Page 1 of 1

Garand vs. M14

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 8:26 am
by Smokey
Been reading a paper on infantry weapon development, performance and recommendations which examined the Garand, M14 and AR15/M16 rifles.
Interesting that in the hands of trained infantry in all cases, the Garand outperformed the M14 for typical small-unit engagements.
While it has to be reloaded more often, a higher average rate of fire was maintained with the Garand (57 rnds/minute) than the M14 (40 rnds/minute).
Guess changing the box magazine on the M14 takes some extra time.
For all expected types of small unit engagements, the M16 was far superior.
It also examined why so few troops fired their rifles in WWII combat. With all the marksmanship training, troops didn't fire unless they actually saw someone to shoot at.
Makes sense since folks won't ordinarily expose themselves as a target. By the Korean war, training had troops shooting at an area where the enemy was located. A higher percentage of troops fired their rifles.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 9:01 am
by RWS
Just curious, Smokey. Was the author of that paper a guy named Lee Emerson?

-Bob

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Sun Jan 27, 2019 12:48 pm
by 72 usmc
On rock & roll you can empty a mag asap, you most likely will not hit a thing, but it puts out some rounds. I had it in Boot, on the range and overseas. I like the M14. It is what I qualified expert on when I could still see.
Here is some other info: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kouOZkgZliA

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=USCZsDxg6sA


Lee Ermey M-14 vs M-16
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q-7i-svGLK8

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:33 pm
by Hippycrowe
I think the Garand is quicker to reload it does take time to take a mag out and stick a new one in.

It's too bad the M14 was used for the 1st time in a jungle war were the lighter 5.56 had an advantage at short range. Sometimes at close ranges they found the 30-06 and 7.62x51 would go right through a person and not do too much damage.
Didn't the Winchester mag fed garand shoot 960 rounds a minute.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 9:59 am
by JonnyDetroit
Another variable here is barrel temp. Dumping 8 rounds out and reloading vs 20 to 30 rounds is going to broaden the grouping quite a bit.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Tue May 21, 2019 10:52 am
by ammolab
“Average” rate of fire for an M1 Garand...57rds per minute??? Aimed fire? Even just shooting nothing.

I call major BS on that. You consider yourself an average Garand jockey?.Just try that some time. Load up a web belt or bandolier with clips and start shooting.

And if it nothing but a “mag dump” contest?....the M14 is full auto and can put out more than 40rds per minute “average”.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 3:34 am
by hardcore
to me....
there is no contest, own several of both (m1a no m14s)...
my vote goes to the m1a......
speed of reloading and round count....about the difference in both to me...but i dont know much

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Wed Jun 05, 2019 1:12 pm
by Hippycrowe
Having a Garand a M1a Ak Fn 49 and Ar15 I think the Garand is the fastest to reload and you can stash those clips every place.

It was a great system but now they have 50 round drums for the M1a and 100 round drums for the AR it's hard to see an advantage of an 8 round clip now.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Wed Jun 19, 2019 3:55 pm
by INGarand
The M-14 could also be loaded from stripper clips without removing the mag.

Re: Garand vs. M14

Posted: Thu Jun 20, 2019 3:03 pm
by DarkLord
Well while the M14 had a good number of issues, reloading wasn't one of them. I can't imagine ANYONE being able to put more volume on target with a Garand than an M14. Personally, I would want to see more reports where that consistently happened before I gave any credence to it. Let's remember, the US military has a LONG history of rigging their tests to get the results they wanted.