« Buying Used Guns: It ain’t how much it’s worth, it’s how bad people want it | Main | Substandard Issue: Why can't the military give good guns to our troops? »

March 08, 2006

This page has been moved to http://www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut

If your browser doesn’t redirect you to the new location, please visit The Gun Nut at its new location: www.fieldandstream.com/blogs/gun-nut.

AKs, M-1s, and Field & Stream: David Petzal on military small arms

More on “The Father of Ten Million Rifles.” It’s been a long, long time (maybe 70 years) since Field & Stream had any kind of article on military small arms. In the years before World War II, and during the war, we covered the subject regularly, courtesy of our two gun columnists, Captain Paul Curtis and Colonel Townsend Whelen. Curtis wrote about shotguns and Whelen about rifle, but military guns were a subject close to their hearts.

Our readers at the time felt the same way. Everyone knew the war was coming, and that it was going to be a doozer, and millions of men were either veterans of World War I or getting ready for World War II, so military stuff was of major interest to them.

Why we stopped is a mystery to me. All guns are interesting, as are the stories behind them, and I was glad to see General Kalashnikov and his rifle get their due in print.

Kalashnikov is a gun-design genius. If you go back and read the old issues from the 1930s and early 1940s, you can read about another genius named John Garand,  whose M-1 rifle was called (by no less an authority than General George S. Patton)  “the greatest battle implement ever devised.”

The M-1 was the first semi-auto rifle issued to any army, and it served us very well in two of our glorious wars. When I enlisted in 1963, there were still a great many serving soldiers who had fought in those conflicts, and to a man they swore by John Garand’s invention.

Garand’s design was the product of a time when careful aimed fire at long range was the watchword. The M-1 holds eight rounds, fires semi-auto only,  and can hit reliably at 600 yards. The AK-47 holds 30 rounds, fires semi- or full-auto, and is accurate to maybe 300 yards. The M-1 is highly reliable. The AK is virtually unstoppable. The M-1 is now a relic, while the AK will probably still be killing people as the 21st century closes.


Ranger NIck

As a old soldier Dave, you are as right as rain.

When shooting NRA High-Power matches, I had a AR 15A2, M1A, and a M1 Garand. As I performed in these exercises over the years, I kept going back to the Garand. It felt better to me. Was accurate and looked great as a battle rifle should. It even "kissed my thumb" a couple of times.

I own AK's and find them totally reliable. Awsome for close range work. 300 yards is it's pratical limits.

Two finer guns that were ever made. Thanks to John of Canada and Michael of Russia.

Bill Lester

"The AK-47...is accurate to maybe 300 yards."


Would that be minute-of-truck or minute-of-HUMVEE accuracy?


The M14 will virtually run circles around the M1 Garand. It is much more accurate at longer range, but you have to make range adjustment (sight picture) for shorter ranges (50 - 75 meters). I love the ol' M1 too. M1/2 Carbine was a waste of talent....M16 same.
AK is preferable over the M16 because of reliability and firepower a .30 cal vs .22 cal.
Boys in Iwack callin' for M14 (7.62X51) for penetration of cinderblock hideouts, and return of the M1911A1 .45 for "knock on ass" power. 9mm for Germans and sissies...(just kiddin')

'nuff said


Please give genius where due. Browning brought America into the 20th century with the .45 auto, Browning Auto Rifle (fat cats afraid to use it in WWI in case the Germans got hold of it...smart huh), Both light and heavy machine guns, et cetra.
Sold the patent to Colt for the M1911 pistol....still don't get credit for that.

'nuff said

Our Blogs