How do you pronounce Garand?
- Thread starter Tropical Z
- Start date
- Status
No, no drugs but having and FNFAL, FN49, Hakim, Sar1, SVD40, 2 Garands, M1A to mention a few I have grown weary of hearing about the mighty M1 Garand. It was good in its day late 30's, 40's and part of the 50's but even before WW2 started their were BETTER military rifles. It served a fairly short time as king of the heap against what competition? Just how many years did it take to design this "masterpiece" 10, 15 years? And and this genius still managed to retain the time honored enbloc clip and "special" grease to enable functioning in the rain. Outside America and away from the bias of the US shooter, the FN Rules. The FN served in more countries than the Garand and those Garands that did serve with other Armys were given away FREE. The FN's were bought and paid for. Hmmm, even a 3rd World country like Egypt decided to build their own Hakim rather than except free Garands or at least get a license to build them. Go figure.
M2 Carbine
member
General George S. Patton called the M1-Garand: "The
greatest battle implement ever devised".
Ya, I always thought old George was full of poop
greatest battle implement ever devised".
Ya, I always thought old George was full of poop
Hi Telewinz, I am by no means a glassy eyed M1 fan, however, it was the first autoloader fielded by a world class army and it was good in its day and still is up there with any 30 caliber autoloader imho. The FAL etc, is 20 years newer than the M1. Can't really compare the two. You had Germans using Mauser 98s, British using SMLEs, Russians using Moisin Nagants, French using Lebels or God knows what surrender rifle.
Let me just add this last thing. It is not the weapon but the man behind the weapon. Which one of your fabled armies with "superior" battlefield implements has got the record of the lowly and humble M1 Rifle?
I will agree I would not give $100 for a boxful of M1 rifles, other than to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it didn't mop the floor with its opposition, or allow its allies to participate in the fruits of a victory they could not win without its help.
Let me just add this last thing. It is not the weapon but the man behind the weapon. Which one of your fabled armies with "superior" battlefield implements has got the record of the lowly and humble M1 Rifle?
I will agree I would not give $100 for a boxful of M1 rifles, other than to make a profit, but that doesn't mean it didn't mop the floor with its opposition, or allow its allies to participate in the fruits of a victory they could not win without its help.
M2 Carbine
member
telewinz
Actually I am serious.
But of course if you can compare your war record and your military expertise with Patton's, maybe there would be something you could teach the old boy, if he were still alive.
Of course there are better rifles made today but that doesn't have anything to do with the record of the M1 Garand.
Because the F-15 is in use today does that make a WW2 Mustang any less of a fighter of it's day?
I don't think anyone is saying we should arm today's military with the M1,
but as Big G said,
"Which one of your fabled armies with "superior" battlefield implements has got the record of the lowly and humble M1 Rifle?"
Actually I am serious.
But of course if you can compare your war record and your military expertise with Patton's, maybe there would be something you could teach the old boy, if he were still alive.
Of course there are better rifles made today but that doesn't have anything to do with the record of the M1 Garand.
Because the F-15 is in use today does that make a WW2 Mustang any less of a fighter of it's day?
I don't think anyone is saying we should arm today's military with the M1,
but as Big G said,
"Which one of your fabled armies with "superior" battlefield implements has got the record of the lowly and humble M1 Rifle?"
Two Very BIG Differences...Patton NEVER said the Mustang was the greatest fighter aircraft BUT a MAJORITY of informed Americans AND Non-Americans (unbiased) agree with that statement. Again, it was good in its day but what rifles are you comparing the Garand to? The BAR? In that case I will continue to disagree with you and Patton. Hell, I'd prefere the light WW1 Lewis machine gun to the Garand. Remember, BS and Patton go hand in hand. Garand spent over 10 Years on design, what other military rifle EVER took 10 years to design? I'd take the Hakim or FN49 in a heartbeat over the Garand, they are BETTER military rifles! And guess what, they didn't copy anything that Garand designed. Doesn't that tell you something? Has any non-American design ever copied ANYTHING from the Garand?
A quote from "Shots fired in Anger" used on page 251 of "Hatchers Book of the Garand"
"It is a serious fault in design which makes all of this fumbling necessary. No claim of perfection or even of technical adequacy can be justifiably made for any rifle which is as awkwardly loaded as a Garand. A rifle should permit easy loading of any number of rounds at any time, without emptying the chamber or rendering the weapon inoperative while its magazine is being filled. The rifle should always be ready to fire."
Both the FN49 and AG42 were designed before or at the outbreak of WW2.
A quote from "Shots fired in Anger" used on page 251 of "Hatchers Book of the Garand"
"It is a serious fault in design which makes all of this fumbling necessary. No claim of perfection or even of technical adequacy can be justifiably made for any rifle which is as awkwardly loaded as a Garand. A rifle should permit easy loading of any number of rounds at any time, without emptying the chamber or rendering the weapon inoperative while its magazine is being filled. The rifle should always be ready to fire."
Both the FN49 and AG42 were designed before or at the outbreak of WW2.
Last edited:
M2 Carbine
member
Sorry, I understand now.
You are right and one of the greatest Generals in history is BS and the thousands of men who CARRIED THE M1 INTO COMBAT and loved the rifle are wrong.
Sounds logical to me.
You are right and one of the greatest Generals in history is BS and the thousands of men who CARRIED THE M1 INTO COMBAT and loved the rifle are wrong.
Sounds logical to me.
Hatcher is also wrong. A Garand can be loaded faster than pretty much any magazine fed rifle. While you're fumbling to get your FAL magazine out and a new one in, I will already have a fresh clip in the rifle and a bullet inserted into your grape.
Vern Humphrey
Member
Hatcher was an Ordnance officer, not an Infantryman.
I can't count the number of times the technical services have thought something was good, and the combat troops realized it was bad -- and vice-versa.
I carried an M1 my first tour in Viet Nam, and believe me, there's NOTHING wrong with the M1.
I can't count the number of times the technical services have thought something was good, and the combat troops realized it was bad -- and vice-versa.
I carried an M1 my first tour in Viet Nam, and believe me, there's NOTHING wrong with the M1.
mrmeangenes
Member
Second rate rifle ???
No way. I'd trust an ancient M-1 over almost anything-stripper clip and all !
No way. I'd trust an ancient M-1 over almost anything-stripper clip and all !
I have handled and fired quite a few semi/full-auto rifles, including those mentioned by telewinz plus the SVT 38, G.41W, G.41M, G/K.43, Pedersen, Johnson, MP.44, the Hakim, the Ljungmann (the original of the Hakim), Rasheed, the AK-47, Czech 52, SKS, the AR-15, AR-18 and 180, the original AR-10, etc. Also a bunch of light/medium MGs, Lewis, BAR, MG.34, MG.42, M1919A4 and A6, FAL in LMG role, M14 in LMG role, etc.
As a full power military semi-auto, the M1 is hard to beat, and I think the M14 is its only close competitor. The FAL is better in full auto because of its weight and the more straight line stock (the M14 is about worthless in FA), but it is heavy and awkward, with a long receiver that takes too much from barrel length. The fact that it was adopted by many countries is as much a fact of availability as of its actual quality. (If we consider numbers issued as equating to quality, the AK-47 is the best rifle in the world, bar none.)
The M1 was hardly perfect. One of the problems was that GI's finding themselves in a lull in the battle with a partly empty magazine, tended to fire off the rest of the clip so they could reload with a full clip. But the M1 was a far better rifle than any of its contemporaries. Were there better semi-auto rifles at the time of its adoption (1937)? I can only say, name one. The only other one that was in service that early was the Russian Simonov AVS 36; I have never even seen one outside a museum, but the Russians did not continue it in service very long so it must not have been a world beater.
The AG42B was not adopted until 1942, and was not especially liked even by the Swedes; they never attempted to issue them to their whole army. It was adopted by Egypt for political reasons (Sweden was not in either "bloc"), not because they especially liked it. The German rifles were decidedly inferior to the M1, in part because of too fast development and wartime production, but also because of (IMO) inferior design.
The only rifle that could have been up there was the Johnson, and it was also not as good as the M1, though it was close. But the Johnson is awkward with its magazine bulge, and many of the smaller parts were not well designed for hard service. It did, however, solve one problem with the M1 - it could be loaded with standard M1903 clips and could be "topped off". The ability of the army to supply the "special" M1 clips was a large concern at the time; it actually proved no real problem at all.
As to LMGs in the rifle role, I can only say that anyone who would prefer the Lewis or the BAR over an M1 has never carried either one or has a lot more muscle than I ever had. Those guns are not bad in the squad auto role but not as standard infantry rifles.
The medium power selective fire rifles (AK, AR-15/M16, etc.) are in a different category, but they did not exist in any numbers until late in WWII.
Jim
As a full power military semi-auto, the M1 is hard to beat, and I think the M14 is its only close competitor. The FAL is better in full auto because of its weight and the more straight line stock (the M14 is about worthless in FA), but it is heavy and awkward, with a long receiver that takes too much from barrel length. The fact that it was adopted by many countries is as much a fact of availability as of its actual quality. (If we consider numbers issued as equating to quality, the AK-47 is the best rifle in the world, bar none.)
The M1 was hardly perfect. One of the problems was that GI's finding themselves in a lull in the battle with a partly empty magazine, tended to fire off the rest of the clip so they could reload with a full clip. But the M1 was a far better rifle than any of its contemporaries. Were there better semi-auto rifles at the time of its adoption (1937)? I can only say, name one. The only other one that was in service that early was the Russian Simonov AVS 36; I have never even seen one outside a museum, but the Russians did not continue it in service very long so it must not have been a world beater.
The AG42B was not adopted until 1942, and was not especially liked even by the Swedes; they never attempted to issue them to their whole army. It was adopted by Egypt for political reasons (Sweden was not in either "bloc"), not because they especially liked it. The German rifles were decidedly inferior to the M1, in part because of too fast development and wartime production, but also because of (IMO) inferior design.
The only rifle that could have been up there was the Johnson, and it was also not as good as the M1, though it was close. But the Johnson is awkward with its magazine bulge, and many of the smaller parts were not well designed for hard service. It did, however, solve one problem with the M1 - it could be loaded with standard M1903 clips and could be "topped off". The ability of the army to supply the "special" M1 clips was a large concern at the time; it actually proved no real problem at all.
As to LMGs in the rifle role, I can only say that anyone who would prefer the Lewis or the BAR over an M1 has never carried either one or has a lot more muscle than I ever had. Those guns are not bad in the squad auto role but not as standard infantry rifles.
The medium power selective fire rifles (AK, AR-15/M16, etc.) are in a different category, but they did not exist in any numbers until late in WWII.
Jim
M2 Carbine
member
"I carried an M1 my first tour in Viet Nam, and believe me, there's NOTHING wrong with the M1."
Interesting Vern,
When was your first tour?
Interesting Vern,
When was your first tour?
Vern Humphrey
Member
Quotes:
---------------------------------------------------
"I carried an M1 my first tour in Viet Nam, and believe me, there's NOTHING wrong with the M1."
Interesting Vern,
When was your first tour?
-----------------------------------------------------
I was an adviser to the 18th ARVN (formerly 10th ARVN) Division from mid-'66 to mid-'67. Our issue weapon was the M2 carbine. Mine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed an M1 from the ARVN.
---------------------------------------------------
"I carried an M1 my first tour in Viet Nam, and believe me, there's NOTHING wrong with the M1."
Interesting Vern,
When was your first tour?
-----------------------------------------------------
I was an adviser to the 18th ARVN (formerly 10th ARVN) Division from mid-'66 to mid-'67. Our issue weapon was the M2 carbine. Mine got wrapped around a tree and I bummed an M1 from the ARVN.
VG
Member
Actually, more. He started working on the project a few years after WWI, and was still working on upgrades when it was accepted by the Army in 1937.
The Garand was not the first semiautomatic fielded. It was the first to fire a full-power service cartridge. The technical expertise required to build volume production of such a rifle, and at comparatively low cost, was non-trivial.
It's astonishing that the U.S. Army developed the doctrine and funded the development effort to field this rifle. As late as December 1940, the USMC formally selected the M1903 as their service rifle, citing concerns with reliability and the likelihood of prodigal use of ammunition. The German army, in fact all the European powers, also thought that the likelihood that soldiers would "waste" ammunition outweighed the advantages of a semiauto.
That any later rifle might be better is moot - the designer had foreknowledge that semiautos had a role on the battlefield. It's like arguing which successor vehicle was better than the Model T - the answer is "all of them."
I didn't think many Garand combat vets were around, but if you've BTDT, I defer to your superior practical application of infantry small arms.
M2 Carbine
member
Oh I see, Vern.
I knew about the Carbines but hadn't thought about the M1s
About that time I was instructing Army helicopter students.
I knew about the Carbines but hadn't thought about the M1s
About that time I was instructing Army helicopter students.
its all clear now. just another simple minded thread fighter, probably enjoys his intraweb battles very much let him go on.
The japanese thought the garand was a horrible rifle. thats why they had the type 5......but then again no major armed force ever tried to copy the m1 or im sorry never rechambered captured ones never did that either.
and when it comes down to it, combat with a semiauto or a bolt. majority wise. Thats tough
The japanese thought the garand was a horrible rifle. thats why they had the type 5......but then again no major armed force ever tried to copy the m1 or im sorry never rechambered captured ones never did that either.
and when it comes down to it, combat with a semiauto or a bolt. majority wise. Thats tough
Ever take apart a Czech VZ-52 rifle?
I've got an Italian BM-59 Nigerian that looks an awful lot like an M1 Garand, too.
OK thats two, thats not much of an impact for the "greatest battle rifle". Italy adopted the Garand AFTER being given them free by the US.
The "other" great battle rifle, the Mauser 98 has been copied to a great extent, I wonder why the Great Garand is getting the short end of the shaft? Maybe its anti-American feelings. Yeah, that MUST be it.
I've got an Italian BM-59 Nigerian that looks an awful lot like an M1 Garand, too.
OK thats two, thats not much of an impact for the "greatest battle rifle". Italy adopted the Garand AFTER being given them free by the US.
The "other" great battle rifle, the Mauser 98 has been copied to a great extent, I wonder why the Great Garand is getting the short end of the shaft? Maybe its anti-American feelings. Yeah, that MUST be it.
GLOCKT
Member
Pronounced!
Hopefully, mine!In a month from now!
When this tax return check arrives.
A nice Springfield in a 30.06 version.
Hopefully, mine!In a month from now!
When this tax return check arrives.
A nice Springfield in a 30.06 version.
M2 Carbine
member
Gewehr98,
That picture brought back memories.
I haven't stacked arms in 47 years. (USMC)
To show how times have changed.
Our M1's were kept in open rifle racks, in the middle of open squad bays (living quarters) 24/7.
Anybody in the battalion could walk through anytime.
Once in a while someone might put their rifle in their locker when going on a weekend pass.
Even this was not encouraged because of the idea that the officers might want to look at the rifles at any time.
That picture brought back memories.
I haven't stacked arms in 47 years. (USMC)
To show how times have changed.
Our M1's were kept in open rifle racks, in the middle of open squad bays (living quarters) 24/7.
Anybody in the battalion could walk through anytime.
Once in a while someone might put their rifle in their locker when going on a weekend pass.
Even this was not encouraged because of the idea that the officers might want to look at the rifles at any time.
Kaylee
Member
Tell you what... take apart an AK some time.
Pull out the bolt carrier with its long op rod. Look real close at how that rotating bolt locks into the receiver trunion, and then how the carrier slides up a titch more to lock in.
The AK is basically an M1 turned upside down with its delicates covered by a piece of sheet steel.
'sok though. I know the AK is a pretty obscure, insignificant firearm of the late 20th century.
-K
- Status
