Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

M1 Garand vs. M1941 Johnson.

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by Shadow Man, Jan 3, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    So I witnessed a discussion today during which a friend of mine insisted that had the American Army and Marines been armed with the M1941 Johnson rifle during World War II instead of the M1 Garand, they would have been a more effective and lethal force. Not knowing much about the Johnson, I really couldn't say much. So...what's the story? Enlighten me, please.
     
  2. 1KPerDay

    1KPerDay Member

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    12,477
    Location:
    Happy Valley, UT
    Dunno how much more effective they'd have been, but the Johnson is a really cool rifle and probably better than the M1 (though I consider the M1 the coolest rifle ever). The Johnson carried more rounds (10 IIRC) and could be topped off easily at any time, unlike the Garand. That's probably the chief advantage.
     
  3. NG VI

    NG VI Member

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2007
    Messages:
    4,884
    Location:
    Maine
    Pretty sure the Johnson wasn't as reliable as the Garand, and I wasn't aware that the U.S. Armed Forces were an ineffective force. I think either rifle probably would have given roughly the same performance.
     
  4. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    Hey, I'm on the same page with you guys; I thought the Greatest Generation did a fine job during WWII. I'm just wondering if there is anything to the M1941 being better than the M1.
     
  5. Lone Star

    Lone Star Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2003
    Messages:
    1,744
    Location:
    SW USA
    The Garand was better for bayonet fighting, some of which definitely took place, and the barrel was less exposed to weather.

    Probably disassembled better, too. More compact package and eeasier to get into action after paratroops lannded. I think some jumped with rifles taken down, in canvas webbing gear.

    Lone Star
     
  6. SDC

    SDC Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2003
    Messages:
    3,116
    Location:
    People's Republic of Canada
    The Johnson is sort of a neat design, but didn't turn out to be very reliable when it got dirty, being recoil-operated; when the Marines WERE issued with them (they were given some that were originally built for the Dutch, but their possessions in the Pacific were over-run before the rifles were delivered), the guys that actually had to USE them made it clear that they preferred the 1903 to the Johnson.
     
  7. xx7grant7x

    xx7grant7x Member

    Joined:
    Dec 10, 2007
    Messages:
    382
    I'd have to agree with these as the only "advantages"...
     
  8. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    I never knew that the Marines had any of the rifles; only the machine guns. That's interesting though, I didn't know they got that dirty. Anything else?
     
  9. anteken

    anteken Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2006
    Messages:
    7
    Location:
    Mountains of Western NC
    I own both. The Johnson is an interesting design but the bayonet is a joke. I have also completely disassembled both and the Johnson has many, many small (and I mean small) parts that would be way too easy to lose. The ability to top off the Johnson's magazine using 5 round 1903 stripper clips (or single rounds) was good but the Garand is, by far, the better rifle. Of course, I think the enbloc clip is a bad idea compared to a replaceable magazine like the M1 Carbine and (later) the M14 which was just an updated Garand. But for the time, it was the best battle rifle in widespread use.
     
  10. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,374
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    Johnson made a lot of noise, enlisting politicians in his quest to have the Garand replaced with his rifle. As noted the Marines had a few early in the war. But when they were replaced with Garands, few Marines shed any tears -- despite the fact that Johnson himself was a Marine.
     
  11. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    Well, that seems pretty definitive. Thanks gentlemen, I appreciate it.
     
  12. Speedo66

    Speedo66 Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2008
    Messages:
    3,145
    Awfully thin looking barrel, wonder how that held up to combat conditions?
     
  13. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    7,519
    Location:
    Alabama
    Johnson had a good idea but the rifle certainly did not have the development time that the Garand had. The Johnson rifle was just going through Alpha testing but the Garand had already completed Beta Testing.

    If the Johnson had been mandated, then we would have seen a similar fiasco of failures that happened in the Vietnam War. GI’s were killed when the unproven M16 replaced the M14 in Vietnam.

    You can see that the procurement of military arms were just as political before WWII, as afterwards.

    Johnson failed because he did not have enough money to buy off the political and military establishment. You look at the efforts of Colt in the 60’s, that Corporation did, and they got the M14 replaced.

    Today, you can look at Corporation influence in the procurement of the KC-45 Air Force Tanker. Two contractors bid on the thing, Boeing and the European dominated Northrup contingent. The USAF picked Northrup. Boeing had the Secretary of Defense stop the contract award, restart the source selection activity, but since the USAF got the wrong answer, the USAF was removed as the source selection authority. Boeing needed more time to revamp their proposal so the SecDef extended the award period by a year. Recently I have read material that the new proposal favors small aircraft, which guess what, is the Boeing aircraft.
     
  14. Joe Demko

    Joe Demko Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    6,523
    Location:
    Just two minutes from sanity.
    The Johnson rifle needed work, IMO. The Garand had issues and needed modifications after it was adopted. If the Johnson had been adopted and been the object of PIP programs too, it would likely have evolved into a better weapon too.
     
  15. Vern Humphrey

    Vern Humphrey Member

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Messages:
    18,374
    Location:
    Deep in the Ozarks
    The recoil-operated Johnson was probably doomed to failure -- the "tent peg" bayonet, necessary because a heavier bayonet would slow the recoil -- is only a symptom of the rifle's problems. The Johnson was complex, heavier and longer than the M1, inherently less reliable, and expensive to produce.
     
  16. mshootnit

    mshootnit Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,016
    A while back in either the American Rifleman or Shooting Times, a Marine from WWII wrote in and asked why there were no good articles on the Johnson, in the letter to the mag, he stated that in his opinion the Johnson was the best rifle of the war as it could be topped off, it ran with sand all over in it, and he mentioned an automatic rifle too. I am sure he was referring to the Pacific theater. He also mentioned that he was never made aware of why they took them away.
     
  17. Dave P

    Dave P Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    1,600
    Location:
    North Florida
    and in my limited exposure, the Johnson was much less accurate, with its barrel that moved around during recoil/reloading.
     
  18. Jim K

    Jim K Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    17,566
    FWIW, I too have both rifles and have fired both.

    The charges levelled against almost everyone by Johnson supporters were absurd and probably caused Johnson more trouble than anything else. There was a lot of politics involved, with the anti-Roosevelt faction condemning the Army and backing Johnson. In addition, Johnson was a Marine reserve officer, and many Marines just automatically took the side of a Marine, regardless of the quality of the rifle. It was even claimed that Johnson "knew what he was doing" because he had served in combat in WWI, something that was plainly not true (Johnson never made any such claim).

    The usual pro-Johnson line was that the Army hated Johnson and his rifle because it was not developed by the Army ("not invented here") and that the generals backed the inferior Garand because it was a Springfield Armory development. (Garand was slammed as something close to an incompetent crook, even a "foreign" traitor.)

    In what seem to have been reasonable and fair tests, the Johnson came in second best. Johnson claimed that the army should have "two arrows in its bow", in other words, two good rifles, one of which, of course, would be his. Had the Johnson been adopted, there would have been FIVE rifles in U.S. service in WWII - the others being the M1 Rifle, the M1903, the M1917 and the M1/M2 Carbine.

    The Johnson did have some advantages, already mentioned, and would have been easier to clean after firing corrosive ammo. But I have always considered it as not being fully developed. Further, it is an awkward rifle. The light bayonet mentioned above was necessary because the rifle was short recoil operated and the conventional M1905 bayonet was heavy enough to interfere with the rifle's operation.

    (If you want a modern comparison, look at the health care bill; almost none of the rhetoric on either side actually involves the content of the bill, only the lies told about it, for and against.)

    Jim
     
  19. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    Thank you Jim, that sums it up rather nicely I think.
     
  20. Trebor

    Trebor Member

    Joined:
    Feb 15, 2003
    Messages:
    4,817
    From what I read the Johnson LMG was actually a pretty good design and had some advantages over the BAR, including lighter weight. The Marines issues a few and the US/Canadian Special Services unit used them in Italy and reportedly were very pleased with them.
     
  21. briansmithwins

    briansmithwins Member

    Joined:
    Aug 1, 2005
    Messages:
    4,060
    Has there ever been a successful reciprocating barrel service rifle? I can't think of one. BSW
     
  22. Shadow Man

    Shadow Man Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2009
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Anywhere my boots take me.
    I'd be hesitant to call it a "service rifle" but the M82A1/M107 .50BMG uses a reciprocating barrel.
     
  23. scoutsabout

    scoutsabout Member

    Joined:
    Dec 14, 2009
    Messages:
    141
    Location:
    Paradise (Pacific Northwest)
    My father-in-law has a Johnson. Actually, funny story... his old dad used to have it. Then, when it came up at a family affair, old gramps asked "who's got the Johnson?" To which I replied suggestively: "Uh, I've got a Johnson." Everyone laughed. Gramps missed it, and started talking about how it was a great machine that would operate in the mud and grime, and just keep going. Everyone continued to laugh.

    Anyway, I got to inspect and shoot it once. Cool gun, but I would have to agree that the Garand would be a better choice in an all-out combat rifle.
     
  24. skidooman603

    skidooman603 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2008
    Messages:
    999
    Location:
    Northern Michigan
    Either way I sure would love to own one to help round out my WWll collection
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page