Why does anyone need an AR-15 ?

[blackhawknj]

Because they aren't man enough to handle an M-14 !

[swampyankee]

M-14,just another gas gun. You mean a 1903 Springfield. Now that's a man's rifle.

[bruce]

This is to early in the morning! I haven't even finished my first mug of coffee!

The 03 chambered in the renowned .30-06 caliber was queen of the battlefield with a justly earned reputation unmatched by any and envied by all.

The M-1 Garand was everything the 03 was not. It reflected the hard realities of the battlefield and the determination of JMG and others that the American serviceman would have in his hands the best possible weapon no if but when the next serious war developed. The M-1 was everything anyone could want throughout WWII and Korea. No one had anything that remotely matched it. One can only wonder what would have been the outcome had any of the axis nations had a similar general issue rifle at the start of WWII. The M-14/M-1A was a thoughtful product improvement of the M-1 that reflected conclusions drawn from WWII/Korea. It failed to anticipate the full swing to an all out assault carbine. Had it been lighter, smaller, shorter, etc., who's to say would would have been the outcome. The M-16/AR-15 ... simply the very best assault carbine available that has proven its effectiveness for over 40 years. None of these rifles were ever ideal in every possible setting. No rifle possibly can be. These rifles in their era were exceptional. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

For just about anything that needs to be shot ... AR-15 is an excellent rifle chambered in a outstanding caliber.

M-1A/M-14 was a fine product improvement of the M-1 Garand.

[Major Tom]

While the M-14 is a fine rifle (I carried one n 'Nam), I like the M-1 garand and my M1903A3. I own an AR-14 M4 which is also a fine rifle.

[Allen]

I feel that once the M16 jamming problems were reduced which caused many, many GI deaths, that it was a suitable (if necessary) replacement for the M1 carbine--not the M14. My 2 cents worth, I own M1A's, AR's and carbines.

[Sunray]

"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
"...Axis nations had a similar general issue rifle..." Same result. W.W. II was not ended by the use of a semi-auto rifle. It was ended by the massive difference in industrial capacity. And the bull dozer and 2.5 ton truck.
"...assault carbine..." The M-16 and it's offspring are not 'assault carbines'. They're not assault rifles either.
The M1A is not a battle rifle. It's a sporting rifle that looks like a battle rifle.
The AR-15 is not a battle rifle either. It too is a sporting rifle that just looks like a battle rifle.

[swampyankee]

[QUOTE=Sunray;515036]"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
.303 was a queen but the 30-06 was the KING.
I don't see a lot of new rifles chambered in .303 lately, still a lot in 30-06.

- - - Updated - - -

Gas guns the rifles of wimps.

[RED]

[QUOTE=swampyankee;515046][QUOTE=Sunray;515036]"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
.303 was a queen but the 30-06 was the KING.
I don't see a lot of new rifles chambered in .303 lately, still a lot in 30-06.

- - - Updated - - -

I think you are both wrong. There were around 5.5 million Garands produced and a paltry 17 million .303 Enfields. By far and away the most produced military rifle ever made was the 7.62X54 Mosin-Nagant with somewhere between 35 - 60 million produced and are still being made. Just my .02.

BTW, my # 1 loved rifles are my 1903's... all of which have been what most guys call "Bubbaized." I call them custom built actions.

[bruce]

"...was queen of the battlefield..." Nope. The .303 Brit both outnumbered and outlasted the .30-06.
"...Axis nations had a similar general issue rifle..." Same result. W.W. II was not ended by the use of a semi-auto rifle. It was ended by the massive difference in industrial capacity. And the bull dozer and 2.5 ton truck.
"...assault carbine..." The M-16 and it's offspring are not 'assault carbines'. They're not assault rifles either.
The M1A is not a battle rifle. It's a sporting rifle that looks like a battle rifle.
The AR-15 is not a battle rifle either. It too is a sporting rifle that just looks like a battle rifle.

With respect, perhaps the "queen of the battlefield" is a title that applies appropriately to the .303 British. Do very much appreciate that error being brought to my attention. It would be more accurate to say that the .30-06 was the King of the battlefield. When Townsend Wheelen used the term "queen" it did have a different connotation that is the case today.

As to the matter of how WWII was ended ... trucks and equipment are fine things. Wonderful for getting men into position, etc. But in the end, trucks never won a fight any more than a bulldozer. Men win fights. Men use guns to take and hold ground. It's that simple. Somebody has to close with the enemy and get the business settled. Just pointing cannons at people without the use of infantry ... you end up with plowed ground.

The M-1A ... it is what it is, the civilian legal version of the M-14. Actually, it is equal to the M-14 which, without the selector switch in place, was just a semi-auto battle rifle.

The AR-15 is a carbine in the eyes and estimate of most folks. This may not satisfy the cognizant who delight in debating small distinctions that are mostly irrelevant. The M-4 which is simply a M-16 brought up to date, is most certainly a carbine. There is not much need for a full size/caliber battle rifle. Even shortly after WWI folks with experience rapidly concluded that such rifles as were commonly used in the war were completely appropriate for the previous war. The British and US set about seeking to develop semi-auto rifles of about 7mm (excellent bore choice). If the depression had not made such a change impossible, the US would have entered WWII with a ten shot M-1 Garand chambered in .276 Pederson. For just about any use in the field, it would have been outstanding. Practicality won out. It just made more sense to keep the supply system as simple as possible. JMHO. Sincerely. bruce.

[bruce]

Re: Bolt/Semi-autos. A few nights ago was reading about the "mad minute," etc. Good bedtime reading. Reality was ... few could do better than 20 rounds a minute. Any of the rifles of that era produced so much recoil that no one could sustain significantly high rates of fire with any bolt-action rifle. For a while someone might punch out 40-50 rounds. But, very much doubt that any Tommy or Doughboy or Fritz could sustain anything amounting to a high volume of fire from their issue rifles. Now, that reality changed dramatically with the introduction of the M-1 Garand. Many of us know by experience that it is entirely possible to maintain sustained rates of fire with a M-1 Garand that would simply lay any man with a bolt-action rifle in the shade. If the semi-auto rifle was not superior, every nation in the world would have continued to issue bolt-action rifles to its troops. The superiority of the M-1 Garand was immediately recognized not simply by upper echelon folks, it was recognized by the men who used them. One afternoon I came out of the woods behind the house of one of my church members. I was carrying my Remington 03-A3 rifle in issue condition. My church member served with the USMC in the PTO. He looked at my rifle and then said, "This thing'll get you killed! It'll get you killed! To slow preacher! To slow!" He said he started out with a 03 rifle. He said just as soon as he could "that thing had a accident..." and that he got his hands on a M-1 Garand. A little over 40 years after the war, he was adamant that the M-1 Garand was the reason he and other men like him had a chance to live. Sincerely. bruce.