Printable View
I don't know if this question has been addressed yet, but as our military decides whether it will be H+K or FN or someone else that provide replacements for M-16/M-4, in your opinion, will the M-16/AR-15 be as fondly remembered as the Garand? I was reading the article in American Rifleman about the SCAR, and it got me wondering?
Sir, I'd bet many (most?) of today's soldiers and Marines will remember the '16 fondly. Locally, I see lots of young vets buying ARs. To them, a Garand might as well be a flintlock musket--an interesting relic of bygone days, but not something they'd chose to fight with.
JMHO, FWIW.
Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.
Ron H.
Like Ron, I think it already is! Folks of a certain age seem to get all warm and fuzzy when it comes to Garands....folks not of that age don't seem to as much.
I don't know a single competition shooter that would willingly trade his/her AR for a Garand.
That brings up anoter question. Will the new replacement weapon be any better for matches? Will the rules change to also allow the civilian version of it in competition? If so,what version/caliber? If its a modular system,what version would be allowed? All of them?
The younger shooting crowd around here tend to favor the AR types and AK clones but I've yet to see one not smile wide when they pull the trigger on an M1. Anytime I take one of my kids out and they bring a friend or two,those new shooters can't get enough of the garand but at the same time they will also drain me of .223 ammo as well.:thup:
It's an issue I know for a fact that has been kicking around the Army/DCM/CMP since at least 1990! I think there's a framework for a plan if and when! This is one where input from Maj. Culver could be enlightening!Quote:
Originally Posted by M1Riflenut
I doubt it.All the younger people that I see with them want the shorter barrel with the folding stock because it looks cool and that is what they see on TV.I don't think new recruits train on the same type of M16 to begin with some train with an A1 or A2 orA3 and I'll bet no one gets an M4 in basic.(I could be wrong). When a new replacement rifle comes out they will fall in love with it.Younger people like high-tech and plastic.
I have a Colt SP1 Vietnam era and a match AR-15 and no one has any interest in them at the range but pull out an M1 or Springfield and everyone is checking it out.
The M16 cannot really be collected as it's predecessors .We can buy a real GI M1 or 1903 or carbine or GI 45 that was used by our military.The AR-15 has no cartouches or dates to collect,no wood to refinish no history,as they will all be semi-auto repros and not the real deal.
A good example is the M14. Bring an M1-A to the range and many shooter don't even know what it is.
This little anecdote depends on where you shoot. Where I shoot, a Compass Lake or WOA AR-Service Rifle will draw a LOT more attention than any old "muzzleloader"....a new Space Gun will have people on their cell-phones taking pictures and texting their friends. I stand by my statement.Quote:
Originally Posted by polska
BTW, the "perfect rifle", like the "perfect car", hasn't been built yet!
Any weapon-system is like your wife...you LOVE her good points and learn to put-up with her bad ones! Cdr. Randy "Duke" Cunningham
I love both platforms, but for different reasons. I love the Garand because it is "pretty" to me. My rifle has a walnut stock, a 43 reciever and many correct parts. It is also neat owning something that may have been used in WWII. I also love the 06 cartridge and the "Ping!" my Garand makes when it is empty. Besides, my Garand gets a lot more attention at the range I shoot at. It is accurate, but not as accurate as my AR. I have read that people can customize a Garand to make it as accurate as an AR, but I think it would lose some of its appeal to me. This is just due to my reaction at seeing Sporter 1903s.
I love my AR 15, but I do think it is ugly. Don't get me wrong- my AR is a great rifle. It is very accurate and it does what I want it to do (Varmint Rifle). I enjoy outshooting my dad using my Plastic Fantastic against his bolt action hunting rifles. It is easy to work on, light and accurate. I like it so much I am considering purchasing an AR 10 too.
Both have appeal. My suggestion is that everyone should own both!
The AR15/M16 set new standards for assault type weapons when first developed, but will never have the romanticism of the M1 nor will most any modern plastic wonder assault rifle produced in the future. The old days of walnut and forged steel are lost forever as is the government arsenal of Springfield, and the iconic commercial company, Winchester.
With the military looking for new and improved assault rifles, it's interesting to note that many of the ergonomic features of the AR/M16 rifle will be incorportated. This speaks well of the design. However, it's also good to see they will not be incorporating the old gas system. No problems if kept clean and lubed, but a system that does not spray hot gasses and unburnt powder into the action requiring less maintenance is much preferred, IMHO.
History will probably be kind to the AR family for the most part.
Having been issued an M1 the first time around and a M16 the last time, I am going to disagree with most folks. The "mouse gun" will NEVER be a favourite of mine.
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
"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)"
Caliber aside, that's just one of the things that bother me about the AR15 design. I hear too many stories about cracked bolt lugs, broken bolts, worn cam pins, weak extractors etc.
The extension for the recoil spring is a lower receiver weak point. The feed angle from magazine to chamber is very steep. The space over the bolt and bolt carrier is a big design oversight. It is big enough for a cartridge to jump into and can enable a particularly hard to clear stoppage.
The ability to assemble and fire the rifle minus the cam pin is potentially dangerous. The tiny, removable, cotter pin that holds the firing pin and bolt carrier together, is a potential loss problem in the field.
The M16 works fairly well in spite of it's design. Its ergonomics are great.
However, I feel that the M1 is a very well thought out design. I can't find any serious design faults with it.
I own a Colt AR15 Govt Model. It works pretty good for me but I just have those nagging feelings about it and I don't trust it like I trust a Garand.
Will the M16 be fondly remembered? I suppose some will remember it that way. I also know some military people who hate it.
On the other hand, from almost everything I have read, praise of the M1 by a majority of soldiers, almost amounted to affection for their rifle.
It's the furniture...
Possibly.
I'm a baby boomer. I grew up surrounded by the M1. It was in every war movie. My GI Joe had an M1. The rifle was surrounded by nostalgia. And besides, in its own ugly duckling sort of way, it was/is beautiful and features lovely walnut furniture.
I grew up in the Vietnam era. The M16 was on TV every evening. I was young enough that I had no idea of the teething problems with the rifle. When I went to get a high-power rifle to teach my boys, it was between a CMP Garand and a newly built AR-15. I found a deal on a tack driver AR but it wasn't USGI and it didn't have the cache' of a Garand. Oh, the sight picture is better and it was probably more accurate, but it looked and felt like a confounded rocket. Has anyone come up with wooden furniture for the AR? :madsmile:
I think it is the furniture.
Well, I've got both now and can tell you the Garand is a young man's rifle: It's heavy. You need considerable upper body strength to hold it up for any length of time. But I love it. When you have one in your hands, you know you are holding a substantial weapon. I'm not sure that at 52 years old I'd want to schlep it all over a continent. From a purely weight standpoint, if I had to pack a single rifle now, I might want the AR. BUT, the Garand is a snap to clean. Because the AR "craps and feeds in the same place," it is a pain to clean. Other than that, it is very practical.
So perhaps, as an avocational shooter, I'm swayed by the furniture. But I like both of 'em.
In the case of competition shooting, perhaps what drives the bus is whoever is the hottest hotshot armorer just discharged from the Army or Marines.
Bob
Nope! It's the basic engineering. The AR is ALWAYS going to be the more accurate platform due to it's design/engineering.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
Besides, the first thing you do to make a consistently accurate rifle is to toss the wood into the fireplace and replace it with some flavor of plastic/composite....even the stuff that sorta looks like wood (laminates) are primarily plastic, or as close to it as the materials people can make it without going to 100% synthetic materials. Wood is something pretty you sit on, not make a firearm out of...just go to a real marksmanship competition and you'll be able to count the "pure wood" furniture on one hand! IMHO, a "pretty" target is infinitely preferable to a "pretty" rifle....in over 45 years of active shooting, most of it in some flavor of competition, I have YET to see a target that was the least bit impressed by the appearance or pedigree of the firearm shooting at it!
Remembered by who? (whom?:rolleyes:) And for what?
I'm sure some GIs who carried the M16 will remember it fondly. Especially those who were in a tight spot and used an M16 to get out. There are other GIs who feel the same way about an M1. Or M14, or carbine, or 1911, etc.
I'm equally sure that some GIs won't remember the M16 fondly. Especially those who were in a tight spot and had an M16 just make it tighter. Just like there are GIs who never cared for the M1. Or M14, or carbine, or 1911, etc.
There will be competition shooters who will fondly remember the AR-15 as the rifle they used to win a match or earn leg points. Just as there are shooters who may recall a particular "tack driver" Match Rifle they had at one time.
Some may think fondly of the AR-15 for its inherent accuracy or simplicity or how easy they are to work on or how cheap they are to feed.
But I also think there's a little bit of "apples vs oranges" in the original question.
Are we talking about M1s vs M16s or M1s vs AR-15s?
A USGI M1 is the real deal. There is an undeniable history attached to each and every rifle. We may not know what that history is but it's still there. The actual rifle -not just the design- really has BT-DT in the hands of Soldiers, Sailors, Marines, Coasties, and even a few Airmen.
None of the above applies to a commercial AR-15. Or to a commercial M14 or even one of the commercial-copy Garands. At least not to me. A CAI, Lithgow, or SA, Inc isn't a US Rifle, Cal .30, M1; it's just another rifle. No more special than any other rifle or even a shovel I might buy at Sears or Ace.
For me and maybe some others that's a critical difference.
So I'd say the answer is probably "Yes" but by different people, for different rifles, and for different reasons.
Maury
Well, here we go again, "the AR is always going to be the more accurate platform" Well, only a SMALL number of us are going to the national matches, BUT a Large number of us got a free set of clothes, and a free rifle for several years, (though we had to give it back) Now These are the folks who will be doing the remembering, not a much smaller number of target shooters.
The 03, M1, M14 are heavy? Why do you think the people who got to carry them ranged from 18 to mid 20's? Sure they are "heavy" now, but they didn't feel heavy when they were issued. While the AR may punch nice tight holes in paper today, the other rifles were punching holes in people, and in the end, that's exactly what a military rifle is supposed to do.
Yep.....and more and more of those folks, like my son the E5, think of your "old iron" as nothing but quaint relics of a by-gone era....and the AR as what a rifle is supposed to be like. Don't look now, but they's more of them these days than us! My son will also tell you that based on HIS combat experience, the AR is MORE than capable of "punching holes in people"...I always thought so too!Quote:
Originally Posted by John Sukey
As for the rest.....John, I'd rather have a capability and not need it than need a capability and not have it. Besides, as long as I can hit a 10-Ring at 1000 yds with a Service Rifle....I want rifle that can too!
I wondered when that annoying fact was going to surface... but grudgingly agree.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
Don't the active duty folks now call the A2's "muskets"???
Tommy
Don't forget, those of us "on the front end" back in 1964 to 1970? (whatever year in the 70's) had an M-16 that was shooting 55 grain bullets and had the 1/12 (or maybe 1/14) twist barrel.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
I have personally been point man and have shot the enemy and KNEW I had hit him as he was "dancing" and he turned on me with his 30 caliber AK-47.
There are papers about the idea was to wound and injure the enemy soldier as you tied up 4 to 7 comrads to take care of the wounded soldier. Unfortunately, the battle field is not an air conditioned office in the pentagon and the enemy soldier you just hit is high Pi$$ed at you and is going to do his best to take you with him. Furthermore, the other 4 to 7 guys are shooting at you and are NOT taking care of their fallen brother. They did however drag the body off of the battlezone if they had time.
Now...with all of the civilian development, the Military are shooting a 68/69 grain bullet and I believe that they are even getting 77 grain bullets.
John, do us a favor and ask you son what the weight of the bullets are that are available to today's soldiers. I do know that they have a designated marksman who has the good old M-14 (7.62 Nato) in some units.
One thing you can't argue is that their close combat sights are lightyears ahead of what we had. ditto for their night vision devices.
Bob
That's probably true in most cases but opinion doesn't change the effectiveness of the old rifles. The only current assault rifle made of both wood and steel, that triggers the 'cool factor' with the young generations, is the AK47.Quote:
Yep.....and more and more of those folks, like my son the E5, think of your "old iron" as nothing but quaint relics of a by-gone era....and the AR as what a rifle is supposed to be like.
In the future, any new rifle, to be accepted by the current generation, has to have the 'menacing look' with a bunch of add ons hanging all over it. They could never go backwards and issue anything like the M1 without a major drop in morale. That is, unless you install some cool features like they have been doing with the M14. Some of those M14s appear very modern to todays troops, many of whom don't realize how old that design is.
Standard M855 62 gr...."Special Issue" 75-77 gr Black Hills....some of which came off my own loading bench before he deployed the last time! And yeah....I remember A1's and the old M193 "Poodle-Shooter" round....but that WAS 40 years ago....time marches on!
Do bear in mind that the Marine Corps REJECTED the M1, and kept it's far less capable M1903's until 1943 because the "Garand wasn't as accurate"! Seems like everyone LOVES what they used to have as soon as it's replaced! I'm sure that at the turn of the last century, there were OF's lamenting the replacement of the Krag with the "new-fangled" 1903 Springfield
The AR-15 is more accurate and a better platform but unless your chasing leg points . Who cares!When I started competative shooting almost 30 years ago I would have jumped for a spacegun if they had them back then.But the rifle has no panache.It may be a better hammer but it's just a hunk of plastic and aluminum like everything else made in the 21st century, a throwaway item.
I shot my league match yesterday a noticed out of 35 shooters about half were shooting spaceguns the other half were shooting match AR's, two were shooting M1-A's ,one M1 and one crazy guy shooting an 03-A3.(That would be me).It is a 52rd match and we can only go out to 300yds. so I figure I can be competative.I shot a 476,:beerchug: did the spaceguns and ar's out shot me,yes most of them ,but I get the biggest satisfaction from my score and I enjoyed myself more.I also noticed that the guy with the M1 and I were the only ones who cleaned their barrels or at least put a patch threw them .The other shooters just threw their plastic guns into there cases like it was a cell phone or mp3 player,No love!:move eek:
But don't go by me .I drive my '72 vette to the matches and it is a pig on gas the ride is bumpy like a jeep,the roof leaks and it only has an am-fm radio with crappy speakers and hardly any room for my shooting gear.It still attracts more attention then the latest best cars.:super:
Crap will always be crap and a classic will always be remembered fondly.
And my 66 Buick Wildcat 425 and/or 67 Corvair Monza Convertible will usually "out-draw" your Vette....does that make them "better"? I've gone "retro" from time to time for my own reasons....but it doesn't change the fact that I shoot lower scores with the "old iron" than with the "...hunk of plastic and aluminum". For me, a "pretty" target beats a "pretty" rifle, hands down...each and every time. YMMV!
BTW, why the hell would you or anyone else clean your rifle at the range? That's like trying to wash your clothes in a cesspool!
Mmmm.... Boys will be boys and always argue about the size and value of their toys.
In avocational shooting, there's room for aesthetics and absolute accuracy. If your gig is competition, no problem - go for the rocket rifle and its greater accuracy. They do have their own cache'. If you like furniture and how a classic rifle "groks"*, go for another era. :)
We are allowed differences in taste and emphasis. We are not the Borg.
Bob
* grok: to understand intuitively or by empathy; to establish rapport with
\Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
No question....and it's completely possible to do both depending on the "hat" you choose to wear at any given moment. But the context of this thread asks the question of WHETHER the AR/M16 will be "...fondly remembered like the Garand". At that point, the context of the question dictates the "hat" being worn.
Based on conversations with my son and his "battle-buddies", my own experience, and my "non-emo" analysis, the answer is yes, and that it's already happening. There is a reservoir of "discontent" with the M16 that is largely confined to people of a given age....a discontent that vets from later era's largely do not share. For some, this dichotomy is simply unacceptable, they fail to acknowledge that any engineering design evolves, and that the rifle they didn't like bears about as much relationship to what is currently being used as the "old iron" they wax so nostalgic over. I had my own issues with the AR back in the day...I got over them, or rather the rifle evolved beyond them.
My most telling example in favor of the AR? As a firearms instructor, my students universally learn to shoot better, faster with the AR than ANY other HP/centerfire platform I've seen, and there really isn't a close second. That factoid alone says volumes!
With all of this said....this is subjective speculation where people of otherwise very similar minds can disagree rather violently depending on the "base assumptions" they choose to make. Also, it isn't a "zero-sum" game...one can quite easily occupy both positions and still function!
John, I have a slightly OT question from one who is fairly AR-ignorant (recently acquired my first lower, a complete lower and handful of mags from a horse trade for an old ummm.. john-boat :D).Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
Do you believe that lessening of the learning curve slope may be more from the cartridge than from the rifle's ergonomics?
Heck another question as you hear tales from 'over there' first hand;
Has the shorter barrel lengths (16" and less in vogue nowadays it seems) reduced the round's effectiveness?
Tommy
Truthfully, I think it's both. First reaction from novices shooting the AR for the first time with it's "big bang" and no appreciable recoil is "WOW"! They go from being apprehensive, somewhat intimidated by the entire concept of shooting an HP rifle, to being "best-buds" with the rifle after that first shot, and it propagates from there.Quote:
Originally Posted by M1Tommy
My son very pointedly kept his trusty A2 in Iraq, mainly because he wasn't too impressed with the M4 in Afghanistan. If you're working urban areas and are in and out of vehicles....you like the M4. If you're running convoy escort like my son...you want the extra punch and reach of the A2/A3. One size DOESN'T fit all!Quote:
Heck another question as you hear tales from 'over there' first hand;
Has the shorter barrel lengths (16" and less in vogue nowadays it seems) reduced the round's effectiveness?
Tommy
That makes sense. It sounds like I should set up fro reloading .223 pretty soon then.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
OK, thanks for that. I'm leaning towards a 20" barrel, both because of that and SR requirements. My lower has a 4-position 'collapsible' stock that I know isn't SR allowed. However it will fit munchkin#1 and wifey better... for now. I can fit a diff. stock if/when I shoot SR w/ this critter.Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
Thanks for the reply. I hope your son does well. :thup:
Tommy
James is home and in school finishing his engineering degree...he left most of the hearing in his left ear, 30% in his right, and full mobility of his right hip in Iraq...IED's are a b!tch!
John,yes your classic auto's would draw attention,just as a GI 45 or M1 carbine or 98k because they are all classics.You prove my point.
Why would I clean a rifle at the range? Stupid question.I guess you were not trained proberly.How many have gone home and do not clean their rifle till the next day or forget until the next shooting match.I've seen it many times.
And as far as the old M16 being different than the new breed. What's the difference? A new barrel, different sights and different handguard.
Everything else is still interchangeable
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Kepler
I hate hearing about the injuries, but know you're glad for him to be back closer.
But, engineering school???...:ugh::runaway::ugh:
I wish him well. Please pass along from another maniacal engineer that his service is appreciated.
Sincerely,
Tommy
INEVITABLE VIDEO LINK... for JAMES
Pull in with a brand-new Ferrari and park it between your Vette and my Buick. and we'd be totally ignored! Pull out your "old iron"....I'll be there with my RPA Palma rifle....guess what most people are going to want to look at! "New" and "interesting" aren't mutually exclusive!Quote:
Originally Posted by polska
Quote:
Why would I clean a rifle at the range? Stupid question.I guess you were not trained proberly
You've never met my father or grandfather, so you have little basis for your attempted insults.
NEVER by me! You clean firearms in a CONTROLLED environment whenever possible. That way you do an effective, thorough job without b!tching anything up, losing parts, or accumulating dirt and grit in things you are trying to get clean. Like I said the first time, cleaning at the range if you have alternatives is like washing your clothes in a cesspool!Quote:
How many have gone home and do not clean their rifle till the next day or forget until the next shooting match.I've seen it many times.
Different upper receiver, TOTALLY different trigger....yep, other than the barrel, receiver, trigger, most of the stock, and sights....they's 'zactly the same!Quote:
And as far as the old M16 being different than the new breed. What's the difference? A new barrel, different sights and different handguard. Everything else is still interchangeable
I was born when the Vietnam war was in its last stages, and I still find US issue long guns from the trapdoor to the M-14 to be some of the most beautifully constructed and facinating pieces of machinery / history one could own. I understand the "cool" factor of having an AR with all kinds of gadgets on it that is as close as possible to a "real" M4 or M-16A2, but I guess I just grew out of that. Theres no question the 5.56 is easier to shoot for most people, but to me, theres nothing like the feeling of 8 or 9 pounds of solid near tooling grade steel and walnut in your hands. Everytime I've shouldered one of Stoners rattling, pinned, aluminum wonders, I always have this slight feeling (unjustified, I know) in the back of my head that its going to fall apart when I squeeze the trigger. Picking up a Garand or 1903 Spirngfield gives a feeling of solidity and instills confidence, at least for me. The M-1 and M-14 are simple guns to understand and to work on / maintain for someone of average mechanical competance and care. So don't let these OFC members tell you us young guys dont appreciate the Garand :super:
Since few civilians will ever own a "real" M16 or M4, I dont think it will ever acheive the iconic status of the Garand. I thinks its status will be "legendary "along the lines of the Winchester 94 or the Remington 870 for its shear familiarity.
The MOST IMPORTANT thing is your son is HOME!;)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
And yes I do GROK VMS
Now for my 2 cents for what ever it is worth. I own o3's, an M1, even a carbine an M1A and an AK clone. I do not own a mouse gun. I will not say they are not accurate. I understand they can be. I personally do not care much for the platform and especially do not care for the calibre. A .22 should be used on varmits not battlefields. The arguement was made you could carry more ammo. Yes you could and it took more ammo to kill that feller that was a trying to kill you. With the .30 you could shoot through the tree he was hiding behind not so the .22. The 7.62X39 IMHO is close to a perfect battle cartridge. Heavier bullet, lower recoil and short action. It fit the rifle it was designed for. It was and is reliable but is not a tack driver. In the beginning the Matty Mattel was NOT reliable. It was made by the low bidder. Today you still have to keep it super clean (try it in a sand box)(or a jungle). I lost several friends when their plastic fantastic failed at a critical time.
In time of need give me a solid reliable battle rifle with a good cartridge. Remember that there are 3 things in combat that get light all too quickly. Food water and ammo. So carry as much as you can.
Now to answer the original question. By those that never carried a solid rifle into combat it probably will be. Will it deserve it? That's for each man to say.
John,you crack me up.What does a palma rifle have in common with an M16?What does a new Ferrari have in common with the autos we are talking about?In both examples you go from apples to oranges.:banghead:
I also never mentioned your family as I have no idea who taught you your firearm maintance,but it sounds like it is lacking.
To clean a 1903 you just have to pull the bolt out and on a M1 you can use a snake, no parts to remove.I bet there are all types of little parts on that poodle shooter.What color is your spacegun lite blue or pink?:lol:
Alright guys, the personal bashing must stop. Personal attacks are not allowed.
Bob
"Fondly remembered" has less to do with which one is more competitively accurate or which carries more rounds. Complainers against the M16 action seem to forget how the Garand action would freeze up in wintry climates.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mauserdon
The Garand is remembered because it was used in WWII. WWII is fondly remembered as a just cause.
The M16 is remembered for Vietnam, Grenada, Panama, Desert Storm and our current battles. They may have been (and are) just causes but they just weren't (and aren't) the same as WWII.
I like the Garand for several reasons. It's well balanced and recoil is light for that caliber round. The history of invention is in the Garand. And I met one of John Garands sons and had a nice chat about his Dad.
I like the AR15 which, isn't the same as the M16, because it gives me higher scores when I shoot service rifle competitions. As far as cleaning after each shoot. Why would you want to start a shooting competition with a green barrel?