Which is better an M1 Garand rifle or an M16?

Answer 1

Depends on your definition of "better".

Both rifles have their pros and cons, and each will do what the other one cannot. Briefly, here is the rundown:

M-1

Pros:

• superior range
• Can be used effectively with a bayonet
• Much more accurate at long (1000+yd) distances (M-16 max effective range is only 500 yds)
• Serious stopping power
• Better reliability (less jams)
• accessories include, cheek pad on the stock, able to mount a scope, rifle grenade mount, bayonet mount, flash supressor (later models), bi-pod (later models)

Cons:

• Low magazine capacity (8rd clips) great for WWII rifle standards, but inferior to modern assault rifles

• Length is not suitable for close quarters combat unless you are prepared to beat someone down with it.
• heavy. the M1 Garand weighs 11.5 pounds. Try carrying that along with all the heavy ammunition and whatever else you may need for an extended period of time. it sucks, it was normal weight for a WWII era rifle, but too heavy for todays standards with 60 pounds of additional gear
• The stock is not inline with the barrel. this means that the recoil produces a torque force that travels over the shoulder, thus increasing muzzle rise, not a modern design like the M-16, which forces the recoil directly back into the shoulder, instead of back and up.

M-16

Pros

• Standard magazine holds 30 rounds
• Is lighter and easier to carry. it weighs 8 pounds when loaded.
• Can accept tons of accessories easily
• Fully automatic The M16A1 and A3 were fully automatic, but the military only issues the M16A2 and M16A4 standard, both of which are limited to 3 round burst. The same goes for the M4 carbine. The civilian AR-15 is limited to semi-automatic fire
• Relatively low stopping power, but the M855 bullet (5.56x45 NATO) is designed to yaw and fragment when entering a wound after traveling through a person's body a certain distance. With an effective shot, the M855 can cause significantly more damage than an M1 30-06 cartridge. however, you have a greater chance for more flesh wounds (through and through) if the bullet does not have the time to yaw and fragment
• Inline stock. this sends the recoil directly into the shoulder and significant prevents muzzle rise.

Cons

• Susceptible to foreign debris causing jams.
• Not effective as a Close quarters combat weapon, especially when you intend to beat someone down with it, due to its plastic frame construction
• the 5.56x45 NATO round loses effectiveness past 500yds (300 for M4) due to the weight of the round.
• Parallax caused by the 2.5 inch raised sights is greater. one must zero the rifle for 25 yards to match a 300 yard zero. this means that anything within 25 yards one may have to fire high, and anything in between 25 and 300 would theoretically need to be fired low. the practical difference is minuscule and is often discarded

So, if you are after long-range shooting and don't need to run around much (unless you are in shape), the M1 is for you. If you need to move a lot, walk far, or fight in tight quarters, the M16 is the better choice.

The M1 was a great advance for 1936, but it is obsolete as a military weapon. This is due both to the changing warfare and to the improvements made to the M16. There is little difference in the accuracy between the two at their effective ranges, provided we are comparing rifles in similar condition. Both rifles are used in target matches with great success.

As to the bayonet, the M16 can mount one and only a split-second is needed to switch the hand to the stock, but one must be careful not to smash the enemy's head too roughly with the stock. The recoil spring is located in the stock, and if broken the weapon will not fire. The advent of the rifled bullet in the 1800's greatly reduced the chances of bayonet encounters, but they still happen occasionally, and in this area the M1 Garand is definitely superior.

Use of accessories such as tactical lights and underbarrel grenade launchers can make attaching a bayonet to an M16 impossible, same with the Garand, mounting a grenade launcher or flash supressor to the muzzle makes it impossible to mount the bayonet, however, the M1 being built like a tank, can easily be used as a club and rifle butting as a substitute for a bayonet.

Another important difference is in how much ammo you can comfortably carry. The .30 caliber (7.62 mm) rounds of the M1 are much heavier than the .223 (5.56 mm) rounds of the M16 because of heavier bullets and larger cases containing more propellant. The standard load-out of a US infantryman with an M16 is 210 rounds - 6 magazines in pouches and 1 in the rifle. With an M1 it was 143 rounds - 10 clips in the cartridge belt, 6 clips (48 rounds) in the standard issue cotton bandoleer, and one clip in the rifle.

Answer 2

They are two different weapon classes, with different purposes, none is overall better than the other, one is a service rifle, and one is a personal defence weapon. the M-1 Carbine is more effective in close quarter battle and as a personal defence weapon, better suited for urban combat and clearing out houses, while the M-16 is a rifle and as a result, has better range and accuracy intended for longer range shots. They both have strengths and weaknesses, it depends on what situation you're in, in some situations the Carbine is superior, in others, the M-16 is better.