Nolo
Member
Those are both out of 20" barrels, I believe.
Do you think the Garand is obsolete?
- Thread starter DMK
- Start date
- Status
Houston Tom
Member
THere is no doubt that the Garand is an effective weapon.
THere are however so many variables when you consider what is the most effective weapon, THe nautue of combat has changed and continues to change constantly, to some extent changes are driven by technology and is some case technology changes because of the nature of of combat and tactics. Throw in variables like terrain the situation ie one man defending his home against goblins or a group defending their camp.
The Garand and its ansestors may not be the optium weapon for many of those situtations, but you could be worse armed than if you were holding a garand
THere are however so many variables when you consider what is the most effective weapon, THe nautue of combat has changed and continues to change constantly, to some extent changes are driven by technology and is some case technology changes because of the nature of of combat and tactics. Throw in variables like terrain the situation ie one man defending his home against goblins or a group defending their camp.
The Garand and its ansestors may not be the optium weapon for many of those situtations, but you could be worse armed than if you were holding a garand
Nolo
Member
That is true, Tom. It is certainly far from what I would call obsolete. And I believe that tactics can be whatever you want them to be, as long as you implement them properly and account for their weaknesses.
General Geoff
Member
Battle is a highly fluid situation; the soldier is the element that adapts, not the hardware. The rifle is a relatively inflexible tool, and once you try to make it do too much that it wasn't designed for, it begins to demonstrate its inadequacies. This can be shown if you try to use a Garand while clearing a building, or try to use an M4 to engage soldiers holding out in a trench 1000 yards away.
Samuraigg
Member
The Garand IS a fearsome weapon. Does it have drawbacks? Yes, of course. Serious drawbacks? I say no. I think people give the gun too much grief over the enbloc clips. I'm starting to actually prefer the enblocs over regular magazines.
Nolo
Member
Samuraigg, I prefer en-blocs as well, but I wouldn't force them upon modern soldiers.
I have to disagree (not with that statement, though. I think the requirements of the War Department were just under the .30-06 in capability, however.). The .30-06 that the Garand used was downloaded from its maximum capability. Why? A kind of silly reason, really: The military ranges were to short. The range of the more powerful .30-06 was being used on ranges designed for the .30-03 and .30 Krag, and so they were overshooting past the range property. So, it is quite possible that the military .30-06 that was being used in 1951 was equivalent to the .308. However, a fully loaded .30-06 and a fully loaded .308 are significantly different cartridges in performance. And I vote on the higher performance for a classic rifle.
General Geoff
Member
Use .30-06 with a hotter load than standard military ball in a Garand, and tell me what happens after a few clips.
Going by your logic, I would argue that .303 is superiour to .30-06 and .308, because it has even MORE cartridge capacity, and can be loaded even HOTTER, in a bolt gun with a strong enough action.
The bottom line is that the weight saved by a shorter action and lighter cartridges is more valuable even with rifleman tactics than any theoretical extra range/punch that a hot-loaded .30-06 cartridge may provide.
Going by your logic, I would argue that .303 is superiour to .30-06 and .308, because it has even MORE cartridge capacity, and can be loaded even HOTTER, in a bolt gun with a strong enough action.
The bottom line is that the weight saved by a shorter action and lighter cartridges is more valuable even with rifleman tactics than any theoretical extra range/punch that a hot-loaded .30-06 cartridge may provide.
Samuraigg
Member
Oh, yeah, I meant just for my own civilian use.
Nolo
Member
It depends how fast you're shooting them.
Are you blasting it on bump fire or are you taking your time and aiming like a good rifleman?
It makes a difference.
The load is not hot per se, but it was more powerful. Modern .30-06s have the same performance.
And I'm only talking about standard loads for these cartridges, I'm not talking about anything special. I didn't know that .303 had more cartridge capacity than .30-06? That's weird, they must load it really lightly, because it's performance is significantly lower. That would probably make it a virtual brother to 7.62x54R.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to improve on the .30-06, it is. But I consider the .30-06 and the .308 to be two different and distinct animals.
And a rifleman with a .308 Garand would be well served, no doubt about that. But if I were in charge of the armarments of an army and I was using classic rifleman tactics, I'd choose .30-06.
Are you blasting it on bump fire or are you taking your time and aiming like a good rifleman?
It makes a difference.
The load is not hot per se, but it was more powerful. Modern .30-06s have the same performance.
And I'm only talking about standard loads for these cartridges, I'm not talking about anything special. I didn't know that .303 had more cartridge capacity than .30-06? That's weird, they must load it really lightly, because it's performance is significantly lower. That would probably make it a virtual brother to 7.62x54R.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to improve on the .30-06, it is. But I consider the .30-06 and the .308 to be two different and distinct animals.
And a rifleman with a .308 Garand would be well served, no doubt about that. But if I were in charge of the armarments of an army and I was using classic rifleman tactics, I'd choose .30-06.
General Geoff
Member
They load it lighter because most rifles chambered for .30-03 can't withstand higher chamber pressures that a hotter loading would create.
Like I said, try firing "modern" .30-06 loads in a Garand, and tell me what happens (If you didn't know, you'll bend some parts related to the gas system).
edit; also, replace .303 with .30-03. My mix-up.
Like I said, try firing "modern" .30-06 loads in a Garand, and tell me what happens (If you didn't know, you'll bend some parts related to the gas system).
edit; also, replace .303 with .30-03. My mix-up.
Nolo
Member
Interesting.
Then the ultimate Garand would have a stronger gas system. I do know that the Garand designed after the .30-06 was downloaded (they did that with the M1903 Springfield, not to mention the Garand was designed initially for a .276 caliber cartridge, so they'd only strengthen it as much as they had to.), so that doesn't surprise me.
However, I still believe firmly in my magazine argument. It's the same reason that all M16s aren't equipped with Beta-C mags. They shouldn't be carrying all that weight on the actual weapon itself.
Oh, yes, .30-03, I knew that. It's, like, a few millimeters longer, right? But nobody uses .30-03 anymore, so nobody would load them "hot" (i.e. like a modern cartridge).
Then the ultimate Garand would have a stronger gas system. I do know that the Garand designed after the .30-06 was downloaded (they did that with the M1903 Springfield, not to mention the Garand was designed initially for a .276 caliber cartridge, so they'd only strengthen it as much as they had to.), so that doesn't surprise me.
However, I still believe firmly in my magazine argument. It's the same reason that all M16s aren't equipped with Beta-C mags. They shouldn't be carrying all that weight on the actual weapon itself.
Oh, yes, .30-03, I knew that. It's, like, a few millimeters longer, right? But nobody uses .30-03 anymore, so nobody would load them "hot" (i.e. like a modern cartridge).
General Geoff
Member
It's not a stronger gas system you're looking for, it's a differently calibrated one.
See, the problem with (gas operated) autoloaders is that they're designed to cycle properly within a very narrow pressure range. Change that pressure by swapping to hotter ammo, you bend an op rod. Use lighter loads, and the gun will fail to cycle.
You have to stick to a very narrow load range with ammunition to keep the rifle cycling properly unless you have a variable gas system with an adjustable valve or thereabouts.
See, the problem with (gas operated) autoloaders is that they're designed to cycle properly within a very narrow pressure range. Change that pressure by swapping to hotter ammo, you bend an op rod. Use lighter loads, and the gun will fail to cycle.
You have to stick to a very narrow load range with ammunition to keep the rifle cycling properly unless you have a variable gas system with an adjustable valve or thereabouts.
Nolo
Member
I'm sorry, that was my verbal error. I realize that you have gas systems calibrated for certain ranges. Do they make adjustable gas systems for Garands? That would fix the problem. But yeah, the ideal Garand (in my eyes) would be calibrated for the hotter loads.
General Geoff
Member
yes, as a matter of fact you can get adjustable gas valves for the Garand. 
I see what you're getting at, but the .30-06 is not the do-all end all cartridge you make it out to be. Ballistically speaking, a Garand in .276 Pedersen is superiour to the .30-06 in almost all ways. Weighs less per cartridge too. If you're looking for more brute force, something in like .300 winchester magnum would suit your purposes better.. but at the expense of ammo capacity and weight. It's all a compromise.
Since the .308 matches .30-06 performance in military ball configuration, and weighs less per cartridge and provides for inherently better cycling in autoloading designs, I'd stick with that over any slight advantages .30-06 provides.
The ONLY reason the Garand used .30-06 is because they didn't have time to engineer a suitable shorter cartridge in time for the war..
I see what you're getting at, but the .30-06 is not the do-all end all cartridge you make it out to be. Ballistically speaking, a Garand in .276 Pedersen is superiour to the .30-06 in almost all ways. Weighs less per cartridge too. If you're looking for more brute force, something in like .300 winchester magnum would suit your purposes better.. but at the expense of ammo capacity and weight. It's all a compromise.
Since the .308 matches .30-06 performance in military ball configuration, and weighs less per cartridge and provides for inherently better cycling in autoloading designs, I'd stick with that over any slight advantages .30-06 provides.
The ONLY reason the Garand used .30-06 is because they didn't have time to engineer a suitable shorter cartridge in time for the war..
Nolo
Member
Do-all, end-all? Oh, no. It does one thing, and one thing well. For an MG, I'd prefer the .308 almost all the time, the only exception being a door gunner on a helicopter. And yes, the .276 Pederson (it's magnum class), would be better, but it doesn't exist anymore.
I'd be interested to see a Garand in .300 Magnum, though.
I'd be interested to see a Garand in .300 Magnum, though.
General Geoff
Member
Interested in a Garand-like rifle in .300WM?
Buy a BAR.
Buy a BAR.
Nolo
Member
BARs come in...
Oh, you mean the civvie BAR, not the M1918.
Hehehehe... Shows where my mind lives
Oh, you mean the civvie BAR, not the M1918.
Hehehehe... Shows where my mind lives
General Geoff
Member
Well from your arguments, it sounds like you want a lightweight autoloading rifle with a box magazine that fires a magnum rifle cartridge.
To be honest, the only rifle that fits that description that I can think of is a (commercial) BAR.
To be honest, the only rifle that fits that description that I can think of is a (commercial) BAR.
Houston Tom
Member
Nolo, I would agree the Garand is not obsolete, would not want to clear a house (note many a GI did it in WW2) with it but if I'm guarding the house and have a large approach then it would do just fine
Gen Geoff,
I agree that the soldier must be adapt and battle is fluid, but the nature of warfare has driven weapons to change and the weapons of choice to change. IF you compare the changes is warfare from ww1 to ww2. IT was obivious that the tactics used in ww1 (western front) could not be repeated. as a result the germans developed the Blitz, and developed weapons to support that type of warfare. An example is that the Geramsn had a long range bomber capable of reaching the US but because of their commitment to the blitz they put their resources toward close ground support aircraft. They really did not push the development of the battle rifle even though they had what was the first assult rifle, because the blitz called for the machine gun to be the primary weapon of the german infanty squad and the riflemen were there to support the MG. So they developed great Mgs and sub mgs and and the bulk of their army carried a bolt action rifle. THis is what I meant that tactice can drive weapon development.
Gen Geoff,
I agree that the soldier must be adapt and battle is fluid, but the nature of warfare has driven weapons to change and the weapons of choice to change. IF you compare the changes is warfare from ww1 to ww2. IT was obivious that the tactics used in ww1 (western front) could not be repeated. as a result the germans developed the Blitz, and developed weapons to support that type of warfare. An example is that the Geramsn had a long range bomber capable of reaching the US but because of their commitment to the blitz they put their resources toward close ground support aircraft. They really did not push the development of the battle rifle even though they had what was the first assult rifle, because the blitz called for the machine gun to be the primary weapon of the german infanty squad and the riflemen were there to support the MG. So they developed great Mgs and sub mgs and and the bulk of their army carried a bolt action rifle. THis is what I meant that tactice can drive weapon development.
Houston Tom
Member
Do they still make the Remington 7400? I have one in 30-06 I am not sure what Cals it comes /came in and it is a detach amg semi
Nolo
Member
No, it doesn't have to fire a magnum rifle cartridge, just something with good long range capability and probably nothing under 7mm. .276 Pederson was ideal, but the Army wanted to stick with .30-06. If you know of a virtual duplicate of the .276 Pederson, then that's what I'd want the ideal Garand to be chambered for.
Let me just lay down the requirements I'd have for a classic infantry rifle:
-Must hold no less than 8 rounds, preferably 12, of ammunition in a detachable magazine that protrudes no farther than 3" from the rifle, preferably no more than 2".
-Must be capable of semiautomatic fire.
-Must be able to shoot a 150 grain projectile at no less than 3,000 f/s.
-Must be under 11 pounds.
That's basically it. Note that this is for the ideal rifle, and these are not necessarily the requirements I'd give if I were in charge of that sort of thing. They're really goals, not requirements.
Let me just lay down the requirements I'd have for a classic infantry rifle:
-Must hold no less than 8 rounds, preferably 12, of ammunition in a detachable magazine that protrudes no farther than 3" from the rifle, preferably no more than 2".
-Must be capable of semiautomatic fire.
-Must be able to shoot a 150 grain projectile at no less than 3,000 f/s.
-Must be under 11 pounds.
That's basically it. Note that this is for the ideal rifle, and these are not necessarily the requirements I'd give if I were in charge of that sort of thing. They're really goals, not requirements.
General Geoff
Member
7mm Remington Magnum sounds like your dream cartridge.
Nolo
Member
Probably.
I haven't really looked at it.
I haven't really looked at it.
General Geoff
Member
3000fps, 160gr bullet is a typical loading. Superiour long range ballistics to .30-06.
- Status
