PDA

View Full Version : Would you rather roll with a Garand/.45 or an M-4/9mm


TonyNorCal
02-28-2006, 7:54 PM
61 years after WWII...

Would you rather head into the rugged, desolate mountains along the Afgani/Pakistani tribal region border in search of Bin Ladin with...

A.) Old school....Garand and a .45...WWII stock, just some good heavy lead

or

B.) New school...M-4 (or some other tricked out 5.56 M-16 variant) and a 9mm Beretta (M9). You're allowed all the rails you want and all the optics, lights, pin wheels, solar panels, bicycle horns, and can openers you want to hang off them.

*Please choose from the above...no 6.8s, FALs, .458 Socoms, etc....just A or B, thanks:) *

Note...your mission can involve shoot outs in craggy ravines, clearing caves, clearing dwellings, and open field, mountainous work...wherever they are...you gotta go. Assume your squad has what you do...so you all have the same ammo. You'll be supported by one Squad automatic weapon team...for those of you who go WWII gear that'll be a Browning Automatic Rifle and for you modern types that a SAW.

So whatcha choose?

HEUER
02-28-2006, 8:05 PM
A) because Tony you can carry the rest of my stuff. ;)

TonyNorCal
02-28-2006, 8:06 PM
Is there reliable resupply by helicopter?

Yes sir......

(and...ARs can be run without pinned mags)

fal_762x51
02-28-2006, 8:13 PM
A! I like the fact when I'm empty, I can beat the snot out of the enemy with a 9.5lbs rifle. One of the greatest weapons, invented by a Canadian. :D

xYourLocalAR15x
02-28-2006, 8:20 PM
I also pick "A".

saki302
02-28-2006, 8:30 PM
If *any* possiility of CQB is involved, I'd pick B.
You can go with 77gr. .223 loads for longer ranged shooting (800 yards). I;m assuming no optics on the Garand, which would seriously hinder its use as a longer ranged weapon, or in spotting faraway targets.

-Dave

Walking Fire
02-28-2006, 8:56 PM
Give me 30-06 Every time.:cool:
Distance/ Knock down.. Any questions?
Oh, By the way, I have a Sniper version with scope , EH!
http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m1cm1d-s.jpg
Do you have a problem?

Pulsar
02-28-2006, 9:05 PM
You didn't say I couldn't have a sniper variant of the garand, so I'm taking that, A for sure :D

slowjonn
02-28-2006, 9:05 PM
UUUHHHH, A definetly. I bet there are a few G.I.'s over there that would love to have the 06/ 45 combo today.

OptionX3
02-28-2006, 9:16 PM
B)
I think it would be just as effective to seriously injure the enemy, rather than killing them. Also, M4 with NV capabilities will enhance combat situations.

50 Freak
02-28-2006, 9:30 PM
Can I have a semi auto 50 cal and a group of young hot female military "grunts" to help me reload my gun...;)

Seriously, I'd take the M-4 (better yet, a full lenght M-16) and a glock 21.

I think the Garand is a much better gun for long distance fighting, but from what I understand, there is a lot of CQB work in caves and abandoned buildings going on. And the M-16 is a better rifle for those encounters.

cjp85
02-28-2006, 11:23 PM
I'd rather have B. Although it would be tougher for me to decide if option A were an M14 with a higher capacity sidearm.

rodgster
02-28-2006, 11:34 PM
I'm tempted to say A.

if as parent points out M-14 (instead of garand) & 1911. Then it's a no brainer.

grammaton76
03-01-2006, 12:02 AM
I'd choose B, but would beg for the 1911 instead of the Beretta. Whichever handgun I use is getting Crimson Trace grips.

My primary reason for this is because with the M4 you get all the accessories you want. In this case, I shall be using a suppressor and night vision gear on the M4, and primarily hunting at night. An M203 as well, of course.

The M203 and night fighting capabilities will compensate for the diminished firepower of the round itself.

Because no one has said I'll be in the military, the Geneva Convention does not apply to me. I will be alternating Nosler ballistic tips and AP ammo in the M4, and using solely Ranger SXT's in the handgun.

SkyStorm82
03-01-2006, 12:12 AM
The M203 and night fighting capabilities will compensate for the diminished firepower of the round itself.

Exactly....Night vision is worth it's weight in gold. I'd choose the M4 just for the fact that it's what I trained with and used in the military though....it's what I'm good with.

I do want a Garand though. I've never even shot one yet.:(

metalhead357
03-01-2006, 12:25 AM
Uncontestedly, no questions asked OPTION A. WHY is B even considered?

Nothing like a Garand and if Re-supply aint an issue....WHY....WHY o WHY go .223? CQB? Oh please! Grunts in WWII we going from room to room and build to building too! Garand suited them just fine. And then there IS that elusive "knockdown" power issue...Aint NO question if you hit center mass with an ~06 the guy is goin' down. Leave him wounded? Why? So he can continue to fight? "Incapacitated" is a little more in lines what I think some are hoping for...and that is alwasy going to be a mighty big if when using a .223.

.45 vs 9mm???? Same old tired arguments are going to re-surface but face facts folks- switching to the 9 wasn't the military's first mistake and wont be the last.

The military's scramblin' to put M14's in many grunts hands with too many complaints on the 5.56's lacking in every regard over there. To "resurrect" and pull out them weapons says somethin' in itself. I betcha' they'd be pulling out the Garands too for our boys if'n they hadn't all been borrowed, sold, yada yada all over the world. "even" the M14's 308 is better than the 223 in every regard 'cept maybe the weight and "recoil" issue for some. But good lord! Grow a spine! They had peeps FRESH outta the depression and dang near malnourished winning campaign after campaign with Garands!!!!!!!!

(metalhead now putting on his flame retardeant suit:p )

Pablo
03-01-2006, 1:22 AM
I'd choose B, but would beg for the 1911 instead of the Beretta. Whichever handgun I use is getting Crimson Trace grips.

My primary reason for this is because with the M4 you get all the accessories you want. In this case, I shall be using a suppressor and night vision gear on the M4, and primarily hunting at night. An M203 as well, of course.

The M203 and night fighting capabilities will compensate for the diminished firepower of the round itself.

Because no one has said I'll be in the military, the Geneva Convention does not apply to me. I will be alternating Nosler ballistic tips and AP ammo in the M4, and using solely Ranger SXT's in the handgun.

Same here! I'm choosing option B and I will let you be in my squad grammaton! How is that? :D

saki302
03-01-2006, 1:58 AM
The other thing to keep in mind, unless you have an NM accurized Garand, with a good modern optic moutned on there, it cannot compare in accuracy to an accurized AR. I have AR's that make sub-MOA groups look routine. I have two Garands also, and as much as I like old classic weapons, I have to give the AR system credit for accuracy. The M14 is accurized the same way a Garand is, and it takes tons of work to match a generic A2 type AR rifle in groups. Free floated AR match guns come within shaving distance of bolt gun groups.

If you want to talk fancy, you can suppress an M4 Carbine, and run a NV scope on there at night, and really give the other guy some rude dreams :D

-Dave

stevie
03-01-2006, 3:52 AM
In for "B"

kick Z tail out
03-01-2006, 4:04 AM
M4A2 and H&K .45 :)

CAT_101
03-01-2006, 4:43 AM
I would take B. I like the face that I can cary more ammo with the M4. and would have a 4X day/NV scope.

NRAhighpowershooter
03-01-2006, 10:56 AM
I'd go with my Garand and a 1911A1

kantstudien
03-01-2006, 11:12 AM
Option B. If any of you guys who picked "A" think you can hit anything without optics at distance, expecially at low-light or no-light, you're either FOS or else you have better eyes than me (I would bet money on the former).

Can we mix and match though? Maybe M4 + 1911? :D

hrlrdr22
03-01-2006, 11:25 AM
+ 1 for mixing and matching....1911 with the full auto m-16 fun fun fun

double_action
03-01-2006, 11:45 AM
Mix and match would be ideal, but that's not the question.

I would go with A, mostly for the .45 . . . 30-06 ain't bad either . . .

Pulsar
03-01-2006, 11:50 AM
He didn't say we couldn't have night vision with the garand, remember that. Some nice gen III goggles and a garand and I'm happy. And the other plus is in that cave fighting environment, the garand makes a much better club/pike (bayonet) than the M-4/M16.

And something to keep in mind for those saying it's better to injure. Most of our terroist enemies don't let an injury slow them down, they just keep going, they expect to fight to the death, so might as well make it a little quicker.

slo5oh
03-01-2006, 1:29 PM
B

While I hate the beretta and love 1911s, the 30 round mags for the m4 are what I care about. I can't pretend to imagine what it's like to be in the middle of a firefight and have your rifle go "CHING!" and eject your clip.
For those of you worried a .223 will only "disable", don't you worry... if 1 shot was good enough to put the enemy on the ground than 3 or 4 must be better... right?

I would probably take an m14 over either though.

grammaton76
03-01-2006, 2:38 PM
The main thing most of you guys are forgetting, is that the 5.56mm ammo is not effective in Iraq due to Geneva convention limitations on what can be used. A 5.56mm FMJ round is absolutely ineffective. A 5.56mm hollow point, which our troops face court martial if they use, is a very different story.

And again, the M203 equalizes a lot of issues on its own. :)

Now for those of you saying M1 + NVG's - those are nice, but although I haven't used it myself, I strongly suspect that trying to aim an M1 with iron sights through NV gear would be difficult.

I'd be using a pressure-actuated infrared laser on the forward handgrip in conjunction with NVG's for close-in night fighting, and a night scope on the picatinny rail for distance.

And to the guys who said I could be on their squad - thanks! :)

CowtownBallin
03-01-2006, 3:10 PM
I'd be using a pressure-actuated infrared laser on the forward handgrip in conjunction with NVG's for close-in night fighting, and a night scope on the picatinny rail for distance.

Are you a mall ninja part time or full time? :D that sounded straight out of a Bond movie

As for my choice, I'm a child of the 80s/90s, so I gotta go with the latest bling bling gear, so option B for me. As for figuring out how to use it, that'll come from necessity, I guess haha

grammaton76
03-01-2006, 3:12 PM
Are you a mall ninja part time or full time? :D that sounded straight out of a Bond movie

As for my choice, I'm a child of the 80s/90s, so I gotta go with the latest bling bling gear, so option B for me. As for figuring out how to use it, that'll come from necessity, I guess haha

*grin* Naw, not mall-ninja'ing. The hypothetical scenario's cave fighting with an unlimited equipment budget, and it seems to me that'd be the only logical place to mount an IR laser. In real life, I wouldn't be likely to put together anything like that simply due to the fact there are better things to spend that kind of money on...

ldivinag
03-01-2006, 3:48 PM
B please... and the M11 as my sidearm.

and an M203 hanging underneath... :)

Pulsar
03-01-2006, 6:00 PM
The main thing most of you guys are forgetting, is that the 5.56mm ammo is not effective in Iraq due to Geneva convention limitations on what can be used. A 5.56mm FMJ round is absolutely ineffective. A 5.56mm hollow point, which our troops face court martial if they use, is a very different story.


Very true, I've heard many stories of the FMJ 5.56mm our guys are using bouncing off of windshields when fired upon charging cars. Angle of the windshield and the lack of penetrating power combine to make for a soliders very bad day. Just about every guy I've talked to who's been in a firefight in Iraq or asscrackistan is praying for the military to adopt the 6.8 or 6.5 round.

ghostrider4evr
03-01-2006, 6:12 PM
I'll go with the M1 and the 1911

metalhead357
03-01-2006, 7:47 PM
Option B. If any of you guys who picked "A" think you can hit anything without optics at distance, expecially at low-light or no-light, you're either FOS or else you have better eyes than me (I would bet money on the former).

Can we mix and match though? Maybe M4 + 1911? :D

LOL!!!!!!!!!!! OMG! PRACTICE man! Practice! And maybe some glasses:confused: the 1000 yard line was CREATED for the Garands! Which would you rather have actually HIT the guy with? 55 grains or something in the 170 range?

Now just my opinion here folks...I know you're entitled to your own & even expressin' it......
I fear folks we're becoming too "techie" with these optics. Optics dont make ya' a better shooter, just allows easier sight at the same distance. Same is true IMO about all the bling bling with d' bells and whistles on the AR platform...How many rails are gonna make ya' "more effective"? In case you're wondering the appropriate response is neither.

FWIW~ I KNOW there's already a poster here that hits in the Grand master range....his preference is the Garand...that all by itself speaks volumes to me. He's even stated elswhere that while his AR is pretty dang accurate he's choosing the Garand. The troops over "there" in both Irag and Afghanistan are screaming for the heavier weapons in the 30 caliber. Bet if a shipment of Garands was flown over the troops would brawl each other to have at 'em. That too speaks volumes too!

Cops & Deputies all across america when "given the choice" go for the 30 calibers when thier departments arn't floundered by yahoo laws.

Check the Sniper rolls...History's true masters and the kills (and distances)...aint too many on there using anything outside the 30 cal range

http://www.snipercentral.com/snipers.htm

metalhead

saki302
03-01-2006, 8:02 PM
the 1000 yard line was CREATED for the Garands! Which would you rather have actually HIT the guy with? 55 grains or something in the 170 range?

Have any of you guys taken shots at 1000 yards, much less a moving target at that range? I read a military report on spotting enemies at various ranges. I think over 300 yards gives a 2% chance of spotting them with the naked eye (could have been 5%, don't recall precisely).

Soldiers in Iraq SPECIFICALLY said they prefer a 3-4X optic for target verification at medium distances. Naked eye, iron sights? Not unless your first name is 'Chuck', and your last name is 'Yeager' (or 'Norris', your choice!).
There is a good reason every sniper rifle since WW1 has been equipped with optics. Yes, shots CAN be taken at 1000 yards by an expert marksman, and hits can be made, but how BIG is the 1000 yard target (for irons, it's HUGE), and it doesn't move, and you already know where it is- big difference there.

Due to the clip-fed configuration, an over-the-barrel optic is impractical or even impossible on the Garand- care to estimate windage differences at long range as well as elevation with an M1D?

-Dave

Leo762
03-01-2006, 8:20 PM
for me without a doubt it would be an M4, if it would be an FAL or an M1 or M4, it would be FAL, M1s are great guns but and the 5.56 is weak but there is no contest between them.

being part of a scout/sniper team is a different story

metalhead357
03-01-2006, 8:37 PM
Dave,

man, no disrepect- but you're forsaking the obvious. Marines, Army and various shooters DO shoot at the 1000 yard line Iron sight.....

You "do" have me at a disadvantage on the "moving" target part...but that too can equally be said/used on the AR argument.

Seems this is going the "long distance" route rather than the CQB. Ok by me.... But snipers have been taking long long distance shots under fire and at moving targets for a while now. I believe the world's longest confirmed kill was done just last year IIRC over in Afghan with a 50 cal:eek: . Granted, Sniper wasnt going iron sights but the bigger rounds have a distinct advantage at distance; that ballistic coeffecient stuff;) So back again between AR v Garand, unless the AR suddenly deveolps a case of the ammo bloats~ them distance shots are gonna be more damaging by the '06..........

Look, I like the AR........... just did the lower madness myself, but face facts folks, the military opted for the smaller rounds for a variety of reasons and NONE of them was increased distance or leathality. It was a prudent measure "for the time" and can even be argued it was purely Political. Or even argued it was purely economic. What isnt at issue was the military "already knew" it was going with a less lethal round that was "better suited" for the changing times. Was it "Smart"? I have my druthers about it but it has "worked". But its difficult to say its worked WELL.

Spec ops, snipers, scouts, recons, yada yada all go "back" to the 30 cals when the bigger fire fights are on. The M-60's 308 was ruler of the day in Viet nam...so too was the napalm, morters, mines and LAAZ...not the M16........

AR's are fun, they ARE effective, no doubts about that; but history doesnt bear out the arguments~ actual real-world in-practice then and now realities dont lend themselves to the AR being better in really anything but the weight/ammo ratios and "easier" shooting of the AR. Do we need to even mention the jam-factor? I'll wager there was more AR FTF's in the couple weeks of fighting in Iraq 3 years ago then there was FTF's for all the Garands in the entire Euro theater for the duration.............

The AR is probably a much better choice when comparing "dedicated" CQB weapons and the world of "SUB" machinguns like the UZI's the MP5's and the sort. The 5.56 will absolutely Kick butt over these guys's round damage and probably even the "versility" factor- if you're actually into the rails, lights, camera's and assorted blahhh.

I'd READILY take the AR & M9 combo if the question had been posed vs the "sub" catagory. But folks, C'mon.....the data aint there, the actual dead-body count aint there, the incapacitation factor just simply aint there when comparing the '06 and the 5.56...........

You MIGHT persuad me in all this if the followup answer to the "re-supply" had been that re-supply WOULD, or might be a big concern. Then YES, give me the "more" ammo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Give me the ammo and the less weight!!!!!!!!

BTW.... I'll carry my own~ thank you:D Dont need no silly assualt wheel barrows, nor ad-hoc ammo boys:p

kantstudien
03-01-2006, 9:25 PM
LOL!!!!!!!!!!! OMG! PRACTICE man! Practice! And maybe some glasses:confused: the 1000 yard line was CREATED for the Garands!

If you can hit a human silhouette at 500 yards with iron sights at dawn or dusk, I will kiss your *** and declare you Lord of all. Not saying it isn't possible, but you would be a serious bad-*** if you could pull it off consistently. Having proper trigger control, breathing, and sight picture won't mean ***** if you can't even see the target. You have noticed that the size of the targets at 1000 yards is about the size of a Hummer right?

grammaton76
03-01-2006, 10:09 PM
Alright, for those of you who suddenly decided this is gonna be a sniper's paradise long range engagement, it's time to revisit the original part of this exercise. Specifically, I bring you to the bottom part. Open fields are only ONE of the potential parameters; the majority of your chances to get yourself killed are in CQB.

I personally would rather be using underpowered 5.56mm on long range shots, than an unmaneuverable Garand in CQB going up against people with AK-47s. And make no mistake, this exercise DOES involve CQB. I can survive hunkering down and taking long shots with the 5.56mm, particularly considering I'm going to be using a suppressor and mostly playing at night. And again, bear in mind that you have no FMJ limitations here - you can use hollow points, which are considerably more effective.

Although in a guaranteed long range only engagement I would seriously give some thought to the Garand, my answer remains with the M4's enhanced versatility.

Below, is the relevant section from the beginning of this exercise, which the 1000+ yard squad has forgotten. :)

Note...your mission can involve shoot outs in craggy ravines, clearing caves, clearing dwellings, and open field, mountainous work...wherever they are...you gotta go. Assume your squad has what you do...so you all have the same ammo. You'll be supported by one Squad automatic weapon team...for those of you who go WWII gear that'll be a Browning Automatic Rifle and for you modern types that a SAW.

metalhead357
03-01-2006, 11:51 PM
If you can hit a human silhouette at 500 yards with iron sights at dawn or dusk, I will kiss your *** and declare you Lord of all. Not saying it isn't possible, but you would be a serious bad-*** if you could pull it off consistently. Having proper trigger control, breathing, and sight picture won't mean ***** if you can't even see the target. You have noticed that the size of the targets at 1000 yards is about the size of a Hummer right?

Again LOL! No I aint Lord of nothing...I might be the emperor of Wyoming but THAT is for another discussion.

I hear ya' and fully understand, reckon, sypathize, etc. on the whole Dawn & dusk sight picture problem. But again, if the challenge has been laid out for the Garand- then why not the AR too? Its the same problem for shooter and rifle.

No argument on "if you cant see the target" cause if you cant see the target..well either you cant see the target OR you Pray & spray!!!

And I do fully agree too & recognize/know the size of them BIGGGG Arsed 1000 yard targets...... but AR's are shooting at them too. Same as above- same problems for the AR and the individual shooter. DOWNrange physics aint political...its a reality...and the Garand's '06 got it, the AR's *might* have the accuracy but NOT the downrange physics. No one said the Garand cant be accurized in this mission.......


WHO SAID or implied the Garand "has to" be open sight "only". If optics ou want...optics you may have in this game right? The D series Garand dont have the "best" scope in todays world...but it was more than adequate for its time. I think we're allllllllllllll (me too) mixing & matching/associating rounds/ammo, optics, and guns tooo much for a truly sustainable & follow-able thread.....But that said~ WHY cant the Garand have a FORWARD Scout mount? Why not a "updated" scope to today's optics? Would THAT answer & suffice you guys sitting on the fence or those thinking that "optics" are gonna rule the day? The round aint gonna make you more accurate, the optics (all being equal now) aint gonna make you acurrate. Them rails and flashlights and Key chain hooks aint gonna make you accurate.

Just "cause" the Garand aint been silenced.....dont mean it cant be done, Nor IR...... "Update" the optics on the Garand in this scenario and for the "long range" aspects of this scenario are still covered better with the Garand as laid out by the original question.

Gram~ you got it, you noticed, aint no SERIOUS argument here on the CQB...... BUT....... BUT with some serious qualifications. A 24" Heavy barreled AR/M16 aint ANYWHERE near as manueverable as a 16" standard barrel. Or are we all gonna go with extreme Shorty AR configs with the 8, 10, 12, and 14 inch barrels with or without the flash suppressor? WHATEVER you "gain" in that manuevrablity you LOOSE in the long range.... Or did we forget those 1000 & 1200 yard AR shots are also taken with FULL LENGHT or at least 20" barrels and oft' times on accurized set-ups? If we're gonna compare apples with apples here- we gotta stick to apples! If you think you're gonna take a 1000 yard "accurate" shot with a 14"+ FS shorty AR with or without optics......... I dont know what you're smokin, but PLEASE PUT DOWN THE PIPE:p (lol! & no offesense to Crack smokers:eek: ).Those AR's on the 1000 yard line are oft times 'race gun', NON-"as issued" or in the "match" catagory...NOT the "as issued". If we're gonna accurize the AR's before we get there then why not the Garands?

An M4 config is gonna "gain" you what? maybe 4" in extra manueverability? An M4 aint the 1000+ yard guns........Garands ARE even in a non accurized version.

I DOOOOOOOOO think the AR's in the shorter configs ARE definite good weapons for the CQB. But if its *only* manueverability that you want then its at distance's loss.....and *maybe* an UZI or MP5 might just be the better option.....but alas...them boys arnt in the arsenal.

While I'm thinking it- in terms of the CQB too.... WHAT Gives? I mean did we all forget about the PISTOLS? Cant those be used "adequately" to do the job? Remember...only about 1 million cops and the DOJ are watching (LOL!). The .45 is uncontestedly the better of the two for close range "solutions";) in that elusive "one shot drop" and incapacitation. Shoulder the Garand if you think its too big, break out the pistol! But for God's sake it better be a .45..... you might not have the chance to put two, three or four rounds into the bad guy before he gets his own off towards you.

As said- I aint got no dog in this fight. Not a Garand dealer nor an "anti-AR" person. I like 'em both. But you've GOT to know the strenghs and weaknesses of the rounds and weapons involved. the AR is more than adequate for CQB and even out to say 400 yards...maybe 600 in the M4 config........... but THAT aint the scenario.... you've overlooked the ravine shots and the distance shots. Those distance shots are ONE HALF of the equation set out in the first post. The Garand CAN and WILL flip the role for BOTH long and Short distances....and CAN do the CQB role as already evidenced by that thing we call WWII.........

The '06 was abandoned for costs and the military was looking for a smaller round- hence the 308. The 308 was NOT abandoned but was decided too costly for the "average" infantryman and the 5.56/223 was adopted.

If Cost aint a factor here. If optics arnt a factor here, if re-supply aint a factor here.... I'm seriously wondering if you guys have ever read the "Rules to a Gunfight"....BIGGER ISSSSSSS BETTER... bring the biggest dam gun you can find into a gunfight!!!!! In this fight, and with the two options, and the parameters laid out You'd do well to adhere to the advice of those that wrote the rules to a gunfight and lived to talk and write about it. That my friends aint option B

Metalhead

EDIT- Heck, I'll even throw in a Bone. The AR DOES win out in the faster loading and magazine vs enblock loading. But HECK!!!!! IF we're accurizing the AR's and adding IR, etc. etc. Make my Garand a BMR configuration to take mags!!!!!!!!!!

grammaton76
03-02-2006, 12:35 AM
An M4 config is gonna "gain" you what? maybe 4" in extra manueverability? An M4 aint the 1000+ yard guns........Garands ARE even in a non accurized version.

Alas, I have no Garand to measure. But I'm pretty sure with the stock collapsed, an M4 is more than 4" shorter (overall length) than a Garand. :) 1000+ yards, I'd definitely prefer a Garand, but unless I'm mistaken the only things the opposing force likes to try to use at that kind of distance is RPGs and mortars. Closing in under cover of darkness, it'd be pretty easy to get to well within 1000 yards.

I DOOOOOOOOO think the AR's in the shorter configs ARE definite good weapons for the CQB. But if its *only* manueverability that you want then its at distance's loss.....and *maybe* an UZI or MP5 might just be the better option.....but alas...them boys arnt in the arsenal.

I wouldn't go quite that far. Canyon and such engagements could stretch into what you'd call medium range, which an SMG is well out of its element in. An M4-spec select fire weapon seems to be the best compromise for medium to short range.

EDIT- Heck, I'll even throw in a Bone. The AR DOES win out in the faster loading and magazine vs enblock loading. But HECK!!!!! IF we're accurizing the AR's and adding IR, etc. etc. Make my Garand a BMR configuration to take mags!!!!!!!!!!

Was the BMR configuration available in WW2? I thought that was part of the constraint of the exercise - trick it out as far as WW2 tech can go, or trick the M4 out as far as current tech can go. And of course YOU can be tricked out as far as modern tech goes (hence personal NVGs, etc).

If you're allowed to do anything to a Garand that modern science can do, then that could leave me inclined to switch my vote over to an M1 in a SOCOM-oid configuration (for improved CQB performance vs standard Garand) - particularly if your squad is respectably sized and can thus lay down an impressive volley of fire. But my understanding was that it was either WW2-modded M1 Garand, or M4. Given only those two choices, I'll still take the M4.

Remember, you have two goals in this game:
1. Don't get killed.

2. Kill the other man, repeat as necessary.

If anyone thinks the order of the two should be reversed, then clearly they're not keeping in mind that you have to accomplish #1 long enough to accomplish #2. I feel that the M1 is a far superior weapon at goal #2. However, it is a far inferior weapon at #1 when neither rifle is restricted to FMJ ammo. Man-stopping power is greatly amplified , even in a 5.56mm, when you're dealing with rounds DESIGNED to expand, as opposed to when you're praying that your FMJ tumbles decently. While a soft-point or ballistic tipped 30'06 would do simply obscene and impressive things to flesh, its 5.56mm counterpart will still perform quite effectively.

When you're dealing with top level equipment vs the kind of opponents we're talking about here, long distance engagements (particularly at night) aren't as dangerous as CQB. That's why I prioritize the CQB performance above all else here.

If you really wanna get creative, maybe one could torque up the rules a little so the company's got a few designated marksmen who tote along Grendel uppers for medium-long range in addition to their 5.56mm uppers. But I imagine that would be torquing the rules about as much as the modernized SOCOM-oid Garand I mentioned earlier...

metalhead357
03-02-2006, 1:10 AM
kantstudien~

Sorry, forgot to address one/two of your statements. How Dark is dark when you say dusk & dawn? Wind? No Wind?

NOT trying to be a Smart-A*, being realistic. Used to regularly shoot to 400 on cans at the Oroville Range at dawn right after getting off work. Other times I used to go out with a buddy from time to time and tag tree stumps that were Bushnell'd Laserd to (and past) 1000 on many an early morning. Granted, it was NOT an unknown distance, and some shots had to be "walked in" from time to time. But its always been my hope, and moreover my plan. If I can see it and have the gun that'll go the distance I will shoot it. WONT always hit it, not even on shot two or three but it CAN be done. No BS'n here. I can hit "somewhat" consistanly to 400 no questions asked. Will it be in the 10 ring? No, I aint that good, some do have to be walked in.....

But another example. Went with another buddy one time out to go deer hunting with an AK varient, spooked a Coyote and he began running...NO way to take a shot..we traveled on. About 5 minutes later we're seeing what we think is the same Coyote running up the side of a hill WAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY off. My buddy goads me into firing off a round (he tells me later he meant to say to just scare him) but I take the bait, adjust the AK's sights to 800 (meters) and then proceed to aim about 1/4" past/above this coyote in the distance and even about 1/2' on lead and took the "Hail Mary" Shot from hell likea complete idiot. If I didnt have a witness to the event I wouldnt state it- I had time to lower the rifle, put it on safe, look up and I swear if that Coyote didn't drop, roll a couple times, get up and start hobbling off!!!!

My Buddy was laughing sooooo freakin hard he fell over. I Felt so freakin bad as I DONT shoot to 'just wound' an animal. Found him dead couple days later (still out hunting deer) topside of the hill (so I didnt feel bad for toooo long) That was an extremely lucky shot I will admit, it was also a stupid shot I will also admit. But it was at the EXTREME range and beyond what's considered even remotely "normal" for 7.62x39 round. But the point is, it still had energy enough to do the deed at what amounted to a 1500+ yard shot.

I'd LIKE to think I'd readily hit a running target again if'n it was necessary in this scenario...but hell, why lie? I HOPE I NEVER have to fire on a human. I know I can shoot, and can shoot adequately. Consitantly as you asked AND on a running target AND Firing back? I dunno~ as I'm assuming the bad guys will be firing back and I'm rather partial to protecting my rosy red arse:D Like to think I'd be hiding IN the tank, behind the transport, or whatever it was that brought me into the godforsaken firefight.

I like the extreme distance shooting thing and have been trying/doing it for years. Been shooting since I've been 7, now well into my 30's.... USed to go out to old farmlands and take 200, 300, and 400 yard shots with a single/bolt action 22 on sprinkler heads up on lattice-type props. All but dots at the tops of stems. You'd hear it when you'd hit 'em:) . Mostly it left them intact being at that range...but then again some would go flying off thier perches. Had my buddies dad litterally throw down onto the ground a BRAND NEW ruger 10-22 with a leopold scope on it when he was trying for a 150 shot and couldnt hit it from a table and 10 shots. I walked up and from standing hit it with the first shot. GOD he was pissed, needless to say...it was then suddenly the "end" of our day out shooting....

So........... CAn it be done? YES. Consistantly? well, I WONT go that far. I miss a hellofalot too! In a life-n-death shoot out, I'm taking the shot regardless of distance....... Somewhere in there IS alot of praying, and I'm Sure some will say luck too plays a part.....

Some say its not braggin' if it can be done. I know I can do SOME of what's been asked by you. The rest????????

Metalhead

metalhead357
03-02-2006, 1:18 AM
Gram, Just hit submit and see you responded too. I GOTTA get some sleep. Lettme read it tomorrow and I'll be back. On a glimpse... i dunno. ARE we limited to *only* tech from the respective era's? Good question and one I will be danged if I wont now be dreaming about! LOL!

Metalhead signing off 0220! BEdtime!

metalhead357
03-02-2006, 10:54 PM
Ok, another day and back to the grind of trying to pursuade the masses of the Garand's.......application:rolleyes:

Gram- (and others) I made a boo boo and caught it myself. I was thinking the Garand shorter than what the specs say that it is. According to Answers that work~ A Garand is 43.6 inches..... And a Bushy M4 with a Flash Suppressor is 34.75 inches; that's I believe with the 14 inch barrel AND Flash suppressor.. So we're talking a 9 or maybe 10 inch difference NOT my previously stated 4......... So I'm sorry for botching that one:cool:

in regards to Grams~ question on "truly" old school vs. my statement of upgrades... I'm not seeing anything limiting the Garand EXCEPT the wood


A.) Old school....Garand and a .45...WWII stock, just some good heavy lead

or

B.) New school...M-4 (or some other tricked out 5.56 M-16 variant) and a 9mm Beretta (M9). You're allowed all the rails you want and all the optics, lights, pin wheels, solar panels, bicycle horns, and can openers you want to hang off them


So we'll have to let the pollster decide this one.

NO argument on whether 9 or 10 inches on a CQB weapon making a BIG difference. I think it does/would too. Not knowing the finer points in terms of *average* dimensions of Afghan caves and *normal* hallways in Iragi homes I'm truly at a loss to even try to argue what's what in this regard save for the fact that compactness certainly DOES makes sense in CQB.

Looking on a couple or three other sites on the tired old argument over 5.56 vs 308 (not '06) even many of the AR fans/posters are all argreeing that the aforementioned downrange energy/physics are somewhat lacking beyond 500. Some are/have noticed ain interesting thing (WIsh I had friggin bookmarked the site, I was at work when I looked this up & now home posting...) that with AP the 5.56 CAN actually still pierce steel due to its velocity while the 308 doesnt pierce but rather "bangs" the steel plates... IIRC I'm going off an AR15 thread (I was on Ar15, Fruggal, Battlerifles and Rifle co); So make of that whatever you will~ and another reminder that it was vs. the 308 not the '06.

In a similar regard alotta these are all still saying exactly what I already said- the extended range shots with them AR's are done with long barreled RIFLE versions and NOT carbines.....
And THAT my friends is something I hate to admit, but freely will, is something I overlooked (and fear some here did too) in that almost by definition a RIFLE is gonna kinda have an 'unfair' advantage at distance over a carbine...and the converse is true- a Carbine might just have the distinct advantage at shorter ranges.

In thinking about *our* afghan/Iragi jaunt- I gotta say too what had been nagging me about part of this is the comments on NIGHT operations by the enemy. So resorting to my much overstated comment from last night (I shoulda went to bed earlier!) CAN the enemy move at night? Yes.... Do they? Yes... But *regularly*? Doubtful from the reads I'm seeing about the boys over there. The enemy just doesnt have the same night capabilities as us. So on moonlit nights its a good probability but in complete darkness *we* are certainly going to have the distinct advantage with IR and night vision gear. In afghan in the rocky terrains there aint too much quietness in moving about over loose terrain; complicated by darkness and made doubly difficult without night gear.................

So where's it standing folks? Anyone wanting to swap rifles for carbines or vice versa yet?

With the -as stated- 1/2 engagements at distance- I'm sticking with the Garand. If'n it was town and CQB only I might just be really tempted at the moment to change on over to the AR if only for the compactness without all the excess weight of rails and bling bling.

Metalhead

BTW, Gram...gotta say I LOVE the K.I.S.S. factor of the goals you laid out! Straight and totally to the point!

PatrickM.
03-03-2006, 1:00 AM
I would take Option "A"....


I Love the Garand and the .45....if a CQB situation happened, i could just beat the enemy to death with the Garand....


another question????


would both options include a Bayonet???

if so i can bayonet an enemy alot further away with the Garand!!!!! :) :) :)

Patrick M.

Trempel
03-03-2006, 10:49 AM
Option "B" for me also. Grunts during WWII did a great job with the M1, but at the time the Garand was the king of firepower on the battlefield. Majority of Japanese and Germans were armed with bolt-action rifles. Also, swinging around 9.5 pounds of steel and wood with a 24" barrel while running around the mountains of Afghanistan would be quite a challange.
With propper ammo, I would have a lot of confidence in the M4 and M9.

Pulsar
03-03-2006, 11:27 AM
Option "B" for me also. Grunts during WWII did a great job with the M1, but at the time the Garand was the king of firepower on the battlefield. Majority of Japanese and Germans were armed with bolt-action rifles. Also, swinging around 9.5 pounds of steel and wood with a 24" barrel while running around the mountains of Afghanistan would be quite a challange.
With propper ammo, I would have a lot of confidence in the M4 and M9.


Not quite accurate, the germans had us outgunned in the way they had squads formed. The germans had ten man squads, 2 men in the squad carried the MG-34/42 and ammo, all the other squad mates were there to make sure the MG didn't get flanked, but the MG did most of the work. We didn't really have an equivelant set up. You might suggest the BAR, but it had a limited ammo capacity, where as the MG's used belts.

Trempel
03-03-2006, 1:04 PM
I realize that. I was talking more about the firepower of the individual rifleman. German tactics compensated for that and they formed around the MG, but the fact that the M1 put out 8 rounds as fast as you can pull the trigger was not lost on them. They attemped to develop a front line counter to the M1, none of which ever reached mass production.

BTW, I'm not knocking either the M1 or the K98k. I've got both and they're fantastic weapons, each with their strengths and weaknesses. It's just that if I had to run up and down mountains, encounter enemy from point blank to several hundred yards, etc., I'd rather have a lighter weapon that's still very effective. Take this FWIW, since I've never actually had to do anything like that and can only speculate from the comfort of my cubicle. :D

chickenfried
03-03-2006, 1:19 PM
I choose option B. Studies have shown I look sexier to the ladies when I'm holding an M4. When I'm on the cover of Time as the guy that captured Osama, it's gotta have maximum effectiveness.

taloft
03-03-2006, 1:54 PM
I choose option B. Studies have shown I look sexier to the ladies when I'm holding an M4. When I'm on the cover of Time as the guy that captured Osama, it's gotta have maximum effectiveness.



LOL You're killing me with that one.:D

I would choose A. if I could modify it as desired...

...since I can't, I would have to choose B.

Evil Gun
03-03-2006, 2:18 PM
61 years after WWII...

Would you rather head into the rugged, desolate mountains along the Afgani/Pakistani tribal region border in search of Bin Ladin with...

A.) Old school....Garand and a .45...WWII stock, just some good heavy lead

or

B.) New school...M-4 (or some other tricked out 5.56 M-16 variant) and a 9mm Beretta (M9). You're allowed all the rails you want and all the optics, lights, pin wheels, solar panels, bicycle horns, and can openers you want to hang off them.

*Please choose from the above...no 6.8s, FALs, .458 Socoms, etc....just A or B, thanks:) *

Note...your mission can involve shoot outs in craggy ravines, clearing caves, clearing dwellings, and open field, mountainous work...wherever they are...you gotta go. Assume your squad has what you do...so you all have the same ammo. You'll be supported by one Squad automatic weapon team...for those of you who go WWII gear that'll be a Browning Automatic Rifle and for you modern types that a SAW.

So whatcha choose?After reading many of the responses and owning an example of both rifles, just recently got a Government model and have shot the Beretta, I am leaning towards A simply because it is a better round over-all. If there was a folding stock available for the Garand, it'd be an even easier choice. The only advantage I can see with the M4 is portability and NV capability. Not that I would want to get hit with either round, but you have to believe the .06 would definitely knock you down to stay. JMHO

saki302
03-03-2006, 10:06 PM
There *IS* a folding stock available for the garand. It is am abomination to me as I am a C&R collector, but it does work.

A foldr does less for CQB than a collapsible. Have you ever tried firing a pistol grip only shotgun? It sticks out further from your body than one with a stock- try it and you'll see what I mean.

The M1D still has the disadvantage of an offset optic, and scout scopes also have their disadvantages. Either would work, but for both CQB and long range, hands down I'd take 'B'. This is also assuming any ammo choice I want. 75-77gr in the AR, JHP in the 9mm.

-Dave