Be sure to read this article before voting:
M1 Garand vs. AR-15: Which is America's Rifle?
Your choice may be age related.
So there!
M1 Garand vs. AR-15: Which is America's Rifle?
Your choice may be age related.
The US Army was culturally opposed to assault weapons. Before Vietnam, the Army placed the same emphasis on Rifle Marksmanship as the USMC still does. I mean, when I was growing up, there was still a vocal opposition to replacing the Springfield with the Garand. It was the same kind of argument whether you got more ice cream if it was hand-packed or slurried into the quart cartons in a mass production run, only about KD range accuracy around the X, minute of angle, considerations. The idea of storming a trench with a drum-fed PPSh-41 just appalled officers like my dad. Among other things, it flew in the face of all frontier experience regarding fire discipline and ammo husbandry. Plus, the conventional design was a machine pistol, which had the effective range of a shotgun on a European or American frontier battleground.
And there is still a great affection for the M-14, probably the finest long rifle in the tradition of the heavy caliber rolling block rifles of the Indian Wars, the Little Big Horn being the exception that validated the medium caliber high-volume assault fires that characterizes the modern assault rifle everybody ignored because the Nations won.
But the studies of the small caliber weapons of Japan showed they had the virtue of not being as lethal, thereby adding to the 12-to-1 logistical burden of their opponents with crippling but non-lethal wounds. The US Army liked large bore weapons on the frontier because they preferred their opponents dead as opposed to capable of further mischief.
And, of course, the pristine virtues of aimed fires versus just spraying the horizon with your eyes closed was probably the most compelling straw man that military necessity and emperical evidence finally chopped down to introduce the Stoner system into the inventory, with th AR-15/M-16 being coughed up out of the R&D program.
I, personally, don’t like the gun, but, intellectually, it is a pretty elegant, and effective, response to the requirement. It is chambered for a rifle round, as opposed to the.45 pistol round of the M-3 grease gun, but nearly as compact and has a very hot round with a point and shoot trajectory out to its maximum effect range of 350 metres. A big selling point was that you could carry up to 30% more rounds of ammo for the same weight and it introduced ergonomics into the heads-up plane of sight across the carry handle.
Vietnam was the shake down cruise for the Stoner system as the general issue infantry weapon. It is no longer Stoner except in modular concept. If you start with the core action and pistol grip, you can build a gazillion different configurations to keep the troops happy where the costs come down to minimal engineering and industrial design and virtually no R&D burden.
So, I’d say the Army got it about right, all things considered. The AK-47 family is the only weapon system with a wider distribution and the differences come down to whether you get more ice cream in a hand-packed quart of ice cream or two pounds of slurried production run ice cream.
Strictly speaking, the slurried ice cream is probably more dense but a pint’s a pound the world around. The chicken is the egg.
Just for the record, the ultimate assault weapon is an Airborne Ranger in a jock strap and light coat of oil armed with a P-38 can opener and a bad attitude, but I, personally, would settle for an M-14 with a fixed bayonet.
I was issued a carbine for a (thankfully) short period of time, but never could become attached to it. Had two different ones; the first one bolt lug broke through extractor slot jamming the rifle and the other, the rear sight had a propensity to walk down, especially in rapid fire. Not to mention they were not anywhere near as accurate as the Garand. They were very popular in the S. Pacific during WWII by all accounts, however.If you went by production numbers alone the .30 M1 Carbine was the most produced rifle of the WWII and Korean era. I love the Garand, truly a special rifle at a frightening time in history. I voted AR15. The modern AR is a proven fighting rifle, hunting rifle, competition rifle, all around a handy rifle and it is available and owned by millions of American citizens. Not only does our military fight with the rifle but being owned by millions of free American citizens is a cornerstone of the American republic. And at this time in history that alone is such a critical necessity that the AR is hands down the rifle of free Americans.
I was issued a carbine for a (thankfully) short period of time, but never could become attached to it. Had two different ones; the first one bolt lug broke through extractor slot jamming the rifle and the other, the rear sight had a propensity to walk down, especially in rapid fire. Not to mention they were not anywhere near as accurate as the Garand. They were very popular in the S. Pacific during WWII by all accounts, however.
Well, I own 4 M-1's with one more in the "works".
I have 3 AR's.
Tough call for me. I can say the M1's aren't going anywhere. But I was an 11B for a bit so that probably makes me lean more towards an actual battle rifle. BTW I am 53, so age might not have that much to do with it.
Well I was on the old forum since 2004. Trying to get that changed back. Spent around 5 years 11B, SAW gunner mostly with a little "PIG" and Ma Duece throw in along the way.Retired 11B, your NEVER 11B for a bit, just saying....
Welcome to the forum!
PM Stu w/your old handle and current email address and he can fix you up.Well I was on the old forum since 2004. Trying to get that changed back. Spent around 5 years 11B, SAW gunner mostly with a little "PIG" and Ma Duece throw in along the way.
Congrats on the 20+.. I should have stayed, but was pretty stubborn back then.
When did they change MOS numbering; guess I'm showing my age w/the old #?My 112.70 probably had a bit of influence on my choice as well.![]()