It's a 9.5 lb. gas operated semiautomatic battle rifle chambered in .30-06/.308.
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...?
GR
Just a friendly reminder that WWII soldiers were heavily criticized by WWI veterans as not being "As tough" as they were.
Also a reminder that Vietnam vets faced the same criticism from WWII vets.
And, you guessed it, my friends and I heard the same criticisms from vets from previous wars.
War isn't an exercise in machismo. The winner is almost always the one with the strategic and technological advantages. In fact, most infantry tactics at this point are to basically pin someone down until you get air support, wipe out opfor a drone, or use some kind of mechanized weapons system like a Bradley.
Moreover, some people in this conversation are seemingly forgetting that squads are comprised of multiple weapons. Everyone complaining that the M4 / M16 "doesn't have enough firepower" seems to be forgetting you'll have someone there with an m203 attached to one of them and a 240 B with you as well. It's not like you have entire platoons with one weapon. In fact, my unit had M14s as well. So a single fireteam could ostensibly have tons of different weapons in it.
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.
We still do bayonete drills with the M16 (or at least,
did back in 2008).
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.
I agree with this 100%. Another thing people seem to be forgetting is that one of the major reasons countries across the world started switching to smaller calibers was because the distances for combat changed. You no longer needed to hit an enemy at 800 yards away. By WWII, most fighting was happening in wartorn cities, so engagements were happening within 200 meters. A 5.56x45 is more than sufficient at that distance, and everyone who disagrees with that statement
still doesn't seem to want to stand in front of it.
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.
I agree with this. The M16 is one of, if not
the most ergonomic weapon used in modern warfare. You can do everything from reloading to remedial action without removing your hand from the pistol grip.
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.
This isn't surprising.
"
USGI accuracy standard for the M1 was: 8 shots of issue M2 ball ammo from 100 yds in under 4.0 MOA."
The thought of even a budget AR shooting 4.0 MOA as a standard is laughable.
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.
Very well said. Work smarter, not harder.
Rifle ------------ Cartridge - Cartridge weight - Weight of loaded magazine - Max. 10 kilogram ammo. load
M1 Rifle (1938) - .30 M2 - 417 gr (27.0 g) - 08 rd clp @ 248 g (0.546 lb) - 40 clps @ 9.93 kg (21.9 lb) for 320 rds
M16A2 (1982) - 5.56mm - 190 gr (12.3 g) - 30 rd mag @ 490 g (1.08 lb) - 20 mags @ 9.80 kg (21.6 lb) for 600 rds
Would rather have 320 rds. of M2 and an M1 Rifle, than 600 rds of M855 and an M4 carbine.
M2/AP - turns cover into concealment.
And the M16, as a Battle Rifle, is a failure.
...It is an Assault Rifle at best.
GR
I'll be sure to tell that to all of the dead opfor my unit left lying in Iraq / Afghanistan.
Just my opinion, I'd personally take the M4 carbine or even the M16A2+ over the M1 any day.
