User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:23:12 PM EDT
[#1]
The Garand is of much higher quality, but the G3/91 is more useful.
If it was my only rifle, I'd take the G3. If I could have an additional rifle, but only one of the above, I'd take the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:24:00 PM EDT
[#2]
I don't have experience with the G3 unfortunately, but I'd be comfortable with a garand.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:27:24 PM EDT
[#3]
Crap, I guess it would come down to which one I was the most comfortable/familiar with. I have no really experience or training with either other than playing around with them. I would probably have to go with Garand due to the sights being better than the G3. I don't particularly like the sights on HKs even though I don't really dislike them to the point of not being able to use them effectively.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:27:32 PM EDT
[#4]
I picked up a Danish Garand return from a collector not to long ago. Late 1943 Springfield receiver with a 1966 dated Danish barrel.
I'd still take the G3. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:28:05 PM EDT
[#5]
The Garand is a work of art, the G3 is a newer design and is a workhorse.
Not really a fair comparison |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:28:19 PM EDT
[#6]
The Garand is a fine killing machine.
I think the G3 has a more conventional (today, anyway) manual of arms, and is similar to an AK in the respect that it works well for conscripts and less-trained infantry. It's easier to break down and has less moving parts, although if something does go wrong it's harder to fix. The sights on the Garand can't be beat, but the G3's are not bad. It's got a long ass stock though that is really designed for 6' tall uber-men. It'd be a tough call. Honestly, probably the Garand myself. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:31:02 PM EDT
[#7]
Here is my answer....
Danish M1 Garand with a VAR Barrel and Beretta Parts.   |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:32:28 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Garand is a work of art, the G3 is a newer design and is a workhorse. Not really a fair comparison That's what makes it interesting. 
Plus, both are designed to be an infantry rifle - so it's not like we're comparing a hunting rifle to a submachine gun or something. Both were intended to be the same thing - but the full-power cartridge "battle rifle" was sort of a weird temporary animal that didn't survive long, so I think the question is actually a pretty good one. If the G3 had been chambered in an intermediate cartridge, it would be a different story (and I would agree with you). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:33:45 PM EDT
[#9]
Tough call. I guess my vote would be G3, due to 20 round box magazine. I've only shot the Garand a few times, if I needed one in battle I am sure I would get Garand thumb, jump up and down like a little b**** and get shot.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:35:07 PM EDT
[#10]
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bangping
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:35:26 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... The sights on the Garand can't be beat, but the G3's are not bad. It's got a long ass stock though that is really designed for 6' tall uber-men. The G3 sights are actually quite good - but the huge problem is that you cannot adjust them (for windage or for zero or different ammo), without a special tool and/or screwdriver. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:36:10 PM EDT
[#12]
Not really a valid comparison, they're a generation (at least) apart. I've owned both. The Garand is certainly a "nicer" rifle but on the modern battlefield its simply out of place.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:42:46 PM EDT
[#13]
should be M14 vs G3
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:49:58 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Not really a valid comparison, they're a generation (at least) apart. I've owned both. The Garand is certainly a "nicer" rifle but on the modern battlefield its simply out of place. That's where we differ. To my mind, it's a VERY valid comparison, precisely because the semi-auto full-power cartridge automatic rifle was an evolutionary dead end in infantry rifle design. While the G3 is later than the Garand, it is not necessarily better. Also, my question is NOT about "the modern battlefield" - and that's not what the thread is about. My question is if YOU had to pick one or the other, and potentially had to use it as an individual, possible for surviving/fighting in some SHTF scenario, which would you prefer? As you can see, a number of people in this thread would in fact pick the Garand over the G3. Plus, as an aside, I've commanded an infantry platoon that had riflemen equipped with G3s, and I've commanded infantry platoons that had riflemen equipped with Garands. Depending on the task/mission - I am NOT convinced that there'd be a difference, and if there was, the edge could even go to the Garand (again, depending on task). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:50:38 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
should be M14 vs G3 Too obvious - and then largely just boils down to personal preference.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:50:43 PM EDT
[#16]
I voted G3 out of that list, neither of which would be my real go-to.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:52:12 PM EDT
[#17]
Get an Italian Garand with the detachable mag and win all around.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:52:59 PM EDT
[#18]
G3: Heavy, wretched trigger. Garand: Smooth crisp trigger G3. No bolt hold open Garand: Bolt hold open. G3. violent ejection. Garand: Smooth ejection. G3. drum aperture sight Garand: Best aperture sight ever on a battle rifle. The only advantage that the G3 has is higher capacity. But then again, a Garand can be reloaded faster. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:53:05 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I voted G3 out of that list, neither of which would be my real go-to. I completely agree that neither would be a first choice. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:53:40 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3: Heavy, wretched trigger. Garand: Smooth crisp trigger G3. No bolt hold open Garand: Bolt hold open. G3. violent ejection. Garand: Smooth ejection. G3. drum aperture sight Garand: Best aperture sight ever on a battle rifle. The only advantage that the G3 has is higher capacity. But then again, a Garand can be reloaded faster. Finally, an unbiased opinion!!! 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:55:13 PM EDT
[#21]
I'm also not a fan of wood stocks.
If the Garand had a higher capacity magazine and a metal/polymer stock, it would be an easy winner, particularly since both have awful scope mounting solutions. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:56:05 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The G3 sights are actually quite good - but the huge problem is that you cannot adjust them (for windage or for zero or different ammo), without a special tool and/or screwdriver. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
... The sights on the Garand can't be beat, but the G3's are not bad. It's got a long ass stock though that is really designed for 6' tall uber-men. The G3 sights are actually quite good - but the huge problem is that you cannot adjust them (for windage or for zero or different ammo), without a special tool and/or screwdriver. That's what I meant. The G3 sights are perfectly acceptable, much like those on an A1, but the M1 set the standard for iron sights and is still the yardstick everything else is measured by. Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:58:28 PM EDT
[#23]
G-3.
Easier to mass produce. A lot of stampings with very little forging and casting as opposed to the M-1. That means tooling up is cheaper ad production is faster. Probably a lot cheaper to make too. Trigger group is virtually all stamped (hammer being the exception). Receiver is stamped (trunion being the exception). Operation wise, it's probably easier to use the HK. Magazine fed and not clip fed. Twenty rounds v. eight. It's easy to top off the magazine too. While capable of full automatic fire, it is not recommended (too light). With its hammer forged, polygonal barrel, it's accuracy exceeds the Garand. Easier to clean. Less stuff to clean. Easier to train a recruit. Less parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:59:20 PM EDT
[#24]
Quoted:
If you had to pick between the two, and it was going to be your ONLY rifle - especially if it might have be used as a SHTF gun, and not just a range toy ... which would you prefer? This thread was inspired by something brought up in another thread: HERE, in which I posted the following: ... when I was in the Danish army (2 years guard, and 3 years active duty) - I was issued the G3 at some times, and issued the Garand at other times (and commanded squads and platoons that were issued Garands). To me, it's still a toss-up. The Garand is heavier, but more reliable. The G3 has more capacity, but is less accurate. If there was some alien invasion or zombie uprising, and I had to choose between a Garand and a G3, I'd have to really think about it. Playing offense, I'd probably pick the G3, but if I was on defense, I'd go with the Garand. It may be a stupid question, but I think it's actually somewhat interesting. The way I see it, there are obvious pros and cons to both: G3 Pros: 20-round magazine, reliable, shorter Cons: cumbersome charging handle, no bolt hold, bad ergonomics for some, sights difficult to adjust, stamped metal construction more prone to damage. Garand Pros: Superior accuracy (better sights), better cartridge, extremely reliable Cons: 8-round capacity, weight & length I guess another advantage of the Garand might be that in a SHTF scenario, it looks a bit more inconspicuous than a G3, so it could make it easier to blend in. One day you're going to run out of cheap fifty year old Greek surplus .30-06 ammo and the zombies are going to hear the *Ping!* from your ejected Garand clip. They'll peel the flesh off your arms with their teeth like a Vise-Grips® as you scream 'AAAaiiieee!'. Best to stick with .308 here, I think. Abandoned military warehouses will be stacked to the rafters with endless amounts of 7.62x51. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:59:45 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Not really a valid comparison, they're a generation (at least) apart. I've owned both. The Garand is certainly a "nicer" rifle but on the modern battlefield its simply out of place. Yeah, because all battlefields are the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 12:59:53 PM EDT
[#26]
Remember the sage words of Jeff Cooper. ( I am paraphrasing his words) A good rifle has to have good sights and a good trigger. If you don't have good sights and a good trigger, you don't have a good rifle. The Garand has good sights and a good trigger. The G3 does not. But if you have a G3, you can fix the trigger. You can send the piece to Williams Trigger Specialties and they can give you a crisp trigger. But the G3 is still poorly balanced |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:00:15 PM EDT
[#27]
G3 bitches
 mainly because it's not so damn long plus box mags. I also really like HK drum sights
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:00:23 PM EDT
[#28]
So does this Garand have adjustable gas? If not, then G3. Without adjustable gas you will be likely to screw your M1 up. Especially if ammo was scarce.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:00:30 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G-3. Easier to mass produce. A lot of stampings with very little forging and casting as opposed to the M-1. That means tooling up is cheaper ad production is faster. Probably a lot cheaper to make too. Trigger group is virtually all stamped (hammer being the exception). Receiver is stamped (trunion being the exception). Operation wise, it's probably easier to use the HK. Magazine fed and not clip fed. Twenty rounds v. eight. It's easy to top off the magazine too. While capable of full automatic fire, it is not recommended (too light). With its hammer forged, polygonal barrel, it's accuracy exceeds the Garand. Easier to clean. Less stuff to clean. Easier to train a recruit. Less parts. I am asking about what YOU as an individual would pick if given only those two choices, not what might be best for equipping a large unit (in terms of cost, training, etc.) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:00:41 PM EDT
[#30]
M1 Garand
Better Ergonomics Fast Reload Better Sights Better Safety You can load an Enbloc Clip just as fast or faster than rocking in a G3 mag. The fact that the M1 Garand has a bolt hold open and the charging handle is in the correct spot in terms of ergonomics makes it better. The safety too. G3 Higher Capacity Somewhat Lighter Ammo Easier Ability to Mount Optics The G3 is somewhat better for optics than the M1 Garand. The claw mount sucks ass but it is actually possible for the G3 to have optics without the crazy surgery the M1 needs. The trigger sucks, the sights are okay but not as great as he M1. The ergos of the rifle are all wrong. The safety, magazine release, and charging handle is retarded. The fact that there isn't a bolt hold open makes it subpar. As for weight saving, maybe the ammo weighs less but that isn't counting the mags. Out of the two, I'd take the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:01:46 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I'm also not a fan of wood stocks. If the Garand had a higher capacity magazine and a metal/polymer stock, it would be an easy winner, particularly since both have awful scope mounting solutions.  On the left is one standard model and then two folding-stock models. Still wood but that could be easily fixed if desired. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:01:56 PM EDT
[#32]
Left handed shooter here...I have no interest in owning a Garand, M-14 or Mini-14.
G3 for me. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:02:53 PM EDT
[#33]
I voted G3 just because of the increased ammo capacity.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:04:14 PM EDT
[#34]
Free the Griz!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:04:53 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3 bitches mainly because it's not so damn long plus box mags. I also really like HK drum sightsThe Garand is less than 3 inches longer than the G3, so it's not a HUGE difference. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:05:10 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Here is your dream Garand, then. The Italian BM-59, a mag-fed Garand in 308. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Armamento_-_Museo_de_Armas_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_25.JPG/1280px-Armamento_-_Museo_de_Armas_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_25.JPG On the left is one standard model and then two folding-stock models. Still wood but that could be easily fixed if desired. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I'm also not a fan of wood stocks. If the Garand had a higher capacity magazine and a metal/polymer stock, it would be an easy winner, particularly since both have awful scope mounting solutions. http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0d/Armamento_-_Museo_de_Armas_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_25.JPG/1280px-Armamento_-_Museo_de_Armas_de_la_Naci%C3%B3n_25.JPG On the left is one standard model and then two folding-stock models. Still wood but that could be easily fixed if desired. I'm aware of the BM-59
I'm a relative 'new-schooler' since I prefer the AR15 platform to both. Relative in that the AR was developed not a hell of a long time after the other two. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:05:52 PM EDT
[#37]
Obviously the G3 is more modern, and has more firepower. But the Garand is a lot better made. So a lot depends on what is meant by the question. I personally like the Garand better.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:07:07 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Garand is a work of art, the G3 is a newer design and is a workhorse. Not really a fair comparison It is fair given the fact that he was issued each rifle in the same timeframe of his service. He's also asked difficult question IMO. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:09:06 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I am asking about what YOU as an individual would pick if given only those two choices, not what might be best for equipping a large unit (in terms of cost, training, etc.) Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
G-3. Easier to mass produce. A lot of stampings with very little forging and casting as opposed to the M-1. That means tooling up is cheaper ad production is faster. Probably a lot cheaper to make too. Trigger group is virtually all stamped (hammer being the exception). Receiver is stamped (trunion being the exception). Operation wise, it's probably easier to use the HK. Magazine fed and not clip fed. Twenty rounds v. eight. It's easy to top off the magazine too. While capable of full automatic fire, it is not recommended (too light). With its hammer forged, polygonal barrel, it's accuracy exceeds the Garand. Easier to clean. Less stuff to clean. Easier to train a recruit. Less parts. I am asking about what YOU as an individual would pick if given only those two choices, not what might be best for equipping a large unit (in terms of cost, training, etc.) I'm oriented toward group (I was an armorer and firearms instructor in a previous occupation). As a gunsmith, I'll take the G-3. Besides, it's lighter. Weight matters in the woods. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:10:40 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
... I'm a relative 'new-schooler' since I prefer the AR15 platform to both. Oh, I absolutely do as well. In any kind of emergency of SHTF scenario, I would reach for an AR every time.
But, if I was standing in front of a safe, and the only rifles in there were Garands and G3s, I'd honestly have a hard time. I'm leaning towards the Garand. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:11:28 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Garand is less than 3 inches longer than the G3, so it's not a HUGE difference. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
G3 bitches mainly because it's not so damn long plus box mags. I also really like HK drum sightsThe Garand is less than 3 inches longer than the G3, so it's not a HUGE difference. That's what the A3 stock is for. I sourced my dad a CMP '44 S.A. Garand from a fellow on our chat and it's a very nice rifle and everybody should own one, IMO. I'm aware of your disdain for the G3/HK91 but I voted for it, just because of mag capacity, bipod, easier carry with combat sling, lighter ammo and removeable optics mount, among other things. I wouldn't say that everybody should own a G3/HK91, but it's probably more handy in a SHTF scenario than a Garand. Chris |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:11:42 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I'm oriented toward group (I was an armorer and firearms instructor in a previous occupation). As a gunsmith, I'll take the G-3. Besides, it's lighter. Weight matters in the woods. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
G-3. Easier to mass produce. A lot of stampings with very little forging and casting as opposed to the M-1. That means tooling up is cheaper ad production is faster. Probably a lot cheaper to make too. Trigger group is virtually all stamped (hammer being the exception). Receiver is stamped (trunion being the exception). Operation wise, it's probably easier to use the HK. Magazine fed and not clip fed. Twenty rounds v. eight. It's easy to top off the magazine too. While capable of full automatic fire, it is not recommended (too light). With its hammer forged, polygonal barrel, it's accuracy exceeds the Garand. Easier to clean. Less stuff to clean. Easier to train a recruit. Less parts. I am asking about what YOU as an individual would pick if given only those two choices, not what might be best for equipping a large unit (in terms of cost, training, etc.) I'm oriented toward group (I was an armorer and firearms instructor in a previous occupation). As a gunsmith, I'll take the G-3. Besides, it's lighter. Weight matters in the woods. The weight difference is actually pretty negligible (I just looked it up). The Garand only weighs about 1/2 pound more - which means that they are pretty comparable when loaded (which is obviously how you'd be carrying it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:12:03 PM EDT
[#43]
One of these days I'll buy a Garand, probably one of the CMP "Special" (new parts on an old receiver) rifles for $1k. I have handled a few G3's and have no desire for one.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:12:31 PM EDT
[#44]
Owned both, would feel comfortable with either, however if in total stock configuration I'd take the Garand, if I can customize(trigger job, aftermarket stock) I'd take the G3. M14 would be my preference if going with something in .30 cal family.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:12:57 PM EDT
[#45]
1/2 lb more ammo, food, optics matters. Even if I don't carry 1/2 lb more of stuff, that means I'm lighter and can move farther (and mebbe faster).
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:13:03 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted: The weight difference is actually pretty negligible (I just looked it up). The Garand only weighs about 1/2 pound more - which means that they are pretty comparable when loaded (which is obviously how you'd be carrying it). Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: G-3. Easier to mass produce. A lot of stampings with very little forging and casting as opposed to the M-1. That means tooling up is cheaper ad production is faster. Probably a lot cheaper to make too. Trigger group is virtually all stamped (hammer being the exception). Receiver is stamped (trunion being the exception). Operation wise, it's probably easier to use the HK. Magazine fed and not clip fed. Twenty rounds v. eight. It's easy to top off the magazine too. While capable of full automatic fire, it is not recommended (too light). With its hammer forged, polygonal barrel, it's accuracy exceeds the Garand. Easier to clean. Less stuff to clean. Easier to train a recruit. Less parts. I am asking about what YOU as an individual would pick if given only those two choices, not what might be best for equipping a large unit (in terms of cost, training, etc.) I'm oriented toward group (I was an armorer and firearms instructor in a previous occupation). As a gunsmith, I'll take the G-3. Besides, it's lighter. Weight matters in the woods. The weight difference is actually pretty negligible (I just looked it up). The Garand only weighs about 1/2 pound more - which means that they are pretty comparable when loaded (which is obviously how you'd be carrying it). |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:13:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3: Heavy, wretched trigger. Garand: Smooth crisp trigger G3. No bolt hold open Garand: Bolt hold open. G3. violent ejection. Garand: Smooth ejection. G3. drum aperture sight Garand: Best aperture sight ever on a battle rifle. The only advantage that the G3 has is higher capacity. But then again, a Garand can be reloaded faster. This pretty much sums it up. As a sidebar---someone who is experienced with a Garand can probably put 20 rds downrange with one of those FASTER than someone equally skilled with a G3. Garands can be reloaded pretty blindingly fast once the operator is practiced at the skill. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:14:02 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I voted G3 just because of the increased ammo capacity.   A WWI Grenade Vest does the job very well. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:14:04 PM EDT
[#49]
I have no experiance with a G3. but I have had some time with non HK clones. I have had experiance with the m1 and BM-59 clones.
I'd go with the G-3 over the M1. The G3 clones I have dealt with dont have very good egos, had bad triggers and were one and all overgased. Sight tools cost a crazy ammount. That said the gun was usable and modern optical mounts allow for mounting red dot sights low. You can also get a trigger job for them that puts them on par with any other rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/29/2015 1:14:26 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
G3: Heavy, wretched trigger. Garand: Smooth crisp trigger G3. No bolt hold open Garand: Bolt hold open. G3. violent ejection. Garand: Smooth ejection. G3. drum aperture sight Garand: Best aperture sight ever on a battle rifle. The only advantage that the G3 has is higher capacity. But then again, a Garand can be reloaded faster. I wouldn't down-play the capacity/volume of fire advantage of the G3. The Garand can be fast to reload with skill. And that skill is a pretty serious caveat. A Garand also must be reloaded 2.5x as often as a G3. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
