Anyone have an opinion about the Bushmaster semi-auto rifle's accuracy, shootability, etc. as compared to the AK-47, or the Colt AR-15? Does the Bushmaster take the high capacity mags? How many rounds?
The Bushmaster is a clone of the mil-spec AR, post-ban, of course. It should take about any hi-cap M16 magazine out there, and surplus 30-rounders are quite plentiful. Stick to actual military production when it comes to mags and you usually will be quite happy. It is a far finer rifle than the AK47, and generally of better quality than a lot of the stuff Colt has made in recent years. It does, of course, suffer all the same flaws as the standard M16, which is why there are better choices out there when it comes to battle rifles.
They have a pretty good reputation for quality and are actually closer to mil-spec than the Colt Match Targets (post-ban AR 15s). Accuracy and shootability are comparable. My scoped, Colt Match Target II 16" HBar will shoot sub-MOA with the right ammo all day long.
If you want a varmint rifle, get a 700 Rem. For a BATTLE rifle: the Galil (if you can find one!), the M1A (if you can afford one) or the one I have, the FAL. Those are far more reliable in rough use that the AR15 design. And surplus 7.62 NATO is actually CHEAPER than the 5.56 that is currently available. As an added bonus, good FAL mags can be had dirt cheap.
sorry, but I just can't resist.
If you want a REAL battle rifle, there are only two; 1903 \A3 bolt or M1 Garand for semi auto [ yes the M 14 is an updated M1 so I would go with that also.]
As for Bushmaster I bought a used "carbine". It shoots as good as the CAR-16 I carry at work. if that means anything.
Now CL, what kind of battle would it be when one guy has an M-1A/BM-59/FAL/AR-10/etc. and the other guy a
poodle shootin' assault rifle? Heck the mouse gunner couldn't get anywhere near the rifleman before he was ventilated! You're just not playin' fair!
Never having been in a battle myself I can only go by what others say and what I read. Having said that, it's my understanding that most actual military engagements take place at ranges that are far less than max for either the 7.62 or the 5.56. In light of this fact, what are the advantages for the larger, heavier round?
1. Much greater penetration of hard targets at any range. (Please don't anyone try to compare the SS109 AP round to lead-core M80 7.62mm Ball. That didn't fool anyone when Uncle Sam sold us the M16A2 bill of goods.)
3. Viable capability against light vehicles and semi-soft ground targets.
Engagement ranges have actually increased since the end of Vietnam and excluding the Panamanian excursion. The military just loves statistics, and we all know about them: Lies, #### lies, and statistics.
Beyond all that hulabaloo, just think in terms of hunting big game. Which would you choose- a .223 or .308? Now imagine that "big game" animal is shooting back and tell if your choice isn't solidly reinforced.
As the purchaser/shooter of two M1A's I have full confidence that the new Garands will be very good investments. I'm not too hot on Springfield's 1911's, having seen a number of them go down during my IPSC heyday ~8-10 years ago, but all of their rifles have performed flawlessly in my hands and among other Highpower shooters with whom I've shared a firing line.
scope on M1:
The military scope mount for m1-D & m1-C was mounted on the barrel in front of the reciever. If the mount is even available in the "after market" It would take a certain amount of skill to get it on right. If you are not interested in "historically accurate" try B-SQUARE. They make several mounts for military type rifles. As I am sure you are aware the mount for an M1 needs to be offset to the left side of ther reciever or in front of it so as to be able to load the enbloc clip.
As Charlie Lima said, the scope mounts used by the M1C and M1D are somewhat unique. These GI mounts were pretty stout and held zero well if the rifle wasn't used as a battering ram. Unfortunately cost and availability will probably work against you.
A mount for the M1A/M14 would not work on the original Garand. The two rifles use very different attachment points. If the one I had, a Springfield Armory Third Generation, was typical of the breed you wouldn't be impressed. Once properly attached to the rifles, which is a chore unto itself, the mount is sturdy enough but I was never able to get any semblence of zero retention if the rig was removed for cleaning or Highpower match use. I've never tried the B-Square Garand mount so can't comment on its quality or zero retention ability.
In all honesty it's more a question of weight and bulk than any Rambo tendencies. The M1 is a very robust and solidly-built weapon, quite capable of killing or severely injuring a man with a properly delivered buttstroke. But that same solid construction makes the rifle too heavy for almost any circumstance I can envision. Ten pounds weight adds up quickly hiking the hills for deer. But as a nostalgic shooter and even a serious Highpower target rifle it's the cat's meow.
I'd say get one. OCM Garands go for around 軆 and you have to qualify for one. Even then you don't know what kind of condition you get until the box arrives at your door. The restored Miltech M1's are close to twice what Springfield Armory is asking. Once you load that first clip, smack the op rod to chamber the round, and squeeze off the first shot I guarantee you won't regret the decision to buy a Garand.
A forum community dedicated to Sport shooters, owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, hand casting bullets, hunting, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!