[ARCHIVED THREAD] - M1 Garand Question (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 4/8/2009 9:44:03 AM EDT
|
Why would I not feel "outgunned" if I had to field an M1 versus an AR? My rifle has proven 100% reliable - that's 100%, folks! It is accurate. I can reload it rapidly. I would not want to be hit by a bullet from it. I have zeroes for it from 100 yards out to 600 yards.
What are the issues that drove us away from the M1 main battle rifle? I know about ammo weight but what else? How does that decision hold up, especially in light of the recent need for a "real" main battle rifle being seen in the middle east? |
| NATO wanted rifles with larger magazines. The Brits pressured the U.S. into adopting a shorter cartridge based on their research evidence that taller cartridges did not feed reliably in larger magazines. That was the end of the M1 Garand as a production battle rifle. |
|
Quoted:
NATO wanted rifles with larger magazines. The Brits pressured the U.S. into adopting a shorter cartridge based on their research evidence that taller cartridges did not feed reliably in larger magazines. That was the end of the M1 Garand as a production battle rifle. The BAR didn't have any problem feeding from a 20 round box magazine? |
| Weight, recoil, low internal magazine capacity (8) and difficult to reload midway through firing. Makes a noise when fired til empty. And I love my M1 Garand. A better question would be why did we get away from the updated M1 Garand aka M14 which used the then NATO standard 7.62 x 51 and had a detachable magazine. Once again the answer is weight and recoil I think. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
NATO wanted rifles with larger magazines. The Brits pressured the U.S. into adopting a shorter cartridge based on their research evidence that taller cartridges did not feed reliably in larger magazines. That was the end of the M1 Garand as a production battle rifle. The BAR didn't have any problem feeding from a 20 round box magazine? Different weight class. NATO was trying to develop rifles lighter then the 20lb BAR and they had trouble containing the 30-06 cartridge with lighter firing mechanisms. |
|
We needed a light weight rifle in South East Asia.
Consider the accuracy development of the 2 systems; the AR has more capacity Small arms do not decide wars, but logistics capacity, national will, and righteous decides wars We have arms in the inventory that can reach as far as the M1 namely the M60, M240, and M2 This war will not last forever and the next one will be different. I like the M1 and want to own more than one, but we have the M16 family in the inventory now and that works |
|
Also barrel length, m-14 is harder to manuver in a MOUNT environment, Also harder to use when Mechinized.
Quoted:
Quoted:
NATO wanted rifles with larger magazines. The Brits pressured the U.S. into adopting a shorter cartridge based on their research evidence that taller cartridges did not feed reliably in larger magazines. That was the end of the M1 Garand as a production battle rifle. The BAR didn't have any problem feeding from a 20 round box magazine? |
|
Several countries (namely Britian) had investigated smaller-than-.30 cal small arms prior to WWII. Britian, had it not entered WWII< would had adopted a .276 if memory serves correctly. Other nations (soviets and germans) had also seen the writing on the wall: "mordern" warfare did not, and would not consist of World War One style trench warfare, with long range machine gun engagements. Full powered small arms (.30-06, .303 British, 7.62x54R, etc) were already recognized as overpowered for modern warfare. The german development of the 8mm Kurz, as well as subsequent adoption of the 7.62x39 by the soviets are evidence of this line of thinking.
The Garand was hampered by several factors: The 30-06 generated more recoil, making it harder for recruits to learn to use adequately. The individual ammunition is thus heavier and bulkier than need be. The 8 round enbloc clip was recognized as inadequate, particularly in Korea. The Garand is also a very long, cumbersome and heavy weapon, ill suited to mechanized and/or urban warfare. Once NATO came into being there were serious efforts to standardize ammunition on a smaller-than.30 cartidge. The US insisted on .30 and ramrodded the 7.62. For that matter, the adoption of the M14 was viewed as largely political. The FN FAL was as successful in testing, and it is thought that the major reason for adoption of the M14 was 'organizational resistance". The M1 Garand is a decent weapon. I like it. It was ill suited to modern warfare, particularly in enclosed spaces. The more I read about this stuff, the more I'm convinced that the testing done in the late 60's and early 70's that pointed to an "optimal" medium cartridge of 6-6.5 mm was right on......... |
|
Although ingenious as Garand's clamping trigger guard is, my personal opinion is that it's the achilles heel of the rifle due to stock compression/trunnion wear.
If the stock fit gets loose, accuracy goes south. Of course you could remedy that with a synthetic stock. Of course everything is a tradeoff and most of those worn rifles would still be combat accurate but no stars on the target range. You can reload a garand faster than an M14 seeing as the garand ejects the clip for you and you have to physically operate a lever and remove the magazine on the 14. of course it's a 20 round magazine. I love both rifles but prefer the garand on the range in so many ways, one reason is the lack of the magazine box in the way or dug in the dirt. (I'm short!  ))
The new rifles are light compared to the garand and so is the associated ammo logistics. I think I could have handled a garand.......as I carried an M60.  I'd be getting a break!
Don't take my pointing out of the M1 and M14's weak points as a damnation. I own plenty of them. 
|
|
Quoted:
What are the issues that drove us away from the M1 main battle rifle? I know about ammo weight but what else? How does that decision hold up, especially in light of the recent need for a "real" main battle rifle being seen in the middle east? There's a lot of good info on this in a couple Collectors Grade Publications books: US Rifle M14 - From John Garand to the M21 and The Black Rifle M16 Retrospective at http://www.collectorgrade.com/bookshelf4.html There's also some great historical information in SPIW: The Deadliest-Weapon-That Never Was if you can find a copy. I believe it's out of print. See http://www.amazon.com/Spiw-Deadliest-Weapon-That-Never/dp/0889350388 IMO 30-06 and comparable rounds, and weapons suitable for shooting them, are too big for most infantry use. The Germans, Brits, Russians and Americans all eventually concluded that something smaller would be better. See e.g. http://www.quarry.nildram.co.uk/Assault.htm. |
|
IMHO
President Kennedy knew that he would carry Massachusetts in his re-election. His plan was to sell out Springfield Armory (Mass), H&R (Mass), and Winchester (Ct) then distribute arms manufacturing to voting districts that would help him to win. McNamara knew that he would need a design that "anyone" could make. So it was curtains for the M14. Edit: Sorry I got off topic. The M1 is an excellent survival rifle. You sound like you do your homework, a true rifleman. A Garand and a rifleman a perfect match! |
|
So, if I had one for SHTF, the only thing I'd have to deal with is ammo supply, weight (rifle and ammo), and its physical size making it difficult to maneuver indoors. Of course, I would not chose this rifle for those working indoors. I think handguns and carbines work best indoors. However, as soon as I step outside, out that front door, I think it is totally good to go. It is easy to shoot well out to very long distances, far longer than I would ever attempt in a SHTF situation.
I think an M1A, with its smaller cartridge and higher magazine capacity has a small advantage. I think the AR carbine is in a different class. Am I totally wrong? |
|
I would not want to maneuver one around indoors/buildings/vehicles, but I see no problem leaning on the M1 for any other application. I would just make sure you have ample M2 ball spec .30-06, enblocs and/or an adjustable gas plug.
A skilled and intelligent rifleman could do some nasty work with an M1. |
|
Mike M since you are in CA and may not have gotten an AR before the ban then you have to look at other choices for a rifle. Your legal limits have no bearing on what is good for the guys on the ground overseas.
The flattop M16 offers secure optics mounting that the M1 does not. Optics have been one of the greatest contributors to improved accuracy and range. |
You are not out gunned at all my friend! You have one of histories best battle rifles ever made ranking up there with the AK-47! IMO . Why did the military go away from 30-06 and 308 as main battle rounds weight was one as a lot of other people have said. Maybe recoil I have a STG-58 weight about 9lbs with little recoil on it because of the weight the M1 that I shot when I was a pup was nothing that made me only shot it 8 times then I needed a brake unlike my Remington 700 BDL DM in 30-06.
I think the military got in the hype of "look you can carry 120 to 180 rounds of the 5.56 shot it full auto and control it better then having 120 rounds of 7.62x51 that you can shoot full auto but can't hit a dame thing.Who cares of the 5.56 does not have the knock down power of the 7.62x51" The military got in the more is better but if you look at them now there looking at what is the best of both worlds a few Marine company I know of have 6.8 spc AR's and they are also going back to the old school 1911's. The 6.8spc has 80% of the knock down power of the 7.62x51 and the 1911 45acp is the recoil on them really that bad? Come on I've shot both I carry a 1911 for work it has more flip to it but nothing that some time at a range will not cure. In all you have a great rifle done feel out gunned at all just like the guy who posted is he out gunned because he has a wheel gun? Hell no you and him both are not out gunned. I much rather take a man with a bolt gun that know how to use it then a man with a 240G that did not know how to shoot. |
|
Clearly, I am not in the military and am not discussing its use in a military battle field. I surely do hope it isn't a military engagement, as I have no grenades, etc. In that situation I will be totally outgunned, and dead.
Then again, I'm not sure what the field will be. I see it as more of a defend the home, defend the block from roving bands of rioters bent upon burning and looting. It would be similar to the 1992 LA riots, except in MY neighborhood, this time. You guys have made me feel a lot better about my M1. I am comfortable with it. I shoot it reasonably well. It is reliable. I have a bunch of ammo. I think I'm good to go. Maybe I need one of those big-assed bayonets!
|
| I forget exactly, but at 200 yds the little .224 55g pill loses about half its energy. At the same distance 30-06 has the same energy as the 55g at the muzzle. Your advarsay is going to find out the difference between cover and concealment real quick. Take your pick. |
|
Quoted:
Clearly, I am not in the military and am not discussing its use in a military battle field. I surely do hope it isn't a military engagement, as I have no grenades, etc. In that situation I will be totally outgunned, and dead. Then again, I'm not sure what the field will be. I see it as more of a defend the home, defend the block from roving bands of rioters bent upon burning and looting. It would be similar to the 1992 LA riots, except in MY neighborhood, this time. You guys have made me feel a lot better about my M1. I am comfortable with it. I shoot it reasonably well. It is reliable. I have a bunch of ammo. I think I'm good to go. Maybe I need one of those big-assed bayonets!
Bayonets are good for intimidating rioters if you have enough buddies with said Garands and bayonets. And .30-06 is great for ventilating said rioters driving around in vehicles, pillaging. But I don't own one. |
|
M_M your OP
Quoted:
Why would I not feel "outgunned" if I had to field an M1 versus an AR? My rifle has proven 100% reliable - that's 100%, folks! It is accurate. I can reload it rapidly. I would not want to be hit by a bullet from it. I have zeroes for it from 100 yards out to 600 yards. What are the issues that drove us away from the M1 main battle rifle? I know about ammo weight but what else? How does that decision hold up, especially in light of the recent need for a "real" main battle rifle being seen in the middle east? Translation into internet speak: O Teh Nos teh .mil iz doin it wrong teh troops must haz M1 Quoted:
Clearly, I am not in the military and am not discussing its use in a military battle field. I surely do hope it isn't a military engagement, as I have no grenades, etc. In that situation I will be totally outgunned, and dead. Then again, I'm not sure what the field will be. I see it as more of a defend the home, defend the block from roving bands of rioters bent upon burning and looting. It would be similar to the 1992 LA riots, except in MY neighborhood, this time. You guys have made me feel a lot better about my M1. I am comfortable with it. I shoot it reasonably well. It is reliable. I have a bunch of ammo. I think I'm good to go. Maybe I need one of those big-assed bayonets!
Translation: I really feel inadequate with an M1. Thanks guys for pumping me up, but I still want something to make me feel bigger what about a bayonet? You started this thread with the tone that the .mil is wrong in going with the M16/M4. If you wanted to feel better about an M1, then do your research. |
|
Quoted:
Translation into internet speak: O Teh Nos teh .mil iz doin it wrong teh troops must haz M1 <snip> I really feel inadequate with an M1. Thanks guys for pumping me up, but I still want something to make me feel bigger what about a bayonet? If you wanted to feel better about an M1, then do your research. You, sir, could not be more off base. Actually, you could, but you are already so far off base it doesn't matter. Your reading between the lines, psycho-babble is bullshit. Tag, you are out! 
Still, I'm wanting to maintain a friendly tenor to this discussion. I feel the M1 is adequate, that was the point. It is totally adequate for a non-combat, self defense role. I'm happy they sell them and the ammo. I was shooting it the other day, after a long hiatus, and said to myself, "Holy crap, this is a great rifle." There's nothing wrong with this rifle. Regarding the bayonet thing, you must have overlooked the smiley. This rifle has uncounted thousands of rounds through it by me and unknown (but large) numbers before I got it (IIRC, it was a 3 or 4 on the throat erosion gage when I got it). 100 yards, Winchester 147 gr FMJ bullets (cheap machine gun bullets), fired from prone position using a sling but no other means of support. I need a click left windage.  "
|
|
Quoted:
If I was in Cali an M-1 would probably be my primary weapon. I live in California and I own an AR carbine. If I were going out to buy a self defense rifle, it would be a tough choice between an off-list AR, an M1 and an M1A. One problem is you can only buy magazines with ten round capacity or less. I have several pre-ban magazines but many purchasers do not. |
|
Quoted:
Why would I not feel "outgunned" if I had to field an M1 versus an AR? My rifle has proven 100% reliable - that's 100%, folks! It is accurate. I can reload it rapidly. I would not want to be hit by a bullet from it. I have zeroes for it from 100 yards out to 600 yards. What are the issues that drove us away from the M1 main battle rifle? I know about ammo weight but what else? How does that decision hold up, especially in light of the recent need for a "real" main battle rifle being seen in the middle east? The only downside I can think of that others haven't really mentioned is that you've got a fairly picky rifle in terms of ammunition. Soft points won't feed as reliably as M2 ball, and there's specific pressure you've got to maintain to avoid damaging the op rod. That's why you've got to have your own supply of ammo - you can't just pick up whatever .30-06 you find laying around and be good to go. You can test various cartridges for feed issues and check the internet for velocity and bullet weight at your leisure to get a list of alternatives to M2. For every "My op rod bent shooting XXX," I see "All I ever shoot is XXX and nothing bad happened to my M1." As others have said, it is long, heavy, low internal magazine capacity, heavy recoil (compared to an assault rifle, but it's a battle rifle, so that's to be expected), heavy ammunition, overpenetration issues and it is difficult to recharge mid-magazine. Still, it is my go-to. It doesn't look tacticool, it goes bang every time, it is accurate and packs a real punch. |
|
I used to shoot 125 gr soft points through this rifle. It fed them just fine.
I used W760 for years (thousands of rounds). I think W760 is supposed to be too slow for a Garand. Still, I think you guys are collectively correct. The limitations are weight and ammo supply. Are there any others? The ammo supply is the long-term threat to its viability. The .mil stocks only 223 and 308. I can reload for both but have no hope of resupply of 30-06.Given that, would it make some sense to convert one of these to fire 308? Tactical reloads are actually fairly easy. Open teh bolt and push the clip-release button. It just grates against our civilian sensibilities to dump unfired rounds on the ground. I think a tactical reload, if it were needed would be done. You could always consider grabbing the loose rounds and putting them in your pocket but if someone was shooting at you,...???? |
|
The Garand is a FINE weapon.
That said, I think some people need to go see my reply in the "do I need a semi-auto pistol thread", replace "pistol" with AR-15 and "wheelgun" with Garand, and increase the number/distance of the targets to 10 targets at 150 meters. My point then works just as well. The assault rifles were designed for a reason. Furthermore, people tend to forget that in most places at 200, 300, 400, or however many meters, that someone who really does not want to get shot by you typically is not going to be SEEN by you. 
|
|
Have any of you seen a WW2 guy reload a Garand?..It is a thing of beauty.
I have never seen a faster loading Rifle..I am quite fast myself. It loads faster than any assault rifle I know of. Sure only 8 rds a pop.. but the reload time makes up for that to some degree.Don't get me wrong there are better Rifles out there today. It's just many of you guys have no experience with the Old War Horse. It is one fine weapon even today. WW2 vets were tough to carry that Rifle and loved it. The weight complaint today is because we are sissies....a lot of these vets were young and less than 150 pounds and they handled it. People worked back in those days and were scrappy. Today we are weak and fat...I think it makes a big difference. I love my Garand's and have no problem with using them for SHTF. I have thousands of rounds stored...so ammo is no problem. It is still a fine Rifle and will serve anyone well! |
|
Quoted:
Good post. I bought my first Garand in 1975.
Have any of you seen a WW2 guy reload a Garand?..It is a thing of beauty. I have never seen a faster loading Rifle..I am quite fast myself. It loads faster than any assault rifle I know of. Sure only 8 rds a pop.. but the reload time makes up for that to some degree.Don't get me wrong there are better Rifles out there today. It's just many of you guys have no experience with the Old War Horse. It is one fine weapon even today. WW2 vets were tough to carry that Rifle and loved it. The weight complaint today is because we are sissies....a lot of these vets were young and less than 150 pounds and they handled it. People worked back in those days and were scrappy. Today we are weak and fat...I think it makes a big difference. I love my Garand's and have no problem with using them for SHTF. I have thousands of rounds stored...so ammo is no problem. It is still a fine Rifle and will serve anyone well! |
|
Quoted:
I have thousands of rounds stored...so ammo is no problem. It is still a fine Rifle and will serve anyone well! I completely agree. The thing about ammo is this - once yours is gone, resupply is unlikey, as the military no longer supports the 30-06. You could scavenge the military 308 ammo and use it for components to reload your 30-06 brass but this assumes you are able to reload. With a 308 or 223 you can just use the ammo as-is. |
| I have no experience with a grand, but I can tell you a A15 can be reloaded just as fast if not faster than a grand. I love my m1a socom, i assume its based off of the grand. I personally feel if you do not have a box type mag your are out gunned( not to say there is an exception), you will have to train harder and more often to keep your skills sharp with a weapon that is not fed with box type mag. Also stripper clips particulary with the grand would be hard to retain. Granted if you have all of your ammo in stripper clips it wouldn't matter much, but I think it to be more of difficulty collect the m blocs that just fly out versus retaining your mag in a pouch. |
| I Have a PSS, and AR and Garand. I would take anyone with me in SHTF and not be out gunned. In shtf, I believe you will have to pick your battles, and the best pick you make is to avoid battle. The garand is still used in some parts of the third world as a battle rifle. |
| Well look at it this way. You are a soldier in WWII. You are facing an enemy position and your squad has the task of taking it out. Common practice is to lay down covering fire while members of your squad flank the enemy. This will likely not be the only time you do this today. Wich would a WWII Vet. rather have? M1 Garands standard combat load or M4s with standard combat load. The M4s will be easier to maintain suppressive fire for suppression, more easily fired and manuvured by those attacking the enemy position and your squad is now carrying more than double the ammo at no added weight. There is a reason they are called assault rifles. |
| Almost forgot, If the question were strictly about the M1 as a SHTF rifle I would say that you are not hampered by the Garand in anyway. Tactics are limited for a lone individual, (mainly limited to "Get the Fuck out of Dodge") and in some cases an accurate M1 may have an advantage. |
|
Mike,
I wouldn’t feel inadequate with an M1 at after watching ol’ Clint E in Gran Torino.
Seriously, all the reasons why the military left the M1 behind has its’ merits if kept in context. On the modern REAL battlefield the M1, when compared to the current platform, probably has more legitimate deficiencies than advantages. BUT we’re not on a real battlefield and probably never will be. Realistically we’re mostly talking about basic self defense. If I were ever in a situation where I was confronted by small arms fire I wouldn’t care what they were shooting at me, I know it’s going to hurt if I get hit! So the flip side of that is just as true. If I hit someone with my M1 it’s going to put the hurt on ‘em. So if your familiar with it and can shoot it – use it. Don’t get me wrong here, I just bought my first AR two days after the election (NIB A3 Colt HBAR - $1,200) and love it. All things considered I think it was a fair price and I’m in the process of making some upgrades. If I had to have just one rifle (thank God I don’t) I’m beginning to think this would be it. Yea the 5.56 is pretty lightweight (I’m used to .338 WM) but it works very well. EVERYTHING’S a compromise. I also have an M1D I bought back in 1974 to shoot HP competition with. It did okay for a new shooter but I graduated on to a bolt gun so I could better compete. A while ago I got to thinking of the ol’ Garand and wanted to play with him. I realized I still really loved the old warhorse. I got a brainstorm and fabricated a detachable scope mount and mounted a pistol scope forward in scout rifle fashion so it wouldn’t hinder operation. It works great. Now I’m having fun with it again. I have to tell of a great score on ammo I fell into. A friend of mine called me up the other day to tell me he had come on some free ammo and I should come get some if I wanted. He’s not much of a gun person and didn’t really know all of what he had been given. Turns out he had, amongst a bunch of other stuff, three pristine 30 cal ammo cans with LC 62 match ammo never disturbed, perfectly packed in clips and cardboard. I could not believe my good fortune. 
As I said above if I were on a budget and had only the M1 I would not feel at all inadequate. |
CMP field grade. I got 2 and some ammo before the last 2 price hikes. M2 ball and 26.5 cents a round I thought was a good investment. The M1 is a powerful rifle. I like the bandoliers the ammo comes shipped with. 2-3 around your neck and you are good to go. The Rifles are easy to shoot well within reasonable ranges. Good sights and overbuilt.
 [/img][img]]
[img]http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/onceacop/IMG_9748.jpg[/img][/img][img]] |
|
Quoted:
I have no experience with a grand, but I can tell you a A15 can be reloaded just as fast if not faster than a grand. I love my m1a socom, i assume its based off of the grand. I personally feel if you do not have a box type mag your are out gunned( not to say there is an exception), you will have to train harder and more often to keep your skills sharp with a weapon that is not fed with box type mag. Also stripper clips particulary with the grand would be hard to retain. Granted if you have all of your ammo in stripper clips it wouldn't matter much, but I think it to be more of difficulty collect the m blocs that just fly out versus retaining your mag in a pouch. pinkmist, you should get your hands on an M1 Garand. A lot of what you are guessing at is not correct. The M1 reloads much, much faster than the M1A's box magazine. I'd say it is faster than an AR, too, but have never timed it. The thing is, you have to reload it more often than an AR, so the total time to reload X rounds time is longer - no doubt about that. |
|
It is interesting to me to watch and see the basic problems of combat get solved over and over with the same answer. Some new tech gets introduced, then it goes through a maturing to work out all the issues, at the end of the maturity the new tech can be directly compared to some successful old tech.
With carbines We can go back 130 years and observe a consistent power level. Compare the power of the 30-30 to 7.62x39 to 6.8spc Carbines have been used where a more compact rifle was needed for the last 130 years; transitioning from horseback to mechanized use. For the past 145 years; optical sights have been the foundation of improved accuracy. Once optical sights are installed on a platform then other accuracy issues can be observed and addressed. The question that anyone has to answer is what best fits their use patterns. If a carbine is really the best answer then you have to accept that the M1 is not a carbine. If the user does not need the advantages of a carbine and can use a bigger rifle then an M1 becomes a viable answer. The only issue with the M1 is that it does not support ambidextrous optic mounting. If you cant see out of your right eye you can't use the scope. |
|
Quoted:
CMP field grade. I got 2 and some ammo before the last 2 price hikes. M2 ball and 26.5 cents a round I thought was a good investment. The M1 is a powerful rifle. I like the bandoliers the ammo comes shipped with. 2-3 around your neck and you are good to go. The Rifles are easy to shoot well within reasonable ranges. Good sights and overbuilt. http://i35.photobucket.com/albums/d157/onceacop/IMG_9801.jpg" /> Your link does not work. |
Well, I ran out and took the pictures and came back to post them but found out I didn't know how. Can anyone give me a quick lesson on how to get a pic inserted into my post? I need to label it with a URL? How? 
gk Edit: I just found the help section on posting pics and I guess I need to have the pictures hosted. Still don't know how to get that done. Oh, well. 
|
|
Quoted:
Well, I ran out and took the pictures and came back to post them but found out I didn't know how. Can anyone give me a quick lesson on how to get a pic inserted into my post? I need to label it with a URL? How?
gk Edit: I just found the help section on posting pics and I guess I need to have the pictures hosted. Still don't know how to get that done. Oh, well. 1. put the photo on a host like photobucket 2. copy the "direct link" to your photo with Ctrl c 3. get on arfcom and click reply 4. just below the text box is a row of Insert Tags: 5. the 3rd one from the right is for potos; click it 6. a window will pop up prompting you to enter the link to the photo; Ctrl v will insert the link 7 press Enter or click OK 8. click Submit to post this is how I do it hope this helps ETA google photobucket you can set up a free account then upload photos from your computer it is point and click. be warned that if you use your name it will show up in the photobucket address so I used my PA22-400 to name my account there |
|
The greatest battle implement ever invented...
There is absolutely nothing wrong with an M1 Garand in competent hands. It's an excellent rifle out to five hundred yards with open sights (match sights being better, of course). It'll stop a car and/or those inside it. It'll also shoot through most things one would find in an urban environment that a bad guy might use as cover (making it concealment). And in this market where ARs are easily over $1000 new and ammunition is scarce and very expensive, a $600 Garand from the CMP looks VERY good for anyone starting from scratch. Ammunition can be had for less than 50 cents a round readily, often already on en bloc clips in bandoleers (quite handy, BTW). There's no way anyone should feel undergunned with a Garand unless you're facing human wave attacks. In either event, get some training (like Appleseed for starters) and you'll be much more effective regardless of the rifle you chose. John |
|
Quoted:
There's no way anyone should feel undergunned with a Garand unless you're facing human wave attacks. Yes, that's really the rub, isn't it. You've got to have friends. I always thought the Garand might be a give-away to those anti-gunners who would get instant conversion to become fervent supporters of the Second Amendment when faced with a roving band of thugs. It is really too good to just give away but you've got to have friends. |
