i could correct or find fault in almost every statement in the post you made. get your facts strait before you make yourself look like an idiot.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
Yeah. I saw mountains of them in Iraq. They worked fine. As was demonstrated repeatedly.
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.
BTW- those Garands at the CMP have seen more than a Few years of hard use. Most are 50 or 60 years old.
Word games...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.
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.
I never said that... and this thread is becoming asinine.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?