Superior HK XM8 Kicks M4's Ass

In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)

Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?

/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
still! ;-)

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)


Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.
Per TM9-1276:
M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)

"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...

"Paul J. Adam" wrote in message
...
In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1
Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right?

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)


Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
(M1 carbine and Garand)


Per TM9-1276:
M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)

Thanks for that

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry

I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for
..22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie
wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt...


*Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the
better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em.

In article , "tw" wrote:

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
(M1 carbine and Garand)

Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there-
http://www.fulton-armory.com/

"Bill" wrote in message
...
In article , "tw"
wrote:

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.
Were
these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock
length/magazine?
(M1 carbine and Garand)

Scroll to the bottom of the page at this link and go from there-
http://www.fulton-armory.com/

Thanks Bill!

From: "tw"
Date: 7/6/2004 4:06 AM Central Daylight Time

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.

OK, it looks like a definition is needed here. The garand DOES have a magazine.
it is internal. Think of magazines as the part that holds the ammunition. Bolt
action rifles like the Remington 700 have internal magazines and lever actions
like use tubular magazines.

A clip, like the 8 round clip for the garand and stripper clips for M-14, M-1
carbine, M-16, SMLEs etc are used to LOAD magazines.

As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In article ,
(B2431) wrote:

From: "tw"
Date: 7/6/2004 4:06 AM Central Daylight Time

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine.

OK, it looks like a definition is needed here. The garand DOES have a
magazine.
it is internal. Think of magazines as the part that holds the ammunition. Bolt
action rifles like the Remington 700 have internal magazines and lever actions
like use tubular magazines.

A clip, like the 8 round clip for the garand and stripper clips for M-14, M-1
carbine, M-16, SMLEs etc are used to LOAD magazines.

As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.

Mine's a 1943 Springfield build, and I'm thinking of doing the conversion
to .308 like the Navy did for their National Match guns.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

From: (Harry Andreas)
Date: 7/6/2004 6:13 PM Central Daylight


As an aside my garand is a very low, less than 500, serial number. I'm
collecting parts to restore it to its original gas trap system.

Mine's a 1943 Springfield build, and I'm thinking of doing the conversion
to .308 like the Navy did for their National Match guns.

--
Harry Andreas
Engineering raconteur

Pic your parts carefully, measure carefully, get a pull through NM chamber
reamer and above all else take your time. If you lived close enough I'd loan
you my action wrench. That's the easy part. Just remember bedding the action is
an art.

One thing to check on your op rod is for the cut out where the handle meets the
rod. It's there because the old style which didn't have it would break if the
op rod came far enough back to strike the front of the receiver.

Good luck with your project.

Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired

In message , tw
writes
"Jim Knoyle" wrote in message
...
M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

Right-ho. That's the one with the full length stock, right?

That's the one: long, hefty brute. Good kit, though.

Also, there was the cal .30 carbine.

This is what has me confused I think - so there is the M1 Garand (which
never seemed to have a magazine - that tallies with Paul's description of
the 8 round charger) then there was a carbine which looked rather like my
old BSA Meteor air rifle with what looked like a 20 round box magazine. Were
these the same rifle but with different barrel length/stock length/magazine?
(M1 carbine and Garand)

No. The M1 Carbine was designed as a smaller, lighter weapon for troops
that didn't need a full-on rifle but if they *did* have to fight, they
needed something more effective than a pistol. (Truck drivers, mortar
teams, bakers, et cetera). So it was designed around a lower-powered
round that could reach out further than a pistol or SMG, but could still
be fired from a light and handy weapon.

To expand on Jim's listing of the M1 Carbine family, a folding-stocked
version was provided for airborne troops (the M1A1 Carbine), and later
the weapon was modified to fire full-auto (the M2 Carbine) which also
produced a 30-round magazine - the original M1 had a shorter 15-round
mag, though of course either would fit any mark. There was also a M3
designed for use with an early IR sight.


The concept's returned in the form of the "Personal Defence Weapon" such
as the H&K MP-7 or the FN P90, interestingly.

Per TM9-1276:
M1 Carbine with wooden stock, semi-automatic.
M1A1 Same but folding metal stock.
M2 Carbine with selector for semi or full auto.
M3 Same but accepts sniper-scope. ( see TM5-9341)

Thanks for that

Don't forget the M1 SMG, which was a much-simplified Thompson The US
military has a respectable selection of M1s...

I believe we used to fire them in CCF, though they had been rechambered for
.22 instead. That was the underlever rifle we used to "slosh the fuzzie
wuzzies"* wasn't it? .45 calibre originally? That must have hurt...

Zulu
"If it's a miracle, Sergeant-Major, it's a .45 short-chamber Boxer-Henry
miracle."
"And a bayonet, sir. With some guts behind it."
/Zulu

*Although Corporal Jones would have you believe the cold steel was the
better option. They DO NOT like it up 'em.

"Don't panic! Don't panic!"

--
He thinks too much: such men are dangerous.
Julius Caesar I:2

Paul J. Adam MainBoxatjrwlynch[dot]demon{dot}co(.)uk

In article ,
on Mon, 5 Jul 2004 18:33:17 +0100,
Paul J. Adam attempted to say .....

In message , tw
writes
I've always wondered, what are the differences between the M1, the M1 Garand
and the M14?

M1 rifle was named the Garand: chambered for .30-06 and feeding from an
eight-shot charger.

M14 was very similar, but was chambered in 7.62mm NATO, used a
twenty-round box magazine, and in some versions had a full-auto
capability (little used and often deleted)

Is it just cosmetic stuff like magazine capacity, barrel length
and shape of the stock etc, or is there a big difference in the action?

/*obligatory nationalist point scoring to be taken with pinch of salt*/
Of course, the SLR kicked both their arses, and the Lee-Enfield was better
still! ;-)

Now, for lethality you want a Martini-Henry

Trapdoor Springfield in 45-100 !


--
When dealing with propaganda terminology one sometimes always speaks in
variable absolutes. This is not to be mistaken for an unbiased slant.