[Terry G]

The M-1 Garand and M-14 and FN are fine weapons. No question. However, they have one problem, weight. The M-1 also is limited by the en-bloc system of reload, eight shots or nothing, no topping off the magazine. In terrain that demands long range and re-supply is readily available, the three above weapons shine, But, Hollywood movies not being completely accurate, sometimes, the choppers can't come in and you fight with what's on your back. The three above mentioned rifle's weigh almost 1 1/2 times what an M-16A2 weighs. The big problem is the ammunition. That weight is twice the weight of a .223/5.56MM round. A lot of talk about the M-16 jamming. It worked fine until some bean counter figured he could save 1/2 cents a round by switching to IMR propellant, not the powder the M-16 was designed to shoot. It kicked the cyclic rate from 750 to 1,000 RPM and it was dirty, carboning up the chamber so that double feeds, bad extraction of spent shells and no cleaning or lubricants were issued. Also, a "No clean" order was given, stating that the M-16 was self cleaning. You ever see a self-cleaning gun? In the latter part of 1968 the M-16A1 was issued, "Bird Cage" suppressor, chrome chamber, and a cleaning kit issued with each one. There was also a handy 4 oz. plastic bottle of LSA (Lubricant, Small Arms) handy at all times. Turned the whole "Jamming Jenny" phobia around. The one I was issued in 1969 never let me down. We cleaned our '16's 2 to 3 times a day, and lubed them generously. I once put 35 magazines through mine in four hours. No malfunctions. (18 rounds per magazine, the magazines were still crap). If the terrain had been different, or the supply situation different, I might have wanted an M-14, but I doubt it.

 

[RIKA]

You are right Terry that the weapon should fit the environment you are in and the situations you will meet. For John in AR where no shots exceed 200yds or in an urban or marine environment the AR15/223 performs very well. For someone like Garand out on the 'bald ass prairie' the M1A/Garand/FAL is certainly the choice. In arctic conditions the BA Enfield is the one to carry. We all make our choices and have to live or die with them. Fortunately most of us have (or can have) both a 223 and a 308 BR.

RIKA

 

[mrostov]

My 'bug out arsenal' is simply 2 rifles, a CAR-15 and a scoped, 'sporterized' 7.62mm Kar98k Mauser.

The 16" CAR-15 is currently my primary weapon. If we ever have to head for the hills, the Mauser gets tossed into the truck. If the conditions get too cold, or a hard hit at long distance is needed, the Kar98k gets put to use.

The Kar98k also comes in handy nowadays for some hunts.

 

[Magnum88C]

I chose the FAL over the others because:
1.) I'm not paying $70 for 20 round M1A magazines.
2.) I've moved around so much in my life, it's been proven to me that I don't know what Kind of terrain or climate I'll find myself in, so I MUST have a rifle that functions in any environment.
3.) Hitting power. Even if my area doesn't allow for shots over 200 yards, the .308 hits harder, and will go through some things a .223 never will.
4.) Reliability. I want a rifel I DON'T have to clean 2-3 times a day.
5.) My long-range precision rifle is a .308. The "premuin" loads work just fine in both rifles, and in a pinch, the bolt gun can fire FMJ or other "non-premium" rounds. No carrying two types of ammo
6.) My choice would probably be the "para" FAL over any of the others, a little more compact, still about as accurate as the others, and really doesn't weigh THAT much more than an A2-AR (yes I have one, and to me, the AR isn't significantly lighter, I don't do the shorties).
7.) Ammo weighs more, but I don't NEED as much per target either.

What it boils down to is use what you like, just train according to the weapon's limitations. Which to me is another advantage of the full-power rifles, they give you more options.

 

[RIKA]

Its better to be overgunned than undergunned.

RIKA

 

[andy]

it doesn't get too cold for the CAR, and if you had to cycle it manually every other shot, it would still be faster for a string of hits than the bolt action is.

 

[Garand]

erika/gunkid, you really don't have any idea the depth of your lack of knowledge do you? When I was in Alaska , after a week in the bush a -40F temperatures, with my rifle on full auto, I would squeeze the trigger, dump my arctic mitts. Lock the action to the rear, pull out my pocket knife, open the blade, dig out the fired cartridge case. Then I would allow the action to go forward and go through the whole thing again! All the while trying not to get frostbitten fingers! Take my word for it, at those temperatures the Enfield is faster. To top it off, I didn't loose my knife either!

Erika, thank you, you stated my position very well. Terry, weight I have felt is really irrelevent. As a young infanteer carrying a rifle constantly, the rifle became part of your body and after a while you no longer noticed the weight. If you are talking about SHTF, we all live in different geographical locations. If I lived in Toronto, Montreal, New York, LA, etc I would want the ability to hump mega amounts of ammo. In my local, 140-200 rds in my immediate possession could fulfill all my daily requirements.

If the balloon ever goes up it will be "come as you are". Very few will have more than a rifle, shotgun, pistol and more than 1 or 2 boxes of ammo. Casually talk to your friends, how many actually have more than 100 rds of ammo in all calibers in their house? Like the man said, "Location, Location,Location".

 

[Hard Ball]

"Its better to be overgunned than undergunned"

AMEN!

 

[John in AR]

I can't imagine cleaning my gun, or needing to clean my gun, multiple times daily.

I have no doubt it may have been necessary at the time, but the guns and ammo have both advanced tremendously in the intervening decades. Using an old vietnam-era gun or vietnam-era government ammo, would be a completely different beast than today's guns & ammo.

Even so:

"... I once put 35 magazines through mine in four hours. No malfunctions.

That's not bad, and today's products are much better than the 1960's versions.


That said, there seems very little question that the AR platform is unreliable in arctic or near-arctic conditions, (no personal experience, but I've heard it from too many people to ignore it), and if it's unreliable, it's unacceptable. When it comes to defensive weapons, I'm funny that way. Don't know what I'd use in those climates, but besides a more cold-tolerant platform, I'd want a caliber heavier than 5.56 as well. Animals in those climates tend to be larger and have tougher outer shells.

Something at least .27 caliber, probably .30 or greater, detachable magazines of no more than 20 rounds (due to ammo size), ergonomic controls like the AR, and 18" or so barrel. FAL and HK91 both come to mind, but I've never used either one.

 

[andy]

I"ve never heard it from a source that knew his ass from a hole in the ground, and I"ve heard the contrary from others who do know, and I've done ok with one at -20" Farenheit, wind chill of -45 or so. I aint likely to be any place anything like that cold. Such is for fools.

 

[Garand]

Well dipstick, I've used it at a windchill of -70F after that it was whiteout conditions and we were packed in our arctic tents for 3 full days. You didn't go out for a piss without being connected to a life line! And as per SOP the rifles stayed outside. John in AR, I've talked to Canadian soldiers that have done their time in Afganistan and their C7 rifles have to be cleaned twice a day to ensure reliable functioning. Hey dipstick, tell me about these people that you know who have arctic experience? I'm curious, in 15 years in the field, I have at least 10 multiple week(month) exercises and at least double that number in 72-96 hour exercises.

 

[Garand]

Given the new gun laws that are in front of our Federal Supreme Court, the M1 Garand is about the best option these days.