Total round count death match - M1 Garand and AK
- Thread starter High Planes Drifter
- Start date
- Status
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
Please do so then. I look forward to your "correction".
30Cal
Member
I've never seen a bent follower arm (or any other bent part). I suppose if you disassembled it and stepped on it, it could get bent or broken).
As far as lack of lubrication, show me a manual that doesn't cite failure to lubricate as a primary cause of stoppages.
HorseSoldier
Member
What that means in regards to the CMP rifles is hard to say, though. There are two issues, I think. First, not all rifles CMP gets ahold of are servicable or in condition to safely release to the shooting public. If CMP is selling it, it's obviously done better than all the ones that were junk (what % were junk, salvagable, or good to shoot in their existing condition is an interesting question if anyone has an answer) . . .
Add to that the fact that some/most of the CMP rifles, whatever their overall condition, we re-arsenaled somewhere along the way to keep them within military specs and possibly operational.
The two issues combined mean that CMP rifles simply are not an accurate sample of how well a Garand's age in general.
Put another way, I don't see any reason you'd get different results in terms of servicability if you took, say, 1948 manufacture AK-47s, re-arsenaled them with new parts as needed in the 1950s and 1960s, put them in storage by the mid-60s and then pulled them out of storage now and discarded any that weren't salvagable. I'm guessing you'd see about the same % that were still usable.
I think the original question is quite useless. I think both would quit before a catostrophic failure, and the eventual catostrophic failure would depend upon the individual quality of the metal. I would thnk that the gas system on the Garand would foul first, and the rifling on th Garand would wear out quicker because of increased stress from the 30-06 and shallower lands. The extractor on the Garand might last longer than those of the AK since the AK more often uses steel cased ammunition. I would also think the Garand receiver is probalby less susceptable to crcking since it is forged, while the AK receiver would depend upon what type it is, milled, 1.6 mm. 1mm, and the extent of the heat treating of that receiver. The trigger group on a Garand and the stock are both stronger than an AK, but failures of those are unlikely to casue catostrophic failure. And lastly, I think the Operating rod of the Garand is weaker than the piston and bolt carrier assembly on an AK, and more susceptible to failure.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
Have you seen what an AK looks like after a few years of use? I have an AK74from Aim surpluss, its less that a year old, and only sees usage at the range. It looks like it came from a battle field somewhere in the Sudan.
I have a Mauser that looks no better. But what do looks have to do with funcionality? Both guns will fire right now. BTW- those Garands at the CMP have seen more than a Few years of hard use. Most are 50 or 60 years old.I define catastrophic failure as any parts failure that would render the firearm unable to fire.
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
Yeah. I saw mountains of them in Iraq. They worked fine. As was demonstrated repeatedly.
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Which is sort of the point.
What a gun LOOKS like and whether or not it FUNCTIONS have nothing to do with each other.
You make mention of the fact that the CMP Garands look like crap. Most AKs look like crap too when they've been used.
Not sure what that has to do with anything.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
You beat me to it.
(Dang I wanted to call him on that.
)HorseSoldier
Member
Being 50-60 years old does not necessarily mean the rifle has seen more than a few years of hard use. If I recall info from CMP correctly, a lot of the Greek returns were never even issued to Greek forces -- warehoused on receipt from the US government for use in a general mobilization scenario that never happened. (This being one reason why, unlike the Danes, the Greeks are all USGI -- they weren't used enough to require Beretta parts.)
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
Word games...
The CMP guns were obviously on the far end of their useable life. The AK's, despite similar rough treatment, still had plenty of life left in them.
Roswell 1847
member
Set mansize targets at 600 yards and only count the rounds that hit in the kill zone.
PS
The AK Bolt itself is copied from the M1 Carbine bolt, which in turn is copied from the Garand bolt.
The AK trigger group is copied from the Garand, which in turn is a development of the Model 12 Winchester with disconnector.
The Garand receiver was rated for 120,000 PSI before failure.
PS
The AK Bolt itself is copied from the M1 Carbine bolt, which in turn is copied from the Garand bolt.
The AK trigger group is copied from the Garand, which in turn is a development of the Model 12 Winchester with disconnector.
The Garand receiver was rated for 120,000 PSI before failure.
Put the targets at 300 yards and there probably wouldn't be much change.
But given that 90% of all infantry small arms fire occurs at less that 300 yards, and 70% is at less than 100 yards, I don't see the relavance. Even in the ETO during WWII, the average range of combat was 75 yards - for all infantry weapons!
I've often wondered what sort of a combat rifle the M1 would have made if it were in 276.
Finally, though I think the Garand might my a little more durable, typically the most failure prone component in a rifle after the round itself is the magazine. he AK does have the advantage of a detachable box mag, although the internal mag of the Garand is probably more rugged and better protected.
This really is an interesting matchup.
But given that 90% of all infantry small arms fire occurs at less that 300 yards, and 70% is at less than 100 yards, I don't see the relavance. Even in the ETO during WWII, the average range of combat was 75 yards - for all infantry weapons!
I've often wondered what sort of a combat rifle the M1 would have made if it were in 276.
Finally, though I think the Garand might my a little more durable, typically the most failure prone component in a rifle after the round itself is the magazine. he AK does have the advantage of a detachable box mag, although the internal mag of the Garand is probably more rugged and better protected.
This really is an interesting matchup.
P-32
Member
GWM....have you shot one of those old beat up M-1 Grands from the CMP? Or you just guessing?
TexasRifleman
Moderator Emeritus
Yes you are playing word games, thanks for acknowledging it. You have no way of knowing what kind of service life was left in either one of the rifles you mention. It would take a large statistical sample from each pile to even begin to prove it one way or the other.
The CMP guns are 60 years old, at the far end of their usable life but still useable.
Find a similar pile of 60 year old AKs and make the comparison. It will be the same, rifles at the far end of their service lifetime but still potentially serviceable. Your comparisons don't really go anywhere when all you are basing it on is looks and your "gut feeling".
Not sure exactly what your point is. You have said that looks matter, but really not much else. You said that the manual for the Garand lists failures that could potentially be caused by no grease, OK thats nice. You say you "saw a lot of AKs over somewhere and they looked OK" , again that's real nice.
So your criteria for a well designed rifle is one that continues to look nice after use and has an owners manual that doesn't describe possible failure modes?
Roswell 1847
member
I've shot a very hard used M1 Garand whose bore was eroded and the rifling barely visible. The bore was so rough from firing rocket assisted grenades that the cases all showed excessive pressure and flatened primers.
The M1 still shot better than any AK I've tried so far and it never jammed, or failed to feed, or had a misfire.
In fact the only parts of the gun which showed much wear was the bore and the stock.
Refurbished the stock, glass bedded, it rebarreled it with a used match grade barrel I picked up for 40 bucks, and made a profit. Still kicking myself for not keeping it but like a dummy didn't see the obvious when it came to future prices.
The M1 still shot better than any AK I've tried so far and it never jammed, or failed to feed, or had a misfire.
In fact the only parts of the gun which showed much wear was the bore and the stock.
Refurbished the stock, glass bedded, it rebarreled it with a used match grade barrel I picked up for 40 bucks, and made a profit. Still kicking myself for not keeping it but like a dummy didn't see the obvious when it came to future prices.
Gun Wielding Maniac
Member
I never said that... and this thread is becoming asinine.
I own both rifles. I've used both extensively. The original question was about which would last longer in a head to head shoot off. I explained my reasoning... the lower power of the 7.62x39mm cartridge producing less stress... less moving parts in the AK and more rugged parts... and a chrome lined barrel. Then people came across with all the "They refit garands but dont refit AK's, so they're disposable so they must be crap" nonsense.
Beyond simply shooting and looking at AK's, I also build them... so I'd say I've got more exposure to and familiarity with the system then your average joe. There is no "gut feeling" talking here. Simply adding up the sum of the parts, looking at the stresses each system is exposed to and the strengths of the components, it should be obvious that the AK would outlast the Garand in any serious endurance contest. The M1 Garand was an is a great rifle... but it had flaws. The military acknowledged as much in the modifications made to create the M14.
Now people are stretching to include changing out barrels and other parts... sorry bub, that wasnt part of the original question. Hell, if you can change out a barrel, why not change out the receiver while you're at it?
Eightball
Member
Well, if neither was chrome-lined (as the Garands weren't, dunno how that would affect anything), and both had regular maintenence as should be expected of a military rifle, I wouldn't be surprised if the Garand could keep up. Might get a little looser in the barrel sooner (opening of the groups), but as far as the "goes BANG!" factor? Probably equal. The question was based on round count, not "maintiains pristine condition longer".
Wow ..... you guys are brutal The original question was a bit unclear to begin with. Is each being continually fed ammo until catostraphic failure with no cleaning or maintainance?
Either way I don't think I would stand in front of either rifle no matter what condition or how many rounds have been run through them.
The original question was a bit unclear to begin with. Is each being continually fed ammo until catostraphic failure with no cleaning or maintainance? Either way I don't think I would stand in front of either rifle no matter what condition or how many rounds have been run through them.
Oohrah
Member
The M-1 Garand
HM2PAC
Member
This is why I prefer Red Delicious over Valencia.
High Planes Drifter
Member
- Joined
- Feb 21, 2006
- Messages
- 1,204
I've seen it brought up a few times so far in the thread about this being an interesting matchup. I guess some of you guys are wondering how this debate even came up?
I , along with a few friends, go to the local outdoor range once a month; we make a day out of it. We'll shoot for a couple of hours in the morning, then go to lunch. The debate came up at lunch, and it actually started over tanks. We were comparing the ruggedness of Soviet tanks with the ruggedness of American tanks; of both past and present service. Then the discussion turned to service issue rifles. A comment was made by one of the guys, that America had never fielded a service rifle as rugged and reliable as the Soviets, and put emphasis on how reliable the Kalishnikov rifle is. I called BS on the assumption that America had never fielded anything as rugged and reliable as an AK, and brought up the M1 rifle. I suggested that, under combat conditions; with an issue cleaning kit for each rifle, an M1 would last just as long as an AK before a catastrophic part failure left the rifle unusable.
I told him I posted this here, and to check it out. He read it and asked that I put some ground rules in the first post, and asked me to add a poll. Once we agree on the guideline's, I'll add them to the first post; but Im not sure if I can add a poll to this thread now.
I , along with a few friends, go to the local outdoor range once a month; we make a day out of it. We'll shoot for a couple of hours in the morning, then go to lunch. The debate came up at lunch, and it actually started over tanks. We were comparing the ruggedness of Soviet tanks with the ruggedness of American tanks; of both past and present service. Then the discussion turned to service issue rifles. A comment was made by one of the guys, that America had never fielded a service rifle as rugged and reliable as the Soviets, and put emphasis on how reliable the Kalishnikov rifle is. I called BS on the assumption that America had never fielded anything as rugged and reliable as an AK, and brought up the M1 rifle. I suggested that, under combat conditions; with an issue cleaning kit for each rifle, an M1 would last just as long as an AK before a catastrophic part failure left the rifle unusable.
I told him I posted this here, and to check it out. He read it and asked that I put some ground rules in the first post, and asked me to add a poll. Once we agree on the guideline's, I'll add them to the first post; but Im not sure if I can add a poll to this thread now.
- Status
Similar threads
