M14 vs Garand

Other than desirability and fit, objectively, a comparison would boil down to availability, price, magazine system and optics fitment. The M14 holds an advantage in all four areas. Suggest you fondle both to see which one tickles your fancy and fits you better and roll with it. I was once in the same boat - ended up with first with an M14 and then bough a Garand as well!

A discussion forum is only going to help narrow down the criteria that matter to you to make an assessment between the two, fondling it will create the bond :D
 
Band of Brothers fetishism aside, there is nothing the M1 does that the M14 can not do better, cheaper and more efficiently.
The M14 is an M1 Garand with all the wonky design flaws tweaked out.

And yet they spent more than 10 years trying to get it right at the cost of millions of dollars, lied to the US govt saying it (instead of the, say, FAL or even AR10) was going to save money because there were few tooling changes from the Garand, and then it was deployed as the main rifle for just 10 years.

M1 = odd archaic enbloc clip system that cannot be topped up without springing it out and rounds flying all over or with so much care that it's a serious PITA. Seriously this alone is the worst part of the design which is ironic because it's the most iconic part of the rifle. The "ping" of the empty en bloc.
M14 = Practical detachable magazine that can be topped up right from the top of the receiver with the bolt locked back. (also there is now A1A mags available, enough said on that)

The Garand magazine can't be topped off you say?

The M14 was intended to be an evolutionary improvement on the M1 Garand so it should be a better overall infantry rifle. The 20 rd detachable magazine was the biggest improvement. The Garand does have a bit more bedding area to play with which is a plus for it. There really wasn't that much of a reduction in weight with the M14. Our FNs weighed a tad more than both, but you got used to it after carrying it for a while in the field.

There were actually trials using a Garand with a magazine in the end of WWII. About that time (or a bit later) there was even trials of one using direct impingement (http://ww3.rediscov.com/spring/VFPC.../DETAILS.IDC,SPECIFIC=12121,DATABASE=45851823,). And then there is, as others mentioned here, the BM59. Much cheaper to make than the M14 even if we assume the development program for the American rifle was free.

The Garand En Bloc system is retarded. I'm sorry. There I said it. I'm not a fan boy of either design here either I have no vested interest lol It's just goofy. That's why it was never used again anywhere in any design that mattered half a shred. Take a step back and think about it for a second.

While the en block system was not popular after WWII, the RSC/FSA 1917/18 (70K made) and the Swiss bolt action rifles used them rather well.

Anyhow as for using an AIA mag in a 7.62mm NATO Garand I can't speak to that as I have no experience with a 7.62 NATO Garand but my Norc M14 runs a 10 round detachable AIA magazine perfect "friction fit" or not. I can top it up with stripper clips or single rounds from the top without even removing the mag very quick or I can just take the mag off and put a fresh one on very fast.

I've seen people reload a M1 in around 2 seconds from the time they grab a new clip from the pouch. Not going to claim they were the fastest blokes out there.

If I went M14, I was originally thinking of getting a build done on a Norinco reciever, but by the time all's said and I done I'd be a price point where I might want to start looking at a complete U.S forged reciever gun.

https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/983926-M1-Garand-Stripped-Receivers-49-95 mentioned Italian receivers; don't know if they are still for sale or are better than the Norinco one.
 
The Swiss rifles used chargers similar to the Lee-Enfield.

Most Mannlicher rifles used clips.

The Pedersen rifle, which competed with the Garand for US adoption used a clip similar to the Garand.

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/slow-motion-276-pedersen-rifle-video/

The British also looked at the Pedersen, but the design of their clips was slightly different.

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=193-The-Vickers-Pedersen-(Part-One)

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/pedersen-clip/

http://imageevent.com/badgerdog/cgn...sensemiauto?p=31&n=1&m=20&c=4&l=0&w=1&s=0&z=9
 
I stand corrected! :) I thought the Swiss used it but according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1870_Italian_Vetterli, it turns out it was the Italians who used in their variation of the Swiss rifle. And their clip and its usage according to the page is rather... interesting. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clip_(firearms)#En_bloc Lists a few other rifles that used en bloc.

IMHO, one of the arguments for chargers and clips i that they were so cheap to make they were seen as disposable items. With Magazines you were issued a limited number and was expected to keep and reload them later during the commercial breaks. When the Americans fell in love with magazines, they started treating them as disposable items. Note that the original magazines for the M16 were in Aluminium and are known to bend easily if rough handled because of that doctrine. Compare them with an AK one. Of course that makes sense since the American military budget is for all practical purposes infinite.

I think the main argument towards the magazine is that it retains the loading/feed system. All the firearm has to do is grab the round off the magazine using the bolt. As a result, if the loading system develops a problem, replace the offending magazine with a fresh new one and off you go.

Canadiankeeper, that video made my day.
 
Last edited:
The charger for the M1870/87 Vetterli Vitale was unusual in that it was pushed into the magazine like a clip and the knotted string on top was grasped and the charger pulled out of the magazine.

http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?325726-M1870-87-Vetterli-Vitale

https://www.libertytreecollectors.com/productcart/pc/catalog/Item1783.2.JPG

The Dutch Beaumont-Vitali M. 71/88 also used the same type Charger.

https://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/dutch-beaumont-vitali-m-71-88-charger/17031
 
The Garand En Bloc system is retarded. I'm sorry. There I said it. I'm not a fan boy of either design here either I have no vested interest lol It's just goofy. That's why it was never used again anywhere in any design that mattered half a shred. Take a step back and think about it for a second.
Anyhow as for using an AIA mag in a 7.62mm NATO Garand I can't speak to that as I have no experience with a 7.62 NATO Garand but my Norc M14 runs a 10 round detachable AIA magazine perfect "friction fit" or not. I can top it up with stripper clips or single rounds from the top without even removing the mag very quick or I can just take the mag off and put a fresh one on very fast.
It's not just 5/20 mags or 5/5 mags There's also 10 round mags that actually hold 10 rounds like the AIA ;)

Sorry for the necro bump, but saw this and almost spit coffee all over my monitor.

The en-bloc system is NOT retarded. It is, in fact, a VERY effective way to maximize ammunition carrying capacity. The en-bloc went away for two important reasons:

1) After WW2 the US military went to a very tiny standing army and relied heavily on the conscription model - so much so that they seriously struggled to field a fighting force for the Korean war. Rifles were in such poor state of availability and good repair that they had to start building new M1's again and slap-dash refurb the ones they had not scrapped or given away as war aid to european and arab allies. They actually sent supply ships to pacific islands to recover combat-damaged and abandoned M4 shermans, brought them stateside for refurbishment and hurriedly shipped them to korea because they had bought so much into disarmament and the peace dividend post-war.

What this meant was that in Korea they had almost no time to train conscripts after depleting the Japanese garrison for trained fighting men. The M1 is most effective when the manual of arms is trained to the point it becomes muscle memory. A well-trained M1 rifleman can reload the M1 in less than half the time to reload the M14 with its rock-lock magazines. But such training could no longer be afforded from a time perspective.

The USA went into vietnam with the same conscript army mindset. They had just trained the south vietnamese army for almost a decade, and the suoth vietnamese gave the M14 a pass and stayed with the M1 rifle and carbine until very late in the war. Their well trained infantrymen liked the M1 over the M14. The court-ordered and drafted US conscripts with 5 weeks training did better with the easier to learn M14, despite its foibles.

2) The loss of marksmanship value in training. The M1 relied on aimed deliberate fire to be effective. The doctrine around the M14 was on volume of fire over an area of effect. "covering fire" over aimed fire. The idea behind the M1 was to get as low to cover as possible with no protruding magazine to raise up your profile and to deliver sustained aimed fire. In a squad of riflemen, the 2 second reload times would not affect overall rate of fire. The M14 was based around the idea that poorly trained soldiers could deliver the same volume of fire as well trained M1 riflement, but they did so at the expense of less cover in some cases.

In terms of advantages, the weight per volume of ammo is lower with an M1. The three en-block clips weight less than 20% the mass of an empty M14 magazine. Despite the longer rounds, a .30-06 round weights only a few grams more than a 7.62x51 round. An M1 rifleman could carry more ammunition in en-blocs than an M14 rifleman could carry in magazines, the weight of which diminished the overall carry capacity. En-blocks could also be carried in lightweight disposable cloth bandoliers. and en-blocs could be made very very cheaply compared to magazines.

The advantages of en-blocs have long been known. The French preferred the 3 round Berthier en-bloc to any other system in WW1 because it could be reloaded so quickly by a trained soldier. The same was true of the M1.

I would submit that if anyone thinks the 8 round en-bloc is a bad system, they need more time with the system and train to use it properly. It says more about your skill level than anything else.
 
The French switched to a 5 shot clip for their Mannlicher-Berthier rifles and carbines, part way through WW1.

The 1917 and 1918 semiautomatic rifles had 5 shot clips.
 
The French switched to a 5 shot clip for their Mannlicher-Berthier rifles and carbines, part way through WW1.

The 1917 and 1918 semiautomatic rifles had 5 shot clips.

Sort of. The berthier 5 shot charger (not the unique RSC clips) was developped in 1917 but new released until 1918. Almost none were use on the western front before the end of the war.

They had become the standard by WW2 - which is when most 5 round berthier clips were made/used.
 
Back
Top Bottom