You were warned.
I have a Garand. This past weekend I went shooting with some friends who own “black†rifles because they were kind enough to let me shoot them if I brought some ammo so I could research my next purchase. One has an M4rgery and another AR set up like an A2, the other a Polish AK clone and a DSA FAL. I brought the M1 at their insistence, because the “PING!†grabs everyone’s imagination.
I have shot all of these types of rifles I don’t own before. In their own ways, each is cool. I have been researching finally acquiring an AR or AK or FAL, but shooting them along with my Garand, I found myself thinking about getting, well, another Garand.
Observations:
We only have a 200yd range to shoot at so we did some shooting at 100 and then moved out to maximum. Even at that distance, the Garand is basically “battle zeroed.†The AK was extremely sloppy at this range, justifying the reputation of the 7.62x39 as something of an inaccurate cartridge. The FAL was fairly decent at 200 and the A2 AR did better than the FAL, the carbine worse than the FAL and the A2, though the A2 had a red dot on top of it so who knows if that was the difference. My rifle, while no MOA champion, did some fairly decent coffee cup sized groups at 200 consistently grouping the best in the most positions for the most shooters. I think the sights hamper the AK and the FAL somewhat, with the Garand having some of the best combat sights ever put on a rifle. The AR’s are similar, but not as good in the adjustability department.
So all could hit the target and all but the AK seemed to have decent range to spare, but all we could have done is get smaller targets to simulate more distance and that is not what we were up to, just plinking for fun.
What interested me was that my rifle was the only one that did about the same in the standing, sitting, and prone firing positions, really shining in the last position. The AK was particularly awkward in prone, with the FAL being the least offensive of the box hangers in that position. I also had the only “pre-ban†hence had the only bayonet in my gear FWIW.
I really came away liking the AR, but not the 5.56 round. I appreciated the AK as a really rugged and decent rifle for a short range encounter but the 7.62x39 is limiting. Nothing stopped the AK whereas the A2 had some ejection problems late in the morning. The FAL was nice in concept, but somehow ergonomically not my cup of tea. The top of the receiver also seems extra flimsy. The Garand was just the Garand, it always fired and it was hard to miss with it.
When we were all done, sitting around with the actions open, we get to BSing about “combat rifle theory.†This is the old SHTF rifle topic. I appreciate the reliability argument for the AK, the availability and customizeability of the AR series, the hard hitting round and cheap mags of the FAL (firepower). I didn’t argue that my 60 year old rifle had it all over these more modern rifles, for the civilian shooter, but that it is what I think after this session.
I often hear that old saw, “The Army found that most firefights were short range affairs and that a 800-1000 yard capable battle rifle was the wrong tool for this kind of fight.†That is true, insofar that it matters that many conscripts and many recruits shooting experienced as civilians, but “nervous in the service†as privates may have never managed to hit anything with any rifle. However, the “close in†weapon like the AR or AK is the byproduct of a doctrine of combined arms that doesn’t hold for the civilian shooter’s SHTF rifle.
No one I know of will be calling in arty or CAS for that engagement that could take place at the edge of effective assault rifle range if the SHTF scenario comes about. Then again, someone shooting at such targets with their rifle would probably be better advised to avoid engagement if possible. However, having the option to reach out that far if necessary is an inestimable advantage the FAL and the Garand held out of this group of rifles.
Close in, I am not going to be doing dynamic entries on my own or any other conceivable thing that would require instant volume of fire. So I found myself once again questioning how an AR or AK, or FAL, with its equivalent round and even higher capacity than the Garand, would fit into the conception of my battery of only having fireams that I perceive a “need†for and will actually practice with. I don’t buy rifles just to make noise and blast cans, I take marksmanship to be a serious skill that needs a serious approach. It might be that a bolt rifle would be the best SHTF rifle after all, but for the fact that mine would be a lefty bolt and not shareable easily with my wife or the majority of my friends, is the reason mine is semi-auto. The Garand is a fine ambi-friendly weapon.
In conclusion, I have abandoned my desire for a black rifle and now will get another CMP Garand and have it restored to be as nearly identical to the H&R M1, or maybe I will finally break down and buy my companion plinker an M1 Carbine.
I do see the point of these other battle and assault rifles, but they have been decontextualized from their combat doctrines and for the Garand, it acquits itself well as an all-arounder even after all of these years since it was dropped in the late 50s as the combat rifle. So the Garand doesn’t fit the modern combat doctrine that centers on the M4 as the main small arm? Who cares? The individual civilian rifleman needs the old school weapon if the SHTF, because there will likely be no supporting arms to call upon to make up for the range and power limitations that the assault rifles bring, and little need for the more rapid punch of the FAL.
Really, who is going to have a 180 round engagement on their own and live to tell the tale?
I have a Garand. This past weekend I went shooting with some friends who own “black†rifles because they were kind enough to let me shoot them if I brought some ammo so I could research my next purchase. One has an M4rgery and another AR set up like an A2, the other a Polish AK clone and a DSA FAL. I brought the M1 at their insistence, because the “PING!†grabs everyone’s imagination.
I have shot all of these types of rifles I don’t own before. In their own ways, each is cool. I have been researching finally acquiring an AR or AK or FAL, but shooting them along with my Garand, I found myself thinking about getting, well, another Garand.
Observations:
We only have a 200yd range to shoot at so we did some shooting at 100 and then moved out to maximum. Even at that distance, the Garand is basically “battle zeroed.†The AK was extremely sloppy at this range, justifying the reputation of the 7.62x39 as something of an inaccurate cartridge. The FAL was fairly decent at 200 and the A2 AR did better than the FAL, the carbine worse than the FAL and the A2, though the A2 had a red dot on top of it so who knows if that was the difference. My rifle, while no MOA champion, did some fairly decent coffee cup sized groups at 200 consistently grouping the best in the most positions for the most shooters. I think the sights hamper the AK and the FAL somewhat, with the Garand having some of the best combat sights ever put on a rifle. The AR’s are similar, but not as good in the adjustability department.
So all could hit the target and all but the AK seemed to have decent range to spare, but all we could have done is get smaller targets to simulate more distance and that is not what we were up to, just plinking for fun.
What interested me was that my rifle was the only one that did about the same in the standing, sitting, and prone firing positions, really shining in the last position. The AK was particularly awkward in prone, with the FAL being the least offensive of the box hangers in that position. I also had the only “pre-ban†hence had the only bayonet in my gear FWIW.
I really came away liking the AR, but not the 5.56 round. I appreciated the AK as a really rugged and decent rifle for a short range encounter but the 7.62x39 is limiting. Nothing stopped the AK whereas the A2 had some ejection problems late in the morning. The FAL was nice in concept, but somehow ergonomically not my cup of tea. The top of the receiver also seems extra flimsy. The Garand was just the Garand, it always fired and it was hard to miss with it.
When we were all done, sitting around with the actions open, we get to BSing about “combat rifle theory.†This is the old SHTF rifle topic. I appreciate the reliability argument for the AK, the availability and customizeability of the AR series, the hard hitting round and cheap mags of the FAL (firepower). I didn’t argue that my 60 year old rifle had it all over these more modern rifles, for the civilian shooter, but that it is what I think after this session.
I often hear that old saw, “The Army found that most firefights were short range affairs and that a 800-1000 yard capable battle rifle was the wrong tool for this kind of fight.†That is true, insofar that it matters that many conscripts and many recruits shooting experienced as civilians, but “nervous in the service†as privates may have never managed to hit anything with any rifle. However, the “close in†weapon like the AR or AK is the byproduct of a doctrine of combined arms that doesn’t hold for the civilian shooter’s SHTF rifle.
No one I know of will be calling in arty or CAS for that engagement that could take place at the edge of effective assault rifle range if the SHTF scenario comes about. Then again, someone shooting at such targets with their rifle would probably be better advised to avoid engagement if possible. However, having the option to reach out that far if necessary is an inestimable advantage the FAL and the Garand held out of this group of rifles.
Close in, I am not going to be doing dynamic entries on my own or any other conceivable thing that would require instant volume of fire. So I found myself once again questioning how an AR or AK, or FAL, with its equivalent round and even higher capacity than the Garand, would fit into the conception of my battery of only having fireams that I perceive a “need†for and will actually practice with. I don’t buy rifles just to make noise and blast cans, I take marksmanship to be a serious skill that needs a serious approach. It might be that a bolt rifle would be the best SHTF rifle after all, but for the fact that mine would be a lefty bolt and not shareable easily with my wife or the majority of my friends, is the reason mine is semi-auto. The Garand is a fine ambi-friendly weapon.
In conclusion, I have abandoned my desire for a black rifle and now will get another CMP Garand and have it restored to be as nearly identical to the H&R M1, or maybe I will finally break down and buy my companion plinker an M1 Carbine.
I do see the point of these other battle and assault rifles, but they have been decontextualized from their combat doctrines and for the Garand, it acquits itself well as an all-arounder even after all of these years since it was dropped in the late 50s as the combat rifle. So the Garand doesn’t fit the modern combat doctrine that centers on the M4 as the main small arm? Who cares? The individual civilian rifleman needs the old school weapon if the SHTF, because there will likely be no supporting arms to call upon to make up for the range and power limitations that the assault rifles bring, and little need for the more rapid punch of the FAL.
Really, who is going to have a 180 round engagement on their own and live to tell the tale?
