This is going to ruffle a few feathers.

[Flouncer]

A Fertile Imagination

[Mofo-Kang]

The rifles that used detachable magazines back in the day were still loaded with stripper clips. Lee Enfield, FN49, SVT40, K31 etc. But I guess bringing up those facts would throw off his argument.

The Enfield had a detachable magazine, but as far as I can see, the British only issued the one with the rifle and never treated it as detachable magazines are treated today (that is, you run out of ammo, so you detach the one on your rifle and put in a loaded one). they could have, but they never did, as far as I can see.

[Noonanda]

I am now dumber for having read that blog/article/drivel. I have had my finger eaten/smashed by an sks, doesn't mean I hate that weapon. His logic while based on fact is flawed in many ways. Ultimately in his eyes if you like the garand you are a fanboi when compared to his seemingly true love the M-16.

[rojocorsa]

The fact that the army still uses the M14 which is a variant of the Garand as its it squad weapon in Iraq and Afghanistan is something to be said.

To be fair, we use them more or less because these are what we have "in stock." We're just utilizing resources if you will. All of those M-14s are just souped-up ones we've had in storage.


No we don't need to get into an AR-10 vs. M-14 piss match either.






FWIW, I think the M-1 is cooler than the M-14 without a doubt....

[rojocorsa]

I think we all may have been trolled... (myself included)

http://wethearmed.com/rifles/score!-garand/msg0/?topicseen#new

[big103]

Same guy who wrote the article got a Garand? WTF

[TheExpertish]

Not only that but he's got it on the Friends & Family layaway plan. I'm sorry, but you don't put a gun on layaway, and title the thread "Score!", when you SAY you'd rather take a dump down the muzzle. I'd like to see an updated blog or a picture of his new Garand thumb.

[rojocorsa]

Looks like it was more for being part of a collection. We'd all agree that a well rounded collection does include an M-1 after all.

[chuckdc]

It would be easier to hear his points if he wasn't so vitriolic. He has got it in for the "fanbois", which is anyone who is a fan of the garand.

While being an AR and FAL fanboi himself.


I'm seriously underwhelmed. He mentioned the Marines and the Johnson rifle as killing a bunch of people. That's absurd. There never were that many of those things. Mentioned Marines using Springfields, but what did they typically do when there was an M1 available? yup.. grab and go. The Marines in early WWII didnt have a CHOICE in what they carried. The M1 was superior as a general-use rifle to everyone else's general-use rifle. It was never INTENDED to be a sniper weapon (one of his indictments against it) as the US military had ditched the entire concept of snipers after barely having any in WWI. It was WAY ahead of its competitors up until the tag-end of the war. It certainly did quite well in Korea, also. Oh, and about using them at Camp Perry.. how many decades of development and changes did it take to make the AR/M-16 series competitive there? Shooting ISSUE ammo, not stuff that doesn't fit in the mags and has to be single-loaded? With rifles that still met mil-specs?

I read his posts in one of the blogs mentioned where he disparages the M14 for not being a BAR, Grease Gun, carbine or 1911. Duh. That is just the stupidity of the procurement folks in expecting anything (including the author's beloved M16) to be all things to all men. The 16 is NOT a sniper rifle, as fielded it was not really a carbine, nor is it a main battle rifle firing a full-power round, nor is it a light machine gun. It has been deployed in all these roles, but not as well as a purpose-designed weapon. It's also NOT a 1911.

He also prattled on about the "lower power" .30-06 round in the M1.. funny, I don't recall a lot of stories about people getting up after being shot properly with one. They knocked maybe 100 ft/sec off the round, which is probably within 2 standard deviations of velocity levels throughout the production of the round. It's still a seriously powerful round that has taken every species of large game in North America, INCLUDING the big bears, without amassing a large reputation for failure in doing so.



I don't care about his military credentials, assuming they are real. He's still a grade-A nitwit.

[Palimino Stripe]

Now, the Garand is arguably better than the Mauser K98, but it's not better than the three Mausers you can buy for the same price, nor the 10-20 Mosin Nagants you can buy for the same price.

I found myself in agreement with this statement... Which is why I own dozens of Mausers, Mosins, & one hundred other "cheap" $100 guns- but still no Garand. $1000+? No thank you.

But that's just my opinion.

-Palimino

[rojocorsa]

I found myself in agreement with this statement... Which is why I own dozens of Mausers, Mosins, & one hundred other "cheap" $100 guns- but still no Garand. $1000+? No thank you.

But that's just my opinion.

-Palimino

Probably why I don't usually get any real incentive to ever get one either. Once you get up to those prices anyway, well, ****, might as well get something more modern and relevant. Ditto for the PU Snipers as well.

[billybob_jcv]

But is buying a Garand, or any collectible milsurp gun based only on what is "better"?? I say NO! Collectibles are just that - collectible! It might be because they are rare, or because they were significant in history, or perhaps just because they are old. It doesn't really matter - someone who likes to collect an item is typically not concerned with how they compare with anything else.

By any specification other than cubic inches, a modern fast sports car is "better" than a 60's muscle car - but that doesn't stop me from wanting a '67 SS 396 Camaro, or a '64 1/2 Mustang convertible, or a '68 Charger 500...

[TheExpertish]

But is buying a Garand, or any collectible milsurp gun based only on what is "better"?? I say NO! Collectibles are just that - collectible! It might be because they are rare, or because they were significant in history, or perhaps just because they are old. It doesn't really matter - someone who likes to collect an item is typically not concerned with how they compare with anything else.

By any specification other than cubic inches, a modern fast sports car is "better" than a 60's muscle car - but that doesn't stop me from wanting a '67 SS 396 Camaro, or a '64 1/2 Mustang convertible, or a '68 Charger 500...

+1. I love the modern sports cars I've had, but there's just something about my '70 El Camino SS with the 396. It's all about what you like. I think getting back to flaming the subject in question from the OP, he's just some dumb kid. We've all been there (or are there). Crap, even at 30 I thought I knew it all so to speak. Funny what a difference each year makes. When I first started in collecting I swore I would never get an AR15 because they were based on the flawed M-16. I saw no practical use, and almost had a Brady mindset that anything above 10 rounds without something fully auto was stupid. Now I know the Brady's are stupid, and so was I.

[Icarus]

I hope a lot of people feel the way he does because finding good collectible Garands just gets more difficult every year. His attitude will keep prices down. More good ones for me!