kcmarine
Member
The rifles have to be of comparable eras.
Which WAS better army rifle of its time?
- Thread starter OneShot!
- Start date
- Status
Cannonball888
Member
M1903. Servicemen were reluctant to give up these accurate battle-proven rifles for the Garand replacements. The 1903s were still being used by entire USMC rifle companies even into late WWII.
gaweidert
Member
In a ten shot speed and accuracy match, the Enfield could probably beatthe Garand. My father-in-law (USMC 1939 - 1948) was involved in testing the Johnson rifle for the Marines. As part of the testing, he had to compare both rilfes againt the 03A3. He was involved intesting because he did shoot on a base rifle team. For 10 shot speed and accuracy he could out shoot the Garand, but not the Johnson. Clip loading really slowed down the Garand. He demonstrated how he did it with my 03 Mark I. He would fire the rifle and then work the bolt during the recoil. By the time he was coming back down on target he had a new round in the chamber. The Johnson had a quicker target reaquisition time than the Garand and he could not outshoot it as it had the ability to top off the magazine form stripper clips. I would imagine that the Enfield could outshoot them all in such a test.
All that being said, the Garand did rule the battlefield of WWII. A 10 man squad could lay down a lot of cover fire in a short time with it. Used in situations where you had to make the enemy keep his head down so you could maneuver close enough to take him out with grenades, mortars etc. it was a superb weapon. Believe it or not, rifles only accounted for about 15% of the casualties in WWII. Artillery, bombings etc. accounting for the rest.
Yes my father-in-law had to be ordered to turn in his 03A3 for a Garand. In his eyes, the Springfield was an extension of his right arm. Shortly after that, he was issued a Thompson 45 which was his preferred weapon in the South Pacific as all the fighting was close and the 45 was a real man stopper. He thinks the M1 carbine not much more than a toy for use in combat.
All that being said, the Garand did rule the battlefield of WWII. A 10 man squad could lay down a lot of cover fire in a short time with it. Used in situations where you had to make the enemy keep his head down so you could maneuver close enough to take him out with grenades, mortars etc. it was a superb weapon. Believe it or not, rifles only accounted for about 15% of the casualties in WWII. Artillery, bombings etc. accounting for the rest.
Yes my father-in-law had to be ordered to turn in his 03A3 for a Garand. In his eyes, the Springfield was an extension of his right arm. Shortly after that, he was issued a Thompson 45 which was his preferred weapon in the South Pacific as all the fighting was close and the 45 was a real man stopper. He thinks the M1 carbine not much more than a toy for use in combat.
cracked butt
Member
M1.
The Enfield was an alright rifle and all but it was still a bolt action. There were a few people who were so familiar with the enfield around that could shoot faster than a soldier with an M1, but that doesn't necessarily make it a rule. Jerry Miculek can fire 6 shots from a revolver, reload and fire six more in a blink of an eye, but that doesn't mean a revolver is going to be faster and more accurate than a Glock in most other people's hands.
The Enfield was an alright rifle and all but it was still a bolt action. There were a few people who were so familiar with the enfield around that could shoot faster than a soldier with an M1, but that doesn't necessarily make it a rule. Jerry Miculek can fire 6 shots from a revolver, reload and fire six more in a blink of an eye, but that doesn't mean a revolver is going to be faster and more accurate than a Glock in most other people's hands.
jaholder1971
Member
The more I shoot my 91/30 and my M44, the closer I get to that conclusion.
In its time, the SMLE was simply superb as a FIGHTING rifle, for ARMIES. Mausers and Springfields and the like may have fired more powerful cartridges, and been more accurate, making them superb for the individual rifleman, but the SMLE was arguably better for armies fighting battles. I cannot vote in the poll, because it closed before I had time to post, but would have chosen the Garand for the one reason that means much to me personally; it is a superb rifle for those of us who shoot as lefties, whether because we are lefties, or may be righties but are left-eye dominant. To fire a quick shot, it is infinitely better/quicker to throw the rifle to the shoulder corresponding to the dominant eye, and when working a bolt in a hurry, it is infinitely better not to have to reach over the top of the rifle, which interrupts the sight picture. Duffers who take the rifle from the shoulder to work the bolt may not understand this, but those of us who keep a rifle shouldered while working the bolt certainly do.
Last edited:
jerkface11
Member
The Garand was such a great rifle that the army kept it for several decades oh wait no they didn't.
M1 Shooter
Member
***?! Yes they did. The M1 was standard issue from 1936 to 1957. Thats 21 years as standard 'A' issue, and it was used by reserve units and the National Guard well into the 1970's, probably another 20 years. Thats at least 30 to 40 years the M1 was in the Army's inventory.
mukluk
Member
Just a bit of info for the "Garand was first" crowd:
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-june00.html
http://www.cruffler.com/historic-june00.html
jaholder1971
Member
when my father left the USAR in 1980 his transportation company was in the process of getting rid of their M1's and qualifiying on the M16A1.
Fort Riley's MP battalion still had a couple M1D sniper rifles in one of their arms rooms in 1993. I saw them while visiting a cousin who was an E5 there.
M1 Shooter
Member
Yeah, yeah, whatever.
I know about that French POS. The French Mle. 1917 was never standard issue though, nor was it ever going to be. Especially since it was breakage prone, and very dirt sensitive, which was a problem with all the early military semi autos chambered for full power cartridges. What makes the Garand stand out is because it worked, worked well, and it still works, plus the fact that it WAS THE FIRST STANDARD ISSUE SEMI-AUTO MILITARY RIFLE.
HPJeep
Member
Why not ask which was better: trapdoor Springfield vs 1911A1 vs AK47? Your poll is like comparing the Ford model T vs the Olds 442. Both were good for their time but how can you compare apples to oranges?
Geronimo45
Member
Thought Mexico had the first semi?
The Lee-Enfield's bolt is a work of art, I've got to say... never seen a full-power bolt-action that handled that well. Swedish Mauser, Turkish Mauser, Mosin (pretty unfair comparison on that one) - nothing seems to come close. Seems like a hell-or-high-water rifle to me. As for the Garand... no data. It's a semi-auto. By nature, it's more likely to jam on you - but allows awfully fast shooting, I suppose.
The Lee-Enfield's bolt is a work of art, I've got to say... never seen a full-power bolt-action that handled that well. Swedish Mauser, Turkish Mauser, Mosin (pretty unfair comparison on that one) - nothing seems to come close. Seems like a hell-or-high-water rifle to me. As for the Garand... no data. It's a semi-auto. By nature, it's more likely to jam on you - but allows awfully fast shooting, I suppose.
M1 Shooter
Member
I have fired thousands of rounds through both M1's and SMLE's, and the number of malfunctions has been about the same for both types.
The Garand's lack of an adjustable or auto-regulating gas system is of no consequence. Neither the successful SKS-45 or AK-47/AKM had an adjustable gas system either, didn't prevent the latter from becoming the most prolific automatic rifle of the post-WW2 era.
And Mexico put a semi into limited service in the late 1890s. The Mondragon, though it was more finicky and failure prone than a Soviet AVS-36.
Of course if you want to get picky about firsts, Federov's Avtomat beat out the Stg44 and AK-47 by 3 decades.
And Mexico put a semi into limited service in the late 1890s. The Mondragon, though it was more finicky and failure prone than a Soviet AVS-36.
Of course if you want to get picky about firsts, Federov's Avtomat beat out the Stg44 and AK-47 by 3 decades.
Red Mist Effect
Member
As i have said before the japs in WWII thought that the aussie's had auto's because they could and keep up a constant rate of fire 10 rounds 10 seconds 5 seconds to load and when you finished your mag with the enfield it didn't go ping iam sure the enermy loved that sound.
M1 was good as could be obtained by the us army at the time but not great and as for clearing houses in dutch towns i never thought that it was that good.
only cause you would go
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang PING!!!! oh s%#t! iam out.
IMO
M1 was good as could be obtained by the us army at the time but not great and as for clearing houses in dutch towns i never thought that it was that good.
only cause you would go
bang bang bang bang bang bang bang PING!!!! oh s%#t! iam out.
IMO
jerkface11
Member
If the garand serving as a specialty weapon or a weapon for second tier troops counts as service then the enfield is STILL in service.
mukluk
Member
I too have fired thousands of rounds through both M1s and SMLEs; in my personal experience the only one that has broken has been the M1.
Shell Shucker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 189
MABE an EXPERT rifleman with a bolt gun can keep up with a semiauto......... I'm betting that the average 18-21 year old recruit/draftee can lay down a lot more fire power with a semiauto. Imagine that you're in a fox hole being charged by multiple close range attackers. Do you want 8 shots simply pulling the trigger or 10 shots working the bolt?
The Garand was reliable; it's a proven fact. The U.S. military ammo was standardized so the ability to digest varied loads is not a factor.
M-1 wins hands down.
The Garand was reliable; it's a proven fact. The U.S. military ammo was standardized so the ability to digest varied loads is not a factor.
M-1 wins hands down.
Red Mist Effect
Member
if carrying a rifle thats 9.5 M1 or 8 SMLE i no what i want
SMLE all the way.
SMLE all the way.
Shell Shucker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 189
I agree that light is right when humping a load. Would 1.5 LB or fire power be the deciding factor when SHTF? I'll wager that most WW-II vets would pick fire power given the choice. I'll even go so far as saying that MOST WW-II vets on BOTH sides would have preferred a Garand over thier issue bolt gun!
bluedsteel
Member
- Joined
- Mar 31, 2007
- Messages
- 33
Every time I take my Garand out for range time, I am amazed we didn't win WWII sooner. It is an awesome, POWERFUL, rifle.
I would feel well armed with it if I were to be sent to Iraq...maybe even better armed than with an M4...
bluedsteel
I would feel well armed with it if I were to be sent to Iraq...maybe even better armed than with an M4...
bluedsteel
- Status
