-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
AR or M1 garand?
- Thread starter jmjkd
- Start date
tuna
NES Member
AR.
Had a Garand, bought into the "finest battle implement..." blah blah blah. Thought it sucked. Traded it for a 30-30.
Never had an AR, but fired enough rounds through the M16A1/A2 and M4 to know it is a decent gun, and around here much more useful.
Had a Garand, bought into the "finest battle implement..." blah blah blah. Thought it sucked. Traded it for a 30-30.
Never had an AR, but fired enough rounds through the M16A1/A2 and M4 to know it is a decent gun, and around here much more useful.
Why did your M1 suck. Other than weight and ammo capacity atvantage to the m4
I cant see a difference. Both are good. Good enough for government work.
I have both.....the garand is more satisfying to shoot for me.
Both are simple to use and in design.
Funny thing is m1 cost 85$ ea in ww2 vs m4
about 600$ today. If you do a back in time cost inflation. A m4 would cost about 35$ back then..... just coffee time babble
^ This
Garand... Can never have too many M1's
I have both, but my AR is my SHTF firearm. My Garand comes out a few times a year, and I admit to babying it. She is 69 years young and deserves to be treated like a lady.
An AR. I have never warmed up to athe Garand although it was the finest Main Battle Rifle (which is a concept that has been eclipsed by the assault rifle concept) of its era, and what an era.
As a shooter it is heavy and I'm not into the recoil the 30-06 generates anymore.
I'd prefer a top drawer AR with the bells and whistles (top flight optics, enhanced pistol grip, etc.) The exception would be an M1 with exceptional historical provenance such as one issued to Audie Murphy or something like that.
I don't usually spend much time speculating on threads like this, but I have cabin fever. If the OP is considering giving away either an M1 or an AR I'm in![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
because the best rifle is a free rifle ![[laugh]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/012.gif "Laugh [laugh]")
As a shooter it is heavy and I'm not into the recoil the 30-06 generates anymore.
I'd prefer a top drawer AR with the bells and whistles (top flight optics, enhanced pistol grip, etc.) The exception would be an M1 with exceptional historical provenance such as one issued to Audie Murphy or something like that.
I don't usually spend much time speculating on threads like this, but I have cabin fever. If the OP is considering giving away either an M1 or an AR I'm in
because the best rifle is a free rifle 
Depends on what you want to do with it and the pedigree of each rifle. Value wise, they are pretty much a wash for run of the mill rifles. The Garand is a joy to hold and ponder. If you like history, the Garand is the rifle to own. Practicality wise, It will also beat you up with recoil and cost near twice as much to shoot. if you don't care about the historical significance and/or just want a blasting rifle, get the AR. If course, you can also split the difference and opt for a CMP ready match AR.
M1.... you can always build or buy an AR pretty readily. To get an M1 you have to buy one through the CMP which in the future im sure will dry up or private/gun shop sales which are way inflated.
Garand. it will eat almost anything. you can tear it apart with barely any tools or "knowhow". It's sexy. It's built like a tank. and it is has NO PLASTIC. I had an AR and dumped it after less than a year. I didn't care for it. I'll stick with my M1
As the replies thus far ably illustrate, this "either/or" question runs aground on the fact that the M1 and the M4 are different tools, adapted to different missions. This leads to two conclusions:
First, as a number of folks have opined, putting aside cost and availability issues, you might consider getting both. Owning a screwdriver in no way negates or diminishes the value of also owning a hammer. If you're into tools.
Second, also as a number of folks have opined, availability of the two rifles is vastly different. M1s, particularly good shooter M1s, are much harder to find, so if you find one, there is merit on this basis alone for seizing the opportunity.
As for felt recoil, this is also undeniably a subjective issue, on which one person's opinion may have little or no value to how you might feel. For myself (not a huge fellow by any means), the recoil of an M1 is quite tolerable (far more so than O3s and other '06 bolt guns, which I also shoot).
Store-bought '06 ammo certainly is more expensive than store-bought 5.56 ammo, and if you are limited to store-bought, you have the added complication that not all factory '06 ammo is usable in an M1. (Do some research on the issue of "M1 port pressure" or study https://www.zediker.com/downloads/m14.html.) Likewise, some of the from time to time offered '06 military surplus ammo is corrosive, and this you should avoid at all costs.
On the other hand, if you reload then the cost differential between the two rounds is manageable. My M1 round is a 165 grain SGK pushed by 46 grains of Win748, both of which were until recently both readily available and tolerably priced. My 5.56 load is a 55 grain M193 slug (FMJ BT), preferably Winchester, pushed by 23 grains of Win748. Before recent perturbations in the components market, I used to use $0.15/round as an estimate of the cost of the 5.56 reloads and $0.25 for the M1.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two rifles in question is their amenability to optical sights: easy with the M4 and (in my opinion) impossible with the M1. If you feel you need a scope, the choice is clear. On the other hand, the M1 shares with the M14 perhaps the best iron sights ever found on a military rifle, and even with my high mileage eyesight, cleaning the reduced L target at 200 yards (prone) isn't that hard.
Hope the foregoing is helpful to the OP.
First, as a number of folks have opined, putting aside cost and availability issues, you might consider getting both. Owning a screwdriver in no way negates or diminishes the value of also owning a hammer. If you're into tools.
Second, also as a number of folks have opined, availability of the two rifles is vastly different. M1s, particularly good shooter M1s, are much harder to find, so if you find one, there is merit on this basis alone for seizing the opportunity.
As for felt recoil, this is also undeniably a subjective issue, on which one person's opinion may have little or no value to how you might feel. For myself (not a huge fellow by any means), the recoil of an M1 is quite tolerable (far more so than O3s and other '06 bolt guns, which I also shoot).
Store-bought '06 ammo certainly is more expensive than store-bought 5.56 ammo, and if you are limited to store-bought, you have the added complication that not all factory '06 ammo is usable in an M1. (Do some research on the issue of "M1 port pressure" or study https://www.zediker.com/downloads/m14.html.) Likewise, some of the from time to time offered '06 military surplus ammo is corrosive, and this you should avoid at all costs.
On the other hand, if you reload then the cost differential between the two rounds is manageable. My M1 round is a 165 grain SGK pushed by 46 grains of Win748, both of which were until recently both readily available and tolerably priced. My 5.56 load is a 55 grain M193 slug (FMJ BT), preferably Winchester, pushed by 23 grains of Win748. Before recent perturbations in the components market, I used to use $0.15/round as an estimate of the cost of the 5.56 reloads and $0.25 for the M1.
Perhaps the biggest difference between the two rifles in question is their amenability to optical sights: easy with the M4 and (in my opinion) impossible with the M1. If you feel you need a scope, the choice is clear. On the other hand, the M1 shares with the M14 perhaps the best iron sights ever found on a military rifle, and even with my high mileage eyesight, cleaning the reduced L target at 200 yards (prone) isn't that hard.
Hope the foregoing is helpful to the OP.
tuna
NES Member
I think that it just boils down to not being satisfying to shoot for me. I felt it was too bulky and ungainly (I'm sure the rifle would make a pot/kettle comment hearing that from me) and I just plain old didn't like it. Oddly enough, I didn't find the recoil bad at all.
I'm not a big fan of ARs either.
Just saying as a choice between two guns I don't really like, I like the AR platform better.
I actually like my 30-30 better than either of them.
No disrespect intended, but it's the 21st Century. Get a TAVOR....![[mg]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/036.gif "Machine Gun [mg]")
FIFY.
Serously, if I had to choose, and my survival depended on it, I'd have to go with an AR.
