What about the good old garand. Does it still qualify as a great tactical rifle. Great design. Simple. Shoots hard in 30-06 or 308. Got one original 30-06 and two rebarreled 308. Just a joy to shoot. Reliable and haven't pinched my thumb yet.

In a tactical scenario, your aggressors had better be behind SUBSTANTIAL cover 😮

It's a fun gun, that's about it.

I concur the garand is obsolete,and has two major downsides. Heavy,and uses enblocs. There are so many other modern tactical type weapons that do the job better now.

It was the best during WW II and Korea

M14.

I agree and believe it is the correct answer.

I own one. I still hunt with it on occasion. I fired a 15/16" group at 107 yards with it over my bench just 2 weeks ago. I may kill some game with it this year again. I have used it for 37 years on and off as a hunting rifle and I have never felt even slightly under armed. Deer, elk, bear and antelope have all fallen to it.

It's as good today as it ever was for a fighting arm, but there have been many developments from the mid 1950s until today, that have advantages over it. Even though that's true it doesn't make The M1 a toy, worthless or "non-dangerous" to an enemy. In any fight the main factor is the fighter. Not the tool. Given a cool head and an M1, a dedicated man is a VERY dangerous adversary.

I have owned a number of FALs, an M1A, a Smith M14, one FNAR, several AR15s and AK47s, one Ak74, one BM 59, one HK91 as well an Stw57.
Many of them are now gone from my ownership, but I still keep my old M1. I just really like it.

If I were to step into a time machine and find myself at 40 years old or younger, a US Marine again, and I were offered any one my previous rifles as a tool to fight with I would choose something else other then an M-1 Garand. BUT if I found myself in open war and I had only my old M1 as a weapon I am 100% sure I could make the enemy know he was not all that safe. I still shoot it very well. It's still a good rifle.
I hope to never be involved open war again so having the "best" fighting rifle in the world today is not something that motivates or drives me. In the case of civil unrest or a mob of socialist rioters, I am pretty sure the old M1 would not be relegated to the position of "harmless" by any enemy. Not for very long anyway.

Garand, using a 'Garand Gear' gas plug 180 grain factory hunting loads are very effective on Elk.
The 165 grain Accu Bonds work very well also.

http://www.garandgear.com/ported-gas-plug.html

I have gone through seven different Garand rifles, and currently I am using a Winchester 'LEAD' re-arsenal which is a fine shooter.
This Winny first born in 1942 (went there and did that), later was returned to the Pennsylvania Army Depot to be rebuilt in preparation for it's duty in Vietnam.
Before that service began it was released to the DCM program, and later came to my self.

I am near 70, and it is a heavy rifle to pack up and down the hills, but I still can.
The Garand is a link back into a time (before me), the 30-06 cartridge earns this rifle the title 'Queen of the Battlefield'.

A couple years back the CMP folks were offering surplus AP which is decently accurate.
Handy if you need to punch holes in something.

The CMP has been a godsend to all of us. Offered up some good garand rifles over the years. Remember as a kid,I would wear out the old gun magazines, seeing those ads for $59 garands. Got me interested in them.

In the real world, for those without fantasies about TEOTWAWKI, the Garand is capable of anything needing to be done.

Dad went to war in Europe and shot just about every firearm found in that theater, but Allied and Axis. He had nothing bad to say about the Garand, except for the fact it was heavy. He did a lot of street fighting and his weapons of choice were the Thompson and whatever trench shotgun he could get his hands on. He wasn't a big fan of the 1911 mainly because he wasn't a very good shot with any handgun, but he said they always worked well, even when dirty.

I've used them in rifle and multi gun matches and beat A LOT of guys shooting AR-15's.


I hope they felt ashamed.

But, but, it doesn't have a plastic stock nor is it capable of deadly 20 shot magazine dumps and isn't favored by the "tacticool for lunch bunch". How could it possibly be an effective weapon?

I was shooting mine today. Had to make a minor sight adjustment due to changing bullets from the Hornady 150 grain fmjbt to the 150 grain interlok spirepoint. I am thinking this will be my Dink-a-Thon rifle. Or any other candidate that presents itself.

I also noted that, in that rifle, the interlok is as accurate as the fmjbt isn't......better than half the group size with the IL.

M1As come so equipped, the M14 basically being an improved Garand. The one characteristic of the Garand I find contrary to good sense in a combat weapon is the magazine system, or rather how hard it could be to top off a partially consumed clip-load.

I understand John Garand wanted to delay adoption to continue work in two areas, the gas system and to develop a box-mag system. World-wide disagreement #2 kinda made using what was on hand a little necessary.

(I did note sarcasm, and am sure you are quite aware of the M1A's characteristics.)

Yeah. It's all good.

Funny thing though, my AR-15 with 20" H-Bar and scope, solid Magpul butt stock, with a full 20 round magazine weighs as much as a Garand. (Dimensions with attendant weight= Maryland specs for legal AR's.) At the tender age of 66 I'll not be "running and gunning" with anything anymore, so the whole weight business is a moot point.

A lot of people do not realize how heavy an M4 can be with all the accessories for combat.

I have one AR in .458 SOCOM that is pretty light, not the best cartridge for that but I don't shoot the quantity of ammo through it like I do a 5.56. That's another rifle I'm thinking about deer hunting with.

I never shot a SOCOM. I have one of those cartridges sitting on my desk, and am intrigued by it. (If we continue down that rabbit hole we should probably start a new thread.)

Comparing a Garand and an AR is apples and oranges. Both have their place in this man's world. Personally, both make me smile. If push came to shove I would probably opt for a Garand if for no other reason than the guys of my father's generation whupped a lot of ass with them.

If push comes to shove, an empty Garand makes a really good club. Or so an old Gunnery Sergeant told me years ago.

Never have played with a Garand. 2 mo. in basic training with a M-14 was 7 weeks and 6 days too much. I am however of the opinion that every combat arm has its place. The M14 was out of place in Nam, and the M4 may not be the best platform in some circumstances in the Mideast.

My world is close cover and short distances. The M1 Carbine or a shotgun would be first choice depending on moon phase.

Dan,

Why would you pick the M1 over the M4?

Because it's all I need and in hand.

Aside from that....

The magazines are smaller and easier to carry.
It doesn't weigh much more than a gnat's whisker.
It kills pigs DEAD in my hands, people aren't any tougher.
It's the first CF rifle I ever fired.
I done wore out one -16 in combat, looking for a new adventure.
I can deliver a better butt stroke with the M1 than a M4.

Need more???? Well, OK, since you asked....

But the real question is would the M1 kill the skeeters there?

I dunno. Haven't had any skeeters around my place for several years. It's a mystery, no?

Yer all wet behind the ears. A good old M1903 Springfield is all any "anti-tacticool geezer" needs.

Please don't butt stroke me with that thing!

Call your Unertl and raise you a peep sight. Nice O3 you have there.

This is what a Garand is really good for!

http://thecmp.org/plan-now-for-cmps-adjusted-2019-travel-games-annual-schedule/

and Perry too