Would you take the AR15 or M1 Garand?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I thought the car comparision was pretty good

the 2010mustang is faster, more efficent, safer, cheaper to make, etc

the model t is outdated etc.

However the model can do some things the mustang can not I.e drive through a field/ruts etc

the m1 can do somethings the ar15 can not most useful to someone like the op with limited budget is it can be used on deer (.22 cal not legal in my state)

however ar-10 vs m1a is the only apples to apple comparison
 
the ar is superior to the garand both in penetration and at long range. how many get garand thumb with an ar? its 8 round clips lose when compared to 30 round mags; never mind that the ar accepts up to 100 round mags.

with the 1 in 7 twist and 77-90 grain bullets, it is good to 1000 yards; and, by the way, it is winning at these ranges even over the dedicated cartridges. these loads exceed even the best .308-7.62/51 palma loads.

the garand is limited to 150 grain bullets (and 4895 ). these are poor fliers. you can not adjust the garand loads to maximize performance or you will bend the operating rod.

the garand is heavy, its ammo is heavy, it's recoil is harsh compared to the ar and it is no more lethal than an ar.
 
Tough question. The Garand, I would argue was the premier battle rifle of it's day and vastly outclassed the K98 and Type 99 Arisaka rifles it went up against. At the time, the drawbacks of the 8 round magazine and the dreaded "ping" were slight when you considered the benefits of a semi-auto rifle with a hard hitting 30-06 cartridge.

The M-16, on the other hand, had a dismal combat implementation reliability-wise. It was issued without a chrome lined barrel or cleaning kit (which is awesome for a direct gas impingement system that craps on itself). The 5.56 Nato was an inferior round to the 7.62x39 right of the bat, and is illegal to hunt deer with in some states. Granted, the M-16 is a lightweight and accurate platform, it just is to weak and requires far to much meticulous cleaning/ lubrication for me to consider it an effective combat rifle.

I'll take the Garand, or better yet, it's offspring... the M-14.
 
how many people are capable of effectively egaging a target at 1000yards under combat conditions?

556 has it's advanteges; easy to carry alot, cram 30 in a reasonable size mag, and the gun itself can be scaled to the smaller catridge

however I think you are the first Ive heard argue that the 556 is just as lethal as a 30cal even at m1 velocities
 
the ar is superior to the garand both in penetration and at long range. how many get garand thumb with an ar? its 8 round clips lose when compared to 30 round mags; never mind that the ar accepts up to 100 round mags.

with the 1 in 7 twist and 77-90 grain bullets, it is good to 1000 yards; and, by the way, it is winning at these ranges even over the dedicated cartridges. these loads exceed even the best .308-7.62/51 palma loads.

the garand is limited to 150 grain bullets (and 4895 ). these are poor fliers. you can not adjust the garand loads to maximize performance or you will bend the operating rod.

the garand is heavy, its ammo is heavy, it's recoil is harsh compared to the ar and it is no more lethal than an ar.
Click to expand...

Hard to argue with so much ignorance in one post, but I'll try. First, guys get M1 thumb by futzing around with an unloaded Garand, not when loading an 8 round clip. Second, go to any 1,000 yard F Class T/R event where only the .223 and .308 are allowed to compete; you will be the only .223 competing. Third, any bullet weight up to 180 grains can be used in a Garand, and there are any number of powders available with a burn rate as fast as IMR3031 and as slow as IMR4320. Lastly, unless you are some kind of wuss, the recoil is not harsh, and a cartridge legal for hunting big game throughout the country is CERTAINLY more lethal than a cartridge used primarily for woodchuck hunting. Hope that helps in your education.

Don
 
Don't need to choose, I have 3 ARs and 1 Garand. They are all fun to shoot, but the Garand is my favorite if for no other reason than the history behind it.
 
Ithaca37:


bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang

vs.

bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang
bang


Keep telling yourself that your nostalgia for an outdated rifle is somehow founded in fact.


That's because after eight shots with the 30 caliber Garand you don't need twenty-two more of 22 caliber.:D

Hey...that Mattel mouse gun is 2 rounds short.

Bexar
 
Last edited:
Honestly, 8 rounds or 30, enbloc clips or magazines, .223 or .30-06, for a range gun screwing around, it doesn't matter. All that matters is you have the one that makes you most happy and you can afford to feed it. This arguement about which is better for whatever combat reason or 1000 yard competition reason is a joke. It's been stated that this is for a range gun. As such, its a gun that is meant to be fun. Only you can decide which is more fun. I suggest finding a way to try an M1 out before you make the switch. That way you will know for certain, or at least have a good gauge, on if it will be worth the effort and potential value loss selling the AR.

I personally sold my AR and kept my M1, but my M1 is in great shape and shoots really well. I also wanted a different style AR than the M4 clone I had. For me it was easy to dump the AR and keep the M1, but more because the AR I had wasn't the one I really wanted. I picked that one up at a good price during the panic. It was the only rifle I could find and I figured any AR was better than no AR and that the pre-panic priced AR was better than spending double for a panic priced AR.
 
Last edited:
If I had to choose just one....... well, there's plenty of factors that could change my choice, all having to do with weight and capacity. That being said...

M1 Garand, w/ a Leupold fixed 4x long eye relief/pistol scope in a scout mount would be my first choice, all else being equal.
 
I would choose an AR. Its what I trained with, fought with and am most familiar with.

Also Digsigs226..
The M16A2/A4 and the M4 are NOT the same rifle the poor guys had to deal with in its early days of Vietnam. Its actually quite reliable nowadays.

And while I agree that a good 77grn round is good to at least 800 meters, it definitely does not have the punch of a 150 grn .30 cal round. But I do believe that at that range, if the 5.56 didnt kill you, the .30 wouldnt either. Neither have the velocity at that range to cause massive trauma outside the wound track.
 
AR for simple versatility, there realy isnt much you cant make one do (except take a round as large as the 06) and most importantly for me scope mounting.

I dont own either rifles, tho at some point i do hope to get one or more of each. I have handled a number of both tho in some pretty interesting configurations.
 
I'd take an AR from a reputable brand. NOBODY fights with an M1 Garand anymore.

That might be a clue.

75 grain TAP 5.56 ammo seems to work pretty well on 2leggers...
 
The OP said this rifle would be for range/plinking use. That means he wants to enjoy himself. Wouldn't you find a rifle that could've been carried up the beach at Normandy much more enjoyable than a (plastic) rifle that could've been Barbie parts last month. Just saying.

By the way, I own both, and I have an M16A4 with me here in the desert.
 
I'd take an AR from a reputable brand. NOBODY fights with an M1 Garand anymore.

That might be a clue.
Click to expand...

My clue is that you missed the part where the OP clarified that the use was to be a fun gun, not for battle, SD, HD, and not even for EOTWAWKI. Unless of course you base your gun purchases on their battle prowess, and commonality in current conflicts - which is fine with me if you do.
 
True. However, most of those experienced rifleman are dead.
Click to expand...

Most are dead from old age, though; not combat.

That's saying something, at least. :D


Let me put it this way. While the M1 might be technically inferior to an AR-15, I guarantee that insurgents armed with Garands would give a modern infantry unit a tough time, just like they do when armed with old Lee Enfields, Mosin Nagants, SKSs, AKs, or pretty much any other centerfire repeating rifle. The Garand may be outdated, but it's far from useless.



edit; in automotive terms, it's more like comparing a new 2010 Taurus with a 1985 Crown Victoria. The Crown Vic is older, slower, and heavier. But when you get into a crash, she'll still protect you well. :)
 
For the stated purpose, I would take the AR hands down.

AR's Pros are cheap ammo, endless adaptability, great accuracy, easily scoped, effective out to about 600 meters. Cons are a smaller round and aesthetics if you aren't into the polymer/plastic thing.

Garand Pros are potent round with greater distance and an amazing legacy of battle. Cons are weight, accuracy, expensive ammo, ammo load limitations, and lack of adaptability.

If you are defeating cover or want more punch at close range, go Garand. For everything else, the AR is superior.
 
This is still going? Interesting. Oh well...
For the stated purpose of just having fun at the range you can't go wrong with either. The AR is lighter, cheaper to feed and just an all around fun gun. The M1 is heavier, more expensive to feed and and all around fun gun. 6 one way, half a dozen the other.

I love all this talk about making shots out to 600, 800, or 1000. Now I know there are a few folks in this thread that could make those shots. But just because a round is capable of making that shot does not mean you are.

I would love to have an M1, it would be a great piece of history to add to my small collection and is fun to shoot. But its prime is long past.
 
The Garand is more collectable, historical, powerful, reliable (I would say) and it doesn't really have any plastic parts.

I like the AR15 but I'm going with the Garand on this one.

P.S. it is "The Greatest Battle Implement Ever devised"
 
Too many of you are mixing the argument of rifle and bringing up caliber.

Let's look at what could have been in the ORIGINAL prototypes - a .270 Pederson M1 Garand, or a 7.62 x 51 AR10 Stoner.

Let's see - a Garand in an intermediate cartridge with 400m effective range, eight round capacity, an operating rod that forces the shooter to use their trigger hand to cycle the bolt, a reloading process unique the that rifle only. All fun and games on the range, but not tactically refined, and that's what all the warm fuzzies are about, how we think the war was fought. Shooting against evil world dominators armed with 98K bolt actions, not so much, they had G43's, STG44s, MP38's, MG42's, name it. Don't forget we borrowed or copied a lot of tech in those guns and use it to this day. The Garand? Product improved and called the M14, it was dropped like a hot potato because it can't handle full auto fire. Had it been in .270 Pederson, who knows? .30-06 and .308 didn't do it any favor. It's still not a popular caliber in the Stoner design, think about it. Something's not right when the world's militaries walk away from the entire category of full power cartridges when arming the average soldier.

Frankly, a .270 Garand or .308 AR ain't much of a choice, and that should say something, too.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

D
  • Locked
A couple M1 Garand ???'s
Replies
3
Views
501
SquirrelNuts
S
K
  • Locked
Big 5 M1 Garand for 600 or or keep saving for AR?
Replies
20
Views
2K
KodeFore
K
DeepSouth
  • Locked
Who makes a "New" M1 Garand
2
Replies
25
Views
2K
MechAg94
M
K
  • Locked
Convert M1 Garand to .308
Replies
11
Views
3K
Ian
I
M
  • Locked
220 grain bullets in M1 Garand
Replies
17
Views
2K
claiborne
C
Back
Top