M-1 Garand for apocalypse rifle?

[milsurp2.0]

Also you'll be limited to what kind of ammo you can shoot in the M1. Commercial hunting ammo like you find at Wally world will do bad things to them. I would take an M1 carbine over a Garand anyday.

 

[been]

Also you'll be limited to what kind of ammo you can shoot in the M1. Commercial hunting ammo like you find at Wally world will do bad things to them. I would take an M1 carbine over a Garand anyday.

I would not. Though commercial 30-06 is bad for the M1, In a SHTF scenario i would shoot any 30-06 I could get my hands on. .30 carbine ammo is a bit more difficult to find commercially.

 

[Perplexed]

I wouldn't depend on .30 Carbine ammo to put down a target reliably. Far too many instances in US history of that caliber failing to do the job without multiple hits, where 30-06 would have done a much better job. Yes, it's all about shot placement, but .30 Carbine is an underpowered rifle round, and if it hadn't been for the 6 million plus Carbines produced during WW2, I think it'd have gone by the wayside long long ago.

 

[milsurp2.0]

I would not. Though commercial 30-06 is bad for the M1, In a SHTF scenario i would shoot any 30-06 I could get my hands on. .30 carbine ammo is a bit more difficult to find commercially.

When your op-rod is bent your left with a club. Unless you have a bayonet, then you have a spear.

I wouldn't depend on .30 Carbine ammo to put down a target reliably. Far too many instances in US history of that caliber failing to do the job without multiple hits, where 30-06 would have done a much better job. Yes, it's all about shot placement, but .30 Carbine is an underpowered rifle round, and if it hadn't been for the 6 million plus Carbines produced during WW2, I think it'd have gone by the wayside long long ago.

Garands are ok but that en bloc design is archaic. Once you run out of clips what will you do? As far as being underpowered, one head shot is all you need to be the owner of a nice new black gun.

 

[Perplexed]

When your op-rod is bent your left with a club. Unless you have a bayonet, then you have a spear.

Garands are ok but that en bloc design is archaic. Once you run out of clips what will you do? As far as being underpowered, one head shot is all you need to be the owner of a nice new black gun.

Bent op rods aren't that common - it just depends on the commercial round being used. As for the en bloc situation, presumably the owner would be smart enough to load up a bunch of clips with ammo. If he gets into a running gun battle that lasts long enough for him to run out of loaded en bloc clips, he's got more to worry about than lack of ammo. Same can apply to M1 Carbine ammo and the magazines used for that platform. Want to talk about a head shot? If you can do that with a M1 Carbine, you can do that with a M1 Garand.

Read up on the US Army use of M1 Garands and Carbines during WW2 and the Korean conflict, and you'll find the preponderance of GI's preferred to use the M1, even ditching their issued Carbines if they had a chance to acquire a Garand. They knew what was up.

 

[milsurp2.0]

Bent op rods aren't that common - it just depends on the commercial round being used. As for the en bloc situation, presumably the owner would be smart enough to load up a bunch of clips with ammo. If he gets into a running gun battle that lasts long enough for him to run out of loaded en bloc clips, he's got more to worry about than lack of ammo. Same can apply to M1 Carbine ammo and the magazines used for that platform. Want to talk about a head shot? If you can do that with a M1 Carbine, you can do that with a M1 Garand.

Read up on the US Army use of M1 Garands and Carbines during WW2 and the Korean conflict, and you'll find the preponderance of GI's preferred to use the M1, even ditching their issued Carbines if they had a chance to acquire a Garand. They knew what was up.

Yeah I've read all that. Shot placement may have been more of a factor than bullet power. They sure dropped plenty of Krauts during WW2. Even in winter. Soldiers also cussed Garands and ditched them for their '03's at one time too. I'm not going to put on a heavy coat and stand downrange and let someone put the theory to the test I'll tell ya that.

 

[milsurp2.0]

Heres a neat article on a Medal of honor winner using an M1 carbine.

COPORAL RONALD E. ROSSER, U.S. Army, Heavy Mortar Company, 38th Infantry Regiment, 2d Infantry Division. In the vicinity of Ponggilli, Korea, 12 January 1952. Cpl. Rosser distinguished himself by conspicious gallantry above and beyond the call of duty. While assaulting heavily fortified enemy hill positions, Company L, 38th Infantry Regiment, was stopped by fierce automatic-weapons, small-arms, artillery, and mortar fire. Cpl. Rosser, a forward observer was with the lead platoon of Company L, when it came under fire from 2 directions. Cpl. Rosser turned his radio over to his assistant, and disregarding the enemy fire, charged the enemy positions armed with only carbine and a grenade. At the first bunker, he silenced its occupants with a burst from his weapon. Gaining the top of the hill, he killed 2 enemy soldiers, and then went down the trench, killing 5 more as he advanced. He then hurled his grenade into a bunker and shot 2 other soldiers as they emerged. Having exhausted his ammunition, he returned through the enemy fire to obtain more ammunition and grenades and charged over the hill once more. Calling on others to follow him, he assaulted 2 more enemy bunkers. Although those who attempted to join him became casualties, Cpl. Rosser once again exhausted his ammunition, obtained a new supply, and returning to the hilltop a third time hurled grenades into the enemy positions. During this heroic action Cpl. Rosser single-handedly killed at least 13 of the enemy. After exhausting his ammunition he accompanied the withdrawing platoon, and though himself wounded, made several trips across open terrain still under enemy fire to help remove other men injured more seriously than himself. This outstanding soldier's courageous and selfless devotion to duty is worty of emulation by all men. He has contributed magnificently to the high traditions of the military service.

Mr. Rosser joined the Legion of Valor in 2004 and resides in Ohio.

 

[milsurp2.0]

Terribly underpowered.

 

[Perplexed]

Terribly underpowered.

What's the story behind that picture? How close did the hunter have to be to drop those grizzlies, assuming the Carbine is indeed what he used?

Here are a couple excerpts from "U.S. Infantry Weapons in Combat: Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea" where GI's, NCO's, and officers of the US Army were interviewed and asked what they thought about the weapons they used. The first excerpt is from the story was told by John "Red" Lawrence, a Marine Corps GI who saw action in the Marshall Islands in 1943, then at Guam and Okinawa:

In the squad, besides the M1, some guys had Thompsons and some had BARs. There was one BAR in each fire team. The officers mostly carried carbines, along with their .45s. The enlisted men didn't carry carbines, unless something happened to your rifle and you picked one up. Most of the guys didn't like carbines. You had to be right on top of a guy to make sure you killed him, they weren't very deadly. They wouldn't shoot straight. I wouldn't give you a dime for a dozen of them.

And this excerpt is from the story told by John Shirley, a US Army NCO with the 3rd Division in Anzio, then in southern France during Operation Dragoon:

I didn't care for the carbine. I wouldn't carry one and a lot of the officers chose to carry the M1 instead. You wanted to be able to fire out to two or three hundred yards accurately and the carbine wouldn't do that.

There are more stories like these in this book and in other books as well, along with the stories, fewer as they were, of the GI's who preferred the Carbine, usually because of its lighter weight. Bottom line, you can argue for the M1 Carbine all you want, but I'll rather go with the experiences of USGI's during two wars and use the M1 Garand instead - if I really had to depend on one of those two weapons in a SHTF scenario.

 

[milsurp2.0]

What's the story behind that picture? How close did the hunter have to be to drop those grizzlies, assuming the Carbine is indeed what he used?

Here are a couple excerpts from "U.S. Infantry Weapons in Combat: Personal Experiences from World War II and Korea" where GI's, NCO's, and officers of the US Army were interviewed and asked what they thought about the weapons they used. The first excerpt is from the story was told by John "Red" Lawrence, a Marine Corps GI who saw action in the Marshall Islands in 1943, then at Guam and Okinawa:



And this excerpt is from the story told by John Shirley, a US Army NCO with the 3rd Division in Anzio, then in southern France during Operation Dragoon:



There are more stories like these in this book and in other books as well, along with the stories, fewer as they were, of the GI's who preferred the Carbine, usually because of its lighter weight. Bottom line, you can argue for the M1 Carbine all you want, but I'll rather go with the experiences of USGI's during two wars and use the M1 Garand instead - if I really had to depend on one of those two weapons in a SHTF scenario.

It was designed to replace a pistol. Comparing it to a Garand is like comparing apples and oranges. I simply stated I prefer it over the Garand. At under 200 yards it will drop a person. In a SHTF situation I'm not going to shoot until I see the whites of eyes. I dont have the ammo so I want to make every shot count. With a 15 round mag and two more on the stock I can let 'em get close. I dont know about the pic. its from up in Alaska. Maybe it was a guide gun. Heres an interesting link to an experiment involving the .30 carbine. Wish they had done it at a farther distance. Still did better than an AR.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot8.htm