the milled ring was designed for take down with a bullet when that was an after thought. The real purpose of the milled ring on the trigger guard was for a winter trigger adapter. When the trigger guard went to the stamped style the winter trigger was altered to attach to that type or guard.
Hello. Actually, you have it backwards... Springfield received its first order for winter triggers in 1952. The testing started in 1949 at Aberdeen. The order was for 20,000 units but they would not be used long as they were too dangerous (leaving an exposed trigger actuator outside of the trigger guard). Two types were made, one which could go through the milled hole (or hook around the back of the stamped trigger guard) and one that pivoted on the wrist of the stock. This topic is discussed in detail in Bruce Canfield’s book: “The M1 Garand Rifle”, beginning page 752.
Just a quick side note. The shorter overall length of the M-14’s gas system and operating rod made it much more durable. The longer operating rod of the M-1 garand made it sensitive to heavier bullet weights. Anyone new to owning a M1 garand should keep this in mind when buying ammunition. You’re gonna want to stay around 150grain bullet weight. Heavier bullets or hot loaded hand loaded ammunition can very easily bend the operating rod of the M1 garand. This can make the rifle either not cycle at all or have a negative effect on shot groups. This can happen with the M-14 family of rifles as well but there no where near as ammunition sensitive as the M1 garand. I definitely agree one of the best two military rifles ever made. The operating rod rotating bolt assembly on these rifles is in my opinion the best there is. Just new shooters of this type of action be cautious of bullet weights and hand loaders be cautious of powder type and charge weight. Great video though.
Interestingly, when I was drafted in 1969, rifle training in basic was still on the M14; before heading out to the RVN, we got a little training on the M16. So the Army was still using it for training even though it was discontinued for combat. Kind of silly, really; the weapons are so dissimilar in character and handling and purpose. Maybe they were running short on M16s for training?
When you broke down the stock from the receiver in the M14, you said it was 'tight'. I'm wondering if you broke the bond of the fiberglass bedding meant to accurize the weapon. I used to compete with the M14 in the military and when cleaning the weapon, we would never remove the stock for fear of breaking down the glass bedding that removed the looseness between the upper receiver and the stock.
Glass bedding was only done to M14's that were match prepped, and the M21 sniper variant which were built from national match rifles, but standard GI grade "out of the rack" M14's weren't glass bedded. Same with match prepped M1's, and no, neither one should be removed from the stock like standard field stripping for cleaning, but with standard issue one's it's not only perfectly fine it's part of field stripping one and as such everyone issued an M14 back when they were the standard issue rifle was required to know how to do it.
Early M1A’s were built mainly from parts bin components... they bought up lots of spare parts and kits back when they were cheap and assembled them that way. As time would go on, parts would become more scarce and expensive so Springfield started making everything in-house. The lockbar sights on my example were just pulled from a parts bin during assembly. Even though they were never used in M14 production, collectors like myself find the lockbars on the early M1A’s just an added bit of character from the “golden era” M1A days.
Ponder this...The SHTF and surviving is the norm. Carrying a " defense " weapon and carrying ammo supply. M-14 ..A long hard fire fight....It ends...Gather up empty mags, charge them from stripper clips....HOW LONG before another fight? The Garand...resupply of ammo....Just pick up bandoleers, all set to go.
Anybody who has worked both rifles at speed will know the M 14 is not faster to reload then an M1 Garand. On paper it sounds like it should be but it’s not
Yes, I’ve found they reload at roughly the same time. However, you need to reload the Garand 2.5x times compared to 1 reload in the M14 (as the M1 holds 8 rounds to match the M14’s 20). Therefore in a match it will take the Garand longer to get the same number of rounds off.
The m14/m1A has a FLASH HIDER NOT A MUZZLE BRAKE! How do you not know the difference if you are making a video about the m14/m1A? They are NOT the same thing. That would be like saying " the m14/m1A has a removable 20 round CLIP". Just saying.
@@thatsabear ...well if you wanna get technical, it CAN be Called a Flash hider, flash suppressor, flash eliminator, or a flash cone, although a flash cone was literally just a metal cone. Anything else.
The M14 was my rifle in basic training in 1967 at Fort Benning, Georgia. Sand Hill.
In the early 2000's I went to patrol rifle school at the Georgia Public Safety Training Center and everyone in the class had M-4's with the exception of four officers from DNR who had DRMO M-14's. It was a blast when they would touch rounds off because you could seriously see the difference between the 5.56 -vs 7.62. Our 5.56 would make a slight ping when it hit steel but those 7.62's would seriously move the steel. I got to fire one once and I fell in love with the rifle right then
You only have to shoot an M14 once, usually a love or hate reaction. In my case it was total love ❤ 😍
Both of these rifle totally rock. Commie crushers extraordinaire!
Highly agree, im currently saving up for a Springfield M1A Socom, i live in a communist state so AR-15s are banned
@@ProjectSerpo90 you won't go wrong. An M1 Garand makes a good choice in restricted states.
M1 was originally designed by Garand for a .264 caliber cartridge but military had so much .30-06 ammo in stock, that they went with the .30-06.
276
Very nice !
I enjoyed the disassembly portion. I have had to look up video for such as my SKS as each have their own nuances
Keep up the good work !
The M14 was actually adapted in 1957 and began use in 1959. Good video!
Thanks Chris for the in-depth history of two iconic weapons.
M1 Garand and M14 both are the greatest rifles in the military industrialization arms in US history.
Jean Cantius Garand is indeed still one of the most influential people in the rifle industry to this day.
Both great rifles. I'd take either one over an AR 15. I like the .30 cal and nothing beats wood and steel on a gun. I guess I'm old school. Of course you need a 1911 to go along with either of these great rifles.
@@gangoffour6690 a lot of people find that ridiculous. I think (especially considering special forces were using the m14 all the way into Afghanistan).i think its perfectly reasonable,30 cal reaches out much farther, hits harder and is fucking scary lol
Great video! Very informative, especially the disassembly.
Great video on two fine old weapons.
Plan on buying a Garand next month. Thanks for the excellent video.
Just out of curiosity, where are you planning on buying it from? The CMP Program?
Chris Guidi get it, as long as your not buying from Bubba you really can’t go wrong.
Double Odd Josh probably has some good sources in mind if curious
@@DoubleOddJosh Yep. Actually have had the order in with them since March 1. Unfortunately, the COVID shutdown has them unavailable until May 4.
Ak-47 is a m-1 action upside down and the bolt sideways. It’s a miss conception it’s a copy of the stg-44. It’s actually a full auto copy of the M-1
Very informative, great video!
That was pretty informative. Thanks!
M16 for the win, best rifle family ever invented, been in service longer than both of the featured rifles combined.
.30-06 and 7.62 Nato are obviously superior calibers at range, but its beyond where all wars involving guns have ever been fought the vast majority of the time. The AR-15/ M16 family is superior in every other application be it military or civilian purpose except for large game hunting but the 5.56 can still get the job done there too if the range is reasonable.
I know you most likely agree MarksmanTV, Im just ranting in general in response to othet commenters here.
Who are you kidding. The M16/AR platform is, was and always will be a piece of shit. I have 2 M1s, 2 M1as and an AR.Which do you think everyone wants to shoot at the range when I bring them out. Hint, sonny,it aint the AR. Go ahead and play with your black plastic toys.
@ The Third Pin: Re: "M16 for the win, best rifle family ever invented, been in service longer than both of the featured rifles combined" and "The AR-15/ M16 family is superior in every other application be it military or civilian purpose except for large game hunting but the 5.56 can still get the job done there too if the range is reasonable"
Those are what are known as unsupported assertions. In plain language, your opinions. The comparison between the older .30-caliber weapons and the M16/M4 family of weapons is neither as clear-cut nor as open-and-shut as you seem to believe. Consider the following...
First, let's start with the basics. The comparison between the M-1 and M14 on one hand and M-16 on the other isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. Why? The former are battle rifles, whereas the latter is an assault rifle or battle carbine. The 30-06 and 7.62 NATO are full power full-sized rifle cartridges; the 5.56x45 NATO is an intermediate cartridge. The function of the weapons overlaps in that both are designed to be an infantryman's primary weapon, but they are - in engineering terms - designed somewhat for different roles and missions. Design-wise, assault rifles fulfill the following criteria: 1.Fire from a closed bolt, rather than an open bolt, as do most SMGs 2. Carbine-type rifle of relatively light weight and compact overall dimensions 3. Capable of select-fire operation 4. Fed from a "high-capacity" box magazine (high in comparison to older 5-shot bolt guns, early SLRs) 5. Fire a cartridge intermediate in range and power - between a pistol/SMG cartridge on one hand, and a full-power rifle cartridge on the other. One could add - a weapon optimized for use between 0-300 yards, as well, since that is the optimum performance envelope for most of this class of weapons.
Assault rifles/battle carbines have their place, i.e., urban fighting, CQB, indoor use & room/house clearing, perimeter defense, etc. and also as arms for soldiers whose primary function isn't closing with and killing the enemy. But just as a hammer is not the only tool a seasoned carpenter or other tradesman needs, the same applies to the assault rifle. An M4 is great for many of the above uses, but is inadequate when ranges lengthen or greater power is needed, such as when fighting in the mountains or the desert, or when penetration of cover is needed (which by the way includes much urban fighting, not just out in the boonies). The Soviets learned it in the late 1970s and 1980s in their little adventure in Afghanistan, and we - the U.S.-NATO alliance - relearned it again after 2001: When our patrols armed with M16s and M4s went into Indian Country, the mujaheddin quickly learned to engage them from beyond 300 yards (or meters, as the case may be). The smart enemy doesn't engage you on your terms; he finds out where you are weak and hits you there. Which is how hajjis armed with obsolete Lee-Enfield .303 rifles have managed to cause so much trouble for our guys over there.
A proficient soldier should have an array of weapons from to choose, depending on his mission and its nature. The M16 family of weapons may be the answer to some tactical/operational problems, but not all of them. Sometimes, size, power and reach matter. Which is why all of those mothballed M14s, G3s, and other 7.62 NATO battle rifles have been taken out of storage and send over there.
True man, even the AR10 is better than the M14. Light, reliable in sand, moondust or mud, and more accurate. Good thing we dropped the M14 early. It's a shame we even had to get it in the first place instead of the FAL or AR10.
@@chriss1911 Childish behavior.
Actually the M14 has been in continuous service in one way or the other since it's adoption, so no, the M16 hasn't been in use longer.
Basic issue rifle, then the M21 sniper rifle variant of the M14, then the designated marksman rifle variant of it and the whole time it's been in the arms rooms of Navy ships even to this day, and no, the Navy just doesn't use them for line throwing, they're used in various capacity's on ships including security.
Yes the M16 (or at least the M16 family) has been the longest standard issue service rifle in the US military but the fact is the M14 is the longest continuously serving rifle in US military history.
And yes, the M16 is a better basic issue service rifle, better ergonomics, easier to train a recruit on, more rounds can be carried by a soldier, but there's a reason why the M14 has been in continuous use since it's adoption, because it can do things the M16 will never be able to do.
And despite all the nonsense myths that get thrown around by people who've never even touched an M14 in their lives but they're experts because "they read it online" the biggest and only real downfall of the M14 was it's expense to manufacture, with it's forged and heat treated steel parts especially it's receiver it took people much higher skilled to make it than it takes to make M16's, the fact is the M14's expense to manufacture is why Robert McNamara pushed an underdeveloped M16 on troops that got a bunch of them killed, then he had to demonize the M14 to justify what he did which is where all the myths like warping stocks came from, him and cronies of his in the military and Congress started a bunch of nonsense myths about the M14 to cover his ass when in fact he was hot for the M16 because of how much cheaper he could buy them for.
In the event anyone doesn't know the history of Robert McNamara he was made Secretary of Defense by JFK to reel in the spending of the "military industrial complex" that JFK's predecessor Eisenhower had warned everyone about and JFK made campaign promises he'd do something about, so he recruited Robert McNamara from Ford who'd streamlined their operations and cut costs there.
You know, Robert McNamara, the same guy who tried to force the Air Force and the Navy to adopt the same fighter jet, the F111, Robert McNamara, the same guy who destroyed the career of an Admiral who testified to Congress that all the money and development time in the world wouldn't turn the F111 into a fighter, yea, that Robert McNamara, the same guy that ran the Vietnam War.
Good talk! Instructional and interesting-the two things a real teacher tries to achieve.
I carried the M-14 in the Corps...best battle rifle ever made ... Semper Fi....!
I carried it in ‘Nam. Too heavy, but still my favorite rifle.
Chris this video should have way more traffic. These rifles are so elegant and majestic. The aesthetically clean lines and iconic silhouette are simple and instantly recognizable. That gorgeous black walnut and forged steel harken back to a bygone era when quality and craftsmanship were of the highest order. America came together in those years. That was the good old self righteous America. World War 2 was arguably the last war we fought for the right reasons with a moral high ground against an enemy that was universally considered evil and had to be defeated. God bless all those men and women who gave all so that evil could be vanquished and America could take it's rightful place as leader of the free world. The M1 rifle was dominant in World War 2. It was very innovative for it's time. The M14, although it's tenure as a standard issue service rifle was short, is still in use today in a limited capacity. They came in handy in Afghanistan. I love these American rifles. They are my most beloved service rifles overall. Though I would choose the Block 1 configuration of the M4A1 today, I would be confident should I be forced to depend on either of them. I currently have an M1A in inventory and will be acquiring an M1 soon. This video is excellent. I love your channel.
Both are great rifles 👍🏻🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Ti freedom 🇺🇲🇵🇷🇪🇸🇪🇺🇺🇳💙💜💚💛🧡❤🤍🤎✡☮☯️👍💯
I would love to buy snd own both of those rifles
@2:20 my wife told me if I had one it would instantly lose its market value.
Great video, however I am a little surprised that you stated that the milled ring was designed for take down with a bullet when that was an after thought. The real purpose of the milled ring on the trigger guard was for a winter trigger adapter. When the trigger guard went to the stamped style the winter trigger was altered to attach to that type or guard.
Hello. Actually, you have it backwards... Springfield received its first order for winter triggers in 1952. The testing started in 1949 at Aberdeen. The order was for 20,000 units but they would not be used long as they were too dangerous (leaving an exposed trigger actuator outside of the trigger guard). Two types were made, one which could go through the milled hole (or hook around the back of the stamped trigger guard) and one that pivoted on the wrist of the stock. This topic is discussed in detail in Bruce Canfield’s book: “The M1 Garand Rifle”, beginning page 752.
About to finally get me a M14 it’s a great rifle.
Can’t decide? Buy both! Plus an FAL, and a Cetme!
Maybe even a bm59
My competition AR weighs the exact same as an M1. That makes me sad.
Race ARs are not really known for being lightweight.
Just a quick side note. The shorter overall length of the M-14’s gas system and operating rod made it much more durable. The longer operating rod of the M-1 garand made it sensitive to heavier bullet weights. Anyone new to owning a M1 garand should keep this in mind when buying ammunition. You’re gonna want to stay around 150grain bullet weight. Heavier bullets or hot loaded hand loaded ammunition can very easily bend the operating rod of the M1 garand. This can make the rifle either not cycle at all or have a negative effect on shot groups. This can happen with the M-14 family of rifles as well but there no where near as ammunition sensitive as the M1 garand. I definitely agree one of the best two military rifles ever made. The operating rod rotating bolt assembly on these rifles is in my opinion the best there is. Just new shooters of this type of action be cautious of bullet weights and hand loaders be cautious of powder type and charge weight. Great video though.
The A-TEAM TV SHOW Had a Chromed out version on the M-14 . I guess those were customs
Timothy Thomas they used mini 14 rifles they still make them just like in the a team
The A-Team used the Ruger Mini-14, didn't they, and not an M-14? My memory could be faulty, though, the 1980s are a long time ago now....
both Beautiful rifles.. but I just love the M1A design..
Interestingly, when I was drafted in 1969, rifle training in basic was still on the M14; before heading out to the RVN, we got a little training on the M16. So the Army was still using it for training even though it was discontinued for combat. Kind of silly, really; the weapons are so dissimilar in character and handling and purpose. Maybe they were running short on M16s for training?
I have a FAL , a Polytech m14 ,SF m1a and a M1 all are very ergonomic and conferrable to shoot ….
When you broke down the stock from the receiver in the M14, you said it was 'tight'. I'm wondering if you broke the bond of the fiberglass bedding meant to accurize the weapon.
I used to compete with the M14 in the military and when cleaning the weapon, we would never remove the stock for fear of breaking down the glass bedding that removed the looseness between the upper receiver and the stock.
Glass bedding was only done to M14's that were match prepped, and the M21 sniper variant which were built from national match rifles, but standard GI grade "out of the rack" M14's weren't glass bedded.
Same with match prepped M1's, and no, neither one should be removed from the stock like standard field stripping for cleaning, but with standard issue one's it's not only perfectly fine it's part of field stripping one and as such everyone issued an M14 back when they were the standard issue rifle was required to know how to do it.
M14s are known to lose accuracy when they get hot
Was there any easy explanation why the M1A has Garrand windage locking knob
Early M1A’s were built mainly from parts bin components... they bought up lots of spare parts and kits back when they were cheap and assembled them that way. As time would go on, parts would become more scarce and expensive so Springfield started making everything in-house. The lockbar sights on my example were just pulled from a parts bin during assembly. Even though they were never used in M14 production, collectors like myself find the lockbars on the early M1A’s just an added bit of character from the “golden era” M1A days.
The M-1 Garand had deadly serious stopping power.
My gift during my birthday when im 18 then i wish i will have a M1 garand XD
Ponder this...The SHTF and surviving is the norm. Carrying a " defense " weapon and carrying ammo supply. M-14 ..A long hard fire fight....It ends...Gather up empty mags, charge them from stripper clips....HOW LONG before another fight? The Garand...resupply of ammo....Just pick up bandoleers, all set to go.
M1 Garand 😍
The johnson tried to pair with the m1 garand and was issued to some marines
*"No one can beat the PING"*
What came first the garland or m-14?
After owning several FAL's, in my opinion the M14 overall is a better platform.
I'm of the opposite opinion but to each his own.
The biggest problem that the M14 had was that it was obsolete.
Anybody who has worked both rifles at speed will know the M 14 is not faster to reload then an M1 Garand. On paper it sounds like it should be but it’s not
Yes ,I always felt that the m 1 is one of the fastest reloading guns there is ,
Yes, I’ve found they reload at roughly the same time. However, you need to reload the Garand 2.5x times compared to 1 reload in the M14 (as the M1 holds 8 rounds to match the M14’s 20). Therefore in a match it will take the Garand longer to get the same number of rounds off.
It's not a real Garand unless it has a trap door (;
What ❓❗
I guess it's the real wood?
I own both and would still take my M1 Garand any day of the week.
The m14/m1A has a FLASH HIDER NOT A MUZZLE BRAKE! How do you not know the difference if you are making a video about the m14/m1A? They are NOT the same thing. That would be like saying " the m14/m1A has a removable 20 round CLIP". Just saying.
Lol! The actual term was 'flash suppressor', not flash 'hider', if you want to get technical.
@@thatsabear ...well if you wanna get technical, it CAN be Called a Flash hider, flash suppressor, flash eliminator, or a flash cone, although a flash cone was literally just a metal cone. Anything else.
M14 All The Way
Hubba hubba
666 likes and 6 dislikes
M 16 at 1,400 yards will Tare you up!!!
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣 Yeah no, not even