Is 8 Rounds Enough?
- Thread starter M1Rifle30-06
- Start date
madcratebuilder
New member
Enough to win WW2, eight rounds at a time.
It's quick to reload with practice. If you feel you really need more fire power then trade for a M1A with a 25 rd mag.
It's quick to reload with practice. If you feel you really need more fire power then trade for a M1A with a 25 rd mag.
This is the 'somebody's always got a faster car' problem. Which isn't a problem at all
Is 8 rounds enough? What if I had to shoot 9 times without reloading?
An M1 carbine can take a 15 round mag. Is that enough? What if I had to shoot 16 times before reloading?
An M1 carbine can take a 30 round mag? Is that enough? What would happen if I had to shoot 31 times before reloading?
An M249 can take a 200 round hopper? Is that enough? What if I have to shoot 201 times before...
Dude. You're asking "would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation?" No. A tactical nuclear warhead isn't right for every situation either.
There's no contest for mag capacity except in our heads if you're talking about extremes. if you had an M16 with a magical 10,000 round capacity in your truck, and you were 100 yards away from it, tell me...was 10,000 rounds enough for every situation?
Is 8 rounds enough? What if I had to shoot 9 times without reloading?
An M1 carbine can take a 15 round mag. Is that enough? What if I had to shoot 16 times before reloading?
An M1 carbine can take a 30 round mag? Is that enough? What would happen if I had to shoot 31 times before reloading?
An M249 can take a 200 round hopper? Is that enough? What if I have to shoot 201 times before...
Dude. You're asking "would this 8 rounds of 30-06 and a reload be enough for every situation?" No. A tactical nuclear warhead isn't right for every situation either.
There's no contest for mag capacity except in our heads if you're talking about extremes. if you had an M16 with a magical 10,000 round capacity in your truck, and you were 100 yards away from it, tell me...was 10,000 rounds enough for every situation?
Double Naught Spy
New member
Is this like saying the M16 won the Gulf War?
And a lot of guys with Garands didn't come back because of getting shot reloading or not having the ability to top off (can't change the clip until empty).
As ever, I am unable to find the testimonials of people in gun fights that have been upset about having more than enough ammo for the fight, but I have read several about folks who didn't have enough.
If you can't shoot you need a vest full of 20 or 30 round magazines. If you can shoot competently then 8 rounds at a time will be way more than you will ever be likely to use. You aren't part of a rifle squad taking on a company of terrorists you are a man alone defending home and family from boogermen. If you shoot hunting bullets loaded to Garand specifications you won't have to hit them 20 times to put them down. Unlikely you need to many rounds of hardball ammo either, something about a 150 gr bullet making a through and through hole giving two ends to bleed from discourages bad guys no matter what they have been smoking, drinking, snorting or injecting. Not a magic bullet but more than adequate.
Just like a lot of guys got shot while reloading BARs or M1 carbines or K98s or Type 38s or MP40s. Reloading an M1 rifle is not a laborious and time-consuming process. The 'ping got GIs killed' thing, is that where you're going? Gosh what a myth that is
100% not true, though. You can eject a clip at any time and change it whenever you like. There's a rocking lever on the left side of the receiver for exactly that purpose.
You can also top-off the clip, contrary to popular belief, while it's in the mag.
Last edited:
Glenn E. Meyer
New member
Korean war was something of a draw. As far as the Japanese, would 8 rounds be enough for the Yamato?
Don't mean to be cranky, but can we skip cliches?
The Garand was an effective rifle but defeat in major conflicts had many factors.
Don't mean to be cranky, but can we skip cliches?
The Garand was an effective rifle but defeat in major conflicts had many factors.
Double Naught Spy
New member
Wow, BARs M1 carbines, K98s and MP40s only held 8 rounds and were semi-auto? No, they didn't/weren't. The more time you spend reloading, the more time you aren't fighting. Part of the reason for going to semi-auto from the bolt guns like the K98s is rate of fire. A lot of time was lost cycling the bolt and while cycling the bolt, the soldier isn't firing, is he.
Few people carried BARs, but yes, one of the complaints was the mag capacity.
Reloading the Garand is not laborious? Loading 4 times to get 30 shots is pretty laborious and time consuming compared to loading once. By a well trained soldier, the Garand could shoot 40-50 rounds a minute. Cool, that is 5-7 loadings, but you would be starting off with the gun loaded and so we will go 4-6 loadings. With reloads of a trained soldier taking 4-5 seconds, you are looking at 1/4 to 1/2 of the time being spent on reloading alone. That is a goodly amount of time doing something other than fighting the enemy.
comn-cents
New member
10-96 "I'm sorry, I just can't see the soundness of that advice"
I don't remember giving this as advice. FOLKS!
I don't remember giving this as advice. FOLKS!
Yes, wow. I am surprised at your response. Purely argumentative. By the way, the K98 held 5 rounds. But I want to rebut to each of your points:
As I said, the K98 didn't hold close to eight rounds. But that's beside the point. I never made a suggestion that these weapons had the same capacity as an M1 rifle, and you may note I used examples that demonstrably held varying numbers of rounds. I don't know where you're going with that line of reasoning.
No. That is true of all current firearms however. At some point, you must concede, a soldier must reload. Your argument is more is desirable, which is fine, as I never stated less was desirable. The question is "was it enough?" and as far as the M1 rifle in WWII went, yes, it was documentably enough. Twenty-eight rounds (loaded) in a mag in Vietnam. Was it enough? What did they really need? 40? 75? More is better. But your assertion is that guys got killed because they had to reload their M1s a lot. You know that weapons must be reloaded. So tell me: the 1903 and 1903A3 were commonly issued in WWII. Did those guys get killed 62.5% faster than M1 equipped GIs?
That is because it was used as a light machinegun on full automatic with a cyclic rate that was relatively high. The M1 rifle was not intended for that role; there's no connection with complaints to the BAR's mag regarding the rifle's magazine capacity except as a mathematical exercise because the two weapons weren't intended to do the same thing
On the surface that makes perfect sense. But you're not really addressing my statement with your basic observation. Loading the M1 rifle is not laborious at all; I'm pretty sure you've done it. You tell me: do you find it hard? Guys with Enfields in WWI and WWII had high rates of fire. You'll say "well it had a 10 round mag". I'll say that your argument is that the SMLE was no good because of the limited mag, since guys with 20 round mags complained of limited mag capacity. Looking at it that way, your take on it loses a lot of impact. There's no equation for the number of rounds a soldier is really going to fire or how many times he'll reload. You can figure out an average; they called it a 'unit of fire'. But it wasn't an absolute. And the 'unit of fire' in WWII wasn't really a lot.
My math tells me that loading four times would get me 32 shots, which is an insight as to why I left college I guess. But I'm big on "reasonable". I'm curious as to where the 4-5 second calculation came from though.
Forty-five rounds a minute. That's a lot, wouldn't you say? From what I've read, combat is not just pulling a trigger as fast and as often as is humanly possible; but since I'm not a combat vet, I guess that's just hearsay on my part. By my calculations, the Battle of the Bulge for example lasted 40 days, and I make it 1440 minutes per day. Your example has a GI firing just shy of 65000 rounds a day if all he did was shoot, reload, and shoot, reload, etc. Let's give him a forty hour week and say it's only eight hours a day. That still exceeds a rationally possible ammo supply, doesn't it? Of course it does. I won't tell you what men do in combat. I'll just say that I don't see a soldier firing almost 22000 rounds a day on average when in combat from any magazine fed weapon in use in WWII
Last edited:
kilimanjaro
New member
I remember reading a news article some years back about a Phlippine policeman or game warden, some such thing, got into a fight with 7 muslim guerrillas. He had a Garand with one clip, 8 rounds, the guerrillas had modern assault weapons. He shot all 7 of them in a hours-long fight, using cover and setting up his shot. I don't recall if he had one round remaining after it was over, or not.
So is it adequate? If you don't blaze away, sure seems like it.
So is it adequate? If you don't blaze away, sure seems like it.
UnbearablePanda
Moderator
Billy the kid and his rifle. That is all.
If you can't put down a bad guy with 8 rounds what makes you think 30 misses with a .223 variant is going to be an improvement? Marksmanship first then worry about how many rounds you can reasonably expect to need. I don't know about all the young Keyboard Kommandoes who fear the ping but my active duty days are long behind me and ping meant nothing to me or my friends and relatives. Carried a BAR more than I ever shot one, same for M60, Thank God the M2 was considered a stationary gun, running up and down hills carrying parts of that gun would have killed me and I was built like a gorilla. On the other hand they didn't have that scary ping which would have told enemy sharpshooters from 300 meters away when to kill me. 
Adamantium
New member
It's good to see a discussion tanking so fast. Normally you don't see a quote/rebuttal fight until at least page 3.
To answer the OP I'd feel comfortable with a full clip and a reload riding around in my truck. I'd feel less comfortable with the ability for over-penetration of a full power 30 caliber cartridge, but there is no 100% safe way to shoot a gun at someone/something.
Gravity will drop an AR15 magazine to the ground, that speeds things up.
To answer the OP I'd feel comfortable with a full clip and a reload riding around in my truck. I'd feel less comfortable with the ability for over-penetration of a full power 30 caliber cartridge, but there is no 100% safe way to shoot a gun at someone/something.
Gravity will drop an AR15 magazine to the ground, that speeds things up.
Oh, horsehockey. The last time I checked Adamantium, this forum allowed a 'quote' feature. It isn't just for uses that you give your prior approval for. The difference between you and me is that when I disagree with somebody, I address it with them, while you just make vague backhand comments from the sidelines. If you want the thread to be on topic- which by the way, both 00Spy and I were demonstrably being since we were discussing if 8 rounds is enough or not- then stop making comments about other people and just join the conversation. And if you don't like that, PM a mod, stop singling me out in this forum, which by the way, isn't exactly smiled on
L_Killkenny
New member
Within the context of the OP's question for around the farm stuff, gun holding8 rounds is plenty. Anything .30-06 (or even remotely close) is over kill though. Garand would be near the bottom of my "go to" guns.
LK
LK