M1 & M1A whats the difference?
- Thread starter MDLewis
- Start date
The M1A is the civilian, semi-auto version of the M14, in .308 Win.(7.62x51mm NATO). This rifle uses 20-round detachable magazines.
The M1 Garand is a .30-06 rifle that uses an 8-round, internally loaded clip. The M14/M1A is basically a modified M1 Garand.
The M1 Carbine is also a .30-caliber rifle, but the .30 Carbine is much less powerful than the .308 or .30-06. It's more like an elongated pistol cartridge than a rifle cartridge.
The M1 Garand is a .30-06 rifle that uses an 8-round, internally loaded clip. The M14/M1A is basically a modified M1 Garand.
The M1 Carbine is also a .30-caliber rifle, but the .30 Carbine is much less powerful than the .308 or .30-06. It's more like an elongated pistol cartridge than a rifle cartridge.
also the m14 was used in the Begining of vietnam then got replcaced By the m16
the m1 garand and m1 cariBine (m2 is full aute version) were used in ww2 and korea
the m1a is a civilian name for semiauto m14 it uses m14 mags
just like the ar15 is a civilian semiauto copy of the m16
the m1 garand and m1 cariBine (m2 is full aute version) were used in ww2 and korea
the m1a is a civilian name for semiauto m14 it uses m14 mags
just like the ar15 is a civilian semiauto copy of the m16
M1 Garand has a 24" barrel. The M1A has a 22" barrel. The Springfield Armory M1A Scout barrel length is 18". I don't know the barrel length for the M1 Carbine.
The M1A will have either a muzzle break or flash suppressor. The M1 Garand (as made at the factory) has neither. The M1 Garand has a wood stock only. The stock for the M1A can be wood or synthetic.
The M1A will have either a muzzle break or flash suppressor. The M1 Garand (as made at the factory) has neither. The M1 Garand has a wood stock only. The stock for the M1A can be wood or synthetic.
Steve Smith
New member
MD, the functional differenced were these:
The M1 had an internal magazine that the shooter refilled using clips. That meant that the area directly over the magazine had to be claar of obstructions so that you could use the clip. Having that area free of obstructions meant that you couldn't put a scope there. Shooters who scope the M1 used a mount that placed ta scope about 1" on center to the left of the bore. That's fine except, when you zero it, you windage will only be zeroed for one distance (since the bore is pointing straight ahead and the scope is zeroed to meet it at some point downrange. Those two vectors cross and continue on. In a nutshell, an M1 shooter could have his scope zeroed at 200 yds...but he would hit to the right at distances shorter than 200, and he'd hit to the left at distances further than 200.
Along came the M14, with a detachable mag. In function, the M1 and M14 are almost indentical. The detachable mag was the big change. It allows the scope to sit directly over the bore...what a concept. Also,the gas assembly is about 4" shorter.
I don't know the length of an M1, but they are both rifles, not carbines.
The M1 had an internal magazine that the shooter refilled using clips. That meant that the area directly over the magazine had to be claar of obstructions so that you could use the clip. Having that area free of obstructions meant that you couldn't put a scope there. Shooters who scope the M1 used a mount that placed ta scope about 1" on center to the left of the bore. That's fine except, when you zero it, you windage will only be zeroed for one distance (since the bore is pointing straight ahead and the scope is zeroed to meet it at some point downrange. Those two vectors cross and continue on. In a nutshell, an M1 shooter could have his scope zeroed at 200 yds...but he would hit to the right at distances shorter than 200, and he'd hit to the left at distances further than 200.
Along came the M14, with a detachable mag. In function, the M1 and M14 are almost indentical. The detachable mag was the big change. It allows the scope to sit directly over the bore...what a concept. Also,the gas assembly is about 4" shorter.
I don't know the length of an M1, but they are both rifles, not carbines.
Badger Arms
New member
The mechanical differences (other than size and magazine style already noted) are few. The M-14/M-1A use a short stroke gas piston midway down the barrel. This piston operates the rod. The M-1 Garand uses a direct gas-impingement system where gas is bled from directly behind the muzzle and pushes directly on the very-long operating rod. The other major difference is in the Bolt. The Garand uses a lug on the bolt which is cammed into and out of battery by a slot in the operating rod. The M-1A uses a roller on the bolt and a larger raceway in the operating rod. This is said to reduce wear and increase reliability in times of poor weather (rain) or poor lubrication. Some notable changes also involve the machining of a mounting bracket on the left side of the receiver for optical sights. That's pretty much it.
As a note, the M-14 was adopted mainly because of complaints with firepower and the weight of the Garand rifle. The Garand worked well but was too heavy and lacked the firepower desired by military planners of the day. While the M-14 is the final evolution and improvement on the Garand rifle, I find that the Garand ballances better and is just as reliable.
Interestingly, the FN FAL design was deemed superior in virtually every respect to the M-14 when they were tested against each other. The M-14 was improved through a series of minor changes to meet the same standard as the FAL before it was accepted.
As a note, the M-14 was adopted mainly because of complaints with firepower and the weight of the Garand rifle. The Garand worked well but was too heavy and lacked the firepower desired by military planners of the day. While the M-14 is the final evolution and improvement on the Garand rifle, I find that the Garand ballances better and is just as reliable.
Interestingly, the FN FAL design was deemed superior in virtually every respect to the M-14 when they were tested against each other. The M-14 was improved through a series of minor changes to meet the same standard as the FAL before it was accepted.
Jamie Young
New member
Why can't anyone make a Mini 14 like the M1A? I vaguely remember seeing someone answer this but I don't remember?
Rokchukrslave
New member
By the way, I see people write M1A1 alot when refering to the M1A.
I believe the M1A1 is the Thompson SMG with the flat foregrip that our forces used in WWII.
I believe the M1A1 is the Thompson SMG with the flat foregrip that our forces used in WWII.