#77 Eggplant
I have nothing against the Garand. My dad carried one across Europe with the 71st Infantry. He qualified Expert with it and bloody near any other weapon they had, including the BAR. I found this out after I found his military records after his last heart attack while helping look for his medical insurance papers. He never regained consciousness, and he never did talk much about the war. Turned out that he was one of the first non-white squad leaders in the combat infantry. I’m pretty sure that besides his natural inclinations to do everything the best he could, it involved the necessity of being able to beat the odd racist at every point of competition, including I suspect behind the barracks. I’d like a Garand myself, for family historical reasons.
It is a good weapon, albeit a bit heavy by modern standards. It is chambered for the older 30.06 instead of the .308/7.72 mm. 30.06 is made in this country, is still fairly common, and is heavily reloaded by private individuals. If I could not get a 7.62 NATO weapon, I would consider the GARAND a very acceptable substitute.
The M-16 in all of its modern variants [the old ones DID jam constantly if not religiously maintained] has its advantages and disadvantages. The 5.56 NATO round is our military standard so it has the logistical plus the same as the 7.62 NATO. It is lighter. The full auto mode is over-rated and is not on the modern versions because it is inaccurate and wastes ammo. 3 round bursts are all you need.
There are disadvantages in that it has a shorter effective range, and in brush it is more affected by what is growing between you and your target. These were partially compensated for with the SS109 round and a tighter rifling twist in the modern versions. Still and all, it is not going to reach out as far, or hit as hard at its extreme range as the 7.62 NATO or 30.06. This can have consequences if you are in more open country either in combat or are after large “bush tucker”. You have to stalk closer before firing.
A lot of the deployed troops, especially SpecOps types, have complained bitterly about the lack of effective range and killing power of the 5.56 round, and there is now a special upgraded 6.8mm version that does better that is being issued to deployed SpecOps. But the Army as a whole does not want to pay to replace its battle rifles with something better, so 5.56 is going to be around for a long time. Ammunition for the upgraded version is far from common, so even though it is a more effective weapon, unless you have a secure source for enough ammo, I would pass on it.
In “Military Operations in Urbanized Terrain” [MOUT] the M-16 is lighter, handier in tight spaces [especially the M-4 carbine variant], and range and killing power problems are cancelled by the shorter ranges involved.
Take your planned tactical situation into consideration as a factor in weapon choices.
Especially if you have a group of kindred souls, it might be worthwhile acquiring a couple of different Field Manuals for cash at gun shows. MOUT and Basic Combat come to mind, for study. Remember, your goal is to defend you and yours, not to go Goblin or Orc hunting; at least at first. If they don’t encounter you, they cannot hurt you. If there are later requirements to hunt Uruk Hai, hopefully there will be Oathkeepers about to organize things.
Subotai Bahadur
