Could the M1 Garand been...

Status
Not open for further replies.
E

eclancy

Member
Joined
Dec 26, 2002
Messages
1,114
Location
N. Catasauqua, Pa
Gentlemen,
....Lighter for Combat Carry ? When the AR's first came in they were about 6.5 lbs but after fixing what was needed they now are about the same weight as the M 14 they replaced all in the name of saving weight. Any ideas.
Thanks again
Clancy
 
They should have used a carbon fiber barrel and a synthetic stock for the M1 Garand. Also, caseless ammunition would have saved weight and gotten rid of those annoying clips going ping.
 
Did the technology exist back then to make it lighter? (I.e., certain alloys, synthetics, etc?) If it was lighter, recoil would have been higher too.
 
and even if the technology existed, did the infrastructure? Please. We are talking about a wartime rifle from a war where Americans had to recycle their bacon grease to produce explosives...not exactly inspiring a lot of confidence in their ability to mass-produce polymers, etc. Hell, Nylon was invented for synthetic parachutes, but that was bleeding edge tech back then.
 
When the AR's first came in they were about 6.5 lbs but after fixing what was needed they now are about the same weight as the M 14 they replaced all in the name of saving weight.
Click to expand...
Sorry - this editorialization is false. Other than a few ounces added for a FA, no 'needed fixes' to the AR platform have cost it any real weight. More importantly, you can only get an AR to weight the same as an M14 when you add things to the AR (e.g. optics, lights, float tubes with rails) that the M14 doesn't have.

But playing along - how much does an M14 weigh in a SAGE stock and with an optic on it? That would seem to be both a reasonable comparison to an AR platform, and a reasonable answer to the question of how light could you make a Garand given modern approaches....
 
If they had been totally designed around the M2 ball they could have been considerably lighter because the receivers are overbuilt for low pressure '06 rounds. Also, the stocks are enormous and could be thinned down. I suspect they just set the specs high on everything to avoid any troubles. By bulking up the stock design, for example, they could ensure that even if substandard woods were used it wouldn't crack. But with high grade walnut they could have made it considerably thinner.
 
If they had been totally designed around the M2 ball they could have been considerably lighter because the receivers are overbuilt for low pressure '06 rounds. Also, the stocks are enormous and could be thinned down. I suspect they just set the specs high on everything to avoid any troubles. By bulking up the stock design, for example, they could ensure that even if substandard woods were used it wouldn't crack. But with high grade walnut they could have made it considerably thinner.
Click to expand...

Don't forget beefing it up such that cracking a German over the noodle wouldn't break the stock, this is a battle rifle- not a hunting rifle.
 
True, but to see what I mean just compare the thick Garand stock with a standard Mauser or Mosin stock. The Garand is quite chunky at the wrist and around the receiver. The only reason for such a design I can think of would be to take account of lower quality wood such as birch if the good gunstock walnut ran out.
 
The prototypical .276 Pedersen version was a pound and a bit lighter. Fit two more rounds, too.
 
It has nothing to do with the rifle

It has nothing to do with the rifle but the ammo. A combat loadout for 7.62x51 is 80 rounds. For the same loadout, 5.56 will get 240 rounds. From a volume stand point, more ammo=force multiplier.
 
When the AR's first came in they were about 6.5 lbs but after fixing what was needed they now are about the same weight as the M 14 they replaced all in the name of saving weight. Any ideas.
Click to expand...

Like rbernie said, the M4/M16 only weighs around what an M14 says when it has things that are significant enhancers of combat effectiveness. An M14 needs the same stuff on it to be as effective, so it's a false comparison.

As for the Garand, they could have shaved some weight here and there, I guess. Shorten the barrel a bit and simplify the rear sight would have shaved some weight off and still been combat effective at real world ranges.
 
There was a tank crew version of the M1 that was a bit shorter and slightly lighter. On that note, I don't feel that the M1 is obese anyway. It is actually better balanced/quicker handling than a K98, Type 99, or No. 4 Enfield IMO. About the only standard issue WWII combat rifles that were handier were the Carcano carbines. But that came at the cost of a much more sedate cartridge. I suppose the K31 qualifies as lighter and handier, too. But it never really saw combat, either.

We definitely had the most combat effective MBR of the war, bar none. Best pistols and SMG's as well. The Germans did have us beat as far as GPMG's. But we win again with the M2 in the heavy machine gun category. And our '03A4 was every bit as good as the K98K or any other sniper rifle of the day (not to mention the later M1C and M1D).
 
It is actually better balanced/quicker handling than a K98, Type 99, or No. 4 Enfield IMO.
Click to expand...

That's excellent for you, I wish the M1 fit me so well! Fit, balance, and handiness certainly depend on the individual shooter. Even though I think an M1 shoots nicer than the rest of my milsurps (though isn't as accurate as some), the K98 fits me better and faster than any other rifle I've used. We'll see if that changes though, as I've got a MAS 36 and a K31 on the way!
 
There's no such thing as a legitimate Tanker Garand. Those are made-up fakes based on a failed prototype.
 
obscure reason for M1 bulkyness

one of the criteria for M1 and M14 had nothing to do with its shooting. I read this somewhere but can't remember where.

They used their rifles to get over barbed wire by having a soldier on each end of the rifle and helping to hurl another troop over the barbed wire. The bulk helped the rifle survive this exercise. This requirement was dropped for the M16. Just for what it's worth.
 
"...no such thing as a Tanker Garand...made-up fakes based on a failed prototype..." Exactly.
Everybody forgets that the M1 rifle is a first generation military semi-auto. The M14 a second generation and the M16 a third. As the generations came along, each rifle had fewer parts than the one before and was easier to use.
Fighting with a bayonet was still considered an option for the PBI too.
Synthetics were a totally new product. There was nylon and not much else. Expensive too.
 
M-1 stocks became a bit thicker after WW 2 as they tended to crack (or I've been told). Indeed, my older rifle has a skinny stock and the post-Korea example is in a 'chubbier' stock.

Could it have been shaved for weight? Sure--a bit. But the thing was built to accept a 10" bladed bayonet and to see potential hard use as a pike. The gas system is very delicate, and all that 'beef' surrounding it offers a high degree of protection against kinking the op rod.

The more often I see the M-4 carbine, will rails and what not, the more attractive and 'clean' the lines of the AR-15/m-16a1 look-I really sort of want an old clunker with triagular guards just for fun.

All this said, the bulk of the m-1 makes it move a little slower and point a little more sluggishly--true enough. But then again, current doctrine has done away with the bayonet and butt stroke, right? And I remember a similar thing as trstafford---in fact if you watch old movies about WW II--you see the m-1 being used in such a fashion quite a bit.
 
IF they had been able to, say, get a folding stock similar to the M1A1 (that would stand up to recoil, of course) like the BM59, and maybe get plastics right, and shorten the thing a bit for weight (but not enough to completely throw off ballistics), then yeah, it coulda been lighter. If it had been .276 as well, that also would've helped.

Basically, update the BM59 (but without the magazine feed), and you have your answer.
 
The reason the Garand is fat around the receiver is because of the width of the eight round clip, and the receiver legs- the stock is only a half inch or so on each side of the metal, at that point.
 
Personally I like the size and feel of the M1 Garand, it is the most comfortable gun I own..... as for the weight reduction, I dont see why you would want to. It isnt a terribly heavy gun, (compared to others of the day). On the composites note: they couldn't make any synthetic stocks or carbon fiber as those materials hadn't been invented yet. Polypropylene, the most commonly used plastic was first introduced around 1959 I think. Carbon Fiber was developed in the 1960's. Any lightening of the Garand I think would have an adverse affect on recoil. With its weight, the garand doesn't kick very hard compared to other rifles of the period, lightening the rifle would increase felt recoil.... not good when you want quick follow up shots
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
M1 Garand Production ?
Replies
1
Views
308
eclancy
E
E
  • Locked
What part on the M1 if it breaks..
Replies
9
Views
798
eclancy
E
E
  • Locked
Full/Semi-Auto fire for the M1 Garand
Replies
17
Views
1K
Slamfire
Slamfire
E
  • Locked
M1/NATO Standard/OT/RANT
Replies
8
Views
708
cracked butt
C
E
  • Locked
M1/Finish on the M1 Garand Quiz
Replies
3
Views
469
eclancy
E
Back
Top