How Reliable Was the Garand as a Service Rifle in WWII?

If you kept them reasonably clean, very reliable. We won after all, didn't we?

I've had all the major battle rifles of WWII through my shop here in the last few months, and I really pity the guys that came up against the Garand. They must have thought they were fighting Aliens; just so far ahead of everything else.

More capacity, higher rate of fire, better sights, arse kicking cartridge, and reliable under adverse conditions.

Patton (admittedly somewhat of an ass, but certainly able to offer an informed opinion) declared the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised". Unreliability would have been unlikely to generate such praise from a cavalryman.

Anecdotal but relevant: one of my uncles was at the Frozen Chosin in Korea as a Marine officer. He said that the only weapon that consistently performed well even in the appalling conditions was the M1. There were however not infrequent misfires by WWII era 30-06 ammunition that did not respond well to the cold.

Aside from (not to diminish) sterling service throughout North Africa and the European campaign. Check out clips and still of the conditions under which it performed equally well in the Pacific.

Volcanic sand, various grades of regular sand, mud, days of fighting at and in the surf zone..

Then there's Korea, OI!

What a service rifle!

Once the earlier weaknesses in heavy rain were addressed it was quite the enviable trooper.

I carried an M1 most of my first tour in Viet Nam. The jungle in Viet Nam is acknowledged to be among the worst in the world -- and I never had a problem with my M1.

I point out that in those days "rifes were high and holy things" and we kept them spotless, regardless of conditions.

In the 1980s I observed a bunch of young guys, kids really, being given loads of old M-1s down in Central America. The rifles the spooks were delivering were not exactly being treated with care, but they sure worked. Although M-1 Carbines would have been a better choice for a bunch of kids who averaged 120 pounds..

IF, the Germans would (or could have) have seized the designs for what became the FN-49 rifle... when they invaded Belgium, things might have been a lot rougher on the Allied GI's.

my uncle was in the 11th airborne,and had a m1 carbine in the phillipines. he didn,t jump but went ashore in a landing craft and after useing the carbine for a few days he picked up a m1 garand and used it the whole way thru the phillipines. in the battle for manila the street fighting was friece, building to building and he said the m1 garand saved his life several times by shooting thru cover the japanese were hiding behind. i don,t know how he took care of it, but he must have as it took care of him. eastbank.

If you kept them reasonably clean, very reliable. We won after all, didn't we?

I've had all the major battle rifles of WWII through my shop here in the last few months, and I really pity the guys that came up against the Garand. They must have thought they were fighting Aliens; just so far ahead of everything else.

More capacity, higher rate of fire, better sights, arse kicking cartridge, and reliable under adverse conditions.

Click to expand...

Very nice rifle but let' s not exaggerate too much...the cartridge (30-06) was not really more powerful than a 8mm Mauser or a 7,62x54R and reloading was that faster.

Higher rate of fire yes (the Brits with their Enfield could come close though...) and more capacity (except for the Enfield again) but slightly heavier weight compared to the bolt actions.

The only enemy rifles that the Garand really outmatched across the board was the Italian Carcano and the 6.5mm Arisaka.

...head to head with the Mosin in Korea, basically it lost!!!

I fully recognize my patriotism/love of country is potentially blinding me, but I enjoy WWII rifles from the nations that participated in the war and I have to agree that the Garand is an implement like no other (in its time).

Could Enfields fire as quickly as a Garand, I accept that they COULD - in the right hands. But man by man, I have to think the Garand helped our men in battle compared to the competition.

Any notion that a Mosin compares favorably over a Garand is myopic.

Any notion that a Mosin compares favorably over a Garand is myopic.

Click to expand...

The Mosin has a record second to none in that regard...how well it compares to a Garand?? I don't know....

The Mosin has a record second to none in that regard...

Click to expand...

In what regard...???


As for the Enfield, yes it has a 10 round magazine which was topped off by TWO stripper clips. ( five at a time) Thus taking a longer time to reload. AND, cycling the bolt requires the loss of the sight picture & cheek weld for most people.

I own both, actually all the above,,,and I find the sights of the M-1 rifle to be superior. With the Enfield MARK 4 and Mark 5 coming in second because the rear peep sight is more exposed.

The open sights on the older Enfield's, Mauser,s, Mosin,s and others, result in a shorter sight radius due to their forward placement and were generally too basic to afford good marksmanship.

Although in the case of the Wehrmacht troops, their rifles were only there to protect the machine gunners.

Saturno V: "Very nice rifle but let' s not exaggerate too much...the cartridge (30-06) was not really more powerful than a 8mm Mauser or a 7,62x54R and reloading was that faster."
FWIW: My dad also carried the Garand in the Pacific/Phillipines, and he stated the Garand got a boost in delivering death to the Japanese when they started issuing armor piercing ammo in the en bloc ammo supplies. The .30-06 AP enabled GI's to shoot through trees and dense jungle and STILL kill the enemy that was hiding behind such cover. This was allegely so impressive the Japanese knew something had changed, and even prompted Tokyo Rose (overheard in a broadcast) to claim the US had secret weapons that could fire around trees. Apparently, some Japanese had seen their comrades fall after being behind a tree, and being shot, not realizing the round went THROUGH the tree. This might have put the Garand and the .30-06 ABOVE the 8mm, .303, and 7.62x54 in performance.

Apparently, some Japanese had seen their comrades fall after being behind a tree, and being shot, not realizing the round went THROUGH the tree. This might have put the Garand and the .30-06 ABOVE the 8mm, .303, and 7.62x54 in performance.

Click to expand...

Those battles were won on the American Factory floor. probably by lady workers.... Only the USA could make millions of AP rounds of high quality steel and also produce military ammunition which was very consistent in accuracy for a war time operation.

While other countries quality control declined, that of the USA increased, while also increasing the production rate.

I have dissected many WWII era issued 30cal M-2 ball rounds made by various factories and I was amazed at the consistency.

My dad said that all they had field issued in 1945 (Pacific) was AP ammo for the rifles and AP with tracers for the machine guns.

Well, when you reload less often and the act of reloading is merely shoving a clip in and forgetting it, plus the fact the rifleman could maintain sight picture on his foe much easier, plus the better sights (the M1917 and P14 Enfields had great sights too), made the US rifleman far better armed than his foe.

Of course, ours was a different philosophy as mentioned. Our machine guns existed to support the infantry. The Axis viewed the infantry as support of the machine gun.

And the Soviets considered their infantry expendable.

One other minor point to consider regarding WWII ammo.... our opponents during the worst of the war (for them) were forced to use conscripted labor, many times slave labor for various armament facilities. Don't know if that extended to small arms or not but there was clearly quite a bit of sabotage from workers through out the German armaments industry as things got worse.

Nothing like cannon shells that wouldn't detonate, and various other kinds of machinery rigged to seize up under stress by workers who were being starved to death as they worked for Hitler's machine....

On the Japanese side the weapons themselves displayed a serious drop on quality as the war progressed. You can tell at a glance the difference between gear manufactured early and late in the war period...

I point out that in those days "rifes were high and holy things" and we kept them spotless, regardless of conditions.

Click to expand...

Fix Bayonets!

IF, the Germans would (or could have) have seized the designs for what became the FN-49 rifle... when they invaded Belgium, things might have been a lot rougher on the Allied GI's.

Click to expand...

I'm not so sure about that. The delaying actions of the Allies had a lot to do with their inevitable victory. Knocking down trees across roads, for example, really slowed the German tanks from getting through the Ardennes heavy forests. 50 caliber machine guns were used as chain saws to knock down every tree that would fall across the road. No doubt the M1 played a role but other small arms did too. You can't stop a Tiger II. And let's not forget the Germans were using the Sturmgewehr 44 in that battle. I'm not at all sure having the plans to the FN would have made a difference. If they could have made enough of the new weapons it might have mattered. But America bazookas had a lot to do with the Allied victory. So did their grenades and plastic explosives used as crude bombs.

In Korea the only thing that kept the Commies in the fight was Truman's fear of starting WW III. The Allies marched right up to the Chinese border which the Chinese didn't like one bit. The rest is history. But it wasn't any superior firepower rifle the commies had that mattered. Besides that the SKS was a more likely rifle to have been used by those Reds in Korea.

...head to head with the Mosin in Korea, basically it lost!!!

Click to expand...

No, it did not.

You should read the Chinese accounts of what happened. The Chinese came in in overwhelming strength, and lost so many men that it shapes their military thinking to this day.

In a word, Excellent.

I had lunch with 2 WWII vets about 5 years ago. We got to talking about guns and one guy said he ditched his Garand the first chance he got and picked up a carbine. Why I asked? Because his Garand wasn't relaible. Poor cleaning, I don't know, but that's what the man said, and he landed on Omaha the first wave.

If a guy dumped an M1 and went with a Carbine he either didn't do a whole lot of shooting or was involved in more urban combat than field combat.
There are very, very few veterans who ever complained in any way about the M1 Garand used in combat.

The Mosin has a record second to none in that regard...how well it compares to a Garand?? I don't know....

Click to expand...

The M1 Garand was the reason why the Russians develope a 7.62 semi auto. After they saw what the Garand was capable of the developed a semi auto. The 7,62 might have more power but the 30.06 is more accurate. It takes a good commercial 7.62 or relaods to equal the 30.06.