OT: CMP Garand, Springfield 1903A3

Satori, I've written personally several times to many weapons experts on the issue of FN/FAL vs M14

I'm not convinced any one point of view about the trials holds the truth. The FN was not brought at that time in best example. There is a strong home grown loyalty to the M14 which I understand and makes sense. I like both weapons very much. I prefer the M14. The FN is a more advanced, modular design. In theory, it could have been much better than the already outstanding rifle it was. The M14 /A I believe holds the edge in accuracy, and I say this despite various modification routes the arguments on both sides then go into. The M14 was more accurate than it was 'supposed' to be, and more reliable. It is more acccuate than both the FN and the Garand. The Garand could never be brought to the same level of accuracy because of all the small parts, but it too proved critics wrong in giving both accuracy and reliability despite them.

I think engineering comes close to magic sometimes. The Garand had magic. The Chevy 350 engine has magic. The M14 finds and holds a home in my hands very well. It's a keeper. The AK has magic. Truth be told, so does the lowly AR, with a grimace, groan and grin. "Spronnng"!!!

I like them all though. This is all just my opinion and not gospel for absolute 'anything'. IRMV

I sure enjoy reading your weapons knowledge. Spectre also has many firm beliefs not quite the same as my own.

God, this sure makes me nostalgic for Rusty. He might have said something like, 'you wouldn't want to face a 41 mag projectile from either myself or munk if you were downrange, despite it's ballistic inferiority to the 44.'

One of my friends and favorite gunsmiths loves his O3.
We'll make room for all the good ones here in the Cantina.


munk
 
Just a note about the 1903, the earlier WWI version, not the '03A3.

If you come across an early springfield armory 1903, make sure the sn is over 850,000 or so. (I think that is right) Some early heat treating issues. There was another mfg involved, but the sn range was much lower, maybe 150,000 or there abouts. This is from long ago memory, so if you find one, some checking would be in order.

Again, the CMP guns would not be an issue on this point.

I rebuilt a garand in gunsmithing school.

Don't ask!!

There are tons of parts and accurizing gunsmithing techniques out there for the M1. Not too difficult to switch the barrel to .308. 243 may be possible too, or various other calibers with similar rear case dimensions.

30/06 is what it was designed for though!

never shot an M14/M1A

Did get to shoot a Johnson semi auto rifle once, in 7X57 mauser. neat system, some ways superior to the garand, IMHO. Barrel is easy to remove, great for paras. marines liked in WWII for that reason. 10 rd rotary mag, could be charged with 5 round springfield clips, and couild be topped off while still some rounds left.

If you really want a good ole springfield, how about the Trapdoor, in 45-70?

I would love to see someone shoot one at a match, and get off the 10 rds per minute rapid fire with that! With one of those loading block things, it might be do able!

If you use BP, it would be quite a sight! (and smell1)

I think they would have to let you in at the match, since it was a true service rifle! :)

Tom

I still think about the swiss vetterli in .41 swiss, in case that zombie bear thing shows up around here again!
 
The M-14 is my favorite rifle of all time.
Im not going to argue pros and cons, I think everybody knows.
Im going to say that the M14 is just plain beautiful. She mixes wood and metal the way the old fashioned beauties did and yet provides power and capacity that few rifles can beat, even today.
 
We miss you, Rusty.

The M-14 does succeed in being accurate, firing a high-power cartridge, having a detachable magazine, and in being reliable.

Where it did not succeed was in a fully-automatic firing mode. That nice .30 power meant that it was not controllable in FA fire. Since it was a detachable-mag update of the M1, it was also quite heavy.

Friend Edmund Rowe, civilian Air Force employee, sometimes firearms trainer, and owner of two M-14s, says the M-14 is hard on scopes. So...

If you don't mind the weight, and find the right scope/mount combo, or are good with iron sights, the M-14 may be a great rifle for you. I personally prefer the FAL/STG-58 platform, but I certainly understand the appeal of wood and more "classic" lines on a rifle.

The truth, sad as I find it to admit, though, is that, for the purposes most of us might want them, an AR-15 style or SU-16 rifle will probably be better suited for us. Unless overburdened with gadgets, it's not too heavy, fires a practical, inexpensive and controllable cartridge, and is accurate.

I hate to be the one to say it. Personally, I like a good bolt action best these
days.

John
 
The M-14/M1A is the top of the food chain. It evolved from the Garand, it seems. And the Mini-14 from it. Have owned a Mini since... 1980?

Always wanted but cannot justify the cost of the M1A. They're like $1200-1800, I think or more. THE American combat rifle.

I won't bash the AR-15/M-16, but I've never wanted one. I know they're accurate but it's never clicked for me.

Can pony up the $400 for its Pa. The same coin will get you a Springfield '03. It's on my mind.

Also, take anything I say with a grain of salt. I am no firearms expert, only an enthusiast.

and thanks everybody for the info. One or the other will make it home.

Someday I want a Brown Bess musket, too, but that's another day. But for the same reason. History can be held in your hands.


Ad Astra
 
None of the 308 bullet chuckers are light. The M14 is actually lighter than the FN/FAL or HK

Bolts are good. My dad surprised me the other day though when he said, "Bolts never felt natural to me. Lever or Pump is better than that."

What I like about a good bolt is same as I like in a khuk- elegant, strong, simple, dependable.

munk
 
I'm a big fan of anything Kalashnikov... And I refuse to believe anyone has outgrown them. I like things that I can't screw up.

Unless you want to use chinese mags or drums, the WASR-10s are everywhere right now for a decent price. With the expiration of the ban, they come with slant brakes, bayonet lugs and a folding stock (if you want one). You can supposedly fix the magazine wel to accept the chinese drums and mags, but I've never done it.

Be careful - there is still some crap out there (a lot of pre-bans that were so bad they still haven't sold). Things to look for (on all AK-clones)...

Cant: The front sight assembly is canted to the left or right - sometimes laughably, but even a little can make it impossible to adjust properly (though if you add a nice collimating (red dot) scope it doesn't matter - the Russian models are high quality and cheap.

Misaligned Gas Tube: This is really bad. The tube on top (usually under the top handguard) is misaligned and doesn't seat properly. It can impair functioning of the rifle or result in nasty things such as the gases and assorted pollutants being thrown back into your face.

You can get an American made receiver/trigger group model with more compliance parts. This lets you get a better folding stock (the Romanian's are best IMHO) and pistol foregrip. They accept all the drums out of the box.

Hard to beat a nice blonde stock, blonde pistol foregrip, reddish bakelite pistol grip and drum magazine. A Toni Gun rather than a Tommy Gun. 7.62x39 ammo iis cheap. :) You could do the same with the 11" barrel AK 'PIstols' except putting a pistol foregrip on a pistol is illegal. :(
 
The only "Tanker" I would ever consider, would be one of the limited production runs Springfield Armory actually made of them for the commercial market. That does look like one of them, though I wonder why the wood was refinished.


munk
 
Sassas, have you tried the AKU 94 bullpup kit for the Ak 47? And Munk, have
you ever tried one of the Cetme HK 91 clones? And what do you think of
them if youhave?
 
A CETME is not a HK91. (is it?)
The final 308 version of the CETME is actually about the lightest 308 military carbine. It is kinda handy.


I've fired the HK 91 and like it, though it was heavy and don't care for the cases thrown out to next Tuesday.

munk
 
The Germans were unable to get the license to produce the FN-FAL (I believe they called it the G1) from Belgium, so they produced a rifle based on the CETME. Some parts, IIRC, are interchangeable.

Oh- if you can get one that works (Century imported most, I believe, and their QC is iffy), a CETME is a bargain for about $350. The FN-FAL rifles, though, are probably the best-balanced auto-loading MBR (full-power military rifle). The G3/HK91 is dependable and accurate, but horribly balanced and other ergo are poor as well.

John
 
That's right. The original plans were from German engineers who left Spain and the project. They came up with the G3 or 1 or whatever Spectre just said, and Spanish engineers continued work and came up with the CETME.

The Hk and CETME are not the same.
The CETME went on to fire an anemic 308 kind of cartrigdge. It was 'improved' to fire a NATO 308 before another developement took the rifle to 223. (and whatever the hell it's called then) I'm a little leery wondering if former weak 308 CETME's are insufficiently gunsmithed for the hotter NATO round. A friend has a 308 that does not cycle properly and we wondered if that might be factor.

All this kind of stuff is where munk leaves his brain at the door and is not a gun expert, but just a gun shooter and protaganist. A student. Spectre and Rusty used to keep track of the details around here and now Rusty's gone I guess it'll looks like Satori and Spectre will carry the flag.

I'm a guy still pondering why HK made a action that required fluted chamberes for extraction. Without them, the smooth rolling comes to a stop!

You know guys, life and engineering is/are FUNNY !!!

I like my M1A and I miss Rusty is about all I can say.


munk
 
The other thing, ergonomics- I share Spectre's opinion of the HK fit. It is muzzle heavy (which helps in fire and full auto though none of the 308 hand held carbines are any good at full auto) and sits in a unique fashion. I could appriciate how it held, but it was not my cup of tea. One thing modern guns do is you seem to cradle a weapons systems into your arms more than hold and point a rifle, as was formerly understood. The FN/FAL also has a unique cradle hold approach to recieving and handling the unit which I found rather charming. I do prefer the old style and ergonomics of the M14 though.


munk
 
One thing about the Century CETME's: I remember back when they first hit the market, there was a lot of griping on rec.guns about various problems. It seems that the receiver dimensions are sometimes off. Mine wouldn't accept either of the magazines that it came with, although it takes most G3 mags well enough. It's worth the price but consider it a project rifle that may require some fine tuning before it runs correctly. The other thing to note is that the rear sight is spotwelded on and if the windage is off, you're out of luck. Mine was too far out of alignment to fix with a hammer.

G3 mags usually fit them. TAPCO used to practically give these things away. I don't know if they still sell them or not.

Muzzle heavy is good in the larger calibers. I recall shooting the M16 back in SAAMI for the first time in years, right after I'd finished qualifying on the M14; I sighted in, held my breath, waited for the muzzle to settle out and it never did. :)

I will give one point to the pistol-gripped rifles: they'll allow a shooter to get very sloppy with their positions and still shoot well. (In fact, I don't like shooting the M16 in front of students for this reason - I don't want them getting the wrong idea.) With a more traditional setup like the M14, you will assume the proper position or you will have a bad time. It could be a good learning tool as long as the shooter doesn't develop a flinch after they get a fat lip. :)

Sea story time: we had an old Army marksmanship manual for the M14 kicking around the armory and I made the mistake of reading it. One of the lessons involved the instructor doing the following to show recruits that the recoil isn't anything to worry about - the instructor shoots it from the hip, then fires a round with the butt against the hip, then one round with the butt against the midsection, then one round with the butt against the groin, then one final round with the butt against the chin. The trick is (supposedly) if the butt is held firmly against the body the shock won't be bad.

I tried this out. (Fortunately there weren't any students around.) I got as far as the groin and evidently did something wrong. I never did try the chin. I suppose that if shooting from the groin was a good idea there'd be a position for it. (A position other than me nearly dropping the rifle on my way to the ground.) I staggered away from that with the lesson learned: proper form is vital to good marksmanship. :)
 
My experience with the FAL/FN has not quite been so positive. A Century
Arms with a thumbhole stock is the culprit. After it had been acquired it
was sent out for parkerizing etc. and the first experience at the range was
after one shot the bolt would cycle but the trigger would not engage. Back
to the gunsmith for repairs. :mad:

And the Cetme came with a mainspring that was so stiff that the only way
to charge the thing was use your boot, or put the bolt handle on a table and
press the buttstock down to cock it. Back to the gunsmith for a new spring.
It turned out that when the rifle was assembled they put to short a spring
into the rifle.

I am thinking about just getting a Yugo Sks and being done with it.But the
.308 is such an attractive caliber in that sort of rifle that I just can't give
up and get just a 7.62 x39.

And note to self "keep the stock out of the groin area, the manual was wrong
about that....." :D
 
M1-A, M1 Garand, FN-FAL.....y'all are really makin' me think of some awful quick ways to get rid of my PFD money.... :D

Used to have an M1-A...swapped it off for a supposedly willy whup a$$ flat top AR-15. Gawd do I kick myself for that one.... :mad:

Definitely THE best centerfire rifle I've ever had. Except perhaps for my Savage Scout rifle, but that's comparing apples and oranges...

I was just lookin' 'round at 'em on the net last night infact. debating between a Standard or a "Loaded" package...

Never mind I need a decent hunting rifle or woods stompin' pistol ALOT more than I need a battle rifle, or to properly outfit the guns I already have for that matter... :rolleyes:

I could justify it to the wife as a "just in case" kinda gun, even though I'd probably never do much more with it than blast ice chunks, or maybe take it out moose or caribou hunting once in awhile.
 
fixer27 said:
Sassas, have you tried the AKU 94 bullpup kit for the Ak 47? And Munk, have
you ever tried one of the Cetme HK 91 clones? And what do you think of
them if youhave?
Click to expand...
I haven't tried the AKU kit - the only review I remember reading on them said they were kind of rickety feeling, so I didn't follow up and try. But, one review isn't necessarily indicative of how they'll work out. I like the bullpup idea (I'd love to get a Steyr AUG, but the prices are astronomical now), so I should probably look into it more.
 
munk said:
The only "Tanker" I would ever consider, would be one of the limited production runs Springfield Armory actually made of them for the commercial market. That does look like one of them, though I wonder why the wood was refinished.


munk
Click to expand...

Did you have bad past experiences with the tanker models? Just dont like the design?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top