Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 7/21/2007 3:16:46 PM EDT
M1 Garand, Can the old warhorse really hold it's own against the post war MBRs, FAL,M1A/G3? Would you trust it to defend your hearth and home against more modern arms in a shtf situation?
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:24:54 PM EDT
Yes. I have one from the CMP.....and it's damn good.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:28:22 PM EDT
Shot at longer distances, there is not a rifle listed that would leave the Garand in the dust. Save for the smaller ammo capacity [8 rounds VS 20] there is little that makes the others stand out a huge amount and reloading is fast and quick. Since AP is legal in 30/06, there is a plus right there to even it a bit also. The sights are better on the Garand then several you listed so while I would like more ammo capacity, there is little difference save for that which could be a deal breaker for many.

I would feel perfectly fine using it in a SHTF situation as the bigger part of the equasion is the person BEHIND the rifle.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:34:26 PM EDT
The M14 was the next evolution of the M1 Garand as designed by John C Garand. I would say that the best of the M1 made it to the M14 with improved capacity, option of full auto, roller lug bolt, and improved gas system would make the M14 superior to the M1 Garand.

The other rifles are not as easily compared IMO. It is subject to the user's needs and preferences.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:36:12 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2007 3:37:32 PM EDT by peasant]
Except for not having a 20 round mag, the Garand is EVERY BIT THE EQUAL of the other rifles listed. I'm refering to general usability under battlefield conditions by typical infantrymen. This also applies to citizen shooters today. And I would have ZERO reservations about grabbing either of my M1's and heading for the tall grass.
ETA: Or the deer woods. Or the range.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:53:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2007 6:32:54 PM EDT by peasant]
I have to disagree on the bolt roller, gas system and full auto. The bolt rollers are known to be problematic. The White System(gas cylinder and piston) requires more maintenance than the M1's. And the M14's on full auto are commonly stated to be hard to control. On this last point, I admit to relying on the word of others. If the M1 has weaknesses, it is in the overly complicated feeding system with the follower rod, follower arm, bullet guide, accelerator and follower. It DOES work, though. The enbloc clip in itself, was actually a superb system FOR THE CIRCUMSTANCES of WW11. But, the 20 round mag on the M14 is admittedly unbeatable.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:53:52 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2007 3:58:18 PM EDT by KIDGLOCK]
I love my M1A .

I would not feel under gunned with an Garand . One would have to pick the fight . IE: do it at long range , hit and run .


And the M14's on full auto are commonly stated to be hard to control. On this last point, I admit to relying on the word of others.


After 2 mags you get the hang of it . Its not hard at all . Aimed fire does more damage than FA . Unless China is landing in LA harbor .
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 3:57:49 PM EDT
My wife (Korean) has an uncle who's family was run out of north Korea before the war. He fought against the communists and used an M1. He told me he killed dozens of communists with his M1 outwards of 800 meters.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 4:01:00 PM EDT
As long as the enbloc clips hold out I would have no problem defending my position with a Garand. One of the things I practice is rapid fire and rapid reloading. That's where stocking up on lots of Greek CMP ammo comes in handy.

Link Posted: 7/21/2007 5:11:01 PM EDT
I feel the Garand is a VERY well proven design. My only concern with them the fact that I don't currently own one.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 5:29:42 PM EDT
You could argue the other options suffer from an over-powerful round designed to replicate 30-06 performance in a smaller cartridge. If the others had been chambered in .280 British then they might offer more of an advantage over the Garand than magazine capacity. The Italian BM59--a shortened 7.62x51 Garand with a 20-round box--proves the Garand's operating system can hold its own. It was in service with the Italians, Indonesians and Moroccans from around 1959 until the 1980s.

If MacArthur had permitted the adoption of .276 Pedersen, the first "assault rifle" might have been something like the BM59 chambered for that round.

In answer to the question, IMO the Garand can hold it's own against other full-power battle rifles with 20-round box magazines. The Garand's long-stroke gas system is simpler and has greater operating clearances than the M14. Arguably, that should make it operate more reliably in adverse conditions, but also makes it more prone to break parts.

Link Posted: 7/21/2007 6:18:14 PM EDT
If it can't hold up, then General Patton was wrong.

Not a chance.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 6:28:50 PM EDT

Originally Posted By CK1:
The M14 was the next evolution of the M1 Garand as designed by John C Garand. I would say that the best of the M1 made it to the M14 with improved capacity, option of full auto, roller lug bolt, and improved gas system would make the M14 superior to the M1 Garand.

The other rifles are not as easily compared IMO. It is subject to the user's needs and preferences.


Garand wanted nothing to do with the M14. He felt that the White gas system was a step backwards as it was considered obsolete 20 years prior. And part of the idea was to use some of the same tooling but the M14 was just different enough that almost none of it could be used.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 6:33:50 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2007 6:38:20 PM EDT by JohnRippert]
My "go to" rifle is a M1 Garand. When I get around to putting it together, the rifle that takes its place will be a "Tanker" M1 Garand.

I would have no problem grabbing any of my 6 Garands if the need arose.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 7:45:28 PM EDT
I'm thinking of dropping my M1 G in a polymer stock to lighten it up a bit. that should be a great go to rifle..
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 7:46:23 PM EDT
The only real difference is the capacity, and that's almost negated because of how fast the Garand is to load.
I'd say yes.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 8:01:55 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/21/2007 8:02:43 PM EDT by Achilles1]
It depends on the users needs and whether they can even use the others to an advantage, but mags hold more ammo and are easier to reload when there empty.

Did they even bother to save stripper clips in WWII?
It would suck to loose em for a regular guy in teotwawki these days.

Don't forget better optics platforms for modern optics, modern synthetic stock choices and flash suppressors.

The old warhorse will still put rounds down range, but it's got enough disadvantages.

I'll take an M14 thanks. With a good Blackhawk vest setup of 6 mags and one in, plus a pistol and a couple of spares for it.
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 8:11:26 PM EDT
www.antipersonnel.net/fmco/001.html#4

About 2/3 of the way down the page:


CLBV-M5 M1 GARAND - SKS RIFLE
These CLBV-M5 variations are available for either the:

* M1 Garand - 24 ea 8 round clips, in 4 pouches holding 6 clips, 192 rnds
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 8:16:13 PM EDT
Ammo capacity is its only limitation when compared to a So called
modern rifles...

But it still comes back to what truely matters..

Who is behind the rifle.

I have an M-1 and it is one of the few weapons I never have to worry
about spring set because there is no mag.

Only a loaded 8 round en-block clip that needs to be slammed home.



Link Posted: 7/21/2007 8:25:07 PM EDT
Link Posted: 7/21/2007 8:46:40 PM EDT
Got two in my main battery, one a WWII retread I recently bought through the CMP, the other I bought through Geneseo about 24 years ago. Only limit to their effectiveness is their small load size.
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 4:29:23 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/22/2007 4:39:44 AM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 4:50:08 AM EDT

Originally Posted By fxntime:
Shot at longer distances, there is not a rifle listed that would leave the Garand in the dust. Save for the smaller ammo capacity [8 rounds VS 20] there is little that makes the others stand out a huge amount and reloading is fast and quick. Since AP is legal in 30/06, there is a plus right there to even it a bit also. The sights are better on the Garand then several you listed so while I would like more ammo capacity, there is little difference save for that which could be a deal breaker for many.

I would feel perfectly fine using it in a SHTF situation as the bigger part of the equasion is the person BEHIND the rifle.


I agree 100%
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 7:09:33 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Achilles1:
Don't forget better optics platforms for modern optics, modern synthetic stock choices and flash suppressors.




Synthetic stocks are available for the Garand.

Smith Enterprised makes a Vortex for the Garand, too.
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 7:45:32 AM EDT
Someone who is really experienced and practiced can be very effective even with a less than ideal weapon, so yes, I'd say it can still hold it's own, providing the shooter really knows his stuff. I'd pit any American infantry squad from WW2 armed with M1's up against any third world militia armed with more modern weapons.

Heck, some of the British troops could put out a tremendous amount of fire with their Lee Enfields and I wouldn't want to go up against them either. Someone who really knows their weapon will always be formidable.
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 8:27:17 AM EDT
The one great advantage of the M1 over all modern weapons platforms (other than drop dead sexiness) is the lack of a protruding magazine.

With an M1 you can really get down into the dirt and take cover without the 10" long mag forcing your rifle up.

If I was shooting from a hide or concealment, the M1 would rule.

If I ever need to deploy an MBR in the field (which mean that TEOTWAWKI has arrived) I WILL be shooting from concealment.

My $.10

Disconnector
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 2:26:25 PM EDT
The Garand is a fine rifle, it can still hold it own against most of the new stuff. Sure it ain't the best for room to room urban warfare but it is hard to beat out in the wide open spaces. It wouldn't be my first pick for combat but i would be happy with one if thats what I had.
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 2:51:52 PM EDT

Originally Posted By GaryM:
The Garand is a fine rifle, it can still hold it own against most of the new stuff. Sure it ain't the best for room to room urban warfare but it is hard to beat out in the wide open spaces. It wouldn't be my first pick for combat but i would be happy with one if thats what I had.


+1

I have yet to see a decent synthetic for the M1...
Link Posted: 7/22/2007 6:18:26 PM EDT
What do you mean by "hold it's own"?

Link Posted: 7/22/2007 9:49:16 PM EDT

Originally Posted By ChickenDaddy:
What do you mean by "hold it's own"?



If things went poorly, it would be your fault, not the weapons.
This is in contrast to early experiences with the M16 in Vietnam, Pre fixed SAR80's, etc.
Link Posted: 7/23/2007 11:17:05 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/23/2007 11:39:03 AM EDT by LARRYG]
I would never feel at a disadvantage with an M1 Garand. In fact, I would choose it over any of those you listed.



BTW, M1A is not an MBR.
Link Posted: 7/23/2007 12:21:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By BerlinVet:

Originally Posted By GaryM:
The Garand is a fine rifle, it can still hold it own against most of the new stuff. Sure it ain't the best for room to room urban warfare but it is hard to beat out in the wide open spaces. It wouldn't be my first pick for combat but i would be happy with one if thats what I had.


+1

I have yet to see a decent synthetic for the M1...


I purchased a Red Cloud LLC synthetic stock a few months back (ad in shotgun news), I've run around 200 rds thru the rifle with the "new" stock on, it seems to be fine. It was a brown pastic that was rather slick, so I bought some black textured spray paint from home depot, yours supposed to put in on patio funtiture I think, well, it works great, its black so it def looks better than the light brown it came as, and it is now alot more "grippy". It is by no means the end all of synthetic stocks, but for $35 it seems good to go for now.
Link Posted: 7/23/2007 7:34:02 PM EDT
I was surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Sage is now making an aluminum chassis stock for the Garand.

Sage Stock for Garand

I always thought it would be awesome if the army started fielding Garands (dressed up in synthetic or aluminum stocks^) again. Not a snowball's chance in hell it's ever going to happen, but still, an awesome thought.
Link Posted: 7/23/2007 11:47:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Joguwa86:
I was surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Sage is now making an aluminum chassis stock for the Garand.

Sage Stock for Garand

I always thought it would be awesome if the army started fielding Garands (dressed up in synthetic or aluminum stocks^) again. Not a snowball's chance in hell it's ever going to happen, but still, an awesome thought.


To each their own, but
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 10:23:14 AM EDT

Originally Posted By VinnieBoomBah:

Originally Posted By Joguwa86:
I was surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Sage is now making an aluminum chassis stock for the Garand.

Sage Stock for Garand

I always thought it would be awesome if the army started fielding Garands (dressed up in synthetic or aluminum stocks^) again. Not a snowball's chance in hell it's ever going to happen, but still, an awesome thought.


To each their own, but


That's what I thought, but I wasn't gonna say anything.
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 12:50:56 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2007 12:52:04 PM EDT by offroader333]
garand is just as effictive now as it was 60yrs. ago
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 4:24:15 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Joguwa86:
I was surprised that no one has mentioned the fact that Sage is now making an aluminum chassis stock for the Garand.

Sage Stock for Garand


Uh, no.

Link Posted: 7/24/2007 4:45:42 PM EDT
My initial reaction to the SAGE stock on anything was the same as VinnieBoomBah's. Now I will just say "That's just not right."
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 5:10:41 PM EDT
The Garand is an excellent rifle; it may not have a detachable magazine, but it still has what it takes to keep his owner alive.



I love mine.
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 6:19:05 PM EDT
I am no huge fan of the Garand, but I am sure it can hold it's own in many ways against many modern rifles.

That Sage stock is great--fixes my biggest irritation with the Garand--the poorly designed rear upper hand gaurd.

I think as far as accuracy is concerned, the Garand is a fine piece.

For me, especially shooting lefty, there is no way a Garand is easier to load than other designs. You just can't beat a box magazine foe ease and convenience.

To me, the Garand is a beutiful piece of nostalgic fire arms history. Fun to shoot, but antiquated and the first rifle I would leave behind when TSHTF.
Link Posted: 7/24/2007 8:13:03 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 7/24/2007 8:18:10 PM EDT by Essayons]
Bell & Carlson made a synthetic stock for the Garand. It looks like Brownells may still have some (Part No. 137-100-001) but it says "Dropped by Factory".



LINK

Damn! Now I need a Garand. I've been looking at/thinking about getting a full-power military style rifle since I got my AR, but none of them grab me except the Garand and the "Portuguese" Artillerie Inrichtingen AR10. Of those, the Garand is more affordable/obtainable.

Link Posted: 7/26/2007 6:10:45 AM EDT
I keep a Garand as my "go to gun"

It is my second favorite rifle (Second only to my M1917). I have a FAL, ARs, AKs, etc, but I still go back to the Garand.
Link Posted: 7/26/2007 6:52:45 AM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 3:00:11 PM EDT
Dude, the Bolt Rifle, I assume from the long action it's 30-06 as well? Would make/model is it?

Larry, The M1A is a clone of trhe M14 correct? I think most would consider very much a main battle rifle. By the way nice looking collection you have there!

Thanks for the great thread guys.


Originally Posted By Black-Tiger:
The Garand is an excellent rifle; it may not have a detachable magazine, but it still has what it takes to keep his owner alive.

i15.photobucket.com/albums/a362/Sablelieger/Weapons/DSC00319.jpg

I love mine.
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 3:55:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
Larry, The M1A is a clone of trhe M14 correct? I think most would consider very much a main battle rifle. By the way nice looking collection you have there!



I am just saying that the vast majority of Garands in the hands of us nuts are ACTUAL battle rifles whereas the M1A is just a clone.

The original post listed real MBRs like the FAL but listed the M1A instead of the M14. The M14 is a battle rifle, an M1A is not.
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 4:19:17 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 4:28:34 PM EDT
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 5:23:07 PM EDT

Originally Posted By raf:

Originally Posted By LARRYG:

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
Larry, The M1A is a clone of trhe M14 correct? I think most would consider very much a main battle rifle. By the way nice looking collection you have there!



I am just saying that the vast majority of Garands in the hands of us nuts are ACTUAL battle rifles whereas the M1A is just a clone.

The original post listed real MBRs like the FAL but listed the M1A instead of the M14. The M14 is a battle rifle, an M1A is not.


Strictly speaking, perhaps that is so, although saying so presumes that the M1A has never been used in battle. That is something I'd not want to say.

Now that I think on it, enough important parts have been swapped out of most imported MBRs (including, but not limited to the FAL) to make them more like the M1A as opposed to an M-14.

For that matter, a number of improvements have been made to the M1A/M-14. Perhaps enough to render the modern version somewhat superior to the original GI version.

I doubt the recipient of a 7.62mm round would be able to tell if it was fired from a real M-14, or from an M1A. If I'm wrong, perhaps aomeone who has undergone such an experience will speak up.


All that notwithstanding, the M1A is not a battle rifle.
Link Posted: 8/9/2007 5:31:16 PM EDT
Ok, so if it's an older M1A with GI parts and barrel how is that less of a battle rifle then say a semi auto cetme or fal with us made parts etc?
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 12:16:01 PM EDT

Originally Posted By KnightofTheOldeCode:
Ok, so if it's an older M1A with GI parts and barrel how is that less of a battle rifle then say a semi auto cetme or fal with us made parts etc?


Those are not battle rifles either.

A USGI M14, a surplus, FAL, etc are battle rifles as are the GI Garands from CMP and other sources. An aftermarket Garand is not a battle rifle.
Link Posted: 8/10/2007 1:21:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 8/10/2007 1:24:00 PM EDT by Achilles1]
Actually there were contractors that brought Springfield M1A's over to Iraq and pics taken of them with the rifles, so that brings a bit in there for the "it's not a battle rifle" bullshit.

We call them battle rifles and use it as a common descriptive term because there versions of usgi and foreign military issue battle rifles and trying to make something out of it near every fuckin time someone uses the term is sickening to alot of members here so how about keeping that uptight shit to yourself.
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top