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.
R. Lee Ermy blamed a change in military philosophy combined with a less accurate weapon.
“I guess the M-16 has its advantages in urban combat areas”
I’d rather have an AK or at least the M-4 over the POS M-16. I hated that weapon. The M-9 was also junk.