Do you think the Garand is obsolete?

[Coronach]

For what purpose?

For personal use as a SHTF/defensive/survival/TEOTWAWKI rifle, it would be fine. It will, in the year 2006, do everything it did in 1945. As long as you have ammo for it, enblocs to load it, and the skill to use it, it will perform admirably.

For a military weapon, it has been superceded by more recent designs. It is heavy, its ammo is heavy, it is semi-auto only and holds 8 rounds. These are serious liabilities in an environment in which (presumably) your foes have modern assault rifles. However, as in the 'personal use' category, this does not mean that the 8 on-board rounds will not function, that M2 ball will not kill you plenty dead, and that you can't reload the thing faster than you can say "Chesty Puller".

It wouldn't be my first choice for either role, but sure it beats harsh language or a white flag.

mike

 

[Nolo]

Hmmm... It looks a little big to me. But then that's an occupational hazard, isn't it? The round performs like you want, but it's too big. The round's small enough, but it doesn't perform like you want. I bet you could thin it up a bit (say, to .30-06 case thickness, maybe?) and get optimum performance. pushing 150 grains at 3,000 feet per second with better ballistic performance than .30-06. But I could be wrong. A bunch of engineering went into that cartridge, I'm just wondering whether its goals are the same as mine.

 

[gunnie]

a sixty five year old is still lethal!!!

i voted the garand a fearsome weapon. i have one i haven't shot in some twenty years. probably never will again. truth is, i don't really like it....

too long.

too muzzle heavy.

awkward to tac-load, before running dry.

scope mounting options severly limited. in both optics AND the basic system.

mine, a pre-war sprgfld, sprgfld rebuilt in '43, british lend-lease veteran from WWII, has an excellent bore, but is not very accurate. this, for my needs in a semi-auto wartoy. [3-4"@100]

too much wood insulation keeping the heat in.

even worse accuracy when heated, the wood and steel expand at different rates, esp. if moisture is in the equation.

audible alert to one's opponents when empty.

etc..etc...

but i can think of many rifles i'd rather my adversary would use than the garand. especially at ranges over 300 yds.

many of them are currently issued to todays soldiers, world wide.

a sixty five year old veteran CAN still kill you. he is just not going to be as good at it as his younger counterparts.

gunnie

 

[fireflyfather]

If I was facing three attackers at under 50 yards? I'd rather have the Glock

If you line them up in a row, the .45-70 with a really hot load would be just fine.

As for the .308 vs the .30-06 the ballistics are similar, but the 30-06 allows for heavier bullets (although, not as a standard military round).

Personally, I'd bring a 91/30. I don't have to shoot them, just affix the bayonet and stab them before they get within 500m.

 

[USSR]

Two distinctly DIFFERENT questions being asked here:

1. Is the M1 Garand obsolete. Yes, absolutely.

and

2. Is the M1 Garand effective. Yes, absolutely.

Don

 

[BsChoy]

ya gotta admut that the 2 biggest things that would need fixing would be the PING and the 8 round capacity. I do LOVE that PING though! I believe the M14 fixed both however

 

[DMK]

And I believe that tactics can be whatever you want them to be, as long as you implement them properly and account for their weaknesses.

This statement reminds me of the Mujahdeen armed with .303 Enfields holding off Soviet troops beyond the effective range of their AKs. If it wasn't for air support and artillery, they'd still be pinned down out there. I'd imagine that SVDs were in high demand out on the plains of Afghanistan.

Looking though photos, blogs and posts by soldiers, it seems to me that 7.62 battle rifles are still used occasionally and quite effectively in Iraq and Afghanistan. Not all are equipped with optics either. I'm not sure the assault rifle completely trumps the battle rifle, especially when you get out in the lands of big sky.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

I'm starting to actually prefer the enblocs over regular magazines.



Me too and twice on Sunday. It limits capacity, sure--but I can do something with the M-1 I can't do with an M1a or even a Mini; load and function the weapon with one hand.



The Garand isn't the fastest pointing weapon and isn't for everyone---but it suits my needs and those of many others.

 

[byf43]

I voted that it is an effective weapon, but has drawbacks. (I don't know about 'serious' drawbacks, though!)

In my so-called 'collection', I have the wonderful M1 Garand, the SAI M1A and an AR-HBAR.

Each have their place on the battlefield, and in history, and I would feel well-armed with any one of them.


The ONLY real drawbacks to the Garand (in my NOT so humble opinion) are:
1.) 8 round limitation and not being able to 'top off'
2.) Pling! (Although could be used to your advantage. Toss an empty en-bloc clip to entice your enemy to raise his head, while aiming your STILL loaded rifle his direction!).
3.) Scope mounting has to be off to the side. (Not directly above the bore.)
4.) Not being able to 'clear' a building because of that 24" bbl.

 

[Shifty]

would you haul 1000lbs of firewood in a lamborghini??

if there was one gun that could do everything, we would all only have one gun.


the garand still does what it was designed to do very well. but as others have stated, there is no modern equivalent to judge it against. (closest being the m14)


and here in the PRK, i'd take 8 round en blocs over 10 round box mags anyday of the week and twice on sundays.


oh, and toss an empty en-bloc at anyone except one of us, and they wont even know what that noise means.

 

[Kimber1911_06238]

very effective weapon, but the 8 round capacity is a serious handicap

 

[hank327]

I don't think the "ping" is a tactical issue at all. After all, you have to cut loose with eight 30-06 rounds before you get to the "ping". I doubt after being on the receiving end of 8 ought-six muzzle blasts you'd be able to hear "ping". Even if you could hear the ping, you don't have much time to react before the rifle is reloaded and back in action. Those who complain that you can't tactically reload a Garand are badly mistaken. To do a tactical reload of a Garand, all you do is eject the partially expended en bloc clip and replace it with a new one. It's the exact same technique as used with a rifle using an external magazine.

 

[Joe Demko]

This statement reminds me of the Mujahdeen armed with .303 Enfields holding off Soviet troops beyond the effective range of their AKs. If it wasn't for air support and artillery, they'd still be pinned down out there. I'd imagine that SVDs were in high demand out on the plains of Afghanistan.

But when we are talking about modern military use, not personal use, there are such things as air support, artillery support, etc.

 

[Nolo]

Exactly, Hank. And, the Garand is actually easier to top off than other rifles. You merely take loose rounds and refill the still loaded en-bloc.
Anyway, I think that many people are confusing the fact that the Garand is not perfect, with it having certain tactical issues. I'd like to see this same thread about the M16. If anything, the Garand has less issues than an M16. I think that just because the role of the Garand isn't being used by any modern military doesn't mean that it's not a viable role anymore. With the right tactics, I think that an army of Garand-wielding soldiers can be just as formidable as any assault rifle-armed military.

Sure there are things like air support and artillery support, but ask yourself this: what if the Mujahadeen had those things? Would they be any less effective? Part of choosing tactics is choosing terrain, and the Mujahadeen knew how to use their terrain to their advantage.

 

[Joe Demko]

One thing about the Garand that you are ignoring is that it is expensive to manufacture. It's also more difficult to manufacture than more modern designs. Like it or not, that is a factor against its modern day use.

 

[Nolo]

Sure, but so are such animals as the FAL and AR-15. Sure the Garand may be hard to manufacture, but there's not reason that can't be remedied. I believe the basic discussion in on the design of the weapon, as opposed to manufacturing techniques.
But a good point, nonetheless. I'm just not sure that it pertains in the way that the thread owner meant it. If it does, then a good observation.

 

[General Geoff]

And, the Garand is actually easier to top off than other rifles.

I'd say it's easier to top off an M14 with a stripper clip, than to manually add cartridges to an en-bloc clip already in a Garand...

 

[Outlaws]

Wow. People cannot accept that maybe weapons have evolved. Same ones that still think cars from the 60's and 70's were made better than today.

 

[CornCod]

Amazed

I was amazed that about two or three months ago I saw a photo in my local newspaper of two guys in a "elite" Fatah related group carrying Garands during the recent fighting between Fatah and Hamas in Palestine. I suppose that since most of the fighting takes place in urban areas, the superior penetration of 30-06 might be considered helpful.

A Garand would make a good "marksman" rifle. I would hesitate arming an entire army with one. There were a lot of really old weapons being used in the Yugo Civil War in the 90's. There were lots of Mausers, Czech ZB machine-guns, Thompsons. I have a photo of a Croat cop wielding a WWI Lewis gun!

 

[General Geoff]

Wow. People cannot accept that maybe weapons have evolved.

I didn't see anyone denying that, just that if needed, the Garand could still be a viable weapon.

 

[Cosmoline]

The Garand was good for its time, but by the end of the 40's there were already superior semiauto battle rifles. The SAFN for example. More accurate, more rugged and with a better gas system and better loading system. That's not an attack on the Garand. It's a fact of life that the first is often not the best when it comes to engineering. People build on earlier designs and make improvements.

The problem is a lot of Americans have come to associate the Garand with WWII and all the vets who fought in it. The Garand isn't a rifle, it's a symbol of their fathers or grandfathers. Suggesting it isn't as perfect as Patton claimed is like burning a flag.

 

[Outlaws]

didn't see anyone denying that..

I see 3 pages.

 

[General Geoff]

Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.

Realistically, even if the United States never migrated past the Garand as their primary infantry rifle, our troops would still be just as well armed and just as competent in a firefight in Iraq as they are with current issue weapons. The Garand is not such an outdated/crippled design as to be something relegated to museums yet.

 

[Outlaws]

Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.

Realistically, even if the United States never migrated past the Garand as their primary infantry rifle, our troops would still be just as well armed and just as competent in a firefight in Iraq as they are now. The Garand is not such an outdated/crippled design as to be something relegated to museums yet.

As a military weapon it is obsolete. As a SHTF weapon its a terrible choice given the other options available. As a target rifle for plinking or enjoying America's past, it is a fine weapon indeed.

Outlaws, the High Road is not made up of high-ranking military brass, nor is it made up of politicians or businessmen with an agenda.

The politics involved in weapon adoption for the armed forces might be cut throat, but our troops would severely hindered by not keeping up with the Jones'. Function aside, the weight and length of the rifle alone makes it obsolete.

 

[General Geoff]

Modern weaponry is not sufficiently ahead of the Garand's design for me to consider it functionally obsolete.