Is 8 Rounds Enough?

[M1Rifle30-06]

I just bought another Garand yesterday. A 1953 receiver, and it has a chopped down black polymer stock. While it's not the same elegance as a restored WW2 original with a beautiful walnut stock, I have one of those too.

But I was shooting my new Garand today, and it got me thinking...

It's about the same length (due to the short stock it has) as a full size 20" AR15. It's a bit heavier, but I don't mind as it keeps the recoil at a very comfortable level. I can shoot 8 rounds of 30-06 pretty quickly and accurately. Overall it's very accurate, reliable, and powerful.

But, as a "go to rifle", NOT counting SHTF situations, but as a truck gun, rural home defense gun, and outdoors rifle, would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation? Yes it's old, heavy, and only holds 8 rounds, but still...

[DasGuy]

Would it be enough? Probably.

Will it be enough for every situation? No.

[dmazur]

I read an account of an enthusiast using a Garand in a 3-gun match, and while he didn't win, he did OK. Apparently changing clips isn't all that much slower than changing magazines, even if it has to be done more frequently.

Practice (safely...) changing clips, and the Garand will be fine.

Unless you are thinking of team entries and "dividing the pie" with the muzzle. I'm not sure it was ever intended for that role. :)

[M1Rifle30-06]

I read an account of an enthusiast using a Garand in a 3-gun match, and while he didn't win, he did OK. Apparently changing clips isn't all that much slower than changing magazines, even if it has to be done more frequently.

I can actually reload an enbloc clip into the Garand much faster than switching magazines on my M1A. With the Garand all you have to do is stuff a clip into the receiver and you're ready to go. With the M1A/M14 you have to manually take the old magazine out, drop it or put it away, and get out and insert a fresh magazine, then release the bolt.

[M1Rifle30-06]

Would it be enough? Probably.

Will it be enough for every situation? No.


Can you expand on this a little? I'm curious.

[nate45]

One shot could be enough, if you can hit your target. If you can't make good, consistent hits, extra capacity won't help.

[M1Rifle30-06]

One shot could be enough, if you can hit your target. If you can't make good, consistent hits, extra capacity won't help.



Some say you should have more than 8 rounds, due to the possibility of multiple threats, misses, and such.

[trg42wraglefragle]

What are you expecting to encounter?

Yes 8 shots will be fine for dam near every situation.

Apart from if your house is being attacked by more than 8 people, but if you are then I think apart from a light machine gun your chances of fighting them off is extremely low.

[rickyrick]

As long as you can reload it, should be enough.

My estimation is that any mammal in north America could be brought down with three shots of 30.06 maximum. With one shot doing the trick in nearly all situations.

If two don't do it, you need to start hitting pelvis bones or something

[comn-cents]

8rds, as long as you hit you should be fine. If you run into multiple scumbags I think the report of the gun will probable do its job in scaring the #^*^ out of them, especially if it’s in your house. :eek:

[10-96]

8 rounds enough?

Lighten up and go fishing, relax just a tad. Look at all the folks defending their rural properties with SxS shotguns, six shot revolvers, Rem 788's (3 or 4 shots), and well- just about any other bolt actions only hold 3-5 rounds.

Or, get that M1 Carbine you asked about in the other post loaded up with 15rnds and... I don't know... go fishing or something to get your mind off your place being overrun.

[jimbob86]

Will it be enough for every situation? No.

There are probably situations in which an entire Armored Division would be of no help ...... and many more in which it would be more harm than help ......

You do what you can can with what you have, so choose wisely.

[10-96]

I think the report of the gun will probable do its job in scaring the #^*^ out of them, especially if it’s in your house. I'm sorry, I just can't see the soundness of that advice- it's just too much like the nonsense of racking a shotgun or 1911 slide to instill fear. If this was a drug-free world, my views may differ- but please folks, either you have reason/grounds to fully engage or not. A home invasion is no time to try various scare tactics. Verbal commands first if feasible, then up the ante if needed.

[Achilles11B]

I won't get in to the 'scaring' aspect of it, but a 150gr .30-06, taking in mind shot placement, should to do the trick.

If it takes more, react accordingly.

[M1Rifle30-06]

8 rounds enough?

Lighten up and go fishing, relax just a tad. Look at all the folks defending their rural properties with SxS shotguns, six shot revolvers, Rem 788's (3 or 4 shots), and well- just about any other bolt actions only hold 3-5 rounds.

Or, get that M1 Carbine you asked about in the other post loaded up with 15rnds and... I don't know... go fishing or something to get your mind off your place being overrun.

I'm not worried about being overran at all. Actually, I'm not sure what situation I would need more than 8 rounds of 30-06. It's the constant barrage of people saying you should have more than 8 rounds cause of "Murphy's Law" and such that makes me wonder.

[bamaranger]

The Garand and 8 rds and cal .30-06 defeated the Nazis, the Japanese, the N. Koreans and Chinese, and not a few Viet's. It will work for you too.

[tomrkba]

Would it be enough? Probably.

Will it be enough for every situation? No.

Look at the average number of rounds fired from a rifle in self-defense in civilian situations. I think that number is between one and two. Obviously, any fight you may be could deviate from the average, which is why people advocate that you always have at least one full reload available. What are the odds you're going to have to fire 16 rounds of 30-06 at someone? What are the odds of a Mumbai-style terrorist attack in your area? My guess is that you'll hit a $500 million dollar lottery before that happens.

You probably won't need your rifle and you likely won't be near your vehicle if something happens. So, carry a good pistol with at least two full reloads. If an attack does occur, and you're lucky enough to get your rifle, then by all means rip though a bunch of Garand clips and put them down. But, I doubt any of that will ever happen. I think your odds of pulling the rifle out to shoot a varmint are far, far higher :D

The Garand and 8 rds and cal .30-06 defeated the Nazis, the Japanese, the N. Koreans and Chinese, and not a few Viet's. It will work for you too.

As did the hundreds of guys in their units. You forgot to mention the planes bombing the enemy, all that artillery and a whole bunch of tanks. I highly doubt any of that will be available to him in the event something happens.

Now go buy one of these:

http://www.antipersonnel.net/fmco/005.html#5
http://olongapooutfitters.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=9
http://olongapooutfitters.com/index.php?act=viewProd&productId=15
http://www.originalsoegear.com/m1tray.html
http://www.originalsoegear.com/garand.html

[bamaranger]

Did not intend to not recognize all support forces in the conflicts I mentioned. Guess I did a sort of drive-by though.

Some type of violent civis disorder is a possibility, witness the trouble after Katrina, the LA riots, etc.....

BAck to rifles, I've always thought chopped "tanker" Garand in .308 would be a good GP/utility rifle, as well as the 16" variant that is being offered by some shop up north (can't remember nothing)

If I think of the chopped Garand shop I'll repost

[bamaranger]

The chopped Garand is Shuff's Mini -G.

I carry may Garand ammo in simple cloth bandoleers, made for .223, or old surplus bando that are similar.

[BigMikey76]

If 8 rounds of .30-06 (16 with your back up clip) won't stop whatever it is that needs stopping, I don't think you are in need of extra capacity... what you need for that is a howitzer :D:D

[BudW]

It was good enough in war

[madcratebuilder]

Enough to win WW2, eight rounds at a time.

It's quick to reload with practice. If you feel you really need more fire power then trade for a M1A with a 25 rd mag.

[Chris_B]

This is the 'somebody's always got a faster car' problem. Which isn't a problem at all

Is 8 rounds enough? What if I had to shoot 9 times without reloading?

An M1 carbine can take a 15 round mag. Is that enough? What if I had to shoot 16 times before reloading?

An M1 carbine can take a 30 round mag? Is that enough? What would happen if I had to shoot 31 times before reloading?

An M249 can take a 200 round hopper? Is that enough? What if I have to shoot 201 times before...

Dude. You're asking "would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation?" No. A tactical nuclear warhead isn't right for every situation either.

There's no contest for mag capacity except in our heads if you're talking about extremes. if you had an M16 with a magical 10,000 round capacity in your truck, and you were 100 yards away from it, tell me...was 10,000 rounds enough for every situation?

[Navy joe]

You can reload the thing. It's got a bayonet lug and a solid stock. Solve the problem.

[Double Naught Spy]

The Garand and 8 rds and cal .30-06 defeated the Nazis, the Japanese, the N. Koreans and Chinese, and not a few Viet's. It will work for you too.

Is this like saying the M16 won the Gulf War?

And a lot of guys with Garands didn't come back because of getting shot reloading or not having the ability to top off (can't change the clip until empty).

8 rounds enough?

Lighten up and go fishing, relax just a tad. Look at all the folks defending their rural properties with SxS shotguns, six shot revolvers, Rem 788's (3 or 4 shots), and well- just about any other bolt actions only hold 3-5 rounds.

Or, get that M1 Carbine you asked about in the other post loaded up with 15rnds and... I don't know... go fishing or something to get your mind off your place being overrun.

As ever, I am unable to find the testimonials of people in gun fights that have been upset about having more than enough ammo for the fight, but I have read several about folks who didn't have enough.

[Old Grump]

If you can't shoot you need a vest full of 20 or 30 round magazines. If you can shoot competently then 8 rounds at a time will be way more than you will ever be likely to use. You aren't part of a rifle squad taking on a company of terrorists you are a man alone defending home and family from boogermen. If you shoot hunting bullets loaded to Garand specifications you won't have to hit them 20 times to put them down. Unlikely you need to many rounds of hardball ammo either, something about a 150 gr bullet making a through and through hole giving two ends to bleed from discourages bad guys no matter what they have been smoking, drinking, snorting or injecting. Not a magic bullet but more than adequate.

[Chris_B]

And a lot of guys with Garands didn't come back because of getting shot reloading

Just like a lot of guys got shot while reloading BARs or M1 carbines or K98s or Type 38s or MP40s. Reloading an M1 rifle is not a laborious and time-consuming process. The 'ping got GIs killed' thing, is that where you're going? Gosh what a myth that is

not having the ability to top off (can't change the clip until empty).

100% not true, though. You can eject a clip at any time and change it whenever you like. There's a rocking lever on the left side of the receiver for exactly that purpose.

You can also top-off the clip, contrary to popular belief, while it's in the mag.

[Glenn E. Meyer]

Korean war was something of a draw. As far as the Japanese, would 8 rounds be enough for the Yamato?

Don't mean to be cranky, but can we skip cliches?

The Garand was an effective rifle but defeat in major conflicts had many factors.

[Double Naught Spy]

Just like a lot of guys got shot while reloading BARs or M1 carbines or K98s or Type 38s or MP40s. Reloading an M1 rifle is not a laborious and time-consuming process.

Wow, BARs M1 carbines, K98s and MP40s only held 8 rounds and were semi-auto? No, they didn't/weren't. The more time you spend reloading, the more time you aren't fighting. Part of the reason for going to semi-auto from the bolt guns like the K98s is rate of fire. A lot of time was lost cycling the bolt and while cycling the bolt, the soldier isn't firing, is he.

Few people carried BARs, but yes, one of the complaints was the mag capacity.

Reloading the Garand is not laborious? Loading 4 times to get 30 shots is pretty laborious and time consuming compared to loading once. By a well trained soldier, the Garand could shoot 40-50 rounds a minute. Cool, that is 5-7 loadings, but you would be starting off with the gun loaded and so we will go 4-6 loadings. With reloads of a trained soldier taking 4-5 seconds, you are looking at 1/4 to 1/2 of the time being spent on reloading alone. That is a goodly amount of time doing something other than fighting the enemy.

[comn-cents]

10-96 "I'm sorry, I just can't see the soundness of that advice"

I don't remember giving this as advice. FOLKS!:rolleyes:

[SIGSHR]

A U.S. soldier armed with an 8 round M-1 would be facing enemy soldiers armed with 5 round bolt action rifles-Kar98k or Arisaka, e.g.

[zippy13]

I remember when the M-14 came out. Its detachable larger capacity magazine was touted as an improvement.

[Chris_B]

Wow

Yes, wow. I am surprised at your response. Purely argumentative. By the way, the K98 held 5 rounds. But I want to rebut to each of your points:

, BARs M1 carbines, K98s and MP40s only held 8 rounds and were semi-auto? No, they didn't/weren't.

As I said, the K98 didn't hold close to eight rounds. But that's beside the point. I never made a suggestion that these weapons had the same capacity as an M1 rifle, and you may note I used examples that demonstrably held varying numbers of rounds. I don't know where you're going with that line of reasoning.

The more time you spend reloading, the more time you aren't fighting. Part of the reason for going to semi-auto from the bolt guns like the K98s is rate of fire. A lot of time was lost cycling the bolt and while cycling the bolt, the soldier isn't firing, is he.


No. That is true of all current firearms however. At some point, you must concede, a soldier must reload. Your argument is more is desirable, which is fine, as I never stated less was desirable. The question is "was it enough?" and as far as the M1 rifle in WWII went, yes, it was documentably enough. Twenty-eight rounds (loaded) in a mag in Vietnam. Was it enough? What did they really need? 40? 75? More is better. But your assertion is that guys got killed because they had to reload their M1s a lot. You know that weapons must be reloaded. So tell me: the 1903 and 1903A3 were commonly issued in WWII. Did those guys get killed 62.5% faster than M1 equipped GIs?


Few people carried BARs, but yes, one of the complaints was the mag capacity.


That is because it was used as a light machinegun on full automatic with a cyclic rate that was relatively high. The M1 rifle was not intended for that role; there's no connection with complaints to the BAR's mag regarding the rifle's magazine capacity except as a mathematical exercise because the two weapons weren't intended to do the same thing


Reloading the Garand is not laborious? Loading 4 times to get 30 shots is pretty laborious and time consuming compared to loading once.

On the surface that makes perfect sense. But you're not really addressing my statement with your basic observation. Loading the M1 rifle is not laborious at all; I'm pretty sure you've done it. You tell me: do you find it hard? Guys with Enfields in WWI and WWII had high rates of fire. You'll say "well it had a 10 round mag". I'll say that your argument is that the SMLE was no good because of the limited mag, since guys with 20 round mags complained of limited mag capacity. Looking at it that way, your take on it loses a lot of impact. There's no equation for the number of rounds a soldier is really going to fire or how many times he'll reload. You can figure out an average; they called it a 'unit of fire'. But it wasn't an absolute. And the 'unit of fire' in WWII wasn't really a lot.


Loading 4 times to get 30 shots is pretty laborious and time consuming compared to loading once. By a well trained soldier, the Garand could shoot 40-50 rounds a minute. Cool, that is 5-7 loadings, but you would be starting off with the gun loaded and so we will go 4-6 loadings. With reloads of a trained soldier taking 4-5 seconds, you are looking at 1/4 to 1/2 of the time being spent on reloading alone. That is a goodly amount of time doing something other than fighting the enemy.

My math tells me that loading four times would get me 32 shots, which is an insight as to why I left college I guess. But I'm big on "reasonable". I'm curious as to where the 4-5 second calculation came from though.

Forty-five rounds a minute. That's a lot, wouldn't you say? From what I've read, combat is not just pulling a trigger as fast and as often as is humanly possible; but since I'm not a combat vet, I guess that's just hearsay on my part. By my calculations, the Battle of the Bulge for example lasted 40 days, and I make it 1440 minutes per day. Your example has a GI firing just shy of 65000 rounds a day if all he did was shoot, reload, and shoot, reload, etc. Let's give him a forty hour week and say it's only eight hours a day. That still exceeds a rationally possible ammo supply, doesn't it? Of course it does. I won't tell you what men do in combat. I'll just say that I don't see a soldier firing almost 22000 rounds a day on average when in combat from any magazine fed weapon in use in WWII

[kilimanjaro]

I remember reading a news article some years back about a Phlippine policeman or game warden, some such thing, got into a fight with 7 muslim guerrillas. He had a Garand with one clip, 8 rounds, the guerrillas had modern assault weapons. He shot all 7 of them in a hours-long fight, using cover and setting up his shot. I don't recall if he had one round remaining after it was over, or not.

So is it adequate? If you don't blaze away, sure seems like it.

[UnbearablePanda]

Billy the kid and his rifle. That is all.

[Old Grump]

If you can't put down a bad guy with 8 rounds what makes you think 30 misses with a .223 variant is going to be an improvement? Marksmanship first then worry about how many rounds you can reasonably expect to need. I don't know about all the young Keyboard Kommandoes who fear the ping but my active duty days are long behind me and ping meant nothing to me or my friends and relatives. Carried a BAR more than I ever shot one, same for M60, Thank God the M2 was considered a stationary gun, running up and down hills carrying parts of that gun would have killed me and I was built like a gorilla. On the other hand they didn't have that scary ping which would have told enemy sharpshooters from 300 meters away when to kill me. :D

[Adamantium]

It's good to see a discussion tanking so fast. Normally you don't see a quote/rebuttal fight until at least page 3.

To answer the OP I'd feel comfortable with a full clip and a reload riding around in my truck. I'd feel less comfortable with the ability for over-penetration of a full power 30 caliber cartridge, but there is no 100% safe way to shoot a gun at someone/something.

I can actually reload an enbloc clip into the Garand much faster than switching magazines on my M1A. With the Garand all you have to do is stuff a clip into the receiver and you're ready to go. With the M1A/M14 you have to manually take the old magazine out, drop it or put it away, and get out and insert a fresh magazine, then release the bolt.

Gravity will drop an AR15 magazine to the ground, that speeds things up.

[rickyrick]

It's good to see a discuss quote/rebuttal fight until page 3.

That's funny right there.no, it ain't rick


It's 30.06, what more do you need...... more than 4 bad guys is a horde.....we all know you need an over bore, subsonic boutique AR for a horde.........

[Chris_B]

:rolleyes: Oh, horsehockey. The last time I checked Adamantium, this forum allowed a 'quote' feature. It isn't just for uses that you give your prior approval for. The difference between you and me is that when I disagree with somebody, I address it with them, while you just make vague backhand comments from the sidelines.

If you want the thread to be on topic- which by the way, both 00Spy and I were demonstrably being since we were discussing if 8 rounds is enough or not- then stop making comments about other people and just join the conversation. And if you don't like that, PM a mod, stop singling me out in this forum, which by the way, isn't exactly smiled on

[L_Killkenny]

Within the context of the OP's question for around the farm stuff, gun holding8 rounds is plenty. Anything .30-06 (or even remotely close) is over kill though. Garand would be near the bottom of my "go to" guns.

LK

[Adamantium]

If you want the thread to be on topic

I think this is where you need to take a step back and realize that the BAR, K98, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, 1903, cyclic rates, Enfields, etc. have nothing to do with what is being asked.

[Slamfire]

It has been a while since I shot Rattle Battle at Camp Perry, but I remember watching one of the retro Garand teams shooting the 600 yard segment.

There were so many pings it sounded like wind chimes. One gentleman on the team said he got off 37 ish rounds in the 50 second firing period.

If you have not shot Rattle Battle, you have a total round limit and hits at 600 yards are worth four points, 500 yards three points, 300 yards two points, 200 yards, a point, if I remember correctly. So it is not just a matter of spraying and praying, you are shooting aimed fire.

If you look at UTube videos of combat in Iraq/Afghanistan, there is a lot of lead going down range. Even with the three round burst capability it seems as if everyone is going full auto. I believe the purpose of which is to “keep heads down”.

So in terms of massive sustained firepower, the Garand is not it. However it will fire eight rounds without jamming and will do in that in all weather conditions.

That has to be worth something.

[nate45]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/30/HK21.JPG

Its obvious that since I live in a rural area, my bolt .308s, M1 and AR are not enough. I may be assaulted by a light infantry squad, Zeta Cartel, MS-13, etc so I'm going with the HK21.

In all seriousness though, if by some odd quirk of fate I were assaulted by any of the above mentioned, I'd wish I had it I'm sure.

[manta49]

The demise of the revolver as a weapon for police and army. Plus the firearms manufacturers development of high cap handguns for the police army and civilians answers the question for me. PS. in a firefight would i rather have a cz 75 with 19 rd than a .45 with 8 rds. I think that's a no brainier.

[BigPapa4147]

It is possible to top off the Garand, its just not very practical. You can also just eject the partial clip and pop in a new one.

Edit: oops, didnt notice the second page on my phone.

[rickyrick]

Ah, but the revolver remains a staple of self defense and is recommended by many experts. I'd say 8 rds of 30.06 is plenty for the op purpose.

[Jo6pak]

Wow, the way you guys turn a simple question into a several pages of bickering like old ladies....Just makes me wonder if you sit down when you pee:confused:

[BigMikey76]

^^Do you really think that helps?

[rickyrick]

And with that we can bid farewell to the 8 is Enough thread.:(

[Chris_B]

I think this is where you need to take a step back and realize that the BAR, K98, Vietnam, WWI, WWII, 1903, cyclic rates, Enfields, etc. have nothing to do with what is being asked.


The question was "is 8 rounds enough". It's a natural to compare and contrast contemporary weapons to the one being discussed, and to look at the question "is 8 enough" with an eye towards a conflict in which millions of rounds were expended from a larger magazine and pose the same question to that situation. This is an accepted way to look at questions and problems to try to get to the root issue and to illustrate a point. If you are actually interested in my standpoint, you might want to re-read what I posted initially. In order to discuss and have a standpoint to begin with, defining the weapon in terms of its own era, and similar situations outside of its era, are useful.

The essence of the question is not just simply "Does the M1 rifle carry enough rounds". It can also be expressed as "how many can I have before it's enough?"

Discussion is carried through alternating takes and viewpoints; a give and take of examples and instances in which other outcomes or observances is necessary. If we don't cite other examples or use other situations to illustrate our viewpoints, then the discussion devolves rapidly into "yes it is", "no it's not", which would be the bickering that you and rick and Jo seem to think it is.

I reject that notion utterly. If somebody has the ability to express ideas that expound on the theme and stay within the theme, such as I have, then in my opinion, all the better. Is it possible that I see the question and detect an opportunity to express it another way? Yes, of course it is. That you don't agree or care for it is not the determining factor of wrongdoing or an argument.

I am certainly open to discussion of the subject; that is after all the only thing I have done here. I can look around corners and see possible outcomes and ways to look at the core question. That's just being articulate and thoughtful. It takes a bit of effort to actually take that idea and turn it this way and that, look at it at face value and also consider the underlying aspects; more effort certainly than the internet one-liners I'm looking at that have been directed my way. You won't find me singling you or anybody else out on this forum and belittling them; I feel you're doing that to me but I'm not all bent out of shape, am I? Or is this going to be "he typed more than ten words he must be mad"?

If somebody disagrees or comes to the conclusion that I'm wrong, part of natural discussion is to rebut. if you have another angle or facet to consider, then post it, by all means. I'm not going to make fun of you because you expressed yourself or if you display an ability to back up your standpoint- I also don't expect to be singled out for doing the same

[Buzzcook]

But, as a "go to rifle", NOT counting SHTF situations, but as a truck gun, rural home defense gun, and outdoors rifle, would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation? Yes it's old, heavy, and only holds 8 rounds, but still.

Yes you'll be fine. Since we're not considering SHTF and other colorful novel situations two clips full will be fine.

The one exception is if the desire to plink becomes unbearable, then you'll need an ammo box.:D

[raftman]

But, as a "go to rifle", NOT counting SHTF situations, but as a truck gun, rural home defense gun, and outdoors rifle, would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation? Yes it's old, heavy, and only holds 8 rounds, but still...

I would 8 rounds would be just fine. Can't recall reading or hearing about too many instances in which something like an HD situation required one to fire more than 8 rounds. Doesn't mean it's never happened, but it seems like in the vast, vast majority of cases, 8 rounds would be perfectly adequate.

That said, I wouldn't choose a Garand for that purpose. A decent .308 semi-auto can do anything the Garand can, but in a smaller, lighter package without giving up reliability, ammo capacity, accuracy, or durability.

[Norrick]

Make your shots count is how I see it. This holds true for all calibers but especially in scenarios where you give up capacity for extra power.

[insomni]

Unless you're trying to fight off the mongolian horde, or put down suppressing fire by yourdelf, 8 rounds of 30-06 oughta sufice (provided you hit your target), i'd just have some clops ready to go.

[kozak6]

The M1 Garand is really only a wall gun, and hence only suitable for low and mid rounds. If you don't want to risk getting something bad from the Mystery Box or if you are desperate, it's a fair choice.

Is it any good Pack-A-Punched? I've never bothered, to be honest.

[M1Rifle30-06]

The M1 Garand is really only a wall gun, and hence only suitable for low and mid rounds. If you don't want to risk getting something bad from the Mystery Box or if you are desperate, it's a fair choice.

Is it any good Pack-A-Punched? I've never bothered, to be honest.


Are you... talking about... Nazi Zombies?

[NWPilgrim]

Since the OP specifically excluded SHTF (and we can therefore also exclude war), the Garand with 8 rds should be plenty to defend the homestead. It might be too much if you have close by neighbors. It is also a might hefty for toting around often but for confronting a rustler, looter, or meth head break-in it would be plenty.

On that note a lever action with 5-9 rds would also be plenty.

[Auto426]

I think the popular saying is "you can't miss fast enough to win a gun fight." That M1 Garand should be plenty if you can hit what your aiming at. It's also pretty quick on reloads and an extra en bloc clip is easy to carry.

Are you... talking about... Nazi Zombies?

I'm pretty sure he is...

And in that case, Battlefield 1943 and Bad Company 2 were much more fun to use the Garand in. I favored bolt actions with bayonets in CoD:WaW. :D

/end thread veer

[Master Blaster 2]

I think the OP should buy the M1-Carbine friom his Uncle. They you could have a bunch of 30rd mags and even convert it to full auto.

[M1Rifle30-06]

I think the OP should buy the M1-Carbine friom his Uncle. They you could have a bunch of 30rd mags and even convert it to full auto.


I'm actually picking it up this weekend!

As far as the full auto part... :eek:

[jimbob86]

The M1 Garand is really only a wall gun, and hence only suitable for low and mid rounds.

:confused:

Care to define your terms and expound a bit on that?

Unless you are trying to lay down suppressive fire or having a contest to see how many rounds you can carry, I'm willing to bet that if you can't figure out how to accomplish any reasonable shooting task with an M-1 Garand, then you probably can't do it with anything else, either.

[Ambishot]

I'm not worried about being overran at all. Actually, I'm not sure what situation I would need more than 8 rounds of 30-06.

^ I think you answered your question right here. ^


As for this:

It's the constant barrage of people saying you should have more than 8 rounds cause of "Murphy's Law" and such that makes me wonder.

I'd need more information to clarify that this "constant barrage" is valid advice instead of trumped up SHTF paranoia or self egotism.

Yes, Murphy's law can come into play, but if you're proficient with your 8 shot M1...why are you worried about other people and their situations? Any gun can jam or seize up. Better advice would be to realistically assess your situation and plan accordingly.

Personally, I think you're fine.

[Ambishot]

Care to define your terms and expound a bit on that?

They are referring to a video game, Jimbob.

[nate45]

Always remember to use forceful voice commands and convey a serious attitude.

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-MKLtPE9Rs7Y/Tmj9qXoNpMI/AAAAAAAAAgs/ASS7ADkDkrY/s1600/clint.jpg

"I'll blow a hole in your face then go inside and sleep like a baby."

Clint doin' it right.:)

[rickyrick]

Love that movie. He loads it pretty quick too.

[raftman]

Looks like he may need to check the bore for obstructions.

[rickyrick]

I noticed that too.

[Auto426]

Care to define your terms and expound a bit on that?

He's referring to the video game Call of Duty: World at War, more specifically the Nazi Zombie game mode. The M1 Garand is one of the weapons featured in the game, and it only works well for the first few levels of that game mode.

[Auto426]

Care to define your terms and expound a bit on that?

He's referring to the video game Call of Duty: World at War, more specifically the Nazi Zombie game mode. The M1 Garand is one of the weapons featured in the game, and it only works well for the first few levels of that game mode.

[Bartholomew Roberts]

Personally, I'd be comfortable with a Garand for most defensive applications. I'd be less comfortable with the Garand's ability (or lack of it) to run well with anything other than 150gr FMJ since I would want to use premium defensive ammo that lessened problems with over-penetration.

If I was going to go that route, I'd probably want an adjustable gas plug and be willing to spend some cash testing said defensive ammo in the Garand first.

As far as how many rounds is enough, there are a lot of variables. We just discussed a pistol fight at 21 yards where 3 officers fired 81 rounds at the subject before stopping the fight. I can point to another fight where the officer (off duty and in plain clothes) fired 11 pistol rounds with 10 hits at a single subject inside 7yds before the fight ended. A Garand is going to be both more powerful and easier to make good hits with, so it is less likely to require that many rounds; but I think the people who said it would probably handle most situations; but not handle all have described it pretty well.

[spclPatrolGroup]

The only way to know for sure is to shoot something 8 times then ask it if its had enough.

[rickyrick]

I won't step in front of one.

[Chris_B]

Looks like he may need to check the bore for obstructions.

He'll also never be able to stack arms with that goofy swivel

[44 AMP]

8 rounds of .30-06, and a reload in a couple seconds? Seems to me that ought to be enough for anything short of unsupported combat.

As an "ordinary" citizen, the popular fiction of laying down cover fire is trained into us by our entertainment media. It good for soldiers in combat, and police in certain situations, but for a mere citizen defending themselves? Hardly.

One can only legally shoot in "gravest extreme", and while there are situations where a high power rifle is not a mistake, spraying the countryside to keep the other guy's heads down is not something the law is going to look kindly on. And that is the only real world advantage to a larger magazine capacity.

Remember too that we are personally liable for each and every round we fire. And what they hit. It is a completely different situation from combat.

All the chest thumping and "mine has more than yours" doesn't change the fact that combat and personal defense are two different things.

I'd say the Garand and some spare clips would handle any likely situation, and most that are highly unlikely as well. Of course, that assumes that YOU do your part right, too.

[nate45]

My answers have been rather flippant and fun filled so far in this thread, but I don't see where there should be any doubt. However, there is sometimes a disconnect between those who hunt and have killed big game(and other living things;)) and those who theorize about what bullets might do. For example I have a friend who is a SWAT team sniper and has never hunted. He is not against hunting, he just doesn't want to kill anything.

For my part, I just don't see how someone could have ever shot even just one, or two deer with a .30 caliber hunting bullet and then question whether or not eight would stop a human, or even several humans.

http://i267.photobucket.com/albums/ii296/nate45auto/Untitled-3.jpg

I use 150 grain Nosler Ballistic Tips in my .308 barreled M1. First I made sure the powder burn rate was compatible to the M1, Varget is. Then I worked up a load that shot sub-MOA in my .308 700, 45 grains of Varget. It helped with logistics. I also have a pre-64 Model 70 Featherweight that shoots 1 1/4-1 1/2" groups with the same load. :cool: The Ballistic Tip isn't the latest design, but they make good wounds and the polycarbonate tip resists deformation. I've killed quite a few deer with Ballistic Tips since the mid-80s and know they work. Nosler makes a 168 grain Ballistic Tip for those who have sniper/tactical rifles sighted in for 168 grain match bullets, if anyone is interested.

Seems to me that ought to be enough for anything short of unsupported combat.

I've owned a semi Galil ARM and HK 91 in the past, but sold them for the large profit during the 1990s assault weapons craze. In the Army I had a M-16A1 and was at one time the team M60 gunner. I've fired full auto AKs, Galils, HKs, etc, etc. I can afford most anything I want gun wise and yet I'm happy with my M1. The reason being is that if I can't take out a likely threat with eight, or sixteen 150 grain Ballistic Tips, I probably can't take care of it with more. Plus M1s have a high cool and nostalgia factor, not to mention they by God work well.:)

I do own the AR and have 10 30 round magazines each loaded with 28 70 grain Speer semi spitzers ready to go for back up though.:D I know for a fact that each one of those projectiles will make a wound channel that is virtually indistinguishable from a 90-100 grain .243 bullet. :eek:

Again, I realize there are more advanced/modern rifles and projectiles available, but I feel well armed with the ones I have.

[rickyrick]

It's 30.06

[Old Grump]

It's 30.06 I have both, 30-06 and .308 and they use the same bullet. M1's are great no matter which cartridge they are set up for, it's still 30 caliber and the target won't be able to tell which one you shot them with.

[rickyrick]

Ive used several bottle necked 30 caliber cartridges and I can tell you not too many mammals are gonna walk away at self defense ranges.

[SPEMack618]

A lot of folks look at the Garand through the prism of today and the M-16/AKM with 30 round magazines.

I would say it is more than enough when you eight rounds semi and the other guy has five bolt action.

[robertsig]

I'd say the Garand with 8 is as good as a lever action as far as capacity is concerned. Truck gun? Sure. Will it take down a street gang? No...well, maybe. If one or two drop, the rest might run. But otherwise, no.

But if your desire is to have a gun for close range combat in a rural environment with the potential for a lot of shots fired, I'd say the Garand is the wrong choice from the beginning. No need to fire .30-06 at 25 yards.

Get an AK47 for that. It holds almost 4x as much. 'Just as accurate and deadly within 100 yards. Or if you want the "wood" look, then SKS.

[nate45]

As good as a lever action? An M1 can be fired much faster and reloaded much faster than a lever action.

No, its not to great an urban SD rifle, but turning loose 7.62x39s in an urban SD situation isn't going to minimize collateral bystander damage very much.

As to your street gang scenario, it only takes one .30-06/.308 soft point in the thorax, thigh, biceps, or head to put someone out of action. Its one thing to take a FMJ projectile to the leg and continue to fight, its quite another to take an expanding one.

[Kreyzhorse]

But, as a "go to rifle", NOT counting SHTF situations, but as a truck gun, rural home defense gun, and outdoors rifle, would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation? Yes it's old, heavy, and only holds 8 rounds, but still...

If it isn't enough, you are pretty much dead regardless of what gun you have.

[UnbearablePanda]

Anything is better than a toothpick.

[zulthor]

8's better than 7 but not as good as 20 or 30 rounds.

[Old Grump]

8's better than 7 but not as good as 20 or 30 rounds. With 8 good shots you won't need the other 22 rounds. :D

[rickyrick]

I think 8 well placed shots from a red ryder could be enough.:D

[akguy1985]

the garand helped win WWII. I used a garand in a rifle competition and placed 1st in my division a few times.