Controversial Question of the Day

Ponder_MD · Apr 5, 2021

I dunno what kind of hate I'm going to get for asking this, but...

Does the M1 hold any advantages over an AR or M16/M4?

Yeah, I get it. It's heavy, it's long, 8 round capacity is limiting. The ammo is heavier, making it difficult to carry a competing amount of ammunition.

Does the more powerful cartridge and longer range still count for anything these days? I feel like the M1 holds an advantage if you can keep your foe at distance. It lets you engage them sooner. Some of that advantage diminishes as range decreases but you still have greater stopping and penetrating power.

I carried M16A3's and M4's in the Navy and used a few versions of the M60 as they were being phased out. I feel that full auto is a little overrated. Difficult to control, best used for suppressing fire, up close. It's a good way to burn through your ammo load out if you're undisciplined. It has its uses, but selectively.

Would it be a hopeless engagement or could a smart, savvy squad with M1's win the day?

ken792 · Apr 5, 2021

Don’t forget the wood stock and the two little nubs on the trigger guard being terrible at holding zero compared to an all steel and aluminum design.

The military is already testing various 6.8 cartridges and platforms that have longer range and flatter trajectory than the .30/06 without the weight or recoil. They seem determined to have a cartridge supersonic to 1400yd or so and possibly to defeat Level IV armor at close range.

Here’s the Textron 6.8 offering. SIG and General Dynamics have theirs too. The ammo each of them uses can run at way higher pressures than conventional brass, so they’re able to get the desired performance with the smaller cartridge.

The beloved M2 AP won’t defeat Russian GOST 6A armor, but 7.62 M993 with its tungsten core will at close range. I suppose putting a tungsten core bullet into a .30/06 case will extend the range where it can defeat 6A, but the weight may not be worth it when there are things like grenade launchers and light mortars.

Ravitch · Apr 5, 2021

Training can triumph a lot of things, but after my experiences in Iraq and in Afghanistan I don't think squad weapons are going anywhere and how it can support difficult movement across terrain against an opposing force.

But I'm not sure what your exact question is. Are you wondering whether you can successfully get rid of all automatic weapons in a line unit, or simply those line members that aren't in a suppressive support role?

Michigander08 · Apr 5, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
I dunno what kind of hate I'm going to get for asking this, but...

Does the M1 hold any advantages over an AR or M16/M4?

Yeah, I get it. It's heavy, it's long, 8 round capacity is limiting. The ammo is heavier, making it difficult to carry a competing amount of ammunition.

Does the more powerful cartridge and longer range still count for anything these days? I feel like the M1 holds an advantage if you can keep your foe at distance. It lets you engage them sooner. Some of that advantage diminishes as range decreases but you still have greater stopping and penetrating power.

I carried M16A3's and M4's in the Navy and used a few versions of the M60 as they were being phased out. I feel that full auto is a little overrated. Difficult to control, best used for suppressing fire, up close. It's a good way to burn through your ammo load out if you're undisciplined. It has its uses, but selectively.

Would it be a hopeless engagement or could a smart, savvy squad with M1's win the day?

I don't hate you. I just hate your bell bottom pants.

Michigander08 · Apr 5, 2021

But seriously the doctrine of land warfare has changed since ww2. We pound them from far away with heavy power fire and then mopping them up. It doesn't matter how powerful your rifle is. The drones above you is going to be more of a menace. You can't see or hear them since it is too high. Yet they have sensors that are capable of seeing you.

Ponder_MD · Apr 5, 2021

Obviously my information is far out of date. The new squad weapons described above seem to combine the range and penetrating power of the older cartridge with the weight and ballistics of modern cartridges.
My question wasn't "Get rid of." The question was: "If you ain't got it, are you hopelessly outclassed?" It would seem that the answer is: Yes.

My God, it looks like the Russians are wearing stone body armor. Looks heavy AF.

Ravitch, I can't imagine the things you've done and seen. You should probably write a book.

K31 · Apr 5, 2021

I'm always amused by hearing the garand called heavy and it's recoil great. I had two neighbors who were wwii vets both looked like they weighed 90 lbs soaking wet. One landed on d-day. Never saw what one of them could do but the other could cut and stack wood at a pace that would kill me. He re-shingled his roof too.

Michigander08 · Apr 5, 2021

K31 said:
I'm always amused by hearing the garand called heavy and it's recoil great. I had two neighbors who were wwii vets both looked like they weighed 90 lbs soaking wet. One landed on d-day. Never saw what one of them could do but the other could cut and stack wood at a pace that would kill me. He re-shingled his roof too.

Could it be that they grew up before "processed food" shows up?

Ponder_MD · Apr 5, 2021

I just watched the Granit Gost video. Well, that was terrifying. I don't know what's scarier, armor that strong or penetrators that powerful. Obviously I was wrong about the weight of the ceramic armor.

K31- I said the Garand was "heavy" as in heavier than what's commonly carried today. I don't think the recoil is so terrible. I'd shoot my M1 or my Mosin all day without complaint.
Mich- We haven't worn bell bottoms in years. Decades, in fact. Actually, the Navy can't figure out what it wants to be.

Bob A · Apr 6, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
Mich- We haven't worn bell bottoms in years. Decades, in fact. Actually, the Navy can't figure out what it wants to be.

The Navy would do well to eliminate a goodly percentage of the desk sailors/"innovators". Remember the new Navy camo that made sailors who fell into the drink more or less invisible? Brilliant.

Then there's the F-35, about which the less said, the better. (Shared blame on that one; much of the Pentagon is superfluous to our actual needs).

dist1646 · Apr 6, 2021

For all those saying one is better than the other, I wouldn't want to get hit with a round from any of them at any distance.

Michigander08 · Apr 6, 2021

dist1646 said:
For all those saying one is better than the other, I wouldn't want to get hit with a round from any of them at any distance.

You don't if you call in air strike and stay distance.

Ponder_MD · Apr 6, 2021

Bob A said:
The Navy would do well to eliminate a goodly percentage of the desk sailors/"innovators". Remember the new Navy camo that made sailors who fell into the drink more or less invisible? Brilliant.

Then there's the F-35, about which the less said, the better. (Shared blame on that one; much of the Pentagon is superfluous to our actual needs).

I escaped shortly after the Navy issued those stupid blue digi-camo suits. I never had to wear them.

But, watch any old WWII movie. The sailors wore BLACK cracker jack hats, black PFD's. They were just as screwed if they fell over.

woodline · Apr 6, 2021

If I could hike a noisy cricket instead of an M4 up an 11000 foot mountain I would. But since I can’t, and I can’t easily put small optics and IR aiming devices on a garand, I’ll take the M4. Working inside and around buildings and vehicles would not be enjoyable with a garand either.

I am interested to see where the NGSW ends up fitting in, and how many different weapons systems it replaces, if any. I used to be pretty against it due to the obvious over penetration concerns, the weight of firearm and ammo, and the unrealistic tech requirements for the ammo, but honestly now I see why the DoD is constantly running these force modernization solicitations. If nothing else, we are seeing decent potential solutions for weapons that have one larger battery instead of half a dozen spread across various accessories, some interesting engineering solutions to barrel life limitations of very high pressure ammo, plastic cased rounds, and some very cool optics. I still don’t think it’s a realistic replacement for the M4, but I wouldn’t hate to see it replace stuff like the 240, 249, MK46, MK48, CSASS, etc.

IronDuck · Apr 6, 2021

Ponder_MD said:
I dunno what kind of hate I'm going to get for asking this, but...

Does the M1 hold any advantages over an AR or M16/M4?

Yeah, I get it. It's heavy, it's long, 8 round capacity is limiting. The ammo is heavier, making it difficult to carry a competing amount of ammunition.

Does the more powerful cartridge and longer range still count for anything these days? I feel like the M1 holds an advantage if you can keep your foe at distance. It lets you engage them sooner. Some of that advantage diminishes as range decreases but you still have greater stopping and penetrating power.

I carried M16A3's and M4's in the Navy and used a few versions of the M60 as they were being phased out. I feel that full auto is a little overrated. Difficult to control, best used for suppressing fire, up close. It's a good way to burn through your ammo load out if you're undisciplined. It has its uses, but selectively.

Would it be a hopeless engagement or could a smart, savvy squad with M1's win the day?

My two cents from the safety of my well, padded swivel arm chair, having not even been in the armed forces, so no training to provide support of my opinion, but. First it comes down to training and calm.
The opposing force armed with, AR-s and 30 round mags, holding the gun low and cool like in the movies blasting away at the hip, yelling, “You Aint got NUthin on ME”, will more than likely fall to the calm and well trained force with M1’s, 30-30 Winchester, or even bolt action .22’s. (long rifle .22’s of course) and a couple of nice pistols for mop up. ( I learned the pistol part from movies and action novels).
However, pitting opposing forces of equal calm and training, I would tip the scales to the AR’s simply for the greater amount of ammunition between reloads. (of course in this scenario both sides have pistols for mop up) AR’s tote the Glock .40 and the M1 fella’s got old faithful 1911 A1s. Unless the guys with the M1's had a sniper in an adjacent church steeple then they win.

tallen702 · Apr 6, 2021

We used to have these debates all the time back in my paintball days. In the late 90s/early 2000s (pre-2002) in what was really the golden age of the sport, there was so much chatter in magazines and online forums about what system was better (pump vs semi vs the then-new electro-pneumatic markers) and all kinds of bragging and bravado on all sides that it got a little nauseating after a while. Pump guys swore that some stellar players running stock-class Phantoms or Grey-Ghosts with 10g CO2s in a quick-changer and 10-round tubes could run the table on guys running the latest and greatest electro-pneumatic markers because they were used to making their shots count more, their tendency to focus on ball-to-barrel matching was more heightened, they had to have better tactics, etc. The EP guys would point out that accuracy through volume negated specific shot placement, that constant-air CO2 and HPA tanks along with hopper feed systems meant that less time was needed to reload and that reloads were less frequent, etc., etc.

Some guys would put their money where their mouths were and go at it on a field somewhere and invariably, every time, the results would come out different than all other attempts to settle the question until a few things happened. Pro stock-class players started playing against pro unlimited players, and symmetrical fields became the norm. When this happened, the answer became pretty clear. Matching pros against pros eliminated the chance for schlubs on either side of the debate to skew results too badly, and symmetrical fields eliminated any "natural" surprises from the lay of the land and cover and concealment options. It made the "test" more scientific. What happened? Well, the guys running the latest equipment wiped the floor with the guys running stock class gear. It was like taking five guys with 03-A3s against five guys running M249s. There just wasn't any way the guys firing 11-13 rounds per second were going to be wiped out with the guys who were lucky to get off 3 rounds per second. Even when running traditional blow-back or closed-bolt systems against guys with electro-pneumatic (now 8-10 rounds per second vs 11-13 rounds per second) the results were the same. That's why the vast majority of recreation paintball gear of any real quality these days is either electronically controlled to start with, or able to be upgraded to an electronic system, and all the high-end tournament gear is straight electro-pneumatic. You simply can't win the fight.

I see the WWII arms vs modern arms debate the same way. Yes, if you took the M1 and put it in the hands of some well-trained, well-drilled unit that had home-field advantage, they could probably mop the floor with a bunch of conscripts with the latest and greatest lead-slingers out there. But put them up against a well-trained unit and they're going to lose.

Biggfoot44 · Apr 7, 2021

To the extent that incremental differences variations in small arm makes a difference ( so long as the various options don't Totally Suck ). Actual Gamechanging moments were rare .

Doglocks ( and the flintlocks that imeadately followed ) were a Gamechanger over Matchlocks .

Metallic Breechloaders were a Gamechanger over muzzleloaders ( Would have been honorable mention for Rifle Muskets and Minie Balls , IF proper tactics had been figured out during their brief window .)

Repeating Breachloaders were Gamechanger over Single Shot Breechloaders . Almost overlapping , ( then considered ) small bore Smokless High Velocity Gamechanging. +\- .45 cal BP rifles .

Revolvers were Gamechanger over Swords .

Blacksmith101 · Apr 7, 2021

If it is all you got you use it. If you use it effectively you can get the best stuff the other guy had. The Liberator pistol was not intended to win a war its job was to kill a single individual to get something better and came with additional rounds so it could be passed along to someone else to do the same thing.

An M1 Garand in the hands of a marksman or women can be very effective within its limitations. Don't try to use it as a modern assault weapon use it as a modern Gorilla tool. Use it's range and penetrating power when you need them or to get you the best the enemy has to offer in small arms.
Link to page 406 in Hatcher's Notebook
https://archive.org/details/Hatchers_Notebook/page/n414/mode/1up

woodline · Apr 7, 2021

tallen702 said:
We used to have these debates all the time back in my paintball days. In the late 90s/early 2000s (pre-2002) in what was really the golden age of the sport, there was so much chatter in magazines and online forums about what system was better (pump vs semi vs the then-new electro-pneumatic markers) and all kinds of bragging and bravado on all sides that it got a little nauseating after a while. Pump guys swore that some stellar players running stock-class Phantoms or Grey-Ghosts with 10g CO2s in a quick-changer and 10-round tubes could run the table on guys running the latest and greatest electro-pneumatic markers because they were used to making their shots count more, their tendency to focus on ball-to-barrel matching was more heightened, they had to have better tactics, etc. The EP guys would point out that accuracy through volume negated specific shot placement, that constant-air CO2 and HPA tanks along with hopper feed systems meant that less time was needed to reload and that reloads were less frequent, etc., etc.

Some guys would put their money where their mouths were and go at it on a field somewhere and invariably, every time, the results would come out different than all other attempts to settle the question until a few things happened. Pro stock-class players started playing against pro unlimited players, and symmetrical fields became the norm. When this happened, the answer became pretty clear. Matching pros against pros eliminated the chance for schlubs on either side of the debate to skew results too badly, and symmetrical fields eliminated any "natural" surprises from the lay of the land and cover and concealment options. It made the "test" more scientific. What happened? Well, the guys running the latest equipment wiped the floor with the guys running stock class gear. It was like taking five guys with 03-A3s against five guys running M249s. There just wasn't any way the guys firing 11-13 rounds per second were going to be wiped out with the guys who were lucky to get off 3 rounds per second. Even when running traditional blow-back or closed-bolt systems against guys with electro-pneumatic (now 8-10 rounds per second vs 11-13 rounds per second) the results were the same. That's why the vast majority of recreation paintball gear of any real quality these days is either electronically controlled to start with, or able to be upgraded to an electronic system, and all the high-end tournament gear is straight electro-pneumatic. You simply can't win the fight.

I see the WWII arms vs modern arms debate the same way. Yes, if you took the M1 and put it in the hands of some well-trained, well-drilled unit that had home-field advantage, they could probably mop the floor with a bunch of conscripts with the latest and greatest lead-slingers out there. But put them up against a well-trained unit and they're going to lose.

This is the best non-military analogy for why small arms go through continuous modernization cycles that I’ve ever read. Thank you for sharing.

Ponder_MD · Apr 7, 2021

Excellent discussion.

As Tallen says, when all other factors are equal, the superior arms wins.
So as Blacksmith says, the terms of engagement must be unbalanced. Guerilla warfare, which allows the weaker group to obtain superior arms through capture, harass the opposition, demoralize them and keep them off balance.

Controversial Question of the Day

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Member

ridiculous and psychotic

ridiculous and psychotic

Ultimate Member

"Part of that Ultra MAGA Crowd"

ridiculous and psychotic

Ultimate Member

όυ φροντισ

Ultimate Member

ridiculous and psychotic

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Active Member

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Grumpy Old Man

Ultimate Member

Ultimate Member

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics