HorseSoldier
Member
It takes time to take the empty mag and put it back into your mag pouch that you are practically laying on. You don't want to leave your empty mags on the ground because who knows if there will be any with your next combat resupply. Then add in the confusion of grabbing an empty mag out of your pouch instead of a full one. I know most people put their empty mags in their pouches upside down but that is that much more of a distraction.
That's what the dump pouch was invented for. I think you do make a good argument about the utility of the Garand clip with it being pre-packaged and ready to roll right out of the ammo case. But I also think the advantage of 20 or 30 rounds in the gun far outweighs any value the en bloc clip brings to the table.
I've heard soldier's complaints about almost every other service rifle, Thompson (too heavy), M1 Carbine(too weak), BAR (too heavy), M16(unreliable, too weak), M4(unreliable, too weak), except the M14 and Garand.
I'm inclined to skepticism on this one. I'm pretty sure that as wood stocked M14s in the jungle started to warp and develop wandering zeros they were cursed pretty nicely. I'm pretty sure a good number of guys curse the M14 these days when they find out their "reliable" "Designated Marksmans Rifle" won't group as tight as a bone stock M4 and won't run reliably in the sand. Etc.
I don't understand how the Garand would be less effective at 100 yards than it would be at 300.
I'm not saying it's ineffective at 100 meters, I'm saying that neither the round (designed to go with that 2500 yard ladder sight on the M1903) nor the weapon (with it's own 1200 yard peep sight that doesn't work well at all in any kind of limited illumination) are really well set up or thought out for 0-300 meter combat by modern standards. It was much better than the alternatives it fought against or alongside, and a big step forward from the bolt gun, but the state of the art has adapted to combat since then.