Gene - I am willing to bet that if you found yourself in harm's way tomorrow with only an M1 to play with that you wouldn't abandon it until you were actually in physical posession of something more to your liking. And I'll also bet that if you did set it aside afterwards, it wouldn't be operable for the next passerby to pick up and use. (I'm pretty sure you don't want one used against you
.) The point of my comments is that the M1 Garand is far more versatile than our "modern prejudices" give credence to. I'm not surprised the competitor was able to do well in his shooting game. It's not the weapon, it's the man using it. And, unless I missed his point completely, I think that was where NDD was going from the beginning. Even swords, axes, and knives are still legit weapons (spent yesterday at a local SCA event
). After all - isn't that the rationale behind the 21 foot rule?
True, the M1 is no longer "state of the art" and even during its heyday other weapons were more convenient to use in urban combat. (I can only imagine the logistical problems faced by units with 6-8 different types of individual/crew served weapons and their associated ammo.) But we ALL know how GIs bitch about everything they've ever been issued - and yet somehow they still manage to do the job despite the supposed "shortcomings" of the aforementioned "defective" equipment. Every weapon has its detractors, even the M-16 went through teething pains (and both the weapon and its ammo STILL have vocal detractors). I agree about the accuracy comment in favor of the M-16 (family), that's why I quit shooting M1s/M14s/M1As in Service Rifle years ago. I also agree with your comments about the M-2 Ball ammo. I've shot a fair amount myself and I know how it shoots. I've still got several cans of it "laying around here somewhere" including some corrosive stuff that's so bad it'll probably have to be destroyed. (The newer stuff does make a fair "Mexican Match" though.)
Just hoping to clarify the issue a bit - Peregrino.