Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Do you think the Garand is obsolete?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by DMK, Aug 10, 2007.

?

Is the garand still an effective weapon?

  1. Absolutely! It's a fearsome weapon.

    185 vote(s)
    45.1%
  2. It's an effective weapon, but has some serious drawbacks

    192 vote(s)
    46.8%
  3. No way. It's only suitable for museums and surplus rifle matches.

    33 vote(s)
    8.0%
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    Do you think the M1 Garand is still an effective service weapon, or is it a relic, only suitable for range use and museums?
     
  2. JamesM

    JamesM Member

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2007
    Messages:
    182
    I hope not. I just sent in an order to CMP......:D. You dont see many new semi-autos in 30-06.
     
  3. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    You're assuming that a bolt action is obsolete. Tell that to our snipers over in Iraq. ;)
     
  4. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    That's a special purpose weapon.
     
  5. MikeG

    MikeG Member

    Joined:
    Nov 8, 2003
    Messages:
    201
    Location:
    Pueblo West Colorado
    IMHO, both the Garand and the bolt action are effective weapons.

    Just because the 2008 model autos are out, it doesn't mean the 2005s are junk.
     
  6. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Special purpose or not, they are far from obsolete.

    A .30-06 slug from a Garand will kill you just as dead as .223 or .308.



    For what it's worth, in my opinion any firearm chambered for a smokeless powder cartridge (that is still commercially produced) is "current," to the effect that it's not obsolete.
     
  7. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    In my opinion, the Garand is the ultimate bolt-action rifle (I know it isn't a bolt-action, but it acts alot like one). Think about it. It's just about as accurate as all the old ones, has a higher capacity than nearly all of them (SMLE excluded), and it has an automatic followup. It's bloody perfect. If I ever had to go into battle with an honest-to-God rifle, the Garand would be it. It's really the last rifle the US ever fielded. After the Garand, riflemanship became less important. Suddenly, you had the full-auto capability and the move to different tactics. It's the last of its breed. And a one of a kind.
    Yes, the Garand is still effective. If you use it like you should.
     
  8. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    As will a 45-70 out of a Rolling Block, but I would rather not be armed with one of those in a battle or disaster area if I had the choice.
     
  9. Regolith

    Regolith Member

    Joined:
    Jul 2, 2007
    Messages:
    1,365
    Location:
    Nevada & Oregon
    As an infantry rifle? Yes. As a special purpose or hunting rifle? Nope.
     
  10. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    I'm sure you'd damn well rather have a .45-70 out of rolling block than a brand new Glock though, wouldn't you?


    edit; yes I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but an old .45-70 rifle is still better as an infantry weapon than many "modern" firearms. It all comes down to the definition of obsolete.
     
  11. pdowg881

    pdowg881 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2006
    Messages:
    1,103
    Location:
    Southern NH
    I see the en bloc clip as a drawback. With a box mag it's pretty much perfect. Nolo, you don't consider the m14 as a rifle? In my opinion, the M14 took the almost perfect garand and made it absolutely perfect.
     
  12. DMK

    DMK Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    8,797
    Location:
    Over the hills and far, far away
    If I was facing three attackers at under 50 yards? I'd rather have the Glock. ;)

    Actually, I'd rather have my Garand than either of those choices. :p
    (Or an M14/M1A, or a 30-30 lever action, or a ....)
     
  13. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    From a universal standpoint, there are two main types of obsolescence. Technical and functional.

    Technical obsolescence means that a product is no longer on par with the specifications and precise capabilities of contemporary products made for the same purpose. In this definition, the Garand is obsolete.

    Functional obsolescence means that a product can no longer do what it's designed to do, for example a phonograph can no longer be used to play most contemporary music. Hence it is functionally obsolete. The Garand, whose function is to shoot and kill enemy soldiers, will still do so with a willing operator. Hence it is not functionally obsolete.
     
  14. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    The Garand can't be obsolete in the technical sense, because its role has effectively died out.
    Nobody arms their military with high powered, accurate, long range rifles, which is what the Garand is, anymore. We're in the age of the assault rifle now (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and the classic rifle is dead. As for the M14? The M14, in my opinion, is the ultimate pointless beaurocratic hybrid mess. What I'm saying is, the higher ups in the Army stuck with their 3,000-ft range requirement from the old bolt-action days, and, when the people designing the test rifles tried to put the next foot forward (the next foot being the assault rifle), they wouldn't have it. Thus the FAL (in 7.62x51mm) as we know it today and the M14 were born. Both were strange "Battle Rifles" that had full-auto but weren't really capable of using it properly. The M14 was chosen because it was American and was the son of the Garand. And thus it was born. This is not to say that the M14 is a bad rifle, because it's not. But its design was confused, trying to be as close to an assault rifle as possible, while still being based off the Garand and still satisfying the US military brass. The M14 is a good rifle on semiauto, but not the best at either job. Like I said, its design was confused.
    Anyway, the ultimate Garand would not be the M14. The ultimate Garand would be in .30-06, it would have either a 10- or 15- round detachable box magazine (I don't like those en-bloc clips either) and that would really be the extent of the changes. They got extremely close to that with the T44 (I think that's it, it was the Garand that almost got fielded at the end of WWII, it used the BAR's magazine), and that was never fielded. And its magazine was too large. Too much weight for that job.
     
  15. MrTuffPaws

    MrTuffPaws Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2004
    Messages:
    1,511
    Location:
    Az
    The Garand was obsolete with the introduction of the assault rifle. It it wasn't, we would still be issuing it.
     
  16. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    That makes no sense, as the .308 is in all ways a superiour cartridge to the .30-06 in this scenario. Shorter case length equals less weight and bulk, with identical ballistic performance and lethality. 10 or 15 round box mags are readily available for the M14/M1A. Presto, you have your ultimate Garand. It's called the M14 (minus the selector switch)/M1A.
     
  17. Evil Monkey

    Evil Monkey member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,486
    The Garand is TACTICALLY obsolete. It does not fit with modern tactics they way intermediate cartridge assault rifles do. Even mag fed battle rifles are not the best weapons to use with modern tactics, but they're much better than the Garand. Therefore, as a fighting weapon for a modern military, it is totally obsolete.
     
  18. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,375
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    Ask yourself this Do you want to be sent into a place where people are trying to KILL you armed with a 10lb rifle that only holds 8 shots of an ammunition you can only carry a limited quantity of due to weight.

    I don't
     
  19. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    The biggest argument for them being tactically/militarily obsolete is that .30-06 ammunition is no longer a part of the military supply chain.

    If a Special Forces guy requested a Garand for a specific mission, his superiours would probably laugh at him (I wonder if they'd allow it though...)


    If the enemy is 500+ yards away? Absolutely.
     
  20. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    The .308 does not have identical ballistics to .30-06.
    .30-06 does about 3,000 f/s with a 150 grain bullet.
    .308 does about 2,800 f/s with the same bullet.
    Thus, the .30-06 is slightly more capable. And that small amount of increased capability is necessary in the Garand's role. As for the 20-round magazines, that's really the M14 trying to be an assault rifle. The absolute maximum magazine capacity for a classic military rifle should be 15 rounds. Why? Two reasons. One, there aren't many 20-round magazines that I know of that allow you to go very low prone, which can be important to a rifleman. Two, in a rifleman's position, he shouldn't need more than 15 rounds to do the job, and any more would just weigh his rifle down. Now, that does not mean that the rifleman carries less rounds than someone armed with a battle rifle, because he does carry as much. It just means that the weight is one his body, not his gun, which alleviates his arms and hands and ultimately allows him to aim better, helping him get off more effective shots.
    Now, if I were trying to build the Garand into a battle rifle, I'd just make the M14. It does that admirably. However, it is important to understand that the battle rifle was born because of stupid beaurocracy that merely got in the way of the adoption of the assault rifle. Now, after the fact, we figured out how to use battle rifles effectively, and all was well. But a battle rifle and a classic rifleman's rifle are two distinct (but close) things. The Garand is a classic rifle (and the best in existence, really), and the M14 is a battle rifle (and a good one, but I have to think the FAL is better).
    Anyway, for its role, the Garand is the best. It's not perfect, but there aren't many changes I can suggest to make it better. Oh, and just because classic rifleman tactics aren't being used anymore doesn't mean they aren't effective. It's just that no one has decided to pick them up from where they left off (which was with the Garand).
    I'd do it.
     
  21. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    Tell that to the war department. The 7.62x51mm round was DESIGNED to match the external ballistics of the .30-06 with standard 150gr ball.


    If someone has a Garand and a .308 chamber adapter, and a chronograph handy, could they please confirm/deny that they're virtually identical with military ball?

    And as for magazine capacity, use a 15-round mag in an M14/M1A. Problem solved.
     
  22. R.W.Dale

    R.W.Dale Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2005
    Messages:
    11,375
    Location:
    Northwest Arkansas
    That's what the 20mm cannon and M2 is for.
     
  23. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    I absolutely agree with General Geoff on his last post.
    Y'know what's interesting, we do that today. We still send people into combat with weapons that have a maximum capacity of 8 rounds, and they weigh upwards of ten pounds, and those people are some of the most feared combatants in the current conflict.
    They carry shotguns.
    So you can remedy the shortcomings of your weapon by using the right tactics.
    That's how all tactics work, because your weapons won't do everything you ask them to. It's all just a matter of which tactics you want to embrace. Me? I'm actually quite partial to classic rifleman tactics. And CQB shotgun tactics. They complement each other quite well.
     
  24. General Geoff

    General Geoff Member

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2006
    Messages:
    5,065
    Location:
    Allentown, Pennsylvania
    You asked a question and I answered it. That's all.


    edit; Nolo, a very slight discrepency of muzzle velocity between the M14 and Garand may be attributed to the fact that the Garand's barrel is 2" longer (24" compared to 22" for a standard M14). Just a thought..
     
  25. Nolo

    Nolo Member

    Joined:
    Jul 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,624
    Location:
    Galveston, TX
    Sure, that's how our current tactics remedy that problem. But it wouldn't work that way if you used a different set of tactics.
    Contrary to popular belief, the popular things aren't the most effective things. If they were, every NATO country in the world would be armed with FALs chambered for the 7mm EM2 cartridge, and would have been that way for the past 50 years. Actually, what tends to happen is all the little lemming countries follow a bigger country (in almost all cases, either the US or the Soviet Union), at least in ammunition, which is enough to basically globalize a certain tactic. The fact that the world has basically chosen assault rifle tactics is because they found favor (eventually). It's not because they are inherently more effective than any other type of tactic.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page