Just Fired an M1 garand and Carbine!

i get what your saying about the m14, but i think its pretty crazy to compare it as the best U.S. rifle ever. Honestly it never saw action like the M1 did, and it was basically the precursor to the M16. If you ask me you have to go with one of the most legendary rifles in U.S. history (M1), or the M16 or M4.

 

Well, I see what you mean about being "tried in combat." True, the M14 was never fielded in the numbers or employed through any considerable length of time as other firearms in the U.S. inventory. Albeit, I would not include the infamous M16 in any comparison with other weapons in a "best ever category." Notwithstanding the smaller 5.56 round, which replaced the "original" design featured 7.62, the M16 has had few innovations to make it a better rifle. The changes made to the flash suppressor, rear sights, select fire and added forward assist are quite menial when you consider the overall design flaw (specifically the poor coupling of the upper and lower reciever assembly). I got out of the Army in '92, and so do not know what is in the field now; however, my own experience with the 16 is such that it jams frequently enough when cleaned religiously and daily, let alone employed where dust and sand are constantly blowing. Sadly, it can be as effective when gripped from the barrel and used as a club!

 

Perhaps it’s time for me to take my 30.06 that I haven’t fired in over 20 years, to a local gun show. Might find a Garand or Carbine to trade toward. I’d prefer the Garand, but price might be higher than budget. My father preferred the Carbine when in the service and at 82 he it would be easier for him to shoot, that is if I can get him to the shooting range.

 

Saying that the M16 is a bum weapon is BS. The early models had problems, but most were due to the fact that the weapon was designed with a specific ammo in mind, and some bean counter ordered something else to save a few bucks. The original flash was a problem sue to grunts using it as a can opener. This is a weapon that is still in use after forty years. The 5.56 round has faults, but the intent was to get the weight down for better portability and to allow more ammo to be carried.

The M14 has no relationship to the M16 and the M16 was never intended for a 7.62 round. The M14 was an extension of lessons learned in WWII and Korea. It is an excellent long range weapon and is still being used by select personnel. The M16 was designed to combine a grease gun M3 with a rifle. Most combat rifles were rarely anything but single shot weapons. You had crew served and heavy rifle MGs, but the M14 combined the BAR and M1 so that evry soldier could be a machingunner. Problem was that only 2-3 people in a platoon had the automatic version. With the M16, every soldier could put out fire quickly.

IMHO, my big regret was when the took away the M79 and stuck a tube under the M16. I hated that thing. On patrol, the M79 could be loaded with a beehive cannister round for maximum short range cover during an ambush.

 

do you think that the army will ever go back to a heavier rifle round with stopping power such as the 30 - 06? Rifles like the m16 have insane muzzle velocity, but i have heard stories of soldiers having to empty as much as 10 rounds into an enemy's torso to down them. Then again you also hear nasty stories about ricochets or if the bullet starts to spin midflight, which creates a nasty mess.

 

One advantage of the 5.56mm is that it makes a nasty wound, if it hits something solid. It will go straight through if it only hit soft tissue, but then so will any round. As for lack of stopping power, I have seen some things that would curl men's souls. The VC would dope up their troops to the point where they could not feel any pain. Attackers could be missing limbs and still charge forward. Weapons are strange things. There have been numerous occasions in the old west where men have survived several shots from a .45.

 

Definitely some scary stuff. Im not going to argue with somebody who has experience with these weapons. Nobody really takes the time to think about what happens when a piece of metal traveling at supersonic speeds meets a human body.

 

Its to bad, but my dad used to have a Garand years ago, but he traded it. Now the CMP sells them for around a thousand, and most of them are pretty beat up. They are manufacturing a few new ones, but they cheapened them up with a stamped receiver instead of the milled.
The Carbine has a bad rep, and I'm not too crazy about the caliber. While its a nice vintage gun from WWII, I wouldn't pay 500 bucks for them, and thats what CMP likes to sell them for. If you want a carbine why not go with an AK? You loose some accuracy but the Russian short is a more powerful round and it is utterly relible. The Carbine was a nice alternative in its day, and for smaller statured men it may have been just the ticket, but apart from collecting, there are much better alternatives.
On the M14, I think this could have been the best battle rifle ever, but it never saw enough action to prove itself. On the .223, I have also heard stories about it taking several torso shots to down some damn insurgent, and thats what you get with the .223. They have shortened the barrels and reduced the powder charge so much that they have turned it into a carbine, especially with the collapsable stock. They had to drop the power from the .308 to .223 because they couldn't get our guys to shoot the bigger calibers accurately. Personally, I think it is pathetic if you can't handle a real battle rifle like a 30-06.

 

Regardless of anyone's dogmatism about the M-16 rifle the fact remains that the original design of the weapon was produced with the 7.62mm cartridge in mind. Yes, the finished "M-16" used the 5.56; however, the original design of the rifle came from the AR-10 to the AR-15 to its final version, the M-16. And I swear that I read an article in a S.O.F. magazine back in the '80's that stated that the decision to go with the lighter round was only reluctantly accepted by those who knew the downfalls of going with such a round. The information may be so obscure that only a primary source from a soldier's journal or the company itself would settle this. From what I read, many old vets of the .30 caliber age fought against and were sorely disappointed when the final decision was made to go with the smaller round. It may take me a while to go through my books to find an article I once had on this very issue but, I'll find it. On second thought it's underneath so much sh*t I just don't have the time. Furthermore, I'll stand on my opinion of the M-16 as a p.o.s.. You may think otherwise but, that's your opinion and you're certainly entitled to it. It's just a pretty-boy rifle in my opinion. You can take the enemy's AK and beat it with a chain, leave it out in the rain and weather for three or four days then bury it in mud and presto! it still shoots like dream. The M-16, you drop it on a hospital floor you might as well get the cleaning kit out!

 

Don't get me wrong. My cousin has an AR-15 and it's fun to shoot. I just wouldn't want to have to depend on the cousin (M-16A1) (again) in a combat environment, especially in the desert. I don't think the old A1 is in use anymore. I don't know about the A2, however, both of those variants are, for the combat role, p.o.s. in my opinion.

The UZI I have never fired. I almost bought a cheap imitation of one at a gun show once but figured, what's the point? Nonetheless, the real McCoy sure was a huge success for the Israeli's who, by most reports I've read, seem to have loved it.

 

I think most of us can agree that the M-16 and rifles like it should not be our standard issue for the army. It is just not a battlerifle. It can't take very much abuse and the .223 doesn't go through much, while a 30-06 will punch through block walls with ease. Like you guys, I think shooting the AR is fun and easy, even on auto, but you wouldn't want to have to rely on it to save your life. Sure, this weapon has its place, like raiding houses and stuff at night it tight quarters, but only a couple guys in the squad should have one of these. The others should be equiped with something like a .308.
Slipdigit is right, after firing an M-16 on auto, an AK-47 is harder to control. I would still take the AK for its reliablility and knockdown power.

 

The early versions of the M-16 were plagued with problems, but most of these were worked out early on. I would never suggest that it might be as rugged as the AK but it is still a reliable weapon. Do you really think that the richest nation in the world (and most aggressive if you read the press) would field its army with at POS?

The caliber was chosen for several reasons IMO, one when fighting civilized foes, if a man gets hit someone takes care of him, so a wound takes more men out of the battle than a kill would. A downside to this is the stopping power of the round, which it doesn’t. The other reason I would put forth would be the ease of shooting on auto. Image having M1 on auto, you would be all over the place.

I can not say that it would be a purchase of mine but I like the AR15. I have not shot a AK yet but I would like to. If you are in the US and serious about wanting an M1 Garand they have a program called the CMP (Citizens Marksmanship Program) that you can join. You have to shoot 40 rounds in a sponsored shoot, but they will sell you an M1 for around 500, my buddy says they have authentic rifles for 750 but that you can get a newer Swiss used one for around 500.

 

The entire time I've been reading posts on this thread I've been thinking about an M1 Garand conversion I saw in a magazine several years ago. I found it this morning in a 1995 issue of American Survival Guide magazine. The conversion is from the standard Garand to a version called the T26.....

The T26 is also called the Tanker Garand, although no such models were ever issued to tankers. The article also says that the T26 was a shorter, lighter and more compact version intended for use by airborne and jungle troops, however, none were ever issued. Also, the redistribution of most of the weight to the rear stock of the rifle is said to cut down considerably on recoil, giving about the same as a .223 fired from an AR-15.
www.scott-duff.com/t26.htm

www.theothersideofkim.com/index.php/tos/printv/9031

 

The T26 in that picture looks like some of the Garands that they are manufacturing now, with the stamped receiver. I have seen several new Garands at gunshows and they look real nice, and they are around $1,200. I would rather have the old one that is a little beat up, but has the milled receiver.
The CMP is a good program, but a lot of what they sell you, especially the cheaper stuff, is so beat up that it is almost junk. A range near me has these CMP shoots periodically, so it would not be a big deal to participate, but a few years back when I was looking into getting a Springfield, I found out that it would be $500 bucks and it wasn't in very good shape. I instead looked around at a couple gunshows and found Mausers in "exellent" condition for about $180.

Tikilal: The AR is far and away a funner gun to shoot than the AK. It is more accurate, has less recoil, and is not as loud. AK's can really bark, and with my height and long arms it is sometimes difficult to fit into the sights of an AK. The AK also heats up very quickly and it is easy to burn your hand on the metal near the foregrip and the barrel.

I see both of these guns as carbines, not battlerifles. I think the "richest nation in the world" made a mistake when it equiped its army with the .223. They can put the short barrels and folding and collapsable stocks on these guns, and they make them a compact little tank gun, ideal for going through houses and such. Its when we have marines out in the desert or in the mountains shooting at 400+ yards that not having a larger caliber in your squad really kills you, quite literally.

 

The desert was so bad that keeping a sand free weapon was an arduous duty. When on guard duty with the M60 we were given a gallon of CLP of which we were "supposed" to dump into the opened receiver if danger was certain. Luckily, only a handful of Iraqis made it to our FA position to surrender and that was in the HQ battery. They gave one guy a freeze dried pork patty (because it's forbidden in Islam) from an MRE which he, very suprisingly, turned down. They then gave him an apple and in three bites it was gone, stem and all.

 

IMO. You mentioned one of the reasons. Shooting full auto with something like a .308 will heat the barrel quicker. You can carry more rounds with less weight with a .223.
Why would the average Marine need to shoot 400yds...with open sights anyway?

 

I was speaking of the AK's tendency to heat up rather quickly, to where it is easy to bump the wrong part and burn yourself.
Trying to fire a .308 from the shoulder on full auto is no picnic, and it is hard to be accurate.
I should have mentioned the ability to carry more ammo as another reason to go to the .223, apologies.
Although I was not there, my information is coming from things I have read and a few first hand accounts from relatives and friends. I have heard many stories of squads being pinned down in the Afgan mountains by some guy maybe 400-600 yards off. Our guys were unable to do anything because the only caliber in their unit was .223, and they could not accurately return fire. This is just one example, there have been many stories of guys with Dragunov's pinning down US troops in the desert, in cities, and in the mountians, from ranges 300yds+. Our guys could do very little besides sporadic fire in the general direction of the shooter. I bet they were glad they were carrying all that ammo then. With some practice, you could accurately shoot a .223 at ranges out to around 500yds, but when you get out this far with this caliber, you are pretty much just lobbing the bullet out there, and its power is greatly diminished when it reaches the target.
Don't get me wrong for bad mouthing the .223, it is a great gun, but it should not be the standard issue.

 

Thanks for the heads up on the AK.

This I am afraid is one of those subjects that we may be uterly unable to comprehend. The armed forces of the world seem to be going smaller in the caliber of the standard infantry round. There has to be a reason for this and we obviously cant see it... it might be cost. I have no idea anyway.

Your pinned down story, (I do not discount it) I am a bit confused. Each US rifle squad has two light machine guns either the M-60 (7.62mm) or the M-249 (5.56mm) Both of which are accurate for over 800 meters. Also most squads have one person who can use his M16 accuratly at 600 meters. I wonder if your buddy was not with a complete squad or fire team and maybe the were more bad guys or somthing still a great story.

 

I did not think that the M60 was being used much anymore, and I thought this was ridiculus, because a .223 SAW is pathetic.
This story comes from early in the Afgan war, and standard issue was this lighter bullet (something like 60 gr.) as situations similar to this continued to occur, commanders would specially import the old, bigger bullets for their troopers. I have only heard mixed information, but many seemed to prefer the older bullets and they apparently had much better performance, especially knockdown.
If you can, define "accurately" 600m.
Going to the .223 allows every man to carry the same cartrige, so they are interchangable with all weapons in the squad, including the M-249 SAW. This is one of the few positives of the .223, along with less recoil and it is easier to shoot, especially on auto. I would rather have our troops be able to fire 10 good shots from a .308 than just spray 150 rds from a .223 in the general direction of the enemy. I hope their are other good reasons for going to the .223, or America is in even more trouble than I thought.