text:
if you could only own one, ar15 or garand?
Tools and Technologies
Rifle Country
> if you could only own one, ar15 or garand?
February 27, 2009, 09:30 PM
ok, maybe you can have both, but which do you prefer, the ar15, or the m1 garand?
If you enjoyed reading about "if you could only own one, ar15 or garand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
February 27, 2009, 09:31 PM
AR. Cheaper ammo, can get uppers in SOOO many different calibers, lighter overall weight, more ergonimic.
February 27, 2009, 09:32 PM
Garand..........History and one potent battle rifle............:D
February 27, 2009, 09:36 PM
But..We don't have to only own one!
I voted AR.
February 27, 2009, 09:36 PM
They both really have the "fun factor",they both are comfortable and excellent accuracy potential rifles.
But if I had to choose I'd go Garand,just enjoy the larger caliber,enjoy the fact that the people at the range always look at it,they have that allure.
February 27, 2009, 09:37 PM
But..We don't have to only own one!
you have a preference?
February 27, 2009, 09:50 PM
The Garand is a great rifle and my both of my grandfathers weapon they used in WWII.
The M16/AR is also a great rifle and was what I used in the service, so its near and dear to me.
I say AR 15.
February 27, 2009, 10:00 PM
you have a preference?
Will you accept "both"? aka can't decide.
Having to take one? (Hopefully never faced with that)an AR would have to be the "one"
February 27, 2009, 10:00 PM
I carried an M16/AR everyday for the better part of 20 years. If I had joined the USAF in 1954 instead of 1984 I am sure I would have voted for the grand.
February 27, 2009, 10:02 PM
well, thats an easy one. i voted ar15. mostly because almost all (including our beloved garand) old military rifles are butt ugly:barf: the ar, is no beauty queen, but at least it looks decent:evil:
February 27, 2009, 10:05 PM
I voted AR simply because IMHO, it's advanced technology next to the Garand.
Assuming you are talking about the gun alone, and leaving caliber options open.
February 27, 2009, 10:07 PM
In this, the modern world, it is a no brainer for me to choose the AR-15.
Since I can own both, I do, and appreciate both platforms and the fact I don't have to play Russian and choose what the Party State decides is best for me.
Boba Fett
February 27, 2009, 10:08 PM
The question is a bit vague.
For what application would I be using them for? Defense? Fun? Hunting? Collecting?
If I'm getting one for defense and practical use, I'd go with the AR.
I voted for the Garand because I love the rifle, its looks, its history, and the wonderful *Ping* as the clip is ejected: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9d01zAmnMY
I would also like to add that the OP's signature is, at best, disturbing. :barf:
February 27, 2009, 10:11 PM
like the pirates say AR matey
February 27, 2009, 10:17 PM
An AR, no doubt about it. You can't really customize an M1, but the possibilities are endless on an AR.
February 27, 2009, 10:30 PM
If I can have only one...AR-15 because I can get different uppers in different calibers.
February 27, 2009, 10:34 PM
There's alot of AR-15's that I wouldn't stake my life on. I've never seen a Garand that I would say that about.
February 27, 2009, 10:53 PM
Range and power.
February 27, 2009, 11:11 PM
Also m1a over ar15 too. :neener:
February 27, 2009, 11:13 PM
Well a gun isn't all about shootin' which is why I pick the Garand. I can't think of a more addicting and pleasing sound then that >ping< after you've spent your allowance. And let's be real here, in a class 5 zombie invasion (the deadliest) then you want some power. Plus I imagine it would be over all more accurate.
February 27, 2009, 11:19 PM
I say both. SOCOM and Scout! :D
February 27, 2009, 11:22 PM
+1 for an AR with multiple uppers
February 27, 2009, 11:24 PM
well I would say without a doubt ar-15. several reasons for that. First let me say the Garand is a great gun that I hope to own eventually, but there is a reason I went for the AR first. Lets see, cheaper ammo, available hi capacity mags, an incredible variety of customization options, and, well, one heck of a cool factor too. I would love to get a garand and will in time, but for all practical purposes, AR all the way.
unless of course you are shooting from a trench..
February 27, 2009, 11:28 PM
not to mention the optics.. with a garand, though they are pretty dern accurate, you are still using human eyes to look potentially a few hundred yards... I would rather a nice optic to examine the nose hairs at the same distance... makes being accurate a whole lot easier. sorry to all the IRON site enthusiasts..
February 27, 2009, 11:30 PM
As awesome as the Garand is, it's kind of like comparing a vacuum tube to a laptop, IMO
AR all the way
February 27, 2009, 11:54 PM
Garand. No competition.
With a Garand, generally speaking, if I can see it, I can shoot it. With iron sights.
Ammo for a Garand may be more expensive than for an AR-15, but in the absence of rounds in the magazine I can be assured that I am still holding a very intimidating and potent weapon: a club. It's a Louisville Slugger and Sherman Tank all rolled into one menacing rifle!
February 28, 2009, 12:02 AM
im not so sure that "cheaper ammo" has merit for the ar15's case.
i thought that too till i found out that you can get m2 military ball 30-06 for 67 dollars per 240rds.
brass case, non corrosive, boxer primed, and reloadable.
you mcan even get 192 rds already in en-block clips for 62 bux.
February 28, 2009, 12:20 AM
garand ,if i hit something i know its going to drop on the first shot (I hunt) no disrespect to the ar guys i know shot placement is critical but i wouldn't want to go after moose with a ar15 ,or a bear , that would be suicide ,plus when i pick up a garand and think "this is the rifle the greatest generation carried " my first impression of the ar 15 wasn't good. my buddie built a stag arms m4 look alike. Its as accurate as hell ,sights are great stripping couldn't be any easier,recoil ......what recoil,my only thing against it is that it every time u clean it its its a pain to clean (bolt in particular ) and id u don't clean them locking lug recess's good it jams,that what happened to me . the only 2 fault i can see in the garand is weight ,and the e block clip .
February 28, 2009, 01:08 AM
Based on weight, ergonomics, and magazine capacity, AR all the way.
missouri dave
February 28, 2009, 09:17 AM
February 28, 2009, 09:33 AM
I do own only one: a Garand; zero interest in an AR.
February 28, 2009, 09:59 AM
I own both, and I carried both an M14 and an M16 in the service.
I like my AR ok, but I'm voting M1 all the way.
February 28, 2009, 10:06 AM
I have to vote for the AR. There is every evidence that the current adminstration intends to rebuild our society into a socialist state. That will include restrictions on gun ownership by every means. So-given the huge availability of ar's I would have to vote for the AR. Next gun, something in a larger caliber.:)
Boba Fett
February 28, 2009, 12:46 PM
So-given the huge availability of ar's I would have to vote for the AR.
True, there are more AR's out there.
But what about the dependability/reliability? I always thought the garands were a more of a drop-it-in-the-mud-keep-fighting rifle and the ARs are a bit more touchy and need a bit more care and maintenance? What do the rest of you think?
I agree with you though. If it comes to defense/government collapse, I'd go with the AR too. But I wouldn't feel at a disadvantage if I had to use a garand. And as I said in an earlier post, the garand is a classic.
February 28, 2009, 12:47 PM
Dang, 2 hours in the AR had a 3/4 lead! Now we are losing to that, that, thing.:barf:
February 28, 2009, 12:50 PM
the ar! why? because that is what i am trained on and the best with. it meets my needs better, light, red dot etc.
February 28, 2009, 08:57 PM
A Garand is a rifleman's weapon.
February 28, 2009, 08:59 PM
Magazine capacity
Ammunition cost
WAY customizable
High Planes Drifter
February 28, 2009, 09:22 PM
AR for me.
Float Pilot
February 28, 2009, 09:30 PM
I spent 30 years instructing with ARs or commanding troops trying to keep their AR running.
The AR is not a new wonder weapon. It is a 50 plus year old design with 50 years of trying to make it reliable.
I have a couple, but I would not take either one if I had a reliable Garand to take instead. And I am not nuts about Garands either.
February 28, 2009, 10:04 PM
AR for versatility. You can have any caliber upper from .22 LR to .50 BMG (single shot, yes, but still a .50). You can go long range or CQB. You can make a pistol out of it, or you can have an accurate prarie dog popper. You can have any magazine capacity from 5 to 100 rounds. You can go the NFA route and get the group therapy option. It also seems like spare parts are alot easier to get (and replace).
February 28, 2009, 10:22 PM
The Garand. Turning cover into concealment for over sixty years.
February 28, 2009, 10:53 PM
My vote goes to the M1 Garand - can be used as game hunter or defense. Nostalgic, tough as nails, and very accurate. I may be jaded by the historical side!;)
February 28, 2009, 11:03 PM
IF that AR is a Noveske.... well then that is an easy decision.
March 1, 2009, 01:33 AM
After spending 4 years carrying around an M16, the rifle never out of arms reach, I just don't have much love for the thing. And that was 20 years ago.
I also can't stand any product that has the word "tactical" in it.
March 1, 2009, 02:00 AM
Garand.......had an AR.....
March 1, 2009, 02:14 AM
well, thats an easy one. i voted ar15. mostly because almost all (including our beloved garand) old military rifles are butt ugly the ar, is no beauty queen, but at least it looks decent
March 1, 2009, 04:40 AM
+1 there. The Garand is a beautiful rifle.
Also, I dont think the argument that an AR/M16 is not a "riflemans rifle". They dont teach spray and pray shooting in basic training. Hell, when I went through, if your rifle ever went to burst it was an instant smoking. The irons on an A2 are very good and a standard rifle will easily shoot out to 500 meters. I did that several times in the Army.
Ignition Override
March 1, 2009, 04:58 AM
Ammo prices are a factor, but were not stated in the survey choices.
The Garand looks like a powerful combat rifle and has wood.
But maybe some of us are brainwashed by watching so many more old movies about WW2, and watched "combat" with Vic Morrow in 1965.
If the costs for a Garand and ammo had been nearly as cheap as those for the Mosin Nagant, I would have been at the river yesterday blasting holes in an empty juice jug with 30-06, instead of enjoying the seductive smell of Russian laminated wood, metal and the burned powder produced in Sofia, Bulgaria (1952).
Indiana Boy:
You have a true Foxy Babe:), but you don't cherish her. :(
I find our combat rifles attractive, and the gas tube is on the bottom, compared to the weird industrial inverted plumbing on the SKS and AK. Before you insult your Babe, look at the receiver on any SKS....the 'Tonka dump truck' of combat rifles, but except for the rear part, not too bad.
Ignition Override
March 1, 2009, 05:04 AM
Sorry, not a high-tech old fart here.
March 1, 2009, 07:49 AM
AR15, easy.
45 nut
March 1, 2009, 08:22 AM
actions speak louder than words----- got 1 ar15 and got 5 garands
March 1, 2009, 12:04 PM
The M1 / .30-06 combination won two wars. The M16 / 5.56 combination lost two wars. That pretty much says it all.
March 1, 2009, 12:07 PM
AR over garand, but M1a over AR
March 1, 2009, 12:15 PM
I voted Garand, forget cosmetics, it's just a heavier hitter.
You can hunt what you like with it, and it will be very effective in a firefight.
March 1, 2009, 12:47 PM
The M1 / .30-06 combination won two wars. The M16 / 5.56 combination lost two wars. That pretty much says it all.
Riiiiight. Because we know the weapon was the problem and not the politics.
March 1, 2009, 01:08 PM
Ya, and where does the reasoning that could make someone call the "Korean Police action" a win come from?
I went through basic with an M14, but they handed me an M16 when I checked into the 1st Infantry Div. basecamp at Dian - first time I'd ever seen one in person. Everybody joked about it and most everybody honestly believed at first that it was made by Mattel. I mean, the supply guy said so, and all of us were brand new in country not knowing what to believe if it wasn't a sergeant.
March 1, 2009, 03:56 PM
Why was the M1A/M14 omitted??? I chose AR, but I would love an M1A/M14...
Poor East Texan
March 1, 2009, 04:09 PM
Garand because I'm a heavy/slow kinda guy rather than light/fast.
And Garand hasn't a high cap or pistol grip to piss off the antis!!!
March 1, 2009, 04:14 PM
And Garand hasn't a high cap or pistol grip to piss off the antis!!!
Another reason to vote AR.
March 1, 2009, 05:56 PM
yea I think the M1a/M14 should have been put in this mix. I bet it would be right up there with the AR and the Garand "father".
March 1, 2009, 07:53 PM
Someone posted 223 ammo is cheaper.
.30-06 from the CMP is cheaper... you can get 1K rounds for under 300 dollars.
I haven't seen non-steel .223 ammo anywhere under 400 for some years.
March 1, 2009, 07:55 PM
I have a AR15, an used the m16 in service...I have never fired the Garand, but hope someday I can, I
have owned a Remington 30-06...
I'm not sure how reliable the Garand
is, but it seemed to do a great job in WW2....so am I living in a survival type condition in Alaska? Or am I in
urban warfare right here at the end of the world?.....I choose the Garand because my AR15 won't stop a charging grizzly, unless I'm calm an make a head shot, an I won't be calm!...An I know a 30-06 in urban warfare is going to BUST through walls faster an easier an get the guy behind it better than my AR15.
March 1, 2009, 08:04 PM
I chose the Garand for ease of caliber conversion, all the accessories available, magazine capacity, and accuracy.
March 1, 2009, 08:29 PM
Not a fair comparison.. that's like asking 69 camaro or 2005 civic? That being said, I would buy an AR before I would buy a garand, simply because it is a more "practical" rifle, IMHO.
March 1, 2009, 11:18 PM
Garand..........History and one potent battle rifle............
'nuff said.
March 2, 2009, 04:59 AM
Garand, of course.
What, there was a doubt???
March 2, 2009, 05:30 AM
The M1 / .30-06 combination won two wars. The M16 / 5.56 combination lost two wars. That pretty much says it all.
Ummmmm.... The M16 was the main rifle for what many consider the most successful invasion in human history.
The guy on the right, smiling with the MRE is me.
Oh and before anyone says anything, no the SAW is not pointing at me.
This guy was my prisoner. Id'd as Iraqi Lt.
March 2, 2009, 11:30 AM
Which two wars did the M16 lose? Did I miss some history somewhere?
March 2, 2009, 12:01 PM
Let's see -- Rifle chambered for varmint cartridge .vs rifle chambered for big game cartridge, varmint cartridge or big game cartridge. Sorry, but I'm not into small caliber varmint rounds.
March 2, 2009, 01:56 PM
Ya,....what 2 wars were lost...? You know I still
love my AR, BUT, there is a reason why the military
is FINALLY looking an using the 6.8mm bullet...better
50 yrs. late than never right. I hear the Special Forces
that have them, love them.
March 2, 2009, 02:11 PM
Pride of ownership, its my DCM M1D.
But for practical shooting, the AR wins on ammo costs and spare parts availability.
March 2, 2009, 02:15 PM
Vietnam and Iraq.
I would buy an AR before I would buy a garand, simply because it is a more "practical" rifle, IMHO.Practical for foxes and groundhogs! ;)
March 2, 2009, 02:28 PM
So how did the M16 lose Iraq? On that thought how did the military lose Iraq? Are you basing this statement on actual experience there or from the media who doesnt know what they are talking about regarding the place?
March 2, 2009, 02:28 PM
Vietnam an Iraq...?...your joking right...?
March 2, 2009, 02:33 PM
We lost in Iraq? did you hear that from this guy?
March 2, 2009, 02:38 PM
The only thing the M16 is losing in Iraq is weight. Those mags get lighter when your kicking @ss.
March 2, 2009, 02:42 PM
Had you said Afgahnistan you might have a point, but even there the war is far from lost.
As for the orginal question I like this comment...
...it's like asking 69 camaro, or 2005 civic?
The Civic will get you where you're going but the Camero will make you smile? :D
March 2, 2009, 03:07 PM
WOW! its a race to the finish. i really thought MR. AR-15 would pull away. Hell hes losein. if he has to lose i cant think of a better rifle to fall to than the old garand
March 2, 2009, 03:20 PM
It's a hard choice, but I have to vote for the AR-15 only because of the magazine. The ability to top off the rifle during an engagement lull is very important. The M-1 can be topped off but it is very awkward due to the loose rounds and enblock clip. If the choice was AR vs M-14 (m1a) I would take the extra power of 7.62.
March 2, 2009, 03:34 PM
If you had to carry 800rounds of one rifle or the other in order to use on those bad guys you would go with the AR-15...
And then if you want the "extra power" you buy match ammo in 75-77 grains... and now you can shoot 1000yards with your AR too...
March 2, 2009, 03:39 PM
And if the special forces (who can use anything they want) choose an AR platform for most misions... Who am I to say they are wrong?
Sometimes they take an M21 or similar but most of the time their carry weapon of CHOICE is an AR platform... that says alot.
March 2, 2009, 03:39 PM
Dozens of different uppers and hundreds of magazines.
Lost in Iraq?
Is our military imprisoned there currently awaiting concessions by our government?
Nope, I didn't think so either.
They are there today wielding complete control of that country.
How is that a loss??
Cerca Trova
March 2, 2009, 08:53 PM
Have both
Garand first... Greatest generation saved the planet with it. Hold it, shoot it, feel the history.
AR-15 Next... The evolution of America's battle rifle. Capacity, accuracy and design. The fact that the gun-grabbing, bedwetting types are paralyzed with fear over the EBR is, just a plus.
March 2, 2009, 09:31 PM
Garand I like a rifle with some knock down power not a paper puncher. Just my opinion so get your panties in a knot fellas.
March 2, 2009, 09:50 PM
I voted Garand, assuming the OP meant "in one configuration", soas to keep the options "similar;" also, if I were restricted to only owning one or the other, the Garand would be a better "game getter"....because if '06 wouldn't take it out, you could then bayonet whatever it is to death, and if that doesn't work, you can always use the good ol' fashioned butt-stroke.
But, if caliber switching/only owning one "lower" for an AR is what the OP meant, I would vote for the AR.....because the ability to make it a .22 in a .223 barrel could make it really freakin' potent for any and all uses if bad things happen.
That being said, my 1942 SA Garand has some more soul to it than my RRA AR15.
March 2, 2009, 09:53 PM
Shooting or collecting? For collecting its more open to preference, but for general shooting AR-15s can be readily scoped, cheaper to shoot (even with quality ammo) and lots easier to modify for accuracy.
March 2, 2009, 09:57 PM
Shooting or collecting? For collecting its more open to preference, but for general shooting AR-15s can be readily scoped, cheaper to shoot (even with quality ammo) and lots easier to modify for accuracy.
how are they cheaper to shoot?
March 2, 2009, 10:33 PM
like what was said before. the high cap mags. customization. and the fact you can switch uppers. i think we know who the winner is.
AR-15 all the way
March 2, 2009, 11:12 PM
i think we know who the winner is.
i must inform you the poll suggests otherwise.
im all for them too though, i own one, and no garand as of yet, but that is in the works.
March 2, 2009, 11:37 PM
If a tricked out, scoped AR is a valid choice, then my scoped, tricked out M1 must also be a valid choice. Garand all the way. :)
March 2, 2009, 11:47 PM
If a tricked out, scoped AR is a valid choice, then my scoped, tricked out M1 must also be a valid choice. Garand all the way.
hey ian, that must be a beast.
what kind of accuracy are you getting out of that bad boy?
March 3, 2009, 12:04 AM
She's hardly a beast - rather a wicked svelte piece of rifle (18 inch barrel). Haven't done much shooting since I mounted the scope (a 2-7x Burris pistol scope), but before that I was able to put 7 of 8 in a silhouette at 600 yards prone with the irons. On a bullseye she'll do a little under 2 MOA with surplus .308, which is all I would ask of her.
I call her Sekhmet. :cool:
March 3, 2009, 12:41 AM
There is a big difference between the two. Is this a rifle I have to survive the wilderness with? Is this a rifle I have to survive urban combat with? Is this just a rifle to play around with on the weekends? It all changes the answer a bit. If I were relying on it to take game out in survival mode (not against people, just nature) I would go garand. Living in Ohio I can't hunt deer with a centerfire rifle so that leaves me with varmint hunting in which case I'll take the AR. If I had to go clear buildings I would pick the AR. If I was just picking up a rifle to go to the range and blast, well that would be a real tough call and I think one of each would be in order. In fact now that it gets brought up over the last 3 months I have been trying to think of a good next rifle. I have one of the two, now its time for the other. I can't think of anything better to go in the safe. I'm glad I came into this thread.
March 3, 2009, 12:56 AM
Garand. That Grizzly is gonna just get madder when you shoot .223 into him.
I have shot both, AR's are fun, but nothing at all compared to a Garand and the '06. The Garand kinda looses on capacity, but at the same time ejects the clip and all ya gotta do is slam another one down into the gun and rack the bolt...The M1A might be a better choice, .308 still better than .223
800 rounds you would be carrying in some kind of backpack, preferably external frame. Ill take 800 rounds of '06 over 800 rounds of .223. More expensive, yes, way more knockdown power.
Oh, but I do just LOVE walnut on a gun, so AR loses there. The only plastic guns I can handle owning are my Kel-tec P-11 and my ruger 22/45.
but everyone has their own opinion. Id have to say an army of Garands vs an army of AR's would stand a better chance, all things equal, ESPECIALLY in the woods, where a small tree would deflect/stop a .223 round.
Urban fighting, yea the AR would easily win...I not an urbanite however...
March 3, 2009, 07:58 AM
And then if you want the "extra power" you buy match ammo in 75-77 grains... and now you can shoot 1000yards with your AR too...
I shoot at 1000 yards fairly regularly, and nobody comes to the line with a .223, 75-77 grain match ammo or otherwise.
March 3, 2009, 05:07 PM
I've already given my opinion but I think I need to give more reasons why the Garand is better than the AR. 1. If you wouldn't trust it to hunt big game then why would you trust it to shoot someone that is shooting at you? 2. I have heard on many accounts of U.S. soldiers having their family send them other rifles because the M16s jam like heck. And isn't the AR basically a semi-auto M16? 3. The M1 Garand is much better looking than the AR. 4. Like many have said, "If you can see it, you can shoot it with a Garand." 5. What AR boast a lot about is range. Well what the heck is range gonna do when you are shooting .223? NOTHING! It is a pee shooter. When you are shooting long distance you want some mass to the projectile. Why else do snipers have those freakin' huge rounds? 6. I think it was John Wayne that said, "Bring enough gun." .223 is not enough gun. M1 GARAND ALL THE WAY!!!!!
March 3, 2009, 05:09 PM
AR is a misfit really. Its ammo isn't cheap enough to be considered a real plinker and it doesn't have enough power to be considered a real man's rifle.
March 3, 2009, 05:25 PM
Had to go with the Garand.
If the SHTF, and all goes to pot and the gun cannot be cleaned as regularly as needed, I believe the Garand would keep running, eeven if its dirty and muddy. The AR, while a finely crafted machine, just might jam up with all that gunk and goo oozing into the tight tolerances.
So, if I have to get out and kill zombies in the hills for an extended period, I'll take the Garand -- plus, as has been said, it makes a nice CQC club!
Still, I'd like to have both on hand, and hope to, before the AWB heads our way.
March 3, 2009, 05:28 PM
FlyingBrian I congratulate you on the most epic poll I have witnessed on THR.
March 3, 2009, 05:33 PM
The battle between kids(ARs) and adults(Garands). Not based on maturity, just age of rifles...
March 3, 2009, 05:55 PM
Garand. But if I had a choice, it would be the M14. First Rifle I qualled on. Still in love with it
March 3, 2009, 06:15 PM
It's getting tight....
March 3, 2009, 06:16 PM
DC300a, you wrote garand, but the Garand total did not change and the AR group gained one. WTH?
March 3, 2009, 06:19 PM
well in the political climate we are in, you are better off with the M1 Garand, it's going to be hard to ban this rifle...the AR15 will be the first to be banned if the present administration has it's way
March 3, 2009, 06:20 PM
again, actually click the poll, so that your vote is reflected
March 3, 2009, 06:42 PM
I clicked Garand.
I am not sure what to tell you. When I look at the poll the Garand is in italics indicating that that is the one I voted for.
Then again I voted and then read through the entire thread before I actually posted... that might have something to do with it....
March 3, 2009, 06:52 PM
AR-lighter gun,lighter ammo,more ergonomic.imo
March 3, 2009, 06:53 PM
Vietnam an Iraq...?...your joking right...?Sir, I am not joking, but if you wish to believe that those wars were successes then you are certainly entitled to your opinion.
At any rate I have no desire to turn this thread into a political argument. We're all friends here.
March 3, 2009, 07:08 PM
If you could have only one, which would you have: an apple or an orange?
I'll have an apple, because I like apples. The M1 is my choice.
I like it for the history, the design, the caliber. I also tend to appreciate wood and blue steel on a rifle too, as opposed to annodized aluminum and plastic, but that's just me.
Great poll, by the way.
March 3, 2009, 08:58 PM
I have heard on many accounts of U.S. soldiers having their family send them other rifles because the M16s jam like heck.
Wow! Schofield that is really fun I've done two tours in IRAQ and carried an M4 and an M16A4 and never once did ether of them JAM on Me, in training or in Combat.
And for what you said about U.S. Soldiers having there family's send them rifles because there M16s did not work is even funnier. That is seeing that if they carried a personal owned weapon over seas it would just about be a automatic Article-15, loss of rank and most lickly the start of the end of there life in the U.S. Military.
This is not the military of 10 or 20 years ago, you try and carry a personal owned weapon and your higher finds out about it and your done.
March 3, 2009, 10:14 PM
just wanna say to all who serv or have severed or will be serving God bless, KICK ASS, AND A BIG THANK YOU for protecting us and our rights
March 3, 2009, 10:47 PM
Absolutely the Garand. Owned AR-15, traded for shotgun. Kept Garand lots of fun to shoot. No comparison. No rifle can compare to it. Definetly a conversation piece at the range.
Frightener 88
March 3, 2009, 10:55 PM
I voted ar 15. The garand tends to has catastrophic failures with "commercial" ammunition. pass.
March 3, 2009, 11:00 PM
I love the fact that the poll is just about 50/50 right now. I'd pick the...
Nah, I'll just take an AR-10. :)
Is that a compromise? Maybe, but not a bad one, IMHO.
March 3, 2009, 11:09 PM
Mark offered to sell me his .308 garand match rifle he built in the service for $1100. Its a badusy rifle. but if I got a garand I would want it in 30-06. so I said, "how bout that M1a-m14 over there in the corner" and he said yea Ill think about it. so looks like I might have yet another .308 soon.
March 3, 2009, 11:14 PM
incredibly close.
no wonder i feel short handed only owning one of them.
March 3, 2009, 11:20 PM
I'll take them M1 and take the bad guy out at 600 yds or more
I have heard on many accounts of U.S. soldiers having their family send them other rifles because the M16s jam like heck.
That is the most BS that I have heard in a long time. I carried a M16 in Vietnam, it was seldom cleaned and when it was the whole weapon was dunked in solvent and allowed to drip dry and then sprayed with a light oil and it never failed to fire.
March 3, 2009, 11:28 PM
But I own 2 Garands, 4 M1A's and 7 AR's, and 2 03's.
March 3, 2009, 11:40 PM
yea Bryan but you own a 7.62x59 rifle that cost less then a tank of gas. lol
March 4, 2009, 12:23 AM
If I was hunting bunnies then .223! Otherwise Garand.
I'm sure there's an equivalent poll - 1911 or Beretta M9. Unfortunately, we do not always move forward.
March 4, 2009, 12:39 AM
yea Bryan but you own a 7.62x59 rifle that cost less then a tank of gas. lol
ya, and i like it too.
but now i want another rifle that costs as much as a tank of gas.
a 1000 gallon tank.
March 4, 2009, 12:43 AM
At any rate I have no desire to turn this thread into a political argument. We're all friends here.
Then why do you keep trying to do it?
March 4, 2009, 01:04 AM
Wow! Schofield that is really fun I've done two tours in IRAQ and carried an M4 and an M16A4 and never once did ether of them JAM on Me, in training or in Combat.
And for what you said about U.S. Soldiers having there family's send them rifles because there M16s did not work is even funnier. That is seeing that if they carried a personal owned weapon over seas it would just about be a automatic Article-15, loss of rank and most lickly the start of the end of there life in the U.S. Military.
This is not the military of 10 or 20 years ago, you try and carry a personal owned weapon and your higher finds out about it and your done. Whoa! Settle down, that's just what I've heard (on many accounts), so it is not like I'm lying to your face. That is the most BS that I have heard in a long time. I carried a M16 in Vietnam, it was seldom cleaned and when it was the whole weapon was dunked in solvent and allowed to drip dry and then sprayed with a light oil and it never failed to fire. And again, Whoa! That's just what I've heard a lot and also Vietnam's climate is very different from Iraq's climate which has a lot to do with changing a guns functionality. It takes a very fine firearm to not be effected by climate...like the Browning 50 machine gun.
March 4, 2009, 01:05 AM
AR15 is plenty more versatile. In the Garand, you're stuck with the .30-06.
March 4, 2009, 01:21 AM
QUOTE "FlyingBrian I congratulate you on the most epic poll I have witnessed on THR."
A long time ago there was a epic thread and poll asking "what is the most recognized handgun" or maybe it was "what handgun defines American" I dont remember but it was a great debate over the Colt single action and Colt M1911.;)
March 4, 2009, 01:38 AM
http://neveryetmelted.com/2005/11/10/report-from-a-marine-in-iraq/REPORT FROM A MARINE IN IRAQ
.45 ACP, 5.56mm, 9mm Parabellum, AK47, Barrett .50 Rifle, Iraq, M-14 Rifle, M-16 Assault Rifle, M-24 Rifle, M2 .50 cal Machine Gun, M240 Machine Gun, M243 SAW, M9 Beretta, USMC, War on Terror, Weapons Systems
Posted on FREE REPUBLIC by Infantry Marine, who asks that it be passed along:
Hello to all my fellow gunners, military buffs, veterans and interested guys. A couple of weekends ago I got to spend time with my son Jordan, who was on his first leave since returning from Iraq. He is well (a little thin), and already bored. He will be returning to Iraq for a second tour in early '06 and has already re-enlisted early for 4 more years. He loves the Marine Corps and is actually looking forward to returning to Iraq.
Jordan spent 7 months at "Camp Blue Diamond" in Ramadi. Aka: Fort Apache. He saw and did a lot and the following is what he told me about weapons, equipment, tactics and other miscellaneous info which may be of interest to you. Nothing is by any means classified. No politics here, just a Marine with a bird's eye view's opinions:
1) The M-16 rifle : Thumbs down. Chronic jamming problems with the talcum powder like sand over there. The sand is everywhere. Jordan says you feel filthy 2 minutes after coming out of the shower. The M-4 carbine version is more popular because it's lighter and shorter, but it has jamming problems also. They like the ability to mount the various optical gunsights and weapons lights on the Picatinny rails, but the weapon itself is not great in a desert environment. They all hate the 5.56mm (.223) round. Poor penetration on the cinderblock structure common over there and even torso hits cant be reliably counted on to put the enemy down. Fun fact: Random autopsies on dead insurgents shows a high level of opiate use.
There's one place I've heard it. Just thought I ought to mention. Oh and comment on the post just before me I think the Colt...ooh that's a tough one.
March 4, 2009, 10:10 AM
I own 3 AR's and one Garand. I voted for the M1 Garand. I would like to know where you are finding this cheap AR ammo. I reload my .223 But I buy my Garand ammo from the CMP for $67 per 240 rounds. .223 ammo is not that cheap.
Anyone who says that an M1 Garand is ugly needs to have their head checked.
I was in the Infantry and carried M4's and M16's and never experienced any problems with it, I'd just feel better off with and 06 round versus a 5.56 any day. I've shot trees on my property with the 5.56 12" in diameter no penitration, and I have shot trees up to 2' in diameter with the M1 garand complete pass through. What's consider cover for the 5.56mm is only concealment for the 30-06.
Granted I love my Ar's but in a u know what hits the fan I'm grabbing my Garand.
I'm only 27 so its not just old guys that appreciate the ole M1 Garand.
March 4, 2009, 05:19 PM
Schofeld, you need to stop passing along hearsay. Even your "documentation" is not a first person account.
Stick around THR and try to read what people are posting, you will find that there are many here who have indeed BTDT and are willing to share their experiences.
March 4, 2009, 05:53 PM
Ar-15 just fits my wants and needs better.
March 4, 2009, 06:13 PM
"GET OFF MY LAWN. . .":cool:
Poor East Texan
March 4, 2009, 08:01 PM
Love that pic! ^
March 4, 2009, 08:01 PM
I sold my Garand and bought an AR. Not that I didn't love the Garand. No doubt the Garand is more lethal but it is just too heavy for hunting for me.
I have other high power rifles that are more useful. But I wouldn't fault anyone for chosing the Garand. The AR is much lighter, is as accurate at hunting ranges and will kill everything I hunt effectively.
March 4, 2009, 08:34 PM
well Al Burnstien the first 5 rounds have been dead even. ya husker its a fight that could go down as one of the best of all times.ya no AL? GRAND my have lost his speed. but his KO power. well that never goes away. yes husker. it will be up to MR AR-15 to stick and move and keep the pressure on GRAND and take it to the later rounds. thats right AL. the later rounds should favor AR-15. back to you Al for round 6
March 4, 2009, 09:01 PM
I'm perfectly happy with my Saiga as my primary defense rifle, so I just have to vote for the Garand. If I had some disposable cash, I'd have one in a heartbeat.
March 4, 2009, 10:20 PM
garand... just cause i work on m4 and m16 all day and they are plastic and aluminum crap. and worse is the people that put 3 flashlights, 4 lasers, eotech, eotech magn., ipod holder and built in speakers on them. keep it old school. iron sights
March 4, 2009, 11:50 PM
Love the pic! Clint and many others love the Garand. I am 36 and have 2 Garands.
March 4, 2009, 11:52 PM
I would take my Ruger Vaqueros over a 1911 too. Both in .45 ;) love these polls and debates.
March 5, 2009, 12:15 AM
SCHOFIELD As a guy who, has spent two tours in Iraq as an Army Infantryman, has a brother in law that spent a year there as Marine Infantry, and has several friends who still go over with various infantry units and Special Forces..... I can truthfully tell you that the so called "report" from the "marine" is complete BS.
The only weapon that was having problems was the SAW. But they re fit them with the new shorter barrels that have the fixed gas system, and at least with my unit, the problems went away. I have never met an Iraqi vet who stated he had problems with his M16/4 or the 5.56.
I have however heard many stories in gunshops, via 15th party, that the 5.56 isnt putting down the bad guys and the M16 is failing miserably. Both of these are completely wrong.
March 5, 2009, 12:26 AM
AR15 is plenty more versatile. In the Garand, you're stuck with the .30-06.
nah, you're not stuck, you cna get it in a few different configs. just yesterday i was offered a match garand in .308 for $1100. man was it nice. but he also had a M1a/M14 in his pile and I want that more then a garand in .308. so which ever comes along first, him letting go of that opulent m14 or me finding a garand in perfect shape. oh and FlaminBryan, turn on your fuggin yahoo thing or im going to turn it on for you
March 5, 2009, 12:46 AM
Wow! Poor Schofield. Anywho I pick Garand because that is an awesome picture^ of Clint Eastwood and it it is just more awesomer.
March 5, 2009, 12:48 AM
lol@ helz.
you shoulda told me it was off when you brought the new ar over yesterday.
and as for my poll,
i am shocked the garand and ar have neck and neck from the beginning till now.
i honestly figured the ar would blow the garand out of the water.
i guess it really says a lot for the old war horse.
it is definitly a powerhouse that demands respect.
im impressed and its really got me wanting one, just to feel the power.
March 5, 2009, 01:04 AM
I vote for the Garand because of sheer power and classic design.
March 5, 2009, 08:43 AM
Love the Garand; voted AR.
March 5, 2009, 10:23 PM
Garand: history, powerful cartridge, cheap surplus ammo, accurate, beautiful, and tougher than nails, 'nuff said.
March 5, 2009, 11:29 PM
US RIFLE Cal 30 M1
Remington 700
March 6, 2009, 12:17 AM
AR15 over M1 HOWEVER M-1A/M-14 over any semi-auto, Power and range
March 6, 2009, 01:47 AM
I voted Garand, though I'd more likely drop my cash on an AR in .308 or .243.
Just like if you asked '64 mustang or 2010 mustang I'd vote '64 but more likely be driving the 2010 every day. I want the classy & powerful but I've a weakness for comfortable and modern......
Very cool pole.
March 6, 2009, 01:52 AM
i voted garand, amazing rifle
March 6, 2009, 02:55 AM
I have shot my friends Smith and Wesson Ar-15 with his tacticool Crossfire tactical frontgrip light and green dot scope. I do admit the weapon looks good, but I still prefer my service grade 1944 M1 bought from the CMP.
Also he has spent nearly $2,000 on his rifle alone and I shoot a whole lot better then him with just my plane M1 that cost $595! I am also 22 and prefer the Garand over a lot of my other peers that go for the Call of Duty 4 style black rifles.
March 6, 2009, 03:09 AM
Is the AR15 strictly .223? Are we comparing the AR platform to the Garand or just the 5.56/.223 AR's? I'm stickin with the Garand either way. Might affect the pole though.
Boba Fett
March 6, 2009, 12:54 PM
As I understand it, the AR-15 is only 5.56/223.
They have other AR-15 "style" rifles, but they have a different designation.
For example RRA designates their rifles:
5.56/223 is the LAR-15
.308/7.62 is the LAR-8
9mm is the LAR-9
6.8 SPC is the LAR-6.8
.458 SOCOM is the LAR-458
But they all look like your basic AR-15.
March 8, 2009, 03:59 PM
WOW, this is a close poll. almost 350 votes and its been this close the whole time.
March 8, 2009, 06:52 PM
ya, ive never seen a poll that got this many votes that stayed this close the whole time.
i dont think ive seen one have a lead larger than 5 votes from the 1st vote till now.
its also amazing to me that the two entries are so different and still have such equal fan base.
to be honest, im surprised the ar15 hasnt blown the garand away.
i guess it makes sense though. if you think about it, the garand is some serious firepower.
8 rounds of 30-06, and being able to controllably fire them rapidly,,,,,wow.
serious destruction to whatever is on the unlucky end.
ive got to have one.
i brought home some 30-06 brass from the range yesterday and it totally dwarfs the mosin brass ive got.
it looks like an artillary shell compared everything ive shot
March 8, 2009, 09:11 PM
AR style rifle will be much easier to shot accurately if doing HiPower; OTOH, I love my Garand. Great sights, serious bullet energy, double-plus reliable, and if you handload, versatile and reasonable $ to shoot.
March 8, 2009, 09:54 PM
how bout a AR platform in 30-06?
March 9, 2009, 01:58 AM
that 30-06 ar looks like it would be pretty good.
that one is sold and all the others ive seen are about 3200 bux.
they use the b.a.r. mags.
Ignition Override
March 9, 2009, 05:47 PM
We were delayed by a long chain of thunderstorms in MCI last summer, and one of our passengers, a young veteran of Iraq, paused outside the cabin door.
He told me that being in a firefight really changes one's view of life. His base is Ft. Riley, KS.
Anyway, I asked him how dependable his rifles were.
This was his "first person" response:
'Well, our rifles jam with just one grain of sand".
Those were his words, not mine, but we all know that there can always be more to a story.
March 9, 2009, 06:52 PM
Can we all agree to do our best at obtaining at least one of each?
March 9, 2009, 07:08 PM
I have both, but ARs can be had in 308..., and parts are plentiful. LOL!
My restored Garand does sit on the mantle, not one of the ARs.
If I have an issue, I'll grab AR before M1.
eta: Not to show my age, but I come from the last days of te GARAND. She is beautifull.
March 9, 2009, 07:40 PM
matrem....I agree! Great Idea...I have a AR, I will try an make my next gun a CMP Garand....wouldn't it be cool if everyone that voted would buy an have both....any other takers?
Poor East Texan
March 9, 2009, 09:39 PM
There is more than a bit of truth in my handle.
I don't own either, but Garand would be first!
March 9, 2009, 10:47 PM
'Well, our rifles jam with just one grain of sand".
Ive talked to a few of the guys that have come back from the middle east and they all say the same thing your friend did pretty much. one said "you HAVE to keep your Rifle clean or pick up an AK for backup if you dont mind humping it along and catching h311 from you CO."
I think the garand is probably as reliable as the AK is in dirty enviroment.
March 9, 2009, 10:50 PM
you guys must be talking to different people than I talk to.
March 10, 2009, 09:24 AM
I have an AR. Ide be willing to toss it in the sand in the name of science and see what it does. Ive seen a guy through one in a mud puddle and pick it up and fire it with no jams. Im just telling you what I was told from a troop that was over there. Im sure there are alot who had no problems with them. lets take this question to the thread below.
I posted a thread that should clear up how the AR stood up in the sand box. http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?p=5411192#post5411192
March 10, 2009, 03:27 PM
This thread has inspired a yearning for a garand. What is this CMP that people keep referencing for cheap weapons and ammunition?
Also, which is easier to carry/shoot: M1A or Garand?
March 10, 2009, 03:32 PM
Civilian Marksmanship Program
go to odcmp.org for more info
March 10, 2009, 03:57 PM
Garand cause I love mine.
March 16, 2009, 02:24 AM
after owning and shooting mine now, i can understand the close voting on this here poll.
pretty good sample size too.
March 16, 2009, 08:47 PM
Well I just bought a Garand and when comparing it to my AR they certainly both have their pluses and I can see the vote for either. I see personally having more uses for the AR but the Garand to me has more personality. The AR feels like a tool. The Garand feels like an extension of myself. It all depends on what you want and I would hate to only have one now that I have had both.
April 4, 2009, 02:31 AM
I have niether but now I MUST BUY BOTH....soon as I got the money
Mr. T
April 4, 2009, 04:18 AM
I would own one if I could find one in decent shape for less than $1500; the 30.06 round has so many variations and is such a utility caliber it's hard not to go with it based just on that. However the Garand is going to be considerably heavier and you won't be able to carry as much ammo -- I guess it depends on what kind of situation you are going to be in. Keep in mind that General Patton said that it was the greatest weapon of World War II and that's saying alot. I like the fact that you could fire AP rounds out it in 30.06 caliber and it could shred any standard vehicle in short order. Not sure that the 5.56/.223 round would be able to do the same type of damage all things considered. I voted for the Garand.
April 4, 2009, 06:12 AM
I couldn't vote. That would be like saying which one of your kids you love most. Same but different. Many of both in my safe and they all see the light often. Patton did say" The GREATEST Battle implement ever devised" for a reason. But for a plain old fire fight, accuracy and firing rate would have to win out.
April 4, 2009, 06:42 AM
After carrying and using an AR for 25 years, I do not own one. My wife has one(less kick etc for her) as I prefer my Garand or my M1A1. If I have to shoot 223, I use my mini 14.
Dark Skies
April 4, 2009, 07:03 AM
I voted AR15 because parts and ammo are so easy to get. BUT ... I'd love an M1 to go along with my Lee Enfield and Nagant. They're the guns that put the Nazis back where they belonged - in a hole in the ground.
April 4, 2009, 03:48 PM
The Garand put the Nazi's back in their holes and .223 brass is a whole lot harder to come by than 30-06 these days. Just my opinion :):)
June 12, 2009, 12:44 AM
its amazing to me that even with the surge in popularity of the ar15 rifle, that the garand has led this poll just about the entire time.
we didnt have a garand when i posted this poll.
now i have 2.
Ignition Override
June 12, 2009, 02:11 AM
skiddoo: Yes.
After standing in the actual fox holes of the 101st Airborne's E and F Companies, outside Bastogne during an excellent guided tour back in May, there was no doubt in my mind. The tours are hosted by Mr. Reg Jaans in his personal van, and he was somewhere on "Youtube" (also linked on the web, within Normandy's "Battlebus").
He knows some veterans personally, and has studied their experiences in order to let you stand where actual skirmishes/battles happened and understand what these heroes did.
The classic Garand (30-06) with wood always appealed to me much more than a polymer rifle in .223.
I wonder how a semi-automatic AR-15 (powerful .223) would have done in the dirty subzero foxholes against the Wehrmacht's 8mm Mauser rifles during the encirclement (Einkreisung), but am new at this and won't comment.
Won't "tread on delicate toes".
June 12, 2009, 03:57 AM
Garand. 30-06 round is more plentiful and powerful and many different loads. You can get bulk ball ammo through the CMP. 8 months ago it cost around 25 cents a round through the CMP. I'm sure it has gone up and there is a waiting list. The Garand needs less maintenance and cleaning to keep it functioning properly. It is definitely a lot heavier than an AR.
June 12, 2009, 08:17 AM
"It [a Garand rifle] is definitely a lot heavier than an AR."
Not so much heavier once all of the "necessary" accoutrements are added to an AR-15. The light(s), the vertical grip, the heavy optics, and batteries, never forget the batteries..
A Garand rifle is ready to go out of the box and will fire effectively to 800 yards on it's basic sight settings and with service ammo.
June 12, 2009, 08:23 AM
AR or Garand? Neither.
I prefer the M14 with an 18" barrel.
Poor East Texan
June 12, 2009, 10:35 PM
^ goes without saying except thread title suggests one or the other...
Tim the student
June 12, 2009, 10:55 PM
Garand. A classier way to kill an enemy of your country. They were good enough to volunteer to die, might as well show them some respect.
June 12, 2009, 10:58 PM
I prefer the M14 with an 18" barrel.
funny you should mention that, i know someone who has an unfired springfield m1a national match that he said i could relieve him of for 1300 bux.
he also has an unfired standard model that he said i could have for 1100, also a springer.
im seriously considering the nm model.
June 12, 2009, 11:10 PM
one word <ping>
June 12, 2009, 11:39 PM
AR15, because of versitility.
But the Grand is a CLASSIC, the AR can never ever touch in that criteria.
July 6, 2009, 11:57 AM
Never shot a Garand before...So I voted AR...If I shoot a Garand then the descision might change, but I need to stick with what I know for now :)
July 16, 2009, 11:49 PM
+1 to RP88
Harve Curry
July 17, 2009, 12:03 AM
:)"one word ping":D
As long as getting ammo is not a problem I'll take the M1 Garand.
July 17, 2009, 09:43 AM
I own and love both. I have no wish to give up either. Both have great sights, fun to shoot and are 100% reliable.
However, from a practical standpoint, if I had to just keep one, it would be an AR15. If I wanted a collectible, I'd keep just the Garand, it's rich with history and sentimentality. However, the AR15 is more accurate, easier to shoot, easier to clean, lighter weight, much, much more versatile with switchable uppers, different calibers and bolt on accessories available.
The Garand has longer range and shoots more powerful ammo, but quite honestly I don't "need" the power or range of 30 cal. For my uses, I can't envision a situation where .223/5.56 wouldn't suffice.
"AR15A2", that I built myself
1943 Springfield CMP gun, rebuild by Deans Gun Restorations and converted to 308/7.62x51
July 17, 2009, 11:14 AM
I voted Garand. I like the Garand. But mostly, I don't like the AR15, so if it were a choice between the AR15 and a slingshot, I would have had to ask, "what kind of slingshot?"
July 17, 2009, 11:34 AM
I voted for the M1 Garand.
I noticed that the count is very close. I suspect that lines are drawn on what Uncle Sam issued to you if you served in the armed services. I was in the infantry waaaaay back in 1958-1960. We were issued the last go around for the M1 Garands before the Army decided to issue the M 14 (7.62 x 51).
That being said, as a gunner on an .81 mm mortar, I was issued a .45 sidearm.
I also have a warm spot in my heart for the 30-06 cartridge. Considering how old it is it can still get the job done. I feel that the DD did the ground troops a disservice when they went away from the .30 caliber round, but that is just my opinion.
July 17, 2009, 11:41 AM
If I were a soldier, I would pick the AR, but I'm not.
The Garand is much more practical for me because it's a much better rifle for hunting large game.
July 17, 2009, 04:07 PM
I prefer the machine that goes *PING!* (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=arCITMfxvEc);)
I don't have a Garand, yet, but I really want one, I've fired the AR-15, it's a nice weapon for sure, but I'm just not interested in owning one
July 17, 2009, 04:38 PM
When I first posted, I didn't have a Garand yet....I do now! Was in the service an have had a AR since 1980....many good things about my AR I love, but I hold this CMP Garand, an look at the new walnut wood on it, I look down at the 6 digit serial #, made in Oct. of 1942, an I wonder in awe at the places or fire fights its been through, I feel the power an see the damage of a 30/06.....I can see myself selling the AR if I needed money, no big deal.....but not this Garand, what did I vote for..?......"Ping"
If you own a AR, an never shot a Garand....please do yourself a favour, get a CMP Garand, I have no regrets.
July 17, 2009, 11:45 PM
well, thats an easy one. i voted ar15. mostly because almost all (including our beloved garand) old military rifles are butt ugly the ar, is no beauty queen, but at least it looks decent
moooose, I was just looking through my closet, and I happened to discover that I have a rope here with your name on it.
Garands ugly? Bloody heretic!
July 18, 2009, 12:00 AM
Lordy lordy lordy, this is as tough a choice as has ever been presented to me.
I guess it would come down to the nature of the question being asked.
If I could only own one or the other, but could have any OTHER rifles I wanted? I'd go with the Garand. Plenty of other .223s out there I'd be happy with.
If I could only have one or the other, with no other weapons? I'd go with the AR. It's just too much more versatile than the Garand.
July 18, 2009, 02:32 PM
I hate hearing about AR's and Ak's so the M1 has my vote.
July 26, 2009, 12:05 AM
This one's tough. I have an AR - wanted to get an EBR before I couldn't. I want a Garand for its historicity (is that a word?), power, elegance and doggone rugged good looks. Hey - I also want a '69 Dodge Charger for the same reasons. :rolleyes:
But when I balance $600 for a service grade Garand plus ammo ($800 easy) vs. what else I can buy for $600 (Ciener .22 kit for my AR, holsters for CCW, a pot-wad of ammo or components, and maybe even a used .22 rifle or pistol for my daughter) it gets tougher.
One day, I think I'll blow the wad and get the Garand. Next day I think I'll get the Ciener (or other) conversion and other stuff.
Sigh...I guess I'll see what the mileage reimbursement is this month and go from there. Anyone want to offer their 2 cents for me to ponder late at night?
July 26, 2009, 12:28 AM
Sigh...I guess I'll see what the mileage reimbursement is this month and go from there. Anyone want to offer their 2 cents for me to ponder late at night?
lol, ya, its a decision that can drive you nuts!!!!!
all i can offer on the subject is what my own experience has been.
ive own ar15's for years, and have never had a doubt in my mind that they would always be my favorite rifles.
i kicked the idea of getting a garand around in my head for months before i did it. i just couldnt convince myself that the old workhorse would get enough range time. you know, its a very high powered cartridge, its a heavy beast, its an 80 year old design, after hearing everyones ar's and ak's at the range the garand sounds more like artillary than a rifle. i wondered how i could ever be accurate with it, getting used to the recoil, etc, etc, etc,,,,,,,,
then i just jumped in with both feet.
now i cant put the thing down. the old rifles accuracy inspires confidence when you shoot it. recoil is nothing like a 30-06 bolt gun, not even close. it feels so solid. it is amazingly accurate. most groups at 50yds are one big demolished area on the bull. its heavy, but it is balanced so well you would think it was designed to point first, and then they figured out a way to make bullets fly out of it.
now its very common for me to pack up to go shoot and dont even bother to grab my ar15's. (but i still love my ar's, but my garands have definitely became my favorite shooters. (power, power, power)
they are incredibly addictive.
Tim the student
July 26, 2009, 12:31 AM
they are incredibly addictive.
Yup. I have an AR, and a Garand. I am all but certain that the next gun I buy will be a Special Grade. Maybe not, but it will be a Garand, and hopefully a carbine on the same trip.
July 26, 2009, 12:42 AM
carbine on the same trip.
ya, me too. i fiddled around with the carbines while we were there getting the garands. those little rifles just feel too nice not to try to get one or two.
they feel really nimble and quick. i did some checking on the ballistic performance on the 30 carbine and its actually pretty impressive for a little pistol looking cartridge.
it reminds me of a 22 magnum on steroids and creatine.
July 26, 2009, 10:15 AM
Sorry if I sound dumb here, but does CMP stand for Civilian Marksmanship Program..? That is the only "gun related" Acronym I could find on Google....
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 26, 2009, 10:20 AM
Much as I love Garands, I've become more of a practical-leaning kind of guy over the years, and the AR15 is more practical. Shorter, lighter, more ergo, more parts availability, more accessorizing options etc. But primarily because shorter & lighter.
July 26, 2009, 10:38 AM
Sorry if I sound dumb here, but does CMP stand for Civilian Marksmanship Program..? That is the only "gun related" Acronym I could find on Google....
Yes. Welcome to the world of waiting and beautiful surplus rifles.
Tim the student
July 26, 2009, 12:28 PM
...and the AR15 is more practical.
That depends on what you are using it for.
Sure, the AR is more practical if you want to clear a house and shoot people in the face at 4 AM.
But, the Garand is more practical if you want to shoot a guy 200 yards away hiding behind a tree.
For me, most of my guns are there for my enjoyment, including my Garand and AR. So for that purpose, my Garand is more practical - I love to shoot it just a bit more than I do my AR.
July 26, 2009, 12:53 PM
Mr.T:"I would own one if I could find one in decent shape for less than $1500";:barf:
Do you want to put up, or shut up?
You can't have #4 from the top, or #6, but for your "less than $1500." we could talk about any of the rest.
July 26, 2009, 01:04 PM
You can't have #4 from the top, or #6, but for your "less than $1500." we could talk about any of the rest. Assuming the bore condition is good, I'd give you $1500 for the rest of them. :D
July 26, 2009, 01:26 PM
Yeah. I ALMOST worded it so as to sound as though the rest could be had for that, but added the wording "any of" just before posting. :)
and, are you kidding? You'd buy the other four for $1500. if the bores were 12 gauge :D
Dr. Tad Hussein Winslow
July 26, 2009, 01:32 PM
That depends on what you are using it for.
Sure, the AR is more practical if you want to clear a house and shoot people in the face at 4 AM.
But, the Garand is more practical if you want to shoot a guy 200 yards away hiding behind a tree.
That is an awesome way to put it and exactly right. And proves my point, because scenario #1 is 1,000 times more likely to happen to ME and most people, than scenario #2, hence the *practicality* of a gun that fulfills role #1.
Sure, the AR is more practical if you want to clear a house and shoot people in the face at 4 AM.
Can I make that my new sig line? :p
July 26, 2009, 01:35 PM
Voted for AR-15. Here is my plan. I am buying all my "practical" weapons now.(I have plenty of time I am only 25) So everthing for self defense gets priority then I plan to start buying "collectibles" such as WWII weapons from all sides, commemorative items, and cowboy guns. Basically it is all about prioritizing for me.
Tim the student
July 26, 2009, 01:41 PM
That is an awesome way to put it and exactly right. And proves my point, because scenario #1 is 1,000 times more likely to happen to ME and most people
True, it is more likely to happen to most people, but again, it depends on the intended use of the rifle. My AR has a 20" bull barrel, with a big ol 4.5 - 14 scope on it, a bipod, and no rails for lights etc. I would rather clear a house with my Garand that my AR. (Maybe I should amend my statement and throw in "most AR's". :D)
However, my AR is obviously not intended or designed to clear rooms. It is designed to explode prairie dogs at a decent range.
I think it goes back to the intended use of the weapon to determine practicality.
Oh, and of course you can use that in your sig line, for a small royalty fee. ;)
The Real Mags - I am in the same boat as you to a certain extent. The thing that made me want to start buying Garands now vs later is their availability and price now, vs what I think their availability and cost will be later. CMP will run out someday, and when I am done getting more "practical" guns, I think most Garands will be in much worse condition, and will be much more expensive. Look at the prices you see for trashed Garands at gun shows compared to what you see coming from the CMP. Besides, not ALL my guns need to serve a "practical" purpose other than my just wanting to shoot them and enjoy doing it.
July 26, 2009, 02:26 PM
And then there's the movie 'Torino' something or other to speak to the practicality of the Garand rifle.
Dr. Thad - how many "practical" handguns do you own right now? Thirty?:rolleyes:
July 26, 2009, 02:35 PM
If I want a .30-06 I'll get a bolt action. They're not picky about their ammo.
Anyway, my dad would come back and haunt me if I messed up a Garand.
Pony Express
July 26, 2009, 02:51 PM
AR. Easier to get parts, more caliber options, and frankly im just more familiar with the system which is most important to me.
I do reckon that the m1 is a very close second though. hard to beat the
30-06 :rolleyes:
July 26, 2009, 03:04 PM
Only one?
MK14 Mod 1
The hard hitting practicality of the M1 Garand and the
flexibility of the AR combined into a compact battle rifle.
Poor East Texan
July 26, 2009, 03:59 PM
^ yeah!
July 26, 2009, 04:03 PM
are you kidding? You'd buy the other four for $1500. if the bores were 12 gaugeYea, that's true. I'm a sucker for a new project. :o
July 26, 2009, 05:24 PM
AR15. The M1 was great back in it's day but it is now one of those HUGE animals that went extinct.
Art Eatman
July 26, 2009, 05:53 PM
Old G'rand may be 'stinkt, but it sho do shoot good. Thing is, if things get up close and personal, there's right at a foot of shaving edge at one end and a chunk of steel butt-plate at the other. Makes for interesting and persuasive social interactions.
Just think of it as a Tueller drill at 16 feet instead of 21. :D
July 26, 2009, 06:00 PM
.45 ACP, 5.56mm, 9mm Parabellum, AK47, Barrett .50 Rifle, Iraq, M-14 Rifle, M-16 Assault Rifle, M-24 Rifle, M2 .50 cal Machine Gun, M240 Machine Gun, M243 SAW, M9 Beretta, USMC, War on Terror, Weapons Systems
That entire report has been so completely and thouroughly debunked as armchair warrior pap so many times, I cannot believe that it is still even around.
July 26, 2009, 09:55 PM
Garand. Turning cover into concealment...
December 8, 2009, 06:02 PM
figured i'd bump this old poll up with all the garand talk. maybe some new voters can be heard
December 8, 2009, 06:04 PM
Best to let sleeping dogs lie.
December 8, 2009, 06:07 PM
you callin my dog a liar?
December 8, 2009, 06:08 PM
Quality AR without question... more complete and versatile weapon available in more versatile calibers.
December 8, 2009, 07:27 PM
I think you need both!
New and old technology - really can't go wrong with either.
Support past & present.:D
I voted for the Garand:)
December 8, 2009, 08:17 PM
lol, agreed, but which one did you vote for?
December 8, 2009, 08:30 PM
M1 Garand. AR is only practical to 800 yards, and I don't like to get that close to the enemy.:D
December 8, 2009, 08:56 PM
As awesome as the Garand is, it's kind of like comparing a vacuum tube to a laptop, IMO RP88
Well the transistor and AR-15 both made big gains in the late 50's and early sixties, shoving aside vacuum tubes and larger calibers. :)
I love older guns but would have to go with the AR over the Garand.
May 23, 2010, 08:32 PM
this was an epic pole, and i just figured id give any new guys that havent seen it a chance to vote.
i honestly figured the ar would win hands down. its incredible how close it is.
Flatbush Harry
May 23, 2010, 09:20 PM
I have 4 Garands, 2 M1As and a Colt AR15A2. I guess that says it all.
Ignition Override
May 23, 2010, 11:51 PM
If you ever stand in the fox holes of E and F Companies outside Bastogne, Belgium, there is only one answer-especially if you like only classic military rifles.
May 23, 2010, 11:54 PM
Gonna go with the Garand becuase I own one!
Not trashing the AR at all, I've shot one and did very good with it.
May 24, 2010, 12:24 AM
If you ever stand in the fox holes of E and F Companies outside Bastogne, Belgium, there is only one answer-especially if you like only classic military rifles.
i would love to take one of those tourist trips over there before im gone and see those places.
all the respect i have to give
May 24, 2010, 12:42 AM
the family (not including kids and grandkids)
May 24, 2010, 03:32 AM
Couldn't decide between the two so I split the difference and opted for the M1 Carbine instead:D
If I had to the walk the wastelands of a post-apocalyptic future I would have an M1 Carbine slung over my shoulder and not an AR, AK or any other rifle for that matter.
May 24, 2010, 04:58 AM
A quality AR-15.
I can't afford to shoot .30-06...
If I had a Garand, it wouldn't get shot much...it'd be like my Mosin-Nagant, kept for history...
May 24, 2010, 10:53 AM
I would have to go with the Garand, I own both but I would never part with my Garand.
August 28, 2010, 07:44 PM
didnt Gen. Patton say that "the AR15 is the dooshiest battle implement ever devised", ?
Ignition Override
August 28, 2010, 08:42 PM
You have a wickedly beautiful 'battle rifle'. My first arrived after a friend's trip to the CMP three weeks ago.
This topic seems to exclude ammo prices and reloading can reduce them a fair bit.
The Garand is impressive by itself, and has no need to be customized.
It helped liberate much of the globe in WW2 with no extra gear.
Reid73: True, although our F-105 "Thuds" etc (based at Udorn etc in Thailand?) were required to enter North Vietnam on three designated routes, similar to what we do arriving into larger airports via standard terminal arrival routes (STARs).
And they could not attack Soviet cargo ships in Haiphong Harbour, but one Thud or F-4 pilot zapped the type of Soviet ship which had a load of SA-2 missiles. He was kicked out of the Air Force because of that, but probably saved the lives of some B-52 or TAC crews. My Dad worked with the guy in the US.
These were just a tiny fraction of the rules our forces had to comply with.
August 28, 2010, 11:07 PM
man this was a hard decision.....give me an m1a and call it good. or at least a mini-30, but please, please something in .30 cal
If you enjoyed reading about "if you could only own one, ar15 or garand?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join
today for the full version!
vBulletin® v3.8.6, Copyright ©2000-2016, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.


text:
Having experienced love, and the wonders and joys of living, Pat Troisi, of Loyalsock Township, died Thursday, April 24, 2014, at ManorCare South, following a lengthy illness.
Born, March 24, 1936, at her maternal grandmother, Charlotte Polinski's home in Plains, Pat was the first child of Francis and Lottie Tolozko Delycure. She was the first grandchild of both families. Thus, she was smothered with love. Actually, spoiled. Because of this love, Pat faced life with confidence and security. Love is the root of life's success.
Pat graduated from St. Cyril's Academy, Danville, where she established and was editor of the high school's newspaper. Also, Pat wrote plays which were performed for the nuns, the students, and also the Danville residents. A member of the Academy's Chorus, Pat played the French horn in its orchestra.
Article Photos
Pat attended Miseracordia College, Lycoming College, and St. Francis University. She was the very first lay teacher in St. Boniface Elementary School. When in 1975, the third St. Boniface Church was opened, Pat was the editor of the church's dedication book. Pat was a reporter and writer for the former Grit Publishing Company's local and national editions. She contributed articles to the Women's and Social pages. And, she wrote feature items for the paper's City edition. Her "one-liners" to the editor of the Williamsport Sun-Gazette were popular. Pat's blood ran Phillies red.
On Aug. 16, 1958, Pat married John A. Troisi, son of Domenic and Bernardine Beiter Troisi, in Our Lady of Lourdes Catholic Church in Montoursville. The couple celebrated their 55th wedding anniversary last August.
Pat is survived by her husband, John; daughter, Joi A. Grande, of New Castle; son, Jeffrey A. Troisi, of Shoemakersville; brothers, Francis J. Delycure Jr., of Montoursville and Thomas F. (companion, Mary Wilson) Delycure, of Williamsport; sisters, Gloria Marie (Anthony) Belott, of Williamsport and Mary F. (Thomas) Rossi, of Utica, N.Y.; and four grandchildren.
Along with her parents, Pat was predeceased by her sister, Kathleen M. Delycure.
Pat was a member of St. Boniface Roman Catholic Church. She, now, is experiencing afterlife. To all who touched Pat's life with love, she hugs in gratitude.
Mass of Christian Burial will be held at 9:30 a.m. Monday, at St. Boniface Roman Catholic Church, 326 Washington Blvd., with Msgr. Stephen D. McGough officiating. Burial will follow at Wildwood Cemetery. Visitation will be from 7 to 9 p.m. Sunday at Knight-Confer Funeral Home, 1914 Memorial Ave.
The family will provide the flowers. Contributions may be made to the "Father Clark Educational Endowment Fund," c/o St. Boniface Church, or to the charity of the donor's choice.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
What Is The Source Code
The source code is the specification of a program that:
the programmer directly manipulates (via some editor)
the computer "understands" (is machine readable and executable (or transformable into such))
For example, if you have a pure C program, it's all the *.c and *.h files. However, if a.c and a.h are produced by another tool (e.g. yacc/lex), then a.c and a.h aren't source code, but a.y (the input to yacc) is.
As has been argued repeatedly, it most assuredly is not. But that's what we're here to discuss, isn't it?
Source code is the intermediate representation between what's in the programmer's head and what the machine can execute. It is more-or-less:
Human writable
Human readable
It is required to be:
Machine readable
Machine executable (or transformable into such)
Programming languages attempt to improve the human IO, especially the human readable component. They also connect human writable to machine readable. This requires a certain amount of 'slack' since what's in the programmer's head isn't usually in a machine executable format. Compilers attempt to provide us this slack by automating the transformation into machine executable.
It doesn't have to be written in what people usually think of as a "programming language".
It can also be the files that a GUI builder uses to remember its state between sessions. These are machine readable and transformable into machine executable. They are often not human writable or readable without the GUI builder program. In this case, the GUI builder program is essentially an editor (and maybe a compiler).
Another example is a CASE tool used to generate code in some traditional programming language (such as C or C++). The generated code is not source code even though it may be human writable and readable, and machine readable and executable. It's generated by a tool, and it's not the representation that the programmer is working with. The source code in this case is the files that the CASE tool uses to remember its state between sessions.
I have yet to see program maintenance done with a CASE tool. The ASCII files containing programming language constructs are the source code. These are the files that communicate the program to future developers and maintainers, not a series of UML diagrams that could be easily derived from the source code.
Yes, of course, but the original definition is still valid. When the programmers start working directly on the generated files, the CASE tool's state files simply become the old version of the source code. The new version of the source code is the (now edited) files that the programmers are editing.
Maybe this page should be merged with
View edit of
August 14, 2010
with title or text search


text:
The combined efforts of the Buffalo Sabres Alumni Association, First Niagara Financial Group and Erie County Medical Center will save the lives of women in Western New York for many years to come. The partners unveiled a state-of-the-art bus that holds two digital mammography machines that will travel to underserved and under-tested women in this area.
With a combined contribution of $750,000 from the three groups the bus will be managed by Western New York Breast Health, the practice of Dr. Vivian Lindfield.
Buffalo Sabres Alumni Relations Director Larry Playfair explained how over the years the Sabre's wives have been holding their wine tasting event and the proceeds were going back into the community. Jody Lomeo, ECMC CEO and foundation board member, went to the Sabres and before they could finish their presentation they alumni said "yes."
What began as a couple of vans traveling into the hardship areas and transporting the women to a mammography screening, became a bus that would go into the community and allow the women to be tested in their own driveway. The bus will also be parked at festivals, health fairs, churches and community centers where the staff of Dr. Lindfield's practice will conduct the screenings and the women will then be advised on where to go for treatment, if needed.
"Mammograms can save lives," said Dr. Lindfield. "Finding the disease early is the key. Now I can go to a patient in their own backyard, talk to them and get them to the right care."
"I want to thank the alumni wives," said Lameo. "It was their vision and it's about the patients that wouldn't have been served."
"There's a WOW factor here," said John Koelmel, president and CEO of First Niagara. "What better way to provide this care than by saying 'You can't get to us?' 'Then we'll come to you."
There are several such buses in various regions of the country. A program in West Virginia, which has the fifth-highest morality rate from breast cancer nationally, reached 400 women in 2009 and 1,520 last year. The WNY bus is expected to test more than 1,500 in the first year.
"We've had a number of player wives, daughters, sisters and mothers affected by breast cancer," said Playfair. "This is such a useful and meaningful addition to the tools the region brings to bear to help thwart this disease. We are commtted to this project and will stay involved with its growth."
For information on the bus call 1-855-Go4-PINK (1-855-464-7465.


text:
HERA is holding its annual conference in San Francisco, CA from 3 March-5 March 2011.
The conference is exploring Transformations that occur in four groupings or "streams"; transformative Humanities pedagogy, Humanities research, creative contributions, and making the most of this transformative moment.
HERA welcomes papers from academics, museum directors, independent scholars, and graduate students. Paper proposals due by December 30, 2010.


text:
Brought To you Buy : DonutPie
How To Use!!!
Simply type
: iconMonserDrinkplz :
Without the spaces inbetween!
I hope you enjoy it!
Just because I'm allowing people to use this as an emote does NOT mean your allowed to use this as your personal icon. It is not for that. If you see anyone using it as there personal icon please leave me a note. Thank You.
I think all monster fans have these momments where we think DA should have more monster emotes. ^-^ This is my first emote ever, so I apoligize for it's sloppyness, and lack of movement; but I hope you enjoy it anyway, Please Leave Comments they really mean alot! Thank You!!
-Love DonutPie!


text:
(define (square x) (* x x)) (define (power x n) (cond ((= n 0) 1) ((evenp n) (power (square x) (/ n 2))) (else (* x (power (square x) (/ (- n 1) 2))))))For example,
x^{10} = y^5, where y = x^2 = y z^2, where z = y^2, = y w, where w = z^2.This requires 4 multiplications, to find y, z, w, and finally yw. If the binary expansion of n is a_{k}a_{k-1}...a_{0}, then this takes k + l - 1 multiplications, where l is the number of one-bits in the expansion. The expansion of 10 is 1010, and in that case k = 3, l = 2, and k + l - 1 = 4. -- EricJablow A few remarks about this algorithm. 1 It doesn't always do the fewest possible number of multiplications. For instance, when n=15 you could do (x^3)*(x^5) = (x*x^2)*(x*x^2*x^2) requiring 4 multiplies, but the algorithm above will do x*(x^2)^7 = ... = x * x^2 * (x^2)^2 * ((x^2)^2)^2, for 6 multiplies. 2 Something equivalent can be implemented iteratively rather than recursively. This isn't likely to be important unless you have either a bad language implementation or a bias against recursive functions. 3 Although it looks like this offers an n/log(n) speedup compared to the naive one-at-a-time algorithm, life's a bit more complicated in the real world where multiplying larger numbers takes longer. If you implement multiplication in such a way that multiplying an M-bit number by an N-bit number takes time proportional to MN, then the elegant algorithm above may be no faster than just multiplying by x n times; it might even be slower. 4 On the other hand, if you use a more sophisticated multiplication algorithm or you're doing modular arithmetic, an algorithm like the one above can be a very big win. (You need modular exponentiation for doing RSA cryptography and primality testing, for instance.)
float power(float x, unsigned int n) { float aux = 1.0; while (n > 0) { if (n & 1) { \\ odd? aux *= x; if (n == 1) return aux; } x *= x; n /= 2; } return aux; }or in Scheme, functional style (TailRecursive)
(define (multiply-with-power aux x n) (cond ((= n 0) aux) ((= n 1) (* aux x)) ((even? n) (multiply-with-power aux (square x) (quotient n 2))) (else (multiply-with-power (* aux x) (square x) (quotient n 2))))) (define (power x n) (multiply-with-power 1 x n))Your x^15 algorithm was wrong; you had (x^3)*(x^5) when you needed (x^3)^5. To compute x^3 from x requires 2 multiplications, while to compute y^5 from y (= x^3) needs 3 multiplications. The total is 5. You are right, however. The squaring method is not necessarily the best sequence. More striking would be x^27, which would need 8 multiplications by squaring, but 6 from cubing. It's actually an interesting, and so far as I know unsolved, problem: given a positive integer n, let f(n) be the smallest k such that there is a sequence
1 = a_0, a_1, ..., a_k = n,such that each element other than a_0 is the sum of two earlier elements in the series. Is there a good algorithm for f(n)? What are its arithmetic properties? Neil Sloane's OnLineEncyclopediaOfIntegerSequences, at http://www.research.att.com/~njas/sequences/Seis.html, references this as entry A003313, and cites TheArtOfComputerProgramming, vol. 2, p. 446. The sequence is given as:
1--10: 0,1,2,2,3,3,4,3,4,4, 11--20: 5,4,5,5,5,4,5,5,6,5, 21--30: 6,6,6,5,6,6,6,6,7,6, 31--40: 7,5,6,6,7,6,7,7,7,6, 41--50: 7,7,7,7,7,7,8,6,7,7, 51--60: 7,7,8,7,8,7,8,8,8,7, 61--70: 8,8,8,6,7,7,8,7,8,8,...


text:
Ever wondered how you can go paperless? At LockerGnome.net, Nick Anselmo writes:
Tell me which services/software you use to go paperless. Sign up for ebills? Get everything mailed to you, then scan it? Go online, save PDFs, and use native software, etc.?
Going paperless with your personal or business documents is a great way to save space, time, and even risk as physical documents are often expensive to protect from dangers like theft and fire. Having a digital copy of your most important documents kept in a secured, remote location is recommended these days, but how do you go about making your home or work environment "paperless?"
Let's first shed the notion that the term should be taken literally. An office can be paperless and still have a printer and plenty of paper materials sitting out on desks. Sometimes, it's just easier to have a physical copy of something than to read or reference it from a screen. Some business transactions still require a physical document to complete. Don't assume that just because your office is capable of running without hard copies that other offices have the same luxury. It's best to be flexible, but you can still do quite a lot to minimize the physical space your data takes up.
Go Paperless: Useful Services
Finding a service that can help you turn paper documents into digital data can be tricky. Not all services are created equal, and you really should be able to trust that company enough to handle your private documents and receipts without doing a little data mining of its own.
Shoeboxed is one of those few companies that has maintained a fairly stellar reputation for handling personal and business documents. It's as convenient as sticking receipts in an envelope and mailing them, and the turnaround time isn't bad. In fact, it does a lot more than scan receipts and other printed materials. It organizes them and makes them available from your PC or mobile device.
Perhaps one of the coolest thing about Shoeboxed is the tax preparation tool that enables you to export your receipt data in a way that is easily transferrable to tax software like TurboTax and QuickBooks.
It doesn't just accept printed materials, either. You can forward store receipts you receive via email or scanned documents electronically and have them added to the digital cache stored at Shoeboxed. It's a way to keep all of your documents in one place, safe from any local theft or fire that might put your physical materials at risk.
In addition to Shoeboxed, there are a number of other services that can help you move away from the clutter of a paper-dependent office. For example, Evernote has become a very useful and multi-purpose solution for many personal and professional users hoping to get a handle on their notes, day-to-day goings on, and documents. Evernote acts like a hub for your digital life. It works as a storage and organizational tool in addition to being a fairly useful writing application.
Google Drive, Dropbox, YouSendIt, and other similar services are also extremely useful when it comes to storing and sharing documents without having to run them through a printer. These services are also free, which is a tough price to beat.
Go Paperless: Hardware
While any scanner can help you go paperless by digitizing your printed materials, a printer specially designed to help you convert from a papered office to a paperless system is probably going to save you time and hassle.
Doxie is a line of scanners specially designed to help you go paperless. These scanners take in receipts, photos, and even full-size legal documents with ease. Doxie is considered one of the better solutions out there, with alternatives like NeatDesk also providing a useful solution to users at a fairly reasonable price.
Whether you're going paperless alone or with a service, just remember that paperless doesn't have to mean entirely free of printers and copiers. Even the most technologically advanced office out there may occasionally need to print something and mail it to someone. It's old, outdated technology, but it's still a way of life for many professionals.
At least you can rest assured that your internal documents don't have to clutter up your office any longer. You can use those old filing cabinets to do something even more important — like storing all your old gadgets.


text:
Over the course of the 2005 workshop attendees identified the issue of gender and sports in Africa as worthy of deeper examination. Therefore, the 2006 conference will focus on women, gender, and sports. Among the sub themes that will be considered are: female athletes in Muslim societies, women's national teams, traditional female sports, masculinity, sport and gender and identity formation, sports as a microcosm of gender inequity, and sports as a tool of female self-empowerment. Although we encourage the submission of papers that focus on sports and gender, conference organizers are also open to the submission of papers that deal with other aspects of sports in Africa.
The conference organizers sincerely hope that the dialogue will be pursued beyond this initiative, and are planning a symposium that will be not only intellectually engaging, but also a source of inspiration for future scholarly and practical endeavors.


text:
WAILEA - Oscar-winner Lupita Nyong'o along with accomplished young actresses Emma Roberts and Evan Rachel Wood will step off the movie screen next month, making the leap from reel to real to accept awards at the 2014 Maui Film Festival.
Festival Director Barry Rivers announced the honorees today. The festival returns to the Wailea Resort June 4 to 8.
"For an event that's often been referred to as a 'jewel box' film festival, this year's intelligent, talented and beautiful (both inside and out) list of luminaries seamlessly fits into the tapestry of 'diamonds, rubies and pearls' we have honored since our inception in 2000," said Rivers. "To say the least, we're thrilled beyond words."
Article Photos
The awards tributes will inaugurate a brand-new Maui Film Festival venue - the Seaside Cinema Music Cafe and Sunset Lounge located on the Grand Wailea property. With sunsets providing the backdrop, the open-air lounge will seat around 400. It offers a more upscale, intimate and pricier addition to the festival schedule, with fixed seating and food and drink for purchase.
Its 7:30 p.m. star tributes will be in addition to a full schedule of screenings at the festival's majestic outdoor signature Celestial Cinema, along with parties, filmmaker panels, free "Toes-in-the-Sand" screenings and food events over the five days at various Wailea locations. Screenings also will take place at the Maui Arts & Cultural Center's Castle and McCoy theaters.
Fresh from her Best Supporting Actress Oscar for her role as Patsey in Steve McQueen's Best Picture winner, "12 Years a Slave," Nyong'o's Maui appearance follows recent fanfare at the Cannes Festival. On June 7, she will accept the 2014 Maui Film Festival's Rainmaker Award, honoring "a film artist whose eclectic choices and charismatic performances encourage us all to expand our definition of what it means to be human," according to a festival news release.
Born in Mexico in 1983 to Kenyan parents, she grew up in Kenya and was educated in the U.S., where she recently graduated from the Yale School of Drama's acting program. "12 Years a Slave," also starring Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender and producer Brad Pitt, marked her feature film debut and also captured the Screen Actors Guild Award, the Independent Spirit Award and NAACP Award.
She recently appeared in the action thriller "Non-Stop" opposite Liam Neeson, Michelle Dockery and Julianne Moore. As a filmmaker, she was the creator, director, editor and producer of the award-winning feature-length documentary "In My Genes." Her stage credits include lead roles in "The Winter's Tale," "Uncle Vanya," "The Taming of the Shrew" and Michael Mitnick's "Elijah."
Roberts will receive the 2014 Maui Film Festival's Shining Star Award on June 6, honoring "a film artist who dares to dream big dreams and delivers brilliantly charismatic and revelatory performances every time that opportunity knocks." The daughter of actor Eric Roberts and Kelly Cunningham, and the niece of Julia Roberts, she currently can be seen in Gia Coppola's directorial debut, "Palo Alto," alongside James Franco and Jack Kilmer. She was part of the ensemble including Jennifer Aniston and Jason Sudeikis that made "We're the Millers" the surprise summer comedy hit of 2013.
Earlier this year, she starred with John Cusack in "Adult World" directed by Scott Coffey. She also recently starred in the third installment of Ryan Murphy's "American Horror Story: Coven" and will appear in "American Horror Story: Freak Show," scheduled to premiere in the fall. For an actress of 23, she already has amassed a long filmography, beginning with "Blow" starring Johnny Depp, which essentially launched her career in 2001.
Versatile Wood will be honored June 8 with the 2014 Maui Film Festival's Nova Award, recognizing "a film artist for their astonishingly original and seamless performances, and the way they consistently infuse each character that they embody with insight, humanity and wisdom."
A supporting actress Golden Globe and Emmy nominee for her portrayal of Veda Pierce in the HBO miniseries "Mildred Pierce," she also earned acclaim playing Stephanie, the estranged daughter of Mickey Rourke's character in "The Wrestler."
Wood's breakout role came in 2003 with Catherine Hardwicke's controversial independent film, "Thirteen," earning a Golden Globe nomination as Best Actress in a Drama as well as a Best Actress SAG Award. She displayed her singing talents in 2007 as Lucy in Julie Taymor's "Across the Universe." She has been directed by Oscar winners Robert Redford ("The Conspirator") and George Clooney, who also starred in "The Ides of March."
Recent credits include "Charlie Countryman" with Shia LaBeouf," "A Case of You" with Peter Dinklage and Sam Rockwell, and "Barefoot" with Scott Speedman," capping an already long filmography for the 26-year-old actress.
The festival kicks off June 4 featuring documentaries about two Maui residents - "SuperMensch: The Legend of Shep Gordon" at the Seaside Cinema and "Dying to Know" about LSD poster boy Timothy Leary and Haiku holy man Ram Dass in Castle Theater. Opening-night Celestial Cinema films are "Goddess" at 8 p.m. and "Taking My Parents to Burning Man" at 10 p.m.
Tickets, passes and more information are available at www.mauifilmfestival.com or by calling festival headquarters at 579-9244.
* Rick Chatenever can be reached at email@example.com.


text:
Hello! We use cookies to give you the best possible experience on JustGiving. You can change your settings here.
The Equality Network works for equality and human rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) people in Scotland. Every penny you donate helps make Scotland a place in which everyone can live free from prejudice and discrimination. http://www.equality-network.org
Equality Network Registered charity number SC037852
"in memoriam of Eric Cooper's loved one"
Anonymous donated
$20.00 + $0.00 Gift Aid
"Raised by Stirling University Gender Equality Movement."
£60.00 + £0.00 Gift Aid
"Can be donation go to STA please? If that's a problem I am still happy or you to have it"
£100.00 + £25.00 Gift Aid
"This is the proceeds from our bake sale last week at Glasgow University! "
Glasgow University LGBTQ+ donated
£137.67 + £0.00 Gift Aid
"These are the proceeds from the Pub Quiz we ran at Dundee Uni! We'd like it to be used for the trans and intersex equal recognition campaign please. :)"
Jai NicAllen donated
£110.00 + £0.00 Gift Aid
"It's not much but I wanted to give something."
£2.50 + £0.00 Gift Aid
Tom French has raised $7,294.74 so far
Equal Marriage
Robert Irvine has raised $384.10 so far
Robert's Birthday
Alicja Wierzbowska-Kraska has raised $313.79 so far
Alicja's page
Siri Macthorpe has raised $208.33 so far
I'm Playing Assassin's Creed 1 onwards for Siri Macthorpe because I want to raise money to support trans people.
Siri Macthorpe has raised $94.35 so far
I'm I will be streaming PC games for 24 hours for Siri Macthorpe because I want to raise money for trans people.
About JustGiving
For fundraisers
For event partners and companies
For charities


text:
CafeMom Veteran
(¨` `·.¸.·ஐ`·.¸.· ☆☆☆`·.¸.· ஐ`·.¸.·´¨)
It is a Uncensored group! We are Offensive!
(¨` `·.¸.·ஐ`·.¸.· ☆☆☆`·.¸.· ஐ`·.¸.·´¨)
Be yourself, there are vents, show downs, contests, off cm chat and Conference Calls! This is a DRAMA filled group!
There will ALWAYS be something worse than what you just saw!
(¨` `·.¸.·ஐ`·.¸.· ☆☆☆`·.¸.· ஐ`·.¸.·´¨)
We would like to invite you to join us at $$The Money Club$$. Moms are uniting from all different businesses to help one another succeed. Hope to see you there.
Hi! Welcome to CafeMom!
Please join us in the 30 Something Moms group. It's a really great place to get started here and meet other moms like you.
I hope to see you there!
Featured Posts in All Groups
Part of the CafeMedia family
© 2016 CMI Marketing, Inc. All rights reserved.
Already Joined? LOG IN


text:
Kelly's Kookbook
(Recipe Collection)
11 Recipes Created by KELLY4444
We can do it!
Recipes in this Collection
Never the same twice! It seems to adapt well to changes and additions.
I like to use a "muffin top" pan so I can toast a muffin before eating.Submitted by KELLY4444
An experiment with leftovers yields a delightful, filling vegetarian meal.Submitted by STEPFANIER
Make in cake pan or ramekinsSubmitted by CINDYSUE48
Great for those days you crave Mac n Cheese! Original recipe found in Kraft's eatingbetteramerica.com, my version uses the Spaghetti Squash.Submitted by SHELLPROOF
A classic from Ina Garten's Barefoot ContessaSubmitted by MOIRALEIGH
Easy to cook. Left overs are great cold the next day.Submitted by NANALINDA5355
Low Fat, Low Calorie, Low Sugar, and High Fiber ricepe. Submitted by CORRIGAN8
Moist and tasty! Finish it off with Greek flavor and also make a Yogurt Garlic sauce.Submitted by SHORTPUTTS
A recipe that is full of great taste and loaded with potassium.Submitted by CHATTYCATHY2


text: The General Services Administration has selected the team of Lake/Flato, Kell Muñoz and Ellerbe Becket to design a new federal courthouse in downtown San Antonio, Texas. They were one of 80 teams vying for the project. Lake|Flato will serve as the project designer. Kell Muñoz will serve as the architect of record and Ellerbe Becket will provide project management and courts design services. The new federal courthouse will cost between $125 million and $150 million to develop and it will replace the John H. Wood Courthouse in HemisFair Park.


text:
But after giving birth to son Eli Benjamin on Aug. 24, the Saturday Night Live alum saw published reports about Eli's "unknown" father – and before she knew it, there were theories flying left and right about who the mystery man could be.
"People are expecting the craziest story," Dratch tells PEOPLE. "I just meant it's crazy for me!"
Eli's father, Dratch reveals to PEOPLE exclusively, is her boyfriend John Wahl, a California-based consultant to natural foods businesses. Dratch met him a year ago at a bar, and six months later – at age 43 – she was shocked to find herself pregnant.
"I had bought into all this stuff about, 'Once you're over 40...' " Dratch says of her chances of conception. "I'd gone through the whole process of letting go of [the idea of having kids]."
But today, she and Wahl – who has since moved to New York City to be closer to his girlfriend and 9-week-old son – are raising their baby together, and living a domestic life neither of them could have predicted.
"[Rachel] was resigned to the fact that this wasn't going to happen and had written it off," says Wahl, who was "completely floored" to hear that they were going to have a child. "That may add to the adrenaline and euphoria and excitement."
As for the couple's future, "the focus now is just surrounding Eli with love," says Wahl. "But you never know!"
For more details about Dratch's relationship – and exclusive photos of her with son Eli – pick up this week's issue of PEOPLE, on newsstands Friday
See what other readers have to say about this story – or leave a comment of your own


text:
See composition and tenure of committees for the full description on review committees. Dean's Committee (College-wide) AGAD Department Committee (Ag Administration)
All nine of the Dean's Committee members vote on the documents.
Two-thirds yes votes are required on the preliminary or final ballot to advance documents to the Dean for review.


text:
> I am facing a problem from my ISP ( www.sancharnet.in ). They sent
> different login prompts ( login: , Username etc every time I dial up.
> How do you deal with this from Chat ? ( ': user' is little trucky I guess)
This is a variation of an example from man chat:
ogin:-BREAK-name: ppp ssword: hello2u2
It should be good except for etc, except you would want to set the
chat time to a low value (5 seconds?) just before login: or Username:
is expected. Simply using ":" as the expect in the expect/send might
also work.
> Also is it possible to change the timeout values inside the chat script ?
> Like 10 sec. for first operation, 60 seconds for second operation etc. ?
Yes. Read man chat.
-- Clifford Kite Email: "echo email@example.com|rot13"
PPP-Q&A links, downloads: http://ckite.no-ip.net/
/* "PPPoE has many advantages for DSL service providers, and
practically none for DSL consumers."
- David F. Skoll */


text:
heaten, as someone who also works in the web industry, you really are missing the point here. you seem to have your niche of knowledge and are not understanding at all what others are saying. its great you have 11 sites, i am sure your mom is proud, but thats not exactly something that is hard to do. sorry for the condescending attitude, its just getting really frustrating seeing you argue your point which makes no sense at all.
also, we get it; they are still streaming illegal content. no one is disputing that. people are just disputing your understanding of how much bandwidth costs.
Pure attack post with no substance. Good job providing nothing at all to the conversation.
Due to popular demand, I took some time to do a generic breakdown. An estimated cost for 55 viewers per day @ 2 games (obviously there's a lot of variables). 55 viewers can watch a total of 6-hours of game for approx $1.10 per day / cost of bandwidth usage. (though most people won't watch 2 full games per day if they have a life or family, so the cost averages about $0.54 cents per game) -- **but I'll give those who defend hockeystream's action the benefit of the doubt.
So for 55 people (who subscribe for 1 day) pay $7 each = $385 in total payment to Hockeystreams.com.. Hockeystreams' total cost in bandwidth usage for 55 viewers = $60.50 (estimated probably double to what they actually pay). Therefore, Hockeystreams just profited $324.50 in just one day (based on 55 viewers).
I'm sure Hockeystreams.com has more than 55 viewers, so I bet they profit more than $2000 daily for stealing content and reselling to you. But, go ahead and keep on thinking they don't profit anything and that they are a noble new-era Robin Hood for stealing copyrighted content and giving to the poor (who can't afford the extra monies to buy games legally).
**calculated very high and bloated bandwidth usage based on the webmaster not knowing how to preserve bandwidth and averaging every viewer to watch two full games per day.
Edited to add source to back up my calculations:
Streaming video hosting costs
Edited by Heaten, 01 October 2010 - 02:51 PM.