Can someone explain why the M1 Garand is not a battle rifle?

It is. Semi-auto in .308/7.62 NATO. I don't know where the detachable magazine requirement came from.

>>31973857
One idiot arguing in battle rifle threads.

always thought it was one

>>31973857
>>31973864
>>31973869
ok, Just curious, cause I always wonder when I see people say it isnt in BR threads. I just never want to challenge the faggots on it.

>>31973885

>I just never want to challenge the faggots on it.

Better to avoid generals all together. By their very nature they become a circlejerk of a few self important trips that hardly discuss guns at all. Basically /r9k/ with the occasional pic of a gun.

>>31973857
The M1 Garand was not originally chambered in 7.62x51mm NATO, dumbass. Also battle rifles have to be select fire

>>31974575
I though select fire was a requirement of assault rifles, many battle rifles, such as the L1A1 were shipped only semi-auto..

>>31974575
Youre fucking stupid

>>31973857
>in .308/7.62 NATO
I'd rather an original M1 Garand eating up some .30-06
I don't thing Garands are supposed to be able to handle a 7.62 without exploding.

>>31974729

>I don't thing Garands are supposed to be able to handle a 7.62 without exploding.

The fuck? Plenty of converted M1's were put to use the 7.62x51 round in the 50s and 60s. The Italians for example converted theirs.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beretta_BM_59

>listening to a bunch of faggots that collect dragon dildos and jack of to cartoon porn tell you what a battle rifle is
/brg

File: Train Deal.gif (2MB, 426x240px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 426x240px

>>31975050
This faggot doesn't jerk off to cartoon porn and has the audacity to tell people his misbegotten opinion.

And a garand totally isn't a battle rifle. No large capacity magazine, never had a select fire model. That and the term Battle Rifle was used to separate them from the WW2 era rifles and the assault rifles that were the new hotness. Explicitly, a garand is not a battle rifle.

>>31974621
Only the british L1A1 was single auto because the bongs orderd them specifically this way
all other were select fire

>>31974729
>>31974575
Sorry, I'm a retard. The M1 Garand is in .30-06, but it's still a full-power cartridge.

>>31974741
What exactly is the difference between 7.62x51 and .30-06 that makes it worth spending the money to convert the weapon to support that ammunition?
I know they're both on the larger side, but what are the ballistics that make the conversion worth it?

>>31976784
>What exactly is the difference between 7.62x51 and .30-06 that makes it worth spending the money to convert

One was the round the garand was originally chambered in one was the new NATO standard round during the 50's and 60's.

Less ballistics more logistics.

>>31976784
>muh nato
>muh standard across the alliance

Fags had to ditch 30.06 even tho it is almost the same round ballistically if not better only because if the reds invaded we couldnt have the fucking italians using carcano's to defend themselves.

>>31974575
They made garands in 7.62 (m1e14 and various export versions)

The T20E2 Garand was select fire

Also the Italians had a detachable magazine version with the Beretta BM59

>>31976820
I know the original Garand used .30-06, hence the reason I asked why the conversion was worth anything, you think I'm stupid or something?
And still, why let those faggots at NATO decide what should be a standard or not, fuck those incompetent retards.

>>31976885
Why even bother, Italians are pretty much French people with better food and hairy legged women.

>>31973857
> I don't know where the detachable magazine requirement came from.

The autistic cesspit that is /brg/.

File: Describe in single words only the good things that come into your mind about... your mother.gif (1MB, 600x251px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 600x251px

>>31977474
>Thinking /brg/ came up with. 35-40 year old term

How new are you?