Would you include a Garand ?

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Not CASH... by the way. BUT a Caliber 30 M1 Garand.
When you think of military type rifle systems.... would you think of the M1 Garand as being a "Harder" or "More Complicated" rifle to learn to operate ?
I grew up in that erra... The Garand was in every army movie. Everyone shot one. It was always there at the bench.
But today the younger shooter sees the AR system. Movies, military, police.... stores !
So would you suggest a M1 Garand be included in a "Survival Pachage" today...?

[Bret4207]

Depends on your idea of "survival". If you're talking parachuting into the wilderness then no. If you mean TEOTWAWKI then maybe. If you have the ammo and the gun I'd sure use it. My problem with all the scenarios the mall ninjas and Junior John Rourkes pose is that I don't think it'll matter if you have a space rifle or a crusty old M-N. It's the indian, not the arrow that matters.

[zomby woof]

The M1 is a large somewhat heavy rifle. It has lots of moving parts and can be somewhat finicky accuracy wise when compared to other platforms. That being said, I shoot my M1 more than my AR these days with the JCG matches around. If it's the SHTF scenario, unless I'm defending a static position, I'd carry a lighter more accurate rifle.

[Shiloh]

The M1 is a large somewhat heavy rifle. It has lots of moving parts and can be somewhat finicky accuracy wise when compared to other platforms. That being said, I shoot my M1 more than my AR these days with the JCG matches around. If it's the SHTF scenario, unless I'm defending a static position, I'd carry a lighter more accurate rifle.

This pretty much sums it up.

Shiloh

[cheese1566]

I'm a younger one (37) that bought my first Garand last year. Will never give it up. Yes, it is a semi-auto and has more some odd tweaked parts like the operating rod and is touchy about factory ammo pressures. Very robust and hard hitting!

Served our men right in WWII.

I would say my 1950's SA Garand will outlast my new AR-15 platfrom I bought last year in terms of endurance, parts, breakdown-eventhough my black rifle may get shot a little more. But look at the cartridge difference.

My 2 cents soon to be bashed!

[MakeMineA10mm]

Not by me, cheese1566!

I agree with everything everyone has posted so far.

I do NOT think a Garand is a more complicated system to learn. (The biggest thing is to learn how to get one's thumb out of the way of that bolt!)

In the grand scheme of things, if you compare the Garand to most of it's contemporary/comparable semi-auto rifles (Tokarev, Johnson, G-43, FN-49), it is very equivalent to the other designs. Weight, size, power of cartridge, number of parts, and methods of operations are all very similar. Convenience of the Garand clip system is better than most of the other designs, IMO.

It's a VERY soft-shooting 30-06 IMO. I could shoot that thing nearly all day.

I think your comparison with the AR-15 system is natural, but I think the biggest factor to keep in mind is that each generation falls in love with / adopts the battle rifle that has gotten them through THAT generation's war(s), so it's almost as much an emotional attachment as a measure of the designs.

To compare apple to apples as far as cartridge power goes, if you compare say an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC to an M-1 Garand in 270 Petersen, I think you'll find the AR is about the same weight and fires the same bullet about 250fps slower. NOT much difference there. The big difference is the in-line stock (which helps reduce recoil on the AR) and the high-capacity, quick-change magazine system on the AR. And, yes, the AR will probably be more accurate out of the box. The Garand can be modified into a very accurate rifle, but that doesn't happen with box-stock, issue weapons. Also, the AR platform will have an advantage in that it is a modular design (and therefore modifiable in the field into different configurations), and will weigh far less than the Garand if you choose the carbine version.

I make this comparison more to show the real qualitative differences in rifles without getting caught up in a caliber war/discussion.

In the end, I'll always want both. And, in the end, in a TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd want an AK! [smilie=s:

[RU shooter]

in the end, in a TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd want an AK! [smilie=s: Absolutely correct! as far as simplicity and ruggedness goes the AK has no equal , minimal moving parts, decent power level for a weapon of its size , very rugged magazines maybe not as polished as the AR or M14/Garand but Ive seen the last three all have serious malfunctions at different matches over the years, I can honestly say I've never seen a properly built AK have any issues.JMHO

Tim

[Dan Cash]

My Garrand is not as heavy as some of the tricked out M16/Ar15s running around. Two large drawbacks are the requirement for the en-bloc clip and heavy ammo. My M1 is box stock and let me assure you, it will drop a man at 1000 yards in a heart beat given quality ammo. It surely will do well enough to secure some other kind of gun should I desire it.

Would the M1 be my choice for a survival rifle or a SHTF scenario? Not really but it would work. Remember that the individual must not be decisively engaged if he or she is to survive. Neither is the capability to kill Grizzly bears required. For a SHTF scenario, urban or rural, give me a good .22 RF that can be suppressed by field expediant means with a good capacity magazine and large caliber handgun.

[farshooter]

The Garand is the finest rifle ever made, with the finest sights ever put on a rifle. Like many on this cast boolit forum I shoot many different rifles of different calibers. I watch the Marine Corps' silent drill team and wonder how I drilled with that piece.

For this survival senario you postulate I'd back my Garand with a .44 mag and my short barreled .22 Kit gun.

To each his own. My three brothers are all armed the same way.

When it absolutely, positively...I reach for the Garand. It ain't heavy, I've carried it all my life.

Doc Burgess

[TexRebel]

My responce is simple , grab what ya got
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/Texrebel_album/Videos/?action=view&current=M1shooting.flv

[mto7464]

The Garand would work for me. I have more ammo for it then any other weapon I own thx to the cmp. I also have enough Garands for a squad and ammo in bandoleers. It is my go to when SHTF.
Besides when compared to the 223 the 06 turns cover into concealment.

[oldhickory]

Mike, the M1 is a fine, sturdy, and accurate rifle! I have both an M1 and an AR15, that M1 will still be shooting long after the AR has turned to dust. It's simple and accurate, but does have a few quirks you need to learn...I got my M1 thumb around 30yrs ago!:shock: It only happens once...

[shotman]

You can take the M1 and drop it in a muddy field and it will protect you. AR will if you need a club. M1 thumb? If you load it right you will never have that.

[Jack Stanley]

Since I am unlikely to need to venture very far from my supply depot during hard times the Garand is at no disadvantage for me . Besides with brush and trees around here the force of a hundred seventy-three grain slug will peirce a lot of concealment . I laid in a very redundant supply of parts back when they were reasonable so for my uses a Garand is at not disadvantage .

Of course , if I must have a large capacity magazine . I do have a M1A supplied very much like the Garand 8-)

My boss was looking for an end of the world rifle and after weighing it all ended up with a Garand . Part of that was , he said he wasn't going to engage in day long gun battles , he wanted to remain low profile and hit real hard went he had to . Hmmmmm ..... I guess that explains his "other" rifle ... a three seventy-five H&H bolt gun . [smilie=1:

Jack

[Silvertip 44]

In a survival situation such as end world, I believe I would want a rifle with superior stopping power such as the Garand or M1A. The M1A is within a gray cats hair as powerful with its .308 as the Garand in 06. I have Garands, M1As and an AR15 along with large caliber revolvers and pistols in my safe.
Therefore, I think that the M1A with 20 round mags, a .44MAG revolver and a good .22 rifle would make a good survival combo. If I could have ONLY one gun it would be the M1A/M14.
I have several thousand rounds of CMP 06 ammo, just wish they would stock 7.62X51.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

My father served in the 82nd Abn in WWII and he said the garand got a lot of American soldiers killed. The military was much better at keeping bad news out of the public's knowledge back then. He says it took the Germans about fifteen seconds to figure out what "Kaching" meant.
By time they had been in combat about a week they learned to empty their garands after firing the fourth shot. Great platform, aside from the lame ammo packaging system. IMHO, the M-16 is a much better system, even aside from the 30 round magazine advantage.

Rich
I carried an M-16 a little, and then our Ranger Companies got the first M-203s. Now that is Hellfire in a portable package. My opinion is not based on playing or target shooting with one. It's based on more than twenty-five months in Vietnam killing enemy soldiers with one.

[MakeMineA10mm]

My apologies to Missionary, as we're kind-of hi-jacking the thread from the nature of the initial question, but if we do go down that road of a TEOTWAWKI situation, the Garand loses out as the PRIMARY weapon.

I like it as a long-range, high-power back-up to the primary weapon, as it definitely does convert a lot of cover into concealment, and if you have to shoot at longer range, a 168-175gr MK is still carrying some freight out at 800 yards...

But, for a primary weapon, it loses out because of it's limited capacity and slow reloading. These restrictions are fine if you're part of a squad, or better yet, a platoon, but if you're by yourself or with one or two other persons trying to defend yourself in anything approaching a real combat situation, this characteristic is a real draw-back, especially since it's not the 1940s anymore, where most everyone else is still using a bolt-gun against you... In this case (firepower), the Garand is probably just a short step ahead of a 30-30 lever gun.

If you are by yourself or with a very small group of supporters, you need a primary rifle that will gain fire superiority. I've been in discussions in person and at another forum with vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in a light-contact hit-and-run counter insurgency contact/ambush, fire superiority is important for survival. I know this will raise hackles with guys here who will say, that's just wasting ammunition, but the facts of combat are not just about marksmanship and choosing a system (rifle) to address/get you out of a spot. It's more about tactics, and fire superiority keeps the other guy from shooting accurately at you. In war the punishment for a mistake like this is losing a buddy and the liberal media arguing that the war is too costly in American lives. In a TEOTWAWKI situation, a failure at this means the end of you, probably your family, and the other guy getting all of your stuff you stockpiled...

Hence, an AK. Mid-powered 30-cal round with 30-rd detachable magazines in an untterly reliable system that is accurate enough out to 200-300 yards (where the vast majority of combat and deer-hunting occurs...).

[farshooter]

Missionary, I'll apologize upfront if I highjack your thread, but hackles being what they are I'll have to admit I ain't got many hackles left. Not much hair either. As I remember you had started this thread asking if we'd take a Garand on safari and then I read your question again and you didn't say safari at all and safari means journey or some such and you really said survival. How am I going to survive if I don't have any hackles?

Now I know you didn't spell out the rules, like could I take along my thumb less gunny who lost both thumbs and a couple of toes learning how to load his Garand and Lord knows he ain't fast at loading. I'll be using the gunny to load my Garand cause I never did learn how to load the thing, so I've never shot it, but I've still got my thumbs.

Sorry about the thread.

See you over on cast boolits or some such.

Doc Burgess

[Bret4207]

My apologies to Missionary, as we're kind-of hi-jacking the thread from the nature of the initial question, but if we do go down that road of a TEOTWAWKI situation, the Garand loses out as the PRIMARY weapon.

I like it as a long-range, high-power back-up to the primary weapon, as it definitely does convert a lot of cover into concealment, and if you have to shoot at longer range, a 168-175gr MK is still carrying some freight out at 800 yards...

But, for a primary weapon, it loses out because of it's limited capacity and slow reloading. These restrictions are fine if you're part of a squad, or better yet, a platoon, but if you're by yourself or with one or two other persons trying to defend yourself in anything approaching a real combat situation, this characteristic is a real draw-back, especially since it's not the 1940s anymore, where most everyone else is still using a bolt-gun against you... In this case (firepower), the Garand is probably just a short step ahead of a 30-30 lever gun.

If you are by yourself or with a very small group of supporters, you need a primary rifle that will gain fire superiority. I've been in discussions in person and at another forum with vets from Iraq and Afghanistan, and even in a light-contact hit-and-run counter insurgency contact/ambush, fire superiority is important for survival. I know this will raise hackles with guys here who will say, that's just wasting ammunition, but the facts of combat are not just about marksmanship and choosing a system (rifle) to address/get you out of a spot. It's more about tactics, and fire superiority keeps the other guy from shooting accurately at you. In war the punishment for a mistake like this is losing a buddy and the liberal media arguing that the war is too costly in American lives. In a TEOTWAWKI situation, a failure at this means the end of you, probably your family, and the other guy getting all of your stuff you stockpiled...

Hence, an AK. Mid-powered 30-cal round with 30-rd detachable magazines in an untterly reliable system that is accurate enough out to 200-300 yards (where the vast majority of combat and deer-hunting occurs...).

By your standard I'm already as good as dead. It applies if things turn into urban squad to platoon to company style actions when the players have unlimited ammo. While I agree lotsa bullets is a good thing I'm not sure that's what TEOTWAWKI will end up as.

In truth many of us, myself included, just don't have a choice since the space rifles and (gak!) AK's are simply unaffordable and having 30K rounds in the basement is also unaffordable. Guess we'll have to make do.

[MakeMineA10mm]

By your standard I'm already as good as dead. It applies if things turn into urban squad to platoon to company style actions when the players have unlimited ammo. While I agree lotsa bullets is a good thing I'm not sure that's what TEOTWAWKI will end up as.

In truth many of us, myself included, just don't have a choice since the space rifles and (gak!) AK's are simply unaffordable and having 30K rounds in the basement is also unaffordable. Guess we'll have to make do.

Well, it is situational - if you're in a very rural setting, you're in much better shape with less firepower and ammo.

I don't know about the AK and ammo being unaffordable, though. I think you can still get a decent AK for 300-500 and a decent, small-medium stockpile of ammo for less than 1000.

[Bret4207]

Define "decent AK"? Never seen one I'd define as decent for the money!![smilie=l:

Yes, I am in a very, very rural setting. I'm in the place other people "bug out" to. Plus, we have rather handy "triangle of death" between my place and 2 of my neighbors. And I have an 85' concrete silo that could cover the entire area in a 360 view. An AK would be near worthless up there. In fact, a 50 would be very nice....

[dogbert41]

I never felt under-armed with one.

[MtGun44]

I'm with Bret on the AK. I finally bought one when they were cheap. I only jams with some
HPs, I think I'll be able to throat the square back end on the bbl and get it to feed. Pretty
crude *** if you ask me. With the std Chinese and Russian ammo it is a 6" at 100 yd
gun. Kinda embarassed to own it, actually. Maybe with good ammo it would be more
accurate.

Col. Cooper nailed it exactly with the fewest words -- "The people's bullet hose."

It is definitely better than no gun, and should be pretty useful out to 100 yds. Heavy
as hell, crude in the extreme, worlds second stupidest safety (Jap 99 is the worst).

OK caliber, simple to field strip, often cheap to buy, not much more good I can say about it.

As to the Garand - a solid and reliable, accurate rifle in a really hard hitting caliber, soft recoil
for the caliber, great sights, pretty decent loading system. Heavy and long, but you can
sure do worse for a battle rifle. IMHO the primary problem of the Garand design is
that it needs to be supported by a proper armorer with proper gages for many of the
parts and a good parts supply. Perfect for the US military big green machine. Not so
perfect for Joe avg guy if you shoot it a lot - enough to wear out parts. Many parts
REQUIRE a factory gage to tell you if the part is usable or not because they are
weirdly shaped and difficult to impossible to measure with just a caliper or micrometer.

The AR design seems more tolerant of just throwing any old parts together and getting
a rifle that will run. Some of this is the design, some is the high dimensional accuracy
that modern CNC machines permit for making parts. The AR has it's issues, but is
a decent system that you can mix up all sorts of variations and most often get a rifle
that will run. Pretty good ergonomics, really decent sights on the A1 and great sights
on the A2. Caliber is a bit anemic but my friends that have been in the sandbox say
that if you shoot them in the middle they fall down, same as with an M14. Since I have
never been there or done that, I'll have to take their word for it. They do say that
the 5.56 won't get inside a car real well, but then they say only Ma Deuce will get
inside a car real reliably when you really truly have to stop it.

The M1 Garand is a fine rifle and you'd always be well armed with one that runs,
and most will run.

Bill

[exile]

I hesitate to comment on this since I am not much of a rifle shooter, but I think the main advantage of one would be that it is a semi-automatic rifle in 30-06. How many other rifles can say that? I have shot one, though not extensively and really enjoyed it. In a rural area where 30-06 is a common round that might be a real advantage if the poop hits the fan. Very soft shooting rifle for its caliber and very, very cool. I would rather have one than an M-14 just for the historical value I guess.

exile

[MakeMineA10mm]

Define "decent AK"? Never seen one I'd define as decent for the money!![smilie=l:


Yes, yes, it is very important we define our terms. "decent" AK is any AK built by a reputed manufacturer which over the preponderance of it's production holds up a reputation for reliability and accuracy.

As I said before, the most important feature of any combat arm is reliability. We can have a $10k uber-rifle, but if it goes "click" instead of "bang" when we pull the trigger, it's value is $0, IMO. For combat, I'd rather have a poorly-made, cheap hunk of junk that is ultra-reliable than something I can't count on.

In some order that is probably variable, depending on your situation or the task at hand, we have accuracy, firepower, cartridge power, and ergonomics/size/weight.

The point about the AK is that it has reliability in spades. If you have an AK that doesn't function right with ball ammo, you definitely got a lemon.

Stick with a Norinco, Polytech, Arsenal, VEPR, Century Arms (WASR), or Vector and you most likely will get a good one. I've seen a couple bad AKs, and I would not buy a Romanian or some of the Yugo models. (Though I've seen a couple really nice Yugos, I think one must really know what they're looking at before buying one...) Several of these models you could have gotten into for as little as $175 five or ten years ago. You can still find used ones for around $300-$500 of many of them. Some, like the Arsenal's, have never been very cheap.

I've got four Garands, an M1A, more ARs than I care to admit to, about 7 or 8 M1 Carbines, a Mini-14, three AKs, a Sig 556, and several other semi-auto combat rifles. In a SHTF situation, the AK is my go-to, with the Garand and a few clips of M-1 AP ammo as it's back-up for when the range or cover is too great for the AK. Is the AK a great target-gun? Absolutely not. Is it the most reliable rifle on Earth? I think it's fair to say it is.

Way back when, a few years after I had gotten my Norinco AK, we had shot it and I didn't have a chance to clean it right away. A few days later, the bolt was froze shut, and I could see rust in the gas system. (Obviously, the "non-corrosive" ammo that dealer had sold me was, well, not-so-much...) Well, being as the AK has such a reputation, I kicked open the bolt by setting the butt on the ground, holding the muzzle in my hand, and stomping on the bolt-handle with my boot (a LOT like kick-starting a motorcycle). (Obviously, it was unloaded while I was doing this.) On the third or fourth kick, the bolt came open. I squirted some WD-40 (only thing available at the time) in the gas system, the barrel, and the entire receiver and let it soak for about 5-10 minutes. Took out a magazine and tried a round or two through it. Shot fine. Put a full 30 round magazine through it, and it still shot fine. Eventually, I was able to clean it up right, and that rifle still shoots 100% reliably. Never had a jam with it. Accuracy is the standard 6-8" @ 100 yards, but that's good enough for out to 250 yards, which is most of what I need.

[Bret4207]

I've said before, in a true SHTF situation most of us are going to be in a defensive position. Those attempting to flee urban areas and the resultant New Orleans style trash (Apologies to the few decent citizens living there) will be best served by keeping abreast of the situation and getting out before things go south. Short of having a trained squad or platoon and some LAV type transportation I'm not sure their chances are good at all no matter what platform they have access too. If it's on foot that they must travel, then avoiding trouble will be key because you just can't carry enough over rough ground to fight much.

For those in their "hidy holes" IDing friend or foe at extended ranges will be key. Keep the MZB's out beyond effective gangsta shooting range and even Uncle Lou's '03 or Model 94 will earn it's keep. Suppressive fire is a great thing while maneuvering but how many of us will be the attackers instead of the defenders?

[Ivantherussian03]

Like most things in life, it is a matter opinion. Your chosen rifle is s tool designed for a job in 1942. Since then the rest world using clip fed automatic weapons: AK-47, SKS, and AR-15. So u might imagine all the possible situations that might develop.

In SHTF situation it probably wont matter too much. You will be better off then most. Nobody has infinite resources, if your prepping you will need many other things. Your rifle is a fine rifle. Is it perfect for every situation--No.

The one advantage I see that no mention is the availiblity of cartridges. 3006 is common. You will be able to scavenge them. AK rounds not so common.

Other have pointed out the garande is a complicated system.

[sundog]

Bret, very good. Unless forced to move, most of us will stay put if the location is defendable, perhaps neighbors banding together. We will stay close to food and water, shelter, basic needs. Why? You cannot take it all with you. Even foot travel requires some kind of resupply. Where ya gonna go? Where are refuel points? How do you know who the bad guys are and where they are? In a case like that it is defense in depth, a good security plan, and everyone doing their parts. That means OP/LPs, patrols, ready reaction force, and ability to place fire on an aggressor and identify friendly or foe. The distribution of whatever firearms are available is then dictated by location of use, e.g., lots of fire power on high speed avenues of approach, hand guns in the command post, shotguns and carbines for inside security patrol. Communications will be critical, both with the outside and with each other. We do NOT want this to ever happen, even though some forethought and preparation goes a long way.

My view of this scenario is no services (electric, water, radio (maybe) and tv, etc), no atm or credit cards (remember - no electric), cash that isn't worth anything, no fuel, possible no vehicles at all if an EMP, wide scale looting and rioting in urban areas.... Pretty neat picture, eh? Nice time to have a stocked "bunker" handy and be able to defend it.

[farshooter]

I keep going back to the beginning of this thread where the author has in his title: "Would you include a Garand?" And then Missionary went on to ask, "...would you think of the M1 Garand as being a "Harder" or "More Complicated" rifle to learn to operate...?"

It might be complicated to one who has never owned one, but to some it's the finest rifle ever made and easily mastered.

Now I see he didn't limit our choice of rifle, but asked if we would include a Garand.

He left the door open for an 18 wheeler full of stuff, including junk. I like MtGun44's comment about one such piece of junk, the AK; MtGun44 said, "Pretty crude *** if you ask me."

Since I get to take an 18 wheeler full of stuff, maybe I can get some old guys like me to form the perimeter around my bunker (they'll bring their own stuff, some of it big and ugly); men who served from Bougainville to Frozen Chosin and a bunch of stops in Europe. My good friend, with the 101st was at Bastogne. He had killed a bunch of Germans and was down to 4 rounds for his M1 Garand when Patton's bunch came up.

Would I include a Garand?

Yeah.

Doc Burgess

[sundog]

Include a Garand? Yup. As many as I could get a hold of.

[mike in co]

To compare apple to apples as far as cartridge power goes, if you compare say an AR-15 in 6.8 SPC to an M-1 Garand in 270 Petersen, I think you'll find the AR is about the same weight and fires the same bullet about 250fps slower. NOT much difference there. .

In the end, I'll always want both. And, in the end, in a TEOTWAWKI situation, I'd want an AK! [smilie=s:



where are you getting your weight figures from ???

a stag 6.8 in a 16" is 7.1 lbs ??....where is that 7 lb garand at ???( all of the stag rifles are under 7.5...some down to 6lbs....only the long bbl target rifles hit 10 lbs).
my search says 9.5 to 10.4 for a garand.
ave is 10.....that makes it 40% heavier than a 7.1 lb ar.

sorry not even close.


mike in co

[mike in co]

I don't know about the AK and ammo being unaffordable, though. I think you can still get a decent AK for 300-500 and a decent, small-medium stockpile of ammo for less than 1000.



lol where are you buying ???
2000/2001 ??

in 2009 ak's run from $800-1200......
ammo is not cheap..but it is comming down...no more 500 for 40 bucks...more like 125 plus.


yes if you are luckie you might get a used thumb hole ak for 500...but more luck than normal.

[mike in co]

while it is a great rifle, it is not a modern rifle.
an ar10 platform would be more appropriate....308.....175's, 5/10/20/25 rd mags

why use a 8 rd enblock clip you must chase to reload, over a 20rd mag you can set down/rebag....

as to the guy that "claimed" he could make "A" 1000 YD shot on a target....get a life!

a single shot, no wind flags, no known range, issue iron sights ??.....can a 06 rifle hit 1k , yes, does it have energy still at 1k, yes. can the average guy make a single shot HIT at 1k at a human sized...NO, and even less likely with issue ammo.

don't believe me ?? go to a 1k bench rest match, and watch how many shots it takes to zero a 300 win mag benchrest rifle at 1k that already has a 1k starting setting......know distance, high power scopes, benchrest.wind flags..not prone.

the ak out shines the ar in short range fire power and cost, but the ar platform outshines in accuracy. the newly designated marksman program( shooter/rifle/ammo) is a big step up from an ak 47 with a scope. and an sr25/ar10 will out shoot a 7.6sx54r combloc sniper rifle.

so no, i would not add it to my list....too many other better choices.....if i had one, i would not get ride of it.


how about an ar platform, 7.62x39, ak mags, 18/20" sk weight bb, tighter chamber than the ak to add some accuracy.

mike in co

[StarMetal]

Funny thread. Got lots of laughs reading it. To the guys that are going to carry a Garand, 44 mag revolver, and 22 kit gun, not even counting the ammo, are you built like Arnold Schwarzenegger in his younger days.

Here's my classic statement which covers lots of territory on this forum: If the M1 Garand, and for that matter, the M14 were such great rifles why aren't modern armies using them..or scaled down copies of them in different calibers...around the world? TRW offered the Army a M14 that fired the 5.56 and said if the Army liked it they would scale it down. The Army wasn't interested. I'll tell you a rifle about back at that time that beats the Garand...the Hakim. Want to know a rifle that actually beat the M14 when they were having trials to replace the Garand? The FAL FN. We didn't want a military weapon produced in a foreign country. Isn't that a joke today huh? Now to cover my butt, the Garand is a great rifle. It was the right rifle for WWII. Today it's too big, too heavy, too powder, and probably wouldn't pass the current reliability tests. You all know we barely won WWII. Hadn't it been for us having the German and Japanese code, plus the manufacturing resources...they would have won. If the Wehrmacht had been armed with the STg44 from the beginning of the war we would have been in deep doo doo. Shucks for that matter the Japs entered the war with obsolete firearms.

Take an M16 and Garand through the military reliability test and see which one operates better.

Another rifle, actually in development when the Germans invaded France, that would beat the drawers off the Garand was the French MAS 49/56. Ten round removeable magazine, built in grenade launcher, match grade barrels, semi-auto, cartridge very equal to the 7.62x51, reliable tilting breech block designs (used in many many rifle...the FAL FN, SVT 40, SKS, FN 49 just to name a few) and fully adjustable peep sight, and very small and light.

If you're going to defend a position I imagine the size, weight, and firepower of the rifle doesn't matter much. From that position the Garand would do find....as long as you had a lot of en bloc clips loaded up, because they are slower heck to refill. Nobody mentioned bayonets. I'd rather bayonet someone with the Garand then a M204.

Let's hope this never happens.

Joe

[Uncle R.]

It's the indian, not the arrow that matters.
<
One of THESE discussions? On THIS board?
What - Are we all really bored today?
<
If a Garand is what you have - what you have AMMO for - and what you're experienced with - it'll do fine.
<
So will an AR-10 or an AR-15 or an SKS or a .30-30 lever gun or a 760 pump gun or (Heaven forbid!) even an AK...
<
Bret's right this time.
<GRIN>
It's the Indian!
Nearly any of you fellas with nearly any of the rifles discussed would do better than the average "message board commando" could do with every tacticool accessory known to man.
<
Let's discuss something more interesting - like maybe RPM limits...
<Insert evil grin here...>
Uncle R.

[mike in co]

Let's discuss something more interesting - like maybe RPM limits...
<Insert evil grin here...>
Uncle R.


ok...my air cooled street vw motors would do about 8000 rpm...not a ton but could drive them all year long..........

you were talking street motors, right ???

snicker snicker.....

mike in co

[Lead Fred]

I see lots of misinformation about the M1 Garand here.

A wise man once told me:

"If your ever in a jam, grab an M1 Garand, It wont"

He spent 5 years island hopping the pacific, he was 1 or 355 members of the 6th Marine Div, which started off 6600 strong.

He carried a BAR, which he burnt up several times, then he would grab an M1 Garand and stay in the fight until he found another BAR.

BTW that guy was my old man. HE won the CAN/AM 1000 yard open sight invitational 1959 and 1960, with a rack grade rifle. They had to fire PRONE.

The A3-03 rifleman did the long distance shots in WWII. Using a 40 year old design bolt gun. The record sniper shot for a M1 is 1200 yards. Could every one do it, hell no. I dont exspect to shoot past 300 yards with mine.
Thats why I have a 30-06 bolt rifle, if I need to reach out and touch.
************************************************** **************

You dont pick up the enblocs, you can make your M1 so they dont fly out of the rifle, if you wish you can collect them as they come out. I have 100s of them.

You carry your rounds in bandoleers. disgarding them as they empty. When you get down to your enbloc belt, you know your running low.

I always saw it as a no magazine mess to deal with. Same with the SKS.

I bet I can load an M1 faster than an AK, HK, or simlar mag feed 30 cal.

************************************************** *************

The key here is the word SURVIVAL.

Your not fighting a war, you are trying to stay alive day to day.

************************************************** *************

I lost 3 pounds by removing the wood and replacing it with plastic.

All the 308 battle rifles weight more than mine does, without encluding the weight of carrying the magazines full and empty.

I carry a Winchester 94 on my back, and the M1 over my shoulder, but even with the 160rd 30-06, and 100rds 30-30 I carry. My pack is heavier than both.

Carrying a M-60 thru the jungle with 1200-1500 rounds was a lot more brutal.

In a SHTF times, Im not going to be any where a city. The AKSs are close in spray and pray firearms. I can start laying effective surpressive fire at 600 yards. You will have to cover 400 yards of that fire, just to get in range.

My 152gr AP traveling at 2700fps, SOOO out classes any 7.62x39 made.

Class 4 body armor may slow or stop .223 or x39. That 06 will freight train it.

I can load 180gr boat tails for longer distance. None of these other rifles can even handle them.

The AKS or AR cant hold a candle to the destrictive power of an M1 Garand.

[farshooter]

Well said, Lead Fred.

And I thank your father for having served with the 6th Marine Division.

And I liked your reminder that, "The key here is the word SURVIVAL. You're not fighting a war, you are trying to stay alive day to day."

I find it curious that some argue, implying, that the Garand was a good rifle for the jungles of Guadalcanal, but not for the jungles of Vietnam; good for the deserts of North Africa, but not for the deserts of Iraq. And again, by implication, good for the frozen mountains of Korea, but McNamara's junk will carry the day if we ever go to the frozen mountains of our enemies. In a survival situation, here at home, we have frozen mountains and no resupply.

To another poster, I'm the one who said I'd take my Garand, my .44 mag and a short barreled .22 Kit gun, there weren't "guys" that said that. And no, I'm not built like Arnold, nor would I want to be. I'm old, I run two miles every morning after I do my butts and muzzles with my Garand. I don't carry my Garand on my runs, it would spook McNamara's followers. You know McNamara, he was the one with platforms and junk. I wear bifocals, but if there is enough light, and with my Garand, I can keep my shots on target, any wind, any direction, as my good friend says, "way out past Fort Mudge." I've always been able to shoot a three minute, or better group at 100 yards and keep that 3 minute group to "way out past Fort Mudge." Any Garand shooter can do this, from prone, not a bench, frozen ground or no.

Doc Burgess

[jonk]

My father served in the 82nd Abn in WWII and he said the garand got a lot of American soldiers killed. The military was much better at keeping bad news out of the public's knowledge back then. He says it took the Germans about fifteen seconds to figure out what "Kaching" meant.
By time they had been in combat about a week they learned to empty their garands after firing the fourth shot. Great platform, aside from the lame ammo packaging system. IMHO, the M-16 is a much better system, even aside from the 30 round magazine advantage.

Rich
I carried an M-16 a little, and then our Ranger Companies got the first M-203s. Now that is Hellfire in a portable package. My opinion is not based on playing or target shooting with one. It's based on more than twenty-five months in Vietnam killing enemy soldiers with one.I rather think that the "ka-ching" of an ejected clip is one of those time honored myths. Yes, the M1 ejects the clip after 8 and it goes ping on the ground. But this is only going to be a liability if you are fighting on your own, and besides that, in the din of a battle, it's not even going to be heard.

I'd take the M1 in a SHTF scenario but it wouldn't be my first (or last) choice.

[Idaho Sharpshooter]

I'll stick with the AR platform, thanks. In a real SHTF scenario, you will most likely starve to death before anybody shoots you or vice versa. It is a pleasant fantasy, to rise up and fight tyranny; but 99% of us can't function very well in that milieu. Me, I'm just going to head the two hours over to the ranch my nephew has and guard cows. And, that cellar full of canned foods!
Always remember, if we have the problem, every police car in your town has an M-16 and a 12 gauge shotgun, and enough ammunition to handle the short term stuff. You just need to be assertive when you ask to borrow them

Rich

[StarMetal]

Well said, Lead Fred.

And I thank your father for having served with the 6th Marine Division.

And I liked your reminder that, "The key here is the word SURVIVAL. You're not fighting a war, you are trying to stay alive day to day."

I find it curious that some argue, implying, that the Garand was a good rifle for the jungles of Guadalcanal, but not for the jungles of Vietnam; good for the deserts of North Africa, but not for the deserts of Iraq. And again, by implication, good for the frozen mountains of Korea, but McNamara's junk will carry the day if we ever go to the frozen mountains of our enemies. In a survival situation, here at home, we have frozen mountains and no resupply.

To another poster, I'm the one who said I'd take my Garand, my .44 mag and a short barreled .22 Kit gun, there weren't "guys" that said that. And no, I'm not built like Arnold, nor would I want to be. I'm old, I run two miles every morning after I do my butts and muzzles with my Garand. I don't carry my Garand on my runs, it would spook McNamara's followers. You know McNamara, he was the one with platforms and junk. I wear bifocals, but if there is enough light, and with my Garand, I can keep my shots on target, any wind, any direction, as my good friend says, "way out past Fort Mudge." I've always been able to shoot a three minute, or better group at 100 yards and keep that 3 minute group to "way out past Fort Mudge." Any Garand shooter can do this, from prone, not a bench, frozen ground or no.

Doc Burgess

Soooo, you're going to carry the three guns and ammo for them, a knife, water, medical kit, food, compass, bedroll, some form of shelter like a tent, matches, cleaning kits for all the guns, etc., etc., good luck

Joe

[Cactus Farmer]

I'm wondering.......did I miss someone mentioniing the FAL? 92+ countries are that wrong? Better than an M-1,nay,but surely as good and easier to field strip that either the M-1 or M-14 and still got the power.
Remember the Russians were handed their hat by bolt action 303's and 8mm's. Seems AK's wouldn't reach up into the rocks but the old bolt guns sure did reach down to the roads.
Please make mine a 7.62x51. No poodle guns in the desert.

[StarMetal]

I see lots of misinformation about the M1 Garand here.

A wise man once told me:

"If your ever in a jam, grab an M1 Garand, It wont"

He spent 5 years island hopping the pacific, he was 1 or 355 members of the 6th Marine Div, which started off 6600 strong.

He carried a BAR, which he burnt up several times, then he would grab an M1 Garand and stay in the fight until he found another BAR.

BTW that guy was my old man. HE won the CAN/AM 1000 yard open sight invitational 1959 and 1960, with a rack grade rifle. They had to fire PRONE.

The A3-03 rifleman did the long distance shots in WWII. Using a 40 year old design bolt gun. The record sniper shot for a M1 is 1200 yards. Could every one do it, hell no. I dont exspect to shoot past 300 yards with mine.
Thats why I have a 30-06 bolt rifle, if I need to reach out and touch.
************************************************** **************

You dont pick up the enblocs, you can make your M1 so they dont fly out of the rifle, if you wish you can collect them as they come out. I have 100s of them.

You carry your rounds in bandoleers. disgarding them as they empty. When you get down to your enbloc belt, you know your running low.

I always saw it as a no magazine mess to deal with. Same with the SKS.

I bet I can load an M1 faster than an AK, HK, or simlar mag feed 30 cal.

************************************************** *************

The key here is the word SURVIVAL.

Your not fighting a war, you are trying to stay alive day to day.

************************************************** *************

I lost 3 pounds by removing the wood and replacing it with plastic.

All the 308 battle rifles weight more than mine does, without encluding the weight of carrying the magazines full and empty.

I carry a Winchester 94 on my back, and the M1 over my shoulder, but even with the 160rd 30-06, and 100rds 30-30 I carry. My pack is heavier than both.

Carrying a M-60 thru the jungle with 1200-1500 rounds was a lot more brutal.

In a SHTF times, Im not going to be any where a city. The AKSs are close in spray and pray firearms. I can start laying effective surpressive fire at 600 yards. You will have to cover 400 yards of that fire, just to get in range.

My 152gr AP traveling at 2700fps, SOOO out classes any 7.62x39 made.

Class 4 body armor may slow or stop .223 or x39. That 06 will freight train it.

I can load 180gr boat tails for longer distance. None of these other rifles can even handle them.

The AKS or AR cant hold a candle to the destrictive power of an M1 Garand.

Fred,

Thanks for your service too. My best friends dad was a Marine that did the Pacific theater. He talked some of Iwo Jima. He was a bar man and bless him now he's guarding the gates of Heaven.

You wouldn't stand a chance against a Russian Spetsnaz reloading an Ak. In fact I'm put my money down that not only can they drop the magazine and insert a fresh one faster then you could even put your hand on your enbloc clip, I'd bet they could do two reloads...that's not counting shooting them...just talking reloading. I know you have love for the Garand, but it's obsolete on the modern battle field.

I wouldn't be so sure about swapping around various power range and different bullet weights in the Garand, that op rod can get bent putting you out of action. Run out of grease on the bolt lugs and you're in trouble too.

Joe

[StarMetal]

I'm wondering.......did I miss someone mentioniing the FAL? 92+ countries are that wrong? Better than an M-1,nay,but surely as good and easier to field strip that either the M-1 or M-14 and still got the power.
Remember the Russians were handed their hat by bolt action 303's and 8mm's. Seems AK's wouldn't reach up into the rocks but the old bolt guns sure did reach down to the roads.
Please make mine a 7.62x51. No poodle guns in the desert.

I mentioned it, said it beat the M14 in the trails that the M14 got chosen.

Joe

[StarMetal]

I'll stick with the AR platform, thanks. In a real SHTF scenario, you will most likely starve to death before anybody shoots you or vice versa. It is a pleasant fantasy, to rise up and fight tyranny; but 99% of us can't function very well in that milieu. Me, I'm just going to head the two hours over to the ranch my nephew has and guard cows. And, that cellar full of canned foods!
Always remember, if we have the problem, every police car in your town has an M-16 and a 12 gauge shotgun, and enough ammunition to handle the short term stuff. You just need to be assertive when you ask to borrow them

Rich

Rich,

This is one thing the keyboard commandos over look. All you hear from them is hoarding all this ammo etc.. You can't carry it all if you move. Just like you pointed out our military is using the 5.56, all the policed departments just about are too along with the 12 ga you pointed out. You only need enough ammo to take the ammo and weapon off the dead enemy you just slayed.

So next the Garand lovers will be telling us how the old Willy's jeep is better then any 4x4 out there today.

Joe

[TexRebel]

hey guys if you go back to page 1 of this threab and click the link under my comment, the vid should answer any questions on reloading, i fired 32 rounds down range at a 100 yard target in that 1 min 29 sec vid , all rounds stayed in a nice 4 inch ragged hole dead centeer of target

[StarMetal]

hey guys if you go back to page 1 of this threab and click the link under my comment, the vid should answer any questions on reloading, i fired 32 rounds down range at a 100 yard target in that 1 min 29 sec vid , all rounds stayed in a nice 4 inch ragged hole dead centeer of target

What do you think a M16 would do?

Joe

[farshooter]

Thanks for the offer of good luck, Star Metal (Joe), but I don't want your luck or anything else you've got.

I am looking for a Willy's jeep so I can carry my typewriter. It's heavy, an old Royal, ink's dried, but the keys still bang.

Doc Burgess

[BarryinIN]

Late as usual, but...

I would include one. In fact, I do.
I have one in .308 that has been serving as my do-all rifle for a couple of years.

I try to keep it around as a car/truck gun. If we go on a trip, the .308 Garand comes along. The truck carries it for me so weight is not much of a problem, and it works for just about anything.
If I get invited along on a hunt, it will serve most needs.
If I stumble across a match of some sort, anything from Highpower to IPSC 3-gun, it will at least suffice.
And if the world should go to pieces while we are gone and we have trouble getting back, it will be OK there too.

Clips are easy to carry, both on my person and in the truck (that IS what cup holders are for right?). While not the most tacti-cool soltion, they fit nicely in almost any pocket.

Not modern?
About two weeks ago, I took a Carbine class. It was a Louis Awerbuck class that was three days long, was all 100 yds and less, and mostly under 25 yds. It was fast shooting, defensive type stuff.
I had used AR15s in these types of classes before (I do like those too, and prefer them for a house gun), but thought I should use a Garand this time since I keep one around so much.

Besides, I was really curious how it would compare after having used ARs before. I've done this sort of thing with a Garand in small amounts and thought it was fine, but never commited to a 3-day class with one.

Out of 14 students, I was the only one not using an AR15.

I had some apprehension about doing that because I didn't want to be a boat anchor for the rest of the class. There is always one guy, and I didn't want to be him. But I had used a Garand in a few 3-gun matches and thought I'd be OK.
Still, I had other rifles along just in case.

I'm not telling the following to brag or make it sound like I handled that Garand like a toothpick and marveled the world, but to tell how the old warhorse held up against the latest gee-whiz stuff.

In short: I kept up.

-I wish I could say I had zero mechanical trouble, but I cannot. I had a little feeding trouble thanks to some oddball clips I had, but once they were seperated out, it ran fine. Not everyone there could say that (Although I'd say the rifle failure rate was lower than usual for one of these classes). It rained part of one day so lube got washed/rubbed off in handling which led to some having trouble- mine was fine.

-I made nearly all the hits called for, and the very few I didn't make were not due to the rifle.

-I was able to get my first shot off among the first couple of guys each time (That surprised me really).

-I was able to make follow-up shots better/faster than I expected (Stance and technique from a shotgun class helped a lot there). No, I couldn't do these things as quick as with an AR, but was not all that far off.

-I had to reload more often than the others, but a reload required half the steps (no need to remove old mag) so if others were reloading, my rifle was usually back in action quicker.
I didn't see it as much as in previous classes, but I saw someone fail to fully seat a fresh mag, which allowed it to fall out on the ground with the next shot. With a Garand, the clip is in or it isn't and you know it.
BTW- Small thing, but: I kept my clips in a Maxpedition Rolly Poly (sort of a roll-up bag on the belt). I wouldn't say this was faster than having two or three AR15 mags, but I think it was simpler to be able to go to the same place each time and come up with a clip of ammo. If that matters- ???

-I was afraid I'd be really tired and sluggish by the last day from swinging the heavy rifle around for the two previous days and being in crummy shape. I was, but not near as much as I expected. I would say I was about average in that respect with my classmates. Then again, I planned for it and rested the rifle on my hip or belt or something every chance I had, and I doubt the others did.

Not that a 3-day class tells me how I'd like a Garand as my only rifle if the world fell apart tomorrow, but it gave me a much better feel for it than I had before.
I think I could be happy with one.

Yes, it's heavier than an AR, but it's not that far off from my AR15 "house gun". That AR has a red dot (Aimpoint) and a Surefire light, which is almost naked in comparison to some out there, but it brings the weight up.
If I wanted to, I could change to a synthetic stock and lose a few ounces. I might do that anyway.
Ammo is heavier/ bulkier with the Garand, but I might need less of it.
Clips hold less, but again- I might need less ammo, and they sure are easy to carry.

To oversimplify, it is much like using a shotgun with about a 24" barrel.
It isn't the fastest handling long gun, but isn't all that bad either. There isn't a huge quantity of ammo in the gun, but what you have should be pretty effective. Making quick follow-up shots isn't impossible, but a lot is dependent on the stance you assume beforehand.

[StarMetal]

Well you Garand fellows won. I guess the government has been following this thread. There was an announcement on the news and also see the same announcement on a military website...our military is going back to the M1 Garand!!!! They said the hell with NATO and using the 5.56. The UK and France said they are too.

Gosh, you guys were right, the M1 Garand is the best military rifle in the world yesterday, today, and way into the future!!!! :kidding:

Joe

[TexRebel]

What do you think a M16 would do?

Joe

I would never think of useing a M-16 against a brown bear, but i would use the M1 , the original question was as a survival gun, i want some thing that will put food on my table, and be able to fight off bad guys at the same time

[StarMetal]

I would never think of useing a M-16 against a brown bear, but i would use the M1 , the original question was as a survival gun, i want some thing that will put food on my table, and be able to fight off bad guys at the same time

Who was the great PH ...Bell, something like that, that killed all his elephants with a 6.5x54MS? M16 stop a charging brown bear dead in it's tracks? No, don't thing it would, but you better believe that a 30 round magazine has enough rounds to kill him. I personally wouldn't want to face an attacking griz or brown bear with regular 30-06 ammo. Be realistic, there is no one rifle to fit all those requirements.

Almost forgot to ask, how many brown bears you have roaming Texas? Not many here in TN. Davey Crockett and Daniel Boone killed them all.

Joe

[farshooter]

I read that same U.S. government announcement and they said they were melting McNamara's toy and making Willy's jeeps out of them.

France announced at the same time that they have a bunch of similar poodle poppers for sale, cheap, unfired, dropped once.

Doc Burgess

[BruceB]

Anyone who believes that "selection" or "rejection" of a rifle by the US forces is a seamless, identify-the-need-and-build-a-rifle-to-meet-it process is an IDIOT!

Do some serious reading, beyond the newstand junk, and you will be astonished and disheartened by the infighting, ego involvement, and political considerations involved.

The T48 (FN-FAL) design was NOT ALLOWED to beat out the M-14. The AR-10, in an early stage of development, was NOT ALLOWED to compete fairly against the M-14.

How many times have you heard that the original 5.56 cartridge was "designed" to wound the enemy, or to tumble in flight? All BS. The 5.56 was intended to do one thing, and it was to satisfy the Army requirement that it penetrate both sides of a GI helmet at 600 meters. The .222 Remington wouldn't do it, so Eugene Stoner lengthened the case to create the 5.56, which did hole the helmet on both sides. He said himself that, if he'd known of the existence of the .222 Magnum, he would have used IT, and that cartridge would now be our service round.

Did you know that the goverment allowed Colt to do acceptance testing of M-16 rifles at the factory using IMR powder, when both Colt and the government KNEW that the ball-powder ammo used in Vietnam was giving serious trouble in the '16? This was CRIMINAL. If the rifles were factory test-fired with the ball-powder ammo, the failure rate was "too high"......what about the failure rate in combat, where lives were lost directly due to this policy?

The M-14 program came an end (a too-early end, IMO) because of a POLITICAL decision to close Springfield Armory. Many of the rifles were sent other nations, including Israel, and many of the '14s still soldier on in the US forces today in war zones.

Personally, I have little liking for the 5.56 as a fighting round. That's just the way it is, and arguments to the contrary won't be changing my mind. I have both an M1A and a new DSA FAL, and either will serve me as a main rifle. My preference would fall on the M1A, but I have both long experience with, and high regard for, the FAL as well.

As to the original post, yes, a Garand would also be welcome on my defensive position. (I'm not about to be leaving my location.) Comments about "losing" the clips are ludicrous. When I can buy TWENTY or more M-1 clips for the cost of a single M1A magazine, it's plain that the clips are at least semi-disposable, and hence offer a civilian an efficient and inexpensive way to both carry and store his ammo....and ready for use, at that. The empty clips will be there on your firing point, if you survive the fight.

The Garand works just fine bone-dry...NO lube. I used them in that state in the Arctic, and even at -40F the rifles worked. (So did the M-14s and FALs.)

It may be trite, but it's still true...the actual results will depend more on the operator than the instrument. My "instrument" will be a 7.62 NATO rifle, or possibly an M-1 in .30-06....I seem to be fresh out of Garands just now.


For serious reading on "how" our rifles get selected, I suggest:

-The Great Rifle Controversy, by E. C. Ezell

-US Rifle M-14, from John Garand to the M-21, from Collector Grade Publications

Neither book is cheap, but they provide a priceless look into the process and will forever change one's outlook on the procurement process.

[StarMetal]

Anyone who believes that "selection" or "rejection" of a rifle by the US forces is a seamless, identify-the-need-and-build-a-rifle-to-meet-it process is an IDIOT!

Do some serious reading, beyond the newstand junk, and you will be astonished and disheartened by the infighting, ego involvement, and political considerations involved.

The T48 (FN-FAL) design was NOT ALLOWED to beat out the M-14. The AR-10, in an early stage of development, was NOT ALLOWED to compete fairly against the M-14.

How many times have you heard that the original 5.56 cartridge was "designed" to wound the enemy, or to tumble in flight? All BS. The 5.56 was intended to do one thing, and it was to satisfy the Army requirement that it penetrate both sides of a GI helmet at 600 meters. The .222 Remington wouldn't do it, so Eugene Stoner lengthened the case to create the 5.56, which did hole the helmet on both sides. He said himself that, if he'd known of the existence of the .222 Magnum, he would have used IT, and that cartridge would now be our service round.

Did you know that the goverment allowed Colt to do acceptance testing of M-16 rifles at the factory using IMR powder, when both Colt and the government KNEW that the ball-powder ammo used in Vietnam was giving serious trouble in the '16? This was CRIMINAL. If the rifles were factory test-fired with the ball-powder ammo, the failure rate was "too high"......what about the failure rate in combat, where lives were lost directly due to this policy?

The M-14 program came an end (a too-early end, IMO) because of a POLITICAL decision to close Springfield Armory. Many of the rifles were sent other nations, including Israel, and many of the '14s still soldier on in the US forces today in war zones.

Personally, I have little liking for the 5.56 as a fighting round. That's just the way it is, and arguments to the contrary won't be changing my mind. I have both an M1A and a new DSA FAL, and either will serve me as a main rifle. My preference would fall on the M1A, but I have both long experience with, and high regard for, the FAL as well.

As to the original post, yes, a Garand would also be welcome on my defensive position. (I'm not about to be leaving my location.) Comments about "losing" the clips are ludicrous. When I can buy TWENTY or more M-1 clips for the cost of a single M1A magazine, it's plain that the clips are at least semi-disposable, and hence offer a civilian an efficient and inexpensive way to both carry and store his ammo....and ready for use, at that. The empty clips will be there on your firing point, if you survive the fight.

The Garand works just fine bone-dry...NO lube. I used them in that state in the Arctic, and even at -40F the rifles worked. (So did the M-14s and FALs.)

It may be trite, but it's still true...the actual results will depend more on the operator than the instrument. My "instrument" will be a 7.62 NATO rifle, or possibly an M-1 in .30-06....I seem to be fresh out of Garands just now.


For serious reading on "how" our rifles get selected, I suggest:

-The Great Rifle Controversy, by E. C. Ezell

-US Rifle M-14, from John Garand to the M-21, from Collector Grade Publications

Neither book is cheap, but they provide a priceless look into the process and will forever change one's outlook on the procurement process.

Bruce,

The 5.56 was designed to use IMR stick powder. The original WW ball powder had too much calcium in it that they found out too late.

Yeah I like the story of the M16 smoothbores sent over to Nam so the bullets would keyhole on the enemy. So much trash stories out there.

Another good read is The Black Rifle. The M14 used in the test against the M16 were arsenal gunsmith gone over and the ammo was pristine. The M16's were often "off the rack" and in some cases the ammo even had verdigris on it. All odds stacked against the M16.

Only part I have a hard time swallowing is about the 222 Mag. I've read Remington really brought that out for the military contract and from what I've read Stoner was aware of it. It may have had something to do with it being a longer cartridge. In all really if the M16 was designed to fire the 222, think about it, the bullet could have been loaded out to never have the base below the case neck and the total powder capacity could have been used. It may have proven to be a slightly hotter round then the 5.56/223. Personally myself if they were going to go to another smaller cartridge anyways, I'd liked to seen them select some sort of 6.5.

Right now the military is interested in a new rifle and FN is pushing their FN SCAR which is in use currently in special units. It's a good rifle and has the ability of quick change barrels and caliblers. It's not a direct impingement system nor a piston modified M16 system. The problem with the piston modified systems is that the carrier was never engineered to take the force or energy to opperate outside the carrier interior...such as the key. With the original system the gas pressure presses straight back on the center of the carrier. If the energy is applied to the key nub like when it's converted to piston operation the carrier tilts. I've heard from inside sources this is one of the things that killed the HK416, in addition to their totally terrible sales force. Very arrogant. The fellow that designed the gas impingement operated MAS 49/56 had it right....keep the gas out of the action.

Joe

[mike in co]

"Bruce,

The 5.56 was designed to use IMR stick powder. The original WW ball powder had too much calcium in it that they found out too late. "

not exactly...
yes it was designed around imr and a chrome lined bore.
politics...plain ol politics. money over lives .

the government decide to use up its surplus powder instead of spending money on imr.
there was no "need" to spend extra money on chrome lined bores, so a rifle designed around imr powder and a chrome lined bore was in no need of a cleaning kit. so we delivered milsurplus powder to foul the gun, no chrome lining and no cleaning kit.

politics nothing else....killed soldiers.

[Lead Fred]

Well said, Lead Fred.

And I thank your father for having served with the 6th Marine Division.



Don he bought it earning his second cluster on his CIB. WWII, Korea, and Nam.


Fred,

I know you have love for the Garand, but it's obsolete on the modern battle field.

I wouldn't be so sure about swapping around various power range and different bullet weights in the Garand, that op rod can get bent putting you out of action. Run out of grease on the bolt lugs and you're in trouble too.

Joe

Once again, the post is about SURVIVAL, not war. Im too damn old to have to do what I did as a teenager. Id have to rest between raping, killing, and pillaging.

If Im doing war, its what I carried all those years ago. M-60. Last time I checked, Walmart was out of them.

Ive been shooting M1s for over 40 years. As long as you dont exceed 2700 FPS, you wont come anywhere close to bending the op rod.

I have lots of 147-152gr rounds, but only 48 180 grainers. They all dial in at 2600ish for a reason. I do push the lighter ones close to 2700, yet never over.

[mike in co]

My responce is simple , grab what ya got
http://s283.photobucket.com/albums/kk302/Texrebel_album/Videos/?action=view&current=M1shooting.flv

a) you are shooting off a bench with no one shooting back.

b) an ar can shoot 40-45 round in less time....yes there are several makers of 40/45 rd mags that actually work for the 223. plus 100 rd beta mags...a prone shooters delite.
...no loading, no putting the rifle down, no reaching for a enblock with just 8 rounds in it....just shooting.

C) move up to an ar10......24 rd mags( well they are 25, but still work best with 24). again three times the fire power with no stopping to reload.....

i never said the garand was bad, but it is past its prime and many firearms out shine them.

mike in co

[mike in co]

Once again, the post is about SURVIVAL, not war. r.

yes but no one has defined "survival"...so everyone has thier own idea, and input....who said survival did not include war ??

mike in co

[carpetman]

Survival---When one has lost their "churchkey" and corkscrew and is forced to live on food and water.

[farshooter]

I'm with you, carpetman.

Survival -sort of like in that old 12 bar blues song:

"When the sun rose this morning I was feeling mighty bad
Baby said she loved me, and it made me mad
'Cause I'm so evil, evil hearted me
Well I'm so downright evil, evil as a man can be."
Josh White did it best.

Survival: when I wake up each morning, song or no.
Survival: that our boys served us, rifle or no.

Doc Burgess

[Bret4207]

I'll stick with the AR platform, thanks. In a real SHTF scenario, you will most likely starve to death before anybody shoots you or vice versa. It is a pleasant fantasy, to rise up and fight tyranny; but 99% of us can't function very well in that milieu. Me, I'm just going to head the two hours over to the ranch my nephew has and guard cows. And, that cellar full of canned foods!
Always remember, if we have the problem, every police car in your town has an M-16 and a 12 gauge shotgun, and enough ammunition to handle the short term stuff. You just need to be assertive when you ask to borrow them

Rich

Really? That's funny, 22 years on the job and I never saw an M-16 in my car and the 10 rounds of shotgun ammo wouldn't last very long.

[Bret4207]

There is a book about the Harpers Ferry/Springfield armory and the selection process in general out there floating around. I forget the name but it takes old William Crozier (IIRC) to task among other people. The selection process under US Federal Gov't guidelines is near criminal and I don't think anything has changed.

2 observations on this discussion- Joe- if we follow your line of reasoning on weapons selection then why was I handicapped by being forced to carry a Glock 9mm for 10+ years? Following your logic I would have had a 40/10mm/45 from the start. The reason we had a 9mm is the same as the reason a lot of other guns are issued- Cool factor, kickbacks, joining the rest of the crowd, easier for chickies and girly men to shoot. Hence- the Beretta 92 9mm issued to our guys.

#2- when was the last time you actually saw a "Russin Spetznaz", much less one changing magazines and what makes you think this discussion is about American/Russian war? Take a look around, we're in far more danger of economic collapse than a Russian invasion.

Lets get real here guys. As usual we've strayed from the OP, which is fine. We'd all like to have unlimited ammo and the latest tacticool mall ninja space guns. I don't know about the rest of you but the closest thing to an "assault rifle" I own is an SKS. I looked at AR's at Gander Mtn. Sunday-$3299.00. The cheapies at another place were still $1200.00 and they were the Remington jobbies that are supposed to be one step above Hi-Point. Be serious- 97% of us are going to make do with what we have whether it's an AR, FNFAL, 03 Springfield or Marlin 336. If TSHTF 97% of us are gonna hunker down where we are, maybe team up with some neighbors, establish a defensive perimeter and do our best to survive day by day. The Mall Ninja Tactical Extreme crowd will be doing the same thing, only they'll be doing it in $300.00 tactical clothes instead of jeans and work shirt (Think the survivalist in "Tremors).

End of story.

[mto7464]

I guess it depends on what you mean by survival. Out in the woods all alone and you need it for food and limited self defense or when/if SHTF in this country or the world.
If it is the latter I say what ever you have the MOST ammo for. That would be 3006 for me. I also have a lot of 7.62x54r but only have bolt guns for it but it would still come in handy.
This being the case I would take a Garand over my 1903a3.
Since I have little 223 on hand and no 7,62x39 ammo the AR and AK couldn't be a choice.
If all you have is a 22 and several bricks or ammo you would be good to go there too.

[StarMetal]

There is a book about the Harpers Ferry/Springfield armory and the selection process in general out there floating around. I forget the name but it takes old William Crozier (IIRC) to task among other people. The selection process under US Federal Gov't guidelines is near criminal and I don't think anything has changed.

2 observations on this discussion- Joe- if we follow your line of reasoning on weapons selection then why was I handicapped by being forced to carry a Glock 9mm for 10+ years? Following your logic I would have had a 40/10mm/45 from the start. The reason we had a 9mm is the same as the reason a lot of other guns are issued- Cool factor, kickbacks, joining the rest of the crowd, easier for chickies and girly men to shoot. Hence- the Beretta 92 9mm issued to our guys.

#2- when was the last time you actually saw a "Russin Spetznaz", much less one changing magazines and what makes you think this discussion is about American/Russian war? Take a look around, we're in far more danger of economic collapse than a Russian invasion.

Lets get real here guys. As usual we've strayed from the OP, which is fine. We'd all like to have unlimited ammo and the latest tacticool mall ninja space guns. I don't know about the rest of you but the closest thing to an "assault rifle" I own is an SKS. I looked at AR's at Gander Mtn. Sunday-$3299.00. The cheapies at another place were still $1200.00 and they were the Remington jobbies that are supposed to be one step above Hi-Point. Be serious- 97% of us are going to make do with what we have whether it's an AR, FNFAL, 03 Springfield or Marlin 336. If TSHTF 97% of us are gonna hunker down where we are, maybe team up with some neighbors, establish a defensive perimeter and do our best to survive day by day. The Mall Ninja Tactical Extreme crowd will be doing the same thing, only they'll be doing it in $300.00 tactical clothes instead of jeans and work shirt (Think the survivalist in "Tremors).

End of story.

Bret,

Seems your post is directed at me as the only naysayer against the Garand. No problem. Okay, I have Directv satelite. I get the Military Channel, History Channel, and all the Discovery and Science Channels. The Military Channel does shows on all the elite armed forces around the world. That's where they had the Spetznaz team. They showed how they fast they can change an AK magazine. They did it slow and showed the steps. Amazing, anyone can do it, me now even. It's just little tricks that some never thought of. Of topice but they can take a prisoner, lock his arms up with the sling on their AK and have the weapon for use and using the prisoner as a shield. The stuff is almost like martial arts moves.

I'm the one that said get real first about this. It has brought out the key board commando's. I know the Garand is a great rifle. But it's days have past. Sure you can still use it, you can still use a flintlock too huh?

You're right you police department should have had the best possible pistol available. At least caliber wise. I believe the statement about the M16's or AR15's in police hands didn't necessarily mean it was locked to the dash in their cruisers. You know exactly what was meant Bret.

Yes politics did pick many weapons for our military, but that still has nothing to do with them evolving.

Joe

[Bret4207]

You miss the point Joe. It's not Spetznaz on the Military Channel we need to worry about. (Incidentally, like any other martial art those nifty moves work great with a willing participant. They don't work quite so well when the other guy is unwilling to be your shield) Russia isn't going to invade. Islamic Terrorists are already here. Economic collapse is just around the corner regardless of what that twit Bernanke says. You aren't anywhere near as likey to be going up against a team of Russian Spetznaz as you are Abdul the cab driver or Jamal the unemployed, disenfranchised ute who looks at guys like you and me as the reason he's unemployed and disenfranchised, just like the Rev Jesse and Louis Farakand say.

Also, I'm not saying you're a naysayer on the Garand or anything, I'm just pointing out that your post regarding our forces and other forces being equipment with the latest and best is a common fallacy. True, some stuff just plain works even though it is old- the B52, A10, Harrier, 50 Browning, and the 1911. Other stuff is in the hands of the worlds forces because it's cheap- SKS, AK, Toyota Pickups as gun platforms in Africa. Some stuff is on the line because someone somewhere made a stupid decision or got bribed/cheated- The Chauchat MG of the late 1800's, the Krag (Love them but they were obsolete before they were issued), the Brewster Buffalo air plane, the early M16 and a whole series of mid 50-late 80's missile systems, aircraft and armor that never did work quite like we thought they would.

As for the M16 in the police car post , yes, I do know what was meant. What was meant was you kill the cop and take it from him. I preferred to take another tack and hope I was wrong.

[BarryinIN]

I think the key word in the OP was "include", as in: Would you include a Garand in your survival plan?
I didn't take that as depending exclusively on the Garand from now until some unkown date, but rather- Would you include one along with other things?

I said "yes" because I do include a Garand in any such plans. But it's also included with some ARs and if possible, a shotgun, a .22 or two, etc, etc.

I don't think any of those guns are ideal for everything, and doubt anyone else would either. But I do think each does something, or many things, better than the others.

I just happen to like the Garand for a "mid-size" defend/hunt/lower-profile-than-some-others rifle.
Just as I like an AR15 as a defend/tight-space/travel-on-foot/arm-the-kids rifle.

[StarMetal]

You miss the point Joe. It's not Spetznaz on the Military Channel we need to worry about. (Incidentally, like any other martial art those nifty moves work great with a willing participant. They don't work quite so well when the other guy is unwilling to be your shield) Russia isn't going to invade. Islamic Terrorists are already here. Economic collapse is just around the corner regardless of what that twit Bernanke says. You aren't anywhere near as likey to be going up against a team of Russian Spetznaz as you are Abdul the cab driver or Jamal the unemployed, disenfranchised ute who looks at guys like you and me as the reason he's unemployed and disenfranchised, just like the Rev Jesse and Louis Farakand say.

Also, I'm not saying you're a naysayer on the Garand or anything, I'm just pointing out that your post regarding our forces and other forces being equipment with the latest and best is a common fallacy. True, some stuff just plain works even though it is old- the B52, A10, Harrier, 50 Browning, and the 1911. Other stuff is in the hands of the worlds forces because it's cheap- SKS, AK, Toyota Pickups as gun platforms in Africa. Some stuff is on the line because someone somewhere made a stupid decision or got bribed/cheated- The Chauchat MG of the late 1800's, the Krag (Love them but they were obsolete before they were issued), the Brewster Buffalo air plane, the early M16 and a whole series of mid 50-late 80's missile systems, aircraft and armor that never did work quite like we thought they would.

As for the M16 in the police car post , yes, I do know what was meant. What was meant was you kill the cop and take it from him. I preferred to take another tack and hope I was wrong.

Bret, You and Larry Gibson must think alike. You missed the point sir about Spetznaz. They demonstrated that anyone can swap magazines on an AK if you know the procedure they came up with. You also missed the point on my saying about the best equipment for todays armies no matter where they are. I didn't mean that quality wise, I meant that as armies have evolved from spears and swords, and bows and arrows, flintlocks, percussion, cartridge single fire, cartridge repeaters...to automatics. Take your choice semi or full auto or both. Question if Custers men were trained for and armed with the M16 do you think there would have been a different outcome? Much as you hate them Bret, the AK 47 is the assault rifles that all assault rifles are judged by. It's reliable far beyond anything out there today and you're looking at a design from back in the 40's. I can only think of one rifle that will give it a run for it's money and that Czech VZ58. They actually improved on the AK design. Do you even know what that is Bret without having to resort to Google?

To the answer for the original question: yes the Garand would suffice. But all the Garand lovers have to pelt us with it's the Holy Grail of military rifles and it is not. Neither is the M16. So far they haven't made a have your cake and eat it too rifle. Might be the reason why militaries have a variety of weapons huh?

Joe

[Bret4207]

Bret, You and Larry Gibson must think alike. You missed the point sir about Spetznaz. They demonstrated that anyone can swap magazines on an AK if you know the procedure they came up with.When did I say anything about magazine swaps? You were talking about using people as a sheild! You also missed the point on my saying about the best equipment for todays armies no matter where they are. I didn't mean that quality wise, I meant that as armies have evolved from spears and swords, and bows and arrows, flintlocks, percussion, cartridge single fire, cartridge repeaters...to automatics. Take your choice semi or full auto or both. Question if Custers men were trained for and armed with the M16 do you think there would have been a different outcome? There would have been a different outcome if moron Custer had taken the equipment he had access to! Much as you hate them Bret, the AK 47 is the assault rifles that all assault rifles are judged by. Joe, Joe, Joe, there ya go again putting words in my mouth. I have no opinion on the AK beyond it's cheap and ugly and they feel like a 2x8 in my hands. I don;t hate them, just don't want to spend MY money for one It's reliable far beyond anything out there today and you're looking at a design from back in the 40's. I can only think of one rifle that will give it a run for it's money and that Czech VZ58. They actually improved on the AK design. Do you even know what that is Bret without having to resort to Google? Yeah, saw it in some issues of "Shotgun News" and some other magazines. That doofus David Fortier likes to dress up like a soldier and hold one for the pictures. Whoop de doo!

To the answer for the original question: yes the Garand would suffice. But all the Garand lovers have to pelt us with it's the Holy Grail of military rifles and it is not. Neither is the M16. So far they haven't made a have your cake and eat it too rifle. Might be the reason why militaries have a variety of weapons huh?

Joe

It seems to me you're getting all worked up over nothing Joe. If I had a choice (IOW spending someone elses money) I'd probably take an FN FAL because I'm familiar with them and recall liking the ones I fam-fired very much. But I don;t have that choice and neither do a lot of other people. If they have a Garand they be fine, same as if they have a VZ58 or AK or most anything else. Read what I pointed out a couple posts back Joe. That's why I find threads like this so maddening- it's just a 308 vs 3-06 debate in another form and no one seems to see it.

[StarMetal]

It seems to me you're getting all worked up over nothing Joe. If I had a choice (IOW spending someone elses money) I'd probably take an FN FAL because I'm familiar with them and recall liking the ones I fam-fired very much. But I don;t have that choice and neither do a lot of other people. If they have a Garand they be fine, same as if they have a VZ58 or AK or most anything else. Read what I pointed out a couple posts back Joe. That's why I find threads like this so maddening- it's just a 308 vs 3-06 debate in another form and no one seems to see it.

Bret, It's hard to convey emotions through the internet, but I assure you I'm no where close to worked up...quite far from that. I was on some other forums and they point out that the 308 is about as hot as the 30-06 that is used in the Garand because the Garand ammo wasn't as hot as the 06 can be loaded too. They used that claim to state that the 06 out of the Garand really wasn't a hotter round.

Joe

[405]

I can only speak of the firearms I have on hand so. Would an M1 Garand be a good survival tool? Well, I wouldn't hesitate to grab mine. Seems like a lot of 8 shot, pause, 8 shot, pause, etc. firepower to me. Mine's accurate and reliable coupled with the range and energy of the '06. Would an M14/M1A be comparable- maybe better- prolly. Ditto for the FN-FAL, etc. I suppose we could even add submachine guns to the discussion.... But the original question specified the Garand. But, then again, I wouldn't feel undergunned with my 03 or 03A3 either. :)

[farshooter]

I'm new to this board.

Before coming to this thread I had read a few different threads, and posted to a few mostly about cast boolits the .35 Whelen and pistol shooting. The threads seemed simple enough and the responses respectful. Then, on this thread I answered the question, "...So would you suggest a M1 Garand be included in a "Survival Pachage" today...?

I should have read more posts here while watching the thread unravel. I would have gone back to boolits, lube and how you mathematically express the boolit mix.

My dad can whip your dad.
Can not.
Can too.

Doc Burgess
__________________

[mike in co]

the original question is quite ambiguous(sp).
first is the need to define what was meant by the asker, by the word "survival".

to the rest of you that have put your own spin on this is: from where you sit today........from your frt door can you sight and make a 600 yd shot ?

if not all the statements about cover fire is moot..........i would guess most of us live in an urban area, and a few are actually in a rural enviroment..


where do you think you will be in a survival senario...???

if i have to make a stand from my home a garand is too big, too slow, too heavy and ammo qty challenged.


mike in co

[farshooter]

Good question:

"where do you think you will be in a survival senario...???"

I think I'll be facing swarms of city folks armed with machinin' pistols and other junk, all with 30 round magazines. They'll be 600 yards away.

And I'll call my brother, because he has never seen a train wreck like this.

Doc Burgess

[fatnhappy]

MY shtf or bump in the night weapon is a garand. nuf said

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h152/lhsjfk3t/101_0496.jpg

[sundog]

now, don't anyone get unraveled over this, but..., keep in mind that it is NO problem to keep 10 well aimed shots (that's 2 and 8) in the bull in 60 seconds in high power with an M1. If that first string were a full clip of 8, it could be 16 shot of well aimed fire in 60 seconds. Every 60 seconds. That can be said for a number of fine platforms. It boils down to what you have, what you can get your hands on, and what the scenario is.

If I knew I had to move, especially on foot, the M1 and all that heavy ammo might sadly stay behind in favor of a scoped 222 Rem carbine and adequate ammo supply. Weight is everything if you are not defending the 'bunker'...

[farshooter]

Heavy. I don't do walking.

If I was walking some of you would have me carrying all kinds of junk, like health food bars, a first aid kit and such. My horse is going to carry my Garand and four of my pack horses will be carrying my ammo. Each pack horse carries 150 pounds, or 2,000 rounds in en bloc clips. That makes 8,000 rounds. I don't use mules anymore or I'd pack more ammo. My other pack horses are loaded with other stuff.

Now I have a rendezvous site where I'll meet my three brothers and they all have horses. We'll have about 30,000 rounds with all the stuff to re load them. Now this thread is an anything goes thread so we'll have light .30 machine guns from Korea and WW II; you know, those obsolete machine guns, the one with no safety so we can answer those big magazine boys and their junk. Legal? You kidding? We're talking big time anarchy here.

Doc Burgess

[waksupi]

I'm new to this board.

Before coming to this thread I had read a few different threads, and posted to a few mostly about cast boolits the .35 Whelen and pistol shooting. The threads seemed simple enough and the responses respectful. Then, on this thread I answered the question, "...So would you suggest a M1 Garand be included in a "Survival Pachage" today...?

I should have read more posts here while watching the thread unravel. I would have gone back to boolits, lube and how you mathematically express the boolit mix.

My dad can whip your dad.
Can not.
Can too.

Doc Burgess
__________________

I'm with you!

[missionary5155]

Good morning
Wow I sure did not mean to open this can of worms... I was just wondering IF the M1 Garand would be viewed as "More difficult to load, clear, unjam, ... " than a AR type.
My SURVIVAL PACHAGE is going to be a Wood Crate that contains 10 semi-auto military rifles plus 100 rounds each with magazines. Crate will be deposited in a defensible location where pre-advised persons will gather. Other ammo cans will be near by.
In all probability I will be in Peru (80% of my time is spent there) IF this crate ever needs to be opened and used. I am possibly not going to be handy to #1 use my Garand or give an individual OJT. I rescently talked to a Marine 2nd Lt. who has never handled a M1 Garand so I was wondering... should I include a 1943 rifle IF no one can operate it safely.
So Thanks everyone.... took me well over an hour to read all this. There are some good thoughts I had not considered.
As it stands right now the Garand is on the "if there is room list" with my 6 shot short barreled Mossy. The box was designed for 10 rifles plus ammo.... maybe 11 or 12 can make it.

[Bret4207]

Good question:

"where do you think you will be in a survival senario...???"

I think I'll be facing swarms of city folks armed with machinin' pistols and other junk, all with 30 round magazines. They'll be 600 yards away.

And I'll call my brother, because he has never seen a train wreck like this.

Doc Burgess

Covered that in post #2. I agree these are kind of useless threads but I enjoy hearing other peoples thoughts, to an extent anyway. I just hope we never have to see how our ideas work in real life!

[Bret4207]

Bret, It's hard to convey emotions through the internet, but I assure you I'm no where close to worked up...quite far from that. I was on some other forums and they point out that the 308 is about as hot as the 30-06 that is used in the Garand because the Garand ammo wasn't as hot as the 06 can be loaded too. They used that claim to state that the 06 out of the Garand really wasn't a hotter round.

Joe

Boy, ain't that the truth! Seems to me you and I have had that issue our ownselves a time or two in the past:bigsmyl2:

That discussion you mention is why I tend to hang around here where there are actual THINKING people and not at The High Road or the other Mall Ninja sites.

[farshooter]

Missionary, I'm sure glad you returned. There for a while I thought you were going to have to get your Bible out and read it like John Wayne on the prairie.

Too bad about that 2nd Lieutenant Marine who hasn't handled an M1 Garand. I don't believe I'd a told that, lieutenant. Sad thing is he still hasn't handled a rifle, since the Marines haven't had a rifle in their fire teams in years. I hear there's still an M14 or two banging about and their bolt sniper stuff. I doubt the 2nd Lieutenant has handled those either. Still, Semper Fi, Marine. You might check out the Marine Corps' Silent Drill Team. One of those privates might let you handle a real rifle. Don't let the bayonet bother you. It goes with the show.

Doc Burgess

[BarryinIN]

Good morning
Wow I sure did not mean to open this can of worms... I was just wondering IF the M1 Garand would be viewed as "More difficult to load, clear, unjam, ... " than a AR type.


While I've never gone to war with a Garand, I have used one for some 3-gun matches and a class where nothing was done in a leisurely manner. That pales compared to a battle, but any problems with quick loading and malfunction clearances make themselves apparent if they exist.

I don't think the loading procedure is a detriment to use if one knows how.
But I do think they should know how. It's not a good self-teaching rifle.
If one is taught how and has done some loading practice beforehand, even if only a couple of minutes worth, they should be fine. If they have to load a Garand after opening a crate and seeing one for the first time, they will probably have trouble and may not get it done at all.

When loading, one has to make sure to locate the clip back far enough in the opening that it will align with the milled-in guides as it's shoved in. First-timers sometimes try to go a little too far forward with it. In that case, the clip will be in the wrong place and will tilt and bind and not load. It will look right to a novice, so the tendancy is to keep on pushing down, which gains nothing.
If they know to use the rear of the receiver opening/boltface as a guide and get the clip's rear surface back against that area before shoving it in, they should be OK.
I think people see that wide open action and think as long as the clip is placed anywhere in that space it will go in. It may not.

Malfunction clearances aren't too bad...as malfunction clearances go. With the bolt back, you can pretty much see and access everything. Getting a couple of fingers on the top round while blocking the op rod handle with the heel of the hand and either "steering" it into place or just pulling it out will clear most malfs.
Since most any feed problem is visible (or can be felt in dim light) the clearances should be easy to teach and may often be self explanatory (open the bolt and dig). I would think it would be easier to teach than with most other rifles. With an AR15 for example, one or two procedures will clear 90+% of malfs, but most people need to be shown what those procedures are. Then they often get a step or two out of order the first try.


I am possibly not going to be handy to #1 use my Garand or give an individual OJT. I rescently talked to a Marine 2nd Lt. who has never handled a M1 Garand so I was wondering... should I include a 1943 rifle IF no one can operate it safely.

As much as I like the Garand ]for many things (though not all) I would advise against one in this case.
It's one of those rifles that seems simple to use if you know how, but if someone didn't...you may be dooming them.
I would guess that if you could hand the average person a Garand and a loaded clip, told them to load it but gave no insttruction, then left them alone for an hour, you would come back to find an empty rifle.


As it stands right now the Garand is on the "if there is room list" with my 6 shot short barreled Mossy.
I'm guessing that the average person could get the Mossberg loaded and figure out how to operate it.
If arming the untrained, a pump shotgun may be one of the best choices. Most may have already figured out how to load one from watching TV even if they have never seen one in real life.
Then again, lack of knowledge about the slide lock and it's release button may be the downfall there.

[StarMetal]

Boy, ain't that the truth! Seems to me you and I have had that issue our ownselves a time or two in the past:bigsmyl2:

That discussion you mention is why I tend to hang around here where there are actual THINKING people and not at The High Road or the other Mall Ninja sites.

Bret, You and I would get along just fine, esp me Navy and you a Marine!!!! :kidding:

Joe

[StarMetal]

Missionary, I'm sure glad you returned. There for a while I thought you were going to have to get your Bible out and read it like John Wayne on the prairie.

Too bad about that 2nd Lieutenant Marine who hasn't handled an M1 Garand. I don't believe I'd a told that, lieutenant. Sad thing is he still hasn't handled a rifle, since the Marines haven't had a rifle in their fire teams in years. I hear there's still an M14 or two banging about and their bolt sniper stuff. I doubt the 2nd Lieutenant has handled those either. Still, Semper Fi, Marine. You might check out the Marine Corps' Silent Drill Team. One of those privates might let you handle a real rifle. Don't let the bayonet bother you. It goes with the show.

Doc Burgess

Yeah, blah blah blah, I'm sure there will be some nimkapoops like you in the future saying the same thing about the M16 too. Happens like this with every new era of rifles, from the trapdoor springfield, up through the 30-40 krag, the 1903 springfield, the M1 Garand (sic sic) M14, to the M16.

Let's open another can of nighcrawler....the Johnson was a better rifle then the Garand. You may like that one, it has wood on it.

Joe

[StarMetal]

Now isn't this sweet?

http://i13.photobucket.com/albums/a290/jisii/Garands/M1Crecordcollage.jpg

[farshooter]

That's sweet.

You might send it along. Take the handle off first. Looks too much like the M16.

You can keep the cheeky piece.

Doc Burgess

[mike in co]

Sad thing is he still hasn't handled a rifle, since the Marines haven't had a rifle in their fire teams in years. I hear there's still an M14 or two banging about and their bolt sniper stuff.
Doc Burgess


i'll second joe on this one...BLAH BLAH BLAH......

THOSE WHO REFUSE TO LEARN NEW THINGS ARE ALREADY DEAD.....


they used m14 in the first desert meeting, and have been using ar-10's and sr25's in this one, but most shooting is still done with the m16 family.......it aint perfect( neither was the garand, the m14, the 03, the 03a3, the krag...etc).. but it does work.

mike in co

[farshooter]

Mike in Co you've joined the BLAH, BLAHer. You're the second BLAH, BLAH, BLAHer, BLAHing.

Doc Burgess

[45nut]

play nice now. this isn't arf.com

[Freebore]

I'm wondering.......did I miss someone mentioniing the FAL? 92+ countries are that wrong? Better than an M-1,nay,but surely as good and easier to field strip that either the M-1 or M-14 and still got the power.
Remember the Russians were handed their hat by bolt action 303's and 8mm's. Seems AK's wouldn't reach up into the rocks but the old bolt guns sure did reach down to the roads.
Please make mine a 7.62x51. No poodle guns in the desert.

I'm going to skip through this post and say it was "Stinger Missiles & AK's" that prevailed as far as hardware goes. If I missed something, I'll log in sooner tomorrow night.

[Bret4207]

I think CF is referring to the USSRs disastrous campaign in Afghanistan. Despite superior firepower (nearly a century's worth!) the Afgans held off the Rooshins with handmade and surplus Lee Enfields and Mausers.

[farshooter]

Good point, Bret 4207,

Do the Afgans still use Lee Enfields and Mausers against their enemies of today? The Afgans made their own Enfield receivers from railroad rails using hand tools, hand drills, files, etc., so I wonder if they have scrapped their handmade arms? They made barrels out of truck axles, rifle them and heat treat them.

I heard recently that a general has asked for 40,000 more volunteers to serve in Afghanistan.

[shooterg]

Guess I kinda like Garands since I have 13 of 'em. My Pop is an 84 year old Asian theatre Marine who always said it was the " best damn rifle ever made" so he probably brainwashed me. Gave him one a few Veteran's Days back with a bandolier of ball - guess that's HIS survival gun now ! Still it would not be my first choice for a survival gun, but it sure would work . Since survival to me includes defense against 4-legged critters too, I do believe .30 would be minimum. Like my AR's too so I'd be cool with an AR-10 type in .308 . But, heck, if I gotta take off in the woods, I'd be happy just to grap the old Winchester 94 hanging over the hall doorway and a box of ammo on my way out the back door ! Guess the best survival rifle is the one you have in hand.

[StarMetal]

Good point, Bret 4207,

Do the Afgans still use Lee Enfields and Mausers against their enemies of today? The Afgans made their own Enfield receivers from railroad rails using hand tools, hand drills, files, etc., so I wonder if they have scrapped their handmade arms? They made barrels out of truck axles, rifle them and heat treat them.

I heard recently that a general has asked for 40,000 more volunteers to serve in Afghanistan.

Nice try Doc...may you should research the internet little more before you post erroneous information hinting as to what the terrorists over there may be using. Maybe this will give you a clue:
The Foreign Policy Magazine (http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/05/23/india-playing-with-fire-by-supporting-ttp/)also recently confirmed the Indians were neck deep in supporting the TTP in Pakistan:

While the U.S. media has frequently reported on Pakistani ties to jihadi elements launching attacks in Afghanistan, it has less often mentioned that India supports insurgent forces attacking Pakistan. “The Indians are up to their necks in supporting the Taliban against the Pakistani government in Afghanistan and Pakistan,” a former intelligence official who served in both countries said. “The same anti-Pakistani forces in Afghanistan also shooting at American soldiers are getting support from India. India should close its diplomatic establishments in Afghanistan and get the Christ out of there.”

Wounded Pakistani soldiers interviewed have recalled the stiff resistance (http://pakistankakhudahafiz.wordpress.com/2009/05/22/wounded-soldiers-recall-stiff-resistance/) they have faced while attempting to flush out terrorists armed with sophisticated weapons in Swat.

“They are well-equipped, they have mortars, they have rockets, sniper rifles and every type of sophisticated weapon,” says one Lt. Zaigham.“I am certain that foreign elements are behind these militants. Can I ask something very simple — who are their sponsors? What are their sources of funding? Who runs their logistics?”




Tell you one thing, they sure aren't using M1 Garands!!!!!


:kidding::kidding:


Joe

[farshooter]

What do you say, Bret 4207? Are the Afgans making their own rifles today and if you know, how many?

Surely someone who knows can jump in here and answer my question. I don't claim to be a Navy know it all and I sure don't believe all I read on the internet including stuff on this august site.

Maybe a Marine knows? Or the 82nd. Not that 2nd Lieutenant that Missionary mentioned, the 2nd Lieutenant that had never handled a Garand, according to Missionary. On the other hand maybe the 2nd Lieutenant has been to the Khyber Pass and took notes.

Missionary isn't going to include an M1 Garand either, "...should I include a 1943 rifle IF no one can operate it safely?" On the other hand in his crate of ten rifles he has the Garand on his "if there is room list."

Missionary started this ***** thread and Navy finished it.

[Bret4207]

Jeeze guys, cool down. The Afghans USED to make some of their weapons. It was all detailed in a back issue of Gun Digest, the big book John Amber used to edit, not the grocery store rag that used to be "The Gun List". I have no idea if they still use them or make them. It wouldn't surprise me at all to find some old boy filing a frame someplace but I'm betting in the 30 years since the Rooshins invaded they've gotten lots of newer arms. After all we supplied them with a bunch abck then and surely the Pakis and Iranians and probably a mess of other countries with names ending in "stan" are sending them goods too.

[StarMetal]

We's cool, didn't y'all see my yanking chains?

Joe