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

[ROCK]

"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.

[Bob Womack]

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?

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

[John Kepler]

It's the furniture...


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.

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!

[Maury Krupp]

Remembered by who? (whom?) 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

[John Sukey (Deceased)]

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.

[John Kepler]

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.

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!

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!

[M1Tommy]

.............snippage........

I have YET to see a target that was the least bit impressed by the appearance or pedigree of the firearm shooting at it!

I wondered when that annoying fact was going to surface... but grudgingly agree.

Don't the active duty folks now call the A2's "muskets"???

Tommy

[Former Cav]

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!

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!

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.
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

[ROCK]

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.

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.

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.

[John Kepler]

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