There's a lot of discussions these days regarding small arms reliability in desert conditions. Looking back at the North African campaign of World War II, the M1 Garand was used extensively in the desert fighting there. I don't recall reading any reports of problems with it's use in that particular theatre, although one would think that there must have been a few.
M1 Garand in the desert
- Thread starter Slater
- Start date
- Status
This doesn't answer your question, but a related note.
I was listening to a Discovery channel radio show a week or so ago; the program was about elite German units during WWII. They interviewed a vet of the Afrika Corps. The first thing out of his mouth was that they had to clean their weapons several times a day due to sand and blowing dust.
There is nothing new under the sun.
I was listening to a Discovery channel radio show a week or so ago; the program was about elite German units during WWII. They interviewed a vet of the Afrika Corps. The first thing out of his mouth was that they had to clean their weapons several times a day due to sand and blowing dust.
There is nothing new under the sun.
DMK
Member
Was the Garand used that widely during the Africa campaigns? I thought that the '03 Springfield was still the frontline rifle there.
Devonai
Member
The 1st ID definitely had them. AFAIK the only place Garands were in short(er) supply was the PTO.
VG
Member
Garands were in short supply in the Pacific because the Marine Corps selected the M1903 Springfield in December 1940. So the arsenal system tooled up to produce both Springfields and Garands.
After Army units hit Quadalcanal in 1942, Marine grunts forced their brass to change that decision. So at the very height of wartime demands, the USMC requested Garands. Production at SA jumped every month, reaching over 60,000 rifles per month by year end. This is an amazing achievement, but never quite enough.
The Marines then complained bitterly throughout the war that they were being given short shrift. But they never supported the Garand all through the 30's when they were being developed. They even declined a $10,000 commitment when the first model shop rifles were being produced, which would have greatly expanded the number of tooled prototypes. The Army responded by using M1903's for basic and marksmanship training, then issuing Garands to units deploying overseas. Front line troops were able to get what they needed almost from the time the decision was made.
This was before the Garand had been modified to fire rifle grenades, so there was at least one M1903 per squad anyway until later in the war. And M1903 Sniper rifles predominated.
After Army units hit Quadalcanal in 1942, Marine grunts forced their brass to change that decision. So at the very height of wartime demands, the USMC requested Garands. Production at SA jumped every month, reaching over 60,000 rifles per month by year end. This is an amazing achievement, but never quite enough.
The Marines then complained bitterly throughout the war that they were being given short shrift. But they never supported the Garand all through the 30's when they were being developed. They even declined a $10,000 commitment when the first model shop rifles were being produced, which would have greatly expanded the number of tooled prototypes. The Army responded by using M1903's for basic and marksmanship training, then issuing Garands to units deploying overseas. Front line troops were able to get what they needed almost from the time the decision was made.
This was before the Garand had been modified to fire rifle grenades, so there was at least one M1903 per squad anyway until later in the war. And M1903 Sniper rifles predominated.
Tamara
Senior Member
One of the Garand's early nicknames was "Jammin' Jenny." Stories of the battle of Iwo Jima describe all manner of weapons jamming from the fine, gritty volcanic ash. I haven't read too many firsthand accounts from North Africa, but I'd feel safe wagering that it was a problem there, too. Autochuckers are adversely affected by too much fine sand in the works.
Billy Sparks
Member
I remember either reading a interview or seeing a interview on the History channel about a GI that landed at Normandy. He said that when he took his first shoot the gun jammed from the sand. Now that was wet sand, I imagine dry blowing sand was much worse.
wanderinwalker
Member
Not having read any battle accounts regarding the M-1's reliability, I can only summarize that the Garand is just as worthless 
as the AR-15/M-16 in sand. Mainly, there are more and bigger openings in the Garand receiver, plus the bolt raceway on the right side is external. My Korea-vet grandpa has told me how much work it was to keep the rifles running and that his weapon of preference was the M-3 Greasegun due to its size.
as the AR-15/M-16 in sand. Mainly, there are more and bigger openings in the Garand receiver, plus the bolt raceway on the right side is external. My Korea-vet grandpa has told me how much work it was to keep the rifles running and that his weapon of preference was the M-3 Greasegun due to its size.Swampy
Member
Yes, the M1 in North Africa showed initial problems under conditions of blowing fine sand.
This was pretty much universally solved when the GI's learned to thoroughly clean the rifles and then leave them dry...... no oil, no grease.
Without the oil & grease to trap & hold grit, the rifles functioned fine.
wanderwinwalker,
Yes, the M1 has large openings, but it also has big sloppy tolerances where the parts move. Once the oil & grease was removed the grit did not accumulate in the raceways to jam things up. Sand blows in..... sand blows out. No problem.
Best to all,
Swampy
This was pretty much universally solved when the GI's learned to thoroughly clean the rifles and then leave them dry...... no oil, no grease.
Without the oil & grease to trap & hold grit, the rifles functioned fine.
wanderwinwalker,
Yes, the M1 has large openings, but it also has big sloppy tolerances where the parts move. Once the oil & grease was removed the grit did not accumulate in the raceways to jam things up. Sand blows in..... sand blows out. No problem.
Best to all,
Swampy
Al Thompson
Moderator Emeritus
Just finished a book by a Marine in Korea - hated the M1 (jams). Much preferred the BAR. Carried a Thompson for some patrols and called it a "popgun".
Excellent read, BTW. "The Last Paralell" by Martin Russ.
Excellent read, BTW. "The Last Paralell" by Martin Russ.
Swamprabbit
Member
On the flip side, the book "Retreat Hell..." it is full of praise for the M1's reliability - at least in the "Frozen Chosin". In this story, it was the Carbine that got the bad rap for lack of reliability in the sub zero cold.
I have read several accounts stating what others have already stated, the M1 had to run "dry" of oil and lube in desert conditions. The only issue with this, of course I only know what I've read, was that the dry running of the M1 caused problems with the bolt lug in the receiver heating up under the friction. That is why the M14 used a roller. I don't claim to be an expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
I have read several accounts stating what others have already stated, the M1 had to run "dry" of oil and lube in desert conditions. The only issue with this, of course I only know what I've read, was that the dry running of the M1 caused problems with the bolt lug in the receiver heating up under the friction. That is why the M14 used a roller. I don't claim to be an expert so someone correct me if I'm wrong here.
VG
Member
The SOP for lubricating Garands in the cold weather of Korea was a lead pencil - applying graphite to the sliding surfaces directly.
There was an account by a Korean War paratrooper of his use of the Garand - including firing all night during a human wave attack, and seeing the next morning that his handguards were charred from the heat of continuous firing.
The BAR was a great weapon but at 18+ lbs plus ammo, took a very committed individual. It was tested along with the Garand during early testing, and proved to be nearly as accurate as the garand or M1903. Firing from an open bolt with a lot of mass is an advantage for automatic weapons.
Grenades work just fine in sand, though....
There was an account by a Korean War paratrooper of his use of the Garand - including firing all night during a human wave attack, and seeing the next morning that his handguards were charred from the heat of continuous firing.
The BAR was a great weapon but at 18+ lbs plus ammo, took a very committed individual. It was tested along with the Garand during early testing, and proved to be nearly as accurate as the garand or M1903. Firing from an open bolt with a lot of mass is an advantage for automatic weapons.
Grenades work just fine in sand, though....
DMK
Member
I'd think the beloved Thompson would have had some problems in North Africa as well.
RustyHammer
Member
Why didn't they just use AK's?
(okay, bad joke).
(okay, bad joke).
I've heard from many vets that the most reliable rifles in order were, the AK 47, the M14, and the M1 rifle.
M1 has the fixed magazine, so if grit gets in it is not so simple to get out, you can't just switch mags.
I have heard that too much grease is bad for combat conditions, but doesn't the M1/M14 series of weapons need grease to function properly? Everyone recommends putting grease on the bolt/receiver contact areas of the rifle in order to keep it functioning. If the grease is not needed, why would one want to put it on at all?
M1 has the fixed magazine, so if grit gets in it is not so simple to get out, you can't just switch mags.
I have heard that too much grease is bad for combat conditions, but doesn't the M1/M14 series of weapons need grease to function properly? Everyone recommends putting grease on the bolt/receiver contact areas of the rifle in order to keep it functioning. If the grease is not needed, why would one want to put it on at all?
Swampy
Member
Blain,
Grease-oil prevent wear by lubricating moving parts.... An M1 will run perfectly well when completely dry... but the parts are going to wear out much faster.
When the two alternatives for a soldier in combat are a non functioning rifle due to grit encumbered lubes or a rifle that functions somewhat reliably, albeit with accelerated wear......
then I think most GI's would take the second option any day.
I would too.
Best to all,
Swampy
Grease-oil prevent wear by lubricating moving parts.... An M1 will run perfectly well when completely dry... but the parts are going to wear out much faster.
When the two alternatives for a soldier in combat are a non functioning rifle due to grit encumbered lubes or a rifle that functions somewhat reliably, albeit with accelerated wear......
then I think most GI's would take the second option any day.
I would too.
Best to all,
Swampy
"An M1 will run perfectly well when completely dry.........."
I am no expert on the M1 rifle, but we had a thread on here not long ago discussing an idea the military had for putting a felt pad somewhere on the rifle to hold lube because they were having problems with oil washing away in heavy rain and amphibious landings resulting in malfunctions. Supposedly this is where they instead came up with the idea of using grease instead of oil.
Again, I don't know anything about this other than what I read on that thread.
I am no expert on the M1 rifle, but we had a thread on here not long ago discussing an idea the military had for putting a felt pad somewhere on the rifle to hold lube because they were having problems with oil washing away in heavy rain and amphibious landings resulting in malfunctions. Supposedly this is where they instead came up with the idea of using grease instead of oil.
Again, I don't know anything about this other than what I read on that thread.
VG
Member
During Army (and USMC) acceptance testing of the Garand, one of the tests was to soak the parts in gasoline (to remove all lubricants) and fire it. I don't have the results in front of me, but they passed. They were also tested after a "mud bath" and after being dragged through wet beach sand.
All things are relative. Extended firing of the Garand after a salt water or water soak eventually resulted in malfunctions. It's all a matter of how soon the malfunctions occur.
I was completely shocked when I first started civilian shooting (and took some course) at how little time is spent on malfunctions in civilian training. In the Army, and likely the Marine Corps as well, you might spend as much time training to clear malfunctions on a weapon as shooting. Maybe more.
I just heard of an anecdote where a guy loaded a handful of grass along with his Garand clip, and couldn't fire only because the grass sticking up out of the bolt blocked his line of sight. Sand building up in the Garand is readily dumped by dropping out the trigger assembly, which can be done in not much longer than replacing a magazine. Dust and dirt cause malfunctions in all weapons at a much accelerated rate.
All things are relative. Extended firing of the Garand after a salt water or water soak eventually resulted in malfunctions. It's all a matter of how soon the malfunctions occur.
I was completely shocked when I first started civilian shooting (and took some course) at how little time is spent on malfunctions in civilian training. In the Army, and likely the Marine Corps as well, you might spend as much time training to clear malfunctions on a weapon as shooting. Maybe more.
I just heard of an anecdote where a guy loaded a handful of grass along with his Garand clip, and couldn't fire only because the grass sticking up out of the bolt blocked his line of sight. Sand building up in the Garand is readily dumped by dropping out the trigger assembly, which can be done in not much longer than replacing a magazine. Dust and dirt cause malfunctions in all weapons at a much accelerated rate.
From my own posting on another forum:
"There are three ways to deal with sand/dust in the design of a military rifle.
The first is to keep it out. The M16 design tries to do this with a closed action and a dust cover. This approach does not work because while the amount of crud getting in is reduced, what does get in can't be gotten out easily.
The second is to make the rifle easy to clean. The U.S. M1 rifle is a good example of this approach. The locking lugs and seats are easy to get to, even with a finger, to clean out dirt. The trigger group is easy to remove and clean with cleaner, water, or by simply blowing on it. The AK-47, also a dual lug rotating bolt system, is similarly easy to clean, though not as easy as the M1 since the cover has to be removed.
The third approach is to design the rifle to simply ignore dirt. While not a rifle, the M3 SMG is a good example. It can take in huge quantities of sand and dirt without interfering with the mechanism. The only rifle close to it is the AR-18/180, but it also uses the multi-lug bolt of the AR-15/M16.
IMHO, the third approach has the best chance of making a "sand proof" rifle, but the multi-lug bolt is a weak point. "
I was flamed by an M16 fan who claimed the M16 is easy to clean and offered to show me how. Nice of him. It is not hard, but you need special equipment; that toothbrush won't do.
Any piece of machinery can be stopped by the wrong environmental conditions. The designer's problem is to keep stoppages to an absolute minimum without requiring the user to be in a constant care mode.
Jim
"There are three ways to deal with sand/dust in the design of a military rifle.
The first is to keep it out. The M16 design tries to do this with a closed action and a dust cover. This approach does not work because while the amount of crud getting in is reduced, what does get in can't be gotten out easily.
The second is to make the rifle easy to clean. The U.S. M1 rifle is a good example of this approach. The locking lugs and seats are easy to get to, even with a finger, to clean out dirt. The trigger group is easy to remove and clean with cleaner, water, or by simply blowing on it. The AK-47, also a dual lug rotating bolt system, is similarly easy to clean, though not as easy as the M1 since the cover has to be removed.
The third approach is to design the rifle to simply ignore dirt. While not a rifle, the M3 SMG is a good example. It can take in huge quantities of sand and dirt without interfering with the mechanism. The only rifle close to it is the AR-18/180, but it also uses the multi-lug bolt of the AR-15/M16.
IMHO, the third approach has the best chance of making a "sand proof" rifle, but the multi-lug bolt is a weak point. "
I was flamed by an M16 fan who claimed the M16 is easy to clean and offered to show me how. Nice of him. It is not hard, but you need special equipment; that toothbrush won't do.
Any piece of machinery can be stopped by the wrong environmental conditions. The designer's problem is to keep stoppages to an absolute minimum without requiring the user to be in a constant care mode.
Jim
- Status
Similar threads
