Do you think the Garand is obsolete?

Is the garand still an effective weapon?

  • Absolutely! It's a fearsome weapon.

    Votes: 185 45.1%
  • It's an effective weapon, but has some serious drawbacks

    Votes: 192 46.8%
  • No way. It's only suitable for museums and surplus rifle matches.

    Votes: 33 8.0%

  • Total voters
    410
Status
Not open for further replies.
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.
 
To be honest, I'd rather be stuck with a rifle that's a couple pounds heavier than I'd like, than a rifle that skimps on accuracy, power, or reliability. Is weight important? Yes. But it's not as important as most other critical aspects of a military rifle.
 
Outlaws,

I hear what you are saying, but somehow I don't think it is the same thing. :)


At any rate, its just opinions here. I just told what I base mine on. Others will vary.

All the best, my friend.

-- John
 
It helped in WWII that most military ammo intended for
use in M1 Garands already came packed in 8 round enbloc clips.
Civilian users have to retrieve their empty clips and repack
the clips with loose rounds.

We have shooters who use Garands in both Vintage and Modern
Military Matchs, and even the beat-up rack grade guns are
impressive. And ejection is quite civilized compared to Mini14.

Quite frankly, a Garand with a couple of bandoleers of loaded
clips is some awesome firepower. That North Hollywood bank
robbery shootout might have ended sooner is a couple of
patrol cars had a M1 Garand in their trunk.
 
Quite frankly, a Garand with a couple of bandoleers of loaded
clips is some awesome firepower. That North Hollywood bank
robbery shootout might have ended sooner is a couple of
patrol cars had a M1 Garand in their trunk.

To be fair, it should be noted that the cops had no rifles whatsoever. But I don't think anyone is disputing the knock down power of the 30-06 over lesser rounds.
 
Well, before we head off to church I'll toss one out; the best and worst thing on the weapon is its gas system; it runs dirty but if you are not careful when cleaning it you'll have a straight-pull bolt action and need a new op rod.

My sollution? Don't clean the gas system until you have to.
 
Second, he truly disliked the clips. He disliked the difficulty of topping off the ammution. As he said, "what are you going to do if you find that you have one or two rounds left? You REALLY don't want to keep walking with only two shots in the rifle."

Third, he REALLY hated the "ping." He would say that the ping would get you killed. And he saw it happen. Enough to not like it. Sure it could be tactical-- except that you don't get to be tactical near as often as you'd like. Likely, you are simply trying to keep alive and see the other side of a firefight.
Jwarren, thanks for posting your grandfather's comments.

It sounds like your grandfather was a sniper or at least a designated marksman of sorts. In that light, I could see those two issues being moreof a problem to him than it might be for a regular rifleman.

I never really understood the "top off" issue. Just eject the used clip and reload a new one. If you're in a lull, pick up the ammo to reload later. If not, leave it on the ground.

Even with a detachable mag gun, who carries loose rounds to top off your mag? You just eject the used mag and replace it with a full one. Maybe I'm missing something.
 
It's killing power is unsurpassed, but for todays combat situations it's weight and lack of high capacity magazines, put it in the museum class. All of my uncles save one carried one in WWII, the one that didn't was a jockey when he enlisted and they gave him a BAR, which with required ammo weighed more than he did.
 
The Gatling gun was considered long obsolete after the trigger operated single barreled machine guns came into being. Then, almost a hundred years later General Electric attached a motor to the "obsolete" Gatling gun and now look at this fearsome "obsolete" and obscure weapon today, especially the one sticking out the front of the Warthog and the other various GAU's.
Not to say that someone is going to attach an electric motor to the Garand to bring it out of "obsolescence", but a declaration of obsolescence is relative to other variables and mostly a mere matter of opinion.
 
Jwarren, thanks for posting your grandfather's comments.

It sounds like your grandfather was a sniper or at least a designated marksman of sorts. In that light, I could see those two issues being moreof a problem to him than it might be for a regular rifleman.


You are welcome, DMK.

Yes, he was a "sniper" in WWII-- basically a designated marksman as we fielded them. He was attached to a squad and moved with them.

Its actually very funny how he got into that role. He was drafted at 30 years old and originally they set him up for mortar training.

He used to tell me an interesting story of when he went to the markmanship part of basic. They started them out with targets at 25 feet (not yards). He said that there were several people there that had never held let alone fired a rife. They shot at large targets that had a plaster bucket beside it. After one would shoot, they would plaster over the target and go to the next draftee. He said the guy in front of him was from Chicago and had never fired a rifle. At 25 feet, he hit the plaster bucket. Oh... they started using M1 Carbines at this stage.

At any rate, my grandfather grew up in the country and had a rifle or shotgun in his hand since he could walk practically. Needless to say, he did well at 25 feet. I don't have all the details, but he ended up scoring expert marksman and was firing a 1903 at long range targets before the day was out.

That evening, he was called to his CO's office and told that he was reassigned as a rifleman and recieved the M1C a few days later.

He travelled on a converted luxury liner from the US to England, but he never told me which one. He was seasick the entire time. At any rate, he landed on Normandy on D-Day. He was in the 3rd wave and I've heard him comment that getting on the beach was more of crawling over the dead as opposed to wading. The water was red, he said.

A stray (or not so stray) caught him in the head and punctured his helmet. The round was deflected and put a gash in his scalp. It didn't even require stitches. After everything cooled down, he did let a medic take a look at it. He was surprised and embarassed that he recieved a purple heart for his wound later. He never thought he deserved one for that.

He only lasted 33 days before he was hit through the ankle with shapnel from a mortar round that required him to recover for 4 months in an army hospital. Fortunately, he could type and he spent the rest of the European war as a clerk. For the rest of his life, he had a severe limp from siaptic nerve damage.

I am sorry to lay all this on this thread. It just got me to thinking about all the stories he told me. I could tell plenty.


One thing I'll leave it with was a picture of how serious we anticipated our planned invasion of the Japanese home islands to be. Even with permanent injuries and a bad limp, my grandfather had been assigned jungle fatiques and had orders to report for the Japanse invasion after VE Day. They were tossing him back into combat. Based on his condition, I'd have to say that we believed we were going to need everyone that had a pulse for that invasion. According to the History Channel, we ordered 400,000 Purple Hearts a few months before the planned invasion and we are still giving out Purple Hearts from that order today. The Purple Hearts anticipated for that one invasion has lasted through every conflict and war we have had up to this day.

Kinda puts dropping the A-Bomb in perspective.



-- John
 
M110,

No, thank you for taking the time to read it. I often think that the best way to honor them is to remember and tell their stories.

And thank you for your /salute. It means a lot-- for him and for all that have fought for this country.



-- John
 
I never really understood the "top off" issue. Just eject the used clip and reload a new one. If you're in a lull, pick up the ammo to reload later. If not, leave it on the ground.

Even with a detachable mag gun, who carries loose rounds to top off your mag? You just eject the used mag and replace it with a full one. Maybe I'm missing something.


Agreed, 100%.


In all my years of shooting the M1 Garand, I don't recall hearing anyone ever 'topping off' a Garand.
Too slow. Too cumbersome.
Eject the clip and replace with a fresh, loaded one, and tap the op-rod and get on with it.

The only time that I've ever messed around with a partially loaded en-bloc clip was when shooting the Garand in High Power Matches.
Two rounds 'twisted' into the clip, then inserted into the rifle.

To insert the clip, then insert the two rounds took precious time and if memory serves me, you had to have quite a bit of dexterity to do this.


My 1943 vintage M1 Garand is one of my absolute favorite rifles, but, it is not the 'miracle' rifle that it was in WWII.

The mystery and love for the Garand is from being the first semi-auto to be mass produced and adopted for use by the military, and it most definitely helped the USA and it's allies to win the war.

Is it perfect?? No.
Is is FAR FROM perfect?? No.

I agree with what General Patton said.. . it is the greatest battle implement ever devised. (Just short of several BLU-82 and a High Yield Nuclear device!) :evil:






Just kidding, guys!!!! It appears that a couple of people took my previous attempt at levity as being serious!!!!!!
 
a man's gotta know his [weapon's] limitations...

....once he does, he can weigh it's advantages against them, and come away with a workable plan of attack....



per DMK's older posting, #57:

"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."

DMK, to carry that same thought to the next david VS goliath level:

i read back when same conflict was current, that the mujahideen were using one plus century old muzzle loaders to smite the commie's mighty Mi-24 Hind attack helicopter. seems the lead balls were soft enough to stick to the tail rotor, causing catastrophic balance problems.

end result? the tail rotor went one direction, and the baddest attack chopper on planet earth at that time went down, to what ANYONE must consider a "museum piece".

QUESTION: do you think the muzzle loading black powder rifle is still an "effective weapon"?

ANSWER: Absolutely! It's a "fearsome weapon".

they realized, and then utilized its "obsolete" strengths.

gunnie
 
I didn't read all the posts here, but in case someone hasn't already mentioned it: This book has tons of first-hand experiences of garand users:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/Book116.htm

Basically, everyone loved it, but then they didn't have much else to compare it with (except the M1 carbine, BAR, and their opponents' weapons).

The veterans also describe how they used the rifles, which basically amounts to "assault rifle tactics", sans the assault rifles.

Nolo, I don't think you can just decide ahead of time to use a certain kind of tactic, and then choose the appropriate gun for it. Tactics evolve by necessity depending on the battlefield environment. It seems like assault rifles are the way to go for war.

That doesn't mean it is the way to go in a neo-nazi-government-takeover or blue-helmets-trying-to-take-your-guns kind of situation :) In that kind of situation, I would prefer something that goes through kevlar, or whatever the bastards may be hiding behind ;) 'Course, I'd choose my M1A over a garand any day.
 
JWarren,

With all due respect to your grandfather, this doesn't add up.

That evening, he was called to his CO's office and told that he was reassigned as a rifleman and recieved the M1C a few days later.

He travelled on a converted luxury liner from the US to England, but he never told me which one. He was seasick the entire time. At any rate, he landed on Normandy on D-Day. He was in the 3rd wave and I've heard him comment that getting on the beach was more of crawling over the dead as opposed to wading. The water was red, he said.

The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944?

Don
 
OK- what other semi rifle can shoot legal AP?
And JWARREN_ I appreciate your story- my Dad was called up for the Japan invasion, he had three kids and was building aircraft engines. He always said the guys in boot camp with him were the hardest bunch of folks he had ever seen, and he grew up in the depression running a trap line for cash and living in a Canuck mill town. I guess a bunch of them were released from prison to be grunts- we were truly scraping the bottom of the barrel.
 
In the hands of a person who can SHOOT, just about nothing is obsolete. And in the hands of an IDIOT, just about nothing is state-of-the-art.

It's us in the middle that find some guns are better than others. Personaly the Garand is a fine weapon, if a bit on the heavy and long side. Maybe 'obsolecent' is a better term for it.
 
The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944?
Perhaps by being in the Army, not the Marine Corps. And perhaps he has the nomenclature a bit wrong -- but an Army sniper could have had a scoped M1 in 1944.
 
The M1C rifle was only adopted by the Marine Corp on July 27, 1944, and no significant number of them were used in WW2. So, how did your grandfather get issue one prior to his D-Day landing on June 6, 1944"

hell, i've run into lots of discrepancies from vets over the years. my uncle dave, who i know for a fact was a decorated,wounded, army platoon commander in vietnam, swears they interchanged nato .308 with 7.62 x 39 AK ammo :confused: given the stress and years gone by,no surprise that facts get jumbled and confused.
 
My grandpa joined the Air Force in 1950. He claims he was issued the M2 Carbine when he was in Japan, but he said it was semi-auto. I get the feeling he means M1, but he has absolutely insisted on many occasions that it was an M2.

Were any M2s semi-auto?
 
"They all were, as well as full auto. They had a selector switch and could be fired in either mode."

I know, I know. I'm wondering if the Air Force locked their M2s to semi-auto like was later done with M14s.
 
Perhaps by being in the Army, not the Marine Corps. And perhaps he has the nomenclature a bit wrong -- but an Army sniper could have had a scoped M1 in 1944.

Vern,

Nope. To quote Dick Culver:

"The smart money says that virtually no M1Ds were produced for distribution during W.W.II, but were converted from service rifles in the early 1950s for use in the "Korean Unpleasantness". To add credence to this, all Springfield Armory records list the M1Ds as "rebuilds" with the last rifle "rebuild" supposedly taking place during June of 1953."

Don
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top