Maybe not today, but in 1947 the AK was by far the best rifle out there. Even today it's still fighting on virtually everywhere in the world and it probably still will be when our grandchildren are using phased plasma rifles in the 40W range. The Garand however was quickly replaced by more modern rifles and had a very short service life.
Greatest Battle Rifle Ever
- Thread starter taprackbang
- Start date
- Status
Maybe not today, but in 1947 the AK was by far the best rifle out there. Even today it's still fighting on virtually everywhere in the world and it probably still will be when our grandchildren are using phased plasma rifles in the 40W range. The Garand however was quickly replaced by more modern rifles and had a very short service life.
Ash
Member
But not by any kind of the wide margin as the Garand.
Ash
Ash
the thing that makes the AK as great as it is/I think it is has to deal with what it is. It is and was the pioneer of the modern combat rifle. It implemented select-fire, intermediate rounds, mass production, and legendary reliability all into a cost-effective, successful, and simple package, unlike the expensive German weapons that it was arguably ripped from.
Sure, the Garand was ahead of its time...for about eight years. Sure, the use of the garand by US forces showed our industrial strength.
But, the point here is: out of all of our modern arms - from M16 to M4 to G36 - how much of the Garand do you see in them, compared to how much of the AK you see in them?
Sure, the Garand was ahead of its time...for about eight years. Sure, the use of the garand by US forces showed our industrial strength.
But, the point here is: out of all of our modern arms - from M16 to M4 to G36 - how much of the Garand do you see in them, compared to how much of the AK you see in them?
Mr_Pale_Horse
Member
One objective measure of greatness is longevity.
For 200 years, one firearm technology dominated the battlefield of the Western world, the Flintlock musket.
I do not distinguish between the crunchen-ticker rifles. Over a their ~65 year span of intense use, self loading breech fed cartridge battle rifles of any sort are just one offs, derivative technology, each copying/incorporating/tweaking a handful of operating systems, materials, methods or manufacture.
Moreover, I doubt cartridge firearms will have 200 years of dominance.
For 200 years, one firearm technology dominated the battlefield of the Western world, the Flintlock musket.
I do not distinguish between the crunchen-ticker rifles. Over a their ~65 year span of intense use, self loading breech fed cartridge battle rifles of any sort are just one offs, derivative technology, each copying/incorporating/tweaking a handful of operating systems, materials, methods or manufacture.
Moreover, I doubt cartridge firearms will have 200 years of dominance.
I think that's kinda a skewed way to look at it, since today there is probably somewhere around 500 times as much spending and development of new weapons as there was back in the days of the flintlock rifle. Also, information gets out at near the speed of light now so not only are more people working faster than ever before, but they can share information almost instantly. This is why the old world technology sat around for so long; not many people were actively trying to improve upon it, and those that did had no way of sharing their information. If we started fresh with firearms today, with the flintlock rifle being invented last week, people would probably already be working on AK prototypes this morning.
I also don't hold much hope for case-less ammunition coming out any time soon, and wouldn't feel comfortable saving my money for a plasma rifle either. I think we're more or less stuck with what we have for at least another 30-50 years.
Ash
Member
Greatness and longevity mean nothing. The flintlock lasted so long because technology had not introduced the percussion primer. The self-contained cartridge came only after the ability to produce it came. Semi-auto operation only came when powders were able to provide reliable operation. Longevity has less to do with the weapon and more to do with technological advancement.
The AK is certainly among the greatest, but it has never been the giant leap that the Garand was over contemporaries (or the Spencer over muzzle-loading rifles).
Ash
The AK is certainly among the greatest, but it has never been the giant leap that the Garand was over contemporaries (or the Spencer over muzzle-loading rifles).
Ash
Nolo
Member
I really think the AK was as great, or greater, a leap as the Garand.
Put an army armed with Mausers against one armed with Garands.
What happens?
Put an army armed with Garands against one armed with Kalashnikovs.
What happens?
The result is largely the same.
Mr_Pale_Horse
Member
Can there be one MG-42 for every 10 guys with a Mauser 
?
?The Garand really wasn't that far ahead. The Russians had the SVT and the Germans the G43 and then later on the Stgw44, (a rifle that was really head and shoulders above everything else). The major thing that set the Garand apart from those was simple production numbers. We made about 5.5 million M1's, while the Germans made about 400,000 G43s and 430,000 Sturmgewehrs and the Russians cranked out about 1.6 million SVT40's. So, even when it comes to production numbers the Garand wasn't quite as far ahead as is commonly believed.
evan price
Member
Steyr Aug..
(runs away)
(runs away)
GarandOwner
Member
The MP-43 was the very first "assault rifle" (Then "modified" to the MP-44 but was basically the same gun) and THAT is what the modern assault rifle is based off of. Im afraid that you are mistaken that they were expensive,The MP-43/44 used a stamped receiver it was very cheap to build......One of the reasons it wasn't seen more in the war was because Hitler didnt approve of the weapon because he said that it looked "cheap" and he didnt want his army fighting with "cheap" weapons.
Um I don't see any of the AK-47 in those rifles you mentioned.... those three are completely different from the AK, for one thing each has a milled receiver not stamped. None of them were based upon the AK-47, patterned after, or have design components that were modeled after the AK-47.....I do however see alot of the Garand in the M14 which is still used in a limited capacity today
***It should also be noted that while the M14 holds the record for shortest time as a standard infantry rifle, it has remained in service longer than almost any other US rifle, the only rifle to be used longer was the Springfield 1903 and its varients
Im not trying to pick on you RP88, but some of your posts look like you need to do some fact checking before you click "post reply"
my point on the features that modern guns got from the AK include things like the idea of a select-fire, intermediate catridges, shortening and lightening of the rifle, etc. Although the internals and modularity advanced significantly with our current guns, the AK is still the first rifle to successfully embrace those concepts that are now commonplace in any rifle made after it. That was what I was getting at; your AR, M4, etc. etc. etc. all followed and improved on those concepts and ideologies. Sure, other rifles beat it to the punch (all the way back before WWI if I recall correctly), but the AK was the one that was successful and eventually time-proven, so it gets my vote.
DeadHorrorFan
Member
I'll choose 3 because I can never choose 1. But to me these are the absolute TOP 3....
FN FAL
AK-47
Mosin Nagant
If you can't tell I'm a fan of .30 caliber ruggedness!
FN FAL
AK-47
Mosin Nagant
If you can't tell I'm a fan of .30 caliber ruggedness!
MountainWalk
Member
Hey fellas, new here, but I shall add my one cent, as I'm short a penny.
The Garand as good as it is, isn't the greatest.
To me, its a tossup between the Mauser 98k or the AK and its many variants.
The Garand as good as it is, isn't the greatest.
To me, its a tossup between the Mauser 98k or the AK and its many variants.
Ash
Member
NOLO, the AK was never fielded against the Garand in any meaningful way. The Garand, by the way, was issued half a decade before the SVT-38, and was a general issue weapon unlike the SVT-38 or SVT-40 or any of the German weapons.
Also, the AK excelled in one area only, high fire-power at medium/short distance, compromised my mediocre accuracy. As brighton noted, at long distances, men armed only with AK's would be at a severe disadvantage to men armed with Garands. So, the AK works in some scenarios, like building clearing, but not so well in others, like across a field where the Garand's accuracy will more than make up for merely 8 shots.
Yet, the Garand excelled in every way over contemporaries. It was faster to fire, faster to reload, and maintained the same if not better accuracy. While the Enfield carried 2 more rounds and so allowed more shots between reloads, it was still slower to fire for the average Brit and slower to reload with a two-step operation (two chargers to get to 10 rounds, one charger only getting you 5 rounds).
The Garand was in general use for 20 years. Consider the Soviets replaced the AKM after 25 years with the AK-74, you realize that terms of use, the AK-74 has had a longer general issue with its mother country than the close cousin. Semantics? Probably, as they are both very certainly the children of Kalashnikov. But the M14 is the child of Garand, then we can add those two together, too, and you get a service life about as long as any other standard shoulder arm in US service.
Is the Garand obsolete today? Sure. Is the AK? Not at all. That is not the point nor has it been. But the limited issue of self-loaders by the Germans and Soviets (and even Japanese) does not equate with the fact that, beyond snipers, every single soldier in the US Army in WWII, whether infantry or cook, began the war with a self-loading weapon. The infantry carried a Garand, and while it alone could not win a war without subguns, grenades, artillery, air support, rapid mobile transport, and the tank, as a general-issue infantry weapon, it stood alone against all the competition in WWII, throughout the entire war because no other nation reached half self-loader issue, much less 100% (beyond snipers, of course). And in any case, in places like Normandy, the Sigfried line, the Battle of the Bulge or Italy, there were many places where the action was settled by man-on-man. In that instance, the Garand was vastly better.
But the Mauser was certainly not so significantly better than the Enfield or Mosin to be much of a difference. The Mosin and Mauser have roughly the same rate of fire and magazine capacity, the Enfield having twice as much capacity and a somewhat quicker bolt-throw but slower reloading to return to the ten rounds (same reloading to keep 5, though). Bolt actions compared with bolt actions you still have bolt actions, with bolt-action speed and bolt-action capacity.
Ash
Also, the AK excelled in one area only, high fire-power at medium/short distance, compromised my mediocre accuracy. As brighton noted, at long distances, men armed only with AK's would be at a severe disadvantage to men armed with Garands. So, the AK works in some scenarios, like building clearing, but not so well in others, like across a field where the Garand's accuracy will more than make up for merely 8 shots.
Yet, the Garand excelled in every way over contemporaries. It was faster to fire, faster to reload, and maintained the same if not better accuracy. While the Enfield carried 2 more rounds and so allowed more shots between reloads, it was still slower to fire for the average Brit and slower to reload with a two-step operation (two chargers to get to 10 rounds, one charger only getting you 5 rounds).
The Garand was in general use for 20 years. Consider the Soviets replaced the AKM after 25 years with the AK-74, you realize that terms of use, the AK-74 has had a longer general issue with its mother country than the close cousin. Semantics? Probably, as they are both very certainly the children of Kalashnikov. But the M14 is the child of Garand, then we can add those two together, too, and you get a service life about as long as any other standard shoulder arm in US service.
Is the Garand obsolete today? Sure. Is the AK? Not at all. That is not the point nor has it been. But the limited issue of self-loaders by the Germans and Soviets (and even Japanese) does not equate with the fact that, beyond snipers, every single soldier in the US Army in WWII, whether infantry or cook, began the war with a self-loading weapon. The infantry carried a Garand, and while it alone could not win a war without subguns, grenades, artillery, air support, rapid mobile transport, and the tank, as a general-issue infantry weapon, it stood alone against all the competition in WWII, throughout the entire war because no other nation reached half self-loader issue, much less 100% (beyond snipers, of course). And in any case, in places like Normandy, the Sigfried line, the Battle of the Bulge or Italy, there were many places where the action was settled by man-on-man. In that instance, the Garand was vastly better.
But the Mauser was certainly not so significantly better than the Enfield or Mosin to be much of a difference. The Mosin and Mauser have roughly the same rate of fire and magazine capacity, the Enfield having twice as much capacity and a somewhat quicker bolt-throw but slower reloading to return to the ten rounds (same reloading to keep 5, though). Bolt actions compared with bolt actions you still have bolt actions, with bolt-action speed and bolt-action capacity.
Ash
Last edited:
HorseSoldier
Member
In the real world, the guys with Garands (or SMLEs or whatever else) couldn't acquire the enemy at long range and even if they could, they then could not make hits beyond 300 meters with any degree of consistency. It bears noting that the soldiers whose performance was the data set for the study finding that hits beyond 300 were rare and that most successful engagements were within 100 meters were guys armed with the Garand.
Now if the enemy is obliging enough to walk across clear terrain in open order taking hits and keeping on coming, then the Garand's range advantage has limited relevance in that particular scenario. If they use terrain and operate on a post-WW1 "empty battlefield" then the AK can hold its own very well against the Garand -- which is exactly what it did when the Garand's M14 offspring went head to head against the AK in SE Asia.
C-grunt
Member
My vote goes to the M16A2 and its children. Its accurate, reliable, light weight, ergonomic and holds lots of ammo.
The big thing people gripe about the M16 is the chambering. I here lots of stories and 9th hand accounts of the 5.56 not putting people down. In my experience and other recent combat vets on this site, those stories are false. Sure maybe at 600 yards the 5.56 isnt as good as a 7.62, but really, who shoots combat shots at that range. I made a shot with my M16 DMR at around 400 yards once and it worked just fine. All other engagements were at about 150 yards or less. Show me a bad guy that wasnt dropped by a 5.56 shot and Ill wager it wouldnt have made a difference if it was a 7.62.
In fact, I've said it here before, the only bad guy I have seen survive a GOOD COM hit was with a 7.62 fired from an M1 coax. He definitely wasnt fighting anymore though and it still amazes me that he lived as we didnt find him for a while after the shooting stopped.
My only gripe with the 5.56 is lack of close range penetration. I believe the military switching to a heavier grain bullet would improve penetration and long range performance.
The big thing people gripe about the M16 is the chambering. I here lots of stories and 9th hand accounts of the 5.56 not putting people down. In my experience and other recent combat vets on this site, those stories are false. Sure maybe at 600 yards the 5.56 isnt as good as a 7.62, but really, who shoots combat shots at that range. I made a shot with my M16 DMR at around 400 yards once and it worked just fine. All other engagements were at about 150 yards or less. Show me a bad guy that wasnt dropped by a 5.56 shot and Ill wager it wouldnt have made a difference if it was a 7.62.
In fact, I've said it here before, the only bad guy I have seen survive a GOOD COM hit was with a 7.62 fired from an M1 coax. He definitely wasnt fighting anymore though and it still amazes me that he lived as we didnt find him for a while after the shooting stopped.
My only gripe with the 5.56 is lack of close range penetration. I believe the military switching to a heavier grain bullet would improve penetration and long range performance.
Last edited:
ftierson
Member.
I keep hearing people say that the M16A2 is lightweight...
Has anyone ever carried an M16A2 and a Garand (perhaps not at the same time, of course
)...The M16A2 weighs almost as much as the Garand, or at least close eneough that there's not a very noticeable difference...
The M16A1 was light, but that's not the M16A2...
(And please, no hate mail. I actually like the M16A2, although I like the M16A1 better).
Forrest
Nolo
Member
I know. Half a decade? No... The SVT-38 was issued in '38, the Garand was issued in '36, if I recall correctly. That's a half of a half of a decade.
My point was, the Garand was the next logical step up from the Mauser and respective bolt guns. The AK was the next logical step up from the Garand (and was largely based off that rifle).
They are roughly equal in innovation.
Ash, I'm not exactly sure what the point of your post is, but all the info and analysis is sound...
Geronimo45
Member
I believe the USMC was slow to get Garands - and started out the war with 1903 Springfields.
Just nitpicking.
Chuck Spears
member
Let's not forget that the Garands have the tactical advantage of letting your opponent know the exact moment your clip is empty and you will be temporarily unarmed while reloading. Ping. Best ever.
- Status