Will the AR-15 be fondly remembered like the Garand?

I trained with the M14. Prior to deployment we trained with the M16. I have several M1's and AR15's but the M1 is still my favorite even over the M1A1.

I think Ron H. hit the nail on the head. As we age, there are going to be less of us Garand lovers and more Veterans and others wanting to rekindle their memories with M16/AR15. But the Garand will always be popular on the range!

I too will veer off somewhat and proclaim that to me the M-14 was/is the best all around shooter that I have ever used. And, unlike the M-1, I feel that a properly tuned M-14 will shoot just as accurately as a tricked out AR-15. I feel that an M-1 would have to be altered way beyond original characteristics to be that accurate.

Don't get me wrong, if I had to be in combat I would much prefer an M-14 or M-1. But, for punching paper, a heavy barrel AR is tops.

But my life would never depend on how good I "punch paper".

I started shooting Hi-Power in the early 90's when M14's and M1's ruled, I was shooting a Colt Match Target. Everyone advised me that if I wanted to be competitive I needed a 30 cal. By the time I had my M1A built, AR-15s Ruled the matches.
I have more AR's in my safe than anything else but I still love shooting a wood stocked rifle, be it a 1917, 1903, M1 (CMP Games) or M1A.
We had a match for our Junior Rifle Team this Spring, I let them choose what they wanted to shoot and they all wanted to shoot the AR15 Carbines.
After 40+ years in the Military Service it is going to be difficult not to respect the AR-15/M16 format of rifles.
I also think that they will always be highly respected in the civilian markets.

Gary

When I got my Garand and pulled it apart, it was immediately apparent that I again had what can only be given the honoric "Grand Old Lady." My original `61 Colt Special Model Springfield has wonderful balance and graceful lines. My `03 A1 Springfield has similar balance (and an ageless cartridge); My M1A is what I was issued and a much better "practically-engineered" son of Garand as a battle rifle....

But my HBAR is all business, ...and I always marvel at its precision, simplicity and flexibilty as compared to the complex can't-change-a-thing elegance of the Grand Old Lady.

I'm now 21 years old and I have to say that I prefer the old rifles.
It just feels much better to hold a heavy and wood-stocked, elegant rifle like the 98 or something. The newer rifles ain't that heavy and I think they appear like toyguns or rifles from a sci-fi movie.
The Garand won WWII so it can't be a bad gun, though the G-36 or the M-16 might be even a little more effective....
If my life would depend on it I'd choose a new rifle but when it comes to preference i'd go for a Mauser or a Garand.
Regards !

My guess is that it will not be "remembered fondly" . . . not by the public at least. During WWII, "The Garand's War", our military had wide public support and, after the war, the tools used to achieve victory became icons. I remember the 1950s as being a time of great national pride.

Today those with the "bully pulpit" are far more interested in running down our nation and destroying its icons.

Also, as has been stated, Joe Average can own and shoot a real Garand. Not so with the M14, M16, M4 unless and until the American prople reclaim their rights. An AR-15 may be a fine target rifle, but as a battle rifle a commercial pseudo-replica just isn't the same.

Ditto John,

I like that "Plastic Fantastic'...But The M1 is the real deal for me. Love to clean it, and shoot it, but in competition, only with other M1's.

I feel that many respect the M16 but few love it. I did BT with an XM16E1 and that is what I first qualified Expert with but I didn't love it. I used the A1 and A2 in my Army career but never developed an affection for them but I did respect them.

I think the mouse will become remembered.
It is a matter of just strictly numbers. By that, I mean we had what 5.5 million M1 Garrands manufactured. Most GI's from WW 2 and the Korean war are gone. Last I heard, the WW 2 veterans have been dying at the rate of 1500 per day.
When I went in (Jun 65) we were issued the M-14. When I went to Nam 11/67 I was issued the M-16. The first M-16s, lets say "10 years worth" were "flawed" and I'd have taken my M14 anyday over the 16. But, the numbers.... from 1964 to now is 45 years that the 16 has been in service. consider the last 35 years of as being a lot more satisfactory service then in the beginning and you have a lot more veterans familar with it just due to the time factor.
Every rifle has had "its turn" to be the Match champion at Camp Perry in capable hands.
The 1903, M1, M14, and now the M16. Matter of fact, somebody is shooting the M16 now at Palma matches and WINNING. That is at 800, 900, and 1000 yards. Granted, it is not exactly an "as issued" rifle but then the civilian shooters have really developed the M16 into a fine rifle for target work.
For match work, NRA, CMP, or 300 Meter International match, I'll take my AR-15 any day over anything else I own.
For combat work, I'd be torn between my M1A (civilian style M14) Springfield or my SAR 48 FN/FAL type rifle in 7.62 NATO.
Now if they'd just make the AR in 6.8 and give the bolt only two big sloppy locking lugs (not the tight gear/tooth setup) and a gas piston on top instead of the gas tube they'd really have something.
Bob