selecting a battle rifle

[Spectre]

I would add to this that the M-1 Garand was the rifle that kept us free during World War II and Korea

While this sounds cool and true, it is much more true that our great industrial capacity kept us free.

 

[namaarie]

So unromantic, John. Jeez!

Man, what a good decision to have to make, though! I've heard nothing but good things about Wilson Combat if you're leaning towards the AR-15 setup. I must admit that, just at the range, I have generally preferred shooting the AR-15 setup to some others--just so easy. They all have a different feel that's very personal. Also, I like the feel of the fixed stock better, I think (although I like the collapsible stock better in theory!).

Another consideration, I would think, would be caliber. The AR may be a cheaper round, and fine for self-defense and things like that (plus it's a tack driver), but the .308 of the M1A would be much better if you're thinking about trying to take down, say, deer. I'm pretty sure it's illegal in Iowa to hunt deer with .223, but .308 (or .30-06 for that matter) would be fine.

I don't know exactly what you want to do with this gun, but the larger calibers would be better for hunting or long-distance shots. That said, I really don't know which I'd pick. Tough choice, but you can't go wrong!

Chris

 

[munk]

Well, John is right, but the implements, the tools, that industrial might embodied are rather inseperable from the event.

More stuff wins over less stuff?
Well, If Hitler had not made several gross errors, if Japan had pressed, would that be true? Japan or Germany would be in the US making more stuff.

Seems will had something to do with it, sacrafise and courage.
That and a whole lot of 'stuff'.

munk

 

[Grime]

I'm wantin' some input from y'all more military rifle savvy folks...

I've made a deal with my son, he gets through elementary and middle school without falling off the Honor Roll, his mother and I buy him a top quality military rifle. Lookin' at spending $2,000-$2,500 on the package. So far he's about half way there. Such rifles aren't getting any cheaper, so the wife and I are thinking about picking it up in the next month or two and putting it in storage. They aren't getting any cheaper or easier to find. Also, if he falls off the Honor Roll Daddy gets to keep said rifle. (I'd much rather give it to him though)

The main choices seem to be M1 Garand, M1A, or AR-15

M-1 Garand has definitely got clean handling characteristics, and plenty of neatness. way far neat, and definitely gettin' harder to come by.

M1A is my personal favorite. Like an M-1 Garand but a little more accuracy than most, and detachable mags. He's a large, strong kid for his age, so it shouldn't be a problem for him to shoot by his Freshman year. Thinking about the M1A loaded package, with maybe a decent Leupold Scope.

AR-15 would serve him very well in his youth. light handling, light kicking, and he can modify it to suit his daily mood for all of eternity. The current Smith & Wesson's are a well finished, tight looking rifle. makes most Bushmasters I see these days look like they were picked from a scrap heap. Any other input on AR-15 manufacturers? Maybe Wilson Combat or Les Baer?

In the background lurks FN-Fal's, M-96 Expeditionary rifles, etc. Not interested in any H&K rifles, Colt AR's, or AK's And looking for classy stuff. an old Enfield and a billion rounds of ammo won't cut it on this one. Assuming the boy gets it, I want it to be a very special reward he never forgets.

Any thoughts or input would be greatly appreciated.

YEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHHHHHHHAAAAAAAAWWWW!

Thats why I LOVE America! Lets give adolescent teenagers assault riffles! YIP HAW G DARN! What a good idea!

 

[Revolvergeek]

I vote for an M1A with a really nice stock. It is a very capable battle rifle and at the same time, it possesses the lines and color of a fine hunting rifle. A really nice stock can make an M1A look like it has nothing to do with the military. Beauty in a weapon is something that ought to be considered, I think. Girls like wood...

Of the three original choices listed, I have to agree with this 100%. The M1A has classic lines, very solid, drips Americana and just feels good. The Garand is a great old rifle, and very much worth owning, but the M1A gives you most of the Garand's charm with a few improvements (some would argue this point). If he is a big WWII buff, then the parkerized steel and oiled walnut should be a big hit with him. Makes a somewhat heavy, but very capable dear hunting rifle too.

The only justification I can see *personally* for buying the AR is if he was going to target shoot a LOT where the reduced recoil and generally cheaper ammo would be an advantage.

 

[munk]

Note: an "assault' weapon is a select fire, semi auto or full auto, light arm to be used at intermediary ranges. Semi auto weapons are not 'assault weapons'. The good old shotgun, or even knife, is still a formidable weapon in a madman's hand. As is a shovel, pick, or dynamite stick, gas can, aerosol can, or chemical lab.


munk

 

[Runs With Scissors]

At least he didn't accuse me of giving my son a "tactical" rifle.

 

[munk]

I've seen some wicked looking tactical toothbrushes...



munk

 

[Dave Rishar]

The Garand is a great old rifle, and very much worth owning, but the M1A gives you most of the Garand's charm with a few improvements (some would argue this point).

A few improvements? The only thing that wasn't an improvement (for the average American) was the recalibration of the sights from yards to meters, and even that as an improvement as far as the military was concerned.

I would almost accept the lower cost/weight of the Garand's clips as an advantage, but the drawbacks inherant with the design more than cancel it out; besides, the M14 will chug along quite happily on clips as well as long as a magazine is installed.

The only justification I can see *personally* for buying the AR is if he was going to target shoot a LOT where the reduced recoil and generally cheaper ammo would be an advantage.

When one considers that probably the two biggest factors that keep people off the range are recoil-induced fatigue and cost of ammunition, these advantages are considerable indeed.

The other big advantage and one specific to the AR family is modularity. For a weapon system that began life as a short ranged, select fire carbine, it's now many different things to many different people. Altering it from a 'yote-thumper to a tacticool carbine takes all of five seconds and requires one to push two pins. This is something that most other rifles still cannot match.

 

[munk]

I've always been amazed the Garand was as accurate, and as reliable as it was with all those moving small parts. A contradiction. An amazing rifle. The M14 simplified all the motion. Got to work with more suitable round for semi auto fire and gas cycling. I love them both, actually. There's nothing like shooting a Garand in the desert, holding the big old son of a gun, letting it boom away, hitting distant rocks.


munk

 

[Grime]

Note: an "assault' weapon is a select fire, semi auto or full auto, light arm to be used at intermediary ranges. Semi auto weapons are not 'assault weapons'. The good old shotgun, or even knife, is still a formidable weapon in a madman's hand. As is a shovel, pick, or dynamite stick, gas can, aerosol can, or chemical lab.


munk

But I find it hard to imagine the columbine massacre possible if the two coke-drinking, gum-chewing kids were waving around knives... I think they’d be beaten to death by school chairs and fire extinguishers.

A gun is a gun. Assault riffle, pistol or shotgun. I wouldn’t give a person a gun until they were 21, of responsible character and I was certain of their moral reasoning for wanting a gun in the first place.

 

[Grime]

And if they want to become bombers, all they need to do is download the Terrorists Handbook off the Internet and presto, they can make any kind of explosive they would ever need. This information being on the Internet is the same kind of irresponsibility.

 

[munk]

It's worth noting Terrorists use improvised explosive devices, not 'AW's', and that it is only a matter of time before criminals and other madmen follow suit.

I don't know any answers. You start policing the internet, though, and we've other problems, other unintended consequences. I suspect insane killers will find a way to kill with or without info from an internet pamplet. Al Queda uses instructors, videos, and 'classrooms' to teach these technologies.

This post is not to condone either child porn, or plans for a nuclear device on- line. It is just I do not know where to draw a line, and doubt we'd ever agree anyway. Would China agree with our retrictions, or the US with France's? Would the ACLU agree with anyone?

There are other issues. What of Russia selling Iran arms, or China getting all of our nuclear technology up to a certain recent year by espionage or bribery?
It is hard for me to view civilian ownership of small arms in the same light as greater concerns.

munk

 

[Spectre]

This information being on the Internet is the same kind of irresponsibility.

You don't know your American History very well, do you? In the past century, any child with the funds could have ordered a HOWITZER and had it delivered to his house, prior to the 1930s. Even after that, a child could have had a rifle- one that had helped win a war- delivered to his house before the 1960s.

I don't recall there being a major problem. When all manner of poisons could be bought at the local drug store, I don't recall hearing of any major problem...when explosives could be purchased similarly easily, I don't remember there being a major problem...The problems actually came when the government attempted to regulate something it should have stayed out of. This happened with alcohol. It happened with drugs. It has happened with firearms. In every case, when the government tried to regulate and/or prohibit something, it BECAME a problem. If it had been a problem, it became a much worse problem.

The problem isn't freedom, so think up something else to scare us with.

John

 

[Runs With Scissors]

Oh I dunno....kids across America still recieve rifles, at a very early age, usually about six to ten. I'm sure if you interviewed the guests of any local penitentary you'd hear all sorts of wicked tales from the inmates about going to the range, or hunting with thier fathers at an early age. Perhaps they'd even tell you how proud they are of thier family's military tradition. It's all about access to guns, right?

Why, in my small town of Wasilla Alaska there's been thousands of guns given to children as gifts.

And with children like mine who are Boy Scouts, Honor Roll students, champion athletes, and lovers of the outdoors and history that participate in the community getting these weapons? It's only a matter of time until we have our first Carjacking in my community....

 

[munk]

Disarming Californians in their autos created a ripe environment for aggressive car hijackings.

Sometimes the solutions to problems are not obvious, but require thought about cause and effect. There should be reasonable restrictions to the liberties enumerated by the Bill of Rights- and there are. Taking away arms from otherwise law abiding citizens has had the effect of escalating violent crime. That is not a reasonable plan in the face of armed criminals. Wishing there were no arms, that somehow there could be no arms, is only a wish. Drugs make it across our border. Arms will make it to bad hands no matter what. Does anyone really believe arms manufactured for military use would not make it to criminal hands if there were somehow a magic vacuming up of all civilian ownership of arms?
Britain's crime rate continues to climb as restrictions on tools and self defense continue to become more strident and confining.

Within some definition of 'reason', we need to increase arms ownership and relax contraindicated restrictions. The cost of an attack upon citizens needs to carry a potentially unaccepable risk to criminals.

>>>>>>>>>

Anyway, The M1 Garand and M1A are both fine rifles. So is the AR system, and the FN/FAL.

I know a local who hunts exclusively with a Sprinfield M1A.

munk

 

[munk]

I should note Bruise arming himself with a semi-auto SKS has not appeared to have made him any more homicidal then he was previously, nor raised the crime rate in his area. (that we know of!)



munk

 

[Nordic Viking]

Oh I dunno....kids across America still recieve rifles, at a very early age, usually about six to ten. I'm sure if you interviewed the guests of any local penitentary you'd hear all sorts of wicked tales from the inmates about going to the range, or hunting with thier fathers at an early age. Perhaps they'd even tell you how proud they are of thier family's military tradition. It's all about access to guns, right?

Why, in my small town of Wasilla Alaska there's been thousands of guns given to children as gifts.

And with children like mine who are Boy Scouts, Honor Roll students, champion athletes, and lovers of the outdoors and history that participate in the community getting these weapons? It's only a matter of time until we have our first Carjacking in my community....

You guys probably eat meat too, don't you?

 

[Spectre]

In my experience, it's rarely the children who've learned responsible firearms usage from their fathers who grow up to be criminals...

 

[munk]

...Kids who even have fathers have a head's up.



munk