Garand vs. AR


PDA






dispatch55126
November 28, 2008, 10:05 PM
I put my AR up for trade on the site and wonder what other's opinions are.

AR
Pros
-detachable mags
-higher capacity
-readily available ammo
-parts readily available
-pisses off the left wingers

Cons
-gas system
-smaller caliber

Garand
Pros
-history
-larger caliber
-more effective hunting rifle

Cons
-surplus ammo or adjustable gas block
-8 rounds with no top off

I like my AR but I also need a practical purpose with my rifles. The AR would be a good coyote rifle but at the reduced ranges, my SKS can do just as well. The M1 would be a far better hunting rifle plus the added benefit of having history.

If you enjoyed reading about "Garand vs. AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
longdayjake
November 28, 2008, 10:09 PM
I voted for the garand but I dont know why since you didn't put a question in your poll.

elmerfudd
November 28, 2008, 10:25 PM
I also voted for the Garand, but I think the AR is a more practical rifle. The AR is a good modern fighting rifle that is also suitable for target practice and varmint hunting. If you get an AR10 copy, then you've got something that's good for larger game and long range shooting as well.

The Garand is an obsolete fighting rifle and has a number of serious disadvantages as a hunting rifle. It can't use heavier bullets, it's difficult to scope and it's heavy, but having said all that, the Garand is way cooler than an AR.

Dutchman01
November 28, 2008, 10:31 PM
I also voted for the Garand, but I think the AR is a more practical rifle. The AR is a good modern fighting rifle that is also suitable for target practice and varmint hunting. If you get an AR10 copy, then you've got something that's good for larger game and long range shooting as well.

The Garand is an obsolete fighting rifle and has a number of serious disadvantages as a hunting rifle. It can't use heavier bullets, it's difficult to scope and it's heavy, but having said all that, the Garand is way cooler than an AR.

I beg to differ. I shot my first deer with a garand. In regards to the ar, modern isn't always better. The garand has a tendancy to work and is chambered for a great cartridge.

Coronach
November 28, 2008, 10:32 PM
Apples and oranges.

The rifles serve different purposes. the rifles have different histories. The rifles fill very different niches, practically, politically, and ballistically.

It's like asking me "Honda Accord, or Honda Valkyrie?"

I dunno, dude. Do you want a motorcycle or not?

Mike

ETA: I own both.

taprackbang
November 28, 2008, 10:37 PM
If I had to make a choice, I would opt for the Garand. I actually would want to kill my enemy (30.06) with one shot and not just wound them. (.223)

jpwilly
November 28, 2008, 11:01 PM
I voted AR but frankly I like my Garand more than my AR's...it's got soul.

http://i124.photobucket.com/albums/p38/jpwilly/100_0957.jpg

Geno
November 28, 2008, 11:06 PM
Different purposes, and I own both. I can say that the one I fear more is the M1 Garand. Eight rounds of .30-06 is a Hades of a lot of firepower, with excellent reach and excellent accuracy.

sharkhunter2018
November 28, 2008, 11:12 PM
I also shot my first deer with a Garand. It may be a bit heavy for a hunting rifle, but I don't mind lugging it around in the field.

While I don't own an AR, I have nothing against them and enjoy shooting them. But I still like my Garands.

rem2429
November 28, 2008, 11:13 PM
(M14/ M1a best of both worlds?)

I guess I'd say AR. People forget it arose out of a need to increase the number of hits obtained. Given time for a well placed shot, a garand is great, but in combat I would think targets would be fleeting. The AR is easier to put multiple rounds on multiple targets quickly.

Geno
November 28, 2008, 11:14 PM
I have been considering taking my Garand for the Michigan late deer season (Dec). That would create a great memory. :cool:

elmerfudd
November 28, 2008, 11:40 PM
I beg to differ. I shot my first deer with a garand. In regards to the ar, modern isn't always better. The garand has a tendancy to work and is chambered for a great cartridge.

I don't think it is chambered for a very good cartridge at all actually. Now the 30-06 out of a good bolt action is a fantastic cartridge, but out of a Garand it's very limited. You've got to stick to 150 grain bullets or lighter and that's kind of like having a Corvette with a 4 cylinder in it.

It's still a great rifle, but I just don't think it's as practical as a .308 AR. I also don't think that matters much though. If practicality were the only issue we were after most of us would just have synthetic stocked bolt actions and given the choice between an AR and a Garand for anything but combat, I'd reach for the Garand. I just wanted to make it clear that I made that choice purely for personal reasons.

longdayjake
November 29, 2008, 12:10 AM
You've got to stick to 150 grain bullets or lighter and that's kind of like having a Corvette with a 4 cylinder in it.


Not true. You can safely load heavier bullets just fine. In fact the wwII ap bullets were somewhere in the 160's and they were used just fine out of the garand. You can shoot heavy bullets like the 180 grainers too but you have to be careful not to load them too hot. There are handloading manuals for the m1 garand that you can find online. 150 grainers are more than enough for anything in the u.s. anyway.

Almond27
November 29, 2008, 12:14 AM
I vote AR because I'm a younger guy and the AR would be easier to feed then me purchasing .30-06. I think I'd also rather have an 03-A3 than a Garand don't ask me why I am just more in awe of the bolt action.

cracked butt
November 29, 2008, 01:43 AM
Have them both.
The M1 looks nicer and feels better in my hands, but the AR does everything better.

M&PVolk
November 29, 2008, 01:44 AM
I would love to have a Garand. That said, I voted AR. If I am going to shoot a 30-06, I want it in a very accurate package. I see no advantage in a Garand over a great bolt action 30-06. With the AR, you get excellent accuracy with a ton of rounds. Can't go wrong with either though.

RustyHammer
November 29, 2008, 02:43 AM
Both!

adelgado0723
November 29, 2008, 02:45 AM
Garand is great just for its history, but the ar does piss off liberals. hmmmm, it's tough, but I voted for garand

RockyMtnTactical
November 29, 2008, 06:25 AM
The AR15 is WAYYY more practical and useful for home defense and a variety of other uses. The Garand is fun, has a lot of history, and is a solid rifle and all... but it aint practical.

Give me an AR15.

http://i166.photobucket.com/albums/u87/RMTactical/CustomM4build.jpg

RX-178
November 29, 2008, 06:31 AM
I went with the AR.

The AR has many more potential uses than a Garand.

A Garand just does what it does better than an AR.

Kind of Blued
November 29, 2008, 07:55 AM
This is the dumbest thread ever.

On that note, depending on what I needed a rifle for, I could easily pick one of the two.

RyanM
November 29, 2008, 05:50 PM
Cons
-gas system

That's easily a pro, especially compared to a Garand.

You can feed an AR-15 pretty much any ammo, with any powder, and 90% of the time it'll work. And if it stops working, it'll be because it's dirty, not because the operating rod broke.

Can't even really say that of the vaunted AK-47. Those are very sensitive to changes in bullet weight and powder, just like the Garand. Half of the AK's famed reliability is because all the ammo out there is 122, 123, 124, or 125 grain (the other half is the magazines).

H2O MAN
November 29, 2008, 05:50 PM
AR or Garand?

Why not consider something between the two?






Consider the M14 :evil:

http://www.athenswater.com/images/Mod-1_T-1.jpg


The M14 shares the soul of the Garand and it's able to share the accessories of the AR.

Mac Attack
November 29, 2008, 06:06 PM
Buy a AR now while you can before they are banned again.

You will always be able to pick up a Garand.

I have both and each serves a different purpose. I like shooting my M1 more but can only shoot 100 or so rounds before my shoulder calls foul. My AR I can shoot all day long.

TEDDY
November 29, 2008, 08:55 PM
no you wont get a garand much longer.there were only so many made and a lot were used up.and a garand will take 172 gr as the reason they stopped making 172 was production they could make 150s quicker.and the garand is quite accurate out to 600 yrds and more.before WW2 many civilians and NG,practiced at 1000yrds.I know because I was there.:rolleyes::uhoh::D

franconialocal
November 30, 2008, 02:40 PM
Absolutely love them both. My next purchase is a SOCOM II from Springfield Armory......waiting for the prices to come down!!!

scythefwd
November 30, 2008, 06:41 PM
Elmer Fudd,
The garand can take a 178 gr bullet just fine. It is what was shot out of the garand for matches. My lake city match is 178 gr. I think the limit is actually 180 gr, not 150. Heck, I think the m2 ball that it shot was heavier than 150.

natescout
November 30, 2008, 07:37 PM
m14 style rifle , cant go wrong

Neo-Luddite
November 30, 2008, 07:58 PM
The M-1, side by side with an AR, sure----TAKE the AR if your training and experience dictates. THAT will make the choice easy for you.

But...Round-for-round, the M-1 will best the AR *IF* you are willing to trade off the several advantages the AR holds.

In terms of reliability under adverse conditions my money goes on an M-1from the coldest to the hotest places on earth. On *the worst* day you have a straight-pull bolt gun that will punch clean through 1/2" of mild plate steel with plain jane ball ammo.

My opinion--worth what it costs.

1832
November 30, 2008, 11:28 PM
I would vote for the M14/M1A over both the Garand and AR. I packed all three at one time or another in my military days and the M14 would still be my choice for an all around battle rifle. Although I still like to shoot my ARs.

Thermactor
November 30, 2008, 11:36 PM
The Garand is for old geezers and people who wish they were old geezers. A bygone rifle for a bygone time. There's a reason the US Military doesn't issue them anymore, and it's a damn good one.

H2O MAN
November 30, 2008, 11:56 PM
Thermactor The Garand is for old geezers and people who wish they were old geezers. A bygone rifle for a bygone time.
There's a reason the US Military doesn't issue them anymore, and it's a damn good one.

I think we all want to become and old geezer some day, I know I do ;)



True, the Army no longer issues the M1 Garand, but they do continue to issue it's replacement... the beloved M14 (http://www.military.com/news/article/new-lease-on-life-for-the-beloved-m14.html#jivepostlink#community) :evil:

Kind of Blued
December 1, 2008, 12:14 AM
"Dumbest thread ever" was a bit harsh. I apologize.

M14 does seem to be the appropriate answer. :)

Or maybe an FAL... *runs & hides* :D

taliv
December 1, 2008, 12:20 AM
True, the Army no longer issues the M1 Garand, but they do continue to issue it's replacement... the beloved M14

and in the interest of progress, they also continue to issue the M14's replacement

just for perspective :p

nathan
December 1, 2008, 12:21 AM
I go for the M 1 bec it shoots a respectable round that reaches out and touches . Im getting to be an old geezard . It s heavy but I like it that way.

Art Eatman
December 1, 2008, 12:21 PM
I have a glass-bedded Garand and a newish Colt AR. Even with trifocals and old-age eyes, I can get just inside of 2 MOA with either.

But 95% of my rifle shooting is with a scoped bolt action.

:D:D:D

Neo-Luddite
December 2, 2008, 10:03 PM
The Garand is for old geezers and people who wish they were old geezers. A bygone rifle for a bygone time.


Yeh, I guess you're right after all. We've ALL been so misguided all this time.
Thanks for setting us straight about thinngs.

browningguy
December 2, 2008, 10:07 PM
I think the Garand is a wonderful piece of history, but not the most practical all around rifle. Ever tried carrying one all day while hunting? How about clearing a house with a Garand?

While I don't do it plenty of people shoot deer with the .223, well placed shots at reasonable ranges with a 60 gr. Partition or the 53 gr. TSX do the job. One of the guys hunting with us last week used his CZ in .223, with shots just behind the ear, to take an 8 point and a 10 point.

dispatch55126
December 2, 2008, 10:15 PM
"Dumbest thread ever" was a bit harsh. I apologize.

It is a dumb thread. I poorly wrote it without any real context. My thought behind this was what are people's opinions, keep the AR or trade it for a Garand.

That said, THR came through and gave this a life of its own. In one corner, you have those who say leave the history in the past which is a valid argument. In the other corner, there are those that say history means nothing if you don't keep it fresh in everyone mind. Then of course you have the people in the stands screaming for a new champion (M14).

I'm keeping the AR and maybe I'll get a Garand in the future. I've regretted trading every gun in the past so I'll try something new and hang on to it.

Thanks everyone.

Trempel
December 2, 2008, 10:17 PM
Apples and oranges.

The rifles serve different purposes. the rifles have different histories. The rifles fill very different niches, practically, politically, and ballistically.

It's like asking me "Honda Accord, or Honda Valkyrie?"

I dunno, dude. Do you want a motorcycle or not?

Mike

ETA: I own both.
This. To the letter.

normal
December 3, 2008, 08:23 AM
On the pro's for the AR, you forgot adaptability. It is like a Lego set that shoots bullets. You can customize it to you for everything from stock size, barrell length, caliber, grips, forearms, accessories, optics, etc... You can make an AR into anything that you want.

d2wing
December 3, 2008, 04:45 PM
I've had both and dearly love both. The Garand is just to heavy for me to carry deer hunting and has drawbacks concerning scope and bullets choices.
Yet it is a very effective rifle with the most effective hunting round and fun to shoot. I last used my AR15 for deer hunting and made a one shot kill on a 240 lb buck. To me, it is the AR15.
Neither is wrong unless your state doesn't allow one or both. The AR is a better round and rifle than many give it credit for, but it's hard to argue against a Garand. The Garand probably is the most significant battle rifle in history as it was a major factor in WW2.
I don't think it is a dumb question at all.

crushbup
December 3, 2008, 05:29 PM
-8 rounds with no top off

You can load up an M1 partway through the mag. Where does this myth come from?

See here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrXLtkY4wOw

jad0110
December 3, 2008, 05:52 PM
Keep both. At all costs. You have two kidneys, right? Do you really need both of those? Or did you figure that out previously? :neener:

I have an AR, as I figured it's modular design would be a big plus for me later ... assuming upper receivers and other components are not banned by Fedzilla :fire:.

I have loads of respect though for the M1. And prices may well rise the way the 03A3 did. I'd love to own an M1 one day, I don't envy your choice.

sturmgewehr667
December 3, 2008, 06:46 PM
the garand may be an old geezers rifle, but im alot younger than most of you and i would take a garand over any other gun i have, it shoots a powerful round and is very accurate at ranges far beyond what you can see with iron sights. but, a replica stg44 is also an awesome gun:)

Neo-Luddite
December 3, 2008, 07:38 PM
I'd like to try the 'Mini G' that is a newcomer in the Garand world. A $500 modification, it produces am M-1 the length of a M-1 Carbine. I'd like to see one in a synthetic stock with a rail...

For MANY legal and political reasons, the M-1 travels well over THE WHOLE of the US and Canada---into places an AR can't be lawfully taken.

You CAN register on in Chi for heavans sake; and in Canada it is exempted (with the SMLE) from the '5 round' rule and may be loaded with 8 rounds----making it a logical choice over just about EVERYTHING.

But this jazz is really, for me, secondary to the incredible differential in round-for-round firepower that an M-1 has over an AR (in .223, mind you).

Yes it's heavy---but only a pound or so over a full-length A2---and it is only a shade longer.

Kansan
December 26, 2008, 03:14 PM
I just made this same choice last week. In light of the elections & my pocketbook, I figured there would be no better time than the present to get a semi-auto rifle. I could think of 4 or 5 reasons I might want or need one... plus I may think of more reasons after it's too late ;) Here were the pros and cons for me:

AR - Pros
1. More likely to be banned than the Garand
2. 12 years (and counting) in the Army makes me comfortable with handling
3. Assumedly widespread availability of ammo for the foreseeable future
4. High capacity, detachable mags
5. Modular

AR - Cons
1. Smaller caliber
2. Doesn't perform well dirty (as I found out in Iraq)
3. Expensive

Garand - Pros
1. Battle tested/proven in severe environments worldwide
2. Larger Caliber
3. Relatively inexpensive (through CMP)
4. History, beauty, etc

Garand - Cons
1. Heavy & long
2. Clips vs. Magazine (a con mostly because of capacity)
3. Cost of ammo (non-milsurp)

In the end, I chose the Garand for the following reasons:

In caliber, .30-06 trumps .223 because: 1. penetrating power through ______ (fill in the blank) and 2. the minimum caliber for deer hunting in KS is .243 (and I would like to hunt with it). There are a lot of good arguments on both sides as far as capability of the two calibers against human threats, so that didn't really play a part in my decision. They have both been effective in combat.

Concerning the round capacity... I justified going with 8 rounds vs. 20 (or 30) rounds because I figured that if I have to use it for armed defense, I will likely be defending my street corner or something like that... not clearing houses, reacting to ambush, etc. For home defense (i.e. inside the house), I have a shotgun (handguns as backup). When guarding a "checkpoint" (read "neighborhood", in the case of a Katrina / LA riot scenario), eight .30-06 rounds through an engine block should be plenty to stop an attaching party & surviving general melee. Bottom line, I think 8 round en-bloc clips are sufficient for defensive applications. Obviously, in an offensive urban scenario, my choice might be different... I just don't envision myself in that scenario in my civilian capacity.

I know the likely soon-to-be AWB is more likely to effect AR's, but since I'm limited right now to picking only one, I think the Garand will fill most of my requirements (except "plinking" perhaps... but that's what 22LR is for). Also, even if the next AWB doesn't target Garands, there's not an unlimited supply. Sooner or later, CMP will run out. I've also heard that in the mid 80's, you could get a Garand from CMP for $200... now, a SG M1 is $600. At that rate, in 20 years it will be $1800 even if they do have an inexhaustible supply.

I'm not familiar with the Garands shooting capabilities while dirty, but I know it worked well enough in the waters and sand of Normandy & Iwa Jima, the snows and cold of Korea, etc. etc. I also know from personal experience that it took a lot of time and cleaning to maintain an M4 in the dust and sand of the Middle East & North Africa. Worse case scenario, the M1 is just as prone to stoppages and they are even. Best case, I guess, is that the M1 is a little better.

My bolt action hunting rifle is .30-06, so that's one less caliber I have to stock (especially with an adjustable gas plug).

Ok, didn't mean to write a book. This is the reasoning I used to eventually decide on the Garand. Of course, I would like an AR or two (or a dozen) ideally, especially since that is the platform for which I've received the most training but tough times call for tough choices...

DarkCharisma
December 26, 2008, 03:20 PM
I own and love my AR but voted Garand. 1) it's a piece of history that I would do bad things for, and 2) if you're confident enough with your SKS, there's no reason to have both an AR and an SKS for the same purpose.

So I guess my vote was completely swayed by the cool Garand-factor.

jerkface11
December 26, 2008, 03:28 PM
You have to carry a hunting rifle. So the AR wins.

amprecon
December 26, 2008, 08:27 PM
I personally refuse to own a .223 rifle period. I have no use for it, especially when there are better calibers and platforms out there.
I currently own an SLR-95, an M1 Garand and an M1A, I do not see a need for anything else, especially a .223.

expvideo
December 26, 2008, 08:42 PM
I am falling more and more in love with the M1 Garand. I already bought the AR15, and I already have an AK, so this might make the list of future purchases. I really like those M1 Garands. I'm also thinking I might like an M1 Carbine.

Deckard
December 26, 2008, 08:58 PM
Given time for a well placed shot, a garand is great, but in combat I would think targets would be fleeting.

There is no substitute for aimed fire. And now for a history lesson: Sargent Alvin York killed 28 German soldiers, took out 32 enemy machine guns, and captured 132 other Germans armed only with a bolt action rifle. If you keep your head and pick your shots you can inflict far more damage. Why do you think for the most part M16s and M4s are no longer issued with the original "rock and roll" feature? For civilian purposes the AR is not a practical rifle at all, even for defense. Anything you can't use the Garand for could easily be taken care of by a shotgun.

High Planes Drifter
December 26, 2008, 09:02 PM
Like said before, you didnt state a purpose for the rifle, so its kind of hard to pick one.

That being said, for "general" use & ownership, I think I'd get the AR now. You will be able to get an original M1 for at least another year or so.

Both are great rifles.

P-32
December 26, 2008, 09:45 PM
I own several of both. Both have their places. If I want to hunt and in the mood for modern, I have a couple of '06 bolt guns I can use.

The M-1 has more soul, more mojo.

The AR shoots better and has less recoil.

If I want to shoot 308, well, I have a M-1 in that too.

Brian Dale
December 27, 2008, 12:19 AM
Ok, didn't mean to write a book.

Don't worry about it; it was a good one. Welcome.

w/r/t the poll, I didn't vote. The original poster has written,

I'm keeping the AR and maybe I'll get a Garand in the future. I've regretted trading every gun in the past so I'll try something new and hang on to it.

Can't argue with that. :)

Deadmanwalking_05
December 27, 2008, 01:56 AM
I love the Old M-1 and the cartridge it fires....but I chose the AR-15,it might not use a heavy hitting round,but it can put down an accurate feild of fire,can carry more ammo,can be topped off,and with a gas piston kit it will be about as reliable.

I love the old warhorse don't get me wrong,but I'd rather be able to pick up a few boxes of .223 Rem off the shelf and use them without having to worry about the weapon going to pieces.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 02:10 AM
You know you can top off a garand... I dont know where people heard you cant top them off...

ReadyontheRight
December 27, 2008, 02:12 AM
This is like asking the difference between a 4X4 Pickup Truck and a Sportscar.

Each performs very well under the right conditions.

Of course - give me the 4X4 and the Garand any day...because I plan for less than ideal conditions.:evil:

chriso
December 27, 2008, 02:13 AM
Ready on the right... You took the words right out of my keyboard...

DWH
December 27, 2008, 03:24 AM
Even though I built my one AR, I have two M1 Garands :D

MetalMan52
December 27, 2008, 04:38 AM
I have several of each, more Ar's than garands but I'd take the garand over the ar in most situations. I wish the situation was more clearly defined. This is like comparing apples and cherries.
Pat

cracked butt
December 27, 2008, 11:19 AM
For civilian purposes the AR is not a practical rifle at all, even for defense.

mmreally?

:rolleyes:

chriso
December 27, 2008, 04:48 PM
Exactly it must be people that dont own one or never used one that think you cant top off a garand...

notorious
December 27, 2008, 04:54 PM
Anyone consider the con of a Garand as not having the convenience of a detachable mag or any mag for that matter?

If you want to change out a partially shot clip on a Garand or unload it, don't you have to strip every round manually via bolt manipulation?

Also, for shorter statured men, the Garand is an awfully big gun. Clint looked right with it in Gran Torino, but that's Clint.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 05:10 PM
No you do not have to manipulate the bolt there is a button on the side to eject the en bloc you pull the bolt back and push the button and the en block flies out and you top it off or you can load it through the top while the en bloc is still in... its harder though... I dont know about any of you guys but I can load my garand alot faster than I can load a AR and im a lefty 5'8 and 160 pounds :evil:...

chriso
December 27, 2008, 05:11 PM
Ill stick to my old war horse and if anything gets to close I have got a remington 870 HD for the dirty work or even a glock...

Loggerlee
December 27, 2008, 06:16 PM
Ain't 178grain bullets,they are 168grain.
Weigh em'
BTW,I voted for the Garand,it's the rifle I'd rather have in almost any situation.
(I'd rather carry a AR a distance of 50 miles)

notorious
December 27, 2008, 06:19 PM
No you do not have to manipulate the bolt there is a button on the side to eject the en bloc you pull the bolt back and push the button and the en block flies out and you top it off or you can load it through the top while the en bloc is still in... its harder though... I dont know about any of you guys but I can load my garand alot faster than I can load a AR and im a lefty 5'8 and 160 pounds ...

That depends on what situation you are talking about.

I can fully load my 6 shot revolver 1 round at a time faster than my 15 round Beretta if I don't have the 9mm rounds in the magazine already. However, if I have loaded mags at the ready, I can do 2-3 magazine changes in the same time it takes someone to reload a revolver 1 round at a time. Longer if I am firing at him while he is reloading.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 06:28 PM
Im talking about Dropping a Full en bloc in compared to slamming a ar15 mag in I can do it faster having the rounds at the ready in clips and or magazines... I can also load my garand faster than alot of my buddies that have xcr's ar's and all that fancy stuff...

notorious
December 27, 2008, 06:34 PM
I would think putting in a full mag into an AR or an en bloc into a Garand would take about the same amount of time, depending on your familiarity with the weapon.

JImbothefiveth
December 27, 2008, 06:34 PM
I'd say it depends on what you're going to use it for.

Ever tried carrying one all day while hunting? How about clearing a house with a Garand?
Good point there.

if you're confident enough with your SKS, there's no reason to have both an AR and an SKS for the same purpose.
The SKS strikes me as being more garand-like than AR-like, but still somewhere in the middle.

notorious
December 27, 2008, 06:38 PM
The SKS, Mini-14, Mini-30, M-14, M1A and even the Steyr M95 have a lot more in common with each other than the AR15, which is a family of weapons all onto itself.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 06:47 PM
I agree that alot of it depends on the familiarity of the weapon but the only disadvantages I can see of the m1 garand over the ar maybe weight but then again the weight is a good thing when you have to use it as a club... 8 round capacity doesn't seem like a disadvantage to me as I can reload it just as fast if not faster even though I wont have to reload it as much with the AR "this is why precision is key". All in all the Garand is a great battle rifle and is not obsolete now I figure if Have to clear a house I feel way more comfortable with a pistol than a ar.

notorious
December 27, 2008, 06:51 PM
I love the Garand but it's a big heavy rifle and for HD, I use my shotgun with the flashlight attachment or my pistols.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 06:54 PM
I didn't know this was for HD haha I totally agree for home defense I have a remington 870 HD or my pistol with a streamlight. I was stating that the garand is not a good weapon choice for clearing a house of course and that I feel more comfortable with a pistol in house clearing than a ar so if the SHTF big time I would be just fine with my garand and a pistol:evil:...

notorious
December 27, 2008, 06:58 PM
If I had to choose only 1 rifle for everything when SHTF and I need to bug out fast with whatever arms I can carry, I would have to be sorry to say that a semi-auto probably wouldn't be on the bill just because of reliability and parts and if you lose mags, then it's a single shot. Then again, having an AR with a scope and a bandolier full of mags is vey comforting against an army of zombies too.

chriso
December 27, 2008, 07:01 PM
Very true I feel extremely comfortable with my rem 700 sps in the m24 stock and leupy mark 4 :) Keep em far away If they get to close I have a shotgun or pistol or I can take of my mark 4 and put on a EOTECH HAHA!!!

notorious
December 27, 2008, 07:05 PM
That's what I was thinking. I would either take my SSG or my Mosin and with the Mosin, I also have a bayonet for CQC if I needed to conserve bullets or do it silently.

Then again, my Glock 9mm is pretty much failure proof too.

Doc_Jude
December 27, 2008, 08:14 PM
Can I get a gas piston and a .308 upper for the AR? Can I try to turn it into an M-14?
I'm choosing the Garand, for most of the reasons listed above. However, if one had an M1 Garand AND an M1 Carbine & knew the strengths and weaknesses of the two, I doubt they would miss the AR at all. People talk about the the ranges that the AR can reach accurately, while the AK and SKS can reach out to those ranges, with the same sights WITH TRAINING. The 7.62x39 can reach out to 450-500 meters but peters out after that. However, you gotta have optics to shoot accurately at that range anyways, so why not use a scoped bolt gun? It's made for those ranges. Scope your M14, it's REALLY HAPPY at those ranges.
For home defense/self-defense, you don't need something that shoots that far anyways. Accuracy to 200-250 meters is the most extreme range that I can imagine someone needing for a big homestead.
If there was a choice, the M14 or even the newer "black gun" SOCOM is the perfect amalgam between the small varmint caliber black guns and the "Garandmaster" :D

M&PVolk
December 27, 2008, 08:27 PM
I can't imagine trying to clear a house or take a defensive stance with a Garand. The Garand is an awesome weapon that I really do love, but the more time I spend with the AR-15, the more convinced I become that it is the more versatile and useful firearm of the two.

In terms of caliber, the .223 gives up a little damage potential to the 30-06, but not as much as many would have you believe. The .223 can deliver 6" wounds, more than enough to stop zombies and other game. What the .223 does give away in power, it more than makes up for in its reduced weight, recoil and ammo cost. You can carry significantly more rounds in the AR along with plenty of spare ammo. In the AR, the .223 is also more versatile than the Garand (bullet weights and loads), which gives up a lot of the versatility of the 30-06 due to its age. In the accuracy battle, the AR winds hands down, and follow up shots are easy. The only edge I give the Garand is reliability.

If reliability and bigger lead are the sole factors for making this selection, by all means get the Garand. Otherwise, I believe the AR to be a superior package. I stand by my original statement that I see no advantage of the Garand to a conventional bolt action 30-06, which would be my choice in that caliber.

Again, the Garand is awesome, but the AR is the better overall weapon.

notorious
December 27, 2008, 08:30 PM
The Garand is awesome when facing down a gang of Hmong wannabes who is trespassing on your lawn. Clint taught me that.

472x1A/B
December 27, 2008, 09:08 PM
Voted for the Grand. Have both, shoot both, reload for both. Dad was in WW II, issued a Grand . I was in Southeast Asia and issued a M 16. Thats it. Like one just as well as the other.

amprecon
December 28, 2008, 12:51 AM
You can't take out those zombies hiding behind the cinder-block walls or semi-trucks with the AR though, but the Garand on the other hand........:cool:

dscottw88
December 28, 2008, 01:48 AM
This is easy. Get both. I have a garand and it was one of the best firearm purchases iv'e ever made. But If i can only have one, I'd keep one of my AR's. It's more practical in almost every way.

2RCO
December 28, 2008, 01:59 AM
AH GAWD--I can't take another vs. thread seriously. I think I'll start one on Matchlocks vs. Ma Deuce.

Samuraigg
December 28, 2008, 02:33 AM
Didn't vote since there wasn't a "buy both" option.

Heck, I'm a broke college student and I still managed to buy both of them. I just don't have money to buy ammo now...

innerpiece
December 28, 2008, 03:22 AM
I agree with 'Kindd of Blued' :
"This is the dumbest thread ever.

On that note, depending on what I needed a rifle for, I could easily pick one of the two."

so why dont we throw SKSs or AK47 in there just to mix it up......

there is a major and discernable difference between all of them..

innerpiece
December 28, 2008, 03:26 AM
"You can't take out those zombies hiding behind the cinder-block walls or semi-trucks with the AR though, but the Garand on the other hand........"
amprecon, the .223 works thru 5/8 inch steel.. thats a fact. while I have tests that would impress, and depress yer theory about "cinder blocks" Ill wait to post them in a thread that has more relevance to a specific tool.

but hers a "real world" preview of what the .223/5.56 can do against hard objects.... http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=400904


"Im talking about Dropping a Full en bloc in compared to slamming a ar15 mag in I can do it faster having the rounds at the ready in clips and or magazines... I can also load my garand faster than alot of my buddies that have xcr's ar's and all that fancy stuff..."
"fancy"? Chriso... compare capacity.. then tell me you can load as many bullets in yer gun as I can into an AR..... in the same amount of time....
regaurdless. what IS getting missed, is: shot placement. and what is also getting missed, as I stated above.. an AK is getting "vrs'd" to an SKS....

really. whatever yer best with is what you should "vote" for ... cause thatll be the most effective..

ip.

notorious
December 28, 2008, 04:59 AM
The 5.56 would more than go through regular sheet steel in a car door. We have a car door up at the academy with various holes from various projectiles shot through it to show penetration effectiveness. I'll take a pic for you guys next time I go there in mid-January.

As for zombies, they don't hide behind cinder blocks. Zombies will home in on the immediate source of attraction and attack with mindless abandon. Hiding is not in their repetoire. Now if you want to take out a zombie that is stuck behind a cinder block because it can't figure out how to get around it, that is different, but in that situation, I would just lob a Molotov at it because you have to burn the body afterwards to get rid of the Solanum.

notorious
December 28, 2008, 05:02 AM
AH GAWD--I can't take another vs. thread seriously. I think I'll start one on Matchlocks vs. Ma Deuce.

Well, obviously it's good enough to get 4 pages and 90 responses so far.

Let's all start our own comparison threads and see what we can come up with.

I am going to start my Glock 34 versus Mini-14 stainless tactical carbine thread right after I get done comparing the M1 Carbine to the Uberti SAA nickel finish with pearl grips.

Doc_Jude
December 28, 2008, 05:45 AM
In terms of caliber, the .223 gives up a little damage potential to the 30-06....

A LITTLE!?! That's the understatement of the day.


As far as penetration and performance goes, I've read plenty of articles from troops having problems with the .223 round lacking necessary stopping power, needing 4 and 5 rounds to put a target down (above the issue of moving targets was addressed as though the Garand would have problems with this...)
I will try very hard tomorrow to find the source, but I read a reliable source (I may have it in print, I'm not sure), a platoon or company commander from WW2 reporting that one of his men was at the top of a trail and fired a shot down at the head of the line of some Japanese walking single file... and he dropped the first 4 or 5 enemy soldiers. Now, you will NEVER here that kind of thing about a .223

I had this discussion with someone else about the M-14 vs M4, about the weight of the .308 ammo, about being able to carry less of it than .223. My answer was,"Well, if I only have to shoot the guy ONCE as opposed to two, three, or even four times to have stopping effect, then I guess I'll break even, huh?"
The 30-06, even more so. I don't bank on "shot placement", I keep in mind that with moving targets, sometimes it's all you can do to get rounds on target, there won't be any guaranteed head or CNS shot. With that in mind, I trust .30 caliber power over a varmint round.

notorious
December 28, 2008, 06:23 AM
That's what General Patton said. No American fighting man should ever carry a rifle less than 30 calibre.

However, being that modern soldiers and terrorists don't generally line up in a single file, we'll probably not get to see that comparison again anytime soon.

If I want a big calibre battle rifle, I would get the SoCom II 16" in snow camo. (drool)

carbine85
December 28, 2008, 11:24 AM
I voted Garand. It's clearly the best heavy battle rifle ever built in mine and George Patton's opinion.

jjohnson
December 28, 2008, 11:33 AM
:pHey, not to give you a hard time, but you really need to make a serious and well defined question to make a poll worth anything. As it stands, the poll is meaningless because anybody can interpret it for anything.

For example:

Which is the better rifle for 500+ yard killing power?
Which is the better suited to jungle warfare?
Which has greater historical value?
Which is the better deer rifle?
Which is better for breaking something with the butt?

Okay, you got the idea.

I carried an M16 for three years, and when I left the Army, I bought a Garand.

Because it's better.:p

esq_stu
December 28, 2008, 12:02 PM
The Garand was great. Now it is quaint.

Jim PHL
December 28, 2008, 12:30 PM
I didn't vote because an SKS is probably the only "battle rifle" I can afford!

I think between the two I would prefer the AR, but put me on the list of those who'd prefer to split the difference with an M14.

Is a "vs." thread better or worse than a "if you could have only one..." thread?

Kansan
December 28, 2008, 03:37 PM
As I mentioned earlier, I like both guns and wish I had both of them. But as as far as being able to carry more .223 than .30-06 argument... I'm trying to think of a scenario where I would have to load myself down with ammo to the point where it would matter (in civilian life). First, I would have to be on foot because if I had a vehicle, I could carry as much as I wanted. I would also have some kind of need for enough ammo for a prolonged fire fight (maybe I'll be walking through ganstaville during a riot?). I suppose I could be bugging out on foot through a rioting city with my wife and children and was carrying so much food, clothes, & medical supplies for a long term stay in the countryside that I couldn't burden myself (or the accompanying stroller / wagon) with an extra 100 rounds of .30-06....

chriso
December 28, 2008, 03:50 PM
I dont think Innerpiece read when I said PRECISION IS KEY go back and read before you make your statement... I also stated that I wouldn't have to reload as much if I had a AR but I feel comfortable with a garand because I can load it quite fast... READ and post...

M&PVolk
December 28, 2008, 04:23 PM
Doc J wrote A LITTLE!?! That's the understatement of the day.

As far as penetration and performance goes, I've read plenty of articles from troops having problems with the .223 round lacking necessary stopping power, needing 4 and 5 rounds to put a target down (above the issue of moving targets was addressed as though the Garand would have problems with this...)

Stopping power is a myth. All kill/stop shots come down to shot placement. Any caliber out there will stop a zombie with good placement. The fact that you don't want to worry about placement doesn't make it any less real. If you want to be able to simply squeeze the trigger and get a drop, you want something that explodes, not a rifle.

As to the power advantage of a 30-06, no one is arguing it doesn't have one, just that it isn't as big as you seem to think. The .223 is the most widely utilized military round today for a reason. Also worth noting is that the 30-06 had its day in the sun, and was found to have fewer advantages in combat than the 5.56. For every peace of anecdotal evidence I hear about how bad the .223 is, I have heard at least as many about how amazingly effective it is. I have also heard a myriad of complaints about the 30-06 and how ineffective it is with improper shot placement. In fact, some have argued that the .223 is MORE lethal than the 30-06 due to a reduced propensity for pass through and greater yaw and fragmentation. A 6" permanent wound cavity is massive and completely fatal.

Still, all these arguments seem a bit foolish when you consider your rights as a civilian firearms owner. The right to self defense is not a right to murder, but merely a right to stop a threat. Either of these two guns is sufficient for such a purpose.

notorious
December 28, 2008, 06:25 PM
As I mentioned earlier, I like both guns and wish I had both of them. But as as far as being able to carry more .223 than .30-06 argument... I'm trying to think of a scenario where I would have to load myself down with ammo to the point where it would matter (in civilian life). First, I would have to be on foot because if I had a vehicle, I could carry as much as I wanted. I would also have some kind of need for enough ammo for a prolonged fire fight (maybe I'll be walking through ganstaville during a riot?). I suppose I could be bugging out on foot through a rioting city with my wife and children and was carrying so much food, clothes, & medical supplies for a long term stay in the countryside that I couldn't burden myself (or the accompanying stroller / wagon) with an extra 100 rounds of .30-06....

In a simple riot situation where you can stay inside your house and sit tight, it makes no difference as long as you can defend your immediate area from threats. Civilians have a hard time justifying self defense at ranges beyond 25 yards or so unless you got a guy who's sniping you from afar. Unless you have a big yard and he's shooting you from 50 yards away in your yard, the castle doctrine doesn't help you either since he is not on your property. (Correct me if I am wrong on that, we don't have the castle doctrine in Kommiefornia)

In any event, if there was a Class 3 or 4 outbreak and zombies overran our city, I would be in a car loaded with as much ammo as I can and I certainly will carry the most for my money, including a lot of 5.56 and not so much shotshells.

SaxonPig
December 28, 2008, 06:35 PM
The Garand was the best rifle... in 1945. Its time as king of the hill is long passed.

The only argument favoring the Garand vs. the AR is if you can't stand the 5.56 caliber.

I would choose the AR in any conceivable circumstance except maybe as a sniper rifle.

notorious
December 28, 2008, 06:44 PM
The AR can make a decent sniping rifle if you don't shoot into barriers or glass.

innerpiece
December 28, 2008, 08:17 PM
"I dont think Innerpiece read when I said PRECISION IS KEY go back and read before you make your statement... I also stated that I wouldn't have to reload as much if I had a AR but I feel comfortable with a garand because I can load it quite fast... READ and post..."

Yessum boss!
sorry, I spend more of my time practicing then reading....

but hey, to each their own, I was merely adding my EXPERIENCE.

take it easy chriso

chriso
December 28, 2008, 08:24 PM
I am not upset nor do I mean to be a ass I just clearly stated what you said before... Your not the only one on the forum who actually trains buddy, your talking to somebody who trains all the time and has to qualify. Im sorry if I seemed to offend you I wasn't trying to.

sdj
December 28, 2008, 09:06 PM
JPWilly summed it up nicely: "soul". :D

benEzra
December 28, 2008, 11:06 PM
(Correct me if I am wrong on that, we don't have the castle doctrine in Kommiefornia)
Actually, you do.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=pen&group=00001-01000&file=187-199

197. Homicide is also justifiable when committed by any person in any of the following cases:
...
2. When committed in defense of habitation, property, or person, against one who manifestly intends or endeavors, by violence or surprise, to commit a felony, or against one who manifestly intends and endeavors, in a violent, riotous or tumultuous manner, to enter the habitation of another for the purpose of offering violence to any person therein...
That's Castle Doctrine. Although it appears that in CA, the entry has to be both unlawful and forceful for the Castle Doctrine to apply, rather than merely unlawful. I'm sure CA case law probably delineates this a bit more clearly, but I don't have access to that.

In any state, the Castle Doctrine does NOT apply if you shoot someone who is merely on your property; it only applies to unlawful entries into an occupied structure (or car, in some states), NOT mere trespassing.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 12:27 AM
Our "Castle" doctrine, as interpreted by local courts, includes the right to not fight and defend youself and if you do hurt the cretins, he gets to sue for loss of income because until you shot him, he was well on his way to medical school and making $2M a year as a brain surgeon, even though he hasn't gotten a GED yet and he spent more time in prisons than at home.

chriso
December 29, 2008, 02:01 AM
HAHA notorious nailed it...

notorious
December 29, 2008, 02:32 AM
Makes a grown man cry.
, no?

chriso
December 29, 2008, 02:54 AM
Yes indeed... What part of ************ are you in notorious???

notorious
December 29, 2008, 03:16 AM
The City of Lost Angels where mayor Villarocorruptus runs the show and has decided to ban 50 cal bullets even though there are really no 50 cal guns sold in the State since 2002.

Doc_Jude
December 29, 2008, 03:59 AM
Stopping power is a myth. All kill/stop shots come down to shot placement. Any caliber out there will stop a zombie with good placement. The fact that you don't want to worry about placement doesn't make it any less real. If you want to be able to simply squeeze the trigger and get a drop, you want something that explodes, not a rifle.

The fact that you said "stopping power is a myth" and then proceeded to cite shot placement on zombies... you lost all credibility. ^_^

Riddle me this: say you accidentally miss the head, and shoot the target in the shoulder. Can you imagine the effect of a supped up .22? Now, imagine catching a .30-06 in the shoulder.

M1 Garand (.30-06 round) w/ muzzle energy around 2700 ft/lbs & the M-16 w/ .223 round & muzzle energy around 1200 ft/lbs. Less than half.

Most of ballistics concerns itself with what equates to stopping power, the appropriate weapon and ammo for the job at hand.

We're talking about STOPPING POWER. If you say it's a myth, you're arguing with a whole mess of experts.

notorious
December 29, 2008, 04:02 AM
If you miss the head of a zombie, it doesn't matter where you hit him really. A hit to the shoulder of a zombie with a 5.56 won't stop him anymore than a 30.06 or 475WinMag or 50BMG. Sure, you might rip an arm off the zombie but he will keep coming. Remember, shot placement is everything with the undead.

innerpiece
December 29, 2008, 08:42 PM
chrisso, right on. it can be hard to read tone from text.. no hard feelings.

Doc Jude. while what you are in favor of is quite obvious.. the .223 has plenty of stopping power. both rounds have pleny of bodies under their belt.
but personally I wouldnt want to get shot anywhere with either.. or anything for that matter. But Im certian a .223 would do much more to the shoulder than you would lead people to believe.. tho I do agree, a 30-06 would likeley do more!

while M&PVolk was quite obviously wrong about stopping power being a myth.. there is really only one place on the human body for a "one shot stop" and its not easy to hit, nor is it garuenteed. I would rather attempt that shot with a 30-06, but Im not a sniper, so Id still preferr the .223 overall.

ip.

Doc_Jude
December 29, 2008, 09:14 PM
...But Im certian a .223 would do much more to the shoulder than you would lead people to believe..

"you would lead people to believe"???? What you mean by that?

chriso
December 29, 2008, 09:28 PM
Haha well thats no worse than stockton :rolleyes:... haha...

High Planes Drifter
December 29, 2008, 09:33 PM
The fact that you said "stopping power is a myth" and then proceeded to cite shot placement on zombies... you lost all credibility. ^_^

Riddle me this: say you accidentally miss the head, and shoot the target in the shoulder. Can you imagine the effect of a supped up .22? Now, imagine catching a .30-06 in the shoulder.




M1 Garand (.30-06 round) w/ muzzle energy around 2700 ft/lbs & the M-16 w/ .223 round & muzzle energy around 1200 ft/lbs. Less than half.

Most of ballistics concerns itself with what equates to stopping power, the appropriate weapon and ammo for the job at hand.

We're talking about STOPPING POWER. If you say it's a myth, you're arguing with a whole mess of experts.

hmmm..... experts also say that shot placement is key. A hit to the foot with a .50 BMG isnt as lethal as a hit to the temple with a .25acp.

Matrix187
December 29, 2008, 09:34 PM
The M1 is obviously alot better through barriers, and is less affected by a crosswind. It's also more reliable with gunk in the action, and is more powerful (durrr).

But both are accurate.

The AR is easier to control, easier to modify to ones liking, lighter, and uses 30 round detachable mags. The .223 is flat shooting on a day without a powerful crosswind, and has plenty of "stopping power" if a hit is made in the upper body.

Overall I think the AR is a better gun. While the .30-06 has more power I think an upper body body shot from either gun will produce the intended results.

HeavenlySword
December 29, 2008, 10:12 PM
A hit to the Head with .308 is win.

G3 For all!

M&PVolk
December 30, 2008, 12:56 AM
Innerpeace wrote:while M&PVolk was quite obviously wrong about stopping power being a myth.. there is really only one place on the human body for a "one shot stop" and its not easy to hit, nor is it garuenteed.

That is my point. When I hear this one shot to any spot on the body creating a stop, it is just plain myth. I am unaware of any 30-06 or .223 ever stopping someone hell bent on your destruction because it delivers more foot pounds of energy. Knockdown is usually a psychological effect. I am not intending to say that a bullet can't "stop someone", but it does so based on shot placement and psychology, not because of a few foot pounds of energy.

FWIW, all the foot pounds of energy in the world don't mean anything without proper yaw or expansion. The bigger and heavier 30-06 will often zip through cleanly, leaving all those foot pounds wasted. A .223 through a proper twist barrel yaws excellently and will fragment creating a massive wound cavity. Again, the military chose this round for a reason.

notorious
December 30, 2008, 04:53 AM
Even with the entire amount of kinetic energy transferred into a body, it would not knock someone down from the physical force.

A person falls down because of shock or of the sudden expansive temporary wound cavity caused by the supersonic pressure waves built up in the body, which is mostly fluid.

A 6" deep permanent wound channel measuring .55 inch wide from a 30-06 would probably have with it at least (conservatively) temporary wound channel more than 10x as wide on average from the speed it carries through the body.

That's what causes the sudden shock that drops someone as the body overloads on the sensory input, not any magic points being hit on the body from 1 projectile.

A person can also fall from pain or a mechanical failure such as if you blew his ankle apart or if you cracked the pelvis but that still leaves him able to fight from a prone position.

Doc_Jude
December 30, 2008, 08:12 AM
hmmm..... experts also say that shot placement is key. A hit to the foot with a .50 BMG isnt as lethal as a hit to the temple with a .25acp.

Is that your scientific opinion?

The AR is easier to control, easier to modify to ones liking, lighter, and uses 30 round detachable mags. The .223 is flat shooting on a day without a powerful crosswind, and has plenty of "stopping power" if a hit is made in the upper body.

... & yet imagine the enemy wearing flak & LBV full of loaded steel mags. How's your "stopping power" now? It might tickle a lil' bit, but...

A 6" deep permanent wound channel measuring .55 inch wide from a 30-06 would probably have with it at least (conservatively) temporary wound channel more than 10x as wide on average from the speed it carries through the body.

That's what causes the sudden shock that drops someone as the body overloads on the sensory input, not any magic points being hit on the body from 1 projectile.

YES. This is the reason so many in the military are begging for upping to the 6.8, the 5.56 just ain't doing it. Any little bit of increase in BALLISTIC PERFORMANCE will help, esp since they won't have to replace mags, just barrels and a few other bits.
& I'm not saying that you can shoot someone in the foot with a .308 for "stopping power". The goal is for the enemy to go down NOW, ending any further threat. The same shot, to the same anatomical structures, will be much more effective with a .30+caliber than a .223. It's not complicated. Imagine a .223 compared to a .308 or .30-06 running by the liver. The cavitation from the average .223 would require a very close pass to rupture the liver, but a .30-06 wouldn't have to be near as close, especially a hollow point.
The .30-06 was the standard military rifle round for almost half a century BECAUSE IT WORKS. The .223 was choses for various reasons, some of them being "greater ammo capacity" (read: spray & pray) & lack of lethality ("more humane"), hence the 5.56NATO. It's A VARMIT ROUND. If I can't legally hunt large 150-200lb game with it, why in the world would I want to shoot at a 150-200lb armed&armored (& possibly drugged up) enemy combatant with it???

JImbothefiveth
December 30, 2008, 08:54 AM
Just to throw something in to the mix: What about a tanker Garand?

amprecon
December 30, 2008, 11:46 AM
Why is it that fans of the .223 are always trying to convince everyone else how great and necessary the .223 is?
Why is it that this is not necessary from those that favor the .30-06?

DarkCharisma
December 30, 2008, 12:09 PM
77gr. 5.56mm will do some damage--big reason why (according to the rumor mill) that the military is not pushing for the 6.8mm anymore--It wasn't a big enough increase in 'stopping power' over a good 77gr. 5.56mm.

Regardless, .223 and 30-06 is going to do some nice damage. I've asked for first-hand accounts from a military friend stationed in Afganistan, he says that there is no lack of stopping power with the 5.56mm against fleshy or Kevlar-protected targets. Take that with however much salt you wish.

wrxguyusa
December 30, 2008, 12:22 PM
M1 garand might be better for hunting big game than the AR, but much worse than a cheaper bolt gun.

The AR15 is better for its flexibility and manueverability to quickly engage targets in close-quarters such as a civilian defense scenario. 30rnd magazines:evil:

AR10 or M1A would be my choices if I had to go for a bigger semi-auto.

Matrix187
December 30, 2008, 12:54 PM
... & yet imagine the enemy wearing flak & LBV full of loaded steel mags. How's your "stopping power" now? It might tickle a lil' bit, but...
Then you proceed to use your attached m203 and lob a 40mm grenade his way:neener:

.308
December 30, 2008, 02:08 PM
I voted garand because there's no option for an M1A. Although a garand is a very good rifle and can be had cheaply.

notorious
December 30, 2008, 02:22 PM
I never had a gun in 30-06, shot a few, never had one. Don't see a need for it because I already have a .308 bolt gun and two ARs. But... if I had one I wouldn't feel undergunned by any means and if I had 2 Garands instead of 2 ARs, I would say the same about not having a need for a 5.56.

It all boils down to personal preference and shot placement.

Doc_Jude
December 30, 2008, 08:10 PM
Then you proceed to use your attached m203 and lob a 40mm grenade his way

No, I don't... because I don't shoot .223

mordechaianiliewicz
December 30, 2008, 08:14 PM
Got to go with the AR-15. 20 and 30 (and more) rd. mags

Roughly equal accuracy.

Sites are about as good whether AR or M-1 Garand.

Granted, I'd love both.

Basically, you make it M-1A and this becomes a real argument, but we aren't talking about that. We are talking about a rifle with only 8 rounds, no top off, and very poor scoping characteristics.

vs.

A modern rifle, with high cap mags, better ergonomics, and more accessory potential.

gunmaker2872
December 30, 2008, 08:30 PM
id rather get shot in the shoulder by a 30 06 than a 223, why do you think they call the 223 the poison bullet? it may go in the shoulder but who know's where it will end up

Kansan
December 30, 2008, 08:33 PM
That's a good point, Gunmaker, especially concerning Zombies. If you use .223 and miss the head, it may fragment and end up in the head. For zombies, .223 = +1

gunmaker2872
December 30, 2008, 08:57 PM
Well said Kanson, zombies beware of my AR:evil:

M&PVolk
December 31, 2008, 02:04 AM
Amprecon wrote: Why is it that fans of the .223 are always trying to convince everyone else how great and necessary the .223 is?
Why is it that this is not necessary from those that favor the .30-06?


Actually, I think you have it backwards. Fans of the .223 already know how great a round it is...the military backs that opinion up.

Fans of the 30-06, OTOH, seem to feel it necessary to bash the .223 as insufficient. I say it is just wounded feelings because the military has long since moved on from the 30-06 and they somehow feel they have to defend their pet caliber.

.223 guys just get tired of the internet commando and armchair ballistics experts continually stoking the rumormill with false info.

notorious
December 31, 2008, 06:08 AM
That's a good point, Gunmaker, especially concerning Zombies. If you use .223 and miss the head, it may fragment and end up in the head. For zombies, .223 = +1

Key point with zombies in a Class 3 or 4 outbreak is not outright power of the cartridge but that you can carry more rounds in a lighter rifle. Weight of cartridges and ease of portability of the rounds and rifle matter too.

As long as the .223 will go through the skull and take out the solanum infected brain, it's good enough.

I'd rather carry a 6 pound AR with 600 rounds in 20 loaded magazines than a 10 pound Garand with 400 rounds in 50 en bloc clips.

That's not denigrating the power or venerability of the Garand, but it's just a matter of practicality.

chriso
December 31, 2008, 02:58 PM
It's kind of like a guy with short man syndrom... haha... .223 is not bad but there is no argument that 30-06 is indeed a man stopper...

missouri dave
December 31, 2008, 03:34 PM
Depends on what I'm gonna do with it. For home defense neither one is my first choice. For outdoors CQB definately the AR but again other options would be preferred. For general purpose hunting/fighting my slightly modified garand tanker scout.

notorious
December 31, 2008, 05:44 PM
Yeah, shooting zombies is one thing, but good against Mutant Lobster Men, that's something else altogether.

Hey! I've got a great idea for a new thread!!!

Which would you rather have?
a) SPOON
b) FORK

Oh wait, that doesn't include those who want to talk about SPATULAS. Nevermind.

Mutant lobster men (MLM)? You mean like Zoidberg on Futurama? Now you're just getting a bit far from reality... now zombies... those things are real.

But for the sake of argument... I would take neither the fork nor spoon against the MLM... I would pick the claw cracker utensil and I would take them apart, shell by shell.

chriso
December 31, 2008, 05:53 PM
I would boil them first... and listen to them scream... haha...

notorious
December 31, 2008, 06:10 PM
Next poll:

Drawn butter v. cocktail sauce

chriso
December 31, 2008, 07:38 PM
What if you like both???

notorious
December 31, 2008, 08:12 PM
The tanker Garand and the jungle carbine are both very cool guns too.

notorious
December 31, 2008, 08:23 PM
You like them both equally? Not even like one by a fraction of a percent more?

MT GUNNY
December 31, 2008, 08:29 PM
Really Depends on the Use.
I Also would love to have a a Socom in Snow camo, it would instantly become my go to Coyote Rifle.
I voted AR , only to bring it more Even.

ccsniper
December 31, 2008, 08:38 PM
i have neither, but a friend has an AR, and another friend has a garand. i would rather have a garand.

notorious
December 31, 2008, 09:17 PM
Yes, the Socom II in snow camo... Springfield sucks... their new full color spread with that gun is psychological warfare against the consumer at its finest.

I'll be eating ramen for 3 months to save up for that gun.

4v50 Gary
December 31, 2008, 09:19 PM
AR is a more practical rifle. It can also be lighter - provided you don't put on all the do-dads and convert it into a crew fed weapon system.

MT GUNNY
December 31, 2008, 09:24 PM
http://www.springfield-armory.com/armory.php?version=30

90182 Snowcom II :)

notorious
December 31, 2008, 09:30 PM
I hate you... there goes the rest of the night browsing all the possible configurations for my next gun.

If you enjoyed reading about "Garand vs. AR" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!