They both have their +'s and -'s. Shot placement and tactics is what will count with either one. The fact that most dealers went insane with their prices only helped the popularity of the AK, which is what I saw you carrying.
Love the way this guy beats on his mags after they are inserted....what's that all about? Is that what they mean by "double tap?" And no, he's is definately not a scientist!
Having used and carried the M-16A1 , the AR-15a1 and A2 the M-1A , FAL, and HK, and having owned several SKS and AK platforms, I chose the M-1 Garand. It is a better rifle in the field than any of them. Its easier to clean, more accurate ,has a longer range, and better terminal ballistics in 30:06 than all of them. I can carry more ammo in my M-1956 web gear for the M-1 than I can for the .308's for the same weight. (160 rounds on the webbing + 2 48 round bandoleers = 256 clipped 30:06 ;and its 9 oz. LIGHTER than 10 full AK mags on my scales.) or more than most carry for the 5.56. The Garand was still in service until 1963 with the regular Army(It WAS NOT taken out of service in 1957 as there were never enough M-14 rifles to completely replace it with the regular army before the M-16 came into general issue in 1966) and 1970-71 with the Guard and Reserve and I HATE the AR. You want an AR? GROVIE! But I hate that POS, I sold mine and will never have another.---Ray
PO'd American, back in the day, I taught my guys to insert a mag, and then always tap the bottom after insertion. Reason is, in the fog of combat, many soldiers will not insert the magazine all the way in,(you will not hear the click of proper insertion during a fire fight)the mag will drop out, unnoticed by the soldier, and they will pull the trigger, and panic a little, or a lot, when the rifle does not fire. Plus, immediate action is, tap the magazine, pull the charging handle back, observe the chamber for problems,(during the lesson, I would tell them they had to clear any obstructions at this point, like overrides, double feeds, etc.)release the charging handle, tap the forward assist, and attempt firing. Double tap is shooting some one twice, as in to make sure they are down. Probably derives from the mafia method, bang bang dead, two in the head. The people I shot in VietNam and elsewhere, I always double tapped. Ammo is cheap, wounds from not-quite-dead-yet-enemy are expensive and deadly.
The test was interesting. I could see something turning orange on several occasions, between the upper and lower handguards.
ARs are useful for what they are designed for, but definitely not as sturdy as many other battle rifles.
Ray, who carries a M1 Garand, has a lot of good points. They can still be had from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and are a great rifle. He details many of the reasons why it was the standard US service rifle for so long, and why it could be a wise choice for a person seeking one all-around rifle. The similar M-14 or M-1A would also be a wise choice.
The important things when choosing a battle rifle are for it be effective, and for the shooter to be comfortable carrying it and its ammo load. Different people have different requirements.
I was issued a piece of crap m-16 in 'Nam. I'm still leery, I guess. I seem to be having real good luck with my Mini-14, so I won't be changing in this lifetime.
I have both M1A and AR-15s. I believe the AR is generally reliable but I have one example that jams. It took me a long time to figure out the chamber has rust in it, so it's not a fault of the design. No wonder that barrel was for sale in the gun show...
I think penetration is more important than most people realize, so I like that .308...
Anon 15:13 16 Jan. NO the military load for the 7.62 NATO is in NO WAY comparable to the military 30.06 load. That is an internet myth. The military loading for the 7.62 NATO Ball or AP is a 147 gr. FMJ or AP at 2700FPS from a 24 inch (1in12 pitch) tube. The Tavor , HK-91 , FAL PARA and all other "shorty's" are MUCH slower,(2300 to 2500FPS) Many delivering no more energy past 350 yards than the SKS-1945. The 30.06 is a 152 gr. ball @ 2900FPS OR a M2AP 163Gr. AP at 2800FPS OR a 172 Gr. FMJBT Match at 2680FPS.From a 24 inch 1 in 10 pitch tube. All military standard loadings and all deliver more energy "down range" than any "Mil-standard" 7.62 load with the exception of the various sniper loads like the M-118 and its "improvements". The US Army went to the 7.62 NATO BECAUSE it was less powerful than the '06. The M-14 is an evolution of the Garand and they are similar in many ways>>BUT ... THEY ARE VERY DIFFERANT rifles. In some ways they are better (The M-14; can't beat that lined bore) But I still like the Garand better.--Ray
Sigh, both the M2 147gr 30-06 2805 fps and the 147 grain 7.62 NATO M80 2800 fps rounds are designed to leave the issued rifle's barrel at approx the same speed. They wanted the same ballistics so that training was minimized. The M14s sites are almost identical to the M1's except they're marked in meter instead of yards.
The M14 has a 22 inch barrel vs the M1's 24. partly because of the flash hider.
The main reason we went to 7.62 NATO is the shorter cartridge (51mm vs 63mm) was the full auto desire for the rifles.
ANON: The M2 .30 ball has a 152 grain FMJ bullet at 2900 FPS. The standard 7.62MM NATO BALL round is a 147 grain FMJBT at 2700 FPS. THE ONLY load currently on the Mkt. for the 30.06 with a 147 grain FMJ bullet is made by Bear of Russia. It is a "Non Mil Standard" and was NEVER used by the US armed forces. The only "Mil-Standard" BALL loads EVER used by the US armed forces for the M-1903 or M-1 Garand were: the WW1 ammunition cal.30 M-1906 ( 150 grain FMJ bullet at 2700 FPS) The inter war Ammunition Cal.30 M-1 (a 172 grain FMJBT at 2600 FPS) and the WW2 Ammunition Cal.30 M-2 (152 Grain FMJ at 2900 FPS) If y'all want to get into the Daytona bullet tests. The Springfield Arsenal testing or the Frankford Arsenal development I have the books, TM's and FM's,(ALL OF THEM) WIKKI is just wrong. The ONLY 30.06 military loading that the NATO ball round even gets close to is the WW1 "Ammunition .Cal.30 M-1906" "Most of what MOST shooters think they know about military weapons and AMMUNITION is dead wrong. This is why we read books" Attributed to Col. Jeff Cooper.---Ray
Doing that to an M-1A/M-14 will require the tender mercies of a gunsmith to repair while the M-16/AR-15 will only require a new upper receiver group. I am not a big fan of the M-16?AR-15 but it does have its good points, as does the M-1A/M-14. I just think that an un-abused M-1A/M-14 is the better rifle.
14 comments:
They both have their +'s and -'s. Shot placement and tactics is what will count with either one. The fact that most dealers went insane with their prices only helped the popularity of the AK, which is what I saw you carrying.
Love the way this guy beats on his mags after they are inserted....what's that all about? Is that what they mean by "double tap?" And no, he's is definately not a scientist!
Having used and carried the M-16A1 , the AR-15a1 and A2 the M-1A , FAL, and HK, and having owned several SKS and AK platforms, I chose the M-1 Garand. It is a better rifle in the field than any of them. Its easier to clean, more accurate ,has a longer range, and better terminal ballistics in 30:06 than all of them. I can carry more ammo in my M-1956 web gear for the M-1 than I can for the .308's for the same weight. (160 rounds on the webbing + 2 48 round bandoleers = 256 clipped 30:06 ;and its 9 oz. LIGHTER than 10 full AK mags on my scales.) or more than most carry for the 5.56. The Garand was still in service until 1963 with the regular Army(It WAS NOT taken out of service in 1957 as there were never enough M-14 rifles to completely replace it with the regular army before the M-16 came into general issue in 1966) and 1970-71 with the Guard and Reserve and I HATE the AR. You want an AR? GROVIE! But I hate that POS, I sold mine and will never have another.---Ray
PO'd American, back in the day, I taught my guys to insert a mag, and then always tap the bottom after insertion. Reason is, in the fog of combat, many soldiers will not insert the magazine all the way in,(you will not hear the click of proper insertion during a fire fight)the mag will drop out, unnoticed by the soldier, and they will pull the trigger, and panic a little, or a lot, when the rifle does not fire. Plus, immediate action is, tap the magazine, pull the charging handle back, observe the chamber for problems,(during the lesson, I would tell them they had to clear any obstructions at this point, like overrides, double feeds, etc.)release the charging handle, tap the forward assist, and attempt firing. Double tap is shooting some one twice, as in to make sure they are down. Probably derives from the mafia method, bang bang dead, two in the head. The people I shot in VietNam and elsewhere, I always double tapped. Ammo is cheap, wounds from not-quite-dead-yet-enemy are expensive and deadly.
The test was interesting. I could see something turning orange on several occasions, between the upper and lower handguards.
ARs are useful for what they are designed for, but definitely not as sturdy as many other battle rifles.
Ray, who carries a M1 Garand, has a lot of good points. They can still be had from the Civilian Marksmanship Program, and are a great rifle.
He details many of the reasons why it was the standard US service rifle for so long, and why it could be a wise choice for a person seeking one all-around rifle. The similar M-14 or M-1A would also be a wise choice.
The important things when choosing a battle rifle are for it be effective, and for the shooter to be comfortable carrying it and its ammo load. Different people have different requirements.
I was issued a piece of crap m-16 in 'Nam. I'm still leery, I guess. I seem to be having real good luck with my Mini-14, so I won't be changing in this lifetime.
I have both M1A and AR-15s. I believe the AR is generally reliable but I have one example that jams. It took me a long time to figure out the chamber has rust in it, so it's not a fault of the design. No wonder that barrel was for sale in the gun show...
I think penetration is more important than most people realize, so I like that .308...
The AR-15 is a nice, smooth-firing gun to shoot. But that 5.56 bullet just doesn't do it for me. I'll stick with my M1A and rule .308
The M14 is an improved Garand. (look at both receivers from the top)
As I carried the M14 in VietNam I would want to depend on Matty Matel's wonderful toy.
I've a SCAR17 (7.62 NATO) which is wonderful as well as my Tavor SAR-21. (if IDF uses I trust it!)
7.62 NATO in military loading is identical to 30-06 in military loadings
Anon 15:13 16 Jan. NO the military load for the 7.62 NATO is in NO WAY comparable to the military 30.06 load. That is an internet myth. The military loading for the 7.62 NATO Ball or AP is a 147 gr. FMJ or AP at 2700FPS from a 24 inch (1in12 pitch) tube. The Tavor , HK-91 , FAL PARA and all other "shorty's" are MUCH slower,(2300 to 2500FPS) Many delivering no more energy past 350 yards than the SKS-1945. The 30.06 is a 152 gr. ball @ 2900FPS OR a M2AP 163Gr. AP at 2800FPS OR a 172 Gr. FMJBT Match at 2680FPS.From a 24 inch 1 in 10 pitch tube. All military standard loadings and all deliver more energy "down range" than any "Mil-standard" 7.62 load with the exception of the various sniper loads like the M-118 and its "improvements". The US Army went to the 7.62 NATO BECAUSE it was less powerful than the '06. The M-14 is an evolution of the Garand and they are similar in many ways>>BUT ... THEY ARE VERY DIFFERANT rifles. In some ways they are better (The M-14; can't beat that lined bore) But I still like the Garand better.--Ray
Sigh, both the M2 147gr 30-06 2805 fps and the 147 grain 7.62 NATO M80 2800 fps rounds are designed to leave the issued rifle's barrel at approx the same speed. They wanted the same ballistics so that training was minimized. The M14s sites are almost identical to the M1's except they're marked in meter instead of yards.
The M14 has a 22 inch barrel vs the M1's 24. partly because of the flash hider.
The main reason we went to 7.62 NATO is the shorter cartridge (51mm vs 63mm) was the full auto desire for the rifles.
a little history of 7.62 NATO see following link:
http://olive-drab.com/od_firearms_ammo_762mm.php
ANON: The M2 .30 ball has a 152 grain FMJ bullet at 2900 FPS. The standard 7.62MM NATO BALL round is a 147 grain FMJBT at 2700 FPS. THE ONLY load currently on the Mkt. for the 30.06 with a 147 grain FMJ bullet is made by Bear of Russia. It is a "Non Mil Standard" and was NEVER used by the US armed forces. The only "Mil-Standard" BALL loads EVER used by the US armed forces for the M-1903 or M-1 Garand were: the WW1 ammunition cal.30 M-1906 ( 150 grain FMJ bullet at 2700 FPS) The inter war Ammunition Cal.30 M-1 (a 172 grain FMJBT at 2600 FPS) and the WW2 Ammunition Cal.30 M-2 (152 Grain FMJ at 2900 FPS) If y'all want to get into the Daytona bullet tests. The Springfield Arsenal testing or the Frankford Arsenal development I have the books, TM's and FM's,(ALL OF THEM) WIKKI is just wrong. The ONLY 30.06 military loading that the NATO ball round even gets close to is the WW1 "Ammunition .Cal.30 M-1906" "Most of what MOST shooters think they know about military weapons and AMMUNITION is dead wrong. This is why we read books" Attributed to Col. Jeff Cooper.---Ray
Doing that to an M-1A/M-14 will require the tender mercies of a gunsmith to repair while the M-16/AR-15 will only require a new upper receiver group. I am not a big fan of the M-16?AR-15 but it does have its good points, as does the M-1A/M-14. I just think that an un-abused M-1A/M-14 is the better rifle.
Russ
Post a Comment