Do you think the Garand is obsolete?


PDA






DMK
August 11, 2007, 12:23 AM
Do you think the M1 Garand is still an effective service weapon, or is it a relic, only suitable for range use and museums?

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think the Garand is obsolete?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
JamesM
August 11, 2007, 12:24 AM
I hope not. I just sent in an order to CMP......:D. You dont see many new semi-autos in 30-06.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 12:25 AM
You're assuming that a bolt action is obsolete. Tell that to our snipers over in Iraq. ;)

DMK
August 11, 2007, 12:28 AM
You're assuming that a bolt action is obsolete. Tell that to our snipers over in Iraq.That's a special purpose weapon.

MikeG
August 11, 2007, 12:29 AM
IMHO, both the Garand and the bolt action are effective weapons.

Just because the 2008 model autos are out, it doesn't mean the 2005s are junk.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 12:31 AM
That's a special purpose weapon.

Special purpose or not, they are far from obsolete.

A .30-06 slug from a Garand will kill you just as dead as .223 or .308.



For what it's worth, in my opinion any firearm chambered for a smokeless powder cartridge (that is still commercially produced) is "current," to the effect that it's not obsolete.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 12:32 AM
In my opinion, the Garand is the ultimate bolt-action rifle (I know it isn't a bolt-action, but it acts alot like one). Think about it. It's just about as accurate as all the old ones, has a higher capacity than nearly all of them (SMLE excluded), and it has an automatic followup. It's bloody perfect. If I ever had to go into battle with an honest-to-God rifle, the Garand would be it. It's really the last rifle the US ever fielded. After the Garand, riflemanship became less important. Suddenly, you had the full-auto capability and the move to different tactics. It's the last of its breed. And a one of a kind.
Yes, the Garand is still effective. If you use it like you should.

DMK
August 11, 2007, 12:34 AM
Special purpose or not, they are far from obsolete.

A .30-06 slug from a Garand will kill you just as dead as .223 or .308.
As will a 45-70 out of a Rolling Block, but I would rather not be armed with one of those in a battle or disaster area if I had the choice.

Regolith
August 11, 2007, 12:35 AM
As an infantry rifle? Yes. As a special purpose or hunting rifle? Nope.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 12:35 AM
I'm sure you'd damn well rather have a .45-70 out of rolling block than a brand new Glock though, wouldn't you?


edit; yes I know I'm comparing apples and oranges, but an old .45-70 rifle is still better as an infantry weapon than many "modern" firearms. It all comes down to the definition of obsolete.

pdowg881
August 11, 2007, 12:38 AM
I see the en bloc clip as a drawback. With a box mag it's pretty much perfect. Nolo, you don't consider the m14 as a rifle? In my opinion, the M14 took the almost perfect garand and made it absolutely perfect.

DMK
August 11, 2007, 12:42 AM
I'm sure you'd damn well rather have a .45-70 out of rolling block than a brand new Glock though, wouldn't you?If I was facing three attackers at under 50 yards? I'd rather have the Glock. ;)

Actually, I'd rather have my Garand than either of those choices. :p
(Or an M14/M1A, or a 30-30 lever action, or a ....)

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 12:45 AM
From a universal standpoint, there are two main types of obsolescence. Technical and functional.

Technical obsolescence means that a product is no longer on par with the specifications and precise capabilities of contemporary products made for the same purpose. In this definition, the Garand is obsolete.

Functional obsolescence means that a product can no longer do what it's designed to do, for example a phonograph can no longer be used to play most contemporary music. Hence it is functionally obsolete. The Garand, whose function is to shoot and kill enemy soldiers, will still do so with a willing operator. Hence it is not functionally obsolete.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:00 AM
The Garand can't be obsolete in the technical sense, because its role has effectively died out.
Nobody arms their military with high powered, accurate, long range rifles, which is what the Garand is, anymore. We're in the age of the assault rifle now (not that that's necessarily a bad thing), and the classic rifle is dead. As for the M14? The M14, in my opinion, is the ultimate pointless beaurocratic hybrid mess. What I'm saying is, the higher ups in the Army stuck with their 3,000-ft range requirement from the old bolt-action days, and, when the people designing the test rifles tried to put the next foot forward (the next foot being the assault rifle), they wouldn't have it. Thus the FAL (in 7.62x51mm) as we know it today and the M14 were born. Both were strange "Battle Rifles" that had full-auto but weren't really capable of using it properly. The M14 was chosen because it was American and was the son of the Garand. And thus it was born. This is not to say that the M14 is a bad rifle, because it's not. But its design was confused, trying to be as close to an assault rifle as possible, while still being based off the Garand and still satisfying the US military brass. The M14 is a good rifle on semiauto, but not the best at either job. Like I said, its design was confused.
Anyway, the ultimate Garand would not be the M14. The ultimate Garand would be in .30-06, it would have either a 10- or 15- round detachable box magazine (I don't like those en-bloc clips either) and that would really be the extent of the changes. They got extremely close to that with the T44 (I think that's it, it was the Garand that almost got fielded at the end of WWII, it used the BAR's magazine), and that was never fielded. And its magazine was too large. Too much weight for that job.

MrTuffPaws
August 11, 2007, 01:03 AM
The Garand was obsolete with the introduction of the assault rifle. It it wasn't, we would still be issuing it.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:04 AM
The ultimate Garand would be in .30-06, it would have either a 10- or 15- round detachable box magazine (I don't like those en-bloc clips either) and that would really be the extent of the changes.

That makes no sense, as the .308 is in all ways a superiour cartridge to the .30-06 in this scenario. Shorter case length equals less weight and bulk, with identical ballistic performance and lethality. 10 or 15 round box mags are readily available for the M14/M1A. Presto, you have your ultimate Garand. It's called the M14 (minus the selector switch)/M1A.

Evil Monkey
August 11, 2007, 01:13 AM
The Garand is TACTICALLY obsolete. It does not fit with modern tactics they way intermediate cartridge assault rifles do. Even mag fed battle rifles are not the best weapons to use with modern tactics, but they're much better than the Garand. Therefore, as a fighting weapon for a modern military, it is totally obsolete.

R.W.Dale
August 11, 2007, 01:16 AM
Ask yourself this Do you want to be sent into a place where people are trying to KILL you armed with a 10lb rifle that only holds 8 shots of an ammunition you can only carry a limited quantity of due to weight.

I don't

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:16 AM
The biggest argument for them being tactically/militarily obsolete is that .30-06 ammunition is no longer a part of the military supply chain.

If a Special Forces guy requested a Garand for a specific mission, his superiours would probably laugh at him (I wonder if they'd allow it though...)


Ask yourself this Do you want to be sent into a place where people are trying to KILL you armed with a 10lb rifle that only holds 8 shots of an ammunition you can only carry a limited quantity of due to weight. If the enemy is 500+ yards away? Absolutely.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:19 AM
The .308 does not have identical ballistics to .30-06.
.30-06 does about 3,000 f/s with a 150 grain bullet.
.308 does about 2,800 f/s with the same bullet.
Thus, the .30-06 is slightly more capable. And that small amount of increased capability is necessary in the Garand's role. As for the 20-round magazines, that's really the M14 trying to be an assault rifle. The absolute maximum magazine capacity for a classic military rifle should be 15 rounds. Why? Two reasons. One, there aren't many 20-round magazines that I know of that allow you to go very low prone, which can be important to a rifleman. Two, in a rifleman's position, he shouldn't need more than 15 rounds to do the job, and any more would just weigh his rifle down. Now, that does not mean that the rifleman carries less rounds than someone armed with a battle rifle, because he does carry as much. It just means that the weight is one his body, not his gun, which alleviates his arms and hands and ultimately allows him to aim better, helping him get off more effective shots.
Now, if I were trying to build the Garand into a battle rifle, I'd just make the M14. It does that admirably. However, it is important to understand that the battle rifle was born because of stupid beaurocracy that merely got in the way of the adoption of the assault rifle. Now, after the fact, we figured out how to use battle rifles effectively, and all was well. But a battle rifle and a classic rifleman's rifle are two distinct (but close) things. The Garand is a classic rifle (and the best in existence, really), and the M14 is a battle rifle (and a good one, but I have to think the FAL is better).
Anyway, for its role, the Garand is the best. It's not perfect, but there aren't many changes I can suggest to make it better. Oh, and just because classic rifleman tactics aren't being used anymore doesn't mean they aren't effective. It's just that no one has decided to pick them up from where they left off (which was with the Garand).
I'd do it.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:22 AM
The .308 does not have identical ballistics to .30-06.
Tell that to the war department. The 7.62x51mm round was DESIGNED to match the external ballistics of the .30-06 with standard 150gr ball.


If someone has a Garand and a .308 chamber adapter, and a chronograph handy, could they please confirm/deny that they're virtually identical with military ball?

And as for magazine capacity, use a 15-round mag in an M14/M1A. Problem solved.

R.W.Dale
August 11, 2007, 01:23 AM
If the enemy is 500+ yards away? Absolutely.

That's what the 20mm cannon and M2 is for.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:24 AM
I absolutely agree with General Geoff on his last post.
Ask yourself this Do you want to be sent into a place where people are trying to KILL you armed with a 10lb rifle that only holds 8 shots of an ammunition you can only carry a limited quantity of due to weight.
Y'know what's interesting, we do that today. We still send people into combat with weapons that have a maximum capacity of 8 rounds, and they weigh upwards of ten pounds, and those people are some of the most feared combatants in the current conflict.
They carry shotguns.
So you can remedy the shortcomings of your weapon by using the right tactics.
That's how all tactics work, because your weapons won't do everything you ask them to. It's all just a matter of which tactics you want to embrace. Me? I'm actually quite partial to classic rifleman tactics. And CQB shotgun tactics. They complement each other quite well.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:26 AM
That's what the 20mm cannon and M2 is for.

You asked a question and I answered it. That's all.


edit; Nolo, a very slight discrepency of muzzle velocity between the M14 and Garand may be attributed to the fact that the Garand's barrel is 2" longer (24" compared to 22" for a standard M14). Just a thought..

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:29 AM
Sure, that's how our current tactics remedy that problem. But it wouldn't work that way if you used a different set of tactics.
Contrary to popular belief, the popular things aren't the most effective things. If they were, every NATO country in the world would be armed with FALs chambered for the 7mm EM2 cartridge, and would have been that way for the past 50 years. Actually, what tends to happen is all the little lemming countries follow a bigger country (in almost all cases, either the US or the Soviet Union), at least in ammunition, which is enough to basically globalize a certain tactic. The fact that the world has basically chosen assault rifle tactics is because they found favor (eventually). It's not because they are inherently more effective than any other type of tactic.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:30 AM
Those are both out of 20" barrels, I believe.

Houston Tom
August 11, 2007, 01:32 AM
THere is no doubt that the Garand is an effective weapon.

THere are however so many variables when you consider what is the most effective weapon, THe nautue of combat has changed and continues to change constantly, to some extent changes are driven by technology and is some case technology changes because of the nature of of combat and tactics. Throw in variables like terrain the situation ie one man defending his home against goblins or a group defending their camp.

The Garand and its ansestors may not be the optium weapon for many of those situtations, but you could be worse armed than if you were holding a garand

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:37 AM
That is true, Tom. It is certainly far from what I would call obsolete. And I believe that tactics can be whatever you want them to be, as long as you implement them properly and account for their weaknesses.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:39 AM
Battle is a highly fluid situation; the soldier is the element that adapts, not the hardware. The rifle is a relatively inflexible tool, and once you try to make it do too much that it wasn't designed for, it begins to demonstrate its inadequacies. This can be shown if you try to use a Garand while clearing a building, or try to use an M4 to engage soldiers holding out in a trench 1000 yards away.

Samuraigg
August 11, 2007, 01:41 AM
The Garand IS a fearsome weapon. Does it have drawbacks? Yes, of course. Serious drawbacks? I say no. I think people give the gun too much grief over the enbloc clips. I'm starting to actually prefer the enblocs over regular magazines.

Andrewsky
August 11, 2007, 01:47 AM
It's an awesome gun if you're a Canadian citizen.

In Canada centerfire rifles are limited to 5+1 rounds, but the Garand is exempt. Hence it pretty much offers the most firepower available up there.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:47 AM
Samuraigg, I prefer en-blocs as well, but I wouldn't force them upon modern soldiers.
Tell that to the war department. The 7.62x51mm round was DESIGNED to match the external ballistics of the .30-06 with standard 150gr ball.
I have to disagree (not with that statement, though. I think the requirements of the War Department were just under the .30-06 in capability, however.). The .30-06 that the Garand used was downloaded from its maximum capability. Why? A kind of silly reason, really: The military ranges were to short. The range of the more powerful .30-06 was being used on ranges designed for the .30-03 and .30 Krag, and so they were overshooting past the range property. So, it is quite possible that the military .30-06 that was being used in 1951 was equivalent to the .308. However, a fully loaded .30-06 and a fully loaded .308 are significantly different cartridges in performance. And I vote on the higher performance for a classic rifle.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 01:50 AM
Use .30-06 with a hotter load than standard military ball in a Garand, and tell me what happens after a few clips.


Going by your logic, I would argue that .303 is superiour to .30-06 and .308, because it has even MORE cartridge capacity, and can be loaded even HOTTER, in a bolt gun with a strong enough action.

The bottom line is that the weight saved by a shorter action and lighter cartridges is more valuable even with rifleman tactics than any theoretical extra range/punch that a hot-loaded .30-06 cartridge may provide.

Samuraigg
August 11, 2007, 01:55 AM
Oh, yeah, I meant just for my own civilian use.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 01:56 AM
It depends how fast you're shooting them.
Are you blasting it on bump fire or are you taking your time and aiming like a good rifleman?
It makes a difference.
The load is not hot per se, but it was more powerful. Modern .30-06s have the same performance.
And I'm only talking about standard loads for these cartridges, I'm not talking about anything special. I didn't know that .303 had more cartridge capacity than .30-06? That's weird, they must load it really lightly, because it's performance is significantly lower. That would probably make it a virtual brother to 7.62x54R.
I'm not saying that it's not possible to improve on the .30-06, it is. But I consider the .30-06 and the .308 to be two different and distinct animals.
And a rifleman with a .308 Garand would be well served, no doubt about that. But if I were in charge of the armarments of an army and I was using classic rifleman tactics, I'd choose .30-06.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:01 AM
They load it lighter because most rifles chambered for .30-03 can't withstand higher chamber pressures that a hotter loading would create.

Like I said, try firing "modern" .30-06 loads in a Garand, and tell me what happens (If you didn't know, you'll bend some parts related to the gas system).


edit; also, replace .303 with .30-03. My mix-up.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:07 AM
Interesting.
Then the ultimate Garand would have a stronger gas system. I do know that the Garand designed after the .30-06 was downloaded (they did that with the M1903 Springfield, not to mention the Garand was designed initially for a .276 caliber cartridge, so they'd only strengthen it as much as they had to.), so that doesn't surprise me.
However, I still believe firmly in my magazine argument. It's the same reason that all M16s aren't equipped with Beta-C mags. They shouldn't be carrying all that weight on the actual weapon itself.
Oh, yes, .30-03, I knew that. It's, like, a few millimeters longer, right? But nobody uses .30-03 anymore, so nobody would load them "hot" (i.e. like a modern cartridge).

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:11 AM
It's not a stronger gas system you're looking for, it's a differently calibrated one.

See, the problem with (gas operated) autoloaders is that they're designed to cycle properly within a very narrow pressure range. Change that pressure by swapping to hotter ammo, you bend an op rod. Use lighter loads, and the gun will fail to cycle.

You have to stick to a very narrow load range with ammunition to keep the rifle cycling properly unless you have a variable gas system with an adjustable valve or thereabouts.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:13 AM
I'm sorry, that was my verbal error. I realize that you have gas systems calibrated for certain ranges. Do they make adjustable gas systems for Garands? That would fix the problem. But yeah, the ideal Garand (in my eyes) would be calibrated for the hotter loads.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:16 AM
yes, as a matter of fact you can get adjustable gas valves for the Garand. :)

I see what you're getting at, but the .30-06 is not the do-all end all cartridge you make it out to be. Ballistically speaking, a Garand in .276 Pedersen is superiour to the .30-06 in almost all ways. Weighs less per cartridge too. If you're looking for more brute force, something in like .300 winchester magnum would suit your purposes better.. but at the expense of ammo capacity and weight. It's all a compromise.

Since the .308 matches .30-06 performance in military ball configuration, and weighs less per cartridge and provides for inherently better cycling in autoloading designs, I'd stick with that over any slight advantages .30-06 provides.

The ONLY reason the Garand used .30-06 is because they didn't have time to engineer a suitable shorter cartridge in time for the war..

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:18 AM
Do-all, end-all? Oh, no. It does one thing, and one thing well. For an MG, I'd prefer the .308 almost all the time, the only exception being a door gunner on a helicopter. And yes, the .276 Pederson (it's magnum class), would be better, but it doesn't exist anymore.
I'd be interested to see a Garand in .300 Magnum, though.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:23 AM
Interested in a Garand-like rifle in .300WM?


Buy a BAR. :)

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:24 AM
BARs come in...
Oh, you mean the civvie BAR, not the M1918.
Hehehehe... Shows where my mind lives :rolleyes:

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:28 AM
Well from your arguments, it sounds like you want a lightweight autoloading rifle with a box magazine that fires a magnum rifle cartridge.


To be honest, the only rifle that fits that description that I can think of is a (commercial) BAR.

Houston Tom
August 11, 2007, 02:29 AM
Nolo, I would agree the Garand is not obsolete, would not want to clear a house (note many a GI did it in WW2) with it but if I'm guarding the house and have a large approach then it would do just fine

Gen Geoff,

I agree that the soldier must be adapt and battle is fluid, but the nature of warfare has driven weapons to change and the weapons of choice to change. IF you compare the changes is warfare from ww1 to ww2. IT was obivious that the tactics used in ww1 (western front) could not be repeated. as a result the germans developed the Blitz, and developed weapons to support that type of warfare. An example is that the Geramsn had a long range bomber capable of reaching the US but because of their commitment to the blitz they put their resources toward close ground support aircraft. They really did not push the development of the battle rifle even though they had what was the first assult rifle, because the blitz called for the machine gun to be the primary weapon of the german infanty squad and the riflemen were there to support the MG. So they developed great Mgs and sub mgs and and the bulk of their army carried a bolt action rifle. THis is what I meant that tactice can drive weapon development.

Houston Tom
August 11, 2007, 02:31 AM
Do they still make the Remington 7400? I have one in 30-06 I am not sure what Cals it comes /came in and it is a detach amg semi

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:37 AM
No, it doesn't have to fire a magnum rifle cartridge, just something with good long range capability and probably nothing under 7mm. .276 Pederson was ideal, but the Army wanted to stick with .30-06. If you know of a virtual duplicate of the .276 Pederson, then that's what I'd want the ideal Garand to be chambered for.
Let me just lay down the requirements I'd have for a classic infantry rifle:
-Must hold no less than 8 rounds, preferably 12, of ammunition in a detachable magazine that protrudes no farther than 3" from the rifle, preferably no more than 2".
-Must be capable of semiautomatic fire.
-Must be able to shoot a 150 grain projectile at no less than 3,000 f/s.
-Must be under 11 pounds.
That's basically it. Note that this is for the ideal rifle, and these are not necessarily the requirements I'd give if I were in charge of that sort of thing. They're really goals, not requirements.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:39 AM
7mm Remington Magnum sounds like your dream cartridge.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:41 AM
Probably.
I haven't really looked at it.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 02:43 AM
3000fps, 160gr bullet is a typical loading. Superiour long range ballistics to .30-06.

Coronach
August 11, 2007, 02:46 AM
For what purpose?

For personal use as a SHTF/defensive/survival/TEOTWAWKI rifle, it would be fine. It will, in the year 2006, do everything it did in 1945. As long as you have ammo for it, enblocs to load it, and the skill to use it, it will perform admirably.

For a military weapon, it has been superceded by more recent designs. It is heavy, its ammo is heavy, it is semi-auto only and holds 8 rounds. These are serious liabilities in an environment in which (presumably) your foes have modern assault rifles. However, as in the 'personal use' category, this does not mean that the 8 on-board rounds will not function, that M2 ball will not kill you plenty dead, and that you can't reload the thing faster than you can say "Chesty Puller".

It wouldn't be my first choice for either role, but sure it beats harsh language or a white flag.

mike

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:51 AM
Hmmm... It looks a little big to me. But then that's an occupational hazard, isn't it? The round performs like you want, but it's too big. The round's small enough, but it doesn't perform like you want. I bet you could thin it up a bit (say, to .30-06 case thickness, maybe?) and get optimum performance. pushing 150 grains at 3,000 feet per second with better ballistic performance than .30-06. But I could be wrong. A bunch of engineering went into that cartridge, I'm just wondering whether its goals are the same as mine.

gunnie
August 11, 2007, 03:08 AM
i voted the garand a fearsome weapon. i have one i haven't shot in some twenty years. probably never will again. truth is, i don't really like it....

too long.

too muzzle heavy.

awkward to tac-load, before running dry.

scope mounting options severly limited. in both optics AND the basic system.

mine, a pre-war sprgfld, sprgfld rebuilt in '43, british lend-lease veteran from WWII, has an excellent bore, but is not very accurate. this, for my needs in a semi-auto wartoy. [3-4"@100]

too much wood insulation keeping the heat in.

even worse accuracy when heated, the wood and steel expand at different rates, esp. if moisture is in the equation.

audible alert to one's opponents when empty.

etc..etc...

but i can think of many rifles i'd rather my adversary would use than the garand. especially at ranges over 300 yds.

many of them are currently issued to todays soldiers, world wide.

a sixty five year old veteran CAN still kill you. he is just not going to be as good at it as his younger counterparts.

gunnie

fireflyfather
August 11, 2007, 04:20 AM
If I was facing three attackers at under 50 yards? I'd rather have the Glock

If you line them up in a row, the .45-70 with a really hot load would be just fine.

As for the .308 vs the .30-06 the ballistics are similar, but the 30-06 allows for heavier bullets (although, not as a standard military round).

Personally, I'd bring a 91/30. I don't have to shoot them, just affix the bayonet and stab them before they get within 500m.

USSR
August 11, 2007, 09:18 AM
Two distinctly DIFFERENT questions being asked here:

1. Is the M1 Garand obsolete. Yes, absolutely.

and

2. Is the M1 Garand effective. Yes, absolutely.

Don

BsChoy
August 11, 2007, 09:56 AM
ya gotta admut that the 2 biggest things that would need fixing would be the PING and the 8 round capacity. I do LOVE that PING though! I believe the M14 fixed both however

DMK
August 11, 2007, 11:26 AM
And I believe that tactics can be whatever you want them to be, as long as you implement them properly and account for their weaknesses.This statement reminds me of the Mujahdeen armed with .303 Enfields holding off Soviet troops beyond the effective range of their AKs. If it wasn't for air support and artillery, they'd still be pinned down out there. I'd imagine that SVDs were in high demand out on the plains of Afghanistan.

Looking though photos, blogs and posts by soldiers, it seems to me that 7.62 battle rifles are still used occasionally and quite effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all are equipped with optics either. I'm not sure the assault rifle completely trumps the battle rifle, especially when you get out in the lands of big sky.

Neo-Luddite
August 11, 2007, 11:30 AM
I'm starting to actually prefer the enblocs over regular magazines.



Me too and twice on Sunday. It limits capacity, sure--but I can do something with the M-1 I can't do with an M1a or even a Mini; load and function the weapon with one hand.



The Garand isn't the fastest pointing weapon and isn't for everyone---but it suits my needs and those of many others.

byf43
August 11, 2007, 11:49 AM
I voted that it is an effective weapon, but has drawbacks. (I don't know about 'serious' drawbacks, though!)

In my so-called 'collection', I have the wonderful M1 Garand, the SAI M1A and an AR-HBAR.

Each have their place on the battlefield, and in history, and I would feel well-armed with any one of them.


The ONLY real drawbacks to the Garand (in my NOT so humble opinion) are:
1.) 8 round limitation and not being able to 'top off'
2.) Pling! (Although could be used to your advantage. Toss an empty en-bloc clip to entice your enemy to raise his head, while aiming your STILL loaded rifle his direction!). :what:
3.) Scope mounting has to be off to the side. (Not directly above the bore.)
4.) Not being able to 'clear' a building because of that 24" bbl.

Shifty
August 11, 2007, 12:30 PM
would you haul 1000lbs of firewood in a lamborghini??

if there was one gun that could do everything, we would all only have one gun.


the garand still does what it was designed to do very well. but as others have stated, there is no modern equivalent to judge it against. (closest being the m14)


and here in the PRK, i'd take 8 round en blocs over 10 round box mags anyday of the week and twice on sundays.


oh, and toss an empty en-bloc at anyone except one of us, and they wont even know what that noise means.

Kimber1911_06238
August 11, 2007, 12:31 PM
very effective weapon, but the 8 round capacity is a serious handicap

hank327
August 11, 2007, 02:27 PM
I don't think the "ping" is a tactical issue at all. After all, you have to cut loose with eight 30-06 rounds before you get to the "ping". I doubt after being on the receiving end of 8 ought-six muzzle blasts you'd be able to hear "ping". Even if you could hear the ping, you don't have much time to react before the rifle is reloaded and back in action. Those who complain that you can't tactically reload a Garand are badly mistaken. To do a tactical reload of a Garand, all you do is eject the partially expended en bloc clip and replace it with a new one. It's the exact same technique as used with a rifle using an external magazine.

Joe Demko
August 11, 2007, 02:40 PM
This statement reminds me of the Mujahdeen armed with .303 Enfields holding off Soviet troops beyond the effective range of their AKs. If it wasn't for air support and artillery, they'd still be pinned down out there. I'd imagine that SVDs were in high demand out on the plains of Afghanistan.

But when we are talking about modern military use, not personal use, there are such things as air support, artillery support, etc.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 02:43 PM
Exactly, Hank. And, the Garand is actually easier to top off than other rifles. You merely take loose rounds and refill the still loaded en-bloc.
Anyway, I think that many people are confusing the fact that the Garand is not perfect, with it having certain tactical issues. I'd like to see this same thread about the M16. If anything, the Garand has less issues than an M16. I think that just because the role of the Garand isn't being used by any modern military doesn't mean that it's not a viable role anymore. With the right tactics, I think that an army of Garand-wielding soldiers can be just as formidable as any assault rifle-armed military.

Sure there are things like air support and artillery support, but ask yourself this: what if the Mujahadeen had those things? Would they be any less effective? Part of choosing tactics is choosing terrain, and the Mujahadeen knew how to use their terrain to their advantage.

Joe Demko
August 11, 2007, 02:46 PM
One thing about the Garand that you are ignoring is that it is expensive to manufacture. It's also more difficult to manufacture than more modern designs. Like it or not, that is a factor against its modern day use.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 03:02 PM
Sure, but so are such animals as the FAL and AR-15. Sure the Garand may be hard to manufacture, but there's not reason that can't be remedied. I believe the basic discussion in on the design of the weapon, as opposed to manufacturing techniques.
But a good point, nonetheless. I'm just not sure that it pertains in the way that the thread owner meant it. If it does, then a good observation.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 03:07 PM
And, the Garand is actually easier to top off than other rifles.

I'd say it's easier to top off an M14 with a stripper clip, than to manually add cartridges to an en-bloc clip already in a Garand...

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 03:14 PM
Wow. People cannot accept that maybe weapons have evolved. Same ones that still think cars from the 60's and 70's were made better than today.

CornCod
August 11, 2007, 03:17 PM
I was amazed that about two or three months ago I saw a photo in my local newspaper of two guys in a "elite" Fatah related group carrying Garands during the recent fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine. I suppose that since most of the fighting takes place in urban areas, the superior penetration of 30-06 might be considered helpful.

A Garand would make a good "marksman" rifle. I would hesitate arming an entire army with one. There were a lot of really old weapons being used in the Yugo Civil War in the 90's. There were lots of Mausers, Czech ZB machine-guns, Thompsons. I have a photo of a Croat cop wielding a WWI Lewis gun!

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 03:19 PM
Wow. People cannot accept that maybe weapons have evolved.

I didn't see anyone denying that, just that if needed, the Garand could still be a viable weapon.

Cosmoline
August 11, 2007, 03:19 PM
The Garand was good for its time, but by the end of the 40's there were already superior semiauto battle rifles. The SAFN for example. More accurate, more rugged and with a better gas system and better loading system. That's not an attack on the Garand. It's a fact of life that the first is often not the best when it comes to engineering. People build on earlier designs and make improvements.

The problem is a lot of Americans have come to associate the Garand with WWII and all the vets who fought in it. The Garand isn't a rifle, it's a symbol of their fathers or grandfathers. Suggesting it isn't as perfect as Patton claimed is like burning a flag.

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 03:21 PM
didn't see anyone denying that..

I see 3 pages.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 03:24 PM
Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.

Realistically, even if the United States never migrated past the Garand as their primary infantry rifle, our troops would still be just as well armed and just as competent in a firefight in Iraq as they are with current issue weapons. The Garand is not such an outdated/crippled design as to be something relegated to museums yet.

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 03:32 PM
Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.

Realistically, even if the United States never migrated past the Garand as their primary infantry rifle, our troops would still be just as well armed and just as competent in a firefight in Iraq as they are now. The Garand is not such an outdated/crippled design as to be something relegated to museums yet.
As a military weapon it is obsolete. As a SHTF weapon its a terrible choice given the other options available. As a target rifle for plinking or enjoying America's past, it is a fine weapon indeed.

Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.
The politics involved in weapon adoption for the armed forces might be cut throat, but our troops would severely hindered by not keeping up with the Jones'. Function aside, the weight and length of the rifle alone makes it obsolete.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 03:34 PM
Modern weaponry is not sufficiently ahead of the Garand's design for me to consider it functionally obsolete.

MinScout
August 11, 2007, 03:36 PM
As much as I love the Garand, I'm afraid it is obsolete as a battle rifle. It's too heavy, too powerful, recoils to much, and lacks fire power. For the hobbyist/collector/competitor it still has much appeal, but it has no place in the modern battlefield. Maybe if we convince our enemies to start carrying bolt-action Mausers, the old Garand will come back into vogue. Not until.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 03:38 PM
1.) 8 round limitation and not being able to 'top off'
True -- although a Garand can be loaded and fired fast enough to literally char the handguards, so it isn't as much of a disadvantage as it seems.

2.) Pling! (Although could be used to your advantage. Toss an empty en-bloc clip to entice your enemy to raise his head, while aiming your STILL loaded rifle his direction!).
Old wives' tale. First of all, American soldiers don't come in ones -- they come in squads and platoons and companies. So while one man is reloading, there are plenty more with rounds in the magazine. Secondly, lie down outside of grenade range, and when you hear the ping! jump up and charge -- you won't make it to your knees before I've reloaded.

3.) Scope mounting has to be off to the side. (Not directly above the bore.)
True.

4.) Not being able to 'clear' a building because of that 24" bbl.
False -- thousands of buildings have been cleared by troops with Garands.

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 03:41 PM
False -- thousands of buildings have been cleared by troops with Garands.

Yes, but they didn't have a choice. But I bet those with a Thompson were more comfortable clearing buildings...if you can ever be "comfortable" clearing a building.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 03:46 PM
But I bet those with a Thompson were more comfortable clearing buildings
I'll bet they weren't.

Let me explain -- soldiers are not cops or homeowners. We clear buildings with explosives, rockets and recoilless weapons and by shooting through walls, floors and ceilings. The M1 with AP ammo is ideal in that role.

Neo-Luddite
August 11, 2007, 03:49 PM
3.) Scope mounting has to be off to the side. (Not directly above the bore.)

They make a nice scout-type mount that replaces the rear handguard--CMP has them and if they come down in price I'll snag one.\




People who still consider the Garand a viable battlefield / SHTF rifle have their reasons--these are numerous and varried. The bottom line (often) is fanatical and even cult-like devotion to the platform; You can inform them to the contrary, but they will likely not budge.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 03:55 PM
The bottom line (often) is fanatical and even cult-like devotion to the platform
My bottom line is experience. My first tour in Viet Nam as an Adviser, my issue weapon was the M2 Carbine. Mine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed an M1 Garand off the ARVN and carried that from then on.

My second tour as a company commander, I bullied my battalion commander into getting me two M14 sniper rifles (pre-M21 version), gave one to my only school-trained sniper and kept the other for myself.

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 03:57 PM
Okay, let me outline some things that I believe to be true:
-What the Garand does (i.e. provide long range, heavy firepower) is still a viable military tactic. There hasn't been a significant enough jump in technology to render that tactic obsolete, though almost no nation uses it.
-The Garand does what it does very well.
-The Garand is not perfect.
-I'd rather have a SAFN-49 than a Garand.
-The M14 does not do the same thing as the Garand.
-Thousands upon thousands of Garands were produced in the '40s, if the Garand was too difficult or too expensive to produce, the military would have replaced it, just like they did the Thompson for the same reason.
-All tactics have weak points that need to be reinforced when they are used. Classic rifleman tactics are no different, and I have seen no proof that their weaknesses are any worse than any other form of tactics.
-The Garand will be what I consider to be obsolete when one of two things happen:
a). A rifle comes along that does its job a whole Helluva lot better than it does, like comparing a StG-44 and a G36.
b). It's mission becomes obsolete. Like how the 1861 Springfield's mission (massed fire) is now obsolete.
Until either of those things happen, the Garand will remain outside of obsolescence, thus qualifying for at least the first two poll answers, and I think the results have shown that to be mostly true in the minds this thread's participants.

General Geoff
August 11, 2007, 04:01 PM
I still fail to see how the M14 cannot do anything the Garand can do, and more (disregard anything about "doctrine" of use, I'm talking the actual hardware).

HorseSoldier
August 11, 2007, 04:01 PM
It's obsolete. It was obsolete for how war was actually fought in the 1940s the same way it is obsolete for how war is fought now. Its strength was that, while it was still not optimized for real combat, it was better than its contemporaries like the SMLE and Kar-98K.

I think that just because the role of the Garand isn't being used by any modern military doesn't mean that it's not a viable role anymore. With the right tactics, I think that an army of Garand-wielding soldiers can be just as formidable as any assault rifle-armed military.


It's a popular myth that before that evil old McNamara forced poodle shooters on the US military we were all stone-faced, steely-eyed riflemen picking off the Hun or Japs at a thousand yards with our precision rifle fire.

It's also utter nonsense.

We went into WW2 with a flawed tactical doctrine that stressed long range rifle fire because a bunch of very silly generals failed to grasp that when a guy is dressed in something the color of mud and doing his best to be a minimal target he's just not going to be acquired, much less hit, at anything beyond rather close range. Troops got into combat and found that just because you could pop a round bullseye across a carefully manicured range there was no reason to think you could hit real targets at the same ranges.

A lot of guys lost their lives or were crippled and maimed learning that the training they'd gotten stateside was just shoddy when the rubber met the road on the two-way shooting range, and many veterans of WW2 have discussed how they had to deprogram all that manicured lawn NRA target shooting out of replacement personnel and get them properly trained to suppress, fire, and manuever to close with the enemy and bring real-world effective fire on him, etc.

WW2 is the war the provided us the "almost all infantry engagements occur within 300 meters" factoid after study of how real combat took place. A lot of people had already realized this prior to WW2 (the US, Germans, and Russians were all pushing towards an intermediate round, assault rifle-ish sort of weapon before WW2), but WW2 made the handwriting on the wall almost impossible to ignore (but the US Army managed to do so with the M14 and 7.62x51, at least until the next round of real combat forced the issue).

Combat weapons since that war have not reflected a change in tactical doctrine. They have represented increasing optimization of the service rifle/carbine to actual combat conditions, based on real study of the environment rather than acceptance of conventional wisdom, wishful thinking, and mythology.

All that said, the Garand was a great weapon for its time, because while it was not ideal for real combat conditions (even at the time it was fielded) it was much better for it than most of its contemporaries (the StG-44 and, maybe, FG-42 being exceptions). I wouldn't want to go downrange with a Garand today, even though I like them enough to own two of them (and probably would have taken one in 1941 given the existing options), the same way I would not want to go downrange with a Spencer lever gun today, either, but would have taken one over the alternatives if I was marching or riding into Gettysburg on the 1st of July, 1863. Both will kill someone deader than cancer, there are just better ways to do it today.

And yes, the .276 Pederson (it's magnum class), would be better, but it doesn't exist anymore.

If you know of a virtual duplicate of the .276 Pederson, then that's what I'd want the ideal Garand to be chambered for.


From Barnes' Cartridges of the World -- 276 Pedersen is listed as either a 120 grain bullet at 2550 fps for 1732 foot-pounds or 150 grain bullet at 2360 for 1858 foot-pounds. 6.8mm Remington SPC (115 grain loading from Remington, guessing 20" barrel) is 2800 fps for 2002 foot-pounds. 6.5mm Grendel (123 grain Lapua scenar, 19.5" barrel) is 2565 fps for 1797 foot-pounds. Either one basically does what they were looking at for .276 Pedersen (as do the British 280 and 280/30 rounds, for that matter).

Rexster
August 11, 2007, 04:06 PM
The Garand is not obsolete for the individual civilian rifleman, who needs decent accuracy at extended ranges, and good penetration, IMHO. I would not want to use a Garand to search buildings for bad guys. (I wear a big-city police badge; no military service.) Had I been one of the responders to the infamous North Hollywood bank robbery incident, with the two seriously armed bad guys armed wearing body armor, a Garand would have been VERY comforting, though of course smaller-bore carbines ended up being adequate for the task. I have mixed feelings about the en-bloc clip, and kind of like the idea of the stripper clip guide guide as found on the M14/M1A, coupled with the small 5-round magazine, for most use, with the 20-round magazines held in reserve for reloads in extreme situations. I would love to see some kind of removable insert that would allow a Garand to do without the en-bloc clips, that would act as a functional internal magazine. Being located between the South Texas brush country and the East Texas Big Thicket, long, protruding box magazines are not my favorite things. FWIW, I have owned a Garand in the past, and have never had an M1A, though I guess my Mini-14 is "M1A lite."

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 04:11 PM
Interesting HorseSoldier, I was under the impression that .276 Pederson was a much more powerful cartridge. Heh. Then it's not what I want. Back to .30-06!
In close quarters combat, the Garand is far from ideal, certainly. However, those are not the tactics that I would use if I were to arm a military force with Garands or a Garand-class weapon. The tactics I would employ would use much more open countryside, and may, in fact be largely defensive. Mountains, valleys and other such areas would become my friend. Capturing a town or city would take a different angle. More precise, surgical warfare, with more special forces. Using rifles like that require different tactics and doctrine, and a different organization to the military. That does not mean that it is obsolete.
HorseSoldier, I agree with you. For the way WWII was fought, the Garand was not, by any stretch of the imagination, the perfect weapon. However, if I were to use Garands, I wouldn't fight like they fought in WWII.

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 05:05 PM
I'll bet they weren't.

Let me explain -- soldiers are not cops or homeowners. We clear buildings with explosives, rockets and recoilless weapons and by shooting through walls, floors and ceilings. The M1 with AP ammo is ideal in that role.

Except that the M1 is way too long.
AP would be nice, but 8 rounds in semi auto is FAR from ideal when it comes to room clearing. Clearing a building is one of those areas where "spray and pray" might actually be needed.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 05:11 PM
AP would be nice, but 8 rounds in semi auto is FAR from ideal when it comes to room clearing. Clearing a building is one of those areas where "spray and pray" might actually be needed.
You can spray and pray all you like with a Thompson, but if you ain't getting penetration, you ain't getting nothing.

Careful, systematic shooting with AP ammunition is far from 'spray and pray' however. As part of a tactical solution that includes heavier weapons, it is ideal for fighing in built-up areas.

Outlaws
August 11, 2007, 05:15 PM
As part of a tactical solution that includes heavier weapons, it is ideal for fighing in built-up areas.

I would like to think no one is firing heavier weapons at the building I am in if I was clearing it.

AP is great, but the M1 is not idea for room clearing in anyway, shape, or form. The Thompson has drawbacks too, that is why we don't use that anymore, but its better for going into a building than an M1 is.

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 05:21 PM
I would like to think no one is firing heavier weapons at the building I am in if I was clearing it.
I'm having difficulty visualizing your tactical concept.

Normally, we use artillery, tanks and infantry together. In WWII we also used flamethrowers in clearing buildings. Nowadays we have different weapons (such as FLASH), the 25mm Hughes chaingun on the Bradley, and so on. And we use them synergistically


AP is great, but the M1 is not idea for room clearing in anyway, shape, or form. The Thompson has drawbacks too, that is why we don't use that anymore, but its better for going into a building than an M1 is.

I don't understand what you mean by "room clearing." The idea is to kill the enemy, not to "clear" rooms. As the Texas Rangers were wont to say, "Never send a man where you can send a bullet." Or a grenade, recoilless rifle round, or anything that will kill him without giving him a chance to kill you.

aka108
August 11, 2007, 06:03 PM
Loved the Garand and my old '50 Mercury. Both great in their day. For many reasons that have been stated many times on this forum I think the AK types top out for close combat and the bolt action is still master at reaching out to touch someone.

Blackfork
August 11, 2007, 06:11 PM
I killed deer with mine the last two years and just shot it at the National Matches at Camp Perry. (55th overall.)

I think it is a dangerous and effective weapon if you know how to shoot. If you don't know how to shoot, it doesn't matter what you are shooting.

I'm going to shoot mine again in Sept at the Texas Garand Match and it's in line for more deer. Gotta get the 1903A3, the Krag and a P17 out of the way first though.

Limeyfellow
August 11, 2007, 06:18 PM
You can spray and pray all you like with a Thompson, but if you ain't getting penetration, you ain't getting nothing.

Unless the walls of the room are reinforced with thick steel sheeting, .45acp is going to go through the inner walls and likely the outer wall of most buildings anyway. The Box O Truth shows howmuch penetration it really can have.

Danus ex
August 11, 2007, 06:19 PM
Few of us are even remotely qualified to answer this question. Vern Humphrey is the only one here who has even claimed to have used the Garand in combat.

I would like to know, Vern, how did your Garand perform alongside the M14 and M16, if such a comparison can even be made? I suppose Vietnam is the only theater in which all three of our recent mass-issue rifles made an appearance.

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 06:26 PM
I am in the blue as far as my thoughts go. (Has a few problems that make it not a first choice)
Why I like the FN 49 rather than the Garand. 8 in the clip is and has been a big "***" to me. Some could shoot almost as fast and accurate with a 1903 rifle and stripper clips and did very accurately.

Here I am in the Corps shooting ten rounds and have to dick around with 2 for starters Hmmm

But that is now and not then, that is what we had.

Shot expert in the service with it and always liked it, for what it did at the time. But for real shooting I carried the BAR...Then not now ;)

Lots out there that are better as far as weapons go but at the time (late 50's early 60's) it was awesome.

Here is the thing though 8 rounds were in there very fast and not 5 at a time. So the question is do you like it??? Yes,:D I do. But it has had its day in the sun.

This is something I have read about the carbine (nam) but don't have much on the Garand there.

http://callofduty.filefront.com/info/Weapons_US_M1Carbine

I found this not many in nam I'd say. http://www.m1-m1a-ar15.com/faq.html


HQ

Dienekes
August 11, 2007, 07:07 PM
Circumstances alter cases, and times change. My CJ5 Jeep is excellent at some specialized things, and downright lacking (read dangerous!) at others. Warfare has evolved and a tool that is a very good compromise at one time and place becomes less so elsewhere.

The Garand made its reputation on reliability under battlefield conditions. I would rather maintain one (or its descendant M14) any day than an M16); but an M4 has its place, just like a J frame airweight does. And yes, it would have been better in .276, but that didn't happen for reasons of tradition and economy. And if you want power and penetration, well, AP is very impressive stuff.

I have seen and done some "rattle-battle" type shooting with the Garand on steel at 200 yards and it was an eye-opener. Don't laugh at a guy's weapon until you've seen him shoot.

Maybe we should stick to something easier here and discuss women or politics...

jaholder1971
August 11, 2007, 07:29 PM
:banghead:Sheesh, this is like asking which car manufacturer's better.:banghead:

The Garand is a solidly designed rifle that has been eclipsed by newer weapons designs and newer methods of warfighting. That's it.

It's still serious firepower: Yeah, only 8 rounds, but it's 8 rounds of 150 grain, 2800 fps badness for anyone from muzzle to 600 yards as fast as you can pull the trigger.

Ask yourself this question: Raquel Welch is getting up there, but would you kick her out of bed, having the chance? :evil:

GarandOwner
August 11, 2007, 07:39 PM
I'll answer the actual question here: Is the garand still an effective weapon?

Yes, it is still effective if you dont think it is effective, come over to my house, and start running, Ill count to 20 before I start to shoot.......then you can argue with me as to if it is still an effective weapon.

Old? yes, Outdated? perhaps, Obsolete? ARGUABLE, Effective? Definably

It was as effective then as it is now. There are better choices out there if you are in combat, but if you go into combat with a garand, it will still be an effective weapon. You all can use your m16's or whatever for clearing rooms, but if when you step outside that building and Im firing at you with a garand, I think you'd agree with me that it is effective. Until the "next gen" smart bullets come out, the garand will remain an effective weapon.

Im not saying its the best weapon to take into combat, but if you do go engage some haji's in Iraq with a garand, you will have a weapon that is:

1. Reliable, you can dump all the sand you want in it and it will still fire

2. Accurate, if you are in a position where you can take well aimed shots you will hit your target

3. Stopping power, The .30-06 round has enough stopping power for 1 hit take downs of insurgents

4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)

5. It still uses a cartridge, it isnt like its an outdated muzzle loader which takes time to reload, (essentially making it not "effective")

While it might not be the assault rifle of today or tomorrow, the Garand was great in its day, and could still be used effectively today. If I go into the suck and cant take a Garand, I would gladly accept his cousin the M-14 over the M-16 any day.

and anyone arguing that the M-14 was a failure or the .308 was a waste of time, tell that to the special forces, they still use a scout shorter version of the M-14..........Id feel rather comfy going into combat with one of those 16" barrel M14.....at least then you'd know with all that sand that it would still fire each time you pull the trigger :evil:

Vern Humphrey
August 11, 2007, 07:42 PM
Unless the walls of the room are reinforced with thick steel sheeting, .45acp is going to go through the inner walls and likely the outer wall of most buildings anyway.
Not all walls are made of sheet rock and 2X4s!! Not all Fighting in Built Up Areas is done in single family detatched houses!! In Europe where the real FIBUA was done, you run into solid masonry buildings in cities and also lots of reinforced concrete construction.

Of course in any theater, you also run into bunkers and other field fortifications.
I would like to know, Vern, how did your Garand perform alongside the M14 and M16, if such a comparison can even be made?
The Garand and the M14 have great penetration -- although we had AP ammo for the Garand and only Ball for the M14. The M16 did not penetrate so well -- and people will hide behind things in combat.

I have always believed that an M1 or M14 with enough ammo to accomplish a given mission will weigh less than an M16 with enough ammo to accomplish the same mission.

Ask yourself this question: Raquel Welch is getting up there, but would you kick her out of bed, having the chance?

Has Raquel Welch been Factory Thorough Repaired, with all her worn or broken parts replaced and newly refinished?:evil:

Samuraigg
August 11, 2007, 07:44 PM
4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)

Now this I like reading. I knew the enbloc had to have an advantage over magazines in terms of quickness in reloading.

Ian
August 11, 2007, 07:46 PM
The M1 does not have to be overly long, heavy, or impossible to scope. The tanker is to the Garand as the M4 is to the M16. :)

CQB? Maybe not so much (OTOH, the overall length actually less than my Mossberg riot 12ga) . But I'll bet she'd make a rockin' designated marksman's rifle.

http://www.thehighroad.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=56108&stc=1&d=1175828774

GarandOwner
August 11, 2007, 07:47 PM
Should I also mention that the Garand can defend itself? The last person that said a sly comment about my Garand walked away with a bruised bloody thumb :evil::neener:

surfinUSA
August 11, 2007, 08:10 PM
Like the Kentucky rifle, the Garand was great in its day, but its day has long passed. Its is substantially easier to argue that its replacement the M14 or civilian M1A is not obsolete.

Although I don't own an M1A, and prefer the FAL and AR15 I know that the M14/M1A is still a very viable weapons system.

Neo-Luddite
August 11, 2007, 08:16 PM
And it's really not the point of this thread, but the M-1 flies below almost every lunatic gun banners' radar. Not all weapons can travel EVERYWHERE lawfully in the US and Canada and still offer firepower that is not bested by many shoulder fired weapons. The Garand is low-pro.

collateral
August 11, 2007, 08:43 PM
And it's really not the point of this thread, but the M-1 flies below almost every lunatic gun banners' radar. Not all weapons can travel EVERYWHERE lawfully in the US and Canada and still offer firepower that is not bested by many shoulder fired weapons. The Garand is low-pro.
+100

While the M1 may be obsolete to the US military given the current weapons and tactics in use, it is definitely not any less deadly, or effective (in the right hands) than it was when it was still in service.

It also has the blessing of having an appearance that isn't seen as "evil" or threatening to most, as mentioned above.

HorseSoldier
August 11, 2007, 08:43 PM
and anyone arguing that the M-14 was a failure or the .308 was a waste of time, tell that to the special forces, they still use a scout shorter version of the M-14..........Id feel rather comfy going into combat with one of those 16" barrel M14.....at least then you'd know with all that sand that it would still fire each time you pull the trigger

"SOCOM 16" is a marketing ploy, not an endorsement by a real military organization. The real .mil M14s have their days kind of numbered in any case, being replaced by more effective and more reliable weapons. It may break some hearts to say it, but an AR-10 based SR-25 will keep running in the desert long after the M14 has given up the ghost and locked up tight, or at least that's the feedback that seems to be coming from the sand box. SCAR-H should be even better. M14s as DMRs were just a cheap stop-gap in this war for the most part, and even their fans (like the SEALs) seem to be heading towards getting rid of them.

Samuraigg
August 11, 2007, 09:10 PM
Yup. The "not looking evil" is a BIG point for me. Living in Illinois I've decided to try to stay under the radar with my guns. Hence my Garand and future M1 Carbine purchase.

DMK
August 11, 2007, 09:17 PM
The problem is a lot of Americans have come to associate the Garand with WWII and all the vets who fought in it. The Garand isn't a rifle, it's a symbol of their fathers or grandfathers. Suggesting it isn't as perfect as Patton claimed is like burning a flag.That is so true and definately part of it's charm. The thing is, you never hear soldiers complain about their Garands. Soldiers complain about everything. I've heard soldier's complaints about almost every other service rifle, Thompson (too heavy), M1 Carbine(too weak), BAR (too heavy), M16(unreliable, too weak), M4(unreliable, too weak), except the M14 and Garand.

Thousands upon thousands of Garands were produced in the '40s, if the Garand was too difficult or too expensive to produce, the military would have replaced it, just like they did the Thompson for the same reason. Actually more than 4 million were made. They actually stopped production after WWII, then restarted for Korea.


We went into WW2 with a flawed tactical doctrine that stressed long range rifle fire because a bunch of very silly generals failed to grasp that when a guy is dressed in something the color of mud and doing his best to be a minimal target he's just not going to be acquired, much less hit, at anything beyond rather close range.

A lot of guys lost their lives or were crippled and maimed learning that the training they'd gotten stateside was just shoddy when the rubber met the road on the two-way shooting range, and many veterans of WW2 have discussed how they had to deprogram all that manicured lawn NRA target shooting out of replacement personnel and get them properly trained to suppress, fire, and manuever to close with the enemy and bring real-world effective fire on him, etc.True. Experienced soldiers knew that fire superiority would keep the enemy's heads down so friendly elements could maneuver against them. However, that's a training and doctrine issue. I don't understand how the Garand would be less effective at 100 yards than it would be at 300.

WW2 is the war the provided us the "almost all infantry engagements occur within 300 meters" factoid after study of how real combat took place. The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.

Neo-Luddite
August 11, 2007, 09:30 PM
Living in Illinois I've decided to try to stay under the radar with my guns.

BTW--the Carbine was banned in Cook County by Todd Stroger and Co as an AW. And hey--6 months in jail for each 15 rd mag!

I have Garands because they are my first choice--Blago and his Ilk can go stuff it--if I wanted AK's/AR's/etc. I'd have them in spades. But if one needed to abide by the law in Daleyville proper, AFAIK a Garand can still be registered in Chicago. Of course, actually accomplishing that task would be interesting.

Sorry to diggress.

Neo-Luddite
August 11, 2007, 09:31 PM
----

Nolo
August 11, 2007, 09:37 PM
DMK, I know four million were made. I meant to say "thousands of thousands", meaning millions.

Harley Quinn
August 11, 2007, 09:37 PM
4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)
**************
Yep it was and is very effective as far as that goes. Unless you are shooing 20 round mags. That changed the scene quite a bit I'd say plus the noise of the expended clip:eek:

DMK mentions this:
The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.
*********
I'll say this:
Prone position, I shot to 500 yds in days of old and it was effective I will tell you. We had longer stuff out there but the round and the range were beyond what you mention.

We used the boattail armor piercing rounds, and they were bad news on the targets and the butts :neener: Metal was pierced with great regularity (bad Shooters not me:p)

Camp Matthews CA 1959/1963

Here is some history for you:

Up to World War II the camp had no name and was known simply as the Marine Rifle Range, La Jolla, and fell under the command of Marine Corps Base, San Diego. The camp was officially designated Camp Matthews on March 23, 1942 in honor of Lieutenant Colonel (later Brigadier General) Calvin B. Matthews, USMC., a distinguished Marine marksman of the 1930s period.

Camp Matthews continued to serve as the firing range for the Marines with a permanent garrison of 700 men. In March 1942, a new administrative building was ready for occupancy, along with a large mess hall, a post office, swimming pool and outdoor theater.

Marine Corps recruitment following Pearl Harbor so taxed the ranges limited facilities, that some 5,000 Marines who enlisted shortly after Pearl Harbor, had to be rushed to an Army camp at San Luis Obispo for their weapons training. During the peak of the war as many as 9,000 men were rushed through the range every three weeks. The rifle range was also used by Marine Aviation units, as well as Army and Navy units.

Camp Matthews continued to function through the Korean War and into the 1960s. In May 1963 it was necessary for the Marines to discontinue using one of their 65 target ranges because of civilian encroachment and consequent safety hazards. Finally it was decided to relocate Camp Matthews and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot's weapons training to Camp Pendleton.

Closing ceremonies occurred at Camp Matthews on 21 August 1964 and 46 years of Marine training at that portion of the San Diego Marine Base came to an end.
****************
Closed down one year after I left the Corps.:D
HQ

DMK
August 11, 2007, 09:41 PM
DMK mentions this:
The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.
*********
I'll say this:
Prone position, I shot to 500 yds in days of old and it was effective I will tell you. We had longer stuff out there but the round and the range were beyond what you mention.I always thought it was under rated myself. But that's what the Army manual says.

Samuraigg
August 11, 2007, 09:52 PM
BTW--the Carbine was banned in Cook County by Todd Stroger and Co as an AW. And hey--6 months in jail for each 15 rd mag!

Yeah thank god I live in home ruled Tinley Park. That Cook Co. AWB is ridiculous.

hornadylnl
August 11, 2007, 10:01 PM
People are knocking en bloc clips but I'll pose this question to you. What good are several cases of ammo not loaded into magazines because you can't afford to buy mags for them. I bought 250 en bloc clips for $100 a few years ago. That's 2000 loaded rounds for $100. I bought several used ar mags for $5 each and that is a rare buy. Even at $5 each, it is still over $300 to load 2000 rounds.

Most guys will go out and buy an ar or ak and 2-3000 rounds for shtf but don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars for mags. Are you going to tell the enemy cease fire while I reload my 5 mags?

If you are on a budget for a total shtf package, the only thing that would even come close to the garand is the ak and we all know the limitations of that. You can get an ak for $300 or so, mags for $10-15 and ammo is cheaper than 223.

A bottom of the barrel ar starts at $600, mags usually are at least $10 a piece and right now, you can buy surplus 30/06 ammo much cheaper than you can buy 223 ammo.

Last time I checked, you couldn't get effective ap for ar's or ak's. I loaded some ap for my garand. At 100 yards and 1" plate hanging from chains, the ap was denting the back of the plate. If the plate was fixed, it would have went through. That target was almost swinging 360 degrees it was swinging so violently.
So for under $1000-1500, you'll get the most gun, ammo and loaded ammo with the garand. My shtf rifle is a garand. I have a 16" ar for the wifey to shoot because the 223 is a girly round.

Float Pilot
August 11, 2007, 10:13 PM
The Garand is a 70 year old design. Still a good all around battle rifle, but outclassed for actual combat issue.

If you had a time-machine::::

and...
1. Went back to the days of Alexander the Great with 1,000 riflemen armed with muzzle loaders you would be the thing of legends.

2. But show up at the battle of Bull Run with 1,000 muzzle loading riflemen and you are just another 1,000 troops on the way to an early grave.

3. Place the same 1,000 muzzle loading riflemen at the WWII Tarawa Landings and you have mass suicide.


The Garand is in the same boat,, in a different era.

It is still a nice battle rifle and you could really defend yourself against a company strength unit of commie-zombies, as long as you had 1,000 yards of clear ground and a truck load of ammo and en-bloc clips...

But if they get within a hundred yards,, you are hosed.....

dagunner
August 11, 2007, 10:29 PM
The Garand is no more thechnilogicaly obsolete than the M16.It uses a system that is diferent,but just as advanced. I think the M1 was way ahead of its time.I believe it is just as viable a combat arm as it was in WWII!

hornadylnl
August 11, 2007, 10:38 PM
This has been touched on already but the enbloc can be a huge advantage over a box mag. In the infantry, we were issued 7 30 round mags for our m16's. I don't have any actual combat experience but some mags will be lost when you are shooting on the move. It takes time to take the empty mag and put it back into your mag pouch that you are practically laying on. You don't want to leave your empty mags on the ground because who knows if there will be any with your next combat resupply. Then add in the confusion of grabbing an empty mag out of your pouch instead of a full one. I know most people put their empty mags in their pouches upside down but that is that much more of a distraction. I'm betting 90% of the ammo that ww2 soldiers were resupplied with were in enbloc clips in bandoliers. When the empty ejects, grab a new clip and have at it. Lot less motion and distraction.

I've never been to a cmp garand shoot but I've heard the ww2 vets can reload faster than you can blink an eye. You have to shoot 10 rounds in the cmp shoots. People either use 2 5 round clips or 1 8 and 1 2 round clips. The purpose is to combat reload for time.

As far as weight savings of 308 ammo over 30/06, it is neglible. I just weighed an empty 06 case and it came to 203 grains and an empty 308 case came to 168 grains. That is a total weight savings of 5 pounds on 1000 rounds. US ball uses 147 gr for 308 and 150 gr for 06. That is less than .5 pounds over 1000 rounds. I'm not sure of powder weight of US 308 but can't be more than 5 gr less than 06. Now what would 125 garand clips weigh compared to 50 20 round m14 mags? I don't have any m14 mags so I can't say for sure but I'm guessing the m14 mags would be a good deal heavier.

My bet is that 1000 rounds of 30/06 in en bloc clips would weigh less than 1000 rounds of 308 in m14 mags would.

I have about 2700 rounds of 30/06 and over 2300 of it is in en bloc clips. I know, I need more clips! How many people who have m1a's for shtf have that kind of ammo loaded up and ready to go?

PRE 64 JOE
August 11, 2007, 11:45 PM
My momma would say wash your mouth out with soap and go pick me a good long switch for your behind. Semper Fi.:banghead:

General Geoff
August 12, 2007, 12:22 AM
My bet is that 1000 rounds of 30/06 in en bloc clips would weigh less than 1000 rounds of 308 in m14 mags would.

I don't need that many magazines for my M1A; I have a total of twelve 20-round magazines, but I have about a thousand extra rounds in stripper clips which can be loaded directly into a low or empty magazine still attached to the rifle. I'd imagine that with practice, you could load a stripper clip's worth of ammo into an M1A in just as quick a time as you can load an en-bloc into a Garand. And stripper clips are even cheaper than Garand clips. :)

hornadylnl
August 12, 2007, 12:32 AM
I hope that m1a stripper clips are easier on the skin on your fingers than ar stripper clips.

I'd like to have an m1a but I think they are way over priced for what they are. $1500? I can buy 2 garands for that even at today's prices. I bought my garand for $580.

General Geoff
August 12, 2007, 12:38 AM
I don't have any blisters or sores on my fingers from loading stripper clips or pushing rounds into the mag from them, and I've loaded a lot of them in a short amount of time. :)

Yeah I agree they're kinda pricey, but think of it this way; if Garands were as expensive, would you refuse to buy one?

JWarren
August 12, 2007, 12:48 AM
Even as I write this, I cring at the thought of the hate mail I will get... but here goes...


No offense to any of us, but I'll take the word over someone that carried one in combat over all of us who have venerated the garand as a symbol, or have sought ways to endear it.


My Grandfather carried a Garand from D-Day through a good portion of France before he was seriously wounded. (He got shot on the beaches of Normandy in the head, but it only grazed him).

More accurately, he told me he carried "a scoped garand." My own research indicates that he most likely carried an M1C Garand-- the M1D was developed during WWII, but indications show that it never saw combat.

As far as its stopping power and accuracy, he loved the Garand, and he never had a nice word to say about the M1 Carbine. He also though "burp guns" were practically usesless as he said he mainly just say men emptying them into treetop due to uncontrolled recoil. "After three shots they were all up in the trees," he would say.

As for the M1 Carbine, he would say that they just didn't have the punch you would want if your life depended on the shot counting.

Therefore, the M1 Garand was his favorite. Incidently, he hunted with a 30-06 until he was no longer healthy enough to hunt.

So obviously he liked the caliber.


While he praised the garand as the best rifle available during WWII, he did have some serious complaints about it.

First, he HATED the weight of it. He would always tell me that it "Was the heaviest damned gun he ever used."

Second, he truly disliked the clips. He disliked the difficulty of topping off the ammution. As he said, "what are you going to do if you find that you have one or two rounds left? You REALLY don't want to keep walking with only two shots in the rifle."

Third, he REALLY hated the "ping." He would say that the ping would get you killed. And he saw it happen. Enough to not like it. Sure it could be tactical-- except that you don't get to be tactical near as often as you'd like. Likely, you are simply trying to keep alive and see the other side of a firefight.


The man ended up with the Combat Infrantry Badge, Two Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star. For the rest of his life, he was very devout in his religion and a Gideon. I'll believe what he had to say. I don't think he'd lie.

He carried it in on the beaches, he carried it on the march, and he carried it in the hedgerows. He saw combat with the rifle, and he placed his life in the rifle's capabilities. He always had a great deal of respect for it, but he was not so enamoured with it that he didn't see the faults.



Based upon that... Yeah, I'd say the Garand is obsolete in terms of function. A lot of the complaints he had about the rifle have been fixed in newer designs. The M1A comes to mind.

In addition, there are rifles that have the knockdown of the garand without the complaints he had for it. Again, the M1A comes to mind. So does the FAL. Heck, so does my Saiga 308.


It was a great rifle, and it is a great rifle. But let's not pretend that there were not things that could have been done better on it-- and ARE done better on some other rifles.


-- John

RockyMtnTactical
August 12, 2007, 12:50 AM
A Garand would be a venerable weapon in the right hands. That said, it does have some drawbacks compared to more modern weapons.

Outlaws
August 12, 2007, 12:51 AM
No offense to any of us, but I'll take the word over someone that carried one in combat over all of us who have venerated the garand as a symbol, or have sought ways to endear it.

To an extent that is true, but then none of us would have any business questioning politicians since most of us have never been to Washington and don't know how things really work.

If you ask all the vets today what they thing about the M16/M4, you will get varying love/hate answers from almost everyone. Most WW2 vets love the Garand, but I doubt many were asked detailed questions about tactical uses of it.

HorseSoldier
August 12, 2007, 12:53 AM
It takes time to take the empty mag and put it back into your mag pouch that you are practically laying on. You don't want to leave your empty mags on the ground because who knows if there will be any with your next combat resupply. Then add in the confusion of grabbing an empty mag out of your pouch instead of a full one. I know most people put their empty mags in their pouches upside down but that is that much more of a distraction.

That's what the dump pouch was invented for. I think you do make a good argument about the utility of the Garand clip with it being pre-packaged and ready to roll right out of the ammo case. But I also think the advantage of 20 or 30 rounds in the gun far outweighs any value the en bloc clip brings to the table.

I've heard soldier's complaints about almost every other service rifle, Thompson (too heavy), M1 Carbine(too weak), BAR (too heavy), M16(unreliable, too weak), M4(unreliable, too weak), except the M14 and Garand.


I'm inclined to skepticism on this one. I'm pretty sure that as wood stocked M14s in the jungle started to warp and develop wandering zeros they were cursed pretty nicely. I'm pretty sure a good number of guys curse the M14 these days when they find out their "reliable" "Designated Marksmans Rifle" won't group as tight as a bone stock M4 and won't run reliably in the sand. Etc.

I don't understand how the Garand would be less effective at 100 yards than it would be at 300.


I'm not saying it's ineffective at 100 meters, I'm saying that neither the round (designed to go with that 2500 yard ladder sight on the M1903) nor the weapon (with it's own 1200 yard peep sight that doesn't work well at all in any kind of limited illumination) are really well set up or thought out for 0-300 meter combat by modern standards. It was much better than the alternatives it fought against or alongside, and a big step forward from the bolt gun, but the state of the art has adapted to combat since then.

General Geoff
August 12, 2007, 12:53 AM
To be honest, I'd rather be stuck with a rifle that's a couple pounds heavier than I'd like, than a rifle that skimps on accuracy, power, or reliability. Is weight important? Yes. But it's not as important as most other critical aspects of a military rifle.

JWarren
August 12, 2007, 12:56 AM
Outlaws,

I hear what you are saying, but somehow I don't think it is the same thing. :)


At any rate, its just opinions here. I just told what I base mine on. Others will vary.

All the best, my friend.

-- John

Carl N. Brown
August 12, 2007, 12:57 AM
It helped in WWII that most military ammo intended for
use in M1 Garands already came packed in 8 round enbloc clips.
Civilian users have to retrieve their empty clips and repack
the clips with loose rounds.

We have shooters who use Garands in both Vintage and Modern
Military Matchs, and even the beat-up rack grade guns are
impressive. And ejection is quite civilized compared to Mini14.

Quite frankly, a Garand with a couple of bandoleers of loaded
clips is some awesome firepower. That North Hollywood bank
robbery shootout might have ended sooner is a couple of
patrol cars had a M1 Garand in their trunk.

Outlaws
August 12, 2007, 12:58 AM
Quite frankly, a Garand with a couple of bandoleers of loaded
clips is some awesome firepower. That North Hollywood bank
robbery shootout might have ended sooner is a couple of
patrol cars had a M1 Garand in their trunk.

To be fair, it should be noted that the cops had no rifles whatsoever. But I don't think anyone is disputing the knock down power of the 30-06 over lesser rounds.

Neo-Luddite
August 12, 2007, 11:43 AM
Well, before we head off to church I'll toss one out; the best and worst thing on the weapon is its gas system; it runs dirty but if you are not careful when cleaning it you'll have a straight-pull bolt action and need a new op rod.

My sollution? Don't clean the gas system until you have to.

DMK
August 12, 2007, 12:29 PM
Second, he truly disliked the clips. He disliked the difficulty of topping off the ammution. As he said, "what are you going to do if you find that you have one or two rounds left? You REALLY don't want to keep walking with only two shots in the rifle."

Third, he REALLY hated the "ping." He would say that the ping would get you killed. And he saw it happen. Enough to not like it. Sure it could be tactical-- except that you don't get to be tactical near as often as you'd like. Likely, you are simply trying to keep alive and see the other side of a firefight.Jwarren, thanks for posting your grandfather's comments.

It sounds like your grandfather was a sniper or at least a designated marksman of sorts. In that light, I could see those two issues being moreof a problem to him than it might be for a regular rifleman.

I never really understood the "top off" issue. Just eject the used clip and reload a new one. If you're in a lull, pick up the ammo to reload later. If not, leave it on the ground.

Even with a detachable mag gun, who carries loose rounds to top off your mag? You just eject the used mag and replace it with a full one. Maybe I'm missing something.

Lashlarue
August 12, 2007, 01:15 PM
It's killing power is unsurpassed, but for todays combat situations it's weight and lack of high capacity magazines, put it in the museum class. All of my uncles save one carried one in WWII, the one that didn't was a jockey when he enlisted and they gave him a BAR, which with required ammo weighed more than he did.

amprecon
August 12, 2007, 01:31 PM
The Gatling gun was considered long obsolete after the trigger operated single barreled machine guns came into being. Then, almost a hundred years later General Electric attached a motor to the "obsolete" Gatling gun and now look at this fearsome "obsolete" and obscure weapon today, especially the one sticking out the front of the Warthog and the other various GAU's.
Not to say that someone is going to attach an electric motor to the Garand to bring it out of "obsolescence", but a declaration of obsolescence is relative to other variables and mostly a mere matter of opinion.

JWarren
August 12, 2007, 01:51 PM
Jwarren, thanks for posting your grandfather's comments.

It sounds like your grandfather was a sniper or at least a designated marksman of sorts. In that light, I could see those two issues being moreof a problem to him than it might be for a regular rifleman.


You are welcome, DMK.

Yes, he was a "sniper" in WWII-- basically a designated marksman as we fielded them. He was attached to a squad and moved with them.

Its actually very funny how he got into that role. He was drafted at 30 years old and originally they set him up for mortar training.

He used to tell me an interesting story of when he went to the markmanship part of basic. They started them out with targets at 25 feet (not yards). He said that there were several people there that had never held let alone fired a rife. They shot at large targets that had a plaster bucket beside it. After one would shoot, they would plaster over the target and go to the next draftee. He said the guy in front of him was from Chicago and had never fired a rifle. At 25 feet, he hit the plaster bucket. Oh... they started using M1 Carbines at this stage.

At any rate, my grandfather grew up in the country and had a rifle or shotgun in his hand since he could walk practically. Needless to say, he did well at 25 feet. I don't have all the details, but he ended up scoring expert marksman and was firing a 1903 at long range targets before the day was out.

That evening, he was called to his CO's office and told that he was reassigned as a rifleman and recieved the M1C a few days later.

He travelled on a converted luxury liner from the US to England, but he never told me which one. He was seasick the entire time. At any rate, he landed on Normandy on D-Day. He was in the 3rd wave and I've heard him comment that getting on the beach was more of crawling over the dead as opposed to wading. The water was red, he said.

A stray (or not so stray) caught him in the head and punctured his helmet. The round was deflected and put a gash in his scalp. It didn't even require stitches. After everything cooled down, he did let a medic take a look at it. He was surprised and embarassed that he recieved a purple heart for his wound later. He never thought he deserved one for that.

He only lasted 33 days before he was hit through the ankle with shapnel from a mortar round that required him to recover for 4 months in an army hospital. Fortunately, he could type and he spent the rest of the European war as a clerk. For the rest of his life, he had a severe limp from siaptic nerve damage.

I am sorry to lay all this on this thread. It just got me to thinking about all the stories he told me. I could tell plenty.


One thing I'll leave it with was a picture of how serious we anticipated our planned invasion of the Japanese home islands to be. Even with permanent injuries and a bad limp, my grandfather had been assigned jungle fatiques and had orders to report for the Japanse invasion after VE Day. They were tossing him back into combat. Based on his condition, I'd have to say that we believed we were going to need everyone that had a pulse for that invasion. According to the History Channel, we ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts a few months before the planned invasion and we are still giving out Purple Hearts from that order today. The Purple Hearts anticipated for that one invasion has lasted through every conflict and war we have had up to this day.

Kinda puts dropping the A-Bomb in perspective.



-- John

M110
August 12, 2007, 02:59 PM
JWarren thanks for the story about your grandpap. I thank him for his service. /salute

JWarren
August 12, 2007, 03:12 PM
M110,

No, thank you for taking the time to read it. I often think that the best way to honor them is to remember and tell their stories.

And thank you for your /salute. It means a lot-- for him and for all that have fought for this country.



-- John

byf43
August 12, 2007, 03:32 PM
I never really understood the "top off" issue. Just eject the used clip and reload a new one. If you're in a lull, pick up the ammo to reload later. If not, leave it on the ground.

Even with a detachable mag gun, who carries loose rounds to top off your mag? You just eject the used mag and replace it with a full one. Maybe I'm missing something.



Agreed, 100%.


In all my years of shooting the M1 Garand, I don't recall hearing anyone ever 'topping off' a Garand.
Too slow. Too cumbersome.
Eject the clip and replace with a fresh, loaded one, and tap the op-rod and get on with it.

The only time that I've ever messed around with a partially loaded en-bloc clip was when shooting the Garand in High Power Matches.
Two rounds 'twisted' into the clip, then inserted into the rifle.

To insert the clip, then insert the two rounds took precious time and if memory serves me, you had to have quite a bit of dexterity to do this.


My 1943 vintage M1 Garand is one of my absolute favorite rifles, but, it is not the 'miracle' rifle that it was in WWII.

The mystery and love for the Garand is from being the first semi-auto to be mass produced and adopted for use by the military, and it most definitely helped the USA and it's allies to win the war.

Is it perfect?? No.
Is is FAR FROM perfect?? No.

I agree with what General Patton said.. . it is the greatest battle implement ever devised. (Just short of several BLU-82 and a High Yield Nuclear device!) :evil:






Just kidding, guys!!!! It appears that a couple of people took my previous attempt at levity as being serious!!!!!!

gunnie
August 12, 2007, 03:50 PM
....once he does, he can weigh it's advantages against them, and come away with a workable plan of attack....



per DMK's older posting, #57:

"This statement reminds me of the Mujahdeen armed with .303 Enfields holding off Soviet troops beyond the effective range of their AKs. If it wasn't for air support and artillery, they'd still be pinned down out there. I'd imagine that SVDs were in high demand out on the plains of Afghanistan."

DMK, to carry that same thought to the next david VS goliath level:

i read back when same conflict was current, that the mujahideen were using one plus century old muzzle loaders to smite the commie's mighty Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter. seems the lead balls were soft enough to stick to the tail rotor, causing catastrophic balance problems.

end result? the tail rotor went one direction, and the baddest attack chopper on planet earth at that time went down, to what ANYONE must consider a "museum piece".

QUESTION: do you think the muzzle loading black powder rifle is still an "effective weapon"?

ANSWER: Absolutely! It's a "fearsome weapon".

they realized, and then utilized its "obsolete" strengths.

gunnie

elenius
August 12, 2007, 05:07 PM
I didn't read all the posts here, but in case someone hasn't already mentioned it: This book has tons of first-hand experiences of garand users:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/Book116.htm

Basically, everyone loved it, but then they didn't have much else to compare it with (except the M1 carbine, BAR, and their opponents' weapons).

The veterans also describe how they used the rifles, which basically amounts to "assault rifle tactics", sans the assault rifles.

Nolo, I don't think you can just decide ahead of time to use a certain kind of tactic, and then choose the appropriate gun for it. Tactics evolve by necessity depending on the battlefield environment. It seems like assault rifles are the way to go for war.

That doesn't mean it is the way to go in a neo-nazi-government-takeover or blue-helmets-trying-to-take-your-guns kind of situation :) In that kind of situation, I would prefer something that goes through kevlar, or whatever the bastards may be hiding behind ;) 'Course, I'd choose my M1A over a garand any day.

DMK
August 12, 2007, 06:03 PM
I often think that the best way to honor them is to remember and tell their stories.I agree completely.

USSR
August 12, 2007, 08:56 PM
JWarren,

With all due respect to your grandfather, this doesn't add up.

That evening, he was called to his CO's office and told that he was reassigned as a rifleman and recieved the M1C a few days later.

He travelled on a converted luxury liner from the US to England, but he never told me which one. He was seasick the entire time. At any rate, he landed on Normandy on D-Day. He was in the 3rd wave and I've heard him comment that getting on the beach was more of crawling over the dead as opposed to wading. The water was red, he said.

The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944?

Don

Tokugawa
August 12, 2007, 09:12 PM
OK- what other semi rifle can shoot legal AP?
And JWARREN_ I appreciate your story- my Dad was called up for the Japan invasion, he had three kids and was building aircraft engines. He always said the guys in boot camp with him were the hardest bunch of folks he had ever seen, and he grew up in the depression running a trap line for cash and living in a Canuck mill town. I guess a bunch of them were released from prison to be grunts- we were truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.

Deaf Smith
August 12, 2007, 09:24 PM
In the hands of a person who can SHOOT, just about nothing is obsolete. And in the hands of an IDIOT, just about nothing is state-of-the-art.

It's us in the middle that find some guns are better than others. Personaly the Garand is a fine weapon, if a bit on the heavy and long side. Maybe 'obsolecent' is a better term for it.

Vern Humphrey
August 12, 2007, 09:33 PM
The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944?
Perhaps by being in the Army, not the Marine Corps. And perhaps he has the nomenclature a bit wrong -- but an Army sniper could have had a scoped M1 in 1944.

MIL-DOT
August 12, 2007, 10:05 PM
The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944"

hell, i've run into lots of discrepancies from vets over the years. my uncle dave, who i know for a fact was a decorated,wounded, army platoon commander in vietnam, swears they interchanged nato .308 with 7.62 x 39 AK ammo :confused: given the stress and years gone by,no surprise that facts get jumbled and confused.

Andrewsky
August 12, 2007, 10:10 PM
My grandpa joined the Air Force in 1950. He claims he was issued the M2 Carbine when he was in Japan, but he said it was semi-auto. I get the feeling he means M1, but he has absolutely insisted on many occasions that it was an M2.

Were any M2s semi-auto?

USSR
August 12, 2007, 10:18 PM
Were any M2s semi-auto?

They all were, as well as full auto. They had a selector switch and could be fired in either mode.

Don

Andrewsky
August 12, 2007, 10:19 PM
"They all were, as well as full auto. They had a selector switch and could be fired in either mode."

I know, I know. I'm wondering if the Air Force locked their M2s to semi-auto like was later done with M14s.

USSR
August 12, 2007, 10:23 PM
Perhaps by being in the Army, not the Marine Corps. And perhaps he has the nomenclature a bit wrong -- but an Army sniper could have had a scoped M1 in 1944.

Vern,

Nope. To quote Dick Culver:

"The smart money says that virtually no M1Ds were produced for distribution during W.W.II, but were converted from service rifles in the early 1950s for use in the "Korean Unpleasantness". To add credence to this, all Springfield Armory records list the M1Ds as "rebuilds" with the last rifle "rebuild" supposedly taking place during June of 1953."

Don

pdowg881
August 12, 2007, 10:27 PM
Are we talking M1C or D? ussr is talking about D and mil-dot is saying C

benEzra
August 12, 2007, 10:52 PM
Yes and no.

Don't forget, when the Garand was issued, there was more of a "division of labor" in infantry, in which soldiers who were expected to fight in urban areas were intended to be issued submachineguns, so that the Garand was never intended to fill any sort of urban/CQB role. It can certainly fill that role in a pinch, but a full-power rifle that is nearly 4 feet long is at a significant disadvantage in clearing buildings and whatnot.

Fast forward to 2007, when submachineguns have been phased out of military service, and the service rifle is expected to fill both the rifle-range role AND the close-quarters role. In that environment, where the rifle is intended to do "all of the above," the Garand is functionally obsolete. It can certainly fill the intermediate- and long-range role very well indeed, but it was not intended to fill the CQB role, and is not all that well suited for it.

The Deer Hunter
August 12, 2007, 11:07 PM
My Garand does my talking...

:neener:

Neo-Luddite
August 12, 2007, 11:15 PM
----

BsChoy
August 13, 2007, 12:43 AM
I am officially calling this the "can of worms" thread. :) As sad as it makes me I have to agree that the M1 is obsolete(sp?) Urban combat mandates small, short weapons for tight places. The M1 is neither. The caliber being as effective and marginally lighter than the 308 is a mute point IMHO. A bandolier of 150(2) grain M2 ball is going to be as light as a bandolier of 175 grain 308 of the same number. All things being equal...give me an AR platform in 260 rem, 6.8 spc in a tight place and I would be happy. Open areas hand over the 308.

JWarren
August 13, 2007, 01:38 AM
Don and Mil-Dot,


Regarding the M1C, I'm sure it adds up somehow, but not necessarily as I have understand it.

I'm kinda playing the role of a dishonest forensic historian on this. By dishonest, I mean I am BEGINNING with the conclusion as a fact.


You two may be able to help me with it.

All he ever told me was that he carried "a scoped garand." I've never heard any designations for it from him. In my own desire to know, and also for a goal I've had to build a reproduction of what he carried for the wall of my office, I've been TRYING to get something concrete.

Let me lay out what I do know:

-- He told me that he carried "a scoped garand."
-- No designations were ever uttered by him.
-- He did, in fact, land on D-Day.
-- He was in combat 33 days before he was put on a desk due to injuries.
-- He was reassigned for combat duty sometime around VE Day.


Now, here is what I DON'T know:

-- I don't know if he was issued the rifle prior to D-Day. Any details of the landing are sketchy as he would never talk about it. The few details I have are pieced together from bits and pieces here and there.

--I do know he carried a garand in the French hedgerows due to a story he told that would have required semi-auto fire.


I'm aware of the dates of issue on the M1C's and M1D's so I am not sure what I can say.


I have a few ideas that I've worked on. As I've said, I am piecing it together the best I can.

-- A "scoped garand" may not have been the original issue weapon. He's never given me any indication that he landed with it. As I've said, I never got a crystal picture of the landing at all.

-- I've considered that he could have had a 1903, but it isn't making sense. He told me once of being pinned down for a good period of time on the French Hedgerows. He said that he lost it and emptied the firearm into the location where he believed the fire to be coming from out of just fear and anxiety. To me, that sounds like a semi-auto rifle.

-- While I fully concede that older vets could confuse some things, I can't accept that a semi-auto and a bolt action (the only other scoped alternitive I can see) could be confused-- especially with someone who have hunted their entire life.


So, I am back full circle. It is my suspicion that it was issued post-D-Day. Again, I am operating from the premise that he was being factual. He had no reason to lie-- even if he would. All this stuff really never mattered to him like it does to all us "gun nuts."


I did want to point out that according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand the US ARMY used them, not just the Marines. The M1D never saw combat in WWII.

Most variants of the Garand, save the sniper variants, never saw active duty.[16] The sniper versions were modified to accept scope mounts, and two versions (the M1C, formerly M1E7, and the M1D, formerly M1E8) were produced, but not in significant quantities during World War II.[23] The only difference between the two versions is the mounting system for the telescopic sight. In June of 1944, the M1C was adopted as a standard sniper rifle by the U.S. Army to supplement the venerable M1903A4.[24]



At any rate, hope that helps.


-- John

Trebor
August 13, 2007, 05:56 AM
-- While I fully concede that older vets could confuse some things, I can't accept that a semi-auto and a bolt action (the only other scoped alternitive I can see) could be confused-- especially with someone who have hunted their entire life.

Not to be rude, but don't rely on his memory being 100% correct after 60 years. In my opinion it's more likely that he landed with a M-1 Garand and carried that in the Hedgerows and then sometime later he acquired a a sniper rifle. Whether it was a 1903A3 or a M-1C I can't say, but the 1903A3 was much more common.

Back then sniper rifles were handed out pretty much at the discretion of the Company commander. Sometimes guys would ask to be given one and sometimes they were just given to guys known to be "good shots."

Trebor
August 13, 2007, 06:04 AM
I know, I know. I'm wondering if the Air Force locked their M2s to semi-auto like was later done with M14s.

It's quite possible to have a "semi auto" M2 in military service. The parts that allowed the rifle to fire full-auto could easily be replaced with the standard semi-auto M-1 Carbine parts. Thus, you could have what is essentially a M-1 Carbine with a receiver marked M-2.

Heck, I've run across guys who owned semi-auto M2 carbines who didn't realize they had "contraband machine guns" because all the full-auto parts were long removed and the gun will only fire in semi-auto.

Trebor
August 13, 2007, 06:09 AM
In military service the Garand is as obsolete as the M4 Sherman tank or F-86 Sabre jet.

In private hands, the Garand is as effective as a M4 Sherman tank or F-85 Sabre jet.

JWarren
August 13, 2007, 08:38 AM
Trebor,

Not to be rude, but don't rely on his memory being 100% correct after 60 years. In my opinion it's more likely that he landed with a M-1 Garand and carried that in the Hedgerows and then sometime later he acquired a a sniper rifle. Whether it was a 1903A3 or a M-1C I can't say, but the 1903A3 was much more common.

Not rude at all, my friend. I have suspected something similar.

-- John

Regolith
August 13, 2007, 08:59 AM
JWarren...your link says that the M1C Garand was adopted by the Army in June of 1944. D-Day was June 6th. That means its possible he landed with it, or its possible he was issued it sometime after the landing. That is if your source is correct, anyway.

tracks21
August 13, 2007, 12:27 PM
It is not obsolete in the way that is will still kill people. However I wouldn't want an eight round magazine in a firefight. Also note that bolt actions are still around due the the inherent accurracy of the action the garand has no advantage in accurracy over the stoner design. The M14 is not obsolete but the garand was long ago.

Andrewsky
August 13, 2007, 01:32 PM
Yeah but all you have to do to reload a Garand is grab a clip and insert it into the magazine, then you're ready to fire.

With an M14 you have to release the old magazine, find a place to put it, grab a new one, put it in (could be difficult under pressure with the M14's design), and then pull back on the operating rod handle.

Thus Garands are much quicker to reload.

Harley Quinn
August 13, 2007, 01:43 PM
Andrewsky,
They went away from the clip for a reason. I figure it is because it was not as good as what we have now.
We can argue this till the cows come home.
Good weapon, pretty much obsolete, until someone, makes one (clip) for a 223 or 6 mil to be operated as such, it will be considered obsolete, sorry.

http://www.answers.com/topic/obsolete

So that makes it a good weapon with an obsolete design. I know some make them for resale, but now it is considered to be a good weapon but obsolete.
:uhoh:

HQ

GarandOwner
August 13, 2007, 04:03 PM
This thread seems to be straying away from the original question. It has turned into a debate as to if the garand is obsolete or not. The original question was is it still an EFFECTIVE weapon. They are not the same thing.

I'm pretty sure a good number of guys curse the M14 these days when they find out their "reliable" "Designated Marksmans Rifle" won't group as tight as a bone stock M4 and won't run reliably in the sand.

I think your mistaken, the M1/M14 reciever is well known for its reliability, add some sand, and all it will do is fire and kick sand in your face. The M4 on the other hand is not as reliable

Harley Quinn
August 13, 2007, 04:34 PM
This thread seems to be straying away from the original question. It has turned into a debate as to if the garand is obsolete or not. The original question was is it still an EFFECTIVE weapon. They are not the same thing.
***********

This is true, is it effective, you bet. Is it going to do the job of other weapons, yes.
But is it my first choice anymore? No.

Heavy and cumbersome for many. It is not something that is easy to put in a clip as many will tell you with injured thumb or digit that gets in the way :uhoh:

I remember seeing an old picture of a Marine I was with in the Corps he was really screwed up with an M1 thumb. Seemed proud of it lol...:what:
It is tough to use in loading for a while :D

HQ

ReadyontheRight
August 13, 2007, 04:57 PM
If you need to shoot 200 rounds quickly...and penetrate so that you turn cover into concealment. You would have to spend as much on M1A/M14 magazines as another Garand would cost.

Both are great weapons, but I fail to see the huge drawback of enblock clips and the huge attraction of a big piece of metal sticking out of the bottom of your rifle.

When you get to traveling by foot and need to carry ammo, the .223 starts to make sense, but someone along with longer range and more effective penetration still makes sense.

Joe Demko
August 13, 2007, 04:58 PM
Define "effective." Yes, you could arm a squad of soldiers with them and they could kill some some other soldiers. You could say the same thing about arming them with NEF handi-rifles. There's more to this than just whether or not you can kill some folks with a particular gun.
It's the cartridge that does the actual killing. The rifle is just a launching platform. Therefore, factors like how complex and expensive the rifle itself is to manufacture ARE important. If, using newer techniques and designs, we make an autoloading rifle more cheaply and quickly that uses the same cartridge as the M-1...then that makes the M-1 obsolete right there. Cheaper and quicker means more of them in the hands of the soldiers, where they matter, more quickly.
Therefore, rifles using the 7.62 NATO (duplicating WWII .30-06 performance or nearly so) that are easier and cheaper to manufacture are a better choice from the start. Having 20 rifles in the hands of troops beats having any number of partially finished rifles in the hands of skilled craftsmen back in the factory.

Soybomb
August 13, 2007, 05:56 PM
I would say it is as a military use weapon, as private use weapon though I'm not sure it would ever be obsolete .

Silvanus
August 13, 2007, 06:04 PM
I would say it is as a military use weapon, as private use weapon though I'm not sure it would ever be obsolete .

Exactly.

Ohio Rifleman
August 13, 2007, 06:19 PM
As a front-line service weapon, yeah, it's obsolete. Beyond that, I don't think it is. Though, I've heard some of our guys in Iraq complaining that the .223 isn't lethal enough against the terrorists they're fighting over there. A 30-06 would be plenty to put down even the most fanatical jihadist scumbag. Yes, yes, I know, we no longer use 30-06 because the recoil is too heavy, and soliders can't carry as much 30-06 ammo as 223.

I would say though, that for any purpose other than actual front-line or urban combat, the M1 Garand would do just fine.

Samuraigg
August 13, 2007, 06:25 PM
Yeah I've been talking about as a private use weapon. Military use is another story.

But for me, as a personal defense rifle, the Garand is most certainly not obsolete.

hornadylnl
August 13, 2007, 07:03 PM
I remember reading somewhere about the m1 thumb. If you get m1 thumb, you aren't loading it right. I believe there was a picture showing how to do it properly. You line your hand up so that you are pointing your hand straight away from you. Your thumb is in line with the bolt and you push down on the clip with your thumb tip facing the muzzle. That way your thumb is pushed up and out of the way by the bolt instead of getting pinched when the bolt slams home. Does anyone have a reference to pics, videos or anything showing this technique?

Vern Humphrey
August 13, 2007, 07:36 PM
M1 thumb mostly occurs during inspections, not during actual firing -- the inspecting officer hands the rifle back, the rifleman smartly closes the bolt with no clip and snaps the trigger. With no clip, and trying to to be fast and smart, it's a lot more easy to catch your thumb.

Harley Quinn
August 13, 2007, 08:10 PM
M1 thumb mostly occurs during inspections, not during actual firing -- the inspecting officer hands the rifle back, the rifleman smartly closes the bolt with no clip and snaps the trigger. With no clip, and trying to to be fast and smart, it's a lot more easy to catch your thumb.
*******
The inspection time was when it happened, that I can remember, Boot camp it happened a lot;).

But it still had a way of getting you sometimes, at the rifle range :what: Or when cleaning and it is well oiled and so are your hands:D

I was playing around with one the other day at a gun store and when I got done the guy mentioned I was pretty familiar with it. I laughed and said you bet.

SlamFire1
August 13, 2007, 08:18 PM
Certainly from what I have heard, about the situation in Iraq, the Garand would not be a good choice.

Seems there is a lot of clearing rooms and houses, activities in small cramped quarters. The Garand is too long. The 30-06 is just not controllable in rapid fire at close quarters, putting everyone in the room at risk. And then, eight shots and you are out.

The Garand was a concept that fit the ideas of a post WWI army. Things have changed.

chemist308
August 13, 2007, 08:29 PM
Here are a few questions:

Which does a better job on military body armor, the 223 rem with armor peircing or the 30-06 with armor piercing? It's only a matter of time before the US has a real war to fight against a nation which equips its troops properly.

The Garand is heavy and only has an 8 round mag, but does it jam as easily as the M-16?

The M-16 with it's 223 round can do a 3 round burst, but does the Garand with it's 30-06 round need to?

With modern metals and plastics, does the Garand need to weigh 10lbs if it were put into modern production?

With a decent muzzle brake, how much recoil would a Garand really have?

I've never served in the military. It seems the M-16 does okay considering what I'm hearing on the news, and the fact that when they issued my dad an M-60 in Vietnam he still kept his M-16. His life depended on what he carried, and i doubt he would have held onto it if it didn't work. But i know this: You make the ammo lighter, it may have less punch. Make the rifle too light and you may end up with something less durable.

TEDDY
August 13, 2007, 08:46 PM
most military rifles weigh in the 8/9 lb class pre M16.the 308 was the result of change in powder which took up less space and made a shorter cartridge possible.the fn 49 weighs as much as a garand so does the G43.
I like the enbloc clip have been studying the garand carcano and dutch manlicher as well as the commision 88.I never could get the strippers to work for me.SKS especialy.I loved my G43 until I got a garand.I still think the G43 would have been better than the M14.
:uhoh: :confused: :) :)

Joe Demko
August 13, 2007, 09:02 PM
The Garand is heavy and only has an 8 round mag, but does it jam as easily as the M-16?

In WWII, during the fighting in the South Pacific, the fine volcanic sand and dust made jamming a very real issue with the Garand, the Thompson, the Reising, the Browning MG's etc. Apparently everything self-loading stopped when not kept clean. Sand was also an issue in North Africa.
Also during WWII, a quantity of .30-06 ammo was loaded with artillery black powder by mistake. The Garand choked on it due to its gas operation. The recoil-operated Johnson weapons and Browning MG's were able to function with it.
In Korea, the Garand and other self-loading weapons were know to have malfunctions in the extreme cold. Surely you have heard about GI's urinating on the action of their M-1 to thaw it out in an emergency?
I don't want to turn this into another AR-bashing thread, so just let me note that the M-1 did not spring full-blown and perfect from Garand's forehead. Neither was it without problems and drawbacks during its period of use.

Neo-Luddite
August 13, 2007, 09:25 PM
Chemist 308--you are on the money on the issue of body armor. Hot loaded .30-06 AP has a ghost of a chance where 5.56 isn't even close against a level 4 equipped enemy. In reality, something closer to .300 Win Mag loaded with .30 AP would be a more certain bet for penetration--but who is making a .300 Win Mag semi-auto? I've heard that .30 AP really can reach potentials unheard of with the added 500 fps behind it that the magnum loading can deliver.

HorseSoldier
August 13, 2007, 09:35 PM
I think your mistaken, the M1/M14 reciever is well known for its reliability, add some sand, and all it will do is fire and kick sand in your face. The M4 on the other hand is not as reliable


The word coming back from the desert is that the M14 has problems with fine sand. I know that doesn't gel with the mythology surrounding that weapon, but it is what it is.

hornadylnl
August 13, 2007, 10:00 PM
With 30/06 165 grain ap's loaded to 2700fps, you better have at least 1" plate in your vest. I've dented 1" plate that was swinging on a chain at 100 yards. If it didn't penetrate, I couldn't imagine the damage it would do to your rib cage. I don't think you'd be in the fight after taking one of those.

Il Duca
August 13, 2007, 10:17 PM
The Garand is one of the greatest battle rifles ever made, but for today's world of CQC it doesn't fit the bill. It's size is a serious drawback as is it's limited capacity.

The Annoyed Man
August 13, 2007, 10:23 PM
I love the Garand, but it has a fatal flaw in my opinion, and that is the distinct sound it makes when it ejects the empty en bloc clip.

The rifle goes:
bang,
bang,
bang,
bang,
bang,
bang,
bang,
bang,
BINK!!

...thereby alerting the other fellow that you have to stop shooting to reload. In fact, the noise of the empty clip being ejected was so pronounced and distinctive that American infantrymen in WW2 learned to throw an empty clip on the ground to fake out the enemy riflemen into put their heads up for a look see.

Other than that, it is a superb weapon, and while the .308 is a great round, the .30-06 is a true thumper.

amprecon
August 13, 2007, 11:10 PM
Regarding the recoil and knock-down power of the .30-06, the M-14, which has made a huge resurgence during our current engagements, used practically the same bullet at the same velocities.
From what I understand, advances in the chemical make-up of gunpowders during or shortly after WWII allowed the very same 150gr. bullet to be pushed to almost the same velocities in a case that contained this new powder that was nearly one-half inch shorter than the .30-06 case. This did nothing more than merely save on the weight and length of an assembled round and reduce the length of firearm actions to operate with the shortened case.
My opinion is that it was a nice thing to do, but was it really worth creating a new rifle over? I believe the Italians took the most economical route by modifying Garands into what is known as the Beretta BM-59, which was essentially the then newly created M-14.
I think we all would have been better served to have put our pride aside and taken a closer look at what the British had devised in their EM-2 .280 caliber.
I also remember reading that John Garand designed his Garand around the .276 Pedersen cartridge. Either way we may have been better served if we had just taken a better look at what was offered. I understand that our surplus of .30 caliber ammunition was a factor in determining its caliber and it hasn't diminished the effectiveness of the Garand as far as power, but an extra 2 rounds available using the .276 round may have been a better combat option as far as effectiveness goes.

DMK
August 13, 2007, 11:51 PM
With a decent muzzle brake, how much recoil would a Garand really have?Pfff. Recoil. :rolleyes:

The Garand is a kittycat next to a Mosin Nagant carbine. ;)

Exposure
August 14, 2007, 01:03 AM
chemist 308 said-

Here are a few questions:

Which does a better job on military body armor, the 223 rem with armor peircing or the 30-06 with armor piercing? It's only a matter of time before the US has a real war to fight against a nation which equips its troops properly.

The Garand is heavy and only has an 8 round mag, but does it jam as easily as the M-16?

The M-16 with it's 223 round can do a 3 round burst, but does the Garand with it's 30-06 round need to?

With modern metals and plastics, does the Garand need to weigh 10lbs if it were put into modern production?

With a decent muzzle brake, how much recoil would a Garand really have?

I've never served in the military. It seems the M-16 does okay considering what I'm hearing on the news, and the fact that when they issued my dad an M-60 in Vietnam he still kept his M-16. His life depended on what he carried, and i doubt he would have held onto it if it didn't work. But i know this: You make the ammo lighter, it may have less punch. Make the rifle too light and you may end up with something less durable.



Are you serious?

There is no "properly equipped" enemy when fighting a war. There is you and the bad guys. A soldier doesn't care if the bad guy is "properly equipped" or not. A soldier only cares that someone is trying to kill him.

You seem to be implying that because the enemy in Iraq doesn't meet your standard of what a "properly equipped" enemy is that we aren't in an actual shooting war over there. Maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote though.

It would really be insulting to the dead service members who have given their LIVES in this current conflict to think that someone Stateside with no service history, who enjoys their daily life free from incoming mortar rounds, IED's, snipers, and the general PITA of life in a war zone, does not consider this a "real" war.

I had read all of this thread and resolved to stay out of it. But this post made me speak up. Sorry to derail things but the trivializing of the situation in Iraq is something I can't keep quiet on.

Neo-Luddite
August 14, 2007, 01:35 AM
When you read the post in the manner you're high-lighting--yeh, it sounds bad. But really--do you think that disrespect was intended toward U.S. forces in Iraq? Probably not on this site. It reads like wording to make a point about a the prospect of a more technically equipped (funded) enemy.

You know, people often make bad word choices when trying to make a point--myself often included. I don't know of any regular poster on THR that knowingly disrespects the integrity or professionalism of the U.S. Armed Forces or belittles it's varrious missons (whether in political disagreement with current policy or not).

My opinion, worth what it cost ya.

-Mike

Soybomb
August 14, 2007, 01:58 AM
Which does a better job on military body armor, the 223 rem with armor peircing or the 30-06 with armor piercing?
I think thats a bad thing to try to judge on. Lvl 4 plates will stop both 5.56 and .30-06 ap. Both rounds would zip right through the soft armor that the plates don't cover. If body armor for the military evolves to something like dragon skin which seems quite likely in time, it should stop both rounds too.

General Geoff
August 14, 2007, 02:36 AM
Surely you have heard about GI's urinating on the action of their M-1 to thaw it out in an emergency?

I thought it was quite the opposite, with GIs urinating on the actions to cool them down from a long string of constant firing...

Neo-Luddite
August 14, 2007, 03:02 AM
I would not bet on AP .30-06 being stopped by level 4 body armor--it is the upper limit (arguably just beyond that, really). The difference in pennetration between 5.56 and .30-06 is just beyond equivication.

General Geoff
August 14, 2007, 03:08 AM
I don't think level four is even tested with AP .30-06.. I think it's tested with AP 7.62 NATO (which is arguably similar).

edit (http://www.njlawman.com/Feature%20Pieces/Body%20Armor.htm); I might be wrong, of course..

Wes Janson
August 14, 2007, 03:27 AM
Are you serious?

There is no "properly equipped" enemy when fighting a war. There is you and the bad guys. A soldier doesn't care if the bad guy is "properly equipped" or not. A soldier only cares that someone is trying to kill him.

You seem to be implying that because the enemy in Iraq doesn't meet your standard of what a "properly equipped" enemy is that we aren't in an actual shooting war over there. Maybe I just misunderstood what you wrote though.

Granted, but you also have to concede that Iraq would be a cakewalk in comparison to a full-blown land war against the PLA or the Russian army, fielding main battle tanks, artillery and air support, satellite reconnaisance, and both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. In today's world, either force represents an example of a truly well-armed and serious adversary capable of presenting a significant threat to the continental United States. In comparison, insurgents armed with IEDs, small arms, and suicide bombs, while still undoubtedly lethal, cannot match the offensive and defensive capabilities of the aforementioned militaries .

HorseSoldier
August 14, 2007, 03:59 PM
I think we all would have been better served to have put our pride aside and taken a closer look at what the British had devised in their EM-2 .280 caliber.
I also remember reading that John Garand designed his Garand around the .276 Pedersen cartridge. Either way we may have been better served if we had just taken a better look at what was offered.

Agreed. Both the British 280 (and 280/30) and the 276 Pedersen were pretty close matches to 6.8mm Remington SPC and 6.5mm Grendel, in terms of overall muzzle energy. (Both modern rounds are mostly pushing somewhat lighter bullets at faster velocity.)

With 30/06 165 grain ap's loaded to 2700fps, you better have at least 1" plate in your vest. I've dented 1" plate that was swinging on a chain at 100 yards. If it didn't penetrate, I couldn't imagine the damage it would do to your rib cage. I don't think you'd be in the fight after taking one of those.

There's video footage floating around online of the medic from an NY ARNG cavalry unit who was being filmed by insurgents when he took a 7.62x54 round in the hard plate. Put him on the ground for a moment, but he was up and moving to cover inside a couple seconds. Doubt you'd see much difference with a non-penetrating 30-06 hit -- I'm sure the guy felt like he'd been kicked by a mule, but my recollection of the situation was that he stayed in the fight, to include the foot pursuit of the sniper who shot him and his spotter/camera man.

benEzra
August 14, 2007, 04:35 PM
http://www.nlectc.org/txtfiles/BodyArmorStd/NIJSTD010103.html

2.1 Type I (22 LR; 38 Special)

This armor protects against 22 Long Rifle High Velocity lead bullets, with nominal masses of 2.6 g (40 gr) impacting at a velocity of 320 m (1050 ft) per second or less, and 38 Special round nose lead bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr) impacting at a velocity of 259 m (850 ft) per second or less. It also provides protection against most handgun rounds in calibers 25 and 32.

2.2 Type II-A (Lower Velocity 357 Magnum; 9 mm)

This armor protects against 357 Magnum jacketed soft point bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr) impacting at a velocity of 381 m (1250 ft) per second or less, and 9 mm full metal jacketed bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) impacting at a velocity of 332 m (1090 ft) per second or less. It also provides protection against threats such as 45 Auto., 38 Special +P and some other factory loads in caliber 357 Magnum and 9 mm, as well as the threats mentioned in section 2.1.



1 The ballistic threat posed by a bullet depends, among other things, on its composition, shape, caliber, mass, angle of incidence, and impact velocity. Because of the wide variety of cartridges available in a given caliber, and because of the existence of hand loads, armors that will defeat a standard test round may not defeat other loadings in the same caliber. For example, an armor that prevents penetration by a 357 Magnum test round may or may not defeat a 357 Magnum round with higher velocity. In general, an armor that defeats a given lead bullet may not resist penetration by other rounds of the same caliber of different construction or configuration. The test ammunition specified in this standard represent common threats to law enforcement officers.

1



2.3 Type II (Higher Velocity 357 Magnum; 9 mm)

This armor protects against 357 Magnum jacketed soft point bullets, with nominal masses of 10.2 g (158 gr) impacting at a velocity of 425 m (1395 ft) per second or less, and 9 mm full jacketed bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) impacting at a velocity of 358 m (1175 ft) per second or less. It also provides protection against most other factory loads in caliber 357 Magnum and 9 mm, as well as the threats mentioned in sections 2.1 and 2.2.

2.4 Type III-A (44 Magnum; Submachine Gun 9 mm)

This armor protects against 44 Magnum, lead semi-wadcutter bullets with gas checks, nominal masses of 15.55 g (240 gr) and impacting at a velocity of 426 m (1400 ft) per second or less, and 9 mm full metal jacketed bullets, with nominal masses of 8.0 g (124 gr) impacting at a velocity of 426 m (1400 ft) per second or less. It also provides protection against most handgun threats, as well as the threats mentioned in sections 2.1 through 2.3.

2.5 Type III ( High-Powered Rifle)

This armor protects against 7.62 mm full metal jacketed bullets (U.S. military designation M80), with nominal masses of 9.7 g (150 gr) impacting at a velocity of 838 m (2750 ft) per second or less. It also provides protection against threats such as 223 Remington (5.56 mm FMJ), 30 Carbine FMJ, and 12 gauge rifled slug, as well as the threats mentioned in sections 2.1 through 2.4.

2.6 Type IV (Armor-Piercing Rifle)

This armor protects against 30 caliber armor-piercing bullets (U.S. military designation APM2), with nominal masses of 10.8 g (166 gr) impacting at a velocity of 868 m (2850 ft) per second or less. It also provides at least single hit protection against the threats mentioned in sections 2.1 through 2.5.

The fact that they specify M2 ball (APM2) suggests they are thinking .30-06 (is 166 gr at 2850 ft/sec reasonable for M2 ball, either at the muzzle or at moderate range)?

elenius
August 14, 2007, 04:45 PM
(Thread drift warning).

Interesting info about body armor.
What is being used, and by whom? Does the military use lvl 4? What about swat teams? Just curious.

Neo-Luddite
August 14, 2007, 04:47 PM
Yes, that's close--though some M2AP was loaded hotter than this or the story goes. Just from my own limited experience shooting AP from the M-1 I find those specs on the plate impressive--but that has got to be top end. A more salient question--how fast does an APm2 @165 gr need to be moving to defeat the level 4--my bet is it would from a Win Mag.

Harley Quinn
August 14, 2007, 08:12 PM
M2 AP 424 gr (27.47 g) 3.34 in (84.84 mm) WC 852 165.7 gr (10.74 g) 54,000 psi (3,796 kg/cm²) 2,715 fps (828 mps
***************

The above if you can make it out is the specs for the AP that was used when I was in the Corps, I thought the weight was 166 gr., close...

The bullet was a copper jacket wrapped around a tungston projectile that kept going. I am not sure how well that would work with body armor though,
it was made for piercing steel.

It pierced steel, I know of one that went through the steel framework (Butts) and sent the smaller projectile into the mouth of a recruit, Busted one of his teeth. He wore it around his neck for as long as I knew him. I'll ask him, got his e-mail, he might still have it.
:D

That was the ammo we qualified with, boattail.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armor_piercing_round

This article mentions 163 gr. gives you an idea what I mentioned.

It was shot out of the Garand. I really liked the weapon myself. Was tough not to like it at the time it spit out plenty of fire power, and very good in parades LOL...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y90UPLLo6nY

:D

jerkface11
August 14, 2007, 08:45 PM
Wow a heavy rifle with heavy ammo and an 8 round mag you can't top off!!! WOOT sign me up to pack that around.

brasshat
August 15, 2007, 06:09 AM
I think you are describing a 30-06.....OR a nice Remington 7400 in 30-06

brasshat

Harley Quinn
August 15, 2007, 12:25 PM
Brasshat I believe that JF11 is being :rolleyes:, I don't think the 7400 is similar at all.

JF11 do you eat Armadillo.
http://www.everwonder.com/david/armadillo/

Seems they could become an endagered species ;)

jerkface11
August 15, 2007, 01:14 PM
A 7400 would be an improvement you can top off the mag.

Andras
August 15, 2007, 09:22 PM
It's actually a simple matter to thumb rounds into the clip while it's loaded in the Garand, I've done it myself a number of times.

Ian
August 15, 2007, 11:50 PM
A 7400 would be an improvement you can top off the mag.

Someone's been playing Medal of Honor, and not taking a real Garand to a real range. :p

jerkface11
August 16, 2007, 12:57 AM
I'd never take a real garand anywhere. They're heavy ugly expensive and picky about ammo. Now I've got heavy guns. I've got ugly guns. I even have expensive guns. However I won't have one that's all 3 AND won't shoot the ammo I can buy at walmart. Plus end bloc clips are for carcanos.

Samuraigg
August 16, 2007, 01:25 AM
I'd never take a real garand anywhere. They're heavy ugly expensive and picky about ammo. Now I've got heavy guns. I've got ugly guns. I even have expensive guns. However I won't have one that's all 3 AND won't shoot the ammo I can buy at walmart. Plus end bloc clips are for carcanos.

Wow.. I'm not even going near this.

GarandOwner
August 16, 2007, 01:34 AM
I'd never take a real garand anywhere. They're heavy ugly expensive and picky about ammo. Now I've got heavy guns. I've got ugly guns. I even have expensive guns. However I won't have one that's all 3 AND won't shoot the ammo I can buy at walmart. Plus end bloc clips are for carcanos.


.......wow...... this doesnt even dignify a response, but I will however say that if you think the Garand is ugly, you need to have your eyes checked.

chemist308
August 16, 2007, 01:48 AM
Granted, but you also have to concede that Iraq would be a cakewalk in comparison to a full-blown land war against the PLA or the Russian army, fielding main battle tanks, artillery and air support, satellite reconnaisance, and both strategic and tactical nuclear weapons. In today's world, either force represents an example of a truly well-armed and serious adversary capable of presenting a significant threat to the continental United States.
No disrespect intented, but that was my point--basically i meant a war the US has a realistic chance of LOSING. In such a conflict I honestly don't think either the M16 or M1 Garand quite fit the bill, but the 30-06 round does better against an enemy equiped with armor similar to what ours carries. Just MHO...which in the end doesn't mean all that much...

DMK
August 16, 2007, 08:39 AM
I'd never take a real garand anywhere. They're heavy ugly expensive and picky about ammo. Now I've got heavy guns. I've got ugly guns. I even have expensive guns. However I won't have one that's all 3 AND won't shoot the ammo I can buy at walmart. Plus end bloc clips are for carcanos.
Sounds like someone who's just looking for attention. :D

JWarren
August 16, 2007, 09:17 AM
Dunno about your analysis, Jerkface.... of course, it is always a matter of personal tastes. So, I am not faulting you.

But as I see it, I've had a FAL, HK, Saiga 308, etc. that ended up weighing more than a stock garand by the time I got through with it. Of course, some of that weight was 20 rounds of ammunition. Garands are heavy, but not so that I'd pass on one.

As for ugly, I actually think that they are a beautiful rifle. But I have odd views of beauty. I consider an AK with nice wood to be a beautiful rifle.


No comment on being picky on ammo. I've got no experience or basis for knowing one way or the other on Garands.


-- John

HorseSoldier
August 16, 2007, 11:27 AM
No disrespect intented, but that was my point--basically i meant a war the US has a realistic chance of LOSING. In such a conflict I honestly don't think either the M16 or M1 Garand quite fit the bill, but the 30-06 round does better against an enemy equiped with armor similar to what ours carries. Just MHO...which in the end doesn't mean all that much...

Honestly in a real, stand up and knock down, drag out kind of war like some latter day WW2 (which is incredibly unlikely), the rifle we field just doesn't make a whole lot of difference at the big picture level. WW2 was decided by things like industrial production rates, access to strategic materials, and how those things put more big ticket weapons systems like aircraft, tanks, etc. into the field and allowed them to burn more fuel and deliver more ordnance.

Vern Humphrey
August 16, 2007, 01:08 PM
It's actually a simple matter to thumb rounds into the clip while it's loaded in the Garand, I've done it myself a number of times.
That's called "Building a clip of 8" and it can be done, but it takes two hands and a lot of concentration.

Neo-Luddite
August 16, 2007, 04:04 PM
And a toast! Here's to the thread that will not die and that no one has been merciful enough to kill!

GarandOwner
August 16, 2007, 04:41 PM
Its a garand thread what do you expect :neener:

Neo-Luddite
August 16, 2007, 05:02 PM
I know---it's silly and re-assuring at the same time. We can't all be crazy--right?

DawgFvr
August 16, 2007, 05:41 PM
Quite a few viewpoints herein...all very interesting...some moreso than others. I carried a M16A2 for 20 years and I will tell you this: There may be a few occassions where I'd prefer a shotgun...like in MOUT, but on most every other occasion I'd trade that M16 in for my M1 Garand in a heartbeat!

http://i37.photobucket.com/albums/e61/DawgFvr/M1%20Garand/Garand.jpg

offthepaper
August 16, 2007, 05:53 PM
Do you think the Garand is obsolete?
--------------------------------------------------

Oh yeah, just like the wheel. :neener:

If you enjoyed reading about "Do you think the Garand is obsolete?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!