View Full Version : Is the M1 Garand still a viable Battle rifle?

February 26, 2010, 10:50 AM
I have often wondered if the guns from our past are still viable "Battle Weapons," in todays world. I believe that if I had to defend the USA as a "civillian marksman," out of all the Mil-Surp and other firearms I own, I would grab my M1 Garand with a few bands of enbloc clips loaded already. As much as I love my other Mil-Surps, the Garand to me would be the obvious choice. What are your thoughts on this?

February 26, 2010, 11:02 AM
Horsepower (30-06) and knowing the pluses and minuses of the weapon with tactics for said rifle will do just fine.

+1 for horsepower

Doc Intrepid
February 26, 2010, 11:10 AM
M-1 Garands remain wonderful rifles.

Whether they would make sense as "battle" rifles or not, I think, would depend on the "battle".

There are a few other environmental parameters that I suspect you would want to consider before selecting...things like what your overall load would be, how often you expected to be resupplied, whether you had vehicular support or were strictly infantry on steep terrain, whether you were primarily inside houses or built up urban areas where the majority of your shots were between 5 feet and 50 yards or if your shots were all much farther, and so on.

I think M-1 Garands are excellent weapons for certain environments, and not so optimal for others - so to me it would depend a lot on where you find yourself and your specific circumstances.


February 26, 2010, 11:23 AM
The title asks if the M1 Garande is still a viable rifle for combat. The
poll asks which of several I would pick for war. Two different questions.

Yes the Garande is still a serviceable rifle so it is viable. People are using all sorts if old guns to fight wars. However, the Garande gas alot of shortcomings mainly capacity. If you want a full power rifle get an M-14. Same basic design but better capacity. I guess this would be a "similar rifle.

Now my personal choice for a general issued weapon would be the AK. Reliablity and ease of use/training make it wonderful for less than ideal conditions. Also, if teaching others unfamiliar with guns how to use it and clean it is great.

Being simple, inexpensive, reliable and widespread is going to keep the AK around probably way longer than any other "modern" rifle.

February 26, 2010, 11:50 AM
Kinda a messed up question. War for what? You realize if you go into war YOU'RE GONNA BE TOLD what to carry don't you? Does the "M1 Garand or similar" include the M14? BIG difference but basically the same platform. What else do you include with the AK? So on and so on. But to answer your question the best I can with limited info.......The Garand is reliable, carries a heck of a punch and I don't want to be shot with one. Guess that makes it viable for anything YOU will ever run into. Would I rather have an M16/AR or AK? Heck yes.


February 26, 2010, 11:59 AM
Not to make it all complicated with unknowns.

For the Poll:

Lets say the call comes out to defend the USA as a civilian marksman, not much other info except what you see in news reports, insurection in and outside of our borders. You have but minutes or seconds to choose. What gun would you choose?

No more complications than that. I kind of wanted to KISS (keep it simple stupid) this question. You would be required to fight in all conditions and terrain.

For the post:

Is the Garand still a viable weapon for battle?

Yes two different but related questions.

The Tourist
February 26, 2010, 12:04 PM
Mr. Killkenny brings up a very valid point, the idea of war and the loss of individual status.

If war is eminent, and I have a choice, I would choose a fake passport, a pocket full of Euros and a first-class ticket to Switzerland.

Having said that, I have always espoused that it is the man, not the metal. My agrument resides with Sgt. York, Audie Murphy, Col. Jeff Cooper, and Mickie Foster.

And in the hands of these men, a Garand would work just fine.

February 26, 2010, 12:07 PM
I believe that not in all cases will you be supplied weapons or told what to use, you would for a time being at least be dependant on your own devices, weapons and skills. The "enemy" is at the breech of your city, state and country. The CD signals come out with a order from the president for all citizens to defend the country, state, city....in place, where you are at. Chaos by all means yes, but none the less, it is what it is at the moment.

I included "Other" in the poll. I did not include the M16 and like weapons simply because that is too easy of an answer if for nothing else, logistics.

The intent was for a choice of OLDER battle weapons. and yeyeyeyeye I know the AR has been around since 1960's. The questions were meant to be vague, were meant to have very little info. It is for you to make an immediate choice under pressure of avail older battle weapons.

LOL work with me here guys and ladies. :)

February 26, 2010, 12:33 PM
My vote was 'other' because I know myself better than to think I'm going to be slugging it out as a 'spray and pray' infantryman.

I choose my lefty Tikka T3 in .308 because it can shoot a standard military caliber, yet wears optics comfortably. I would prefer to drop them one at a time from cover and concealment than go charging onto buildings where I'm going to be cranking off round after round.

The Garand was/is a great rifle, but the en bloc clip and right facing charging handle is a pain for a lefty. I suppose the M14 is 'like' a Garand because they are built on a similar action, but the fact you insert the magazine from the bottom of the M14 makes it much more scope friendly.

For the aforementioned charging into buildings where precision aim isn't needed I would probably choose an AK---but I really hate the sights on AK-style rifles.

February 26, 2010, 12:38 PM
I'd love to own a Garand... But since I have to choose between my SKS and the Bushmaster AR that is on it's way, I'd probably opt for one of them. Most likely the AR based on magazine capacity and the accuracy edge even though I feel the SKS has a little more power for most ranges. Not that I can see the need ever coming up.

That said, the old M1 has more than enough power as long as rate of fire doesn't become an issue.

February 26, 2010, 12:43 PM
Very good point on being a lefty. Are there any "Left Handed" battle rifles designed and built as such?

February 26, 2010, 12:50 PM
I'm a lefty and I would not hesitate to grab an M1 Garand in a conflict. It's always comforting to have a 30-06 in one's hands.

February 26, 2010, 01:11 PM
The following link is to a few good articles about the Garand, scroll on down the page a included is a particulaly good one by Chuck Taylor, which appeared in the Nov 1982 issue of S.W.A.T Magazine.

The M1 Garand Rifle (http://www.pattonhq.com/garand.html)
"The greatest battle implement ever devised."
-- General George S. Patton, Jr.

From a personal perspective I like the M1 rifle as well. I think it is a fine rifle and I share the sentiments Chuck Taylor expressed in the above mentioned article. That being, that if I can't handle any threat I might encounter as an individual with the Garand and its 8 shot en-bloc clip, then I'm unlikely to be able to handle it.

Here is my Springfield M1 which was manufactured in April, 1944. It shoots great. My 1943 Smith-Corona 03A3 is no slouch either. The pistol is a WMK Serial # Colt WW1 Reproductions. They are all fine shooting deadly weapons.

Now having said all of the above and answering your "Is the Garand a viable weapon" question. Let me speak to the would you use it in combat part.

Would I personally,in the year 2010, like to fight in a war, such as those in Iraq and Afghanistan with an M1?

Heck no, give me an AK-47 or better yet an M4 with some optics. Not to mention lugging around an 11 Lb. rifle and clips of .30-06 in that heat! Before you say I need to hit the gym, will maybe I do :o, but I was young, fit and in the US Army once upon a time, and I still would not have wanted to hump an M1 all over the sand box.

PS: Threads like these are a great excuse to show off my Garand. :p

February 26, 2010, 01:14 PM
The face of war has changed bunches during WWII and since. The introduction of the Garand, the M1 Carbine and Sub-guns changed it during WWII and the introduction of the German Assault Rifle (don't even ask me to pronounce or spell it!!), the AK and the M16 changed it since. The so-called assault rifles are without a doubt better and more versatile. Comparing them to the Garand is like comparing the Garand to a Mauser or Mosin. Not even in the same league.

No gun is great at all things. There is always trade offs and I'm sure there are cases where a Garand "might be" the better choice. But in a war that encompasses many terrains and environments "most" assault weapons win hands down. BTW, the M16 is only 10 or 12 years behind the AK. For all practical purposes, the same age. If you call the AK old you had better include the M16 in the same vain.


February 26, 2010, 01:20 PM
I'll hand out a couple of Garands to my neighbors if they aren't equipped if we are standing neighborhood guard duty.

For full war I'll take my M1A- more compatible common ammo and large capacity makes it a better choice than a Garand. After all, it's an improved Garand.

February 26, 2010, 01:22 PM
The M1 Garand is still viable, but better options are available...

... If I can't handle any threat I might encounter as an individual with my
MK14 and its 20 round magazine, then I'm unlikely to be able to handle it.

http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14SEIM118CLjpg_small.jpg (http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14SEIM118CLjpg.jpg)

February 26, 2010, 01:39 PM
+1 on the M-14 if fits the old war/weapons criteria, it should if the AK does. Basically a refined M1 and what the Garand should have been all along. Same cartridge (close enough) and range capability, plus real capacity plus much better stick mag/bottom feeder function. Not mentioned here is selective fire capability (of the 14 and AK), which is a bonus but helps put it further over the top. If you've got to haul around that kind of weight, you've got to have more flexibility/capability than the Garand--and the 14 has it. Short answer: yes, the M1 still works, but it's not optimal.

Old Grump
February 26, 2010, 01:45 PM
M1 but in the original caliber 0f 276 Pederson, it would hold 10 rounds instead of 8 or the Italian version the BM-59 which had a detachable 20 round magazine and fired 7.66x51 ammo from 1950 to 1990. Even better would have been the use of the British round which was the equivalent of the 7MM-08. It would have given up some power but still kick the tail of the rodent round we have been saddled with since the 60's and the Rumble in the jungle. Long range, large hole, proven effective without the hype that they trotted out to sell us on the 5.56.

If that wasn't a choice than a plain Jane M1 Garand with a bag full of loaded enbloc 8 round clips full of 147 grain 30-06 and a Pair of bayonets. The 1905 16" model and the M5 7" model. One makes a great utility knife the other makes a wicked close quarters combat knife, (short sword). On the end of a 10 pound rifle both would make the rifleman into a mean son of a gun to deal with in hand to had social occasions.

February 26, 2010, 01:46 PM
M1 Garand and like rifles

To answer "is it viable?" Yes it is, but you have to have the clips and some would recommend using only special M2 ball 30-06 ammo.

But in case a foreign nation invades or a zombie apocalypse occurs I wouldn't recommend the M1 Garand itself. No, I'd suggest its successor the M14, aka M1A to us civilians ;). It replaces the top loading clip with a box magazine which holds more bullets. The M1A shoots the .308 (7.62x51mm) while of course the M1 Garand shoots the 30-06 (7.62x63mm). The M1A/M14 bullet is shorter but the ballistics are almost identical. So my vote is for "M1 Garand and like rifles."

AKs are great too, but if it's semi-auto AK vs. semi-auto M14 I'm going with the bigger bullet.

P5 Guy
February 26, 2010, 01:50 PM
That's the best one in my safe.
If I could choose from all the available weapons I'd take one of those burst fire EBRs in 7.62NATO.

February 26, 2010, 02:01 PM
joneemanI'd suggest its successor the M14, aka M1A to us civilians

Civilians have more M14 rifle options than just the Springfield M1A.

February 26, 2010, 02:13 PM
if war comes, it will not be fought on open battle fields with long fields of fire. it will be fought in cities with narrow corridors, structure taking, and room to room fighting. distances less than 400 yards, and even less than 100 yards.

so to pick an old fashioned weapon weapon to fight this war, id go for a .45 thompson.

February 26, 2010, 02:17 PM
Nate45: great pictures, pictures like that make my brain warm.

Is it wrong that I hold my Garand each and every day and have named it "Balls of Death?"

As far as the AR/M16/M4 inclusions, I did not include it on purpose. In this NON Realistic scenario The US Gov't has taken ALL AR type weapons and parts and there is NO civillian ownership of them due to the fact the gov't did not have enough money to pay the military contractors, jack booted thugs sniiffed out all avail sources, parts, stock piles, desguised blah blah blah of AR stuff...they gave you an AK and/or Garand, WWII Bolt in it's place and you only have the choices above.

The intent is to choose from OLDER Battle Weapons. Older is defined as weapons designed and used prior to 1957, why you ask? because that was the year I was born and this is my post LOL

February 26, 2010, 02:19 PM
if war comes, it will not be fought on open battle fields with long fields of fire. it will be fought in cities with narrow corridors,
structure taking, and room to room fighting. distances less than 400 yards, and even less than 100 yards.

That's a likely scenario, but not the only possibility.
There is plenty of open land and people willing to take a stand.

February 26, 2010, 02:20 PM
LOL Old Grump, I like you already :))

Old Grump
February 26, 2010, 02:39 PM
if war comes, it will not be fought on open battle fields with long fields of fire. it will be fought in cities with narrow corridors, structure taking, and room to room fighting. distances less than 400 yards, and even less than 100 yards.

so to pick an old fashioned weapon weapon to fight this war, id go for a .45 thompson. I want a Tommy gun to play with but if I was going to carry that much weight around I want a bullet that is going to make some serous holes in doors and walls and maybe through trees if necessary. For the same reason I want a 7MM or larger rifle bullet in those narrow corridors where the boogerman is behind walls and sandbags.

Big country and we have a lot of open land out there in case anybody has taken a look lately and imagine the field of view from the top of the Sears Tower. Those are Looooong Range shots. It wasn't a choice but for that close in urban fighting in a door to door scenario I'd want an old fashioned 12 gauge Remington 870 or 1100. From WWI to Viet Nam they barked loud and a booger man didn't usually need multiple hits.

LOL Old Grump, I like you already Well that's 3, If I get 4 more I will officially have a fan club. :D

February 26, 2010, 02:58 PM
well according to the OP we are limited to non current military weapon, the invading force might be privy to theirs.

and in regards to open fields and long fields of fire, the enemy, if they were to traverse this ground, may be doing so in armored APCs. they had those in ww2. also, in a defender situation, it would be smart to mine those open fields with both anti tank and anti personnel mines, or at least make it seem like we did.

and i didnt want to go there, but the majority of fighting in the wars in afganistan and iraq are primarily close quarters room to room

February 26, 2010, 03:06 PM
I would grab one of my M1's if i could have a conversion done that would allow it to take B.A.R. magazines.Other wise it would be a FAL or a M1A1.Couple of years ago after Baghdad fell, in the confiscated weapons they found a M14 and a M1.A trooper wrote home asking his dad to send him some enblok clips as they were pressing them into service as to deal with the snipers they were having troubles with.Reach out and touch someone.

February 26, 2010, 03:40 PM
As an individual rifleman, full auto capability is of limited usefulness. A full power semi-auto battle rifle like the Garand that can "reach out and touch someone" before you are in range of their weaponry would seem ideal. If you have some black tip to turn cover into concealment, so much the better.

February 26, 2010, 04:00 PM
I got no problem grabbing the garand when the SHTF heck I got 1000 rounds already en-bloced up the M1A is fine too they will controll large areas.BUT IFThe US Gov't has taken ALL AR type weapons and parts and there is NO civillian ownership of them then I'm already dead

February 26, 2010, 04:39 PM
If war comes and I have to serve, I'll be issued a stove and a spatula.

If I was still young and fit enough to serve I'd like to be issued a 155mm howitzer.

February 26, 2010, 04:40 PM
STG 44 would be the correct choice. It was for the forward looking Germans, and became the standard Kalishnikov copied. WWII is the proving ground of the concept for assault rifles. 60 years later they are the mainstay of all armies.

Let's compare - intermediate caliber 8mm short round, easy recoil, effective to 400 yards, the average maximum engagement distance of experienced, trained troops in combat. .30-06, a hard recoiling round effective to 800 yards, but only if you can shoot that well, one in ten might be able to. Otherwise, a waste of gunpowder doing what a smaller round can do. Pound for pound, a soldier can carry more 8mm Kurz ammo by quantity, which means more hits, which is combat power.

Weapon - STG 44, a relatively lighter semi automatic with left side charging, pistol grip, sheet metal construction, and large capacity magazine. M1, a heavier semi automatic, longer, with right side charging, conventional stock grip, machined receiver, and restricted capacity magazine. The STG will be easier to handle, load to capacity, shoot, and reload, with the finger on the trigger during reloading. The M1 will be heavier, longer, require a right hander to remove the hand during loading, and take longer to reacquire a sight.

In mechanized warfare, the STG would be far superior being transported in vehicles, and in urban combat, handle better. The Garand will be bulky, hard to handle, and simply too much gun in town working buildings and alleys.

Logistically, a nation supplying the STG type weapon and ammo will be able to use resources more efficiently, using less industrial capacity to make more weapons and much more ammo. Which is why other nations have gone to the assault rifle concept.

I handled the M1 in high school, used an HK for hunting, served with the AR for 22 years Reserves. I'd rather build and hunt with an AR than any .30 cal battle rifle. For the survey, Other fits if I use the STG 44.

February 26, 2010, 04:41 PM
I've shot all of the rifles listed. Had to vote for the bolt action rifles since they are the vast majority of my collection, the two semi-autos I have left are AR's.

Semi-automatic weapons are most useful in fire and maneuver. But that means teamwork with other trained individuals where your near misses cause the enemy to seek cover.

Manually operated weapons are fine for single operators. Being able to miss quickly isn't an advantage over one shot one kill.


February 26, 2010, 06:24 PM
To be honest, I had not considered the STG 44, as most would not have one in their mil-surp collection. I do agree with you however that the STG 44 is a fantastic weapon and a platform for a host of weapons built on the same basic design.

February 26, 2010, 06:33 PM
i chose other becuase at the moment i dont havea old "battle" rifle. i havea .45 ACP handgun and a remignton 870 12 gauge so thats what i would grab. in the near future i am goin to be building a AR-15, and purchasing a FAL, Mosin, and hopefully a Garand. if the need to defend my country came up i would probably grab up all my ammo cans, all my guns, a couple of friends and look for a place with good cover, easily defendable, and great targetign oppurtunities and proceed to pick off enemy compantants at will

young mosin
February 26, 2010, 06:44 PM
I would pick a mosin nagant over all these choices.

February 26, 2010, 07:52 PM
I would probably grab my nagant. The only reason is that I have several cases of ammo for it. If I had more ammo, it would be the enfield No. 1 Mark 3.

A more likely option would be the SKS and 1K rounds of ammo I burried in the back yard when I heard the jack booted thugs were comming for them :)

February 26, 2010, 10:16 PM
I'd be more concerned to see if we had enough people willing to take up arms in defense of the country. Not whether one rifle was still a viable battle rifle.

February 26, 2010, 11:18 PM
I chose the AK-47 type rifle even though I don't own one. I do have a M1 and think it's still a good battle rifle. The problem is ammo availability. With the M1 I'm limited to the stock of milsurp and reloads that I have at the house. Finding ammo for an AK would be much easier.

So I guess my final answer would be to use my M1 to take out an enemy combatant with an AK and then grab his weapon.

February 26, 2010, 11:39 PM
Lefties shoot my M1 rifle with zero issues

Just like lefties in WWII and Korea had zero issues. They all trained to shoot the M1 with their right index finger on the trigger. Just like a bolt action, it can be shot by either hand if needed, but lefties don't have some kind of intrinsic handicap shooting an M1 right-handed

February 26, 2010, 11:40 PM
During the aftermath of Hurricane Andrew in Homestead, Fl. A news crew showed an older couple protecting their home with a Beretta 9mm pistol and an M1 Garand rifle. Give me a Garand any time. I will have one when I finish my Bachelor's Degree.

February 26, 2010, 11:40 PM
With the M1 I'm limited to the stock of milsurp and reloads that I have at the house.

Adjustable gas plugs are cheap :) You can shoot commercial 30-06 no trouble

February 26, 2010, 11:56 PM
Sure it is a viable battle rifle, but not my first choice. I would grab my Kalashnikov (7,62 or 5,45) or a FAL.

February 27, 2010, 03:40 AM
I initially voted AK, but now that I have started to think about it, I should have voted other.

My eyes are terrible, I never get to shoot, and when I do, circumstances generally only allow short range plinking. This, the lighter weight, and the high capacity are why I initially voted AK. A Garand would be wasted on me.

Why bother carrying a large, heavy, low capacity rifle I wouldn't be able to shoot well?

So, now I'm thinking something lightweight and easy to carry, and low power won't matter much. Maybe an M1 carbine, or perhaps a pistol-caliber carbine. Or maybe a nice submachine gun. Or maybe a stocked pistol of some sort. Meh.

Or, another option might be a shotgun. I rather like shotguns, and I love my Ithaca 37. A riot model would be absolutely brutal at close range, and it might be useful to have a shotgunner around for door breaching.

February 27, 2010, 07:11 AM
I love the M1 and 30-06 ammunition is readily available. I personally would prefer to carry a rifle that fired the same round that my enemy was using. It's easier to acquire ammo that way than to try to beat the looters to Wal-Mart.

February 27, 2010, 07:22 AM
I do agree a shotgun for some of us OLDER folks with VISION issues like you and I would do well with a riot type shotgun. The Model 37 is one of my all time favorites as well. I love the fact you can hold the trigger down and just keep pumping to fire. Awesome firepower.

Resistance fighters by very nature are relagated to the weapons and devices they have avail.

Chris B.: You bring up an important point with an adjustible gas plugs. How do you know when you have it right? I did a search and found a few and will most likely get a couple. I have a ton of commercial 30-06 ammo that I have refrained from firing. Once fired I can reload to how I need it. I have also wondered if using a chamber adaptor (from 30-06 to .308) would work, so many issues and variables. I see them listed on gun broker all the time. These are perm install converters for Garands. Will the feeding be an issue, is there enough power for the gas and eject system ...etc?

In general, I have learned to load en bloc clips fairly fast but a reload is a reload and takes time out of a firefight and the ping from the ejected en bloc can be heard. Even with those issues, I still think I would grab my Garand over the other Mil-Surps I own. I have 500 rounds of Mil surp ammo loaded into en blocs already. I changed the rear sight on my Garand to a V notch (yes I kept the prig and packed away for you purists) as I cann sight through a peep hole anymore due to my age and eyes.

I did add a detachable magazine for my sks. I am just not sure how easy it will be to find the 7.62x39 ammo after the balloon goes up. I have found 30-06 ammo damn near everywhere, same with .308. I even pick up .30 cal and .30 cal Nato at garage sales. I do have a supply of 7.62x39 but I just feel more comfy with a Garand in my hands. My 4 local military armories all carry both .308 and 30-06 in their supplies, so getting resupplied by allies would be fairly easy. I have a crap house of en bloc clips, cannot stop buying them, it is kind of a sickness for me.

I had a M14 when I was in the service. I personally cannot hold it steady for any full auto fire. The only advantage it has for me is a magazine rather than en bloc. I have never shot a commercial M1A.

The more I mill it over in my head, the more I am solid on grabbing the Garand as I leave the door.

I personally cannot shoot an AK accurately to save my life. It is me, not the weapon.

February 27, 2010, 08:08 AM
there are two types: one is not strictly speaking "adjustable", I used the term a little bit in error but it's the easily recognizable term for that type of gas plug

The truly adjustable one requires you to go to the range with a notebook, and fire the rifle while it acts as s single-shot, gradually adjusting the plug until it cycles the rifle reliably. You note what you're done for that particular brand or loading so you can duplicate it later

I haven't done it yet, I still have a fair supply of surplus M2 ball, but I can already see a complication- I do not want to be messing around with a valve at the business end of the rifle while a around is chambered!

February 27, 2010, 08:13 AM
I had a M14 when I was in the service. I personally cannot hold it steady for any full auto fire.

I have never shot a commercial M1A.

I personally cannot shoot an AK accurately to save my life. It is me, not the weapon.

The vast majority of military M14 in service today are semi-auto only, these include the MK14 Mod 0, MK14 Mod 1, MK14 SEI, M21A5 Crazy Horse, M14EBR-RI and M39 EMR.

Springfield Armory, Inc. markets the commercial "M1A", but they are not the only or best civilian M14 builders around.

The AK can be a much more user friendly and accurate weapon with just a few changes.

As mentioned earlier, my choice is the M14 (MK14 (http://www.athenswater.com/images/MK14SEIM118CL-2.jpg)) and I would back it up with my 7.62 AKM (http://www.athenswater.com/images/Suppressed-Norinco-AKM.jpg)

February 27, 2010, 08:32 AM
I think I would go with a para fal or a m1a/m14 with a new style folding stock. Got plenty of oomph plus detach mags in a conbat area is a plus, I like the fal for the adj gas system but would not count out a m1 garand with a adj gas plug in a pinch.

February 27, 2010, 08:35 AM
Viable? Absolutely!

Optimal? Not really.

For your poll, I chose "AK and like rifles"

I personally hate the AK, but I saw it as bolt action, semi-auto clip-fed, or semi-auto mag-fed - so I went with the magazine. Seems like for the "any" scenario where you have no idea what you're getting into, you want to have the most ammo just in case. I like magazines, I can load them beforehand, put them in pouches oriented the way I like to grab them, and get them into a weapon quickly and efficiently.

But if this situation came about I'd pull one of my AR-15s out of my safe, or my AR-10 if I knew I had to engage further out with more precision.

Just my .02

The Canuck
February 27, 2010, 09:24 AM
I would have to say that I wouldn't grab an old battle rifle at all (I don't own one!), I would go for my Swiss Arms Carbine.

The M1 is still a viable fighting rifle. In fact, I would try very hard to not fall into the sights of one in the hands of an enemy.

February 27, 2010, 09:58 AM
In any situation like this you are going to want a rifle that uses a caliber that is the primary caliber of one of the sides.

This makes many "old battle rifles" not viable because ammunition availabilty will be an issue.

I understand that there is a ton of 30-06 in this country but it won't be supplied to the front by the military.

Your best bets are something in 5.56x45, 5.45x39, the chinese round, or maybe a 7.62x39.

February 27, 2010, 10:29 AM
SVO: I think there would be more than enough patriots to help defend this land and their families. There would be NO shortage of patriots. I am sure there will be at least for awhile a shortage of guns and ammo until supply lines and infrastructure/logistics can be worked out for the resistance civillian fighters. Usually 96 to 164 hours after an emergency.

Actually, Gov't depots have the Mil 30-06 and .308 in stock and under a rule in the Civil Defense and believe it or not the Civil Marksmanship Program aka CMP our wonderful ciongress has set up a system that in time of war, Civil Marksman shall be provided standard calibers as used or in use by the US Military in the last 75 years.

So ammo, in theory for the Garand or the M1A should not be an issue as long as you can make your way to one of the Civil Defense supplying Depots.

We have 4 National Guard Armory's in my area that have been designated as our local Civil Defense supply depots. They carry gas, water, sanitation supplies, body bags, food, guns and ammo to be used in a National Emergency. Problem is, if we know about it, good chance so does the enemy. Remember, if the enemy is in range so likely are you.

The basic ammo they list and among others are:

50 rounds per person per every two days of two of the listed ammo:

7.62 Nato aka.308
7.62 .30 cal aka 30-06
.50 cal BMG

Beleive it or not they even list .45-70, 30-40 Krag and an 8mm of some sorts. I will try to post the address where to get the lil pamphlet avail through snail mail only.

Personally unless my house and storage locker are hit somehow, I have enough ammo for my rifles to last awhile. If I am seperated from that, I have ammo and guns up at a remote cabin in PA. If seperated from that..... I have rocks, clubs and spears I can get or make until I can kill an enemy and take their gear :)

Edited Note: in these stock piles in the list, there are NO Russian/Chinese AK/SKS rounds of any caliber. You would have to depend on what you have or what you can scrounge up.

I would rather use a round the enemy could NOT use that I have or can get rather than I use a weapon that fits the enemies ammo.

Flatbush Harry
February 27, 2010, 12:02 PM
"It ain't the size of the dog in the fight, it's the size of the fight in the dog."

Folks worry about the rifle but not about the training, logistics, abilities of the user, etc. Wrong questions being asked. Anyone who has been in the service or police will know this.


February 27, 2010, 12:17 PM
Not really Flatbush Harry, the Poll and the Post questions are worded and structured in this way for an intended purpose.

Yes there are a ton of what if's and additions a person can place to it. The itent is to find out what old mil-surp weapons would people choose to grab in time of need or Civil Marksman. No more and no less.

I think some folks are reading more into the poll and question in the post than necessary for the intended purpose.

1. Is the Garand still viable as a battle weapon?

2. Poll: of the 4 choices avail which would you choose?

Note: "other" is in the poll for those that have ideas of other MIL Surp weapons. This on purpose did not include any AR versions what so ever.

I know it is hard to read all the privious posts on this, some of them however bring into light some very interesting points.

Some are way off topic and some are very dead on.... this has been fun reading various peoples thoughts and considerations.

February 27, 2010, 01:35 PM
I voted other for the simple reason of re-supply. The Garand is a wonderful rifle and certainly still a formidable battle weapon, but if you are entering an unknown scenario, the fact that it ejects the en-block clip increases the probability of losing said clip. Without a ready re-supply this could become problematic. I would probably choose an M1-A or FAL. Both full power rifles, Both proven designs, Both with magazines that are less easily lost. Or lay in a REALLY large supply of Garand clips.

Mr. Davis
February 27, 2010, 03:10 PM
First rule of gunfighting is to have a gun, so I'd take any of the above in a pinch.

If I had my choice, I'd choose the AK because of the reliability factor, wide ammo availability, and high capacity.

February 27, 2010, 05:59 PM

February 27, 2010, 06:16 PM
Not sure why AK47 is even among the choices since you cannot compare 98k and M1 with it.

Second, I am surprised that people are prefering M1 over or as much as AK when going into war. Collection and civilian use is something else that entirely depends on what one fancies.

February 27, 2010, 08:54 PM
Main downside of the Garand is the requirement for enbloc clips. You did not specify if such accesories would be available. Lacking these, I'll go for the bolt action Mauser/03 Spfld.

February 27, 2010, 10:20 PM
The Garand doesn't require clips, it's just faster to use clips.

I would also say that the main downside is it's porky weight and unwieldy length.

February 28, 2010, 01:00 AM
The Garand doesn't require clips, it's just faster to use clips.

I'm not sure I understand this.

The Garand uses an en-bloc loader as part of an internal magazine design. The en-bloc loader ("clip") forms the effective box of the magazine. The follower is part of the rifle's mechanism and travels up through the slots in the loader to feed the cartridges in front of the bolt.

You can use a Garand as a single-shot rifle without clips, if you're careful to not let the bolt slam closed from a fully retracted position, so the rifle isn't disabled without them.

The Garand clips aren't stripper clips, so you really don't have a semi-auto rifle if you're out of clips.

February 28, 2010, 10:05 AM
Main downside of the Garand is the requirement for enbloc clips. You did not specify if such accesories would be available. Lacking these, I'll go for the bolt action Mauser/03 Spfld.

Well, this splits hairs, does it not? By this token magazines for an AK-74 or AR-15 would also be an issue, as would ammo availability for every firearm on the list

As a note: yes, you can single load M1 rifles. I've done it in the past but I don't now. It can be dangerous due to the design of the bolt.

Judging from the copious amount of M1 clips still out there and the ready availability of them online, at shops, and at shows, I don't think running out of M1 clips is a problem :)

March 2, 2010, 02:10 PM
I had the Garand out yesterday shooting.... it just warms the cockelberries of my lil tuckleberry when I shoot that baby. What a sweet sound that "Tink" is when the enbloc tosses itself into the air only to land on the nice soft blanket on the ground.

WOW !!!! damn near running neck n neck for M1 Garand Vs AK on the poll, that honestly surprises me that the AK has taken that much root here in the USA. AK's are getting up there in price though, even the junky kits are up there.

You can now buy an M1 Garand for $499 + S&H from Hunters Lodge Corp, they are Springfields, have been gaged and ok'd to shoot. www.hunterslodge.com. They have not been scrubed wood wise but the metal parts are in great condition. There is No wait, no fussing around, no giving your first male born as collateral. No getting a note from your first grade teacher saying you shot the ritz crackers dead on.....etc. and for $35 more, they will "Hand Select." I am sure that just means they send someone with eye sight back to pull one from the top. I bought two from here and they really look and shoot great. One was all Springfield parts except the op rod, the other was a literal MUTT, parts from everywhere and print/year.

They even have some nice enfields but I am not sure on the prices as I know very little about the Brit stuff.

March 2, 2010, 10:07 PM
M1 Garand and 1903 Springfield are my rifles of choice, but I fear the AK family would have more readily available ammo. I say this because if we are at war, it's morew likely that it would be against a country, or countries, that have adopted the AK rifles & ammo.

I am very, very confident with my long range marksmanship using "as issued" Garands and Springfields. There is nothing better in my mind. They are absolutely wonderful, well designed, comfortable and accurate rifles. I cannot say enough good things about them. I regularly practice & compete with them both.

March 3, 2010, 01:40 PM
This is an awesome Topic. Yes the M1 is still a viable Battle Rifle. When the proverbial SHTF I will pick up my M1 and defend my country without hesitation.

March 3, 2010, 04:43 PM
I got the chance to fire a m-1 this past summer and i have already fired an ar-15 though im a small framed shooter 5'5'' i found that the m-1's recoil was almost just a manageable i would pick the m-1 anytime anywhere or the m-14

March 3, 2010, 04:50 PM
^^^A few years back I actually went to this CMP function and saw this guy in his late seventies, probably only 5'1 ft tall firing an M1. He didn't seem to be having any trouble firing it.

March 3, 2010, 04:56 PM
^^^ yeah definately can relate i thinks its cause its made of wood it like floats or somethin haha

March 3, 2010, 05:29 PM
I live on the wrong side of the pond and I don't have a Garand, or an M4, or an AK. But I do have three Mausers, two Mosin Nagants and a Lee Enfield. The Lee Enfield is, I am told, the best but I only got it recently and have put a whole ten rounds through it. I have put thousands of rounds through Mausers and can reload with stripper clips in the dark. So, if there is a total collapse and we all have to rally to assist with the return of order and bring any small arm we have, it will be the 7.62mm NATO Israeli surplus Mauser.

I would much prefer an M4, but beggers can't be choosers and ;

1) The strip loading system is very easy to use,
2) Fixed magazines can't be lost and are hard to damage,
3) The after market Mojo sights are excellent,
4) It can't do rapid fire, but hits hard to make up for it,
5) It makes a pretty decent cudgel.

I might well take the Lee Enfield when I am up to speed on it.

March 3, 2010, 05:31 PM

fired an M1 nearly thirty years ago, when I was too young to appreciate it. Would love another go now I'm older and a little wiser.

March 3, 2010, 05:45 PM
I also fired the Garand about 30 years ago in frozen rural northern Ohio.
We shot bowling pins in single digit weather and I never noticed the cold.
That experience finally lead me to fully embrace the modernized M14 about
10 years ago. I love the Garand, but I don't own one... I own what replaced it.

Yes, the Garand is still a viable MBR and I may pick one up some day because I can.

Ignition Override
March 4, 2010, 12:16 AM
I won't have a Garand for a few months, and haven't yet used one.

Out of my limited rifle collection, the LE #5 "Jungle Carbine" or SKS, if we had to travel only by forced marches (not my LE #4 or Yugo Mauser).
Having no LEO or infantry training, based on veterans' remarks about modern combat distances (mostly urban), my lighter, handier rifles would be best, while also carrying ammunition.

But based only upon other guys' typical ammo and the rifles here (7.62x39, .303, 8mm), the SKS, to increase the chances of a common caliber.

March 14, 2010, 02:37 AM
I just read an interesting article about the M1 Garand talking about how a rifle has probably never criticized as much as it. The article went through several of the flaws such as its distinctive twang when it ejected clips, it's tendency to jam on the seventh round, the difficulty of loading a new clip, and the relatively low magazine capacity. The article goes on to say a lot of soldiers would have rather carried the M1 carbine due to its light weight even though it was less effective.

I just thought it was interesting because it seems like a lot of people on this forum seem to act like the M-1 Garand was the perfect weapon systems and can't understand why the military adopted the M-16/M-4. I think the M-1 Garand was a great weapon and I enjoy shooting it but at the same time it wasn't perfect. Understand I don't think the M-16/M-4 is perfect either but nor is any weapon.

T. O'Heir
March 14, 2010, 03:07 AM
"...the Garande..." No 'e'. The M1 rifle is being used by Third World countries. It's biggest advantage is the wide spread availabilty of ammo. Wouldn't reach for mine though. My M1 Carbine with my handloads would be my choice. Doesn't weigh as much.
"...its distinctive twang when it ejected clips, it's tendency to jam on the seventh round...difficulty of loading a new clip..." The 'ping' being heard in combat is nonsense. So is the 7th round stoppage issue. That was fixed before the rifle was put into full production. Any difficulty loading a new clip is operator failure.
"...why the military adopted the M-16/M-4..." The U.S. military didn't choose the M16. It was adopted due to political decisions, just like the M14 that came before the M16. The M4 is the result of 30 plus years of developement.
"...haven't yet used one..." They're fabulous rifles. No other rifle is quite like an M1. There's just something about 'em that no other rifle has. I've shot all kinds of battle rifles and not one is quite like an M1. I suspect it's the perfect balance. Even though it's a first generation semi-auto(later generation rifles weigh about the same or more). Literally, no felt recoil either. They're just fun to shoot.

March 14, 2010, 03:35 AM

If you had an occupation army on your home soil then conventional warfare goes out the window. For my way of liking you’re better off with a good longer range bolt rifle with quality optics on it.

A stand up , close range, out in the open fight with a "battle rifle" of any kind (i.e. M1, M14, M16, L1A1, AK etc) is exactly what an occupation force could only dream for. Why cos thats what they are trained and equipt for and if your having to fight on your home soil then they must have been good at it.

Far better off setting your self up at long range, concealed, take one shot, kill one soldier, skulk away quietly and then come back another day and do the same thing in a different location. or setting up IED's and using remote detonation

Call me a coward but if i have to became involved in a battle id like to be using a rifle and tactics that make it as unfair as i possible can for the other guy...
Just my thoughts
Would have a good rem 700 or a blaser tac2

March 14, 2010, 03:54 AM
I voted other.

I would use whatever gave me the ability to destroy a squads radio equipment. Destroy their means of calling in reinforcements and artillery, then proceed to drop them one by one. When that is complete, go down and pick up whatever they are using. Why use up my supplies and money when I can use up theirs.

If the OP is suggesting America is invaded and civilians are called to defend their homes then they should be more worried about ammunition and supplies than what they themselves have.

March 14, 2010, 03:52 PM
It depends on my what I would be doing I would prefer an m14, AR-15 or even an Enfield no. 4 mk 1 depending on what I would be doing. Prbly an m14 or enfield so I can drop them from far off with a single shot as previously stated

March 14, 2010, 05:26 PM
AL has a rifle/pistol association in which I try and maintain a membership.
I read in one of their newsletters, that the military, and I guess that would mean the DoD had recalled the club's m14 rifles, that had been used by the club for many years. I do not have ANY details. Also, it seems that I read in the Rifleman, that all m14's that could be had been recalled for use in the sandbox as well. Again, limited, hearsay info.

My point is, that if currently, M14's are being pressed back into service in the middle east, to serve in DM/countersniper roles, and the M14 is simply an "improved" version of the Garand, doesn't it make some sense to conclude that the M1, as the sire of the M14 is still viable for combat as well.

Yes, I know the Garand is not scoped easily, and thus would not serve well in the current role of the M14 overseas, but they share range, penetration and durability traits, all desirable.

If I had to fight in some type of guerrilla or resistance role ( Lord spare me) where I would hope to shoot and scoot (in my case, slowly) from some distance, an M1 would do.

June 25, 2010, 10:53 AM
This may be sacrilege to the M1 purist, but I have affixed a JPoint red dot site to my M1. It brings this wonderful rifle into the 21st Century sighting world. Fantastic for intermediate range shooting 25 yards to 200 yards, under battle conditions. Also excellent for hunting, (equipped with 5 round mag) deer, bear, and very effective on coyote… I use Winchester 150 grain power point for hunting. Probably not the best weapon for house to house fighting but I guess there is no best weapon for all circumstances.

June 25, 2010, 11:01 AM
Nope, that's why they made the M1A. The M1 was too heavy and didn't offer enough firepower, due to the 8 round capacity. It served well back in the day, but the types of wars that are fought today, the weapon is less practical.