AR15 VS M1 Garand!

[netsecurity]

The caliber alone determines the winner. 30 caliber is a good long range hunting round. Its extra bullet weight allows it to travel further, and take down larger game. However, any sane person would choose 223 over 30 in an urban setting, so they have more ammo, a lighter gun, and quicker maneuverability.

 

[SSGSAD]

Urban, AR... LONG RANGE, M1A .....

 

[LPMan59]

M1: accurate, great ballistics and range. heavy as hell (relatively), large, low capacity, rare and expensive ammo
AR15/M4: lightweight, higher capacity, accurate, wide variety of optics, lights, etc for better adaptability for the mission, select fire capable

In today's world, I think the AR platform is the winner. I own both and there is no sound cooler than the M1's "ping". But if a zombie apocalypse occurred, I'm going with the AR.

I would also add that M1 thumb is a *****. lolz

 

[repeter1977]

While I carried an M4 in Iraq, I would say that the M1 is still a great rifle, especially for the environments of Afghanistan. They have taken a lot of M14s out of mothball cause the M4s were not doing the job, or reaching the distance. Granted, the M14 is not an M1. Also, a good M14 would work just fine at close distances as well. Personally, if given the choice, (which really does not happen if you deploy) I would go with a M14 or a SCAR 17, as the 5.56 has not proven to be a very good man stopper. I do know that shot placement counts for a lot, but, if you can hit someone and take them out of the fight, i like that much better then wounding someone.

 

[davedolli]

M4 all the way in todays world. The M1 is a great rifle, and so is the M14.

Dave

 

[STEEL CORE]

You can hold off one Zombie at a long distance with the M-1, for the rest of the family closing quickly on your flank, make mine an M-16.

 

[rby1rby]

The M1 is a great rifle, but I think the AR would be the better choice

 

[Leo]

The AR is a better alley cat, but as soon as things get open, the little varmint hunter round runs out of steam. At 600 yards, an M1 bullet has more steam left AFTER 600 yards than an AR has in three bullets at the muzzle. Different tools for different jobs.

 

[nucone]

I just love (not) armchair debates on subjects such as this. The fact is that most of us (myself included) are not qualified to answer the question and therefore, I did not vote. I served in the Navy aboard submarines and never had to actually do or train to perform the hypothetical task you describe. Further, you are making a comparison for a firearm that has actually been used in combat to a civilian non-select fire version of a military firearm that to the best of my knowledge, has not been used in combat.

If I were to go into combat for the situation you describe, I would use whatever the military issued me and hope that it would be the FN SCAR Heavy.

 

[Robjps]

Guns are tools, use the correct one for the job. Sometimes you can use the same tool for several jobs buts not always the best choice.

If i had to pick to have only 1 id take the AR, it covers more jobs.

 

[Robjps]

I'm talking modern combat. Clearing buildings and Urban setting.

Since you added more criteria:

Clearing buildings? AR (even tho its not the best at it. A subgun would be better.

Urban fighting don't under estimate the m2 ball ammo with a tungsten core to reach out and touch someone through a car/wall/cinder blocks. Turning cover into concealment is nice.

 

[Mad Anthony Wayne]

On the TV program "Triggers" they put a ballistics torso behind a log that was wider than the shoulders of the torso. They then shot an M1 Garand at the log from about 30-50 feet, it went straight through the log and put a death hit on the ballistics torso....straight through what was basically a damn good sized tree (the kind of tree you would probably be comfortable behind in a fire fight). That 30 06 round is something else. 7.62x63 if I remember right. An AR 15 may be shorter, lighter, and higher cap...but don't just offhandedly dismiss an M1 Garand as an effective fighting rifle.

 

[KillStick]

I will go with the Garand.

 

[Cerberus]

The M1 is iconic, and I really loved mine when I had one, but ain't no way in Hades I would want to carry a rifle in modern combat that is limited to 8 rounds and shouts "I'm empty" on the last round fired.

There really is a reason I refer to the M14 as "the M1 perfected." Rather ironic considering that John Garand wanted to built the M1 with a detachable box magazine from the begining.

I voted AR, as I've always like the rifle.

 

[Acole]

Main thing I'm thinking is the difference in ammo quantities. The AR-15 not only has (much) higher capacity, but the small size of the 5.56 round also means it's not difficult to carry a lot of it. Not so easy with 8-round en bloc clips of .30-06.

Shot for shot, the M1 might be more effective, but for any prolonged engagement, I'm thinking the AR-15 would be best.

 

[repeter1977]

Main thing I'm thinking is the difference in ammo quantities. The AR-15 not only has (much) higher capacity, but the small size of the 5.56 round also means it's not difficult to carry a lot of it. Not so easy with 8-round en bloc clips of .30-06.

Shot for shot, the M1 might be more effective, but for any prolonged engagement, I'm thinking the AR-15 would be best.

It is easier to carry more rounds for it, as I have carried twice the combat load while I was overseas. Granted, its cause you needed WAY more rounds to be as effective as the 7.62 rounds. Oh, I know the arguments about shot placement and the brain stem and heart shot, one will stop the fight, but really, at 200 meters or so, you really going to be able to hit that small a target, WHILE its shooting at you? I aim center mass and let the rounds do their work. That being said, I would rather just have the bigger round that drops the bad guys.
Granted, you can miss a lot more with the 5.56 then the 30'06 since you can carry more rounds but seemed to work just fine in WWII, including the house to house fighting that was done back then.

 

[Bapak2ja]

How about just taking a grenade launcher or bazooka and take down the entire building. That will clear things out pretty quick. Forget about collateral damage. War is about killing people and breaking things. Treat it like Cologne and Hamburg, or Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Peace comes from victory. Victory comes through killing the enemy and breaking both his weapons of war and his spirit. If they want an urban war in a city, destroy the city and save American lives. The enemy can surrender or die. Simple, really.

I know, that was not the question, and it is not politically correct. But if we have to go to war, kill the enemy in massive numbers until they surrender. Then go home. Protect the American military personnel above all else.

 

[armyvet209]

ar15, the less reloads the better

 

[indianafly]

AR15 chambered in 300 black out for house to house but M14 for longer ranges.

 

[Cerberus]

Granted, you can miss a lot more with the 5.56 then the 30'06 since you can carry more rounds but seemed to work just fine in WWII, including the house to house fighting that was done back then.

Why not carry a Brown Bess or Charleville? They worked just fine during the Revolution. Or maybe a P53 Enfield or M61 Springfield? They worked equally well during the Civil War. War evolves, weapons change. The M1 was king when most other armies were primarily carrying bolt rifles.

Nostalgia is one thing, reality is another.