Total round count death match - M1 Garand and AK

[siglite]

I propose we settle this once and for all. HPD, send me two pallets of ammunition, one garand, and one AK. I'll get back to you in 30 days with a definitive answer.

 

[GunTech]

Ar you going to use a 60 year old AK (tricky) or a new AK and a new Garand? Hard to find two comparable rifles, as forged Garand receivers haven't been made in a while.

It would be interesting though.

 

[roscoe]

Yet, as Onmilo said, there are very few AKM rifles still around from the 60's or 70's.

I see 60s and 70s vintage AK47s all over lowland Ethiopia (from the biggest Soviet weapons airlift ever, they say) and they run like Swiss watches. These are regularly fired in anger, too, not sitting in someone's armory. The bluing is gone, and they have a few scratches, but they fire and fire.

 

[Sunray]

"...Would a GI M1 rifle keep up with the AK rifle in in total round count before catastrophic failure?..." Easily, but it's an apples and oranges comparison. The M1 is a battle rifle. The AK is an assault rifle.(One of the few every made.) The M1 works in crappy conditions with little fuss(use cold weather grease or shoot it bone dry in cold weather) and is far more accurate at longer ranges. You really have to work at breaking an M1.
The AK, like all Russian military firearms, is made to be 100% reliable with any ammo, in all conditions. The difference between an M1 and an AK is the ammunition. The M1 rifle was designed to use .30 M1 U.S. service ammo with its 174.5 grain bullet at 2647fps.(Later dropped to a 152 grain bullet at 2800fps and effective, out of MG's, at 2,000 yards.) The 7.62 x 39 was designed to be effective out to 300 yards using a 125 grain bullet.
"...AK probably had a chance to look at the M1 Garand's blueprints before he designed the AK..." Nope. 'AK' means Автомат Калашникова or Automatic Kalashnikov. The '47' comes from the year it was adopted. It was and is made to issue an FA weapon to illiterate conscripts. Who can use it with minimal training. Mikhail Kalashnikov very likely had no idea there was such a thing as an M1 rifle from his hospital bed. Russia was a closed society in the 1940's. Despite what he said later.

 

[Tyris]

Whoever made the statement that AKs from the 60s and 70s are uncommon has really not traveled the world as much as he thinks he has.

I've seen several (dozen? hundred?) russian and chinese copies from the late-50s, 60s, 70s and AK74s from the early-80s. They all had bluing turned to a steely gray, but they ran well. The actions were super smooth, made my Romanian SAR series feel like junk.

-T

 

[Onmilo]

Several dozen or a hundred of a 50 MILLION piece run does not constitute many in my book.
Ethiopeans,,,,,now there are some hard core fighters!
Soviets are well known to pre-crate weapons and ship them from depot stock.
Just because you saw some of these rifles there in the sand doesn't mean they had been there that long.

I saw quite a few actual forged receiver AK-47s down in Central America.
They dated from the late 50s, early 1960s.
Most were probably sent as military aid from Viet Nam along with a hell of a lot of US M16 and M16A1 rifles.
These are the best made of all the AK series rifles and none of these could be counted on to hit a man sized target past 100 meters they were that beat up, they worked, sort of.

A friend of mine hit the island of Grenada.
Same story, several dozen forged receiver AK-47s brought along by Cuba as military aid to the "Grenadian Army" LOL.
These were well used and mostly used up stock the Cubans were trying to get rid of.
Lots of 7.62X39 ammunition too.
A lot of it looked like it been smuggled onto the island in the bilge of a freighter.
The wooden cases were beginning to disintigrate and many of the sealing tins were completely rusted through but I am digressing.

Side by side the M1 will still outlast an AKM in a shoot off.
There are no rivits to pop on an M1.
Now if you want a safe queen I believe it is a safe bet to say both rifles will last just as long as the other provided proper precautions are taken for long term storage.

If I was planning on just one rifle to last my lifetime and the lifetime of my kid then I would pick an M1 with a good carbalite or fiberglass stock and a spare barrel, spare trigger group. gas cylinder assembly, bolt and operating rod.

This rifle will still be running long after the AKM rivits popped and the trunnion shifted position.

 

[High Planes Drifter]

i didnt side track it, you did, you and Onmilo relate an items existance with its reliability. falacy of numbers. the fact that there arnt many AK's from the 60's still around, isnt longevity, but reason. that being there isnt any reason to rebuild and repair when you can make a new one cheaper.

I only brought up the longevity of the Garand as an example the the main parts and inner components would last a long time before failing.

are you including replacement of wearable parts or not? Barrel replacement being key. And depending on your answer to that, does accuracy matter?

I'm pretty sure that, all else being equal, an AKM's barrel will last longer (at least remain accurate longer) than a Garand's simply due to the cartridge's lower power. This assuming both weapons are fired in moderation (no rapid fire).

Accuracy was never brought up in the debate, so I would say barrel condition and wear does not matter.

 

[rocinante]

I wish I had an M1 or really rather an M14 but I do have a russian built ak47 semi automatic. It is a saiga and it cost me 250 and IMO it is a solid well constructed rifle. What others call crude I call elegant. I believe it would be a better SHTF weapon and take a lot of abuse but what do I know.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Thats pretty much the point I was getting at. The Garand was made to last and last and last.

If taken care of, I think they'll last a very long time. CMP gets back weapons from overseas frequently that aren't fit for anything but cannibalizing for whatever small parts are still servicable, though. If not treated well, they don't last better than anything else.

 

[.45Guy]

What's all this talk of M2 ball running at 60,000 PSI? FM 23-5 states 50,000.

 

[Luomu]

I've never fired an M1. But I have shot a few thousand rounds through AK's and variants. My reserve officer's club owns four chinese AKM clones in 7,62. These have had maybe a bit over 20K rounds through them per gun on average. They are well worn, but still shoot, despite some minor problems every now and then. Around 15K, the first gun broke a part in trigger group, which stopped further firing on that day.

 

[aloharover]

there are very few AKM rifles still around from the 60's or 70's.

How exactly are we to determine how many were made and how many still exist?

 

[GunTech]

There seems to be some debate on the pressure value given in the manual being correct. Depending on the source (and I mean military spec) I have seen values like 50,000 CUP and 45,000-54,000 psi. I don't know myself, and quoted the SAAMI number.

http://www.handloads.com/misc/saami.htm

It now appears that may be high, which suggest that shooting commercial 30-06 ammo in an M1 Garand may be a bad thing.

I looked at the load I was given for a duplicate M2 loading - 50 gn IMR4895, and with a 150gn bullet, QuickLoad predicts a chamber pressure of around 45,000 PSI with a velocity of about 2700 fps. Even using BL-C(2), peak pressure still looks to fall well under 50,000 PSI.

Thanks 45guy.

 

[lencac]

I think you could pull the trigger on both until your finger failed bofore the firearm. That is an interesting question though. I think the answer is in the nature of the material used and how robust each design is. We all know the AK will shoot, and shoot, and shoot, and shoot but ultimately I think the less robust nature of a stamped reciever will come to failure before the extremely robust and nearly indestructable nature of the M1. It was not uncommon for M1s to be shot under combat conditions to the point that there literally was no rifling left in the barrel and they still flung lead.

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

I'm sorry... "The M1 garand will shoot and shoot while the AK's rivets will pop off.." is just a show of prudish ignorance. I've built over 40 AKM and AK-74 type rifles. A test was done a couple of years ago by some Gunco.net gunsmiths to see how much force it would take to rip the front trunnion out of the receiver. It was found that the front trunnion doesn't actually have a lot of force exerted on it during firing. It was found that 6 toothpicks could be used to hold the trunnion in place during firing! Rivets have far, far more holding power and shearing resistance then toothpicks.


Also, I think the authors hear are playing games with the whole "forged receiver vs. stamped sheet metal" business. First, the AK-47 was produced with milled forged steel receivers. The later AKM's and AK-74's had the stamped steel receivers.

Round for round, I find it incomprehensible that anyone would think an M1 Garand could hang with an AK-47. I mean, seriously... have any of you actually seen what a Garand looks like after a few years of hard use? Visit the CMP sometime and look at some of their used stock.

 

[TexasRifleman]

have any of you actually seen what a Garand looks like after a few years of hard use? Visit the CMP sometime and look at some of their used stock.

Few years? Most of the CMP returns are pushing 50+ years old. Hardly a "few years" of use.

 

[GunTech]

I'd like to see the test, and remain open minded.

I can vividly recall the introduction of the Glock, and thinking there was no way a plastic POS could hold up compared to the good old 1911. Boy was I wrong.

 

[SnakeEater]

My guess, and let's face it, we're all guessing, is that the AK would come out the winner. I have a feeling something would eventually fail in the M1's gas system.

 

[rbernie]

IMO - the AK has fewer parts in motion at any given point in time than the M1 and uses better design/quality springs. That gives the nod (on paper) to the AK.

 

[elmerfudd]

Those Garands might be 60+ years old, but honestly, how much use have they had in the past 50 years. Militarily, the answer is almost none. The rifle has been obsolete since the late 50's. What Garands are out there have been in use by drill teams or rear echelon trainees or more likely have been sitting unused in armories for several decades now. AK's on the other hand are probably the most widely produced weapon to this very day and those AK's from the 50's and 60's have likely seen a great deal of use in the last 50 years.

As to which one would hold up longer. Who really cares? Both are rugged weapons that should outlive their owners.

 

[TexasRifleman]

Those Garands might be 60+ years old, but honestly, how much use have they had in the past 50 years.

The Greek Garands for example were used by the Greek Army as their primary weapon from the mid 50's until 1973 when it was replaced by the FAL.

That's 20 solid years of use. I think it's a bit unrealistic to say that just because they are 50+ years old and have been in storage that they didn't get used.

 

[30Cal]

Also, consider the number of smaller, spindly moving parts in the M1 Garand's action. M1 Garand's gas pistons bend on occasion as a result of not being greased, rendering the rifle unserviceable. I've never heard of an AK being rendered unserviceable by not being greased. Arsenal claims that a chrome lined AK-47 barrel can withstand 30000 rounds on full auto before it needs to be replaced. Reduced heat of semi-auto only firing would certainly prolong this barrel life. I doubt the Garand could withstand the same...

There's ONE moving part in the M1 gas system, and it's over 1/2" in diameter. What's this "spindly" business all about?

The M1 gas system is stainless and self cleaning. If you disregarded the field manual and greased it, you'd negate the self cleaning nature of the design. It'll gunk up badly when greased and will fail very soon. The rest of the rifle will run just fine when dry as well.

 

[30Cal]

My guess, and let's face it, we're all guessing, is that the AK would come out the winner. I have a feeling something would eventually fail in the M1's gas system.

There's nothing to the gas sytem. It's a rod with a piston on the end. It doesn't need to be cleaned except to prevent corrosion (which isn't even really an issue now that we have non-corrosive ammo).

 

[30Cal]

The Garand's receiver would probably crack at around 400,000 rounds.

Wear out, yes, perhaps. Crack, no. That was an issue with launching grenades prior to the adoption of the poppet valve in the gas system.

 

[Gun Wielding Maniac]

There's ONE moving part in the M1 gas system, and it's over 1/2" in diameter. What's this "spindly" business all about?

The M1 gas system is stainless and self cleaning. If you disregarded the field manual and greased it, you'd negate the self cleaning nature of the design. It'll gunk up badly when greased and will fail very soon. The rest of the rifle will run just fine when dry as well.

Holy selective reading Batman! I didn't say gas system, I said action parts! Did you forget all the small little parts there? How about the follower arm that gets bent all the freaking time? When I said that the gas pistons bend as a result of not being greased, I meant the rifle not being greased. There are several components in the action which, if left ungreased, could bind and bend as a result. Also, look at the list of malfunctions in the field manual... nearly every one of them cites failure to lubricate as a primary cause...