• If you are having trouble changng your password please click here for help.

M1 Garand is the greatest rifle of all time

You want the M1/M14 to win so you narrow down your criterion so that only accuracy at 800+ yards matter. So that is the only thing that makes a rifle good? If that's the case - then the 1903 Springfield is your pick.

They are used around the world, because of what I mentioned before. When the trigger is pulled they go bang...no matter what. They are not junk - that's just a silly notion. Israel copied he AK to come up with the Galil, because they valued it's simple, small, rugged design and they were using the FAL at the time.

You make me think of the old story I read of the captured T-34/76 tanks that the Germans examined. Story goes that they considered making a reversed engineered version, since the Russian tanks were so effective on the battlefield. However they concluded they couldn't do that, because the Russian tanks would never pass their quality control inspections. Yet the simple, plain & crude T-34 was the tank that shocked the Wehrmacht and they couldn't understand how it could defeat their Panthers & Tigers. Plus later on there were so many of them. The T-34s were junk either - but a great simple design that does the job it's meant for. For me the AK family has the same design philosophy.
Come on man. I listed the two attributes that I believe make the M14 a better rifle than the AK and pointed out what I think is a big flaw of the AK. Now you are trying to claim these are the only considerations I use. Reasonable people would recognize all the attributes that both rifles have and not need them to be listed individually.

You want the AK to win, so you distort my argument against them.

Bottom line, most AKs cannot make reliable torso sized hits beyond 200 yards and many can't do it even at 200 yards. That's a non starter for me.
 
A prior poster observed that the M14 had a very short military service as the standard issue weapon to every infantryman.

Yes, that's true but I would say that is because the M14 as designed and envisioned in the 1950s was supposed to serve a dual role:

(1) a light machine gun that would take the place of a BAR (Browning automatic rifle, which used 20 round box magazines )
and
(2) a standard issue automatic rifle for all the ground pounders.

The M14 wasn't as heavy as the BAR, and the M14 fired at a faster cyclic rate, so it was less controllable. Soldiers hated using it in that role, whereas they had a high level of respect for the BAR, and had confidence that they could keep the rounds on target when they needed to fire a burst.

Among us private citizens in peacetime America, the M14's shortcomings as an fully automatic rifle don't matter much. As a semi automatic rifle, it's awesome.
 
Just own at least one of each....problem solved.

E4950D7C-065D-4F14-B3A1-1137DC393899.jpeg
 
The Garand deserves high praise for being so much better than all of the other widely-issued battle rifles of the World War II.

Semi auto, not bolt action.
Eight shots, not five.
Peep sight for the rear, not a slower open sight.
Reliable, rugged, and accurate.
(Which was not something everybody expected from a semi auto designed in the mid-1930's).
 
In my experience both platforms shoot better than this. The AK averages around 4 to 4.5 MOA and the AR averages around 1 to 1.5 MOA. That's a huge difference down range.

 
A prior poster observed that the M14 had a very short military service as hey standard issue weapon to every infantryman.

Yes, that's true but I would say that is because the M14 as designed and envisioned in the 1950s was supposed to serve a dual role:

(1) a light machine gun that would take the place of a BAR (Browning automatic rifle, which used 20 round box magazines )
and
(2) a standard issue automatic rifle for all the ground pounders.

The M14 wasn't as heavy as the BAR, and the M14 fired at a faster cyclic rate, so it was less controllable. Soldiers hated using it in that role, whereas they had a high level of respect for the BAR, and had confidence that they could keep the rounds on target when they needed to fire a burst.

Among us private citizens in peacetime America, the M14's shortcomings as an fully automatic rifle don't matter much. As a semi automatic rifle, it's awesome.
I am not sure I agree with all of that. The M60 was designed to replace the BAR and was already in service a full two years before the M14. The M14 was put in service in 1959 and the M60 in 1957 as far as I can know.
 
I own 3 garands, 1 m1-a 2 FALs a Hk 91. A Ak and about 10 ARs ! I’ll take a garand anytime paste 100’yards ! The bullet to kill numbers have steadily climbed since world war 2 !
 
There is no single solution to the infinite number of shooting/target requirements. As far as military requirements go, the Garand proved to be the right rifle at the right time. Same for the M-16. I LOVE the M-14, as it was taking the Garand from the 30's and 40's into the new Space Age, BUT, it was a short lived transition. That is not on the gun, just the military requirements.

If you showed me a rack of guns, and most were shotguns and bolt action rifles with a Garand in the group, and told me I had to "survive" in a hostile environment with the rifle I picked, I would feel comfortable picking the Garand.

If you showed me a rack of guns and it contained a Garand, an M-14 and and AK, and you said I would be in combat, facing hordes of Russians, over medium to wide open terrain, I would pick the M-14. Has the range and punch.

If you showed me a rack of rifles that had the AK, the M-16, and some various PCCs, and you said I would be fighting door to door, hose to house, I would pick the AK-47. Plenty accurate enough for the relatively short distances and has some penetration power.

Every situation could feasibly require a different weapon, if you have the luxury of choice. Otherwise, you get whatever Uncle Sam hands you at the time.

The Garand did it's job and it did it very well.
 
Back
Top Bottom