AR-15 or Garand

[Pitchy]

Been debating with myself about which rife i`d use when bad times, the Garand is heavy and only holds 8 rounds which the ammo is even heavier than .223.
I live in the woods so long range shooting wouldn`t be a priority most shooting would be under 100 yards and in the woods.
I had my AR scoped out but now am thinking a scope on it isn`t needed and just adds weight so i removed it and installed the carry handle.
I think the AR is going to be the best option in my situation, stripped down it can be carried with ease .
A lever gun would work well in the same situation but i have a lot more .223 ammo.
Thoughts, be nice.

[M. M. Wright]

Well Lenn I know I'd be more comfortable with the Garand but you're right, especially as we get older, weight becomes an issue. If I were in a "tight spot" I'd rather have the Garand (or FAL) but the AR would more likely be with me. Most of the time I have my 73 SRC with me.

[JimT]

In the woods .. a good .22 Magnum rifle. Can carry 1000 rounds easily.

[Rube Burrows]

Out of those two rifles the AR wins hands down for the reasons you stated and also several more. Who don't love a Garand? That said, the AR is the progression of the battle rifle and will be an upgrade.

[Pitchy]

Thanks fellers, yep a 22 mag. would be good also but i don`t have one.
Also this a last ditch senerio, maybe we`ll be invaded who knows, a lot of shooting might be out your window which brings up something else of having to shoot through a windsheild of a car of terrorist, a 30-06 or a 45-70 would do the job i`m not sure about the .223

[shasta_steve]

In just a survival type situation I would rather have a shotgun than just about anything else. Buckshot for deer or two legged critters and bird shot to eat. I agree that an AR would probably be better than a Garand in your situation but I would trade my AR for a nice Garand given the chance.

[GunnyMack]

If im in my house or any other structure and know I'm not going anywhere ill take the larger bore, my AR10 in 308 then when 4000 rounds runs out ill use the AR15, if they get inside 50 yards then the buckshot is gonna fly !! Of course I've got everything from 22 lr to 450 Bushmaster so I think I could hold em off a while!

[jeepnik]

The biggest drawback to the Garand is the low magazine capacity. The biggest drawback to the AR is simply that it is a P.O.S. AR. My preference is.

I'm not a fan of non wood stocks, but for something that I may one day need in bad times synthetic is probably better.

[Pitchy]

Thanks guys, i had a couple AR 10`s years ago i wish i still had one and to top it off Gander MT got in pallets of 308 ammo in cans i bought four and sold them with the last AR10, now i have a Garand in that caliber.
I agree on the shot gun for a lot of things, my Mossberg 590 will do the job.
My AR 15 is a Bushmaster that has never failed to fire.

Speaking of that.

[HawkCreek]

I love my levers and that's usually what I've got with me. My AR is 12 years old and virtually new. I doubt I've got 500 rounds through it but it's a superior fighting rifle. I know all the internet bs about one shot one kill but when you're in the same room with someone trying to kill you you dont want to be screwing with a manual action. AR's havent been unreliable for 30+ years. Inside 100 yards even military M855 makes a formidable wound.

[Pitchy]

Thanks HawkCreek.
Another thing many don`t think about if things go really bad is surviving when the power goes off and there`s no fuel to buy.
Other than our old cook stove which will be a life saver here in the winter i`m not as prepared as i`d like to be, getting water from our jet pump well for one.
No lights, old lanterns are good if ya got lots of lantern fuel stored away, i hear people say they will shoot several deer to get by on but if there`s no power how are ya going to store it, if your in cold winter country it will freeze but how are you going to cook it.
Survival means of the past , those old timers new how to get by but most don`t have a clue about that.
Hope none of this happens but it`s something to think about.

[3leggedturtle]

AR, more ammo, less weight . That being said here is an unasked for "tale" of what I'm gonna carry. A Ruger Charger with a brace and 1500 rounds of .22. Equipped with a Weaver 2.5X Post and Crosshair scope. As always YMMV, todd/3leg

[AJMD429]

The biggest drawback to the Garand is the low magazine capacity. The biggest drawback to the AR is simply that it is a P.O.S. AR. My preference is.

I'm not a fan of non wood stocks, but for something that I may one day need in bad times synthetic is probably better.

I'm warming up to my AR 'pistol' in 300 Blk for in-house use (versus the standby 45 Colt 16" Rossi). It needs to pass the 1000-round-with-zero-malfunction test though. Also a handgun in-house is still hard to beat.

As for if I had to go 'out there' in bad times, again I have a 45 Colt levergun with light and laser and red-dot sight that is dandy when doing farm chores and mostly I see nothing, or a possum or rarely a coyote, but could encounter a 2-leg.

If I knew there were 2-legs out there and didn't have the option to cower inside and call 911, I'd probably take either my M1A Scout like jeepnik posted, or the AR in 223 that has a good optic with 45 degree open sights (front is a crosshair globe made for the AR), laser, and 1,000 lumen Streamlight light. Took some practice getting used to but I really like it. I might fix up the M1A with a similar system - say an ACOG on the scope rail, and at 45 degrees irons, or another option I see people doing is a red-dot on the side with a scope on top.

Either gun would do - the AR holds more rounds and is lighter, but a hit with a 308 is a bigger thump.

Keep in mind that just like when hunting, SHOT PLACEMENT beats foot-pounds, every time.

Both shoot 'flat' enough for me to reach out as far as I'd be able, but the AR 'platform' has way more and better sighting options - a critical factor for many things.

Then there is the AR-10.....some would say the best of both ('AR' and '308') and some would say the worst of both ('heavy' and 'no piston').

Whatever a person gets for the 'bad times' gun, it NEEDS to be durable and more durable and even more durable, and shoot no matter how dirty or if dropped or gummy or whatever. AND it needs to have sights and lights and so on that fit YOUR needs - no 'mall ninja' stuff on the one hand, but also no 'pride in old-school-for-its-own-sake' nonsense. Get sights or whatever that YOU find practical and YOU can use for real-world results.

I find the 45 degree offset irons to be awesome fast and easy to use and transition to from a red-dot or scope primary. I intend to experiment with a red-dot or holo-sight at 45 degrees versus an optic primary. Maybe I'll set up the M1A that way.

[OldWin]

I think you made the right choice with the AR, Pitchy.

Having said that, I have owned an M1 and both 18&22 inch M1As for many years. They were my go to semi autos for decades.
However, for someone alone in the field for prolonged periods, I don't think they are the best choice anymore. Weight is too much of a factor in regards to ammo, mags, and everything else you will need.
There will be no resupply for the older guns.
Like them or not, the AR15 is the rifle of the US. They have proliferated. You will be able to better source what you need and it will be easier to carry.
You will not be engaging in "combat operations" it will be for defense mostly. You also won't be living on deer meat. Small game will be the biggest food source from the land.
A good quality LIGHTWEIGHT AR will serve well.

JMO

P.S.
While I realize this isn't one of your choices, you never know what makes it way to you.
Living in an area that is very cold in winter, don't overlook the vaunted AK. I used to carry one quite a bit snowshoeing. When used in a cold and snowy environment, it's advantages start to come to light. You can basically use one with mittens on. I like the utility of the 7.62x39 cartridge also. The sights are a drawback, but if your shots aren't far, it's somewhat mitigated.
Drawbacks are heavy and hard to carry mags (but they are indestructible), and a lack of easy adaptability for optics, lights, etc.
Oh! And opt for a solid stock or folding solid stock. Underfolders and the like suck.

[piller]

Just my opinion. An AR would be a good choice. I am certainly not a fan, but there are big advantages to using common calibers. Especially when the military uses it. The scum who would start Civil War Part II would be likely to use 5.56 and 9mm. You could resupply from the remains of the scum, or from National Guard leavings. While 5.56 is not at all ideal for stopping an attack, it will work. It can be used to hunt deer, rabbits, and squirrels. The weight is manageable, and you have bigger things for times when 5.56 is just too small.

[Grizz]

I have a ptr91 in 762. I like the 20 round mags. I have a bdc scope that puts it on at over 500M. For closer stuff I have an ar 556 with enough ammo for a while. I have a bdc scope for the AR that ranges to 500M also. I chose those calibers figuring resupply from the battle fields would be possible. Also boots and shoes and jackets, etc.

However I am not a war fighter and have zero desire to kill anyone, if I can avoid it. It's just that the logistics favor those two calibers, because I think it's the most amount of ammo around.

I am putting a 762x39 upper on one of my AR pistols for the same reason, there should be a lot of ammo available as gleaning, and because it will be the shortest AR pistol it will be my car and house gun, and I think marxists deserve to be shot with russian ammo, yes?

the reality is that any trained squad can kill the two of us without trying very hard, and the blackhawk can scorch the entire lot the house is built on and an A10 can plow the dirt down to the water table.

I doubt there will be any long term skirmishes, and I am more likely to be scooting outa harms way in my sailboat with a couple of bows, spears, and shotguns for provisioning along the way. beats those other options.

[hfcable]

i was always a 308 man, and contemptuous of the M16

i went into the military as a physician. was put into the RDF [ carter's Rapid Deployment Force , which i called the rapid depletion farce ] and trained every 6 months in the field with the M16. i was astonished ! i shot perfect scores on every course including the FAMfire course where targets pop up in singles and pairs, from 75 meters to 350 meters. with the standard open sights i never missed a single target ....ever !! the first sergeant of the whole dang thing scored me repeatedly....his comment was " Doc, if the balloon ever goes up, you are right beside me !" screw the garand and the m14, for a fighting rifle give me the M4 carbine.

[piller]

It would take a lot go get the Army involved. At first, it would be the alcoholics of the National Guard. Nothing that they would do except get drunk. The hood rats are going to be the bigger danger in the beginning.

[KWK]

Combine the two options: Mini-14?

[hfcable]

had a couple of mini 14s....handled well, nicely balanced. not nearly as reliable and no where near as accurate.

[Rusty]

When Audie Murphy was marching through the black forest he ditched the Garand and picked up a carbine, that should say something and most of his hits were head shots.

[AJMD429]

had a couple of mini 14s....handled well, nicely balanced. not nearly as reliable and no where near as accurate.

Wow. My Mini-14's have been among the most reliable guns I've ever owned. Most have been the 'middle' ones from around 1985-2005 or so.

[Pitchy]

Thanks guys great replies, hope it never comes to trouble but these days ya never know and we want to be somewhat prepared.

[Bill in Oregon]

Wish the Mini-14s didn't have such a spotty accuracy record.
Lenn, what are you running out of the Mossberg?

[Pitchy]

Wish the Mini-14s didn't have such a spotty accuracy record.
Lenn, what are you running out of the Mossberg?

The 590 Mariner holds nine rounds.

[RIHMFIRE]

long range... garand
close ...AR

[Grizz]

When Audie Murphy was marching through the black forest he ditched the Garand and picked up a carbine, that should say something and most of his hits were head shots.

when I was deer hunting to feed my family headshots were my first choice. I've always wondered what the percentage of enemy KIA are headshots in US battles on foreign fields. Anyone know? Have an educated guess?

[marlinman93]

Tough to beat a Garand, but I have both and the AR15 would be my go to rifle for all the reasons you listed, plus more. I don't have mine scoped either, but have a heads up display sight that allows the best of both worlds I think. No magnification, but no sights to line up either.

[piller]

Grizz, how effective a soldier is will always come down to training and experience. Training might keep them alive long enough to gain experience and become a true danger to their opposing force. After a couple of firefights, the soldier will be shooting to kill. Typically, the first firefight is such a shock that the soldier relies on training. After that, survival and experience take over. As far as head shots, I never heard anyone actually say.

[Pitchy]

Thanks guys, i`m mostly talking about scum bags invading your space, if the gov. comes for your guns in the end you will be dead.
IMO it`s a false hope you`ll survive that so it will come down to a individual choice, sneaking out the back door and heading for the hills may be the better option.

[hfcable]

had a couple of mini 14s....handled well, nicely balanced. not nearly as reliable and no where near as accurate.

Wow. My Mini-14's have been among the most reliable guns I've ever owned. Most have been the 'middle' ones from around 1985-2005 or so.

mine were very early ones, i heard they got them fixed. i love the balance and feel of the minni 14, and the M1 carbine.. just felt natural and fast to point.

[Pitchy]

Took the Bushy out to sight it in after removing a big scope i had on it and couldn`t hit nothing front sight is a blur.
S i compromised and installed a small 4 power scope on it and at least hit the target but not very good, target was at 100 yards.
Kinda hot out and not very comfortable so could be better but wanted to get it on target for now.

[AJMD429]

had a couple of mini 14s....handled well, nicely balanced. not nearly as reliable and no where near as accurate.

Wow. My Mini-14's have been among the most reliable guns I've ever owned. Most have been the 'middle' ones from around 1985-2005 or so.

mine were very early ones, i heard they got them fixed. i love the balance and feel of the minni 14, and the M1 carbine.. just felt natural and fast to point.

There is an outfit that makes add-on 'barrel stabilizers' for the Mini-14's that seem to cut groups around 50%. I installed one mostly for looks (they make the front end of the Mini-14 look like an M1A, but the 'gas tube' is just a stiffener. I posted a couple years back on it if you look under Mini-14 and my forum name you may find it.

>>> Here's a GunBlast review on the Har-Bar ' https://gunblast.com/JessHardin-Mini14.htm

[Pitchy]

Never mind decided to keep the factory trigger.

[jeepnik]

Re: 5.56 vs 7.62. The 5.56 is a pretty good varmit round that that works for most antipersonnel uses but is limited on larger game. The 7.62 is a very good antipersonnel round that works well on big game and acceptably on varmits.

I have nothing against the 5.56, but the AR platform has failed me whereas the M14/M1A platform has not. Then again, my dad always preferred the Thompson. So I guess it comes down to personal experience as to what one wants.

Regardless of what one chooses the words of my father have always rang true. "Every man should have at least one good rifle, and know how to use it". Getting a "good rifle" is pretty easy. It's the knowing how to use it (and the implied willingness to use it) where most fall short. Anyone with reasonable eyesight and good coordination can be taught to shoot with fair accuracy. But, I'm not sure you can teach the implied willingness to do so. Are folks born with it, or do the learn it as they grow? That comes down to the old nature vs nurture question.

[jeepnik]

Grizz, how effective a soldier is will always come down to training and experience. Training might keep them alive long enough to gain experience and become a true danger to their opposing force. After a couple of firefights, the soldier will be shooting to kill. Typically, the first firefight is such a shock that the soldier relies on training. After that, survival and experience take over. As far as head shots, I never heard anyone actually say.

Not sure about the comment about shooting to kill after a couple of firefights. I've read some writings that state quite a few soldiers actually don't shoot to kill. An ethics/morality thing. I don't know how you'd get any facts or figures about that unless soldiers admitted they didn't shoot to injure others in after action reports. I liken it to the practice of having one member of a firing quad issued a blank. This way all of the members could think that they weren't the one firing live ammo and thus avoid the quilt that is supposed to be present in some.

[COSteve]

Done

[COSteve]

Done

[Ysabel Kid]

The biggest drawback to the Garand is the low magazine capacity. The biggest drawback to the AR is simply that it is a P.O.S. AR. My preference is.

I'm not a fan of non wood stocks, but for something that I may one day need in bad times synthetic is probably better.

+1 on the M1A.

Doc, the AR pistol in .300 AC Blackout is my house gun now too.

[piller]

Kel Tec Sub2K in .40 cal with the version for Glock magazines has been used at the range. Not a single failure in about 1,000 rounds or more. Not fired much, but enough that it has been shown to be trustworthy. Sort of compact and handy. It sure has a different sound from the pistol. That round makes more of a snap sound from the carbine. It kicks up dirt a lot better out of the carbine, too. I keep it loaded and ready near my side of the bed. 2,000 lumen flashlight from Atwoods is close, too. While it would not bother me to put a few rounds through a miscreant in the middle of the night, I want to see what I am putting holes in. There are some leverguns loaded and ready to go nearby, too. I might not be the fastest with one, but I can empty one into a target fast enough that even if you are wearing body armor, the shock and impact will cause serious trauma.

[jeepnik]

But the Kel Tec isn't really a rifle. Pistol caliber carbine, but not the range an striking power of a true rifle cartridge. In fact, the 5.56 is probably just barely a rifle caliber really more of a carbine round and that's being generous. Seems lots of folks find it quite manageable in handguns. 7.62 not so much.

[Grizz]

Piller, that's the one I want! Mine is the 9mm with beretta mags, which are cheap enough. It's by the bed, in arms reach. My wife and I just went operations training this morning. If I ever find a 40 for sale I might buy it because I don't have anything in that caliber.

[COSteve]

Done

[Grizz]

Jeep, 556 is classified as an intermediate cartridge. Specifically designed to fit between 762 Nato and 45 ACP, or 9mm. So for us, if it's just an ordinary B&E home invasion, we don't feel undergunned with the 9mm carbine, or a 40. I cannot think of a single reason to use the 762 indoors. After all, no one wears body armor on their face, and that's my aimpoint.... If I HAVE TO shoot someone, the bullet will enter the nose structure. 9mm has been proven lethal out to 400 yards or so, what's the name of the guy who does penetration testing on pine boards..

just random thoughts on our thought process in our preps

[Grizz]

Steve, the keltec is FAR EASIER for my wife to control and shoot. I have an AR pistol in 300 BLK, that I am converting to 762x39. either of them are similar to your 30. which, if I had been thinking right, I would have bought 40 years ago. But 762 is way more gun than I actually need indoors.. It will be my truck gun when it's finished. And backup to my wife's keltec... Anyway, that's current thinking as we try to prep for the coming . . . whatevers.

[jeepnik]

Jeep, 556 is classified as an intermediate cartridge. Specifically designed to fit between 762 Nato and 45 ACP, or 9mm. So for us, if it's just an ordinary B&E home invasion, we don't feel undergunned with the 9mm carbine, or a 40. I cannot think of a single reason to use the 762 indoors. After all, no one wears body armor on their face, and that's my aimpoint.... If I HAVE TO shoot someone, the bullet will enter the nose structure. 9mm has been proven lethal out to 400 yards or so, what's the name of the guy who does penetration testing on pine boards..

just random thoughts on our thought process in our preps

The current term intermediate is just hot air. By your description the .30 carbine is an intermediate cartridge.

Pitchy posed a question about outdoors at relatively rifle ranges. So in that aspect a pistol caliber carbine is, my opinion only, a bit on the light side. Indoors I prefer a 20 ga. Outside the 7.62. A handguns primary beneficial quality is ease of transport and concealment. Would any of us take a handgun to a firefight if we had to? Or would be be armed with a rifle (or preferably a SAW).

[Grizz]

not my description, it's military doctrine, unless I've forgotten how to read. so, yes, 30 carbine is classed intermediate. like the AK47 is intermediate between the 762x51 and the AK74. just words, the only thing that counts is what happens to the brain when it intercepts one of these rounds, AND how many dwellings we want our strays running through.

anyway between us it matters not one whit. if i have to go to a fire fight i will carry 762 nato as my primary, with enough mags to extinguish the taliban. I don't want to be the first one to run dry... the antifas are the unAmerican taliban...

something i pray fervently will never happen

[piller]

If I can have more than 1, I will. A pistol caliber carbine at 50 yards is not something I want to be shot with. For his question, I did say I would take the AR when choosing only between those 2.

[COSteve]

Done

[COSteve]

Done