Sand & Mud: Which Would Function Better - Garand or M16?

[Justin]

It just occured to me that the M16 and Garand, a hot topic for a favorite, need to be compared with regards to some "battlefield" conditions. I think the Garand would be far superior to the M16 in harsh conditions. This is important in a fighting rifle, but not so much for people who never take a gun into Harm's Way (match shooters, casual shooters, etc). Anyone with hands on experiences with the M16 or M1 Garand in combat where severe conditions have affected the weapon?

I'm not a soldier. I've never been in a firefight. I've never been deployed to another country, nor have I had to fire shots at an enemy who is also trying to kill me.

Since I have no experience with such things, it would be fairly stupid of me to even attempt to give an opinion on what rifle would be the best choice for combat.

Since I have nothing substantial to say on the topic of a combat rifle for conducting war in the 21st century, I'm going to have to defer to the experts at the Defense Department and assume that they know more about testing and evaluating combat rifles than I do, and that their expertise probably outweighs mine on the subject.

 

[Robert]

Justin for the win!

 

[Al Thompson]

SDM, as regards mud, I tromped around Germany in the '80's. Mud was a constant as was rain. We never had any major issues keeping our rifle functioning. If you rifle/SAW/M60 got muddy, water was actually the quickest way to get it up and running.

 

[wombat13]

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...4292-2,00.html

The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles ... failed this test."

Interesting. It proves that under severe conditions a bolt rifle is more reliable than a semi-auto. Was that ever in dispute in this thread?

 

[7.62mm.ak47]

I was an 0311 in the Marines so naturally I toted my A4 through some hellish conditions. I always was amazed at how it performed. I went into the MC thinking it was going to be crap but was surprised at its reliability. Just keep it clean like any other weapon and it'll be a good friend to you.

 

[Maverick223]

Just speculation, but I feel that the M16 (and variants thereof) would perform better with a quick drop because the dust cover will keep most debris out, but the Garand would do better once debris actually enters the action because of the open action, clearance, and greater spring pressure. Additionally the M16's DI system will tend to attract more debris, because it is typically "run wet" (vs. the Garand that needs less/thicker lubricant), causing additional problems.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Just speculation, but I feel that the M16 (and variants thereof) would perform better with a quick drop because the dust cover will keep most debris out, but the Garand would do better once debris actually enters the action because of the open action, clearance, and greater spring pressure. Additionally the M16's DI system will tend to attract more debris, because it is typically "run wet" (vs. the Garand that needs less/thicker lubricant), causing additional problems.

That's not how it works with the garand. once you wash the grease out of the oprod cam slot, or get dirt or junk in it, you risk bending the oprod and rendering the rifle nonfunctional untill you replace it.

 

[Hangingrock]

Justin:Since I have nothing substantial to say on the topic of a combat rifle for conducting war in the 21st century, I'm going to have to defer to the people at the Defense Department and assume that the tests they put rifles through, and the situations for which they're developed are reasonable, as is the choice they've made for the rifle that is currently issued to combat troops.

That’s an assumption which may or may not be correct. The first M16 rifles and ammunition lots issued for field testing and limited combat usage meant expectations. (The first M16 rifles I saw were in the hands of the 173rd AB on Okinawa in 1965. I did not have the opportunity to handle or fire the M16 then.)

As Vietnam intensified the M16 rifle and ammunition suffered teething problems. Unfortunately those problems cost service personnel lives. The excuse was troops weren’t properly trained in usage and maintence. Two, possibly more Marine infantry officers by passed the chain of command putting their careers on the line which resulted in congressional hearings.

Testing doesn’t uncover all problems but extended field service usually does.
After forty plus years of usage you’d think all problems have been resolved but then maybe not.

 

[Justin]

It was my understanding that the M16 rifle design as tested was not the one that was issued due to the issued rifles using a different powder and the bores not being chrome-lined.

Regardless, I never said that the military Testing and Evaluation system was error-free, just that those who make a living doing this for the Defense Department probably know a few things about combat rifles and how to test them than the average gun owner.

Again, I'm not an expert, I don't do this for a living, and it's rather presumptuous to assume that I, or anyone else who hasn't made a career out of development and testing military rifles has anything more than the vaguest of clues about the work that goes into it.

 

[Hatterasguy]

I think pretty much the only rifle that won't jam in such conditions is the Mosin.

I havn't shot a Garand, but I have a lot of trigger time on M1A's and M1 carbines...while very good rifles I have had them hicup on me while shooting more than any modern well sorted AR I have shot.

Thats says something because I am not an AR fan.


You can't really compare a Vietnam era M16 to a modern say LWRC M6, totaly different animals.

 

[TechBrute]

You can't really compare a Vietnam era M16 to a modern say LWRC M6, totaly different animals.

This is true, but it won't stop people from trying...

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Since most of the guys that used the Garand in WWII and Korea (while the guns were brand spanking new....we often get comments about well worn rifles, refurbed or imported rifles, and the quality of those might be at the tail end of their life) are no longer with us, and the remaining may not be THR contributors (or computer users, et al), we may ultimately get a little tilted representation here on this one, but I want to thank everyone, becuase really great info has been presented in a most polite and respectful way. I am really glad that the newer crop of M16, m4, etc, is performing well, and respected by the people who have used them in the field. Keep it coming!

 

[Tim the student]

...just that those who make a living doing this for the Defense Department probably know a few things about combat rifles and how to test them than the average gun owner.

One would hope, but I have been issued some fancy dancy new gear that was pure trash. Granted, it wasn't a rifle, but still - it was like it had never, ever, been tested, and designed with absolutely no input from the end user.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

The design defects the garand has don't suddenly appear with age. it's not like there's an ejection port cover that whithers and falls off, or a bolt roller that is reabsorbed into the bolt lug.

 

[rcmodel]

because the dust cover will keep most debris out,

But only if you use it.

I continue to see news footage of solders in Iraq running around with open dust covers on their M16's & M4's.

Wonder if they are the same guys whining to the news media about the M16 not working in sand??

rc

 

[Maverick223]

But only if you use it.

I continue to see news footage of solders in Iraq running around with open dust covers on their M16's & M4's.

Wonder if they are the same guys whining to the news media about the M16 not working in sand??

True, but if used as designed (and that is what it was designed for), it does a pretty decent job.

You can lead a horse to water...

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Andrew, I think the bolt roller belongs to the M14. Pardon my asking, but have you had experience (good or bad) with the Garand?

 

[Bartholomew Roberts]

There is a defunct link in the Rifle Forum Reading Library to a 1960s era study comparing the M16 with the Garand-based M14. There is also a thread by me summarizing the results of the 416-page study somewhere in the archives of THR. I believe the study is stil available on STINET if you want to dig through there (links to that and how to dig also in the Rifle Forum Reading Library).

IIRC, the M14 fared better in some environments (including over the beach) and the M16 was more reliable in others (rain forest, temperate forest). Given how much knowledge has evolved about the M16 FOW, especially in the last ten years, it would be interesting to see if those results still held true today.

I've got both a Garand and a few ARs. I like the Garand quite a bit; but it is an outdated design.

Another thing to keep in mind is that if sand gets in the chamber/bolt area, it is going to cause damage and problems. Look at the recent dust test - very fine, silica powder sand almost like talcum power and 40 modern rifles using recent engineering and materials, yet after only 6,000 rounds, every one of the 40 rifles, regardless of design or brand, was unsafe to fire due to wear. Sand is just hard on firearms (and other machines).

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Andrew, I think the bolt roller belongs to the M14. Pardon my asking, but have you had experience (good or bad) with the Garand?

The bolt roller was added to the m-14 specifically to address the reliability issues the garand has with the oprod/boltlug interface, and my post was intended to suggest that the garand's design problems are inherent with its design.

I shot a CMP greek service grade garand in local field rifle matches almost exclusively untill i picked up an IBA built remington 700LTR. The garand is still at the front of the safe, but it's not my first choice for anything anymore.

 

[kragluver]

All semi-auto/automatic rifles can and will jam. Veterans who used both the M1/M14 variant and M16 variant rifles told me the difference is the M1/M14 bolt can be kicked open with your boot. The M16 could not and was more difficult to clear a jam (at least the earlier models). Accounts of the battle for Porkchop Hill recount numerous rifle jams for the M1 series of rifles.

 

[stchman]

Remember, the M1 Garand was said to be the best battle implement ever made. It might be the most reliable rifle action ever made.

That being said the M1 Garand does have fairly specific ammo requirements. Deviation from those requirements can have disastrous results.

 

[Justin]

Remember, the M1 Garand was said to be the best battle implement ever made.

Yes.

By a man who died in 1945.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Remember, the M1 Garand was said to be the best battle implement ever made. It might be the most reliable rifle action ever made.

That being said the M1 Garand does have fairly specific ammo requirements. Deviation from those requirements can have disastrous results.

You just said the most reliable rifle action ever made was unreliable.

 

[Maverick223]

It might be the most reliable rifle action ever made.

FWIW, I am pretty sure that the good ole' Sharps Model 1874 (amongst other falling block designs) was the most reliable rifle action ever made; those new fangled lever guns will never match it.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Want reliability? My dad carried, and used, an M1 Garand for over two and a half years in the South Pacific (Borneo, Luzon, Leyte, Occupational Japan.) He initially had been issued an M1 Carbine, but had no faith in it (he was a big man, 6'4" farm boy) and quickly picked up a Garand. He never once mentioned any failures, which I'm sure would have come up, as I got every war story there was out of him. Even our Gulf and 'stan boys don't live in the field (spell that monsoon) for two and half years. He DID take care of his rifle, and he DID say the finish was gone when he turned it in......................of course, that was just one guy, with one rifle. I'm sure someone will have to discredit that somehow.............