Greatest Battle Rifle Ever

[Semmerling]

The greates battle rifle ever? The one that gets you safely home....just ask any soldier at any time in the history of firearms.

 

[ftierson]

Originally posted by Chuck Spears
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.

That one's just like the Energizer bunny, it keeps going and going...



Forrest

 

[32 Magnum]

Best MBR

In a combat situation - the weapon that does the most damage to your enemy is the "best" weapon. AK-47s are basically bullet launchers - and were/are used for mass fire. M-1/M-14 platforms in semi-auto forced aimed fire for effectiveness. M-16/M-4 in full-auto are wasteful of ammo and require fire discipline to be effective. The worst thing that can happen in combat is to expend all of your ammo, futiley, and still have enemy forces in the field WITH ammo. The best thing that happened to the M-16 system was the burst select setting. 9th Inf Div issued an AR (Army regulation for you non-grunts) in Spring of '69 stating that ONE man per rifle squad would be designated as the squad auto rifleman - the rest would be required to fire on semi-auto only, or face an Article 15. There was way too much ammo being burned with too few hits - helicopters on resupply missions were too valuable to risk because of poor fire discipline. I trained with M1 Garands, M-14s and used M-16s in combat. I respect the AK as a massed fire weapon - but when the VC/NVA ran out of ammo - they had a rather ineffective club and no helicopters to resupply - they then just melted away into the jungle. The bolt action rifles required FIRE DISCIPLINE and aimed fire - same as the M1. I saw too many scared NUGS firing full mags on full auto - 19 rounds in a little over a second, yeah we only had 20 round mags and only loaded those to 19 rounds to help feeding reliability - and not hitting anything but shrubbery - not an effective use of expensive ammo and not a life sustaining practice - the M16 is a very poor bayonet fighting platform - they break rather easily - plastic stocks. When you fired your field load (usually 400 to 600 rounds of 5.56) you had nothing left to defend yourself. I've fired the FAL, CETME/G-3, SKS, Daewo, AK, MN series, AR-15/M-16, Mausers, SMLE/Enfields, '03s, Galil, etc, so I'm not completely without some experience with a wide variety of military style rifles.
Of all of these, my favorite and the first one I would choose in a domestic disturbance situation/forest or plain or desert (not jungle) - the M-14 (that's why I own one) - in a guerilla type situation - the AK or Mini-14 (that's why I own these also). As for the finest of the bolt action rifles for function and accuracy I'd choose the Danish made M/G-1 Madsen in .30-06 - look this one up if you're not familiar - I have one of these also and practice with it regularly - just about the best bolt action .30-06 rifles I've ever shot.
But then, this is just my opinion based upon personal and in some cases practical experiences encompasing over 40 years of shooting these gems.

 

[Ash]

The Garand was 1932. The USMC did have 1903's, which is why I said US Army.

It's all about perspective. Titanic made more movie than any other movie in history. That is true. But when adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still tops. My point? It's relative to the time. There is little doubt that there are better rifles these days than the Garand. But greatest that does not make. Comparison should be made with what was contemporary to what ever it was.

Ash

 

[Nolo]

The Garand was 1932. The USMC did have 1903's, which is why I said US Army.

It's all about perspective. Titanic made more movie than any other movie in history. That is true. But when adjusted for inflation, Gone with the Wind is still tops. My point? It's relative to the time. There is little doubt that there are better rifles these days than the Garand. But greatest that does not make. Comparison should be made with what was contemporary to what ever it was.

Ash

Nope, Garand was 1936:

He filed a patent for his semiautomatic, gas operated, clip-fed rifle in 1930, and received an US patent for his design late in 1932. This rifle was built around then-experimental .276 caliber (7mm) cartridge. At the same time, his rifle was tested by the US Military against its main competitor, a .276 caliber Pedersen rifle, and was eventually recommended for adoption by US Army early in the 1932. But a little bit later an US general MacArthur stated that the US Military should stick to the old .30-06 cartridge. Foreseeing that, Garand already had a variation of his design chambered for 30-06. Finally, at the 6th January, 1936, the Garands' rifle was adopted by the US Army as an "rifle, .30 caliber, M1".

The SVT-38 (Samozaryadnaya Vintovka Tokareva - Tokarev Self-loading rifle) was originally adopted in the 1938 after more than 20 years of the research and development, done by famous Russian arms designer Fedor Tokarev.

The two were within 2 years of each other.
As for the AK, it was, in my opinion, just as revolutionary as the Garand.
Sure, the StG-44 was issued earlier, but only in limited numbers.
Like the Garand bringing the concept of the semi-auto to validity, the AK brought to concept of the assault rifle to the forefront of military technology.
I think they are equal for innovation, but if I had to rate one higher, it'd be the Garand.
(It is also important to remember that the Kalashnikov is based largely on the Garand. Mikhail studied the American rifle intently, and his earlier works show just how much of an influence it had on him.)

 

[rcmodel]

and you will be temporarily unarmed while reloading. Ping.

I don't recall ever hearing a whole squad or fire team "pinging" at exactly the same time.

It's not just one Garand against the howling masses you know!

rcmodel

 

[32 Magnum]

MBR

With experience, you can reload a Garand faster than changing a magazine in an M-16 or AK-47 - and the sustained rate of fire on semi-auto is nearly as high and with a more powerful round.

 

[Chuck Spears]

You're not always surrounded by a whole squad. Ask veterans who served in the Pacific Theater (if you can find one) how much of a pain in the ass that sounds was. It let the Japanese troops know precisely when the best time for a bayonet charge was. So much so that the American troops had to imitate the sound to falsely lure the Japanese in while they were fully loaded. Point being, that aspect of the Garand cost an untold number of soldiers their lives, or at least put them at a disadvantage. Hardly a design characteristic of something that is given the label "greatest ever."

 

[H2O MAN]

I like being able to top off the mag in my M14 with stripper clips ~ No mag changes

 

[Zangetsu]

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.

That's why many of our guys would take an empty clip and whip it against a rock, and watch as the enemy popped out, never expecting what was about to happen to them. For those who used that ping to their advantage, I'm sure they didn't mind it too much; how many other rifles have the ability to make the enemy drop their guard and come try and get you?

 

[Chuck Spears]

Does that somehow bring back the lives lost from that design flaw?

 

[TexasRifleman]

Does that somehow bring back the lives lost from that design flaw?

Please show some historical data backing up your claim that this has cost lives.

Other than a rather boring thread going on at TFL currently there's not much out there. This one seems to crop up every once in a while but no one ever has any historical documentation to back it up other than things that start with "I knew this guy once......"

 

[Chuck Spears]

The *ping* was noted by the military and actions were taken to stop or at least minimize it. What does that mean? A lot. Keep things in perspective. Consider the sheer number of complaints soldiers had in the war. Then consider the lack of time (or care) that the upper echelons devoted to addressing those problems. So if they took drastic steps to address that problem during wartime, then it was obviously a problem and it was serious.

 

[TexasRifleman]

So in other words you have no documentation at all supporting this claim of lives lost.

That's what I figured. This story shows up every once in a while and it's always the same, not a single historical document. Even though WWII has been pretty much documented in every way imaginable.

I don't mean any offense, this is a popular story, but with all the writings on that war if it was something that actually cost lives you'd think it would be written down somewhere.

I'm sure someone along the way asked the question, that doesn't mean it was a legitimate concern.

 

[rbernie]

So we went from:

Does that somehow bring back the lives lost from that design flaw?

to:

The *ping* was noted by the military and actions were taken to stop or at least minimize it.

Claiming that lives were lost as a result is quite a stretch of logic from 'noting it'. Hyperbole is fine for presidential politics, but not convincing in rational debate.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Dunlap, Roy F. (1948). Ordnance Went Up Front. The Samworth Press. ISBN 1-88484-909-1

It discusses how officials at the Aberdeen Proving Ground took the issue seriously enough to develop ways to stop or minimize the sound. Do you honestly think they would waste the effort (during wartime no less) to investigate an unsubstantiated claim?

 

[TexasRifleman]

It discusses how officials at the Aberdeen Proving Ground took the issue seriously enough to develop ways to stop or minimize the sound. Do you honestly think they would waste the effort (during wartime no less) to investigate an unsubstantiated claim?

And again, I'm sure there were many things thought of, conceptualized, and wondered about during that great war.

None of that shows that there were lives lost from this "design flaw". If in fact there were you'd see more than a page from one book about the Aberdeen Proving Grounds.

I have a 50 page document from North American Aviation about modifications to the exhaust systems on B25 aircraft.

Does that mean the original design cost lives?

Just because it occurred to someone along the way that it might be a problem does not prove that it actually was.

 

[Chuck Spears]

So what do you want? A cell phone video of a GI getting a bayonet in a banzai charge after his clip pinged? I'll search YouTube real quick. Not every little aspect of war is going to have official documentation. The status of the dead soldier is "KIA." There wasn't a category for "KIA bc of Garand ping." So you have to rely on the stories that come back from battle. And if the military is going to spend the time and effort to fix a problem that would cost lots of money to fix, then those stories should be taken seriously.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Not every little aspect of war is going to have official documentation.

Again, WWII is the most heavily documented conflict in history. More books have been written about that, more vets interviewed, more government documents preserved.....

Nowhere, ever, has there been any credible evidence in any of that; GI diaries, combat reports, nothing, to show that what you describe actually happened.

This has been coming up on gun boards for many years and the Garand guys have spent untold hours scouring the records for any kind of proof and there simply hasn't been any.

If you find some it would be a huge historical discovery to be honest. It's entirely likely that it happened at least once, but there are lots of things that happen once. That does not make a design flaw.

 

[Chuck Spears]

I'm assuming that if you guys had the ability to design your dream combat rifle that you'd make sure it broadcasted when the clip is empty. Especially with today's CQB. Awesome characteristic.

 

[TexasRifleman]

I'm assuming that if you guys had the ability to design your dream combat rifle that you'd make sure it broadcasted when the clip is empty. Especially with today's CQB. Awesome characteristic

Again, no one said it was a good idea. You said it was a design flaw that cost lives and that is not true.

 

[Chuck Spears]

Nowhere, ever, has there been any credible evidence in any of that; GI diaries, combat reports, nothing, to show that what you describe actually happened.

So you've taken the time to read every document related to WWII and interviewed all the vets? You have too much time on your hands. Now you are going to tell me that you heard from somebody else that there isn't any documentation from it (obviously you haven't read/interviewed everything). At that point I would ask you to live up to the same standards that you hold me to: prove it. You heard from someone else that there isn't documentation. So prove it.

 

[Chuck Spears]

It's a widely told story, whether you believe it or not, and the military took steps to address it. Logically, I would assume that it was a real problem given that information. That's just where I'm coming from. If that's not acceptable then I'll strike the point from the debate and withdraw the statement. Still doesn't change the fact that nobody in their right mind would march into battle right now with a Garand if given the option to choose their battle rifle.

 

[TexasRifleman]

You heard from someone else that there isn't documentation. So prove it.

That's not how the world works my friend. You made a claim and cannot in any way prove it. Garand collectors have been looking for that same information for a long time.

The combined knowledge of many many Garand collectors that have written about this outweighs your claims of "it's a design flaw that took lives".

Don't get mad about it, I mean no offense.

On the face it does make sense which is why it keeps coming up in discussions of the Garand. It's common sense to think that a noise like that could be used by the enemy, but if it was an actual problem someone, somewhere would have written it down.

But people who live and breathe the Garand haven't found any proof and that's good enough for me. How many books have been written about just that rifle? I can't begin to imagine. And still nothing.

If you want to continue to believe it happened that's fine. If records turn up someday to show that it did happen it will be very interesting. It very well may have happened, it stands to reason that it did in fact. But, that's not any kind of evidence at all, that's all I'm saying.

It's a widely told story, whether you believe it or not, and the military took steps to address it.

It's a widely told story that aliens landed here, and the military took steps to address it with Project Blue Book. Doesn't mean ET is hiding in New Mexico.

Still doesn't change the fact that nobody in their right mind would march into battle right now with a Garand if given the option to choose their battle rifle.

I won't argue that at all, it would be crazy.

 

[ftierson]

Actually, how do you know when your rifle is empty?

With the M14 and M16, it's when you pull the trigger and nothing happens and you then notice that the action is locked back on an empty magazine...

With the AK-47/AKM/AK-74, it's when your rifle goes 'click' and you don't even have the action locked back on an empty magazine...

With the Garand and it's tacticool clip ping, you know immediately when to reload...

And, with the Garand, that reload is super fast...

Clip ping is cool...

Not bad...



Forrest