M1/By Mid WW2...

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'm assuming you're speaking in regards to troop complaints and praises as opposed to manufacturing difficulties (need more stampings,less milling,etc).
Weaknesses (nitpicks basically)
-a rifle that has an open action, needs heavy grease applications and is being used in a sandy environment (North Africa)
-dependence on en bloc clips/difficulty in topping off the magazine resulting in troops firing off the entire en bloc to reload
-though not a problem in 43- cold weather trigger/safety operation with a comparably small standard trigger guard (hey, I had trouble with it in upstate NY!)
-sights can be difficult in low light compared to open sights or more open peeps
-7th rd stoppage still probably an issue at this time

strengths:
-firepower compared to enemy weapons
-speed of reload
-accuracy
-reliable

Do you have any troop opinion reports from WWII, eclancy?
 
I'd say one of the top 3 weaknesses had to be the need to clean the gas system b/c of those chlorate primers. Sure, the main parts were stainless, but that has its limits.

The #4 weakness has to be its weight.

A nitpicky weakness is that the ammo belt carries 20% fewer rounds per pouch than when loaded for the '03 Springfield/Enfield rifle strippers.

Strengths: among the top 3, has to be a stock built for a good butt-stroke. But that's not particular to 1943.

Weakness on further reflection--weren't they starting to get cold-weather grease complaints, which led to LubriPlate(tm) in time for the winter of '44-45???
 
Hi all,
Yes Poodlershooter. There are all kinds of testing reports in Vol. 1 and Vol. 2 of the Garand Papers.
Thanks again
Clancy
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top