Seems to me they were of the same time, so not much of a question. Having owned a Garand I can say I want another and it is a fine implement. My question is this. If you were in combat, how would you ammo manage the Garand? Shoot until empty always? Dump a partial clip and reload in a lull? Dump a partial clip and retain ammo and spent clips to reclip later? Did the Army train a specific method?
Which WAS better army rifle of its time?
- Thread starter OneShot!
- Start date
- Status
GarandOwner
Member
Not to jack the thread, but my understanding is that most would just fire off the last few rounds, rather than take the trouble to unload and reload partials
Ash
Member
Bang bang bang bang bang bang bang bang <<PING>> is a whole lot better than
Bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- <<click>>
The manipulating hand must be taken from the rifle to operate the bolt. No matter what you think, the Enfield is, as a matter of fact, slower to operate than the Garand.
In close combat, the Garand is so much better than the Enfield I'm surprised it's even an issue. And reloading the Garand was MUCH MUCH faster than the Enfield, more than twice as fast (punch the clip and and go, versus slide the charger into the guide, slam five rounds down, then slide a second one, five more rounds. Skip the second reload and make it almost as fast as the Garand? Fine, but you only have five rounds, three rounds fewer). Tell me, who on this board recommends a bolt action rifle for home-defense???? Who recommends a semi????
Using different ammo was irrelevenet as the troops fired what was issued, which was already on clips. The clip was bar none the fastest reload, faster even than a box magazine (though the fewer rounds made reloading more often, offsetting this advantage).
It was the greatest rifle issued in WWII, so much better than the bolt guns issued to the common soldier of every other army, that it is better in WWII than the SMLE was in WWI.
Ash
Bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- bang --- <<click>>
The manipulating hand must be taken from the rifle to operate the bolt. No matter what you think, the Enfield is, as a matter of fact, slower to operate than the Garand.
In close combat, the Garand is so much better than the Enfield I'm surprised it's even an issue. And reloading the Garand was MUCH MUCH faster than the Enfield, more than twice as fast (punch the clip and and go, versus slide the charger into the guide, slam five rounds down, then slide a second one, five more rounds. Skip the second reload and make it almost as fast as the Garand? Fine, but you only have five rounds, three rounds fewer). Tell me, who on this board recommends a bolt action rifle for home-defense???? Who recommends a semi????
Using different ammo was irrelevenet as the troops fired what was issued, which was already on clips. The clip was bar none the fastest reload, faster even than a box magazine (though the fewer rounds made reloading more often, offsetting this advantage).
It was the greatest rifle issued in WWII, so much better than the bolt guns issued to the common soldier of every other army, that it is better in WWII than the SMLE was in WWI.
Ash
kBob
Member
Lets look at a few things.
The magazine of a M-1 Rifle holds eight rounds in a enbloc clip.
The magazine of a #4 or a SMLE each holds ten rounds naked.
To load an M-1 Rifle for use as a repeater requires the use of the enbloc clip.
The Enfields may be loaded either with two five shot strippers or single rounds to fill the magazine and the rifle once loaded fires normally without clips being available.
Sounds like the Lee Enfield has some advantages.
But wait.
Suppose one was in say combat rather than on the range. Lets take a 40 round engagement to look at.
Ammo for the Lee was generally carried in five round chargers or stripper clips.
Ammo for the M-1 was generally carried in 8 round enbloc clips.
Lets start with the rifle loaded when the need to fire 40 rounds occurs.
The Lee Enfield man flips off his safety and pulls his trigger and opens his bolt ten times, then reloads one clip, then another, closes his bolt and starts over.
To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates six clips which must also be removed from the rifle and works his bolt 39 times.
The M-1 Rifleman flips off his safety and pulls his trigger eight times, the bolt locks itself back, the empty clip is ejected and he loads one clip and manipulates the bolt to allow it to go forward and then repeats.
To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates four clips which are self ejecting and works his bolt 4 times.
Suddenly the Lee Enfield starts to look a bit shabby.
It is absolutley true that the M-1 Rifle can not be practiclly topped off with single rounds while partially loaded. On the other hand ejecting a partially loaded clip and replacing it with a fully loaded one is rather easy.
Anyone that has honestly done any rapid fire at multiple targets at under 50 yards against the clock can not believe that the Lee Enfield is as fast to use as and M-1 Rifle. It takes longer to reload fully with its “superior” ten round clip than the M-1 Rifle does with its “inferior” eight round one.
I have no doubt that there are Lee Enfield s that will shoot rings around an average issue M-1 Rifle.....and have no doubts that there are M-1 Rifles that will shot rings around the average LE of whatever model.
Some LEs had some pretty good sights on them. There were a host of different sights. Few were capable of being rezeroed to hit point of aim in the field and required an experienced shooter very familure with “Kentucky windage” and its application over different ranges and conditions. Sights ranged from the Parker Hale match sights to a crude non adjustable L type flip sight.
Every M-1 Rifle had Excellent sights on them. Every rifle could be easily zeroed and its range scale moved to allow accurate range adjustments for different engagements if necessary with either simple tools or just the rim of a fired cartridge. Windage was easily altered and there is a hatch mark scale and repeatable click system to allow resetting to windage zero.
For general issue to troops with average training the M-1 Rifle beats the over all LE family hands down.
Now as a US poster some of the commonwealth types are going to say I am biased to the M-1 Rifle because it is an ‘merican gun. Yes, one designed by a Canadian born designer. I guess you could say he was a very North American designer and leave it at that.
I would point out that the Lee Enfield uses the action and basic magazine design of a designer from the USA.
Yes , I do have more experience with the M-1 Rifle than the various LE Rifles. I have shot a number of the earlier SMLE long jobbers with the tangent rear sights though most of my experience with No.4 rifles was with only two rifles, a like new Savage and an “experienced” and mount stripped (T) variant that still shot quite well.
Having literally fired some of those rifles side by side with the M-1 and allowed the owners of some to shoot my M-1 of the moment, I will stand by my assertion that given the same training time and standards the M-1 made a given soldier a better, more useful soldier.
Thus the M-1 was the better rifle.
-Bob Hollingsworth
The magazine of a M-1 Rifle holds eight rounds in a enbloc clip.
The magazine of a #4 or a SMLE each holds ten rounds naked.
To load an M-1 Rifle for use as a repeater requires the use of the enbloc clip.
The Enfields may be loaded either with two five shot strippers or single rounds to fill the magazine and the rifle once loaded fires normally without clips being available.
Sounds like the Lee Enfield has some advantages.
But wait.
Suppose one was in say combat rather than on the range. Lets take a 40 round engagement to look at.
Ammo for the Lee was generally carried in five round chargers or stripper clips.
Ammo for the M-1 was generally carried in 8 round enbloc clips.
Lets start with the rifle loaded when the need to fire 40 rounds occurs.
The Lee Enfield man flips off his safety and pulls his trigger and opens his bolt ten times, then reloads one clip, then another, closes his bolt and starts over.
To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates six clips which must also be removed from the rifle and works his bolt 39 times.
The M-1 Rifleman flips off his safety and pulls his trigger eight times, the bolt locks itself back, the empty clip is ejected and he loads one clip and manipulates the bolt to allow it to go forward and then repeats.
To fire 40 rounds from his ready rifle requires he manipulates four clips which are self ejecting and works his bolt 4 times.
Suddenly the Lee Enfield starts to look a bit shabby.
It is absolutley true that the M-1 Rifle can not be practiclly topped off with single rounds while partially loaded. On the other hand ejecting a partially loaded clip and replacing it with a fully loaded one is rather easy.
Anyone that has honestly done any rapid fire at multiple targets at under 50 yards against the clock can not believe that the Lee Enfield is as fast to use as and M-1 Rifle. It takes longer to reload fully with its “superior” ten round clip than the M-1 Rifle does with its “inferior” eight round one.
I have no doubt that there are Lee Enfield s that will shoot rings around an average issue M-1 Rifle.....and have no doubts that there are M-1 Rifles that will shot rings around the average LE of whatever model.
Some LEs had some pretty good sights on them. There were a host of different sights. Few were capable of being rezeroed to hit point of aim in the field and required an experienced shooter very familure with “Kentucky windage” and its application over different ranges and conditions. Sights ranged from the Parker Hale match sights to a crude non adjustable L type flip sight.
Every M-1 Rifle had Excellent sights on them. Every rifle could be easily zeroed and its range scale moved to allow accurate range adjustments for different engagements if necessary with either simple tools or just the rim of a fired cartridge. Windage was easily altered and there is a hatch mark scale and repeatable click system to allow resetting to windage zero.
For general issue to troops with average training the M-1 Rifle beats the over all LE family hands down.
Now as a US poster some of the commonwealth types are going to say I am biased to the M-1 Rifle because it is an ‘merican gun. Yes, one designed by a Canadian born designer. I guess you could say he was a very North American designer and leave it at that.
I would point out that the Lee Enfield uses the action and basic magazine design of a designer from the USA.
Yes , I do have more experience with the M-1 Rifle than the various LE Rifles. I have shot a number of the earlier SMLE long jobbers with the tangent rear sights though most of my experience with No.4 rifles was with only two rifles, a like new Savage and an “experienced” and mount stripped (T) variant that still shot quite well.
Having literally fired some of those rifles side by side with the M-1 and allowed the owners of some to shoot my M-1 of the moment, I will stand by my assertion that given the same training time and standards the M-1 made a given soldier a better, more useful soldier.
Thus the M-1 was the better rifle.
-Bob Hollingsworth
M1 Shooter
Member
A big +1!!
Amen brother!! I couldn't have said it better myself.
Shell Shucker
Member
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2006
- Messages
- 189
Ash and KBOB, Great posts! I knew the M-1 was a lot more user friendly (more fire power) before you posted. I just didn't do the math. 39 bolt manipulations and 6 reloads vs 4 reloads/bolt manipulations per 40 rounds and simply pull the trigger...... WOW!
jaholder1971
Member
Bottom Line: I don't care. In the face of egomaniac Germans hell bent on creating a Master race of literal Barbie and Ken Doll type humans at the expense of the rest of the planet I'll take either rifle as long as you keep the right caliber ammo coming!
Picknlittle
Member
I watched a program on the military channel the other night. Top Ten Military Rifles of All Time, or something to that effect.
At any rate, the Garand came in about 4th I think. #1 was the AK-47. It was a really interesting piece. I don't know if there is a place you can check out Mil Channel archives or not. Last night was Top Ten Tanks. Cool!
At any rate, the Garand came in about 4th I think. #1 was the AK-47. It was a really interesting piece. I don't know if there is a place you can check out Mil Channel archives or not. Last night was Top Ten Tanks. Cool!
Picknlittle
Member
Found the site.
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow.html
The list is numbered backward here. The images numbered 1-10 are in reverse order of the way they were ranked.
http://military.discovery.com/convergence/topten/rifles/slideshow/slideshow.html
The list is numbered backward here. The images numbered 1-10 are in reverse order of the way they were ranked.
- Status
