Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Peregrino
I don't understand what the big deal is. 60+ years ago a few MILLION GIs taught "Krauts" and "Japs" to respect the M1. Six years later they did it again for the North Koreans and Chinese. M1s did a fair amount of street fighting in Europe / the Phillipines, and the jungle fighting on the Pacific islands was "up close and personal" too. I love both of mine - and shoot them fairly regular too. My M-4s may be lighter and it's certainly easier to carry lots of ammo for them but the M1 is still a respectable weapon. The rest is nothing more than training and motivation. While I would prefer longer engagement ranges, I wouldn't feel "undergunned" with an M1. My .02 - Peregrino
|
Peregrino:
The reason why the Garand dominated close combat was because of its semi-automatic capability, not its 'accuracy' or power. Joes thought it too long and too heavy and would have preferred a shortened M-1 with less recoil. Hence the abortion termed the M-14, followed by something more user friendly for Joe called the M-16.
I would have a significant lack of confidence if I had to go into Mousl today with an M-1 and a bandoleer of eight round clips.
Have I told you how much the issued M-2 Ball suckes? I have shot that stuff from 1943 lots through the late 1960's and M-2 Ball must be the worse shooting ammo I have ever fired through a steel tube. I have gone to the point of 'Pull / Pushing' issued 150 grain M-2 bullets with issued 7.62 149 grain ball bullets just to ensure I get some sort of consistenty. Three minutes at least.
So far the issued 'Green Tip' M-855 Ball from an issued M-4 will outshoot an M-1with issued M-2 Ball at any range. Man what crap the Joes had to shoot in WWII and Korea.
Gene on Ball Ammo