Would you take the AR15 or M1 Garand?

[benzy2]

Range gun only, the AR platform is distinctly superior, like it or not.

The reason the M16 dominates high power shooting isn't because the Army ordered the AMU to do it, it's because it's more accurate. The M14 has only two lugs that must be matched closely to the receiver, the receiver must be bedded to the stock, the gas operation has asymmetric loads on the bolt which also cause barrel bending during operation, the receiver can't accept a top rail to mount optics, any sling loads will transfer to the barrel thru the bands or by direct attachment which bends the barrel. You get an asymmetrically loaded receiver and bolt with a whipping barrel.

The AR uses a barrel extension that locks the barrel and bolt together with a ring of steel and 7 locking lugs to spread the load directly. The barrel can be free floated with the addtion of a simple adapter to hold the handguards off the barrel, with no sling load transferred to the barrel. The gas action has no operating rod to bend or bind the bolt (which got soldiers killed in the early days of WWII.) The pressure transferred to the inside of the bolt carrier actually compensates the load on the bolt and lugs allowing them to rotate with less stress. The barrel isn't bent with the stress of the piston and op rod pushing the bolt. The upper and lower receiver aren't stressed with anything more than bolt cycling, which is straight back only. It handles the pressure straight back.

The AR doesn't poop where it eats, that expression only has any value to those who are completely ignorant of the cycle of operation. Gas travels down the gas tube into the bolt key and then into the bolt carrier gas chamber, which is sealed by the gas rings on the bolt. As the carrier is pressurized, it pushes the bolt forward and the carrier back, exposing the gas ports on the bolt side to the chamber pressure, where it's exhausted out the ejection port. The bolt is rotated and THEN the gas key separates from the tube, while the cartridge case is pushing against the bolt face.

Once the case begins extraction from the chamber, any residual pressure in the barrel is exhausted by the open bore or the chamber. ALL SEMI AUTOMATICS EXHAUST GAS FROM THE CHAMBER INTO THE ACTION - DI OR PISTON.

It's Ok to love the Garand - for what it is. It's certainly less than acceptable to repeat misinformation and doesn't reflect well on the decorated heroes who have used either, in an effort to denigrate one over another. That's certainly reflective of a civilian attitude, not the character qualities the Army studies and works to adhere.

While I won't argue with the truth behind those points, my definition of a rifle for "just casual shooting, range time" has nothing to do with it being DI or piston driven. It has nothing to do with how many locking lugs the bolt has. It has a little to do with sling issues, but not a ton. It has nothing to do with my rifle dominating highpower competition or not. It has everything to do with which one makes me grin biggest when it goes bang. I don't think anyone has claimed the M1 to be anything it isn't. I don't think anyone has claimed the AR to be anything it isn't. I don't know what brought up war heros with regards to shooting an AR or M1 at the local range.

I don't know how many times I can repeat this. A rifle for "just casual shooting, range time" doesn't need to do anything more than make the end user happy to have gone to the range. It doesn't need to be designed to with highpower matches. It doesn't need to be designed to not poop where it eats. It doesn't need so much that you want to make it. All it has to do is bring the shooter a smile. That is why I don't understand how this thread has lasted for 5 pages. Is it impossible to believe that some people think the AR is more fun to shoot and others think the M1 is more fun to shoot? Do we always need to justify a rifle beyond that?

 

[JustinCglass]

the garand any day of the week!

AR 15 is nice to shoot. But from a utilitarian point of view, the garand takes the cake.
the cartridge is the determining factor here
an AR in 6.8spc or .308win might be a good choice to

 

[Quickstrike]

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.

Besides being more suited for modern fighting, it's also lighter with less recoil, ammo is easier to find and cheaper = you get to shoot more and have more fun.

Not to mention modularity and ease of mounting optics and other aftermarket accessories.

I was never really a history buff so the M1 garands never interested me. I do however like quality M14 type rifles with an 18" barrel. Pretty solid general purpose battle rifle IMO.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

Is the original poster really going to let us make the decision for him, or did he really want to provoke a discussion, and have other people in the forum put their ideas forth, and debate the good and bad points. I think the latter. That is what we all do here, all the time. That is what makes it a forum. Ultimately, he will handle the two rifles in question (if he hasn't already), and pick the one he likes or feels is special for the purpose, in some way. That is what we would do, too. No need for anyone to get offended by another, or to justify WHY we debate or discuss. It is purely the design of posting on a forum. Let's enjoy the variety of thought, and the way others arrive at a decision or point of view. I learn something all the time here, quite often from people who have very different views (maybe BECAUSE of that). I find it very refreshing to be able to express myself, and hear the thoughts of others. It smacks of..........freedom.

 

[ultradoc]

I have both but am more proficent on the AR.I was trained on the AR so I would choose the AR.

 

[offthepaper]

Beware of the man with only eight rounds.......he MAY be scared enough to make them count!

Sharp

Sounds like a good sig line.
I like it.

 

[Schofield3]

Let's enjoy the variety of thought, and the way others arrive at a decision or point of view.

+1, I've made up my mind - going to be trading the AR and thank you to everyone for their input and advice.

 

[Rexster]

The original post did not specify that this would be one's only rifle, or only firearm, and did not mention being a soldier or otherwise going into battle. I am partial to the Garand family, and prefer the handling qualities of my Mini-14s to my AR15. My answer to the original question is M1 Garand. I would like to own own again.

I went out on a financial limb to buy a Garand once upon a time, when I was presented with a good price for a really nice one. When that limb started cracking, I passed the Garand on to a friend of a friend, an old veteran, for a bit less than I paid.

I only keep the AR15 around because I can use it as a patrol rifle, at work.

 

[The Annoyed Man]

there is nothing a garand does that an Ar-15 doesn't do better.

At a 1,000 yards? I don't think so.

Even so, I own and really like my ARs, but if I had to choose between them, and my M1A Loaded, I don't know... it would be a really hard choice. The AR is easy and lighter, and good for small to man-sized game. The M1A will cover a broader range of targets, at a longer distance. But it isn't as handy as an AR carbine.

Between an M1A and an M1 Garand? Give me the M1A every time. If the SHTF, give me 20 round removable box magazines to an 8 round en-block clip any day.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

My current inventory of semi-autos includes 4 M1 Garands, 2 M1As (one a SOCOM 16) and 1 Colt AR15A2, 1989 vintage. Guess that answers the question. Different rifles have different uses.

FH

 

[HiroProX]

I'd opt for the AR. Easier to pack around, better ergonomics, and a "rack-grade" AR is more accurate than a "rack-grade" Garand.

As for the Garand's 600-800m. range, not much of a factor as most people aren't capable of hitting something at that range. Everybody isn't Carlos Hathcock or Sergent York. And a Garand that can hit consistently at those ranges, even if the operator is capable, are the National Match grade models which cost far more than a standard example and require specialized ammunition.

Considering that where I live, engagement ranges won't be more than 200-300m. in extreme cases, the Garand's weaknesses become more glaring. Ammo is heavy, 8-round capacity is limiting, and the weapon is clumsy in limited space.

My second rifle was a .308 Garand Tanker. But my first was a Colt AR-15 Sporter HBAR.

Pick the best weapon based on the following...

1. Terrain you live in.
2. Intended use.
3. Experience. Pick what you have the most practice shooting.
4. Distance you see having to pack said rifle and ammo.

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

I'm still astonished at the gentlemen here who recognize the high level of accuracy that comes with a high quality, tuned AR, but don's seem to have the hands on experience of applying that accuracy in practical exercises. (chopped for brevity)

So you concede that the ar-15 is more accurate than the garand?

PRACTICAL ACCURACY, that accuracy that a soldier can acutally attain from field positions, standing, fast seated, kneeling, etc, is going to be very different than the minute-of-AR that we all like to talk about. Try it. Go stand up, sling up if you want, and fire five shots at 200 yards at the torso of any given silhouette target. Do it with an AR, M1, and M1A if you have one. I have seen many a competitive shooter do this, and it is the SHOOTER, not the gun, that makes the difference. The inherent INABILITY of humans to be as good as the rifle pretty much puts these combat rifles on the same "playing" field with each other. That is another reason the obviously "inferior" AK does better than it should, being so cheap, loose, and less accurate than the AR, etc.

Shooting offhand at a stationary target at 200 yards is hardly practical.

a much better test, and one anyone can do, is the Rifle Ten.

Rifle Ten http://www.frfrogspad.com/courses.htm

This is one of the classic drills used by Jeff Cooper. A single IPSC "option " target is placed at 300 yards. There are five firing points, one each at 300, 275, 250, 225, and 200. The shooter stands clear of his firing point at 300 yards.

On signal the shooter moves to the firing point , assumes any position he chooses and engages the 300 yard target with two rounds. He immediately moves to the 275 yard position firing two more shots, then advances to the 250 yard position, fires two more rounds, and then to the 225 yard position where a 2 foot high baffle precludes prone or supine position and fires two more rounds. He the moves to the 200 yard position where a 3 foot high screen eliminates any position but off hand or standing and fires two rounds.

Score is based upon the hit values divide by your time in minutes, with a par time of 2 minutes. To prevent someone throwing away the two 200 yard shots you can use a separate target for the 200 yard stage. The option target is scored 5, 4, 2. A score of 40 in two minutes is considered very good.

You can substitute the IDPA silhouette for the option target, since i don't think anyone uses those anymore. I also prefer to use two targets and have the shooter put one on each, since that disturbs the Natural point of aim.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

I will re-interpret what I am trying to convey: If a man can stand up and place his shots accurately at 200 yards, lets say shooting a 195 with 5-8X's for 20 shots, then he can most likely shoot WELL from any other position with ease. It is the measure of marksmanship, the standing, unslung and unsupported, in the formal matches. You just cannot denigrate these guys that can shoot distinguished level scores(I have not, yet), and it is a level that we should all strive for. Why? Because some shots DEMAND standing (to be able to shoot around an obstacle, etc). In competition, the score you get from the standings stage usually makes or breaks you, as the other positions are just easier. As far as the AR being MORE accurate, my point was that just about any rifle can be tricked out to shoot sub-minute, but they are generally not minute or subminute in their standard issue grade. Fulton Armory, for instance, can supply a Garand or M14 copy that will give accuracy that exceeds any mans ability to shoot from POSITION (standing, prone, sitting, kneeling, etc), and that is what I meant by PRACTICAL accuracy....if the shooter can never realize the potential of the rifle, the level of POSSIBLE accuracy is moot. You can BUY a rifle that is super accurate, but without a bench to put it on, it may not outshoot a standard grade rifle in the average man's hands. The issue M16A2, for instance, was only held to a 2 minute accuracy production standard, if my info is correct. Sure, Baer, and at least a dozen other places can do a rifle .5-1.0", but our troops are never going to be issued rifles brought to that standard. So, are we talking match Garand vs. Match AR? Or standard grade weapons? My take is still that the average Joe, from combat positions (God forbid what real STRESS will do to deteriorate performance, and thus, accuracy) will not be able to employ the potential of any rifle, so the end performance of whatever rifle he uses is strictly dependent upon is abilities, experience, training, and luck on a given day. The only way we are going to know, for ourselves, is to use an example of each rifle in whatever drills we choose to challenge ourselves with, and see the comparative results.

 

[FlyinBryan]

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=431490

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Sharps: we're comparing the as issued rack grade garand, using M1 ball compared to any as issued configuration of the m-16.

so what is your argument in a sentence?

 

[Justin]

All of the Master Class High Power shooters I've known run AR15s. While I haven't been lucky enough to attend the matches at Camp Perry, of the High Power matches I've been to, the majority of shooters were running AR15s.

The AR also dominates 3gun competitions as well.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

What is the government accuracy specification of a new "rack grade" M16? What was the accuracy specification for a then new M1 Garand? Does anyone know? (That's three sentences. I ask your forgiveness.)

 

[WALKERs210]

Question I have is what is the purpose of choice? Paper shooting, coyote, or man. I guess I'm old and still have bitter memories of the Mattel Toy in 1968. In 1966 I trained with the M1 Garand and learned that it was one awesome weapon both at distance and up close and personal.

 

[TechBrute]

Question I have is what is the purpose of choice? Paper shooting, coyote, or man. I guess I'm old and still have bitter memories of the Mattel Toy in 1968. In 1966 I trained with the M1 Garand and learned that it was one awesome weapon both at distance and up close and personal.

Welcome to 42 years later. If you want to live in the past, I have no problem with that. However, you can't judge a modern AR by whatever problems you had with the M16 back then. I'm not saying that you need to like the AR or that it's perfect, just come up with a rational argument that doesn't involve a timeframe that could start with "my grandpappy told me..."

You trained with a Garand in 1966? I thought they were using M14 rifles by that point.

 

[Hangingrock]

Justin: All of the Master Class High Power shooters I've known run AR15s.

Yes and before that Master Class High Power shooters used the 1903 Springfield, M1 Garand, and M14/M1A in service rifle. There were also a few that shot the US1917 Enfield.

Now currently in use the AR15/M16. The AR15/M16 was not competitive until the advent of heaver weight bullets. Short course 200/300 yard lines no problem but like I said 500/600 yard lines like I said before not until the heavy weight bullets.

I’ve shot the .223 out to 1000yds in competition in both service rifle and match rifle configurations. I'm not saying I was good at it just saying I did it.

 

[husker]

well is SHTF give me the
aww never mind i live in BIG10 COUNTRY NOW

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

The minimum accuracy acceptance standard for rifles in the U.S. military is 4 MOA, regardless of type, and has been at least since the garand was first adopted. no, that doesn't mean the m-16 shoots 4 MOA.

 

[SharpsDressedMan]

That doesn't mean the M1 or the M1 shoot 4MOA, either, so what is YOUR point, in a sentence?

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

Any semi automatic rifle with a front sight that is firmly affixed to the barrel (or has optics firmly affixed to the receiver) is better than any rifle whose front sight isn't really firmly affixed to anything.

 

[Averageman]

I was just shooting with a new LT. he loves hunting and is a fanatical muzzle loader.
I brought my Garand and we relaxed and got to know each other a bit better.
Now I love my Garands, I feel like it was the rifle I was born to shoot; that being said, I am definatly no slouch with a AR system and either is he.
I know I sold someone a Garand that day when we peeled off back to back 8 round head shots at 100m's consistantly with a felt recoil that let you know that target would go down and stay down...Forever.