M1 Garand not given enough credit in this day and age

[dogrunner]

Cop Bob said it ALL............I'd suggest Mods consider closure as this thread has dissolved into an ego trip for several participants.............and apparently NONE of those actually USED the Garand in service.


I don't know about a lot of posters, but I was RA, and used ALL three.Garand thru 16!

 

[Andrew Wyatt]

a garand is my go to semi-auto. I'd still rather have something that uses detachable magazines.

 

[Justin]

If you have the time, you should read Junger's War (or listen to the audio book read by the author). It is a much more in-depth account of that time than what you're able to see in Restrepo, and explains a lot more about who the men are that you meet, what challenges they faced, what happened to them, and some really amazing insights into what it means to serve the men in your unit.

I can't recommend these two works highly enough.

I watched Restrepo this morning.

This movie should be required viewing for for anyone with even a passing interest in the military. The closest thing I can compare it to would be Band of Brothers, but even that doesn't really do it justice.

 

[PCGS65]

The obvious fault of using an 8 round clip is limited ammunition recharging, and a two handed procedure that disables the weapon from immediate use until the process is done. It's significant the operating hand must be removed from the grip, and the user moves his head from the sight plane to do it, both of which considerably slow getting the weapon back into action.

I can snap in an enbloc and have my eyes sighted back down the barrel in 5 seconds. How long does it take to change a 20-30 rd magazine 4 seconds?

The open bolt construction and operating rod are in direct contact with any environmental debris, which can jam the action. The operating rod is exposed, as is the reciprocating charging handle, which can impact whatever it rests against when expedient shooting positions are adopted in combat. That will cause malfunctions and jams.

If anyone wants to understand why the Garand was considered second rate by the people using it in it's service lifetime, look to the improvements of the M14. The 20 round magazine reduced reloading considerably and gave the soldier more shots before going through the inefficient process over again.

If the bolt is open like most rifles. 2nd rate to what? rifles that weren't developed yet? I suppose we should have just stuck with the 03 springfield.

One of the major influences in hit probability - in combat against MOVING targets - is the red dot optic. It's now universally issue - as opposed to iron sights. Red dot optics are a proven method of increasing hit ratio without increasing the expense of range time or ammunition. If you can see it, you will be more likely to hit it, and that means MORE combat power in the field. Attempting to mount a red dot optic on the Garand, however, is problematic, because the receiver was never designed to accept the optimum over the bolt location for best eye relief and use.

Just out of curiosity do you shoot the red dots with both eyes open?

Garand to M14 in less than 10 years. G43 to G1 to G3 in less than 15 years. Enfield to FNFAL in less than 20 years. The SKS to the AK-47 in less than 5 years.

I'm not sure about the rest and I have my suspicions but the Garand was in service much longer than 10 years. WWII,Korea and well into Vietnam until production of the M14 ect caught up.
As a matter of fact Garands were still being rearsenaled into the mid 60s for use.

By the mid 50's, less than ten years after the war end, most of the infantryman's rifles were being replaced with magazine fed, closed upper action rifles made from stampings. The AR10 was in production and competing as early as 1956 against the FNFAL, STG510, G3, and others in the postwar buildup against the Soviet Union.

Most = over half, so this = BS. Replacement of the Garand by magazine fed rifles wasn't in full swing until the 60s.

While the Garand was held in the hands of the Greatest Generation, it certainly wasn't the best gun for the job - just the one they had to use. If they could get it. They were in short supply, and many units had to go to war with the '03 Springfield. Once the war was over, Lessons Learned at the expense of blood, sweat, and tears showed their deficiencies in direct contrast to the weapons used against us.

Then what was the best gun for the job in WWII and Korea?

Early in WWII/'42-'43 the Garand was in short supply but that's it. Production by Springfield armory and Winchester caught up rapidly. 4 million Garands were produced during WWII.


I appreciate your concern but you make it sound like the Garand was 2nd rate to bolt action rifles.


Oh and Sam1911 I must have missed that movie, no the one about soldiers running up and down the Afghanistan moutains with 80-100lbs of gear. I've seen Universal Soldier and all the Terminator movies and that wasn't in those movies. Must be in Restrepo(haven't seen that one)or on youtube? I've like to see anyone accomplish that feat.

It's very sad that this thread and many others on the net always go down the toilet due to gross exaggeration,intentional misinterpretaion and incompetence.

 

[PCGS65]

Quote: by Cop Bob

Geeze with the arguing and the......... Get OVER IT...

The M1 Garand WAS the light saber of it's day... It came into adoption at a point in history where it DID give us the clear battlefield advantage over our enemy's, who, in BOTH theaters of war were carrying bolt actions..

In it's day it was the Cadillac of battle rifles.... Is it a good gun today?... Heck Yes.. it is a GREAT gun today....

Ballistic overkill... come on... anyone any soldier has ever lined a sight up on and enemy while under fire would have rather been doing it with a 16" naval gun... Why, because they would like them to be really dead, right now... On the battlefield, especially the battlefields of WWII, where there were fewer civilians intermingled, overkill was not a large consideration...

Is the 30-06 ballistics superior to the 5.56? Duh..Yeah....

Is the 30-06 ballistics superior to the .308, or 7.62... lemme see, over here I got 6, and over here I got 1/2 a dozen over there..

Is the M-14 a better battle rifle than the Garand? Yes, due to magazine capacity...

Has time and technology passed the Garand by? Yes, as it eventually does with all things...

Is it still a formidable weapon? ... in the right hands, Oh Yes.. who/what ever is down range, their life expectancy has been shortened.. Period..Then and now.....

Did the Garand get enough credit... in it's heyday.. Heck Yes... Today, not so much...

Given it's place in History.. Thank You John Garand. You did this Country, and many later generations of Shooters,, and generations of shooters to come a great service.. Your Legacy will never be forgotten...

Now here's a man with some common sense and knowledge/appreciation of the Garand.
I couldn't of put it better myself but I must admit I got caught up in the non-senual drivel.
Beware though you may be hung out to dry because of you appreciation of the M1.
But not by me.


Have a good one guys. I'm done here.

 

[mshootnit]

the garand to me would be a heck of a lot better club in hand to hand fighting too. It balances really well.

 

[Justin]

I can snap in an enbloc and have my eyes sighted back down the barrel in 5 seconds. How long does it take to change a 20-30 rd magazine 4 seconds?

More like 2 to 2-1/2 seconds. Under one second with a setup like the Lancer Quick Mag. Even assuming that you're correct and it takes 4 seconds to reload an AR magazine and 5 seconds to reload a Garand clip, you will still have to execute four flawless reloads with a Garand for every one reload of an AR-pattern gun, and even then you're looking at a total reload time of 20 sec./30 rds. with the Garand vs. 4/30 rds. with an AR.

Just out of curiosity do you shoot the red dots with both eyes open?

I'm not Sam, but I shoot both eyes open regardless of the sighting system.

I'm not sure about the rest and I have my suspicions but the Garand was in service much longer than 10 years. WWII,Korea and well into Vietnam until production of the M14 ect caught up.
As a matter of fact Garands were still being rearsenaled into the mid 60s for use.

Just because something is issued as a stop-gap measure doesn't mean it's still the best. It means, that, at best, it's good enough and at worst, it's all that is on hand.

Oh and Sam1911 I must have missed that movie, no the one about soldiers running up and down the Afghanistan moutains with 80-100lbs of gear. I've seen Universal Soldier and all the Terminator movies and that wasn't in those movies. Must be in Restrepo(haven't seen that one)or on youtube? I've like to see anyone accomplish that feat.

Restrepo is available for viewing via Netflix instant streaming, rental at any place worth going to, or purchase on DVD at Amazon.com or Best Buy. In case you missed it, the movie is a National Geographic-backed documentary, that was nominated for numerous awards and accolades, not a Hollywood dramatization. The difference between something like Restrepo and a B-grade Hollywood action flick from the early 1990s should be readily apparent to all who care to look.

Furthermore, posts corroborating the weight of equipment carried by modern soldiers were posted here and here.

Are you calling these men liars?

 

[Justin]

the garand to me would be a heck of a lot better club in hand to hand fighting too. It balances really well.

The odds of having to use your rifle as a club go down pretty significantly if you can carry a greater amount of ammunition.

 

[Robert]

Oh and Sam1911 I must have missed that movie, no the one about soldiers running up and down the Afghanistan moutains with 80-100lbs of gear.

You are aware that there is a war going on in Afghanistan correct? And the vast majority of the bad guys are holed up in some fairly nasty terrain. The only way to make sure they are got is to go into some of these places on foot and root them out. That means carrying all their combat gear on their back. Please stop with the "what soldiers carry heavy loads where" bit. It is insulting to our service members.

As has been pointed half a dozen times the documentary is called Restrepo. The OP, Restrepo, is named after a member of the unit that was killed in combat.

Just so we are clear on what county we are talking about,
https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/af.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geography_of_Afghanistan

 

[FlyinBryan]

really liked cop bob's post as well.

it is the father of the m14/m1a, which would not exist were it not for the garand.

the ole girl reeks of honor, bravery, and ultimate accomplishment.

 

[FlyinBryan]

although there are a few people in this thread that will disagree with the results of the following, it still greatly pleases me to be able to post it.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=431490

 

[NG VI]

Yes the Garand is "in some modified form" still fielded today. The Garand is semiauto and so are our current M16/.223s ect
The Garand was the founding semiauto standard issue rifle. Just because it's design is old doesn't mean it's junk.

Uhh, you do understand that firearm actions go deeper than just bolt/lever/pump/semi categories right? A Garand action is in no way the same as an AR-10/15 action, except that both use gases from the fired cartridge to power the extraction and loading process.

Saying the M16 is a "modified Garand" is ridiculous.

I'd really like to own a Garand at some point though, for nostalgic purposes.

 

[Maple_City_Woodsman]

M1 Garand not given enough credit in this day and age...

And the 49 Buick coupe was the best sports car ever made - After all, that strait 8 made 112 horsepower!

Never mind that the car weighed a ton (10lb rifle). Never mind the crank shaft will blow at high RPMS (m1 op rod)

It just doesn't get enough respect.

 

[Zak Smith]

I dig the M1 Garand. I own several of them, purchased from the CMP. They're a hoot to shoot, and I'd grab one in an instant if it was the only long-arm available. However, when you put it up against even the first round of magazine-fed battle rifles (say the M14 and FAL), it comes up short in obvious ways, just in terms of its operational limitations (ie manual of arms and operating procedures). And even those are much less effective weapons than the "assault rifle" platforms we have today, in terms of ability to make hits, ability to mount optics (which are a force multiplier), and size efficiency.

In 3-Gun we have a "He-Man" division for .45 pistols, pump-action 12 gauge shotguns, and full-power .30 caliber rifles. I have competed with my Garand for fun. But the guys that win tend to use either an M14 or something like a JP AR-10 or OBR.

-z

 

[Ian]

I love the M1, but it's not a modern design any more. The en bloc clip is inferior to box magazines for military use (and FWIW, back when I was practicing I could reload my M1 in much less than 5 seconds - but you'll never equal a box mag rate of fire with it). The use of grease for lubricant is a problem in sandy environments. The gas piston is way too long - the gas port should be closer to the receiver (look at the Bren gun evolution that started around the same time - the gas port moved progressively farther back as the ZB26 and ZB30 saw combat use).

The M1 was a fine gun in its day and deserves a lot of respect. But it shouldn't be standard military issue today any more than the BAR or Sten should be.

 

[FlyinBryan]

I'd really like to own a Garand at some point though, for nostalgic purposes.

if you ever buy one for nostalgic purposes (like a wall hanger or something), do yourself a favor, go shoot it sometime.


that being said,,,,
has it been passed by lighter, higher capacity, modern designs?
of course it has.

is it one mean motorscooter?
dont think it aint.

 

[Sam1911]

You are aware that there is a war going on in Afghanistan correct? And the vast majority of the bad guys are holed up in some fairly nasty terrain. The only way to make sure they are got is to go into some of these places on foot and root them out. That means carrying all their combat gear on their back. Please stop with the "what soldiers carry heavy loads where" bit. It is insulting to our service members.

As has been pointed half a dozen times the documentary is called Restrepo. The OP, Restrepo, is named after a member of the unit that was killed in combat.

Indeed. It was filmed, live, on the spot by an embedded photographer named Tim Heatherington who was killed by shrapnel earlier this year doing exactly the same kind of work covering the fighting in Lybia.

To compare the reality our soldiers face with the bubble-gum pop adventure flicks of your youth is very disrespectful, and to continually downplay their abilities and accomplishments speaks poorly of you ... and does nothing at all to promote your opinion.

 

[benEzra]

Oh and Sam1911 I must have missed that movie, no the one about soldiers running up and down the Afghanistan moutains with 80-100lbs of gear.

These soldiers, these mountains, and this gear:

 

[happygeek]

Does anyone really think the Garand isn't given enough credit and admiration today?

Most = over half, so this = BS. Replacement of the Garand by magazine fed rifles wasn't in full swing until the 60s.

It wasn't in full swing in the U.S. My history knowledge might be a little fuzzy on the exact details, but it seems Germany had every intention of making the StG44 their standard issue infantry rifle and did manage to get something like 400,000 of them made before the war ended. The Soviets had planned on phasing out the Nagant in favor of the SVT-40 but the German invasion interrupted their plans. They were using the AK-47 by the 50s and were putting the AKM into service by 59. Also, hadn't most of western Europe adopted the FAL by the 1960s?

 

[henschman]

An M1 would not be the best choice for a standard issue arm in a modern governmental armed force, for all the reasons mentioned. The poodle shooter is clearly king in that role.

However, if you are an insurgent who is fighting a modern armed force, it would be a pretty darn good choice... you would want something with a longer effective range than your mostly poodle shooter-armed adversaries so as to be able to ambush and harass from long distance. Close quarters performance wouldn't be as important since you would try to avoid engaging at those ranges if at all possible. It could be used in a limited anti-vehicle role against unarmored and lightly-armored vehicles.

Sure you would be better off with something more optic-friendly, something that weighed a pound or two less, and something with higher-capacity detachable magazines, but the M1 would certainly get the job done. It would only be marginally less effective than something like an M-14, FAL, or AR-10.

So though it may be a poor choice for a military rifle, it is still a great Second Amendment purpose rifle.

 

[Zak Smith]

Optics make more difference in the ability to make a medium and long range hits than cartridge, when shooting anything other than 6' black circles against white backgrounds.

 

[Hangingrock]

However, if you are an insurgent who is fighting a modern armed force, it would be a pretty darn good choice... you would want something with a longer effective range than your mostly poodle shooter-armed adversaries so as to be able to ambush and harass from long distance. Close quarters performance wouldn't be as important since you would try to avoid engaging at those ranges if at all possible. It could be used in a limited anti-vehicle role against unarmored and lightly-armored vehicles.

Believe me I witnessed that but ARVN equipped with the M1 were regularly getting roughly handled by the insurgents whom were armed with an assortment of weapons which more and more included the AK-47.

 

[Cop Bob]

I own 2 Garands, have had my 43 Winchester for about 35 years... It is one of my GO TO guns... that rifle and 600 meters and I own whatever is inside it... With iron sights.. it is a pure joy to shoot.. the gas system on the Garand absorbs a LOT of recoil.. More so than the M-14 or M1-A, due to the 14-m1a shorter gas rod and bolt...
There was a hunting trip I was invited on some years back.. I took 2 cases with three rifles with me... The first evening when we arrived, we went and checked out our hides, or stands.. I noted that my longest shot would be about 110-120 yards...

That evening, everyone drags out their fine bolt guns and $1000 scopes, I pull out one of mine... we all ooh and aahh at each other rifle... the next morning I have my 43 Winchester Garand slung over my shoulder... the looks I got... they could not BELIEVE that I was going to hunt with that old junker army gun.... Hey 100 yds with open sights,(and at the time 20-20 vision) if you can't do it, you REALLY need to take up another hobby...

I did not kill a deer on that trip,, but before we left, there was an informal rifle match... No one there left still believing that the M1 Garand was an old worn out Army junker.... It easily held its own against the scoped bolts...

 

[bergmen]

Any questions?

Dan

 

[Sam1911]

Any questions?

The OP might. He was wondering why they aren't fielded by today's Army. I don't think the cool old poster adequetely answers the question.