In a review at Survivalblog, "Zorro" weighs the relative merits of the WWI-era M1 Garand and the Vietnam-era M14. He opines thus:
The Garand is restricted to a 8 round en bloc clip and, the clips are inexpensive. Many clips can be purchased for a hundred dollars and, they can be stored loaded without weakening anything. Conversely, the M1A/M14 has a detachable 20 round magazine which is expensive (around $25 to $40 each). Besides, the magazines need to be rocked into place and, this can be fussy for the unpracticed.
The M14's magazines won't seat if you don't load them correctly. And this is a point in favor of the Garand. Which will injure your thumb if you don't load it correctly.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
If I wrote and typed that bad I would be embarrassed to put my name to it.
ReplyDeleteFirst there is the spacing mistakes, the missing commas, the commas with spaces in front! [facepalm]
Let's just call them grammar errors and add his confusing “may be” with “maybe.”
He contradicts himself. (States there is no diff between the M1 and M14, but picks one over the other anyway.
He has sentences that do not belong in the paragraphs they are in. (And bad, wannabee-Yoda lead-ups to some of them.)
Uses “of course” and “Many have said” (etc.) when making a point he can't back up.
Good news: there were footnotes. Bad news: he quoted mostly the same source for most of his points.
Worse news: that source was Boston T Party. Worst news: he quoted the guy so often it felt like reading a rehash of Boston T Party.
Then there is this little gem:
“I restricted the field to the weapons that I thought were the best.”
This is how egomaniacs try, and fail, to look humble.