Two very different types of rifles. Cannt compare.
True enough.
Which one do you like?
And what does "multi-purpose" mean?
Some say "but its heavier" if you are not able to comfortably carry 9lbs on a sling, than you prob aren't physically fit enough to go hunting.
Clearly a flatlander. I'll leave it at that.
Garands going up in price not down, no more are being made.
Last I checked, I could buy a new one from Springfield. The CMP is just authentic and cheaper, if pretty beat-up.
I think every American should own and learn the history of the M1 Garand.
And I think that every American should be skilled at shooting a sidelock muzzleloader. So?
Seriously, these guns are very different. It depends on what "multi-purpose" means to you.
The Catch-22 of an AR is that, while you can turn it into just about anything, it isn't necessarily cheaper to do that than to buy a bunch of rifles.
E.g. a lot of people balk at spending $500 on a really nice, fun, quality .22 rifle like a Marlin 39A or one of the Brownings or the nice Remingtons (552, 572). But just a Spike's Tactical .22LR upper, without sights, runs $550. So don't think that having this modular platform is some big money saver, 'cause it's not.
Of the two rifles, I own an AR -- a relatively heavy one, actually. I have friends with Garands, so I get to shoot one without having to own it.
I'd gladly take both rifles if they were given to me. 25 or 30 of each. But again, that ain't the question.