Which M14?

*takes a deep breath*

ok here goes.

1. you must get the full length m14's. the socoms are too small for garand or bars(with the exception of a garand tanker which arguably wasnt used in the european theatre anyway).

2. tm agm or kart. how longs a piece of string? the kart and agm are direct copies of the tm and alot cheaper. Personally I prefer the clone guns but thats upto you. as for which clones better. Keith at RSOV said AGM make the better full size m14 where as Karts socom is better than AGM's.

3. converting it into a garand or bar isnt easy make sure you realise what you're letting yourself in for. ie what parts are needed and how easy are they to get.

4. several people on here have commented the metal on SOF's belts are shite so maybe look elsewhere.

5. m14 mags dont fit in garand belts. unless you do the special chop down to make them small enough to not stand out and then you only get 12ish shots a mag.

hope that helps

AGM stocks actualy look better than TM, Oddball has a AGM stock on a TM, TM will generaly be finished better & have nicer looking internals & also will be 4 times the price, £200+ for a new TM, £50 if you manage to get one from China, if you can prove a defence for buying one you may be able to get one from China if they agree to ship you one, if not you should still be able to get a AGM from a UK retailer again if you are registered as a skirmisher for about £120 odd quid, KARTs are ok, you dont have to mess with the battery leads & they also are normaly more powerful than a TM, 340 odd fps on 0.2g bbs, as for a belt get a US tan pistol belt & use the M1 carbine rigger pouches to put the M14 mags in, like these:

http://cgi.ebay.co.uk/WW2-US-Riggers-ba ... dZViewItem

Steve.D

a BAR ammo belt may work too

*takes a deep breath*

ok here goes.

1. you must get the full length m14's. the socoms are too small for garand or bars(with the exception of a garand tanker which arguably wasnt used in the european theatre anyway).

All of what he said, with the exception of the last bit- I'm pretty sure the 'argument' has been settled. So-called 'Tanker' Garands were never issued to anyone anywhere.

The "Tanker Garand" is a "misnomer." During WWII two separate prototypes were developed for paratroop use. The first was the M1E5. The M1E5 had a short barrel and a folding metal stock. It was developed and tested in the Summer of 1944, but then abandoned because of the loud report and large muzzle flash from the short barrel.

In the fall of 1944 the Pacific Warfare Board ordered a test quantity of 150 M1 Rifles to be shortened and tested for jungle and paratroop use. These conversions were rather crudely done in the Pacific Theatre of Operations, either in Australia or the Phillippines. A request was made that Springfield Armory manufacture these shortened M1s, and two were sent by air to the USA for testing.

When the Springfield Armory staff saw the improvised short Garands, they recognized that they were the same as the M1E5 but with a normal wood stock. Thereupon they assembled their own version, designated T26. After testing the same conclusions were drawn as before; the barrel was just too short to be practical. Thus only one T26 was ever made in the USA.

Of the two test rifles sent from the Pacific, one is in the Springfield Armory Museum. The location of the other, if it still exists, is unknown. The lone T26 was reported destroyed in testing at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.

In the 1950's several entrepreneurs, including Robert E. Penney, Jr., acquired a great deal of Garand scrap including cut-in-half receivers and parts sets. They built perhaps ten or twenty thousand rifles by welding receiver halves together. This was crude, but it was the only way at that time to get a Garand outside of the Directorate of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM, now the Civilian Marksmanship Program, CMP). Robert Penney noted the short Garand at the Springfield Armory museum during a visit there and decided to meld his interest in tanks with his business interests, Alpine and National Ordnance, prime "remanufacturers" of Garands from Garand scrap. Penney decided that a short T26-type Garand would fit nicely in a tank turret, and coined the term "Tanker Garand." However, the short Garands that were tested by the Army during WWII were not intended for use by tank crews! Nevertheless, Penney's name for the T26-type rifle stubbornly stuck; few gun people recognize "T26" but nearly everyone has heard of the "Tanker Garand." Even now when M1s have been much more available, the popularity of a short Garand remains strong. Thus many have been made on good, original receivers.

Scott Duff and I have some evidence that a substantial number of rifles were in fact converted in the Phillippines in 1944; we have some evidence of when and where they may have been issued. However, no "factory built" T26 will be found, and no field-converted short Garand has ever been found. We believe that the latter were converted back into standard rifles or destroyed. Should one exist, it would be an important historic artifact. I do not believe that any exist, however.

The T26 (so-called "Tanker Garand") is a very good example, along with others like the U.S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M1E5 - a short barreled Garand with a metal pantagraph-type folding stock that some thought might see paratrooper service... it didn't... most of these remain at the Springfield Armory National Historic Site to this day."

NOTE: There are varying models of the T26 Tanker Garand out there, most having been manufactured by Springfield Armory in the 1980's and 1990's. They are available in the original 30-06 Springfield or the 308 Winchester (7.62x51mm NATO) round. The TANKER GARAND fires in semi-auto (gas operated) either the .30-06 or .308-Winchester, feeding from an 8-rounds internal magazine.

Credit to Scott Duff, scott-duff.com and SecurityArms.com for image and text

We have a KART wood effect short version and 2 TM wood effect full length M14s.

I agree with Rhys - get the full length ones - don't know what possessed me to get the short version.

Here's my thoughts on comparison between the two.

FINISH

The wood effect of the KART is much much better than the TM and really looks like wood. But it does have "Made in China" moulded into the plastic on the side of the foregrip from memory. Don't know if the AGMs have this feature.

The rear sight assembly on our KART literally fell to pieces when I got it out of the box and had to be glued back together.

The TM metal parts are much nicer.

RSOVs cheapo real wood stocks fit the TM with a bit of persuasion and swearing.

SHOOTING

The KART one probably shoots harder but not sure if it's more accurate. Will do a test at some point.

On single shot, the "cycle time" on the TM is noticeably faster and smoother than the KART which has a distinct delay between pulling the trigger and the motor turning over and a bb coming out.

RELIABILITY

Our TMs have been going for 18 months with no problems whatsoever.

Other people have commented on losing full auto on the AGM M14s. Not sure about the KART and haven't actually used it yet so can't comment myself on reliability.

MAGAZINE COMPATIBILITY

The cheap Midcaps obtainable from say Airsoft Scotland feed fine in the TMs but not at all in the KART. Hicap mags seem to work with both though.

EDIT - BAR ammo belt pouches fit M14 magazines perfectly.

I've read bits and bobs of people asking their armourers in europe to shorten them for city fighting but no ones ever proved it or found a sample of it, hence the arguable comment

either way they were late/post war so just go full length

If the BAR belt is the cheaper odd coloured one from SoF then avoid it. The colour is really bad and doesn't even remotely go with any loadout. You can try and dye it but its probably more hassle than its worth as the colour isn't too far off but far enough off .. if that makes any sense

Theres an HK Seller on ebay that sells better ones for around the same price I think.

I bought sof's off colour thompson bag for a tenner. with a few soaks in bleach and a few washes it actually turned out really good. but if you want something thats right from the word go avoid them.

I've read bits and bobs of people asking their armourers in europe to shorten them for city fighting but no ones ever proved it or found a sample of it, hence the arguable comment

either way they were late/post war so just go full length

Ahh gotcha-

Although regardless of being 'incorrect' or whatevs, that bottom foldy-stock Garand is really just begging to be modded and made yes?

...Don't know how I'd replicate that pistol grip though-

Still maybe a good project for a ECHO1 SOCOM I have laying about

but if you want something thats right from the word go avoid them.

Ah well theres "good enough to skirmish with" and "looks like a load of toss". Most of Sofs stuff sits with the first one but this was an exception.

never seen that lower "M1"
and i gotta say its nasy, very, i allmost started to cry when i saw it

if you do go for m14. best bargain it the d-boys full metal version.
low price and surprisingly high preformance.

friend of mine just go and he could not believe accuracy

Thanks guys. I think what I'm going to do is get an AGM M14 either in drab or black and a BAR belt from eBay Keith plus a box of King lo-caps.

Longer term, I'm keeping an eye out for BAR bits and will do a conversion.

Does anyone else think the AGM wood finish looks really cheap or is it just me?

IMHO the AGM wood finish is better than the TM (which scratches off quickly) and in any case is better than olive drab or black if you want it for WW2 use!

Does anyone else think the AGM wood finish looks really cheap or is it just me?

I've got two and the wood looks fine to me. certainly equal to the TM wood finish i've seen.

Anyone bought a AGM M14 real wood stock from HK?

I've seen a few on different sites but not sure how good the wood really is, before I chop it up for a M1 Garand

I have an original M1 wood set, but it looks like a LOT of work to fit the M14 gearbox etc. I know that our fellow American WW2 airsofters have run into trouble with real stock, and have a 'half-way-house' version(chopped M14 stock and M1 handguards and M1 frontend) that looks pretty good.

I've got the ACM wood kit for my M1A1 and it's pretty good - they seem to use the same kind of timber for all the wood kits.

The screw holes sometimes seem to need a bit of work but no complaints from me.

It's also a bit too red in colour at the mo (as I think they all are) but I'm going to use the light sanding+boot polish+oil technique and knock a few scratches into her for 'realism'.

Thanks for the info HB - I plan on working the wood to match the original M1 woodwork.