The M1 Garand Rifle - Why Is It, "Heavy"?

I’ve handled plenty of ARs that were WAY heavier than garands after they had rails and optics and bipods and VFGs and magnifiers and offset double redundant backup irons and lights and DBALs and tactical espresso machines bolted on.

That's why I only have three. They're my "go-to" rifles if and when. I just finished reading Ms. Feinstein's proposed AWB and the M-1 Garand is specifically exempted. Oh, and at 9-1/2 lbs and gas-operated, they're nearly recoil-free.

YMMV, but mine won't.

Harry

In close hand to hand combat, I would rather have had my old M14 than the plastic M16 if you needed to whack your enemy with the butt.

Garandimal said:

With its 24" Bbl., the M1 Rifle is only 1/4" longer than my 22" Bbl'ed M70 bolt rifle chambered in .270 Win.

Click to expand...

Efficient use of its length, no doubt.

Garandimal said:

Ammo comes in 8-round enbloc clips that only weigh 1/2 lb. each, while a 48 rd. bandoleer ~ 3-1/3 lbs.

Click to expand...

Well one can get 3 fully loaded 30 round STANAG magazines for 556.”, for nearly double the load out.

An M16A1 weighs 6.37 lbs. (with great sights themselves) unloaded so that nets the warfighter an additional 3 - 30 round loaded magazines.

So to compare loadout one can have a M1 Garand with 48 rounds. Or a 20” M16A1 with 180 rounds loaded into magazines. Additional rounds could be configured if one chose to use charging clips rather than rounds stored into additional magazines.

I love the M1 Garand as well but I would take an M16a1 with the above configuration and loadout before an M1 with the reduced loadout.

Garandimal said:

With 150 gr. M2 Ball ammo at ~ 2800 fps, and the best aperture sights ever mounted on a rifle, it is effective out to 500 yards.

Click to expand...

A great upside to the M1 however engagements very rarely need the additional distance and lethality at distance the heavier M2 ball affords.

Garandimal said:

Are we no longer a Nation of men...?

Click to expand...

Are we no longer a Nation of men...?

Click to expand...

A typical soldier today is carrying more weight than a soldier in WW-2. Instead of 48 rounds it is around 200 today. Then you add body armor and other gear.

The Garand was revolutionary in 1936. But today is better suited for moose or grizzly hunting than warfare. No need for that much power to stop a 150-200 lb man.

The Garand was great, in 1941*.

Try these tasks:
Top off a Garand (tactical reload).
Reload a Garand left handed (~10% of your troops are going to be left handed).
Gain fire superiority against troops armed with lighter recoiling intermediate cartridges out of select fire weapons.

.30-06 is too much cartridge for a general purpose round. Arguably 556 NATO isn't quite enough. Multiple military ideal cartridge studies keep coming up with the conclusion that something in the .270" ~6.5mm class would be better, but for various historical reasons we're stuck with what we have.

BSW

*It's a really good thing too as the supporting MGs the US had were warmed over WWI crap.

briansmithwins said:

as the supporting MGs the US had were warmed over WWI crap

Click to expand...

And yet they--on average--served for half a century, as long as the M16 to date (longer for the M2 Cal..50).
Doctrine changed over the span of a number of conflicts, both wars and rumors of wars.

The purpose of the MG remains the same, supportive fires in either offense or defense beyond the range of the unit's rifles. Those ranges have varied over the years.
In 1936, when the M1 Garand was adopted, Platoon & Company MGs were expected to reach out to 3200 yards. The Browning cal..30 MGs met those needs. The 1917 was retained longer than apt out of necessity. The 1919 was not replaced until the M60 was introduced, and that was not a universally good swap.

CapnMac said:

And yet they--on average--served for half a century, as long as the M16 to date (longer for the M2 Cal..50).
Doctrine changed over the span of a number of conflicts, both wars and rumors of wars.

The purpose of the MG remains the same, supportive fires in either offense or defense beyond the range of the unit's rifles. Those ranges have varied over the years.
In 1936, when the M1 Garand was adopted, Platoon & Company MGs were expected to reach out to 3200 yards. The Browning cal..30 MGs met those needs. The 1917 was retained longer than apt out of necessity. The 1919 was not replaced until the M60 was introduced, and that was not a universally good swap.

Click to expand...

If we're going by length of service than the SMLE must have been superior to pretty much every other service rifle, including the Garand.

Keeping the various versions of the m1917 and BAR around because Army Ordnance couldn't pull it's head out does not mean they were superior to what was possible or available, it just means that Ordnance's fatal case of NIH hadn't killed them, yet.

The inferior M60 being adopted instead of the superior FN MAG is just another example of Ordnance taking 20 years to churn out an inferior product*.

BSW

*Don't get me started on the FAL vs M14 fiasco.

CapnMac said:

The 1919 was not replaced until the M60 was introduced, and that was not a universally good swap.

Click to expand...

Amen to that CapnMac ! As a small arms repairman (45Bravo) In Germany, I spent a lot of time fixing cranky M-60s. Didn't much care for the thing.

I had the somewhat unusual experience of having been issued the M1, M14, and M16 during my ten years in the Corps. I had the M1 from 7/59 to 1/61 when I was issued an M15. In 5/65 I was issued a M16. For me the M1 was the king of the beasts. It was accurate, almost unstoppable under any conditions. I can’t say that for the M14 or M14 both of which had their problems in adverse conditions. The clip loading M1 never presented an issue that can develop with magazines. In my opinion the M1 was superior to the others in every way except ammo capacity, However, you could reload the M1 while barely moving it off your shoulder. It was fast, and the clips never got hung up on insertion. It was and is one of the greatest rifles ever made.

briansmithwins said:

*Don't get me started on the FAL vs M14 fiasco.

Click to expand...

Lets do it! Better yet...let's not and say we did!

Weight of battle rifles tend to hover around 10 pounds. You need the weight for durability, besides 20+ year olds can easily slug them.

The Garand is not heavy feeling, but thats not the same as not being heavy. At 9.5, its good balance, fairly short length of pull, and good design make it feel much lighter. The same can be said for my Mauser, that weights 8.5lb, or 1187, that weights 8.5.

My PA10 weights in exactly what an M1 weights, at 9.5lb, but with a loaded 20 round steel mag, and iron sights comparable to the M1.

As far as the weight, thats a much bigger problem shipping things in airplanes, and trucks. WW2 was a total war effort against an almost symmetrical force, whereas WW3 was supposed to be fought against a superior force. In 2021, the idea of running out of fuel, fuel production capacity, and ability to transports seems unlikely, but in 1964, it wasn't so.

The M1G also only feels light relative to other rifles when your pointing it. When your carrying it, possibly for a 1300 mile walk to Moscow from Germany, and all the 3006 you will need to fight Russia's defenses, because your airforce isn't good enough, and Russia destroyed its roads on retreat, that weight is an issue.

Ultimately we phased out the Garand, and eventually went to the M16 for strategic reasons, and not soldier toughness.

Garandimal said:

Are we no longer a Nation of men...?

Click to expand...

I would love to answer that question, but Im too busy trying to tell my Chinese smartphone to order me a $27 soy latte from Starbucks and have a Doordash driver wearing 3 masks deliver it to the basement where Im hiding from The Virus until my benevolent overlords tell me its safe to go outside. Thank goodness I have the Internet to keep me informed and entertained with funny cat memes and hip-hop artists grinding on each other at awards shows. I would read a book, but I burned them because the man on the moving picture box told me they were bad.

BillWM said:

Weight of battle rifles tend to hover around 10 pounds. You need the weight for durability, besides 20+ year olds can easily slug them.

Click to expand...

This is pretty much it. Hunting rifles are made to carry often and take a few accurate shots and all things considered are babied. Battle rifles are used as clubs, pry bars, walking sticks, spears, and through all the mud and grit need to work to defend yourself with "good enough" accuracy. Going back to the beginnings of this country, the Brown Bess musket meant for war was generally heavier than a Kentucky Long Rifle meant for hunting, and was certainly more robust.

Garandimal said:

The M1 Garand Rifle - Why Is It, "Heavy"?

Click to expand...

I've always thought that it was due to all of that gorgeous wood & steel.

People that I have had shoot an M1 for the very first time are universally surprised just how much of a pussycat it is, recoil-wise. Most of those folks were old hands at shooting .30'06 in boltguns (svelte commercial hunting rifles and/or Springfield 03(A3)s) and expecting at least a little a bit of punishment. The result was always a SMILE.

Pretty sure the M1 and original M16 are equally good in practice, issued to troops trained in their use, especially when facing largely-untrained opposition. There are tradeoffs, but a battalion of WW2 marines armed with M1 Garands would not, I suspect, feel themselves outgunned at all should they somehow enter a 25 year time warp and find themselves facing a battalion of Viet Cong armed with either Mosins or SKS’s. They’d probably be fine against AKs too. (Apologies to Vietnam vets, I am not one and so if I am full of cr*p please tell me so.)

Now, if we faced a professional European army armed with a modern platform, I think the additional ammunition, optics, and versatility of the M4 or other 21st century platform would show itself plainly far superior. I think the biggest real-world advance since WWII has probably been in the realm of optics. Being able to clearly see your target at range and acquire the target quickly is a true revolution. The iron sights on a Garand or 03A3 are good, but they don’t compare to a magnified optic visible in all conditions. Historically the greatest reason and necessity for snipers was not those mythical shots where some enemy general needs to be taken out at 900 yards, but just to enable reasonably good marksmen to have a better chance at actually seeing the enemy clearly enough for a shot. Modern rifles give that ability to almost every soldier in the fight. And beyond that, assuming the unit has good fire support, it’s largely academic whether they’re shooting .30-06, 7.62x51, 5.56, 7.62x39, or something else.

The only reason we’ve received any reprieve recently here in Ca is our socialist overlord had two million people sign a recall petition to remove his imperial arse from office... but I digress.

For its time and the battles it was designed for, the Garand was a world beater.

Starting with the Stg44 and then Mr. Kalashnikov’s design (and the others that followed), these high capacity intermediate-cartridge rifles made it rapidly become obsolete on the modern battlefield.

It’s still an awesome piece of history. I get as much joy shooting the two I have as just about any other gun I have.

Stay safe.

It's only heavy on paper... they balance well enough that my 14 year old nephew was able to hit 2/3 IPSC targets at 100 yards from a standing position. Honestly, aside from the Kimber 84 that I bought last year, the Garand is the lightest rifle I own.

As far as manliness goes, warfare used to be conducted at spitting distance. So if you've never piked, bayonetted, or otherwise manually perforated a man in armed conflict you're probably pretty soft; I know I am.

1KPerDay said:

I’ve handled plenty of ARs that were WAY heavier than garands after they had rails and optics and bipods and VFGs and magnifiers and offset double redundant backup irons and lights and DBALs and tactical espresso machines bolted on.

Click to expand...

Never understood that. The whole purpose of the AR/M16 rifles were to reduce the load each soldier had to carry. That ended with the A2, which is only a couple of pounds lighter than an M1/M1A. Once people put all those toys on an AR, it no longer serves that purpose.

briansmithwins said:

Keeping the various versions of the m1917 and BAR around because Army Ordnance couldn't pull it's head out

Click to expand...

There's an interesting historical artifact, that, had the war continued into 1919, as had been expected, wartime experience would have pushed the 1917 into early retirement for the 1919, and the BAR forced into something better. Probably a better balanced arm with a pistol grip.
Or, we would have given everyone tommy guns and grenade vests for trench raiding.
The problem is with doctrine.
And, it never evolves soon enough or fast enough.
How is it the War Department missed that the French fielded a quarter million Chauchat, and produced enough to drop a few thousand on the AEF in .30-06 to use as training weapons?
The BAR was a lousy SAW. Mind, no one really noticed that until it was actually used as a SAW.

And, in full fairness the MG34 was a pretty lousy SAW, too. But it was meant to be a Medium MG. Only the Brits got the SAW right, with the Bren, and that took an entire War to get perfected.

Hindsight is a cruel thing, and it will often gloss over the very real struggles that were encountered contemporaneously.

Getting back to topic, as self-loading Service Rifles from the 30s go, the Garand was svelte. Look at the boat oars the Germans and Russians tried to field--long, heavy and unreliable to a one.

Garandimal said:

It's a 9.5 lb. gas operated semiautomatic battle rifle chambered in .30-06/.308.

View attachment 986103​

A weapon of wood and steel - used by millions of Americans through Two(2) major wars, as well as millions of others in allied Nations around the world through the Lend-Lease Act.

With its 24" Bbl., the M1 Rifle is only 1/4" longer than my 22" Bbl'ed M70 bolt rifle chambered in .270 Win.

Ammo comes in 8-round enbloc clips that only weigh 1/2 lb. each, while a 48 rd. bandoleer ~ 3-1/3 lbs.

With 150 gr. M2 Ball ammo at ~ 2800 fps, and the best aperture sights ever mounted on a rifle, it is effective out to 500 yards.


Are we no longer a Nation of men...?

View attachment 986104



​

GR

Click to expand...

I totally disagree with your premise. Don't get me wrong. I love the Garand. Competed with one for many years. But anything I can do to make life easier or more efficient is a step in the right direction. I was never in the infantry, so hunting is my closest comparison regarding carrying equipment and heavy loads. The less weight I carry in rifle and ammo means more weight I can carry in game meat. Or more food I can carry for a longer hunting trip, which increases my odds of success. The less physical strain I can put on my body means the longer I can hunt-both in terms of a single trip and over a lifetime. I can't sacrifice capability for comfort. I'm not going to hunt moose with a 22LR because it's lighter/easier, but I also wouldn't want to carry an M1 up and down mountains and over tundra when there are lighter, eaiser, more efficiet, equally capable alternatives.

The Garand and the M16 were both designed for the same purpose (infantry weapon). The M16 has more than proven it's capability in that role, and it does it at less weight and less weight per round of ammo carried. It is not unmanly to work smarter rather than harder, nor is it manly to work harder solely for the sake of working harder.

As for your assessment of the M1 sight: yes, it's a good sight. Yes it will shoot to 500 yrds. (I routinely shoot mine at 600 for Service Rifle competition.) But an AR15/M16 rifle will do the same. Indeed, the guy beside me on the line at 600 yrds., usually posts a higher score than I do. In fact, I once borrowed an AR15 for a match and immediately scored one classification higher doing nothing different but changing the rifle.

We are still a nation of men. But we’ve gotten smarter in some regards. We’re men that want to optimize efficiency as much as possible and weight reductions are part of that.

Sticking for tradition for its own sake is the antithesis of that.

Plus: room clearing with is a hell of a lot easier, faster and safer with a more compact rifle.