M1 Garand vs M14/M1A

eclancy · 03-08-2008, 10:02 AM

Gentlemen,
Many of you have talked about the M14/M1A and the M1 Garand. I know about the mag question and the M1A having its 20 rounds. My question to you is in a different field. It deals with the ballistics of the 30.06 against the .308 round. My studies seem to show that in accuracy and ballistics at long ranges i.e. over 800 to 1000 yds, the 30.06 seems to hold its bullet more accurately than a .308. What do you guys think about this question. Also one more point is in the Tanker and Scout area. With the barrel being short does that not again change all the ballistics and accuracy data of both calibers to save a few inches of barrel length ?

A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount of “up to and including my life.”

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you have learned a little of the history of the M1 Garand.
Clancy
ps could use some hits
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF

nathangdad · 03-08-2008, 10:13 AM

You can go to the Remington website and get a ballistic comparison of the .308 versus the .30-06. They have an excellent program for this purpose.

Shortening a barrel will have an adverse effect on most ballistics.

Rex Kramer · 03-08-2008, 10:22 AM

My thoughts:

The full length, unaltered M1 Garand can accurately go a bit longer than the M14 - however, the M14 offers the rifleman more flexibility.

Shorter the barrels on either of these rifles = less muzzle velocity.
Short barrels are accurate, but they can't accurately reach out as far as the standard length barrel.

samuel · 03-08-2008, 10:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rex Kramer

My thoughts:

The full length, unaltered M1 Garand can accurately go a bit longer than the M14 - however, the M14 offers the rifleman more flexibility.

Shorter the barrels on either of these rifles = less muzzle velocity.
Short barrels are accurate, but they can't accurately reach out as far as the standard length barrel.

A longer barrel allows the use of slower burning powders if the case capacity is great enough to get the quantity of powder in.The 7.62nato case doesnt have the powder capacity to utilise slow burning powders.The .30-06 does have the capacity to use them so with a barrel that is long enough to use all of the gasses developed with slow burning powders,you can get more fps at lower pressures.The problem in this case is the gas activated actions wont operate well with slow burn powders.They should be in the medium burn rate for the Garand action.Where the .308win can be loaded to higher pressures with faster burning powders for a bolt action and just almost equal .30-06 performance,the higher pressures are rough on the auto-loading gas action.The .308win can be loaded to as high as 55k for bolt guns,but only around 48k for gas auto,s.At higher pressures the .308win is almost equal to the .30-06."BUT",the .30-06 can be loaded to higher pressures that almost equal the .300win mag. sam.

rfc357 · 03-08-2008, 03:37 PM

With military spec ammunition there is nothing to choose between them ballistically. They are essentially identical. Either is a threat to any target out to 600 yards. Beyond that I do not care.

I shoot nothing but military spec ammunition through my M1s and M1As. If I want to mess with stiffer loads, that's why God invented bolt actions. In bolt guns, the .30-06 walks away from the .308 at longer ranges and with heavy bullets.

For competition, I prefer the M1A because of better ergonomics. However, I no longer shoot either in competition. I can get better scores with the AR.

I like them both. They are equal on the fun meter.

ma96782 · 03-10-2008, 01:02 AM

The platforms to launch the bullets are different.........M1 vs. M14.........so, .30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato.......should be judged on those basis too.

It is said that a match tuned M1 is as accurate, as a match tuned M14. Though, in GI Issue form, the M14 is superior to the M1 for accuracy. Due to the differences in op rod, gas systems, gas port position and other factors. Not to mention the advances in, "keeping things tight and in spec."

But, IF we were to limit the "problem" to Bolt Action Rifle vs. Bollt Action Rifle.........30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato........then I'd have to say that there is a certain amount of "efficiency" to the burning of powder. How much powder each cartridge could hold would be a factor. The .30-06 having a longer case......more powder capacity......more chance to keep the bullet traveling at supersonic speed for longer range accurate shooting.

IF the question was based on M1 vs. M1.........30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato. I guess there would be a "limit," to what could be done. Mostly I suspect, due to the op rod, bullet weight and powder burning rate issues that must be thought of.

Aloha, Mark

PS.........and, I believe that generally (for the average solider) the U. S. ARMY gave up on the idea of marksmanship at those farther ranges anyway.

rfc357 · 03-10-2008, 08:13 PM

Here are the facts on ballistics. Actual achieved velocities for the loads I use:

M1A, 7.62x51, 22" barrel, 1-10

155 2700 fps
168 2600 fps
178 2400 fps

M1 Garand, .30-06, 24" barrel, 1-10

155 2750 fps
168 2700 fps
178 2550 fps

The .30-06 (out of a 2" longer barrel) slightly outperforms the 7.62x51 in velocity. However, in practical match shooting, I have never observed any real difference. The sight corrections for differerent ranges are within a minute or two between the two cartridges, certainly within tolerance you would expect from individual rifles.

I have match M1s I have shot in competition. I own M1As. However, I have never shot the M1A in competition. I have shot the NM M14 in competition. As I said above, I prefer the M14 (M1A) platform for ergonomics over the M1, but neither showed a difference in scores (at least for me, a mediocre shooter). Accuracy is a function of individual rifles. I do not shoot past 600 yards.

So, to answer eclancy's original question yet again, not enough difference to matter.

The M14 was developed to address some specific perceived shortcomings in the M1. Ballistic performance was not one of them.

The short barrels of the "scout" rifle cost velocity (25-50 fps/inch). Beyond that, again no difference. There is no reason a short barrel is any less accurate (or any more accurate) than a long barrel. There are sight radius considerations, and there are noise considerations. You pay your money and you make your choice.

kygunsmith · 03-10-2008, 09:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ma96782

Though, in GI Issue form, the M14 is superior to the M1 for accuracy. Due to the differences in op rod, gas systems, gas port position and other factors.

If one could find 10 new M1 Garands and 10 new M14's the garand would probably outshoot the M14. At least to my experience. By the time most of us experienced the M14 the old garands were shot out. Never saw an M14 that would shoot with a finely tuned Garand at 800-1000 yds.

It is much easier to accurize a Garand than an M14, too, though they do use their gas differently. The extra space in the case leads to various positions of the powder and more velocity stringing in 30-06 than the compact 308 case.
The key to 1000 yd accuracy with an M1, or M14 is whether all the components return to the same place for every shot. A well fitted garand does this better than the '14. I've built, accurized, rebarreled, repaired and shot dozens to hundreds of each, so it may be that I am fatigued?
Another thing is the longevity of service. A NM garand will shoot accurately for 1000's of rounds after the 14 needs a rebuild. The higher pressure of the 7.62 beats the hell out of the rifle after a few thousand rounds. Not the garand. Just a humble opinion. I'm wrong about a dozen times per day, perhaps now!

ma96782 · 03-31-2008, 10:48 PM

Quote:

Though, in GI Issue form, the M14 is superior to the M1 for accuracy. Due to the differences in op rod, gas systems, gas port position and other factors. Not to mention the advances in, "keeping things tight and in spec."

In theory.

Aloha, Mark

jpwilly · 04-01-2008, 11:01 AM

The rifles and calibers as so similar I don't think we can have a clear leader. When the rifle has been tuned for match accuracy (time money ammo) and one is able to shoot the M1 or M1A at competitive levels.

But I do agree getting a little more out of the 30-06 is obtainable.

kygunsmith · 04-02-2008, 11:02 PM

When I used to accurize garands to "NM" I noticed how much harder it is to get a M14 to the same accuracy. Both the rifle's design, weight and rigidity and the ammo contributed, I guess. My lack of skills? Any oaf (Me?) can accurize a Garand in a few hours but it takes more time and skill, I suppose for 14? I used to shoot a pretty good garand at 1000yds, just for fun. If there was no wind and one had good ammo and a "good day" it was amazing what could be done. The scoped c/d was incredible if a new bbl and good trigger.

03-08-2008, 10:02 AM	#1
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,346	M1 Garand vs M14/M1A Gentlemen, Many of you have talked about the M14/M1A and the M1 Garand. I know about the mag question and the M1A having its 20 rounds. My question to you is in a different field. It deals with the ballistics of the 30.06 against the .308 round. My studies seem to show that in accuracy and ballistics at long ranges i.e. over 800 to 1000 yds, the 30.06 seems to hold its bullet more accurately than a .308. What do you guys think about this question. Also one more point is in the Tanker and Scout area. With the barrel being short does that not again change all the ballistics and accuracy data of both calibers to save a few inches of barrel length ? A Veteran, whether active duty, retired, national guard, or reserve, is someone who, at one point in his life, wrote a blank check made payable to “The United States of America” for an amount of “up to and including my life.” Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you have learned a little of the history of the M1 Garand. Clancy ps could use some hits NRA Life Endowment NRA Training Counselor NRA Instructor FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy

03-08-2008, 10:13 AM	#2
nathangdad Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2007 Posts: 2,823	Go to Remington.com You can go to the Remington website and get a ballistic comparison of the .308 versus the .30-06. They have an excellent program for this purpose. Shortening a barrel will have an adverse effect on most ballistics.

03-10-2008, 01:02 AM	#6
ma96782 Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Location: Vancouver, WA Posts: 28	The platforms to launch the bullets are different.........M1 vs. M14.........so, .30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato.......should be judged on those basis too. It is said that a match tuned M1 is as accurate, as a match tuned M14. Though, in GI Issue form, the M14 is superior to the M1 for accuracy. Due to the differences in op rod, gas systems, gas port position and other factors. Not to mention the advances in, "keeping things tight and in spec." But, IF we were to limit the "problem" to Bolt Action Rifle vs. Bollt Action Rifle.........30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato........then I'd have to say that there is a certain amount of "efficiency" to the burning of powder. How much powder each cartridge could hold would be a factor. The .30-06 having a longer case......more powder capacity......more chance to keep the bullet traveling at supersonic speed for longer range accurate shooting. IF the question was based on M1 vs. M1.........30-06 vs. 7.62 Nato. I guess there would be a "limit," to what could be done. Mostly I suspect, due to the op rod, bullet weight and powder burning rate issues that must be thought of. Aloha, Mark PS.........and, I believe that generally (for the average solider) the U. S. ARMY gave up on the idea of marksmanship at those farther ranges anyway. Last edited by ma96782; 03-10-2008 at 01:36 AM.

03-10-2008, 08:13 PM	#7
rfc357 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 741	Here are the facts on ballistics. Actual achieved velocities for the loads I use: M1A, 7.62x51, 22" barrel, 1-10 155 2700 fps 168 2600 fps 178 2400 fps M1 Garand, .30-06, 24" barrel, 1-10 155 2750 fps 168 2700 fps 178 2550 fps The .30-06 (out of a 2" longer barrel) slightly outperforms the 7.62x51 in velocity. However, in practical match shooting, I have never observed any real difference. The sight corrections for differerent ranges are within a minute or two between the two cartridges, certainly within tolerance you would expect from individual rifles. I have match M1s I have shot in competition. I own M1As. However, I have never shot the M1A in competition. I have shot the NM M14 in competition. As I said above, I prefer the M14 (M1A) platform for ergonomics over the M1, but neither showed a difference in scores (at least for me, a mediocre shooter). Accuracy is a function of individual rifles. I do not shoot past 600 yards. So, to answer eclancy's original question yet again, not enough difference to matter. The M14 was developed to address some specific perceived shortcomings in the M1. Ballistic performance was not one of them. The short barrels of the "scout" rifle cost velocity (25-50 fps/inch). Beyond that, again no difference. There is no reason a short barrel is any less accurate (or any more accurate) than a long barrel. There are sight radius considerations, and there are noise considerations. You pay your money and you make your choice. Last edited by rfc357; 03-10-2008 at 08:30 PM.

03-08-2008, 10:22 AM	#3
Rex Kramer Senior Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 414	My thoughts: The full length, unaltered M1 Garand can accurately go a bit longer than the M14 - however, the M14 offers the rifleman more flexibility. Shorter the barrels on either of these rifles = less muzzle velocity. Short barrels are accurate, but they can't accurately reach out as far as the standard length barrel.

03-08-2008, 03:37 PM	#5
rfc357 Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Posts: 741	With military spec ammunition there is nothing to choose between them ballistically. They are essentially identical. Either is a threat to any target out to 600 yards. Beyond that I do not care. I shoot nothing but military spec ammunition through my M1s and M1As. If I want to mess with stiffer loads, that's why God invented bolt actions. In bolt guns, the .30-06 walks away from the .308 at longer ranges and with heavy bullets. For competition, I prefer the M1A because of better ergonomics. However, I no longer shoot either in competition. I can get better scores with the AR. I like them both. They are equal on the fun meter.

04-01-2008, 11:01 AM	#10
jpwilly Member Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Phoenix, AZ Posts: 79	The rifles and calibers as so similar I don't think we can have a clear leader. When the rifle has been tuned for match accuracy (time money ammo) and one is able to shoot the M1 or M1A at competitive levels. But I do agree getting a little more out of the 30-06 is obtainable.

04-02-2008, 11:02 PM	#11
kygunsmith Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Location: Kentucky Posts: 146	When I used to accurize garands to "NM" I noticed how much harder it is to get a M14 to the same accuracy. Both the rifle's design, weight and rigidity and the ammo contributed, I guess. My lack of skills? Any oaf (Me?) can accurize a Garand in a few hours but it takes more time and skill, I suppose for 14? I used to shoot a pretty good garand at 1000yds, just for fun. If there was no wind and one had good ammo and a "good day" it was amazing what could be done. The scoped c/d was incredible if a new bbl and good trigger.