Do you think the Garand is obsolete?

[Ian]

The M1 does not have to be overly long, heavy, or impossible to scope. The tanker is to the Garand as the M4 is to the M16.

CQB? Maybe not so much (OTOH, the overall length actually less than my Mossberg riot 12ga) . But I'll bet she'd make a rockin' designated marksman's rifle.

 

[GarandOwner]

Should I also mention that the Garand can defend itself? The last person that said a sly comment about my Garand walked away with a bruised bloody thumb

 

[surfinUSA]

Like the Kentucky rifle, the Garand was great in its day, but its day has long passed. Its is substantially easier to argue that its replacement the M14 or civilian M1A is not obsolete.

Although I don't own an M1A, and prefer the FAL and AR15 I know that the M14/M1A is still a very viable weapons system.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

And it's really not the point of this thread, but the M-1 flies below almost every lunatic gun banners' radar. Not all weapons can travel EVERYWHERE lawfully in the US and Canada and still offer firepower that is not bested by many shoulder fired weapons. The Garand is low-pro.

 

[collateral]

And it's really not the point of this thread, but the M-1 flies below almost every lunatic gun banners' radar. Not all weapons can travel EVERYWHERE lawfully in the US and Canada and still offer firepower that is not bested by many shoulder fired weapons. The Garand is low-pro.

+100

While the M1 may be obsolete to the US military given the current weapons and tactics in use, it is definitely not any less deadly, or effective (in the right hands) than it was when it was still in service.

It also has the blessing of having an appearance that isn't seen as "evil" or threatening to most, as mentioned above.

 

[HorseSoldier]

and anyone arguing that the M-14 was a failure or the .308 was a waste of time, tell that to the special forces, they still use a scout shorter version of the M-14..........Id feel rather comfy going into combat with one of those 16" barrel M14.....at least then you'd know with all that sand that it would still fire each time you pull the trigger

"SOCOM 16" is a marketing ploy, not an endorsement by a real military organization. The real .mil M14s have their days kind of numbered in any case, being replaced by more effective and more reliable weapons. It may break some hearts to say it, but an AR-10 based SR-25 will keep running in the desert long after the M14 has given up the ghost and locked up tight, or at least that's the feedback that seems to be coming from the sand box. SCAR-H should be even better. M14s as DMRs were just a cheap stop-gap in this war for the most part, and even their fans (like the SEALs) seem to be heading towards getting rid of them.

 

[Samuraigg]

Yup. The "not looking evil" is a BIG point for me. Living in Illinois I've decided to try to stay under the radar with my guns. Hence my Garand and future M1 Carbine purchase.

 

[DMK]

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.

That is so true and definately part of it's charm. The thing is, you never hear soldiers complain about their Garands. Soldiers complain about everything. 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.

Thousands upon thousands of Garands were produced in the '40s, if the Garand was too difficult or too expensive to produce, the military would have replaced it, just like they did the Thompson for the same reason.

Actually more than 4 million were made. They actually stopped production after WWII, then restarted for Korea.

We went into WW2 with a flawed tactical doctrine that stressed long range rifle fire because a bunch of very silly generals failed to grasp that when a guy is dressed in something the color of mud and doing his best to be a minimal target he's just not going to be acquired, much less hit, at anything beyond rather close range.

A lot of guys lost their lives or were crippled and maimed learning that the training they'd gotten stateside was just shoddy when the rubber met the road on the two-way shooting range, and many veterans of WW2 have discussed how they had to deprogram all that manicured lawn NRA target shooting out of replacement personnel and get them properly trained to suppress, fire, and manuever to close with the enemy and bring real-world effective fire on him, etc.

True. Experienced soldiers knew that fire superiority would keep the enemy's heads down so friendly elements could maneuver against them. However, that's a training and doctrine issue. I don't understand how the Garand would be less effective at 100 yards than it would be at 300.

WW2 is the war the provided us the "almost all infantry engagements occur within 300 meters" factoid after study of how real combat took place.

The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

Living in Illinois I've decided to try to stay under the radar with my guns.

BTW--the Carbine was banned in Cook County by Todd Stroger and Co as an AW. And hey--6 months in jail for each 15 rd mag!

I have Garands because they are my first choice--Blago and his Ilk can go stuff it--if I wanted AK's/AR's/etc. I'd have them in spades. But if one needed to abide by the law in Daleyville proper, AFAIK a Garand can still be registered in Chicago. Of course, actually accomplishing that task would be interesting.

Sorry to diggress.

 

[Neo-Luddite]

----

 

[Nolo]

DMK, I know four million were made. I meant to say "thousands of thousands", meaning millions.

 

[Harley Quinn]

4. Semi auto, It isnt a bolt action so you can provide rapid sustained effective fire ( I remember reading somewhere that the time saved from the automatic ejecting of the spent En-Bloc clip makes up for the smaller magazine capacity, allowing the Garand to provide the same rate of effective fire as the M-14)
**************
Yep it was and is very effective as far as that goes. Unless you are shooing 20 round mags. That changed the scene quite a bit I'd say plus the noise of the expended clip

DMK mentions this:
The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.
*********
I'll say this:
Prone position, I shot to 500 yds in days of old and it was effective I will tell you. We had longer stuff out there but the round and the range were beyond what you mention.

We used the boattail armor piercing rounds, and they were bad news on the targets and the butts Metal was pierced with great regularity (bad Shooters not me)

Camp Matthews CA 1959/1963

Here is some history for you:

Up to World War II the camp had no name and was known simply as the Marine Rifle Range, La Jolla, and fell under the command of Marine Corps Base, San Diego. The camp was officially designated Camp Matthews on March 23, 1942 in honor of Lieutenant Colonel (later Brigadier General) Calvin B. Matthews, USMC., a distinguished Marine marksman of the 1930s period.

Camp Matthews continued to serve as the firing range for the Marines with a permanent garrison of 700 men. In March 1942, a new administrative building was ready for occupancy, along with a large mess hall, a post office, swimming pool and outdoor theater.

Marine Corps recruitment following Pearl Harbor so taxed the ranges limited facilities, that some 5,000 Marines who enlisted shortly after Pearl Harbor, had to be rushed to an Army camp at San Luis Obispo for their weapons training. During the peak of the war as many as 9,000 men were rushed through the range every three weeks. The rifle range was also used by Marine Aviation units, as well as Army and Navy units.

Camp Matthews continued to function through the Korean War and into the 1960s. In May 1963 it was necessary for the Marines to discontinue using one of their 65 target ranges because of civilian encroachment and consequent safety hazards. Finally it was decided to relocate Camp Matthews and the Marine Corps Recruit Depot's weapons training to Camp Pendleton.

Closing ceremonies occurred at Camp Matthews on 21 August 1964 and 46 years of Marine training at that portion of the San Diego Marine Base came to an end.
****************
Closed down one year after I left the Corps.
HQ

 

[DMK]

DMK mentions this:
The Garand's official effective range is only 450 yards, not 800+ yards like some seem to believe.
*********
I'll say this:
Prone position, I shot to 500 yds in days of old and it was effective I will tell you. We had longer stuff out there but the round and the range were beyond what you mention.

I always thought it was under rated myself. But that's what the Army manual says.

 

[Samuraigg]

BTW--the Carbine was banned in Cook County by Todd Stroger and Co as an AW. And hey--6 months in jail for each 15 rd mag!

Yeah thank god I live in home ruled Tinley Park. That Cook Co. AWB is ridiculous.

 

[hornadylnl]

People are knocking en bloc clips but I'll pose this question to you. What good are several cases of ammo not loaded into magazines because you can't afford to buy mags for them. I bought 250 en bloc clips for $100 a few years ago. That's 2000 loaded rounds for $100. I bought several used ar mags for $5 each and that is a rare buy. Even at $5 each, it is still over $300 to load 2000 rounds.

Most guys will go out and buy an ar or ak and 2-3000 rounds for shtf but don't want to shell out hundreds of dollars for mags. Are you going to tell the enemy cease fire while I reload my 5 mags?

If you are on a budget for a total shtf package, the only thing that would even come close to the garand is the ak and we all know the limitations of that. You can get an ak for $300 or so, mags for $10-15 and ammo is cheaper than 223.

A bottom of the barrel ar starts at $600, mags usually are at least $10 a piece and right now, you can buy surplus 30/06 ammo much cheaper than you can buy 223 ammo.

Last time I checked, you couldn't get effective ap for ar's or ak's. I loaded some ap for my garand. At 100 yards and 1" plate hanging from chains, the ap was denting the back of the plate. If the plate was fixed, it would have went through. That target was almost swinging 360 degrees it was swinging so violently.
So for under $1000-1500, you'll get the most gun, ammo and loaded ammo with the garand. My shtf rifle is a garand. I have a 16" ar for the wifey to shoot because the 223 is a girly round.

 

[Float Pilot]

The Garand is a 70 year old design. Still a good all around battle rifle, but outclassed for actual combat issue.

If you had a time-machine::::

and...
1. Went back to the days of Alexander the Great with 1,000 riflemen armed with muzzle loaders you would be the thing of legends.

2. But show up at the battle of Bull Run with 1,000 muzzle loading riflemen and you are just another 1,000 troops on the way to an early grave.

3. Place the same 1,000 muzzle loading riflemen at the WWII Tarawa Landings and you have mass suicide.


The Garand is in the same boat,, in a different era.

It is still a nice battle rifle and you could really defend yourself against a company strength unit of commie-zombies, as long as you had 1,000 yards of clear ground and a truck load of ammo and en-bloc clips...

But if they get within a hundred yards,, you are hosed.....

 

[dagunner]

The Garand is no more thechnilogicaly obsolete than the M16.It uses a system that is diferent,but just as advanced. I think the M1 was way ahead of its time.I believe it is just as viable a combat arm as it was in WWII!

 

[hornadylnl]

This has been touched on already but the enbloc can be a huge advantage over a box mag. In the infantry, we were issued 7 30 round mags for our m16's. I don't have any actual combat experience but some mags will be lost when you are shooting on the move. 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. I'm betting 90% of the ammo that ww2 soldiers were resupplied with were in enbloc clips in bandoliers. When the empty ejects, grab a new clip and have at it. Lot less motion and distraction.

I've never been to a cmp garand shoot but I've heard the ww2 vets can reload faster than you can blink an eye. You have to shoot 10 rounds in the cmp shoots. People either use 2 5 round clips or 1 8 and 1 2 round clips. The purpose is to combat reload for time.

As far as weight savings of 308 ammo over 30/06, it is neglible. I just weighed an empty 06 case and it came to 203 grains and an empty 308 case came to 168 grains. That is a total weight savings of 5 pounds on 1000 rounds. US ball uses 147 gr for 308 and 150 gr for 06. That is less than .5 pounds over 1000 rounds. I'm not sure of powder weight of US 308 but can't be more than 5 gr less than 06. Now what would 125 garand clips weigh compared to 50 20 round m14 mags? I don't have any m14 mags so I can't say for sure but I'm guessing the m14 mags would be a good deal heavier.

My bet is that 1000 rounds of 30/06 in en bloc clips would weigh less than 1000 rounds of 308 in m14 mags would.

I have about 2700 rounds of 30/06 and over 2300 of it is in en bloc clips. I know, I need more clips! How many people who have m1a's for shtf have that kind of ammo loaded up and ready to go?

 

[PRE 64 JOE]

My momma would say wash your mouth out with soap and go pick me a good long switch for your behind. Semper Fi.:banghead:

 

[General Geoff]

My bet is that 1000 rounds of 30/06 in en bloc clips would weigh less than 1000 rounds of 308 in m14 mags would.

I don't need that many magazines for my M1A; I have a total of twelve 20-round magazines, but I have about a thousand extra rounds in stripper clips which can be loaded directly into a low or empty magazine still attached to the rifle. I'd imagine that with practice, you could load a stripper clip's worth of ammo into an M1A in just as quick a time as you can load an en-bloc into a Garand. And stripper clips are even cheaper than Garand clips.

 

[hornadylnl]

I hope that m1a stripper clips are easier on the skin on your fingers than ar stripper clips.

I'd like to have an m1a but I think they are way over priced for what they are. $1500? I can buy 2 garands for that even at today's prices. I bought my garand for $580.

 

[General Geoff]

I don't have any blisters or sores on my fingers from loading stripper clips or pushing rounds into the mag from them, and I've loaded a lot of them in a short amount of time.

Yeah I agree they're kinda pricey, but think of it this way; if Garands were as expensive, would you refuse to buy one?

 

[JWarren]

Even as I write this, I cring at the thought of the hate mail I will get... but here goes...


No offense to any of us, but I'll take the word over someone that carried one in combat over all of us who have venerated the garand as a symbol, or have sought ways to endear it.


My Grandfather carried a Garand from D-Day through a good portion of France before he was seriously wounded. (He got shot on the beaches of Normandy in the head, but it only grazed him).

More accurately, he told me he carried "a scoped garand." My own research indicates that he most likely carried an M1C Garand-- the M1D was developed during WWII, but indications show that it never saw combat.

As far as its stopping power and accuracy, he loved the Garand, and he never had a nice word to say about the M1 Carbine. He also though "burp guns" were practically usesless as he said he mainly just say men emptying them into treetop due to uncontrolled recoil. "After three shots they were all up in the trees," he would say.

As for the M1 Carbine, he would say that they just didn't have the punch you would want if your life depended on the shot counting.

Therefore, the M1 Garand was his favorite. Incidently, he hunted with a 30-06 until he was no longer healthy enough to hunt.

So obviously he liked the caliber.


While he praised the garand as the best rifle available during WWII, he did have some serious complaints about it.

First, he HATED the weight of it. He would always tell me that it "Was the heaviest damned gun he ever used."

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.


The man ended up with the Combat Infrantry Badge, Two Purple Hearts, and the Bronze Star. For the rest of his life, he was very devout in his religion and a Gideon. I'll believe what he had to say. I don't think he'd lie.

He carried it in on the beaches, he carried it on the march, and he carried it in the hedgerows. He saw combat with the rifle, and he placed his life in the rifle's capabilities. He always had a great deal of respect for it, but he was not so enamoured with it that he didn't see the faults.



Based upon that... Yeah, I'd say the Garand is obsolete in terms of function. A lot of the complaints he had about the rifle have been fixed in newer designs. The M1A comes to mind.

In addition, there are rifles that have the knockdown of the garand without the complaints he had for it. Again, the M1A comes to mind. So does the FAL. Heck, so does my Saiga 308.


It was a great rifle, and it is a great rifle. But let's not pretend that there were not things that could have been done better on it-- and ARE done better on some other rifles.


-- John

 

[RockyMtnTactical]

A Garand would be a venerable weapon in the right hands. That said, it does have some drawbacks compared to more modern weapons.

 

[Outlaws]

No offense to any of us, but I'll take the word over someone that carried one in combat over all of us who have venerated the garand as a symbol, or have sought ways to endear it.

To an extent that is true, but then none of us would have any business questioning politicians since most of us have never been to Washington and don't know how things really work.

If you ask all the vets today what they thing about the M16/M4, you will get varying love/hate answers from almost everyone. Most WW2 vets love the Garand, but I doubt many were asked detailed questions about tactical uses of it.