M1-Garand vs. M-16

sickpup

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2004
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by BarcelonaBlom
Garand. It is reliable as heck and can actually kill a person instead of wound.
Yeah, but wasn’t that the intent of the M-16 (to wound and not necessarily kill)? I remember reading somewhere that the M-16’s (unofficial) intent is to wound and maim the enemy. The thinking was – a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded/incapacitated soldier is a liability and resource drain for the enemy. It takes medics and supplies and such to deal with a casualty, but it doesn’t take any extra effort or supplies to deal with a fatality.

I’ve never been able to validate that claim, and I have my doubts about it… anyone out there know for sure? I’m fairly certain this theory spits in the face of the Geneva conventions, but you can’t beat the cold calculus of the whole idea.
 

DingBat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
How does wounding, rather than killing, spit in the face of the Geneva Conventions? Do the Conventions mandate killing?

The M16 has a bit of a bad rap. The original version was probably too complicated for the U.S. Army at the time. The army ignored Stoners requirements for a new cartridge powder and continued to use the old stock. The only problem was, the old powder was dirty and fouled the gun. IIRC, there were additional shortcuts taken during manufacturing that made the jamming issue worse.

Beyond that, comparing the Garand and the M16 is apples and oranges. Different times, different needs.
 
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
2,155
Reaction score
1
Location
Secret Island Base
Country
llUnited Kingdom
Originally posted by sickpup
Yeah, but wasn’t that the intent of the M-16 (to wound and not necessarily kill)? I remember reading somewhere that the M-16’s (unofficial) intent is to wound and maim the enemy. The thinking was – a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded/incapacitated soldier is a liability and resource drain for the enemy. It takes medics and supplies and such to deal with a casualty, but it doesn’t take any extra effort or supplies to deal with a fatality.

I’ve never been able to validate that claim, and I have my doubts about it… anyone out there know for sure? I’m fairly certain this theory spits in the face of the Geneva conventions, but you can’t beat the cold calculus of the whole idea.
But a wounded enemy can still hold a rifle or pistol and fire bullets back at you and your buddies. And a wounded enemy might come back one day to fight again - with all the experiences of his previous combat under his belt, possibly making him a better soldier. I think I'd prefer a weapon that would permanently remove the problem.

Dr. S.
 

Marines

Member
Joined
Apr 13, 2004
Messages
1,019
Reaction score
0
Location
Surrounded By Commun
The M-1 is a very reliable weapon that will still fire even if it is cloged with dirt and rust. I sorry to say that the M-16 doesn't wound, for those of us who have actually used it it kills pretty well.

Meant to wound:laugh:

Semper Fi
1st Bn 10th Marines, Iraq
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
421
Reaction score
1
Location
Fairfax, Va
Originally posted by sickpup
Yeah, but wasn’t that the intent of the M-16 (to wound and not necessarily kill)? I remember reading somewhere that the M-16’s (unofficial) intent is to wound and maim the enemy. The thinking was – a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded/incapacitated soldier is a liability and resource drain for the enemy. It takes medics and supplies and such to deal with a casualty, but it doesn’t take any extra effort or supplies to deal with a fatality.

I’ve never been able to validate that claim, and I have my doubts about it… anyone out there know for sure? I’m fairly certain this theory spits in the face of the Geneva conventions, but you can’t beat the cold calculus of the whole idea.
As long as the bullet is not frangible it should not violate any rules of the Geneva Convention. The ballistic "tumbling effect" is not legislated.
 

tactician01

Recruit
Joined
Apr 19, 2004
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Location
Georgetown, TX
Country
llUnited States
I like both weapons equally...well...nah...Garand!

In the matter of the M-16 purpose:

The thinking behind reducing NATO Standard calibers to 5.56mm and 7.62mm (.223 and .308, respectivley) was that incapacitating
the enemy was just as effective as killing them. A wounded soldier is out of action just as a killed enemy soldier is out of action.

As some of you may know, the 5.56mm round is not very stable. When it contacts human flesh, the 5.56mm round will tumble through the victim's body, thus having lethal force if placed in the right area of the enemy's body. The upside to this is that, if placed in a less lethal area (i.e. the upper leg), the round will be heavily incapacitating.

Just thought I'd share my knowledge!

And by the way, I'm a high school student.

Nice thread XO,
Hooya
 

RetPara

Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2004
Messages
51
Reaction score
0
Location
Michigan...
Country
llUnited States
I'll go with the M16A2 with a scope thank you. The Garand is a sweetheart... but your ass is mine when I hear the 'clang' of the clip being ejected....:D
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by sickpup
Yeah, but wasn’t that the intent of the M-16 (to wound and not necessarily kill)? I remember reading somewhere that the M-16’s (unofficial) intent is to wound and maim the enemy. The thinking was – a dead soldier is a dead soldier, but a wounded/incapacitated soldier is a liability and resource drain for the enemy. It takes medics and supplies and such to deal with a casualty, but it doesn’t take any extra effort or supplies to deal with a fatality.

I’ve never been able to validate that claim, and I have my doubts about it… anyone out there know for sure? I’m fairly certain this theory spits in the face of the Geneva conventions, but you can’t beat the cold calculus of the whole idea.
Why do you think I said that. I heard that the entire .223 (5.56mm NATO) was designed for wounding...
 

BarcelonaBlom

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2004
Messages
1,093
Reaction score
0
Location
Pensacola, FL
Country
llUnited States
Oh Yeah?

Originally posted by RetPara
I'll go with the M16A2 with a scope thank you. The Garand is a sweetheart... but your ass is mine when I hear the 'clang' of the clip being ejected....:
Gimme a Garand with iron sights and one bullet (Ball please). Put us in a field about 250m away from each other...

"My seven versus your one?"

"I only need ONE Mr. Bond." (Good Movie)

I am a pretty good shot but really I wouldn't mind owning both rifles, in fact I would love to own either. (All I have is a German WW2 98k) Add a Colt M1911A1 and I'll be snug as a bug. well I would like to own an SKS too.
 

sickpup

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2004
Messages
119
Reaction score
0
Location
Ohio
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by DingBat
How does wounding, rather than killing, spit in the face of the Geneva Conventions? Do the Conventions mandate killing?
No, but Protocol I, Article 35, Para 2 says that “it is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”

I think there are one or two other statements in the conventions that could be twisted to fit the case. I’d say some goobers in the UN would take a chance at jumping on that and saying that the US is breaking the “rules”.

Originally posted by Doctor Sinister
But a wounded enemy can still hold a rifle or pistol and fire bullets back at you and your buddies. And a wounded enemy might come back one day to fight again - with all the experiences of his previous combat under his belt, possibly making him a better soldier.
True, but I think in this case, wounded/maimed means ruined for life and not just out of the fight for a few weeks. A severely wounded soldier is going to impact morale, mobility, and logistics.
 

Gepard

Member
Joined
Apr 22, 2004
Messages
27
Reaction score
0
Location
Alabama
Country
llUnited States
M16

I'm not a huge fan of the M16. However, there are a couple of important points to remember.

The ammunition of the M16 weights a lot less. That means you can carry much more. In addition, the powder is truly smokeless. The ammunition for the Garand was not as smokeless. This would give you away. In addition, when you finished the clip in a Garand, there was a distinct clang. Germans learned to listen for the clang. In addition, the M16 weighs less than the Garand.

You might do better to compare the Karabiner 98b, Sturmgewehr 44, Tokarev rifle, Lee-Enfield, and the Garand. You would compare the Steyr AUG, FA MAS, FN FAL, L85, M-16, Galil, HK G3, and the AK47. I think that comparing weapons designed 30 years apart does not make much sense.

In this case, I would say the Sturmgewehr 44 is way ahead of the Garand. Of the more modern battle rifles, I think the AK47 was a better design than the M16. I like a battle rifle that can take a licking and keep on ticking.

(Edit: Forgot to mention. A wounded soldier requires 4 other soldiers to carry him out. In addition, wounded soldiers eat up more resources and supplies for no return in combat strength. Therefore, from a logisitics point of view, better to wound a soldier than kill him.)
 

DingBat

Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2003
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Re: M16

Originally posted by Gepard

In this case, I would say the Sturmgewehr 44 is way ahead of the Garand. Of the more modern battle rifles, I think the AK47 was a better design than the M16. I like a battle rifle that can take a licking and keep on ticking.
I've mentioned previously that I recently saw a documentary with Kalashnikov and Stoner comparing the AK47 and M16. While they are both considered assault rifles, they really do have different basic philosophies behind them.

The AK47 was designed as a submachine gun with some rifle capabilities. This is borne out by the fact that the "rock and roll" setting is the first setting on the selector switch. On the other hand, the M16 was designed more as a rifle, with automatic fire capability.

They did a comparison of the two firing at targets a few hundred meters distant (IIRC). The bolt on the AK47 is so big that the rifle really jumps around when fired. The shooter had trouble even hitting the target (from a standing position), while with the M16 all shots were on target.

Kalashnikov did specifically say that the AK was designed to take a crapload of punishment and consideration was given to it's use as a club in hand to hand combat.

Basically, on the side of the M16 was accuracy (at range), and weight of ammo and gun. On the AK side was penetration, sturdiness, and ease of use.
 
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
1,184
Reaction score
0
Location
Staten Island, NY
Re: Re: M16

Originally posted by DingBat
...The bolt on the AK47 is so big that the rifle really jumps around when fired. The shooter had trouble even hitting the target (from a standing position), while with the M16 all shots were on target.

Kalashnikov did specifically say that the AK was designed to take a crapload of punishment and consideration was given to it's use as a club in hand to hand combat.

Basically, on the side of the M16 was accuracy (at range), and weight of ammo and gun. On the AK side was penetration, sturdiness, and ease of use.
Technology supporting doctrine.
 

hogdriver

Member
Joined
Jan 29, 2004
Messages
97
Reaction score
0
Location
Minot, North Dakota
Country
llUnited States
Originally posted by Airforce 1
M1-Garand vs. M-16
I own a Garand and would never even consider trading it for an M-16. It is a powerful, accurate and dependable weapon. It's .30-06 round will knock down whoever it hits
 
Joined
Jan 21, 2004
Messages
421
Reaction score
1
Location
Fairfax, Va
Re: Re: M16

Originally posted by DingBat
I've mentioned previously that I recently saw a documentary with Kalashnikov and Stoner comparing the AK47 and M16. While they are both considered assault rifles, they really do have different basic philosophies behind them.

The AK47 was designed as a submachine gun with some rifle capabilities. This is borne out by the fact that the "rock and roll" setting is the first setting on the selector switch. On the other hand, the M16 was designed more as a rifle, with automatic fire capability.

They did a comparison of the two firing at targets a few hundred meters distant (IIRC). The bolt on the AK47 is so big that the rifle really jumps around when fired. The shooter had trouble even hitting the target (from a standing position), while with the M16 all shots were on target.

Kalashnikov did specifically say that the AK was designed to take a crapload of punishment and consideration was given to it's use as a club in hand to hand combat.

Basically, on the side of the M16 was accuracy (at range), and weight of ammo and gun. On the AK side was penetration, sturdiness, and ease of use.
When it comes to sheer reliability the AK-47 has a lot more in common with the M-1 Garand than the M-16. From a technology standpoint the M-16 was a big leap forward, but at the sacrifice of some reliability (which governmental involvement made worse).
 

Patrocles

Member
Joined
Apr 3, 2004
Messages
1,794
Reaction score
5
Location
Chicago, IL
I think I read some posts stating what sickpup mentioned about being designed to maim enemy rather than outright kill. Don't know if buy that...perhaps this coul be a byproduct of using 5.56mm ammo?

next round:
Kentucky long rifle vs. PPSH41 smg

followed by rock sling vs. longbow

:crazy:
 

paul mullin

Member
Joined
Feb 4, 2004
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
Location
new york
Country
llUnited States
Its deffinately apples and oranges, for long range and reliability the m1 is supperior.
For close in firepower and controlabilty the m 16, and it has plenty of killing power, just don't hunt Kodiak bears with it; you might piss them off.
 
Top