Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

M1 Garand. Still could be used for modern warfare?

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by MarineRaider, Jul 3, 2009.

  1. lwd

    lwd Ace

    Jul 24, 2007
    Likes Received:
    Not really. If you compare it to 5.56 rifles it has an advantage in penetration and potential damage as well. Now if you compare it with a 7.62 rifle such as say an M-14 it really doesn't have any advantages although it's on a par in a number of places. If you don't have to hump the ammo and aren't doing full auto then an Garand might be a better choice than an M-16 or an AK-47. But then a Barret might also. However since there are times one is going to need to carry the ammo and there are times full auto is useful ....
  2. Mibo

    Mibo Member

    Feb 9, 2008
    Likes Received:
    So the garand would be good specifically chosen for a fortified position combat, by a third world country, who cannot beg and choose. :eek: :p

    The point has been proven over and over again, the M1 Garand is outdated by modern standards. There are better options out there for modern armies and cheaper, better, options for third world countries. Sure, "beggars can't be choosers", and they could be used by some country, but if i had to choose where to use my 20$ in a war situation, i'd sure as hell buy an AK47. ;)
  3. Jock Williams

    Jock Williams Member

    Apr 9, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Of course the M1 is outdated -and since the M14 was an attempt to reduce some of its shortcomings the M14 is superior to it. Nonetheless either an M1 or an M14 can be an effective infantry weapon BUT -you have to be working under the "one shot one kill" theory.

    One hit with a 30/06 or 7.62 round is superior to 20 misses with 5.56 ammo -but one hit with 5.56 is also deadly enough. Troops have to learn to aim accurately and ACHIEVE that hit -all the misses do not count.

    If, of course, you expect to miss a lot -it is better to be able to carry hundreds of rounds of lighter (5.56) ammo.

    Like many have said -the 30/06 or 7.62 round have longer range and penetrating capability.

    I have fired thousands of rounds of both .30 cal and 5.56 -and would (given the choice) carry an M14. But then -I have been practising shooting for about 60 years -and can HIT what I am aiming at -first shot!

    Jock Williams Yogi 13
    brndirt1 likes this.
  4. brndirt1

    brndirt1 Saddle Tramp

    Jul 7, 2008
    Likes Received:
    I've only been shooting rifles for about 53 years myself, and it is the placement of the round that makes the difference. I've used my .22 mag for butchering purposes, a single shot in the right place and a yearling steer is "dead in a pile" without alarming the rest of the herd. I have also taken a deer one time in my yard with a regular .22 Mossberg semi-auto with a single shot. I hunted white-tails here in Montana's river breaks with a .30 Carbine M1A1 folding stock that I bought in the fifties, it was great at under a 100 yards, but only good beyond that for varmits like chucks and coyotes.

    Placement is everything, as you mention it doesn't matter how big or small the round is if ya miss the target!

    Welcome to the forum, by the way. Look forward to more posts from the Great White North!
  5. b0ned0me

    b0ned0me Member

    Apr 17, 2009
    Likes Received:
    Exactly. So even for poor countries, if you need a small rifle you go for something in the AK/AR/FNC/(etc. etc. almost ad infinitum) class, and if you need something heftier you go FAL/M14/G3 or even (drumroll) the Beretta BM59! It would be a very odd set of circumstances indeed that would lead you to the M1 nowadays.
  6. ScreamingEagleMG42

    ScreamingEagleMG42 Member

    May 16, 2006
    Likes Received:

    A rifle that stands at the top of my fantasy collection.

Share This Page