M1 Garand. OGBA

[redtail]

Comparing the cyclic rate between an AR.
Here is a side by side comparison of the bolt of an AR and the M1 Garand. The M1 bolt opens at a much more explosive rate than the AR. The cyclic rate of the Garand is about 25% faster than the AR.

 

[dsdmmat]

Cyclic rate of fire really doesn’t mean much when you are magazine or clip fed, belt fed is another story.

 

[Podmonkey]

Cyclic rate of fire really doesn’t mean much when you are magazine or clip fed, belt fed is another story.

I think it more serves to highlight the advancement in technology from an early self loading rifle as compared to a matured design.
It's also remarkable to consider just how much Kalashnikov borrowed from Garand.

 

[Darth]

A 168 Gr. 30-06 imparts more rearward force than a 55gr 5.56?

 

[ProgSpear]

Very cool. This slo-mo stuff is fascinating.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

It's also remarkable to consider just how much Kalashnikov borrowed from Garand.

I'm not surprised by this at all.

 

[tony]

It is just amazing to see the amount of dirty gas directed directly into the AR for every round fired as compared to the Garand...

 

[Podmonkey]

It is just amazing to see the amount of dirty gas directed directly into the AR for every round fired as compared to the Garand...

Its ejected out the holes in the side of the BCG and out the ejection port actually.

 

[tony]

yep, most, but not all of it does. AR's get nasty dirty comparatively.

 

[Podmonkey]

I'm not surprised by this at all.

True, the Garand was the most successful rifle of its type at the time so not surprising that elements would be incorporated in other rifles.
Just the similarities in asymmetrical, two lugged rotating bolt locking into forward reciever is striking to me. Kalashnikov added some very worthwhile improvements though. Using a bolt carrier to transmit linear motion into a rotational movement of the bolt instead of relying on the operating rod to provide the camming action is clearly a better way of doing it.
Also placing the gas system atop the barrel simplifies things and the self limiting nature of the AKs has system is also a big improvement.

All that being said Stoner's internal gas piston design is just so much more elegant.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

The only video I see is the one of the Garand. The AR cycle video isn't there for comparison.

 

[BDinPutnam]

I'm not surprised by this at all.

Ditto (re: Kalashnikov and Garand).

To @dsdmmat's point I believe there is a long history of trying to figure out the "ideal" cyclic rate for various categories of firearms, no? SMG vs whatever you want to define as a "battle rifle" vs LMG and so on?

 

[Podmonkey]

yep, most, but not all of it does. AR's get nasty dirty comparatively.

Ever shoot a roller delayed gun? Filthiest system there is. Except maybe a true direct gas impingement system like the MAS 49 or AG-42. But I have no experience at all with the latter.

 

[Podmonkey]

Ditto (re: Kalashnikov and Garand).

To @dsdmmat's point I believe there is a long history of trying to figure out the "ideal" cyclic rate for various categories of firearms, no? SMG vs whatever you want to define as a "battle rifle" vs LMG and so on?

I think that is a big plus of the AR series. Dwell times, buffer weights and spring rates have all been figured out with parts availability to the point where the end user can completely tune the rifle to whatever is desired.

 

[redtail]

The only video I see is the one of the Garand. The AR cycle video isn't there for comparison.

 

[ArmedCorgi]

Now I see it.
That said. There you have a clear cut comparison between a DI system and a gas piston system. There should be no surprise.

 

[Podmonkey]

I wonder what config of the AR in this comparison is? Carbine? Rifle? Gas length?

 

[BDinPutnam]

I think that is a big plus of the AR series. Dwell times, buffer weights and spring rates have all been figured out with parts availability to the point where the end user can completely tune the rifle to whatever is desired.

Can't disagree with that in the least.

 

[gun_slinger_boy]

Except maybe a true direct gas impingement system like the MAS 49 or AG-42.

Yup. ARs are actually piston driven.

 

[Podmonkey]

Yup. ARs are actually piston driven.

A lot of people don't realize that.

 

[dsdmmat]

Ditto (re: Kalashnikov and Garand).

To @dsdmmat's point I believe there is a long history of trying to figure out the "ideal" cyclic rate for various categories of firearms, no? SMG vs whatever you want to define as a "battle rifle" vs LMG and so on?

Cyclic rate of fire is a lot less important than sustained rate of fire.

The advantage to the piston and operating rod over the direct impingement system is a cooler bolt.

 

[Podmonkey]

Cyclic rate of fire is a lot less important than sustained rate of fire.

The advantage to the piston and operating rod over the direct impingement system is a cooler bolt.

We aren't talking about Cyclic rate of fire here.
We are comparing the cyclic speeds of the actions. Specifically dwell time as a focus.

 

[dsdmmat]

We aren't talking about Cyclic rate of fire here.
We are comparing the cyclic speeds of the actions. Specifically dwell time as a focus.

All of which = cyclic rate of fire.

 

[Podmonkey]

All of which = cyclic rate of fire.

Okay, but unless I am mistaken, and maybe I am here I dunno, ROF isn't the point of this thread.

 

[dsdmmat]

Okay, but unless I am mistaken, and maybe I am here I dunno, ROF isn't the point of this thread.

In the op “the cyclic rate is 25% faster than the AR” = cyclic rate of fire is 25% faster than the AR. The first video shows the Bolt cycling on an M1 Garland firing and the second one compares the cyclic rate of a firing M1 Garland and an AR.
Rate of fire - Wikipedia

Cyclic rate
This is the mechanical rate of fire, or how fast the weapon "cycles" (loads, locks, fires, unlocks, ejects). Measurement of the cyclic rate assumes that the weapon is being operated as fast as possible and does not consider operator tasks (magazine changes, aiming, etc.). When the trigger is pulled, the rate at which rounds are fired is the cyclic rate. Typical cyclic rates of fire are 600–900 RPM for assault rifles, 1,000-1,100 RPM in some cases, 900-1,200 RPM for submachine guns and machine pistols, and 600-1,500 RPM for machine guns. M134 Miniguns mounted on attack helicopters and other combat vehicles can achieve rates of fire of over 100 rounds per second (6,000 RPM). Cyclic rate of fire is the only rate that can be determined precisely.

Maybe you are mistaken.

 

[Podmonkey]

In the op “the cyclic rate is 25% faster than the AR” = cyclic rate of fire is 25% faster than the AR. The first video shows the Bolt cycling on an M1 Garland firing and the second one compares the cyclic rate of a firing M1 Garland and an AR.

Maybe you are mistaken.

What I am getting out of this thread is not that the Garand can theoretically spit more lead than an AR can. WhatbI am taking away here is that the operation of the Garands action is abrupt and harsh as compared to an AR's

So when you started talking about rates of fire it seemed to me that you maybe had missed the point of the thread.
Its @redtail's thread, am I the one that has missed the point? What should we be taking away here?

@dsdmmat, you certainly are not wrong in your assertion. Even when supported by the features you mentioned it's still better for an action to have a more moderated cyclic rate.

 

[Podmonkey]

Very cool. This slo-mo stuff is fascinating.

How 'bout this?

 

[dsdmmat]

What I am getting out of this thread is not that the Garand can theoretically spit more lead than an AR can. WhatbI am taking away here is that the operation of the Garands action is abrupt and harsh as compared to an AR's

So when you started talking about rates of fire it seemed to me that you maybe had missed the point of the thread.
Its @redtail's thread, am I the one that has missed the point? What should we be taking away here?

@dsdmmat, you certainly are not wrong in your assertion. Even when supported by the features you mentioned it's still better for an action to have a more moderated cyclic rate.

The Garand action is not really more violent than the AR action it is just more visible. The locking lugs are exposed vs the locking lugs on the AR being hidden by the barrel extension. Both actions open at a safe pressure for the weapon to operate without experiencing a catastrophic explosive failure of the case.

 

[redtail]

The M1 Garand is proven effective in battle.
AR platform has also been proven.

In 1940 these mass produced semi auto rifles were likely the difference in many firefights against enemies equipped with the bolts of the day.

I find it fascinating that the rate of fire is greater in the 75yo old rifle vs. the relatively modern AR platform , especially when you can see it in cool slomo.

Many variables to consider if you were to make a list of each rifle's pros and cons.

I still can't decide if I like Brunettes or Gingers better.

 

[Podmonkey]

The Garand action is not really more violent than the AR action it is just more visible. The locking lugs are exposed vs the locking lugs on the AR being hidden by the barrel extension. Both actions open at a safe pressure for the weapon to operate without experiencing a catastrophic explosive failure of the case.

Well you can see in the videos that the Garand is more abrupt. Its perfectly safe though.
What I find interesting is the high weight and fine ergonomics of the Garand can do so much to tame a powerful cartridge like the 30-06 in an action that we now know unlocks under pretty high pressure. This same issue is what led the the mid length gas system in carbine length ARs.