AR15 VS M1 Garand!

[Mosinowner]

Why not carry a Brown Bess or Charleville? They worked just fine during the Revolution. Or maybe a P53 Enfield or M61 Springfield? They worked equally well during the Civil War. War evolves, weapons change. The M1 was king when most other armies were primarily carrying bolt rifles.

Nostalgia is one thing, reality is another.

This reminds me of when I was trying to convince myself that the Mosin was still relavent

 

[U.S. Patriot]

Depends on the situation. House to house CQB, I would choose the M4. Open fields, desert, etc. then the M1 garand. The M1 falls short in capacity. However, it wins in stopping power, reliability, and accuracy at distance. The M4 wins in capacity, but falls short in stopping power, reliability, and accuracy at distance. It comes down to sacrificng certain traits for others.

 

[Sgt7330]

This is a good post. I carry an AR every day at work and I own 4 Garands personally. Both are great. Now, if the question was .30 vs 5.56 its easy. The 30 cal wins my vote.

 

[Cerberus]

This is a good post. I carry an AR every day at work and I own 4 Garands personally. Both are great. Now, if the question was .30 vs 5.56 its easy. The 30 cal wins my vote.

I can grant you this. I am anxiously awaiting the AR10 platform to become a bit less proprietary.

 

[jblomenberg16]

I own, and enjoy shooting both. To date I've never used either in combat, and I wouldn't have any heart burn if I had either with me if I ever did. If I was forced to choose just one, I choose the Garand due to the fact that it turns cover for the AR15 into mere concealment.

This past weekend I was shooting a steel plate with my M1 Garand....THROUGH at 12" poplar log. It was still hitting the plate as hard as the AR was without the log in between.

 

[repeter1977]

Why not carry a Brown Bess or Charleville? They worked just fine during the Revolution. Or maybe a P53 Enfield or M61 Springfield? They worked equally well during the Civil War. War evolves, weapons change. The M1 was king when most other armies were primarily carrying bolt rifles.

Nostalgia is one thing, reality is another.

agree that times and weapons change, however, earlier in my statement, I had also stated that the 5.56 is a weak round and needs proper shot placement, where as the 30'06 does not need to be done as accurately. I know from experience that I had seen a guy zipped in the chest with 3 rounds of 5.56, and he was holding his arm, cause it was caught with a piece of shrapnel. He didnt even notice the 3 rounds until we pointed it out. Look at what most people use for hunting rounds, very few use the 5.56. I do know that hunting, they are not shooting back, but there is the expression that most hunters go by, "Use enough gun".
Granted, I would rather have the M14, (or even the SCAR 17), but, neither of those were choices. The military has been pulling the M14s out of mothball and has been issuing them out for awhile now, mainly because of Afghanistan. (Course, they were also in Iraq as well, wonderful rifles.)
I know everyone will have a different opinion and different reasons as well. Heck, Im sure even the AR 10 would be just fine as well. I just am not a fan of the 5.56 after seeing how it worked, more then just that time as well. Just my

 

[sepe]

I'd rather take a truck full of Pabst Blue Ribbon, Copenhagen, beef jerky, cheap women, and a S&W .357 with Skynyrd blaring from a PA than any long guns. I'll need to party after I win the war on my own.

Do you really think he needed a long gun for defense...or offense for that matter?

 

[LPMan59]

I'd rather take a truck full of Pabst Blue Ribbon, Copenhagen, beef jerky, cheap women, and a S&W .357 with Skynyrd blaring from a PA than any long guns. I'll need to party after I win the war on my own.

Do you really think he needed a long gun for defense...or offense for that matter?

 

[sepe]

That is the way my vote went BUT he didn't NEED it for defense.

 

[LPMan59]

That is the way my vote went BUT he didn't NEED it for defense.

lol fair enough. all needed was to say "get off my lawn"

 

[Fordtough25]

lol fair enough. all needed was to say "get off my lawn"

True but that was awesome all around!

 

[femurphy77]

I'm a follower of the Garand faith, but urban combat, the shorter lighter AR would seem to be the logical choice. (You don't KNOW how much it hurts to say that!)

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

Why not carry a Brown Bess or Charleville? They worked just fine during the Revolution. Or maybe a P53 Enfield or M61 Springfield? They worked equally well during the Civil War. War evolves, weapons change. The M1 was king when most other armies were primarily carrying bolt rifles.

Nostalgia is one thing, reality is another

Unless you have a select fire AR 15 I don't see your point here. Chances are your civilian AR is semi auto just like a Garand. I know, higher cap, lighter, ect... My point being bringing up the Brown Bess or Kentucky Long Rifle isn't giving th M1 any respect. If you think it's a "nostalgia" weapon, you obviously never owned one or shot one. Black rifles have their place, but in the semi auto platform I'd rather have an M1 or M14. Now if it's select fire, that changes things a bit since being select fire is the main advantage of that weapon platform.

 

[Tac45]

One can't deny the history and effectiveness of the M1 Garand, and it obviously worked well enough in urban combat situations to win us WWII...BUT I would be going into combat with an AR15...probably with a 20 inch barrel but with a collapsible stock.
Long enough to reach and touch someone, but not be cumbersome in a CQB situation.

 

[Rip007]

The AR for Urban setting!

 

[Cerberus]

Unless you have a select fire AR 15 I don't see your point here. Chances are your civilian AR is semi auto just like a Garand. I know, higher cap, lighter, ect... My point being bringing up the Brown Bess or Kentucky Long Rifle isn't giving th M1 any respect. If you think it's a "nostalgia" weapon, you obviously never owned one or shot one. Black rifles have their place, but in the semi auto platform I'd rather have an M1 or M14. Now if it's select fire, that changes things a bit since being select fire is the main advantage of that weapon platform.

Select fire light rifles are for the most part un-needed. If it's FA it needs a bipod or tripod. And yes I have owned and shot both an M1 and M14, along with several other historic arms. The M1 mystique is largely nostalgia as the M14 or clone is far better a choice for just about EVERYTHING other than internet speculation. Can the M1 still be viable? Sure it can, but the same can be said about anything that lauches a projectile.

 

[Airborne33]

Good point. Iraq or Afganistan? I'm taking a M4 to Iraq and an M1 to Afganistan.

Wait... You are taking an M4 to Iraq? Why? No more deployments there.

The military doesn't use the M1 Garand anymore and never the M1A, they use M14's. If we are truly talking about the M1 Garand (uses 8 round clips not magazines) I don't know how it can be compared to a modern combat rifle.

Which is better? Waste of time to talk about honestly, but if you were to discuss things such as room clearing or suppressive fire, the M16 platform since the barrel is in line with the stock will not climb like an M14 will, the M14 is primarily used as a squad designated marksmen rifle.

Both rifles are lethal. Both rifles are dependable. Both rifles are accurate.

If the M4 wasn't one of the best carbines out there, it wouldn't be unanimously used by all of our branches Special Forces.

 

[Robjps]

The military doesn't use the M1 Garand anymore and never the M1A, they use M14's.

The new M14's they have ordered from Springfield are semi auto only so whats the difference between an M14 and M1A?

 

[repeter1977]

Wait... You are taking an M4 to Iraq? Why? No more deployments there.

The military doesn't use the M1 Garand anymore and never the M1A, they use M14's. If we are truly talking about the M1 Garand (uses 8 round clips not magazines) I don't know how it can be compared to a modern combat rifle.

Which is better? Waste of time to talk about honestly, but if you were to discuss things such as room clearing or suppressive fire, the M16 platform since the barrel is in line with the stock will not climb like an M14 will, the M14 is primarily used as a squad designated marksmen rifle.

Both rifles are lethal. Both rifles are dependable. Both rifles are accurate.

If the M4 wasn't one of the best carbines out there, it wouldn't be unanimously used by all of our branches Special Forces.

There are still troops in Iraq, they are just not combat troops. As for the M4 being used by Special Forces, they use quite a lot of different rifles, including the HK variant and the SCAR's. Also, the military has been trying for years to replace the M4, but they say that the benefits do not outweigh the cost. And they are talking about the cost of getting new rifles, magazines, etc. As well as the cost of getting rid of the old rifles. Yep, they figured they would have to pay to get rid of them, so thats why it would cost too much to replace them. Also, the test that the military has run shown that the M4 jammed 4 times more then the other rifles tested to replace it. They blamed the magazine, however, there were a couple using the same magazines, soooo kinda hard to believe.
Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
Ive been hoping that it gets replaced soon, as I have been using it my entire career and I know that there are better rifles out there. But, once again, thats my

 

[Cerberus]

The new M14's they have ordered from Springfield are semi auto only so whats the difference between an M14 and M1A?

When did they order M1As from Springfield?