AR15 VS M1 Garand!

[Cerberus]

There are still troops in Iraq, they are just not combat troops. As for the M4 being used by Special Forces, they use quite a lot of different rifles, including the HK variant and the SCAR's. Also, the military has been trying for years to replace the M4, but they say that the benefits do not outweigh the cost. And they are talking about the cost of getting new rifles, magazines, etc. As well as the cost of getting rid of the old rifles. Yep, they figured they would have to pay to get rid of them, so thats why it would cost too much to replace them. Also, the test that the military has run shown that the M4 jammed 4 times more then the other rifles tested to replace it. They blamed the magazine, however, there were a couple using the same magazines, soooo kinda hard to believe.
Newer carbines outperform M4 in dust test - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times
Ive been hoping that it gets replaced soon, as I have been using it my entire career and I know that there are better rifles out there. But, once again, thats my

Interesting read. What I gather from it were the following snippets.

"Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test."

"Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,” the test report states."

"For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone."

 

[ViperJock]

AR 10 or variant. FTW. 16" barrel on a good 308 AR gives you 500yds plus.

 

[repeter1977]

Interesting read. What I gather from it were the following snippets.

"Out of the 60,000 rounds fired in the tests earlier in the summer, the 10 M4s tested had 307 stoppages, test results show, far fewer than the 882 in the most recent test."

"Weapons officials pointed out that these tests were conducted in extreme conditions that did not address “reliability in typical operational conditions,” the test report states."

"For now, he said the Army will stick with the M4, because soldier surveys from Iraq and Afghanistan continue to highlight the weapon’s popularity among troops in the combat zone."

Thanks for actually reading my info and the story I posted, and not just some of it. I actually really appreciate it.
As for the Soldiers sticking to the M4, its cause a very good portion, have never fired anything else in all their life. So, of course its better then nothing. They have nothing to compare it too. Of course, I cannot fault them, cause its hard being single (in the military anyway) and being able to buy and fire other rifles with your own personal money. Cannot blame the Army TOO much, cause they are barely getting people trained on the M4, so taking more time to train them on other weapon systems would only take away valuable time that they do not have enough of. I try to teach other Soldiers around me various weapons, to let them see what else is out there. But I only have so much money too, haha.
I am glad that I also got the right article, cause there have been multiple tests on the various rifles, and good to see this was the one that talked about more then one. I am not saying that the M4 is junk, it has served us well for years (ok, pretty well). But it also has a history of failing, and then trying to put the blame off on the people involved instead of a faulty weapon system. I am just of the belief that there are plenty of other great quality rifles out there that can be used. Here is another article about MORE testing going on. Colt recently dropped from the testing, although they were not the only ones
Colt, S&W among those out of carbine bidding - Army News | News from Afghanistan & Iraq - Army Times

 

[gunowner930]

I voted AR. The AR is simply the more versatile weapon. Although there are times when the added energy of the 30.06 would be useful, particularly in long range engagements. I just dont see myself in 400-500 yd engagements in central Indiana. The M1 Garand was a great rifle in its time, but if one desires a rifle chambered in a full powered cartridge, the M1A, FN FAL, or even the modern .308 SCAR are better options, mostly due to more efficient reloads and higher capacity.

As I said, I believe there are scenarios where the full-powered cartridges are more desirable. However, let's stop putting all .30 cal cartridges on the same level. There is an enormous difference between a 7.62x39 and 7.62x51, let alone a .300 Win Mag. Bullet weight and velocity create energy, not caliber.

The AR is far more ergonomic, possesses nearly 3x the capacity in a standard magazine, allows for much quicker reloads, more 5.56x45 can be carried than 30.06, offers faster shots on multiple targets due to lower recoil, and is absolutely lethal at short and medium ranges. The lone advantage the M1 offers is a significantly more powerful cartridge.

 

[Cerberus]

Repeter, it will be interesting to see what finally shakes loose from the Army test.

I actually owe the fact I am a gun nut from the many types of guns I encountered from buddies that owned them while on active duty.

 

[repeter1977]

Cerberus, thats how I had started shooting all the various types myself. I am still in, so I TRY to help out some of the new kids. Course, not all are gun nuts like you or I apparently either. I just dont want them being in that group of troops that say its a great rifle cause they have never fired anything else. Don't get me wrong, if they fired a couple other rifles, and still thought it was the best, then I value their opinion.
Yea, I got excited when I had heard the Army was going to be using the SCAR, picked up one for myself, then found out they are redoing the tests. Oh well, got a great rifle so Im not too upset.

 

[gunowner930]

Cerberus, thats how I had started shooting all the various types myself. I am still in, so I TRY to help out some of the new kids. Course, not all are gun nuts like you or I apparently either. I just dont want them being in that group of troops that say its a great rifle cause they have never fired anything else. Don't get me wrong, if they fired a couple other rifles, and still thought it was the best, then I value their opinion.
Yea, I got excited when I had heard the Army was going to be using the SCAR, picked up one for myself, then found out they are redoing the tests. Oh well, got a great rifle so Im not too upset.

I wouldn't get your hopes up about a new rifle anytime soon. The 5.56x45 is going nowhere. Every 1st, 2nd, and even 3rd rate military in the world has moved away from full-powered cartridges for the main issue weapons. The Russians have even moved away from the 7.62x39 in favor of the 5.45x39. A replacement for the M4 chambered for 5.56x45 may offer slightly better ergonomics, slightly better accuracy, and better reliability. None of these advantages mean that the DOD should spend 2x -3x the money of an m4 on a one-one replacement. That price difference really really adds up when considering that 1 million+ rifles must be purchased.

The M4 is not perfect, but it is reliable with proper maintenance, and most importantly it is still an effective weapon for our armed forced on today's battfields. If you look at the progression from our main issue rifles, M1903 to M1 Garand to M14 to M16/M4, they all represent significant technological advances over their predecessors. Until there is an opportunity to purchase a rifle which offers a significant technological leap over the M4, then the M4 will continue to stick around.

 

[Johnny C]

Against the M1 (a battle rifle) of course the battle carbine (AR, AK, M1 Carbine) is better in urban/cqb environment. But I would take the AK at 7.62 over the AR at 5.56 in that environment. In open field, I would take the 30-30 or 308 M1 Garand over the AR or AK.

I think you mean .30-06

 

[Socomike]

There has never been an easier question to answer. (Edit: actually there was. The Mosin debate was easier to answer ) The M1 is not better suited for anything other than long range shots on a static target. The M4 is leagues ahead in every category otherwise.

Everyone talking about 500 meter shots blah blah blah. Dont kid yourself. A 500 meter shot with iron sights sucks if the target is sitting still, there is no wind, and you are in a comfortable shooting position. Ok, dreams over. Lets now talk about real combat where the enemy is running from side to side, using cover, laying suppressive fire, and you are curled up in the smallest ball you can make behind a large tree trying not to get a hole punched in you. Can YOU make that shot? My guess is that even some of the better marksman here or in the military cant consistently make that shot.

I can tell you that with confidence because we used M14's in combat and the average to slightly above average joe was not consistently making those shots at distance.

To Repeater1977. The 5.56 is absolutely capable of killing men in one shot. I know. I have killed men in one shot with a 5.56. What you are describing about rounds blowing right through people is not uncommon for ANY round..to include ".30 cal", whatever that is. If a bullet enters a space in the body where there is not a vital system or doesnt manage to get a blood vessel or artery, it will exit with little more than a hole on each end. Only a fool discounts 5.56 because it is a "varmint round" or it "does not reliably kill a human sized target". Get real.

The facts are this. The AR15 gives you nearly 4Xs the amount of shots before a reload. That is PARAMOUNT in combat. You spend most of your ammo denying the use of terrain to the enemy. If hes in a house, you shoot through the windows to deny him the use of the windows. If he is in a pasture 500 meters out using the terrain for cover, you shoot the terrain to attempt to funnel him into a position where you can maneuver on him or you can get a better shot etc. Anyone that picks the M1 is either completely discounting the use of suppressive fire in combat, or has never been in combat and doesnt know any better.

The AR15 is plenty accurate and lethal to 300 meters and in my experience the average person will have trouble hitting anything at that distance, let alone in a combat situation. It has the magazine capacity to conduct combat with any personal weapon on the face of the planet, it is lethal enough to RELIABLY KILL HUMANS, light enough to carry long distances, versatile enough to fit a wide range of situations, and is the carbine I will pick 11/10 until firearms technology evolves or something better is produced.

For now, the AR is like an app for your smart phone. You need a rifle to shoot at distance? There is an AR for that. You need a subgun for close in work? Theres an AR for that. You need a rifle that fellates you and holds your beer while doing it? There is most definitely an AR that does that.

 

[Mosinowner]

Depends what you are going to be doing. Urban combat AR15 would be better. If you are going to be doing open combat like in fields you are going to want the power of the 30-06 that the Garand has. Just take both and problem solved.

That would be heavy

 

[Bluedragon]

I voted for the AR15, I like the Garand and hope to own one someday..but this is 2012, and the weight, capacity, and enbloc mags could be seen in today's battlefield..then again I'm not in the army nor a cop so what do I know? If I had to have a M1 type rifle for whatever SHTF scenario may be.. I would much rather have an M14 if I couldn't have a AR.

 

[Gillclaypot]

I have both but show me a modern day one in 30-06.I also have had over a dozen ars and half a dozen garands.Both are easy to work on.You can tool up a garand and its more heavy.Ammo costs more."Ching!"

 

[duffman0286]

Just to throw it out there M1 Garand EBR id pick this just because the cool factor

 

[Robjps]

Just to throw it out there M1 Garand EBR id pick this just because the cool factor

very sexy

 

[Robjps]

When did they order M1As from Springfield?

You seem to like to twist stuff, i said they ordered semi auto m14 and asked you what the difference is. The military has had semi auto m14's as long as they have had full auto ones. And is my understanding they only order semi auto M14's now.

M1A's were not meant to be called M1A's but M14's the government wouldn't allow it. Next will you defend the difference between Beretta 92 and M9?

 

[netsecurity]

It's more about the bullet than the gun. 30 cal is a great sniping round, but too much power and reoil for urban ops.

note to previous poster, m1a is m14 (vietnam era), m1 Garand is from ww2.

 

[Steelman]

Just to throw it out there M1 Garand EBR id pick this just because the cool factor

Say it ain't so, John Garand! Say it ain't so!


I don't know who is responsible for this, but when I know there will be a trial at The Hague.

 

[Robjps]

note to previous poster, m1a is m14 (vietnam era), m1 Garand is from ww2.

I'm aware another poster made it out to be a difference so i asked him what it was considering m14's come in full auto and semi. M1a's started out as guns made from milsurp m14 parts.

 

[SmileDocHill]

Say it ain't so, John Garand! Say it ain't so!


I don't know who is responsible for this, but when I know there will be a trial at The Hague.

The pic does make it look pretty cool, and I'm telling myself, "He didn't cut anything, that Garand is still OK under there".



https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/long_guns/193834-tactical_sporterized_m1_garand.html