Garand or AK47 which is more reliable?

[esldude]

Two most reliable semi-auto's I have seen. Never have had my hands on a full auto AK.

I am speaking of a Garand in good working order. Not some Korean re-import with an unknown amount of wear and abuse.

Both have been fully reliable in my limited experience. Just wonder what other's have seen.

 

[victory]

i'd have to place my vote for the AK. Much looser tolerences than the M1

 

[Wildalaska]

AK47...Garands require maintenance...AKs dont

WilddifferenttacticalbackgroundsAlaska

 

[chevrofreak]

The AK is probably more reliable from a design standpoint, but the M1 Garand only holds 8 rounds, so it would take some quick hands to keep the gun firing long enough for the heat to cause a malfunction.

I dont know *** i'm walking about.....

 

[VG]

AK-47, or AKM?

 

[Ash]

Or AKMS?

 

[psyopspec]

Some of the AK's we confiscated in Iraq looked like they hadn't been cleaned in decades. Couldn't do that with a Garand; in a head's up competition to see what could stand the most abuse or fire the most rounds before failing, the Garand would go from "good working order" to "useless hunk of metal" much faster than the AK.

 

[mfree]

Having neither I'm relying on secondhand info, but...

The M1 requires a certain "class" of round, nothing with a wide pressure curve like aftermarket hunting ammo or you'll bend the guide rod.

The AK action will take pretty much anything that'll fit in the chamber.

My vote would have to be AK.

BUT... they aren't made for the same purpose, it's apples vs. oranges.

 

[PATH]

AK.AKS, and all other variants are more reliable in my opinion. They take a lickin and keep on tickin as it were. The Garand is a far more accurate firearm though.

 

[BigG]

Imho, you have apples and oranges in that the M1 was a first generation gas operated autoloader while the Kalashnikov benefited from John Browning's work, John C. Garand's work and the work of unnamed Germans who built the Sturmgewehr. While light years ahead of the competing bolt actions fielded by the competition and allies, the Garand has its foibles, while the Kalashnikov is robust and trouble free. YMMV, jmtc, etc.

 

[MrMurphy]

The AK wins, but the Garand is quite reliable on it's own with proper ammo. I've spoken to WW2 and Korea vets and some of those rifles got dunked, covered in mud, frozen shut, etc and just kept on ticking. SLA Marshall's little group of interviewers who went around questioning troops in WW2, Korea, Vietnam, etc said in Korea, all the troops were basically happy with the reliability accuracy and hitting power of the M1 and had no complaints about it, they just wished it was a little lighter I think.

 

[pauli]

mean rounds fired before failure isn't as interesting as mean hits on target before failure

 

[AF_INT1N0]

Some of the AK's we confiscated in Iraq looked like they hadn't been cleaned in decades.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

They probably weren't. But then again they got alot of dust there.

Too bad you can't take trophys anymore.

BTW why can't we take trophys anymore?

 

[ARperson]

I'd vote AK for most reliable, but the Garand most likely to put a round on target first at anything beyond 300 yards. Of course, the latter may be a result of complete inability to shoot well with notch sights.

 

[Swamprabbit]

I ditto the apples-and-oranges point on this one. The Garand is notable not for it's reliability compared to ALL battle/assault rifles but for it's innovation and reliability as compared to it's contemporaries. The rifle was introduced in 1939 in an age of early 1900's styled bolt actions and compared to them, it really shined. Rifles desgined later got to build on what was learned with the Garand.

Don't get me wrong here, I truly love the Garand and even today, would not feel greatly undergunned with one. It is reliable enough and with a handy supply of enbloc clips, you can still send a lot of rounds down range in short order and the rifle will go bang everytime.