know one's chambered 30-06 & 1- 308
I also understand the work in that action properly there are a few recommended powders and loads. question b with these recommended loads how much faster velocity is a 30-06 doing over the 308? with equal weight bullets or is that a big factor also? if the bullet weight is not a that bigger Factor let's just say 168

The Garand is capable of more velocity. It just depends on the load. The big difference is the 8 round clip verses the magazine. Garands can be chambered in 308/7.62 but typically are not. The M1A's have a simplified gas operating system over the M1 Garand. As per velocity differences; some, but not a lot. Since the U.S. took the M1A over the Garand starting in the 1950's it appears that velocity isn't a real big issue. Ammo commonality with the other NATO nations appears to be a driving factor.

kwg

24 inch barrel vs 22 inch barrel too.

M1A was never a government issued rifle. It's a commercial semi auto version of the select fire M14 which requires a Class III license and a warehouse full of 7.62 ammo to feed it. There are better choices than the M1A if you want a military style rifle chambered for the NATO round. The .30-06 round the M-1 fires has about a 200 FPS advantage over the 7.62- - - -same bullet, more powder.

great information it took a while but thank you for those that replied..

Although I never had a M1A, I shot a government issue M14 quite a bit. I own two M1 Garands, one looks like new (I've never shot it), the other I've shot in competition. For war the M14 is better, in my opinion. For accuracy, I think the M1 wins out, but then I only shot military ammo in the M14. However, from what I have heard from people who own the M1A's and M1's, the M1 is more accurate. In Marine Corps boot camp I shot a 496 out of 500 possible with the M14, so it's no slouch.

From the internet - Wikipedia:

The 7.62x51:
Maximum pressure (NATO EPVAT) 60,191 psi (415.00 MPa)
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
147 gr (10 g) M80 FMJ 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s) 2,559 ft⋅lbf (3,470 J)
175 gr (11 g) M118 long range BTHP 2,600 ft/s (790 m/s) 2,627 ft⋅lbf (3,562 J)


the 308 Win:
Maximum pressure (C.I.P.) 60,191 psi (415.00 MPa)
Maximum pressure (SAAMI) 62,000 psi (430 MPa)
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
125 gr (8 g) Spitzer 3,100 ft/s (940 m/s) 2,668 ft⋅lbf (3,617 J)
150 gr (10 g) Nosler tip 2,820 ft/s (860 m/s) 2,648 ft⋅lbf (3,590 J)
168 gr (11 g) BTHP 2,650 ft/s (810 m/s) 2,619 ft⋅lbf (3,551 J)
175 gr (11 g) BTHP 2,645 ft/s (806 m/s) 2,718 ft⋅lbf (3,685 J)
185 gr (12 g) Lapua Mega JSP 2,510 ft/s (770 m/s) 2,588 ft⋅lbf (3,509 J)

The 30-06 AKA 7.62x63:
Maximum pressure (C.I.P.) 58,740 psi (405.0 MPa)
Maximum pressure (SAAMI) 60,000 psi (410 MPa)
Maximum CUP 50,000[2] CUP
Ballistic performance
Bullet mass/type Velocity Energy
150 gr (10 g) Nosler Ballistic Tip 2,910 ft/s (890 m/s) 2,820 ft⋅lbf (3,820 J)
165 gr (11 g) BTSP 2,800 ft/s (850 m/s) 2,872 ft⋅lbf (3,894 J)
180 gr (12 g) Core-Lokt Soft Point 2,700 ft/s (820 m/s) 2,913 ft⋅lbf (3,949 J)
200 gr (13 g) Partition 2,569 ft/s (783 m/s) 2,932 ft⋅lbf (3,975 J)
220 gr (14 g) RN 2,500 ft/s (760 m/s) 3,036 ft⋅lbf (4,116 J)

It looks like the 30-06 beats the 7.62x51 by about 100 FPS or a little more.


Note the 7.62x51 NATO has a lower pressure than the 308 SAAMI rating.

This information is from Wikipedia and you can read a lot more there.

ldholton, if you intend to purchase a M1 or M1a I suggest looking at Hodgdon's online data for M1 Garand and 308 service rifle data.

For factory ball ammo... the M1A is generally a little faster.

But, if you install a GarandGear Ported Gas Plug?



... factory or hand-load 30-06 hunting rounds shine.


I prefer the M1 Rifle for hunting.

It's smooth bottomed and handles well in the field.

Generally shoot 168 gr. TSX ammo.




GR

4895 shines in either although I am sure newer powders work also. I started competition in the mid 60's with a 1903 Springfield but graduated to an M1 when DCM (now CMP) started selling them. I have had three of them. It was fairly easy to bring one of the DCM service grade rifles up to national match standards if you were luckily enough to get one with a new barrel. I had an opportunity to shoot a M14 when I lived in Albuquerque and Navy team was shooting beside me.I am still using National Match brass that they gave me. I did better with them M1.

op rods are longer on an M1. tend to bend.
i speak from years with the navy team and hanging out on the crane truck. those in the know will know what i mean by crane truck. you get to see all the issues come in and go out perfect
my vote is for the M1A.
M1A is easier to load from prone.

Op rod bending on a Garand is a function of the powder used. IMR4895 was designed for the Garand. I cannot speak to the MiA
Also with the Garand top end loads even with INR4895 need to be avoided.
A good loading manual will have a section just for Garand

The literature that comes with an M1A from Springfield says their rifles are cleared to shoot all Nato 7.62 ammo and all .308 ammo except the High Energy stuff.
As I understand it, the M1 should be loaded to about 2700 fps. with 150 gr. bullets. That means if there is any difference, it would be with the .308 ammo.
As far as accuracy is concerned, both of my rack grade M1A's shoot best with milder handloads. The Squad Scout puts four into 1 MOA with 46 grs. of TAC and any good 125-130 gr. bullet. The Scom 16 is good for about 2 MOA with 34 grs. of AA5744. These are with the heavier military style brass. E

thank everyone giving the information. I'm just always been under the assumption the Grande is actually loaded fairly light for the O6 nowadays. I just didn't know with equal weight bullets at the M1A pretty much shot at same velocities with recommended loads....

Mule Deer wrote an article on the Garand

I think one has to back up to intended use & desires for such a purchase. I/we have both, 2 Garands and a Springfield M1A. Yes, the Garand has the history & is a formidable rifle no doubt.

The M1A is no slouch. I think I’d grab that first over the Garand if I needed such a rifle. It just seems more trouble free, digest about any ammo without issues.

Just a layman’s opinion, yes I realize we won WW-II.

Interesting article on the M14:

The M14, Not Much For Fighting

That guy is a total moron. 40 of my platoon was killed with in two weeks of being forced to have the POS AKA M16.
That guy never had a combat rifle in his hand. Total moron.

Damn ...
I would love to sit down with you and get some history lessons first hand

Would rather carry an M60……but the the M14 was to heavy….. from the article.

The FN FAL should have been the U.S. M14 IMHO.

On that note:





GR

The 7.62x51 shined in the M60. But, I get the point with going to a round that was effective out to 400 yards. Especially one in 7mm. It was a missed opportunity. Then to go to the 5.56x45. That was a huge jump. Great story.

kwg

I have shot competition with both rifles. I shot the M1 first, then after years I bought a match conditioned M1A.
I think, maybe, I prefer the M1. It holds better in offhand for me, and it feels more solid if that is real. Probably because I used it first.
After the M16A2 was introduced in 1986, I got a AR16A2 in 87. That ended my 30 caliber career. Shortly after I quit service rifle due to time/money/job etc.
I have to sell those, but somehow I don't.

I have both.
My M1A is a wood stocked Standard Model, as close as I could get to the M14's Uncle Sammy issued me.
When my eyes were 19 years old I could hit those pop up targets out to 500 meters with iron sights (optics weren't a "thing" in 1968). And that's not testament to me, but to the rifle.

My Garand is a 1945 Springfield that has been rebuilt an unknown number of times before CMP brought it back from Korea. It's a sweet rifle.
For self defense though I'd grab the M1A before the M1.

I was issued an M16A1 in Vietnam, and it was OK, but I've never had the urge to buy an AR.

In the article "M14 not much for fighting" he reference someone picking up a M1-a or M14 by the front or top handgaurd and upsetting the competitor who is shooting the rifle refering to an accuratized M14, that system belongs to the M1 garand, one has to fasten the handguard to the barrel band by epoxy and long countersunk screws and ream out the handguard front contact point with the barrel so it doesn't touch the barrel, if the rifle is handled by this handguard it can end up touching the barrel and destroying accuracy. The M14 doesn't even have one of these handguards, perhaps he is not as familiar with these two rifles as he is professing to be

I slightly prefer the Garand for shooting prone, because I can get a lower, more stable prone position without the magazine in the way. The Garand is harder to load prone rapid fire, but the prone match is usually slow fire. If you have a single load device {SLED}that works well, the loading is a wash.

I slightly prefer the M1A for standing because I can use the magazine as a palm rest. For the other positions there is little difference.

I have not used either in combat, though I did use a DRMO surplus M14 for SWAT for 3 years or so. I didn't shoot at anyone with it, the M14s went to the drill team for parades and funerals and we got new AR15s. If you had all your 30-06 in 8 clips you could keep up a pretty steady rate of fire I suppose. The darned clips are so expensive they aren't really disposable any more. Domestic shootouts are usually settled in the first few minutes anyway.

I think on the whole I find bedded M1as with a good barrel slightly more accurate than a comparable Garand. A good Garand will run rings around a fairly average M1A. All the above will hold the 10 ring if you do your part.

Must have both !!! + & - to each of them.

They're both cool rifles. Lots of pluses and minuses depending on what you want to do with them;

For both the convention is powders with burn rates between 3031 and 4064 with the 4895's being the "go-tos" There's been a bunch of new powders since then, so you'll have to research whether they'll work...burn rate charts aren't always accurate when it comes to the Garand and m14. Bullets should be no heavier than 175's...maybe 178's (unless you're willing to get into the special mods to accomodate heavies).

Garands come with built in history. Can be had in 308 as well as 30-06. With out a magazine hanging down, they're easier to shoot in prone. With the 24" barrel you have a longer sight radius for easier sighting.
Oprod is less forgiving than in an M14/M1A.

Negatives: En-bloc clips take some doing to get the hang of and you'll probably learn what a "Garand Thumb" is in the process. You'll want a Garand SLED (single load enhancement device). Maybe a two round clip if you want to shoot Highpower.

M14/M1A's have an improved gas system with a gas cutoff. But you'll still have to observe the powder burn rate conventions. The Box magazine makes life a bit easier for loading.

Both are about 2 or 3 minute rifles out of the box. Both have known accurizing procedures (bedding, unitizing gas system etc) and can yield a 1 MOA rifle...but the smiths/armorers that are good at it are a dying breed. I personally know of recent wins logged by both at 600 and 1000 yards over very good AR shooters at big Service Rifle matches so they're certainly capable of accuracy still.

A competition gun ridden hard requires a good amount of maintenance. I'd get a rebed annually...and parts breakage was a regular occurence. Parts used to be readily available...but now you're competing with the collector market for the M1 and a dwindling supply for both. They're getting pricey.

Neither has what I would call a easily installed, solid scope mounting system.

Oh yeah...while that article is crap, he is right about the durability of a match tuned M14.

If you have an unlimited budget, there are a couple of chassis systems ie Sage, for the M14 that address bedding and scoping issues...but you'll be lugging a 12lb rifle at that point.

M1 Garand, the original is better.

FN - FAL,
better than M14, M1a, M1,

To the OP, the difference for the basic ball ammunition (M2 vs M80) will not be enough to worry about out to 500 Meters; most people cannot hold well enough to tell the difference between the two.

The powder recommendations provided earlier are sound; IMR & H4895 will work in both the M1 and M1A. I have always full length sized my brass and have not needed a "small base die" for either the M1 or the M1A.

It really comes down to which rifle you like best (or both if you're a rifle looney).

I had a long love affair with the M14/M1A going back to the summer of 1976 when I watched the Marine Corps Rifle Team shoot at Camp Butner, NC against the Navy Team, a team from 18th ABN. Corps and several National Guard Teams. At that match the active-duty teams shot match conditioned M14's and the National Guard teams were shooting M1's. I was allowed to police up as much LC NM brass as I could carry; our 308 and 30-06 hunting rifles were well supplied with excellent brass for years after.

When I joined the Marine Corps in June 1977, we were issued M16A1's at Parris Island and I shot "Expert" (225 out 250) on the KD Course (200, 300 & 500 yards). My first shots with the M14 were a familiarization fire (FAM FIRE) at Camp Geiger while at the Infantry Training Regiment. I did make several attempts to get on the 8th Marines Regimental Team and I did finally succeed and shot several divisional matches and inter-service matches between deployments as part of the 2nd Marine Division Rifle Team.
Our rifles were M14's tuned up by the regimental armorers that were MOS 2112's and they had been trained at MCB Quantico Precision Weapons Section.

After leaving active duty to attend college I bought a standard grade M1A in late 1983 and ammunition (M118 & M852) was provided by my reserve unit and I did use lots of PMC & GI M80. I later acquired a M1A NM and it was bedded and I started shooting local EIC and Service Rifle Matches.
I fired my last match with a my double lugged M1A at Parris Island, SC in 2003, then I switched to a Rock River NM LAR-15A2 in 5.56mm.

While I no longer have an M1A I have stayed with the M1 and still use them recreationally along with the occasional John C. Garand Match.

You can't go wrong with either one.

StarchedCover

From what I gather, the M1 is a more accurate rifle and the 7.62x51 is a more accurate cartridge. To get the best of both get a M1 with a 7.62x51 barrel - that is if you're serious about paper punching.
I like the M1, I have two, one I've shot in matches and the other is like new. I'd like a M1A, but only the most accurate one I could find. I liked the M14, I'd really like to have the one I was issued. But M14's are crazy priced and I don't need nor desire the full auto function, though it would be a neat show and tell option.
Maybe I'll find a M1A that has my name on it, someday.

CMP has M1's for sale, now and then.

LOL...In these two rifles in question, the 7.62 is the more accurate cartridge. It's largely due to the limitation in powders for the gas system. In short, you can't get close to 100% loading density in a 30-06 used in a Garand.

The rest of the statement about the Garand being the more accurate platform is probably not true from a competition standpoint. Bart Bobbit and Joe Sopko will tell you the Navy's Garands built by Mac McCoy were the most accurate Service Rifles on the line...but the Navy wasn't winning very often at the Nationals. The Army and the Marines Service Rifle Teams shot the best scores ever shot with a 30 caliber service rifle, but they both shot M14's once the accurizing was worked out.

Bottom line...shoot what makes you smile the biggest!

Disagree

lol! Enjoy your Garands! My final statement in that post is I feel the most important.
This subject is fresh and relevant for me because I’m gearing up to compete with a .30 cal, Iron Sighted Service Rifle ie. Garand and M1-A. I’ve done the math and the critical thinking and I’m going with the M1A’s for ATC and LR Highpower. The Garand had two attractions. The 24” barrel gives a longer sight radius and velocity…but in the end, the M14’s other advantages won out.

I’ve got a bit of back and forth with friends in the know (thanks Nez, Dave and Joe) I’m at the stage of accumulating bullets and powders (lotsa cool new zoot options) so it’ll probably not be Sierra 2200’s this go around.

Maybe I’ll see you on the line with your Garand!

If it's a big smile you are after, grab an M1 Carbine.

Sort of, maybe???
For accurized target rifles, the M1A/M14 has the superior accuracy without a doubt.
For rack grade infantry rifles...Yeah, kinda. So when brand new, the M14 had superior accuracy to the M1. The problem was the fact that under normal use, the M14 beats its gas cylinder loose, and develops op-rod alignment issues. According to a government report, this starts at around 3,500 rounds...That's not much at all. So over time, the M1's may have started out with lesser accuracy, but they maintained their accuracy while the M14's just got a little bit worse every day. This issue was found to be a fundamental design flaw that would have been extremely expensive to correct, and was a leading issue in the cancellation of the M14. It would have caused a serious re-design, and then re-tooling on a rifle that already cost 9x the cost of a single AK; and was inferior to the AK in actual use.