M1 Garand vs. AR-15: Which is America's Rifle?

M1 Garand vs. M16: Which is America's Rifle in light of its original intended (military) use?

  • M1 Garand

  • M-16 (AR-15)


Results are only viewable after voting.
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.
 
They both are, just at different times in history. You could say the Kentucky Rifle is America's rifle, move forward to the Hawken and then lever guns, the Garand was a great war rifle but never owned privately in the massive numbers of the AR. I voted AR.
 
I voted AR because there are two in my safe and zero M1's. And there is still a better chance of me buying another AR before I ever buy a M1.
 
Sure glad I voted for the M1 :ROFLMAO:.

As stated in the first post, I think a lot has to do w/age and perhaps service related.

I was issued my first M1 1954 IIRC and have never been without one ever since. I've gone through a number of issued and owned Garands over the years, using the Garand in service rifle matches until eyesight forced me to switch to a bolt gun w/aperture sights. Wore out one barrel in my first personal match M1 and the only malfunction I can recall in all those years was with a .308 Garand, built by a retired army armorer who did not believe the magazine block was necessary when converting to .308. He was right, until the op-rod spring weakened to the point that it allowed 7th round to work forward in the magazine, developing an annoying 7th round jam. Took a while to iron that one out. Changed out spring and that solved the problem, but put magazine block in anyway.

The Stoner system was still in the dreaming stage and I was never impressed at the first ones when they began to appear at service rifle matches, but admittedly didn't pay them a lot of mind. A couple of ranges even banned them @ 600 yards for fear of bullets dropping into the pits due to high trajectory of the .223. IIRC, All Army AMU was still using the M14 but when they did switch to the M16, I was impressed at what they squeezed out of the "mouse gun"! They are great on rapid fire strings due to the reduced muzzle jump over the battle rifles, but I was never all that good at wind doping and 600 yards w/a mouse gun was not in my wheel house.

After all the bugs have been worked out w/powder, etc. they have proven to be reliable but my interests have switched from competition to hunting. I have to admit the ARs are usually pretty accurate out of the box especially with addition of a decent trigger and a match grade M1 of equal accuracy is a bit too fragile to be suitable as a battle rifle and even requires TLC when hunting predators to preserve its cutting edge accuracy.

Have to admit the AR's do outnumber my Garands and beat the heck out of the Garand as a coyote rifle, and chambered in a bit more powerful round (243 WSSM) quickly earned the # 1 slot in my lineup for deer on down......not that the Garand is not capable ;).
ETA: They say it never happened without the picture and I forgot to post one :) :
1703283339836.jpeg


So, I do have to admit I was torn in making the choice.

Tom Wilson's comments pretty much says it all, IMO.
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.

My dad used one in Korea and in the actions afterward in the first Formosa Crisis. In the Formosa Crisis Dad's combat team was tasked with evacuating American, British, and French landowners and businessmen and their families from their countryside homes as the Chinese communist guerillas were murdering and burning homes and plantations, factories, and the like across the country. Dad's team launched from the destroyer USS Kidd and in small boats at night and made a shore landing, marched inland secured the civilians, and brought them back to the ship. Most of these evacuations came off ok. But not all and they had the occasional running gunfight through the countryside at night back to their landing boats. Dad liked his .30 Carbine, the fifteen-round magazines fed reliably, and at jungle ranges in the dark, it was effective.
 
The carbine was outstanding for some jobs, not so much for others IMO. Jungle warfare and special ops obviously could make good use of the carbine. Can't remember my MOS when I was issued the carbine, maybe scout section, but I would have preferred the M1; mainly due to better accuracy, but especially for its ability to reach out there.

The only two carbines I was ever issued demonstrated the two issues mentioned above. I did have a personal carbine that has not malfunctioned but have not shot it all that much. Used it in our Jr. marksmanship program w/no complaints from the kids. Thought about seeing what I could do to accurize it, but never got around to it. I'm sure tightening up the recoil plate/receiver joint would do a lot in that regard.
 
Neither, when it came to putting my life on the line I traded the AR for an M-14 and a Steven 12ga pump. The M-14 road on the equipment with me and the Stevens went on patrol. Seabees Vietnam 68-69.

There have been some comments that the M-1 tipped the scales our way in WW-II
 
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.
 
Last edited:
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.


Retired 11B, your NEVER 11B for a bit, just saying....

Welcome to the forum!
 
Retired 11B, your NEVER 11B for a bit, just saying....

Welcome to the forum!
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.
 
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.
PM Stu w/your old handle and current email address and he can fix you up.
 
Back
Top