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

Mosin Bubba said:

This thread's not really about 2 lbs of weight or 20 rounds of capacity, it's about defending the American Mjolnir from its non-believers.

Click to expand...

I agree but I'm not sure why the OP felt it needed defending. The Garand is a fine rifle, it's just less than ideal as a modern fighting rifle. It truly is the stuff of legends. That's the problem, when the argument is more about perpetuating a legend than actual logical discourse. I have the same eyes-glazed-over reaction when the subject is the .45Colt and the sum total of a person's opinion is the myth & legend it shooting horses out from under their riders. The line between fact and fiction is non-existent.

Tortuga said:

I don't think it's fair to classify the discourse going on here that way...

Click to expand...

I would. There has been no technical details provided by the OP supporting his claim. Just a constant reminder to go to the 20:30 point in a video. Very little debate on the technical aspects of this discussion at all, because the OP won't engage. So what was the point of this thread, other than trolling? And for the record, posting a thread with the express intent of inciting the audience is the definition of trolling.

Tortuga said:

Honestly though, the AR-15 probably wouldn't be either.......Call me old fashion but all the lights and stuff don't do it for me.

Click to expand...

That is personal choice but I won't have a home defense weapon without a light attached. A red dot is also infinitely better than iron sights or magnified optics at night. Unlike a lot of folks, I train at night because if "it" is gonna hit the fan, it's likely to happen in the middle of the night.

wombat13 said:

Neither is a particularly good choice.

Click to expand...

One is a hell of a lot better than the other.

wombat13 said:

Yes, you can top off a Garand. You shouldn't be slagging a guy if you haven't even watched the very first video he posted. Very simple to top one off.

Click to expand...

Seriously??? Now compare that to a mag switch.

wombat13 said:

Yes, to all. Ultimak and Amega Ranges both make rails for the Garand that do not require permanently altering the rifle. They just replace the upper handguard. Ultimak is a simple top rail that allows mounting a scope. Amega Ranges allows lights, etc. to be added on the side.

Click to expand...

Really don't care who makes what for the Garand. A bandaid fix is the most you can hope for. You're gonna pay $200 to add 2lbs to an inferior platform. The current M1A is the ultimate modernization of the platform and I wouldn't choose it either.

I have used one of the clamped on scout rails for the M1 Garand (replaces the upper hand guard). It is aluminum and weighs a lot less than 2 pounds. It works well. It is clamped to the barrel and gets hot with sustained fire. I guess there are light mounts that will work off that rail. I took it off as I have other rifles to attach stuff.

They used to sell flash hider attachments that replace the threaded piece on the end of the barrel. I imagine a suppressor mount could be made. I would be real careful to use a low back pressure can to make sure I was not putting too much stress on the operating rod. It is possible, but not something I want to mess with.

I think it's great that people like the M1 rifle and keep it alive by using it and learning everything about the rifle. I liked the rifle when I was using it, was fascinated by the rifle but today it would not work for what I do. I have always been addicted to bolt action rifles and my lucky star fell on the pre 64 Model 70 Winchester so that's what I use. The 1937 design is about the same age as the M1. A good bolt action is user friendly and provides the best long range accuracy. I don't mind being called old school because the younger shooters are making their mistakes and struggling through what I already know. I wish them well in everything they do.

wombat13 said:

Neither is a particularly good choice.

Click to expand...

This is what I keep handy these days. Compact and handy (although maybe a tad heavy with the suppressor on there), and is easy to quickly load (I don't keep loaded guns around unless Im wearing it) and easy to move around with. Its also a very natural shooter, and from most all positions.




Ive had Ultimak rails on a couple of AK's for a couple of decades now. They are well made and work much better than most any of the others of the type Ive tried. Highly recommend them.

If I were to get another M14 of some type, that's one of the first things Id put on it. Thought about putting one on my one M1, and then thought better of it. Some things you just leave alone. Like, no red dots or scopes on a Winchester Trapper.

I had a SOCOM and Springfields rail is a joke. It sits way to high, isnt(wasn't) Picatinny spec, and being made of steel, gets very hot, very quickly, and retains that heat a long time. That was the only mount I was actually worried might screw up the Aimpoint I had mounted on it.

Im still wanting to know what "rifle range" is and why assault rifles suck at it? Anyone?

Also the 3 round burst is made to conserve ammo over full auto fire when using the rifle for suppressive fire. It's not intended to be used as a standard setting during combat for shooting at individual targets. Even then everyone trains to use semi for fire superiority.

Yes modern M4s weigh the same as a standard M1 did. But they also have optics, lights, and lasers to justify that weight. Optics are super useful because like BrianSmithWins said, guys dont just stand around in the open wearing bright clothing and setting up range flags for you. You arent spotting a guy in the prone half covered behind a tree at 300 yards with irons. You will with an ACOG or Razor 1-6. Half of the time the battlefield is dark due to night. There is a reason why a motto in the Infantry is "we own the night".... Mostly because we have been killing lots of guys in the dark who had no idea what was going on.

In conclusion, yes we definitely still are a nation of men. We've been at war for nearly 20 years, killed a lot of bad guys, and spilled a lot of blood. The changes that have happened over that timeframe were made from lessons learned on the battlefield. Equipment has been getting smaller and lighter. Rifles, body armor, radios, etc... Not because the men are weaker, but for maneuverability. Shoot, move, communicate. Movement is a huge part of combat. Climbing over walls or into windows is a lot easier with smaller/lighter equipment. And the longer it takes you to do it is more time for the enemy to line up a shot on you.

Are M1 Garands badass rifles? For sure. I love mine. Were they great for combat prior to the assault rifle? Yes. Would I take one to combat now? Definitely not.

8 round clips is fine if you are behind a rock trading shots with guys across a valley. But assaulting an objective with 8 rounds would suck. Reloading every 8 shots during a firefight inside a house with multiple enemy combatants who have 30 round magazines is borderline suicide.

Garandimal said:

M1 Rifles.

As for parts - that is the genius of the M1 Rifle - All parts are interchangeable... and were.

View attachment 986665​

Arsenal rebuilds were a big part of keepin' the M1 rifle in service under combat conditions and corrosive ammo.

An arsenal rebuilt M1 rifle is as good as a factory fresh rifle in the field.

... and the $750 CMP Service Grade M1 rifle - is all that.

View attachment 986650​

GR

Click to expand...

Hate to tell you, all parts are interchangeable with all of them. Well, except maybe the Reising.

Last I saw over at the CMP, they were dragging the bottom of the bucket and not selling original guns, other than maybe higher-end collector-grade guns. Has that changed?

What I was seeing was basically receivers getting a new barrel and new made stock, and a new park job. Might be an M1, but just not the M1's Im thinking of. Plenty of nice original guns around if you look, and have the cash.

Tortuga said:

Like I said I'm thinking of getting one now. Are they pieces of junk? Is it parts gun? $750 seems shallow for something this cool but i'm trying to keep an open mind.

Click to expand...

I sent you a PM about the CMP Garands.

C-grunt said:

Im still wanting to know what "rifle range" is and why assault rifles suck at it? Anyone?

Also the 3 round burst is made to conserve ammo over full auto fire when using the rifle for suppressive fire. It's not intended to be used as a standard setting during combat for shooting at individual targets. Even then everyone trains to use semi for fire superiority.

Click to expand...

They don't, its just the level of skill, or lack of it these days, that many seem to have. Just because they cant shoot, doesn't mean others cant.

The 5.56 loses that "ballistic edge" at around 300 yards or so, but it will still punch a hole in you at longer distances. If you don't think I cant hit you at 500 yards, that would be a mistake on your part. And though its not as explosive at those distances, Id be willing to bet, you'd notice it, and not be happy about it.

The three round burst was a bean counters idea of saving money. They didn't, and from what Ive seen, still don't, want to waste time and money on training and ammo for general troops.

FA fire is all about trigger control and knowing when and where to use it. Its not wasteful in the least if you learn to use it, and its a very simple technique to learn.

I see we are back to watching videos instead of actually replying with any kind of realistic discussion.

If he spent as much time on the range as he does on YouTube, he might be working on his Sharpshooter's badge.

And since you brought up Jerry and how he's shooting. How often have you shot your M1 like he does? If you haven't, its lots of fun. Just don't think youre going to be looking through the sights.

One other thing I don't see you talking about when it comes to the M1 is, the not-so-great things about them.

And since you seem to like videos.....



And if you think that's an exception, I have a nice, "L" shaped scar in my right palm, and a continuous ring in my right ear from my first DCM gun doing just that.

A lot of people seem to be ignorant of the guns weak points, and lackadaisical in how they handle and shoot them.

Garandimal said:

You could fill volumes w/ what you don't know.

Click to expand...

I readily admit that.

From how you keep going on, they must have a whole wing at the library with yours.

Garandimal said:

Explain the DM programs in SCA, and the Army's new 6.8mm infantry rifle program.

Click to expand...

DM's are a different critter, and not a general issue rifle. There will always be a need for those types of gun, and in the hands of your better than average shooters.

And don't try and tell us that the M1 or M14 are the better choice.







GR[/QUOTE]

Garandimal said:

You could fill volumes w/ what you don't know.




Explain the DM programs in SCA, and the Army's new 6.8mm infantry rifle program.






GR

Click to expand...

1. What is the DM program in SCA? If that's some part of the Designated Marksman program back during the early days of GWOT, I was part of that..... and I carried a modified M16. The M14 rifles were a stop gap and had a lot of issues. I shot a guy at 410 meters, which is about 60 meters farther than the longest shot taken by our snipers that deployment with their M24s.

2. The new 6.8 program is specifically being tested because of the proliferation of body armor. The Army doesnt believe that current 5.56 or 7.62 offerings are gong to be effective at defeating peer military body armor in the future.

Every few years some officer at a college comes up with this idea that we need more power because we arent killing bad guys at distance. Many will remember "taking back the half kilometer" paper. They tried adopting the 6.8 SPC to make things better at range. And then it's tested and the real reason is rediscovered. We arent killing a lot of bad guys at distance because we are not hitting the bad guys at distance. Again, like my (and BSW's) previous statements, actual people are hard to hit at distance as they are usually trying to not get shot. I know, it's very rude and selfish.

To paraphrase a SEAL I worked with who used the 6.8 in combat: "It worked, but it was no better than 5.56. Good hits were good hits and bad hits were still bad hits".

AK103K said:

This is what I keep handy these days. Compact and handy (although maybe a tad heavy with the suppressor on there), and is easy to quickly load (I don't keep loaded guns around unless Im wearing it) and easy to move around with. Its also a very natural shooter, and from most all positions.

View attachment 986674


Ive had Ultimak rails on a couple of AK's for a couple of decades now. They are well made and work much better than most any of the others of the type Ive tried. Highly recommend them.

If I were to get another M14 of some type, that's one of the first things Id put on it. Thought about putting one on my one M1, and then thought better of it. Some things you just leave alone. Like, no red dots or scopes on a Winchester Trapper.

I had a SOCOM and Springfields rail is a joke. It sits way to high, isnt(wasn't) Picatinny spec, and being made of steel, gets very hot, very quickly, and retains that heat a long time. That was the only mount I was actually worried might screw up the Aimpoint I had mounted on it.

Click to expand...

Not going to lie, that's a super sweet setup.. I have this tendency to keep everything stock and use Iron Sights for everything. It might be silly on my part but I just don't really like optics. We used ACOGS and CCOs in the military and I assume I'd probably rely on one if I was in combat, but don't think It'd be out of the fight with irons (unless it's at night).

As for these scenarios of home invasion, I'd just use my 12 gauge with a bead site. It's not super high tech but, even when I was living out in the country, I really feel like that's the weapon to use. I'm not going to point it at something unless I'm 100% sure of the target anyway (someone in my house I don't know), so at that point the flashlight seems kind of moot.

I don't want this to devolve into the realm of armchair tacticians debating endless fantasy scenarios because that isn't what this forum is (and I want to respect that), but I'll take my 12 gauge for this situation. Still, that AR is sweet.

C-grunt said:

I sent you a PM about the CMP Garands.

Click to expand...

Again, I greatly appreciate this. People whining and crying aside, I'm super happy that this thread did not get closed because I might wind up buying a Garand after all of this is said and done.

AK103K said:

They don't, its just the level of skill, or lack of it these days, that many seem to have. Just because they cant shoot, doesn't mean others cant.

The 5.56 loses that "ballistic edge" at around 300 yards or so, but it will still punch a hole in you at longer distances. If you don't think I cant hit you at 500 yards, that would be a mistake on your part. And though its not as explosive at those distances, Id be willing to bet, you'd notice it, and not be happy about it.

The three round burst was a bean counters idea of saving money. They didn't, and from what Ive seen, still don't, want to waste time and money on training and ammo for general troops.

FA fire is all about trigger control and knowing when and where to use it. Its not wasteful in the least if you learn to use it, and its a very simple technique to learn.

Click to expand...

From my recollection, the M16A2 didn't have full auto because poorly trained draftees were holding the rifle over their heads while they remained under cover and were just holding in the trigger to try and clear enemy terrain. The idea was that this was grossly ineffectual and a burst option would prevent this behavior from scared GIs. That said, I almost never used burst fire in during my entire enlistment. I think it's a shame though because burst is useful for targets within 150 meters.

Tortuga said:

Here's a question to shake up the thread (if anybody actually reads what I write), but is there a way to make an M1 take an external magazine? Has this been done successfully?

Click to expand...

The four M-1s below the Johnson LMG and the M-1 missing its handguard are all select fire and were converted to take a 20 round magazines. If you look closely, the paddle type mag release is visible on rifle # 6854 and 6862. Also note the muzzle brakes

CraigC said:

One is a hell of a lot better than the other.



Seriously??? Now compare that to a mag switch.



Really don't care who makes what for the Garand. A bandaid fix is the most you can hope for. You're gonna pay $200 to add 2lbs to an inferior platform. The current M1A is the ultimate modernization of the platform and I wouldn't choose it either.

Click to expand...

You literally asked "Can you top off that Garand if you run it half dry?" and I answered the question and you respond like I'm crazy. Then you claim that the rail will add 2 lbs. Yet the Amega Ranges rail is listed as 11 oz. You are engaging in fact-free ranting just as much as the OP.

I never made any claim that the M1 is superior to the AR-15 in any way, so I don't have to prove that it is. I've merely pointed out that it has fewer deficiencies than you imagine.

Now, it does actually have one key advantage for me: I don't have to register it in NY. Furthermore, since I don't have fantasies of needing a rifle to engage in CQB, or needing to load out with hundreds of rounds of ammo, I find that, for my purposes, the deficiencies that you and others have pointed out aren't that important.

My first time shooting a high-powered rifle was with the M-1 in 1965, on the Army "Train-Fire" course. It was a hell of a kick compared to 22s and shotguns of my youth, but I shot expert and loved the rifle. The first time I had my hands on an M-16 was in Vietnam, and I appreciated the weapon. Both are good weapons but designed in two different eras of warfare. In my opinion, both were excellent for their time. My experience in VN was that firefights were usually sudden, up close and seldom lasted past the first 20 round mag, which we loaded with only 18 rounds to prevent spring fatigue (no jams!). I never had a jam with my M-16. I carried 70 mags and two or three times I got down to only two or three. The selector stayed on "rock 'n roll" and usually firing the weapon was from the hip, the adage was "spray and pray." It saved my life several times. An M-1 would have been a disaster. The worst experience I had with the "Mattel toy" was when ordnance changed out 3 prong flash suppressor for the new one that had a ring on the front - to keep the muzzle from getting caught on vines (which had never happened to me). That open-end flash suppressor was a great tool for popping the baling wire on the c-rations case. (I was in the field living on c-rats for most of 11 months.)That was a major loss.
But I loved the M-1, it was very stable from all firing positions, and I found it easy to hit the 500 yard pop-up targets from all positions: standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. It would make a great hunting weapon, even with the peep sight. And it was a lot easier to clean than a '16.

wst38tx said:

My first time shooting a high-powered rifle was with the M-1 in 1965, on the Army "Train-Fire" course. It was a hell of a kick compared to 22s and shotguns of my youth, but I shot expert and loved the rifle. The first time I had my hands on an M-16 was in Vietnam, and I appreciated the weapon. Both are good weapons but designed in two different eras of warfare. In my opinion, both were excellent for their time. My experience in VN was that firefights were usually sudden, up close and seldom lasted past the first 20 round mag, which we loaded with only 18 rounds to prevent spring fatigue (no jams!). I never had a jam with my M-16. I carried 70 mags and two or three times I got down to only two or three. The selector stayed on "rock 'n roll" and usually firing the weapon was from the hip, the adage was "spray and pray." It saved my life several times. An M-1 would have been a disaster. The worst experience I had with the "Mattel toy" was when ordnance changed out 3 prong flash suppressor for the new one that had a ring on the front - to keep the muzzle from getting caught on vines (which had never happened to me). That open-end flash suppressor was a great tool for popping the baling wire on the c-rations case. (I was in the field living on c-rats for most of 11 months.)That was a major loss.
But I loved the M-1, it was very stable from all firing positions, and I found it easy to hit the 500 yard pop-up targets from all positions: standing, kneeling, sitting, and prone. It would make a great hunting weapon, even with the peep sight. And it was a lot easier to clean than a '16.

Click to expand...

Thank you for your service. <3

wombat13 said:

You literally asked "Can you top off that Garand if you run it half dry?" and I answered the question and you respond like I'm crazy

Click to expand...

I was being facetious because "topping off a Garand" is about like topping off a boltgun. Slower than molasses in winter and not something you can do without looking at it. Switching mags in an AR is infinitely quicker, easier and more easily done without taking your eyes off something more important.

wombat13 said:

Then you claim that the rail will add 2 lbs. Yet the Amega Ranges rail is listed as 11 oz. You are engaging in fact-free ranting just as much as the OP.

Click to expand...

Rail + optic = 2lbs. The point was made that a 10lb Garand is just that, a 10lb Garand. While 10lbs worth of AR has an optic (maybe two), light, laser and suppressor. Start adding that stuff to the M1 and you're now comparing a 12lb Garand to a 10lb AR.

wombat13 said:

Furthermore, since I don't have fantasies of needing a rifle to engage in CQB, or needing to load out with hundreds of rounds of ammo, I find that, for my purposes, the deficiencies that you and others have pointed out aren't that important.

Click to expand...

I don't know what fantasies we're talking about here. Defending your home with a rifle IS utterly the definition of CQB. The need is more likely to happen at night, hence the advantage of a red dot and mounted light is a real one. As is the use of a suppressor inside the home, versus touching off a friggin' .30-06 in a confined space. Not to mention how much more quickly the AR carbine handles than a full sized "battle rifle". No need for "hundreds of rounds" but the 30rd magazine in the rifle is a whole lot better than having a pocketful of M1 clips. Which broaches another subject, reloading. From where? You can slide an AR mag in your back pocket and reload from there almost as quickly as a belt pouch or chest rig. How does that compare to en bloc clips?

Okay, I think we've reached a point where we can safely say the conversation is probably exhausted.

I'm not a mod and can't tell anyone what to, do but it seems like the conversation has officially come to a logical conclusion.

For the record, this was one of the longest and most active threads in the forum for a hot minute. I'm an advocate of letting these run out like this rather than rushing in and closing them prematurely.

Just my .02.