A debate topic suggested by Una Persson in this thread: Firearm experts - is/was the M16 a piece of crap? - Factual Questions - Straight Dope Message Board
What do you think? Good idea? Or is the M4 better, or at least good enough to keep using it, given the likely expense of a changeover/changeback?
There’s a reason Springfield is slowly taking over my gun safe. Not that that’s pertinent to re-equippig the U.S. Armed Forces with Garand-style rifles. I doubt that they’d return to 30-06, and instead go with 7.62mm.
The Garand-style is a big, heavy sumbitch; not particularly adept at close quarters combat, or close terrain. A carbine version would probably still be desireable.
The Garand-style (feeding 30-06/.308/7.62) is an accurate, hard hitting rifle. When you kiss someone with a Garand, they stay kissed.
The ammunition/logistics considerations in the 5.56mm vs. 7.62mm debate still pertain.
I used to think that my M1A was a bit if a PITA to take down and clean. That was because I was most familiar with the M-16 family-of-rifle’s configuration. Now it’s six-of-one/half-dozen-of-another.
From my own “weekend shooter” perspective, I now prefer the Garand-style.
But I’d seriously defer to the Voice of Experience, to seasoned combat veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan, in the debate.
Additional considerations:
A Garand (M-14, really) on full-auto is not very controllable; even less so than the lighter 5.56mm cartridge fired by the M-16 family. Fire discipline would have to be drilled (with a damned Milwaukee if necessary!) into recruit’s heads, and then reinforced sternly in the field by NCOs and Officers.
You could add a bipod to the M-14 and teach soldiers to only fire full-auto from the prone, with the bipod, but you then add weight to an already heavy rifle to turn it into a light machinegun.
I think the main reason anyone would want to bring back the Garand is nostalgia. The U.S. used the Garand in WW2, after all, and won. Of course, the U.S. also used the Thompson and the M1 Carbine in WW2, but nobody wants to bring *them *back, right?
I’ve never been to Iraq or Afghanistan, but as a former and occassional infantryman, like hell I’d carry half the ammo load than I would with an M-16 - and in smaller magazines, no less. The longer range and “stopping power” are moot issues, in my opinion. If you’re attacking the enemy with small arms at a distance of more than 200m, then you aren’t doing your job right - that’s what the heavy wepons are for; if one bullet doesn’t kill him, shoot him again when you get to him.
Of course, I come from military that transitioned from the Uzi to 5.56mm weapons. To us, light, short-range weapons are the default.
I know absolutely nothing about weapons, but I googled a bit, and I love diving into unknown waters.
The drawbacks of the Garand are, apparently:
[ul]
[li]It has small magazines, only eight bullets each.[/li][li]The ammo is heavy.[/li][li]It makes a distinct sound when you fire the last bullet in a clip, which enemy soldiers learn to listen for.[/li][li]It’s a bit too lethal - modern military doctrine says it’s better to grievously wound an enemy than to kill him outright. A wounded enemy takes others out of the battle to care for him.[/li][/ul]
On the plus side, it’s very reliable, accurate and can one-shot a Kodiak bear.
If you want a reliable old-timey infantry weapon, why not use the Sturmgewehr 44 instead? A lot of people in various forums seem to think that it was a pretty impressive gun.
We also used khaki twill uniforms, let our soldiers grow their hair long enough to plaster back with brilliantine, and placed their training in the care of comical William Bendix-like sergeants who said stuff like “Hey you dogfaces! Get the lead out.”
If we do this today, the terrorists win.
I thought it was an implied given that we’re talking about a Garand-style rifle, updated a bit for the times. It would probably have detachable 20- and 30-round box magazines, and select-fire capability. Possibly it would also have a synthetic stock to help ameliorate the weight issue.
If we’re literally talking about bringing an honest-to-Odin Garand back…yeesh.
There is the AR-10.
I don’t know if it would be possible to redesign it to replace the easily fouled system of the M-16.
Even if we account for that with refreshes and updates, .30-06 is still altogether too powerful for a select-fire combat rifle. I know, Grandpa used it when men were men and all that, but the recoil and flash are considerable out of the already heavy Garand. Imagine if you took weight away from the weapon and put it into the operator. It wouldn’t be long until the soldier would be begging for a return to the M16, shortcomings and all.
Along the same lines, the Garand is much too long. Sure, you can re-engineer it and turn it into a carbine, but the effectiveness will be considerably reduced as it is in any comparable weapon of reduced barrel length. If you’re going to do that, why not just issue M4s in 6.8 Grendel or a similar updated caliber?
If you want to go back and update a weapon to modern times that eliminates most of the M16’s shortcomings (albeit re-introducing a few of its own), I say go back to the M14. Or stick with the M16/M4, up the caliber a bit, and start putting pistons in them to largely eliminate the direct-impingement fouling issues.
Well, I wasn’t arguing for a return to 30-06. :shudder: .308 and 7.62 kick bad enough without asking for that kind of punishment.
See post #3. Grandpa also walked 20 miles, uphill, barefoot, in the snow, to go to work 18 hours a day at age 6.
See post #2. I allowed for the possibility of a full-length and carbine-length version of the same basic weapon platform. Kinda like the M16A2/M4 thing we have going on now.
Regardless of platform, it seems apparent that since WWII there’s been a role in tactical doctrine for both full-length and carbine-length versions of the same platform.
Or go with a full-up militarized version of Springfield’s Scout Squad. About 3/4" and 1 lb. heavier than an M16A2. Of course, “full-up militarized” may change that final product weight some as internal fiddleybits get reworked.
Then again, a Scout Squad specd. for 6.5 may be the better of both worlds.
Either way you’re getting fewer shots for the same weight of ammo, and most combat vets would agree that that’s Not A Good Thing. Then again, if you need fewer shots (or only one) to put down a Bad Guy, your main concern is now the green newbie who blows through his load of ammo in panic fire at the first sign of trouble. Training can’t fix that; only experience and solid NCOs kicking ass can do that. 
But seriously, your suggestion of sticking with the base M16 platform, beefing up the caliber, and getting rid of DI, is probably a lot more practical from a training and logistical POV; I think that there’s enough “institutional memory” built up in our armed forces WRT the M16 family to handle a transition like you propose, so long as the final product isn’t too different from it predecessors.
They should also issue non-filtered cigarettes in their ration kits and playing “Boogy Woogy Bugle Boy” at recruiting stations 
The Garand and its derivatives are difficult and expensive to produce. Garand, himself, had to design tooling and manufacturing processes as well as the rifle. The additional production expense doesn’t produce anything in the way of increased performance in the field. It is the cartridge that produces the causualties, not the platform from which it is fired. There are other, more modern and easily/cheaply produced, rifles that will use the .30-06 or .308 cartridges if that is what you are after.
The M-1 ran into trouble in the North African campaign (along with the Thompson and BAR) because it was sensitive to windblown sand and dust. In the Pacific campaign, volcanic dust/sand choked it (along with the Thompson and BAR), and it was also found that the combination of heat and prolonged rain would rinse away its lubricating grease and cause malfunctions. The M-14’s roller bearing was an attempt to correct this. Later, in the Korean war, the M-1 was found wanting in the sub-zero Korean winter. GI’s resorted to pissing on their frozen rifles to try to free up the action.
The M-14 was supposed to correct a bunch of the M-1’s shortcomings. Too bad it was even more difficult to produce. Early models from some manufacturers had an unfortunate tendency to explode. IIRC, many units were still using M-1’s and switched directly to the M-16 without ever fielding the M-14 due to problems in production and shortages in the field. It’s a dandy targett rifle, though, if you enjoy the nostalgia of shooting yesteryear’s gear.
The M-16 was fielded without being fully developed and the troops were inadequately trained. In essence, it was beta tested in the middle of a war. Today, it’s a mature design. Nothing out there is, IMPO, sufficiently better at firing a 5.56 mm cartridge to warrant switching over. If a new cartridge is chosen that would require a new rifle, then I can see ditching the M-16 series. Basing the new rifle on the Garand would be pointlessly expensive and complex.
Nonsense! Real men fire BARs from the hip! 
Clyde Barrow was kind of a twerp but supposedly was a good hand with a BAR anyway.
Uhm, it kinda never died.
It’s called a Kalashnikov nowadays.
In concept they are similar. Mechanically, they are different designs.
Well, the military rifle evolved from long range “battle rifles” like the Garand or M-14 to “assault riffles” like the M-16 and AK-47 for a reason. Experience in WWII and Korea found that infantry engagements typically occured at a range of several hundred yards, not a thousand. Any further away, cammoflaged soldiers typically couldn’t see each other. For that reason, they designed, smaller, lighter weapons that could hold more ammo but would still be lethal at ranges where infantry are likely to encounter each other.
For greater distances, the military still uses sniper rifles, which can be varients of civilian hunting rifles, olde tyme battle rifles like the M-14 or purpose-built sniper rifles like the Barrett .50 anti-material rifles.
They are also developing this weapon. Basically it’s a fancy computer controlled airbursting grenade launcher.
My understanding is they ironed out most of the bugs with the M-16 / M-4 series of rifles/carbines, but that the light 5.56mm round doesn’t have the stopping power of the AKs 7.62mm round. Especially against body armor.
Maybe if you are a little girl. I’ll stick with firing my M-60 one handed like Rambo II.
Which (I think) was the impetus behind the OP.
[Exaggerated John Wayne Voice]
You better stay on the porch, little dog. Manly Men fire 120mm cannons one-handed!
[/Exaggerated John Wayne Voice]
What?
I was waiting to get home from work to chime in here, but this says precisely what I was going to say. The Garand is the finest Battle Rifle ever made. But we don’t use Battle Rifles anymore. We switched to Assault Rifles for a reason: range of engagement. Nowadays, we use carbines like the M-4 for even closer engagement designs. With a backup of a squad light machine gun. That being said, it is possible that a larger caliber might be a good idea for the next generation of gun. The M-16 was built on a theory that was a bit discredited, I seem to recall. But really, it’s about finding the right tool for the right job. And we’re not in the trenches anymore.
I think the recoil of a 7.62x51, let alone a .30-06, alone greatly limits the ability of uptake by US forces. I really have to wonder how smaller-bodied troops (read: women) would deal with using a Garand in .30-06.
