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

Status
Not open for further replies.
M1 Garand problems during WW2 were seventh round stoppage, clips that ejected containing the last round, sticking operating rod cams, problems with the rear sight, and carbon buildup in the gas trap design.
 
Vern Humphrey said:
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.
Click to expand...

Really? I never knew that the M1 was used in Viet Nam. I thought it was the M14 and the later the M16.

I've read that the least popular thing about the M1 was the "sprong!" sound when the last round was fired.
 
"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."

That is not the case. The Soviets adopted Siminov's AVS in 1936, the same year as the first Garand. The SVT-38, with a much superior gas system than the gas trap on the Garand was introduced and placed into production when the Garand was just reaching production speed. The SVT-40, the improved version but with the same gas system, was introduced at the time when the Garand lost its inferior gas trap to the system employed during WWII & Korea.
 
The M1 Garand was the reason why the Russians develope a 7.62 semi auto.
Click to expand...

The Russian instead understood what would have been the future firearm of the infantry and developed their assault rifle, very different from the Garand....
 
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.
Click to expand...

The US had superior Air Force and much superior tranining all around, the Chinese came out in bigger number....results is the US was stopped and we got into a stalemate.
 
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.
Click to expand...

How come you carried an M1 in Viet Nam? What did you do? :confused:
 
The Russian instead understood what would have been the future firearm of the infantry and developed their assault rifle, very different from the Garand....
Click to expand...

Have you ever taken apart a Garand next to an AK?

FYI - their gas operating systems are surprisingly similar. There is no doubt Mikhail Kalashnikov had a Garand sitting on his workbench when he designed the AK-47.
 
Have you ever taken apart a Garand next to an AK?

FYI - their gas operating systems are surprisingly similar. There is no doubt Mikhail Kalashnikov had a Garand sitting on his workbench when he designed the AK-47.
Click to expand...

I'm not disputing the similarities in their gas system...the 2 rifles are profoundly different in their usage philosophy.
 
FIVETWOSEVEN said:
How come you carried an M1 in Viet Nam? What did you do? :confused:
Click to expand...
I'm pretty certain that it's less a matter of what he did than how old he is.

For commonality and to not be perceived as superior, while the Vietnamese were carrying Garands early in our involvement, many of the american advisors carried them as well. There are a great many photos about of Americans carrying Garands and M-1/2 carbines as are their charges around them.
 
For those doubting Vern, the Garand saw use by US troops in Vietnam until around 1966.
Click to expand...

Not to mention all the SF guys who carried either a M1rifle, m1(M2) carbine or Thompson while serving in the field with the RVN or various militia groups, long past 1966.
 
I cannot speak of firsthand combat experience with an M1, but, from some experience withe CMP issue ones in the 90's, I have to agree with my grandfather (a Canadian soldier in the 48th Highlanders in Sicily, Italy and Holland) that the weapon was not un-jammable or could not malfunction. He and other canucks handled he rifle and were unimpressed with it's weight, complex (at least in relation to the No.4) maintenance and chuckled a bit when some American soldiers were intent on demonstrating it's perfections to the backward Canadians suffered several malfunctions and one poor fellow with a buggered hand (I assume my grandad meant the infamous "M1 thumb")
I must corrwct an earlier post.... one commenter misstated that most soldiers had to remove their cheek from an SMLE rifle to operate a bolt. I am sure some very gangly troopers must have had to do so, but the rifle had different lengths of buttstock; bantam, short, normal and long. My grandad used a normal and he was 5'9" or so... when I was a cadet, I used a short as I m only 5'5" or so. Neither of us had to break from the stock , nor do I recall watching other cadets or even large instructors having to move their heads around.
Anyway, I have met M1s that never worked no matter what anyone tried to fix on them, M1s that hardly missed a beat and at least one that was an unstoppable workhorse.. . at least that was a summary of what some results were on civil ranges, many years after those shots fired in fear and anger. I am inclined to think these observations were a dim mirror to it's heydey, but a mirror nonetheless.
Still, quite a leap forward in it's progeniture, and, if it was what I had to cling to in a "smoke thrower" barrage, I would cling to it.
 
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.
Click to expand...

Which one would you rather hump across a continent?

While no doubt the Garand is a superior infantry weapon, it also is pretty heavy and unwieldy to carry. They don't show it in the war movies, but actual combat is only about .00001% of the time spent carrying a rifle.

Just from a soldier's point of view. I traded my M4 for a 18" PGO M500 overseas.... but then again I had a vehicle mounted Ma Duece as my primary...
 
He and other canucks handled he rifle and were unimpressed with it's weight, complex (at least in relation to the No.4) maintenance and chuckled a bit when some American soldiers were intent on demonstrating it's perfections to the backward Canadians
Click to expand...

Were they chuckling when the American soldiers told them that John Garand was Canadian?
 
From a post that I made on another forum some years ago:

For those of you who haven't read Hatcher's Book of the Garand, you should. (Shame on you.) His books and articles are detailed nearly to the point of being dry but you'll find few sources that are more knowledgeable on the subjects that he addresses. One of my favorite things about him as an author is that even if he's praising something, he's careful to mention its shortcomings (perceived or actual) as well.

As part of the historical background he provides for the M1, he quotes some bad press. I've decided to type some of this up for its information (and entertainment) value. If you choose to read it, pay more attention to the gist of the articles than the rifle being described and tell me how much of this sounds familiar.

Also bear in mind that when WWII started for America, the NRA was a quasi-military organization that operated very closely with the government. Its approval or disapproval was a serious thing.

From the Washington Evening Star, "Battle Efficiency of Garand Rifle Provokes Controversy." (1940)

Is the new Garand semiautomatic rifle, standard infantry arm of the U.S. Army the efficient military arm it is supposed to be? Is it equal in battle efficiency to the Springfield, standard infantry arm for almost three decades?

Does the rapidity of fire of the Garand make it the superior of the Springfield in the hand of competent marksmen? Does the M2 ammunition, now specified as the cartridge for the Garand, compare in battle efficiency with the heavier, more powerful M1 bullet used in the Springfield?

These questions are being pondered, raised alike by technical experts and hardboiled military men, and raised as well in the offices of the National Rifle Association. The Garand rifle, adopted four years ago as the standard infantry arm of the military forces, is the center of a series of questions that today find qualified experts both for and against the rifle.

"In its present state of development we do not believe the Garand rifle has proven itself to be the perfect military arm, with the M2 ammunition, " says Maj. Gen. M. A. Reckord, Executive Vice President of the National Rifle association, Adjutant General of the State of Maryland, a member of the National Board for the Promotion of Rifle Practice, and a combat officer in France in 1917-1918.

"The Garand is the finest shoulder rifle in the world," says the War Department, backing up a prepared statement with a description of an exhaustive test given the new rifle at Fort Benning, Ga., under approximate war service conditions.

"The M2 ammunition, a 150-grain projectile propelled by a comparatively low-pressure powder charge, is specified for the Garand because the Garand will not operate satisfactorily with the more efficient M1 ammunition," says General Reckord. Technical experts of the Rifle Association, including F. C. Ness and C. B. Lister, both highly qualified experts, guardedly point to several weak points in the Garand rifle which might impair its battle efficiency under service conditions.

"Nothing less than the perfect combination of rifle and ammunition should be adopted by our Army," says General Reckord. "The Garand does not function satisfactorily with M1 ammunition and in its present state of development practically is limited to the use of M2 ammunition, which is decidedly inferior from many angles.

"This is a backward step. Why accept ammunition which was discarded twenty years ago immediately following the experiences of the World War? I insist that the War Department should perfect the rifle so that it will be dependable with the best and most accurate ammunition that can be made. The Springfield uses M1 ammunition, with a boat-tail bullet of 172 grains, propelled by a heavy powder charge. The Garand, because of its mechanical faults, cannot satisfactorily use M1 ammunition, over a lengthy test, and is, therefore, restricted in practice to the use of the M2 ammunition, throwing a projectile of 150 grains, with a lighter powder charge, of less penetration and shocking power and of generally less efficiency in battle."
Click to expand...

Since when was a 150-grain bullet not enough? Hatcher is also quick to point out in a footnote that the M2 ammunition did not actually have a lighter powder charge, but that it did run 4,000 PSI lower.

From an AP dispatch, 1940: "FLAWS SHOWN IN ARMY RIFLE, CAPITOL HEARS. Garand Weapon Fails in Service: 'Sanded' Badly in Border Test

A growing controversy over the United States Army's new semiautomatic rifle, now the subject of a secret study by a House of Representatives committee, broke into the open today with statements that both the Cavalry and the Marine Corps have found flaws in it.

The National Rifle Association made public an editorial from the forthcoming issue of its magazine, The American Rifleman, declaring there was a division of opinion within the Army both as to the wisdom of adopting any semiautomatic rifle for general issue to troops and specifically as to the practicability of the new Garand rifle as a battle weapon.

"As a result of experience in the field, the Cavalry Board has already felt it advisable to undertake experiments to improve the methods of lubricating the rifle and to develop a protecting breech cover" the editorial said. "The Marine Corps is working on a modification of the front sight."

A spokesman for the association said the cavalry has been using the Garand on the Mexican Border and found that it sanded up badly. It was explained that the mechanism requires careful lubrication with graphite, and that sand sticks to the lubricant.

On hearing of this, the office of the Chief of Cavalry issued a statement saying:

"The rifles with which the Cavalry Board initially experienced minor difficulties in lubrication were of an early manufacture. (1936.) They were ordered turned in, and are being replaced by a later model.

"Almost always changes based on actual use are made to correct minor defects after the initial issue of a new small-arms weapon.

"Of course it will be understood that the prevalence of sand on the border is a constant source of concern in the care and functioning of any small arm. Therefore the question of lubrication of small arms is one which the Cavalry Board constantly studies."

Because of the undercurrent of criticism of the rifle, adopted by the Infantry Board as the Army's official shoulder weapon, but not yet in the hands of all troops, the House Military Appropriations Subcommittee has been giving the matter exhaustive study behind closed doors.

The editorial said that, because of the realtively poorer accuracy of the Garand, compared with the Springfield Rifle, the Marine Corps had "materially lowered" its qualification scores in order to maintain the morale of enlisted men by enabling them to qualify and thereby become eligible for certain pay and other benefits.
Click to expand...

Accusations of poor performance, government denials and excuses, and rumors of hush-hush studies and lowered standards?

Let's back up a bit before I lay down the next article, as otherwise it doesn't make as much sense. From Hatcher himself, regarding the Garand at the 1939 National Matches:

As already noted, the Ordnance Department in 1939 sent some two hundred Garand rifles to be used in the Small Arms Firing School for civilians held at Camp Perry, Ohio, in conjunction with the National Rifle Matches.

These rifles did not particularly appeal to the expert rifle shots who had assembled for the annual marksmanship event. They had for years been used to the improved M1903 Springfield, known as the National Match Rifle, which was the Regular Army rifle made with extra care, and painstakingly groomed for the best results in long-range shooting. This failure to like the Garand at first sight is chargeable to several reasons besides the natural aversion to forsaking a tried and true friend for something new and strange. In the first place, these Garands were frankly battle rifles rather than match target guns. They had rear sights which had very large apertures, and wide front sights, made that way for better visibility in the woods or in the dusk or under any battle conditions where the lighting was poor. These large apertures and wide front sights did not make for fine scores at long ranges under match conditions. Worse still, the sights would not hold their adjustments. These rifles all had the old-style gas-cylinder assembly, which had the front sights mounted on it, and these gas cylinders had a tendency to permit the front sights to move...

After the Garand demonstration and its use in the Small Arms Firing School at Camp Perry during the National Matches of 1939, the National Rifle Association began to have some misgivings about the Garand. It was just about a month after the end of these matches when, on October 26, 1939, approval was given to the change in design of the gas-cylinder assembly and barrel, and orders were given for Springfield to tool up for the new parts and put them into production, but this information never reached the Rifle Association.

In fact, both at these matches and afterward, the Army seemed to take a decidedly cagey and defensive attitude about the rifle, which was all that was needed to raise a lot of doubts and questions. At the demonstrations at Camp Perry, civilians were invited to fire the rifle but there was always an Army man at the shooter's elbow ready to snatch the rifle away and perform some sleight of hand at the slightest sign of a malfunction. Moreover, the members of the NRA staff, to their surprise, found that they were unwelcome whenever they approached a Garand or wanted to fire it.
Click to expand...

Moving forward again, to a later 1940 Times article:

A Rifleman expert (F. C. Ness) somehow got one of the jealously guarded Garands, tested it by firing a moderate 692 rounds in three days. Mr. Ness's verdict: "A fine combat weapon, with certain shortcomings." He emphasized the shortcomings:

Garands are supposed to be rapid fire guns, banging out (from clips of eight cartridges) 26 aimed shots a minute, many more shots if unaimed. Mr. Ness wrote: "when we fired the Garand very slowly, loading each cartridge into the chamber by hand, the oil started to bubble out...in tiny specks after 40 shots to 60 shots fired in 25 to 35 minutes." In brief; fired at speed, the Garand would get so hot no soldier could hold it.

By Army account, the Garand is accurate at ranges up to 600 yards (far enough for ordinary combat). N.R.A.'s Garand was disgracefully inaccurate at 600 yards and less. On a 600 yard target, with the gun locked in a bench vise, its shots at the end of 60 rounds were hitting six feet below the mark. Reason: "...The barrel...warped or buckled as it heated from our slow-fired shooting (only 130 shots in three hours)."

At the 359th shot, the N.R.A. Garand began to falter. During the final rounds it broke down, so hopelessly fouled by carbon that it could not be used until it was dismantled, cleaned, lubricated re-assembled -- a complicated job for a soldier under fire...
Click to expand...

We can laugh about this now but it was deadly serious business at the time. The Army had spent a considerable sum of money developing the M1 and getting it into production, and it was beginning to look like the entire project was going to be ****canned by the War Department in response to popular opinion. If this happened they'd be forced to fight yet another war with pre-WWI technology, and more importantly -- although they couldn't have known it at the time -- our entire concept of infantry combat would be set back a decade or more. I won't be so ignorant as to claim that the U.S. won WWII for the Allies (we didn't) or that the Garand was responsible (it wasn't), but it certainly made things a little easier for all involved.

So according to period sources, no, it was not 100% reliable. It had issues, just as every machine does. Some of them were eventually resolved and some never were. It was generally thought highly of, so it probably worked pretty well for the most part.
 
The Marines landed on Guadalcanal with the rifle of their choice, the M1903-A3 Springfield.

When they left, the rifle they wanted was the M1 Garand. If the Garand had proven to be unreliable under those conditions, the Marines would have landed on Okinawa still carrying their Springfields.
 
The people I've talked to in the European theater hated the carbines. They were the rifles that were unreliable and not effective enough. I got this from a very reliable source on the war effort. In the Pacific Theater soldiers were more likely to accept the carbine but even there lots of soldiers that were assigned the carbine ditched in and picked up a Garrand as soon as possible. But most of the war effort in the Pacific involved fighting the elements rather than the Japanese so many soldiers appreciated the lighter weight of the carbine. But in Europe, where actual fighting took place often, soldiers wanted a rifle with more power and range and that meant the Garrand. There's a big difference in fighting in a jungle and fighting in a developed nation with lots of mountains and wide open spaces. The average range of engagement was around 300 yards in Europe compared to 100 yards in the Pacific region. And troops in the Burma region were more likely to like the carbine too because of the jungle war characteristics of the region. Most of the southern Pacific region (Borneo, Solomons, Philippines, etc.) liked the carbine because the extra weight that must be carried through the thick jungles of many of those regions. The whole region had to be supplied by boat also so just the logistics of shipping weight made the lighter weight of the carbine and it's ammo a plus.

So where you were fighting made a big difference in what rifle you wanted but for the most part the Garrand was the choice of the dogface.

BTW the Russians didn't just decide the assault rifle was the wave of the future. The Germans demonstrated the advantages of that design to them. The German Sturmgewehr 44 was the first example of that type of weapon.
 
The M1 carbine was just a burly example of a submachinegun, really, while the Garand was better than a bolt gun as a fighting rifle, but became an evolutionary dead end once the StG-44 hit the scene.
 
The gas trap Garand is a far cry from the perfected Garand. The SVT-38 (more or less the SVT-40 prototype in production) had a far better gas system that was even adjustable. The SVT-40 was really more akin to our M14 than to the Garand. In comparison, it was a superb concept that was later reflected so well in the FAL.

However, the SVT-40 was considerably more fragile in construction compared with the beefy Garand. While less modern than its Soviet equivalent, it was more rugged, more accurate, with better sights, and better reliability. In short, while the Soviet design was more or less used by everyone after the war (not necessarily copied as FN also came up with the tilting bolt design), the Garand was the better arm.

As irony often shows, the Soviets used a more Garand-style rotating bolt in the AK & SVD and just as interestingly, the US has never used in general issue a tipping-style bolt in a gas-operated arm - all tilting-bolt types have been squad or platoon-level weapons like the BAR.
 
Cee Zee, you might want to grab some WWII vets from the South Pacific and discuss whether the "real" fighting was in Europe or the Pacific. My dad spent November of 1942 to September of 1945 (total 34 months, mostly in the jungles, then Occupational Japan for a month or two after the surrender). MOST of the US forces from Normandy to VE Day fought from June 44 to May 45: 14 months. Whether the German soldier or the Japanese (often doped up and/or loyal to the Emperor to the point of suicide) soldier were the more difficult adversary, we'll just have to speculate. After watching "The Pacific" series, I gained a a new respect for what my dad probably went through. He didn't tell me about all of it, and later tracking his division's expedition, it wasn't too different from that portrayed in the movie series.
 
I have owned and shot all the major service rifles from WW II. To suggest that ANY bolt action rifle can even come close to the Garand as a battle rifle is incomprehensible. The M1 owned the battlefield from 1941-1945.

Period.

It might be argued the STG44 eclipsed it (unless one dismisses the smaller cartridge) and by 1947 the AK was on the scene. But during WW II the Garand was king.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
CMP Garand Service Grade SA or HRA?
Replies
10
Views
2K
skidooman603
S
Heir Kommt Die Sonne
  • Locked
M1 Garand: WHY is it so expensive?
2 3 4 5 6
Replies
139
Views
14K
Fishbed77
F
H
  • Locked
Celebrating the 4th with some US service rifles.
Replies
9
Views
970
highpower
H
P
  • Locked
VIDEO: WWII Garand
Replies
0
Views
236
PTMCCAIN
P
H
  • Locked
WWII light rifle competition
Replies
1
Views
449
4v50 Gary
4v50 Gary
Back
Top