Not trolling here.
I asked exactly the question I meant to ask. It was the type of thought question I like to ponder myself; I don't care how many times it has been adressed, as I never participated in such a discussion.
The reason I put the Mini-14 into this scenario is that it is mechanically similar to the Carbine, it fit the contemporary view of what a rifle looked like (as opposed to say the AK-47), and could have been manufactured by the indusrty of the time, while the M-16 could not have been.
I don't think the mini is particulary "cool". I am capable of rational thought where guns are concerned; some people here, however, read into any discussion the idea that if someone posts about a certain gun or piece of equipment, he is automatically a non-critical advocate of said gear. Perhaps that is the way they are, and so project their behavior on other people's words.
I own a Garand. I like it for the part it played in history, and for its careful engineering. I do not however think it was the best that could have been made at the time; IMHO it was hampered by the "rifleman" mythos. As proven by an exhaustive statistical analysis of battle casualties suffered by US troops in the early 1950's (done as part of Project ALCLAD, an effort to improve body armor) it was determined that AIMED RIFLE FIRE was INSIGNIFICANT when it came to the chance of becoming a casualty. What mattered was Time and Degree of Exposure. Random shots got the job done, not the "one shot, one kill" philosophy that dictated WWII US Army tactics, traing and equipment.
The Garand was a product of that mistaken view of infantry combat. The "spray and pray" M-16 was a correct answer to the problem. Proof? In WWII, small arms accounted for 15% of enemy casualties. In Vietnam small arms caused nearly 50%. Spray and pray indeed.
But I digress. Perhaps I should have added to the above two paragraphs to the original post, but I assumed you guys were all up on SALVO and the whole assault rifle concept.