Re Norad:



I guess this quote needs to be qualified. Although I said that the Garand and Mauser where fine examples of the type together with the Enfield, the Garand is a gas operated semi-automatic. By definition any gas operated weapon is more complex, is heavier (due to more parts complexity) and subject to reliability issues because of the ingress of dirt and mud and even different temperature and humidities the weapon is used in. Even the venerable British Bren Gun had reliability issues because it was gas operated even though it was regarded by some as the most reliable light machine gun during WWII. I know this only to well as I have also used an SLR L1A1 Self-Loading Rifle also many years ago. Throw a bolt action rifle (Masuer or Enfield) into a muddy pool of stagnant water or push the muzzle end deep into some wet sand and it will take only a few seconds to get it to work again. Remove the bolt and magazine, take out the pull through from the Butt and pull through the barrel then replace the bolt and magazine and your done. The Garrand was a fine example of a gas operated medium calibre rifle, it was heavier, it was unable to be reloaded until the last cartridge was ejected, it held 2 rounds less than the Enfield, the rifles centre of balance I suspect was not as 'natural' as the Enfield or Mauser therefore being a bit more difficult in its handling. The garrand would probably be comparable to the SLR in terms of its ability and functionality although I suspect a bit more reliable than the SLR because it had fewer parts to go wrong. The real question was; is the Garrand, Mauser or Enfield more lethal than the M16 or L85A2 with its smaller 5.56 cartridge in the right hands. I suspect that they all are.