A friend of my dads who severed in the US army as an MP in a armour bat. 1958-65 (aprox). He said that when the change over came from m-1 to m-14 they hated it. The Garand was a very solid rifle while the m-14 had "lots little parts that would break or become lost". Gen. Paton has been quoted to say" that the M1 (Garand) was the finest battle implement ever developed". Now here is the real question Garand verse FN FAL. Maybe some older forces members can shed some light on this. All this vs that BS is BS unless it is field tested, not basement/range tested



















































