Total round count death match - M1 Garand and AK

[Neo-Luddite]

Even for someone who loves the M-1 with devotion of a true believer, this is something of a silly debate; it really is apples and oranges.

That said, if the debate came down to ultimate service life of the receiver in total rounds fired, I'd put my money on the M-1 any day; it is one of the most over-built receivers in history. In 100 years from now they will still be on firing lines seeing hard use. But the fact is, the tollerances are such that a slighly bent op rod will ruin your day and you'll end up with a straight-pull bolt action.

On the whole, the AK is more rugged if the weapon will be subjected to harsh storage and un-trained use; just a simpler to care for and not damage in the process.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

Even for someone who loves the M-1 with devotion of a true believer, this is something of a silly debate; it really is apples and oranges.

I dont see it as such; we arent comparing the "tactical" strengths and weeknesses of each. We're simply comparing the ruggedness and reliability of the rifle,

But the fact is, the tollerances are such that a slighly bent op rod will ruin your day and you'll end up with a straight-pull bolt action.

On the whole, the AK is more rugged if the weapon will be subjected to harsh storage and un-trained use; just a simpler to care for and not damage in the process.

I've seen AK's go down also. I have one thats had to go back twice for the same problem. As a matter of fact the morning that this debate took place, an AK went down at the firing line, I didnt walk over to see what it was that put it out of commision, but it appeared as tho the cable in the firing pin group had broken. Rest assure, I reminded my friend of this during the debate. I stand by my original statement, I believe an M1 will put up with just as much on the battlefield as an AK before a parts breakage puts it out of commision.

 

[rockinrussky]

Just my thoughts: Comparing the two rifles back to back in terms of the number of rounds fired really is comparing apples and oranges if we're going by the length of service. Keep in mind, the AKs are a select fire rifle with a detachable 30 round magazine shooting 600 rounds/min. The Garand is a semi automatic rifle that uses an 8-round "en bloc" clip internal magazines. In a given battle, I find it very hard to believe that a soldier using a Garand will go through as much ammo as the one with an AK. 'Spray and Pray' is a common theme that gets brought up with AKs, not so with any of the battle rifles.

Now, I'm not making the case that in an of itself the AK would be able to take more punishment than a Garand. Hell, both rifles are excellent for their own purposes (battle rifle=fewer, more potent rounds fired. assault rifle=select fire, lower powered cartridges). My point is that using 'service length' argument for the Garands is inconclusive at best as I find it hard to believe that an M1 Garand would have seen as many rounds fired through it as an assault rifle like the AK.

 

[ozwyn]

pretty sure if both weapons are properly maintained the test shooters may die of old age before the weapons do...........

 

[elmerfudd]

pretty sure if both weapons are properly maintained the test shooters may die of old age before the weapons do...........

Exactly. Besides, what is the point of comparing weapons of different eras in regards to a problem that neither one had? Heck, we could include the SKS and the G3 too and argue about how many decades it would take to wear any of them out. The fact is that by the time someone wears one out they'll have spent many times the purchase price on ammunition.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

Now, I'm not making the case that in an of itself the AK would be able to take more punishment than a Garand. Hell, both rifles are excellent for their own purposes (battle rifle=fewer, more potent rounds fired. assault rifle=select fire, lower powered cartridges). My point is that using 'service length' argument for the Garands is inconclusive at best as I find it hard to believe that an M1 Garand would have seen as many rounds fired through it as an assault rifle like the AK.

It was requested in the first post to keep the discussion limited to semi automatic rifles only; just as I did in the debate, so that we would be talking more apples to apples.

Exactly. Besides, what is the point of comparing weapons of different eras

Actually, and this doesnt have anything to do with the discussion at hand, but they arent as far apart on the timeline as you might think. For instance, we do know that the M1 was used in small numbers in Vietnam. Also, although unlikely, it is plausable that GI's in Korea, armed with M1's could have faced Chicom and North Korean soliers armed with AK's. Again, I know that might have been unlikely, but it certainly could have happened looking at a timeline. We do know that the weapons have been used in conflicts by opposing armies at the same time.

in regards to a problem that neither one had?

Thats the point I was trying to make in the debate. That the M1 was as durable and rugged as the AK.

 

[P-32]

The United States was the only country in WW2 who armed its troops primarily with semi-auto rifles. The power of the 30-06 cartridge combined with the reliability of the M-1 Garand made a very effective and winning battle rifle. The M-1 Garand has won the distinction of being the very best general issue weapon of WW2, if not of all time. I wonder what General Patton would said about the AK. I bet Patton would have still wanted to go kick some butt.

Feed it M-2 ball ammo and the M-1 Grand is no sissy. The op rod won't bend. I've worn out a op rod spring but I've never broken a part on any of my 3 M-1's.

Someone sid the gas system would gum up. The gas system is self cleaning and made of stainless steel.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Thats the point I was trying to make in the debate. That the M1 was as durable and rugged as the AK.

Now pit it against the M-4, just for fun (the M-1 that is).

For what's it worth, I left my gas system dirty for 5 years before the build up caused functioning problems. The biggest risk to reliability is someone messing up the gas system (op rod most of all) when breaking down the weapon. For this, Joe wasn't (on paper at least) allowed to take apart the gas system un-supervised during WW II. The robustness of the weapon as a whole really shields that op rod from harm when installed on the rifle--but it is an awful point of weakness.

 

[jaholder1971]

IMHO both would run neck and neck with each other until both rifles got tired, asked themselves why they're putting up with this C**p and each rifle shoots the tester.