Whatif: Which rifle for WWII Patrol?

Status
Not open for further replies.
I'd do what my grandfather did: M1 for the countryside, and a Thompson in the city. If I had to pick just one forever, I'd pick the M1.

As to the 'dead man's ping', I doubt that such a sound would travel far, in conditions where people are lighting off .30-06 and 8mm mauser at each other.

Mike
 
As to the 'dead man's ping', I doubt that such a sound would travel far, in conditions where people are lighting off .30-06 and 8mm mauser at each other.
Click to expand...

I trained on the M1 when I came into the Army in '62, and carried one I bummed off the ARVN unit I advised in '66 and '67. I've heard that story about the "ping" a million times.

My response to that story is, "Lie down over there, just out of grenade range, and when you hear the ping, get up and charge. If you live to make it to your knees, I'll buy you a steak dinner."
 
Garand.

Avenger29 said "The M1 Carbine is UNACCURATE" You have never shot mine. I have one that will hold its own with most of my Garands. I have another that will still do well but wouldn't win any contests.
 
Seems like the M1 is the overwhelming winner.

The only drawbacks I can see in the Garand are capacity and no detachable magazine. The length of the round it fires is a little excessive. No reason for the length other than we had tons of .30-06 sitting in storage.
Its heavy too.

My Grandfather counted on his M1 to save his bacon during WWII in Japan, ditto for his brother in Europe.
 
The only drawbacks I can see in the Garand are capacity and no detachable magazine.
Click to expand...

Capacity is a not a problem with the Garand. With en block clips I can easily exceed the allowable rate of fire for the Garand -- the 8-round clip is FAST.

The lack of a detatchable magazine has three effects:

1. It makes the rifle unnecessarily complex -- strip a Garand and count all the extra parts the en block clip requires. The famous "Seventh Round Stoppage" was caused by an attempt to simplify manufacture.

2. It means you can't mount a scope over the bore -- because you can't load the rifle if you do.

3. It means you can't conviently top off the magazine.

The latter two aren't all that critical -- we used bolt action sniper rifles in those days, anyway (and still use them, by the way). And the speed with which you can reload makes topping off less critical than with other weapons.
 
To Ed: Is your Carbine a stock GI issue?


Also, .30-06 is never an excessive round. No such thing. The M1 Garand is the BEST firearm ever made, and will forever hold that distinction. It does for close-in and long-range. The "dead-man's ping" is a non-existant problem.
 
1. It makes the rifle unnecessarily complex -- strip a Garand and count all the extra parts the en block clip requires. The famous "Seventh Round Stoppage" was caused by an attempt to simplify manufacture.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the en bloc clip makes it more reliable. The parts count is slightly higher, but they're forged parts; protected by the receiver and stock. Magazine lips are stamped and are exposed to all sorts of hazards.


How is "capacity" a drawback?? Eight is more than five (the number of rounds that are in you're WWII adversaries' magazines).

Ty
 
I'd argue that the en bloc clip makes it more reliable. The parts count is slightly higher, but they're forged parts; protected by the receiver and stock. Magazine lips are stamped and are exposed to all sorts of hazards.
Click to expand...

True in theory, but not in actual experience. Magazines for the BAR functioned well, as did those for the M14. And when you come across a bad magazine, you throw it away. Magazines are cheap and plentiful on the battlefield.

The problem with the en block clip was the resulting COST and DIFFICULTY of manufacture of the rifle -- it was cutting edge when adopted, and civilian firms had problems making reliable M1s for quite a while. Had it had a detatchable magazine at the outset, it would have been cheaper and easier to manufacture, and we would have got civilian firms into full production a lot sooner.
 
The problem with the en block clip was the resulting COST and DIFFICULTY of manufacture of the rifle -- it was cutting edge when adopted, and civilian firms had problems making reliable M1s for quite a while. Had it had a detatchable magazine at the outset, it would have been cheaper and easier to manufacture, and we would have got civilian firms into full production a lot sooner.
Click to expand...

Agree 100%. That's pretty true for the whole rifle--a whole lotta skilled labor required to build them.
 
Agree 100%. That's pretty true for the whole rifle--a whole lotta skilled labor required to build them.
Click to expand...

If I'd been around to make the rules, the M1 would have had a detatchable magazine.

Hell, if I'd been around, the '03 Springfield would have had aperture sights on the receiver bridge and a wide, flatopped blade front sight with "ears" to protect it. It would also have had safety and bolt handle compatible with a scope, and forged scope mounts on the receiver.

The BAR would have been belt fed with a quick change barrel.
 
Well, short of a DeLisle carbine or the seemingly apocryphal box magazine fed M1 the standard M1 would do.
 
I asked my father this very question a few years before we lost him to cancer at age 80.

He said that during his four months in theater roaming through France and Belgium (and trying to cross the Rhine river as the Germans defensively shelled and mortared his buddies and him), he got the opportunity to carry just about everything. BAR, Reising submachine gun, M1 Garand, Thompson, and M1 carbine for example.

He said that whenever he carried and used anything that was full-auto, he felt like he "had a big target painted on" him. He didn't like to talk about the war much, but I gathered that a good portion of his time was spent doing the same street fighting that was in the movie "Band of Brothers." It was during this combat that everytime he fired a burst of full-auto, the Germans would decide that he was worthy of their intense attention.

All of these weapons were heavy, and even though he was a strapping 6-foot-something and 220 pounds (and I later learned -- a full football scholarship to U of Pitt prior to being drafted), he preferred the light weight of the M1 carbine and as much ammo as he could carry. Kind of surprised me a bit.

The week of his funeral, we went through his momentos. That's where I found the letter from U-Pitt. Turns out that although he got a full ride, this son of a barber in a coal mining town couldn't afford the cost of books.

I knew that he was awarded a Purple Heart for severe injuries he suffered near the Rhine in a mortar barrage (left for dead in the mud with shrapnel through his lung, but was able to raise his hand to signal the last retreating jeep). This happened in or around the Ardennes just two weeks before the Battle of the Bulge. Next surprise... in his four short months, he was awarded not one, but four Bronze Stars. He never told us about them.

Hmmm. M1 Carbine. I just have to get one.

Rick
 
BAR

No other weapon was in front line service in the US arsenal from 1917-the early '60s. I have met two green beanies that carried the BAR in Vietnam as advisors.

Yeah it's heavy. Yeah it's loud. But with AP ammo it's a beast... you can shoot through walls, cars, trees etc.

To me, no other WW2 long arm has the mystique, the history or the firepower of the BAR.

Though I can understand why paratroopers liked the carbine... lightwieght and you can hump a ton of ammo.
 
If I have to carry a big, heavy rifle... forget the M1, pass the BAR! Twenty rounds of 30-06 in a full-auto magazine fed rifle. Nothing says "Hello, you're annoying me!" like a hail of AP.
 
Seems like the Garand would likely draw the least attention from snipers as well. Thompsons and greaseguns both scream "officer" or "nco".
 
Bar

Reliable, powerful, selective fire, accurate, magazine fed, , detachable magazine, good sights, gas operated, and not too heavy to carry the distance.
 
not too heavy to carry the distance.
Click to expand...

Have you folks ever handled a BAR. Now I will be the first to admit that I am an out of shape asthmatic spoiled brat but even with that being said the BAR is one big honkin piece of steel to lug around. I personally wouldn't want to have to run with the thing much less lug it and magazines and ammo and my other gear. Heck the Garand is plenty for heavy for me over the long haul.

Just curious. I have handled a BAR and it is way more gun then I would want to lug around on patrol.
 
my dad told me if you screwed up you carried the BAR
that tells me that it was very heavy
 
M1A1 Thompson :D

Reasons:

1. Rate of Fire
2. Ammo is easily found on our side
3. Mags are in good supply on our side
4. It's short, easy to swing around in an urban enviroment
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

E
  • Locked
  • Poll
*Hypothetical* WWII: What do you carry?
2
Replies
41
Views
2K
texlurch
T
R
  • Locked
Accuracy WWII Rifles?
Replies
18
Views
4K
geojap
G
hps1
  • Locked
Interesting Article on History of the M1 Garand
Replies
11
Views
1K
Garandimal
Garandimal
D
  • Locked
New production of old designs... why not?
Replies
9
Views
603
Lobotomy Boy
L
C
  • Locked
Help Finding Authentic Springfield, Garand & Carbine For Museum Display
Replies
17
Views
648
RCArms.com
R
Back
Top