WWII about 20,000 rounds expended per kill.
Vietnam, about 250,000 rounds expended per kill.
Was that a case of difficult terrain, or the ammo consuming behavior of the M-16, or poor marksmanship?
Peronally, I like the Garand. I guess the M-16 has its advantages in urban combat areas and in thick jungle where the fighting is up and close in your face. But I believe the Garand is better for long range shooting in open forests and fields as in Europe. But it did function very well in the Pacific Theater.
True, its a lot heavier, but in a bayonet fight I guess that provides an advantage.
At any rate, I love mine. It shoots better than I do.