Garand, WWII Issue quality

Status
Not open for further replies.
Why not? I'd bet units still equipped with 1903 and other less advanced rifles would have been glad to take them.
 
The Garands were all new back in the day. The grading CMP uses was after they were used and abused, then sent to the CMP for sale. In other words, if you get a rack grade from the CMP, that means it was used and abused while in service.
 
They certainly weren't new after 3 or 4 years of combat.
Click to expand...

3 or 4 years of combat? I thought the vast majority of the mobilization came in 1944 and petered out in 1945. Maybe a year, year and a half. I'm not talking about the naval battles in the Pacific.
 
Pretty much. They didn't really start producing them on mass until 1941, and weren't being seen on general issue until 1943. By early on 1944 they had already started spitting out M1 Carbines at a faster rate as they were easier and quicker to make and since they didn't have enough M1 Garands alot of these got issued too especially with the island hopping.

I know of 5 veterans that served and 3 of them were issued the M1 Carbine, though one dumped it for an M1 Garand, though he was a forward observer on Iwo Jima and on top of the volcano all night. Before getting sent off they were still being trained on the M1903a3s.
 
There were no "rack grades" or any other grades of rifles during WWII. The Garands were issued brand new. If you came to a unit you may have got a Garand that was used by a GI that was killed, captured, etc. The rifle was turned into the armory for re-issue to the next GI.

Again, the "grades" are put out my CMP......NOT the US Army.
 
Most of the rifles sold by the CMP have served in both American and foreign militaries. Millions of Garands after WWII where loaned to many countries around the world. After many decades of hard service they where returned to the US as surplus. Many where destroyed, a small % are being sold by the CMP. The CMP is not part of the military so the grades have nothing to do with military issue.
 
They just had to meet minimum specs for function and within a certain spec for throat and Muzzle wear. CMP didn't invent the TE and Muzzle guages afterall.
 
Thanks 30cal, this is helpful and very interesting:

http://www.fulton-armory.com/tea/tm-fig23.htm

So what does a "3 on a muzzle gauge" (to use CMP's jargon) mean as compared to where Army ordanance says the bore must be Max. 0.306 to be issued and Max. 0.310 to stay in service?

Again, the "grades" are put out my CMP......NOT the US Army.
Click to expand...
I understand that.

But..
CMP didn't invent the TE and Muzzle guages afterall.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm asking is would a rifle of "CMP field grade" have been issued to a soldier deployed to land on Okinawa, or how about later in Korea? Or would they have been all issued "CMP service grade" or better?
 
The question is, just how badly beat up would an M1 have to be before they'd pull it from service and give the soldier another one instead?
 
I guess what I'm asking is would a rifle of "CMP field grade" have been issued to a soldier deployed to land on Okinawa, or how about later in Korea?
Click to expand...

Quite possibly. The CMP field grade allows some minor hairline cracks in the stocks which unit armorers would probably have fixed, but the bore and muzzle specs are within US Army limits.

A "3" on the muzzle gauge = .303.
 
My uncle was with a graves registration unit. He once told me that the procedure was to secure all the weapons they found and send them back to Battalion where they were inspected, repaired as needed and issued to replacements.

I would imagine that they used bore guages as part of the inspection process, but every-one is right. My first two years in the service was as a unit armorer, and I never heard the terms rack grade or service grade until I bought my first M1 from CMP.
 
"...pull it from service and give..." If a troopie wanted another rifle, he'd lose the old one and get another one. Whether it came from his unit or not is another thing.
Okinawa kit would depend on what unit the troopie was in. Some units came directly from the U.S. Some were experienced troopies from Australian, et al training bases. All their kit would be serviceable, no matter where they came from.
Korean War kit was pulled out of storage and issued. It may have been new or rebuilt, but they'd be serviceable. The CMP's "Service Grade" is likely as close as it gets.
 
My first two years in the service was as a unit armorer, and I never heard the terms rack grade or service grade until I bought my first M1 from CMP.
Click to expand...
Thanks, but my question wasn't about the terminology specifically.

A "3" on the muzzle gauge = .303.
Click to expand...
Thank you!


IN THE HANDS OF TROOPS Max. 0.310
TO ACCOMPANY TROOPS OVERSEAS Max. 0.306
TO BE PLACED IN STORAGE FOR REISSUE Max. 0.305 - Use gage 41-G-28
Click to expand...
http://www.fulton-armory.com/tea/tm-fig23.htm

So it looks like a even a "CMP Field Grade" would have been well above the "issuable for combat" threshold according to the Army specs above.

What I find especially interesting is the Army doesn't appear to have a spec for muzzle wear listed there, assuming that "Breach Bore" is a measure throat wear.
 
They certainly weren't new after 3 or 4 years of combat.
Click to expand...

Most garands would not have seen that length of service. D Day occurred in on June 6, 1944... and the war was over in 1945. We were a different country back then, I guess, and didn't let wars drag on indefinitely like we do now.

Most of the garands produced in WWII were probably never fired in anger.
 
What I find especially interesting is the Army doesn't appear to have a spec for muzzle wear listed there, assuming that "Breach Bore" is a measure throat wear.
Click to expand...

Correct. MW is a relatively new measurement and wasn't used for M1's in the service.
 
We were a different country back then, I guess, and didn't let wars drag on indefinitely like we do now.
Click to expand...

you mean like WW 1? 1914-1918 as i recall. and the american revolution was 5 or 6 years too. i guess you are right. this country was different back then, look at back then :rolleyes:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top