Why Did America Win the Race for a Semi-Automatic Infantry Rifle?

[Diamondback6]

There's also a story about, when the Garand rifle was submitted, the Army initially declined it for "too difficult to mass-produce", so John C. Garand, ornery cuss that he was (and God bless him for it!) basically said "Oh yeah? Watch and be amazed..." and then proceeded to design mass-production tooling for it.

 

[Z71]

I always figured it boiled down to the simple fact that we had citizen soldiers living in a democratic republic.

By which I mean the goverment has a responsibility to provide decent and modern arms to it's soldiers. The Army assigned the Springfield Armory to do something better than what everybody else had, and improve on the 1903. Lessons were learned in WWI, when we didn't have enough weapons to equip our troops. Had to borrow so much gear that it was an embarrasment, and a political fiasco at home. The war showed the value of automatic weapons, so thats where the efforts for a Modern rifle went.

I imagine money was short for the Army in the 1930's. The military needed to do a lot of R&D on all equipment. Tanks and aircraft are expensive, but rifles are cheaper.

Time on hand, little money, otherwise idle hands on the job at the armory, might as well put them to use figuring out a decent auto rifle! Probably lots of reasons for the M1.

Other countries had little money too, suffered far worse in the war, were notoriously near sighted in leadership. And were already ass deep in servicable rifles from WWI.

A combination of things I'm sure, but it all likely narrows down to the fact that some general officer ordered it developed. And so be it, it was done!

 

[roscoe]

What is interesting is that the other two Amrican designs, the Johnson and the Pederson, were also viable. The Johnson, of course, was used successfully, and was in many ways a superior rifle. I also personally think that if we had also used the .280 Pederson round we would have been even better off.

 

[lathedog]

Read Hatcher's book

Julian Hatcher documented the US Army’s search for a semi-automatic rifle in his “Book of the Garand” which is available from Amazon. I bought a copy several years ago and it was $24.95 at the time. It is a detailed record of the overall effort to field such a weapon, to include: strategic reasons for acquiring a semi-auto rifle, the many earlier attempts to field “something”, the many developmental issues with the Garand, and also talks about the Johnson rifle a bit.

Garand was a toolmaker by trade, and Hatcher comments that he developed complete drawings not only for the parts for the rifle, but also for the tooling needed to build the rifle. From his very first entry into the competition for selection he blew the competition away in this regard. Many of the competitor’s rifles had parts that were almost un-buildable. Garand developed every part with ease of manufacture in mind.

The book also goes into detail on foreign government interest in a semi-auto rifle, including historical usage and suppositions on intent. These competitions on the US side were of great interest to the other powerful nations at the time. We are talking about an advertised open source competition for a US government contract.

The Soviets built about as many SVT-40 rifles during WWII as there were Garands built in the US during WWII. The Soviet government seems to have issued them to elite formations typically held in reserve; these units tended to be “cards played close to the chest” and not visited by media – hence not photographed.

Without the development of the M-1 Carbine we would have likely seen US troops carrying M-1903 and M-1917 bolt actions into combat on a much larger scale. If you look at the serial number ranges of M-1 rifles vs. year of manufacture, it is apparent that the Garand rifle was barely made in sufficient quantities in barely enough time to equip troops headed overseas just in time for various campaigns in which US troops took part. The whole business was nearly miraculous and very lucky for us.

Reading the “Book of the Garand” really opened my eyes to a part of WWII history that I took for granted. The one thing that you walk away with is just how difficult the search for a reliable and accurate semi auto battle rifle was, how many crappy designs the ordnance board sifted through, and that even the Garand rifle went through many changes of to become the rifle that made WWII winnable for the US.

 

[Spiggy]

Dispatch, you raised a good point about military doctrine. But would not the BAR have enabled U.S. troops to conduct this doctrine without the Garand? These are outstanding points that are being raised here. Hopefully, we will get at the truth.

Have you ever handled a BAR?
Fully Loaded...
a 1919A4 is like carrying a refrigerator
the BAR is much like carrying a small refrigerator
and the Garand is much like carrying a small cooler

 

[Tony Williams]

I think it was a lot to do with an accident of timing.

The British accepted the Farquhar-Hill self-loading .303 rifle (complete with 19-round drum magazine) as being fit for service in late 1917, and authorised production of an initial batch of 100,000. However, WW1 manufacturing constraints were such that production did not get underway before the end of the war, when it was promptly cancelled.

The French made some use of the Win M1907 in .351 SL, and ordered a full-auto version late in the war, plus they necked-down the .351 cartridge to take 8mm bullets: given another couple of years, they would probably have had the world's first assault rifle with a purpose-designed intermediate cartridge in service.

It's true that money was short for everyone in the late 1920s/30s, but the European countries still hadn't recovered from four years of war and were sick of everything to do with war after that experience, anyway. So money was only spent where it had to be, and for the UK infantry weapons the Bren got priority (rightly IMO).

 

[rangerruck]

dont forget politics; I cant remember the dudes name, but he was a turn of the century prolific russian designer, and he came up with what was simply called the 'avtomat' , in something like 1905. But who's @SS must get scratched, which firm will get to build, who will make parts, who will get the credit, this all goes into effect.

 

[Tony Williams]

The Federov Avtomat selective-fire rifle in 6.5x50SR Arisaka calibre was adopted in 1916 and several thousand were made. They remained in use as late as the Winter War with Finland, but fell foul of the decision to standardise on the 7.62x54R cartridge. The pic below is from the brief history of assault rifles, on my website.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I also personally think that if we had also used the .280 Pederson round we would have been even better off.

I've heard it repeated more than once that the Garand would've been a better rifle had it been chambered in the .276 Pedersen round that it was designed for originally.

Forgive me if this is a stupid question, but why?

Look at the dimensions of the .276 Pedersen cartridge. It's 7x51mm. Due to powder limitations of the day, this cartridge was not compact like the current crop of six-point-whatevers. It was very nearly the same external dimensions of a .308 Winchester round.

The weight difference, therefore, would've been insignificant, in my opinion.

Ballistically, it was a 150 grain slug at about 2,400 feet per second. That's better than 7.62x39, and is very nearly identical to the .30-30WCF round. .30-30 isn't a barn burner, but it's no slouch either. (That muzzle velocity is also about what you'll get, with a 150 grain bullet, from a .308 with a 12-13" barrel.)

Now, the .276 Garand would've had two more rounds in the magazine, so that's a plus. It also would've had less recoil, also a plus. But the rifle itself wouldn't have been any shorter, lighter, or handier. The ammunition would've been lighter, but probably not enough to notice (if you can tell the weight difference between a box of .30-06 and a box of .308 without looking, then you'd notice the difference here).

On the flipside, the rifle would've had less range, penetration, and wouldn't have had the commonality of sharing the ammunition with the machine guns, which would've complicated things on the logistics end (though that's not necessarily a deal-breaker either).

Personally, I'm unconvinced that the .276 Garand would've been a significant improvement over the one that was issued. Am I wrong?

 

[Spiggy]

I thought the federov used a 6.5mm proprietary caliber that was similar to the 6.5 arisaka round, but not quite...

Kinda like load and neck differences in 308 and 7.62x51

 

[Vaarok]

The big issue isn't industry so much as politics. European generals were holdovers from the Franco-Prussian war, or trained by veterans thereof. The idea of multi-shot bolt actions was scandalous enough pre-WW1, considered foolish and prone to waste ammunition.

Add that to being broke post-war, and having immense stocks of leftover WW1 rifles that were only produced in sufficient quantities after they were needed, and a rearmament program was questionable.

American military leaders went from single-shot trapdoors, to not-enough-1903s, emergency adoption of the M1917, and borrowing SMLEs and Berthiers in quantity.

Very literally, our first experience with conventional army-on-army warfare rather than raiding, shooting mexican peasant conscripts, and indians, was facing off against Maxim MG 08/15s and storming trenches with a bolt-gun.

This was not considered favourable, and thus lots of ingenuity was poured into things like the Pistol, Cal .30 M1918, the Thompson Submachinegun, and the '97 Trench Gun.

Also, the quota of keeping the Army at a hundred thousand men or whatever it was before and after WW1 made getting funding slightly easier, because it helped keep cost projections down.

And yes, the technological familiarity of US troops also helped.

 

[gunnie]

garand development has deep roots

http://thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=325425

pls note that according to this document, the US had been actively engaged in developing a semiautomatic rifle for "over thirty years" as of aug 1932.

note also that they had already spent "upwards of one million dollars" on same. using $20 dollar an ounce gold as a yardstick, that equals $20 X 40 = $800, todays cost of gold.

or 40 million dollars in development of same. perhaps they were interested in a reliable, and by time period standards accurate conclusion to justify the expense?

gunnie

 

[MachIVshooter]

would not the BAR have enabled U.S. troops to conduct this doctrine without the Garand? These are outstanding points that are being raised here.

The BAR was two and a half times the weight and cost of the M1.

The Johnson, of course, was used successfully, and was in many ways a superior rifle.

Except for the whole lubricated ammunition bit................

 

[Matt-man]

Now, the .276 Garand would've had two more rounds in the magazine, so that's a plus. It also would've had less recoil, also a plus. But the rifle itself wouldn't have been any shorter, lighter, or handier.

Don't forget that these rifles actually exist, so we know what the M1 would have been like in .276. The .276 Garand that I saw at the Springfield Armory was significantly smaller than a .30 Garand. It's hard to see in this photo, but the shorter overall length is the most obvious difference. It's also quite a bit slimmer in general compared to the burly .30 M1. A gun rag article I saw quoted the weight difference at 1.5 pounds, but take that for what it's worth.

 

[Vern Humphrey]

The US Armed Forces shrank dramatically at the end of WWI. But there were serving officers of great talent who had had their eyes opened. If you look at what those officers did between the wars, with little money, you'd be amazed.

One of the things they did was plan. It didn't cost money to plan. They experimented -- which cost a little, but not all that much. The result was an Armed Force that didn't "plan to fight the last war," but was ready for the next war.

Among the dramatic developments were aircraft carriers (we were right up there in the planning and testing), amphibious landings (and the equipment to carry them out), long-range daylight bombardment, centrally-controlled artillery (something that astounded the Germans), dive bombing, the fireteam concept and the M1 rifle.

 

[dfariswheel]

The real reason is, the United States Army decided that we were GOING to have a standard issue semi-auto rifle, and unlike other countries, we made a serious concentrated effort to develop one.

Other countries development was much more on the order of experiment work, with no serious intent to actually adopt a semi-auto as anything more than a limited issue item.

The fact that our industry was better able to actually build a semi-auto didn't play that great a part, because Germany, Britain, France, and other countries also had the technology and tooling to do it.

Unlike any other country, America had SPORTING semi-auto rifles as far back as the early 1900's, and we had more inventors working on designs.

 

[Nightcrawler]

The .276 Garand that I saw at the Springfield Armory was significantly smaller than a .30 Garand. It's hard to see in this photo, but the shorter overall length is the most obvious difference.

That I did not know! Interesting!

However...it *is* possible to shorten the Garand. You get called all sorts of names by angry Crufflers for suggesting it, but with an 18" barrel the Garand is a handy little package.

Then again, the military didn't consider short, handy weapons a priority until sometime in the 1990s, I don't think.

 

[leadcounsel]

Why a clip in the Garand and not a removable box magazine that the user can top off between gun fights? Box magazines were in use.

Is the clip a large disadvantage? I would think yes.

 

[ACP230]

The M1's en-bloc clip is less of a disadvantage than you might think.
For one thing they can stay loaded for a very long time without any worry about springs weakening.
They were cheaper to make than magazines too and less of a problem if lost or destroyed.

I started shooting NRA High Power matches when Garands still were common on the line. I always had trouble loading mine quickly but I knew a lot of guys who were really fast at getting the M1 back into operation.

 

[roscoe]

Except for the whole lubricated ammunition bit................

That was the Pederson.

 

[TEDDY]

garand and ??????

every one forgets the Lewis gun,it was made by Savage for the British and used by Begium and Russia + .and what about the cho-cho as it was dubbed.
I have a book on that auto rifle.it could not have been as bad as we have made it out to be.I believe the reason we did not use the 276 was because we had so much 30/06 left over from ww1.the Johnson was a good rifle but complicated and did not need the removable barrel.the Johnson mg was exelent and was only 12 lbs.the garand had a muzzle gas trap in 1936.and barrels bent as they heated.the g41 had the same.the g43 got rid of it and the g43 was not that complicated and was accurate.Kocolas ran it down but I think he was mistaken.I had two and they werwe fired at wakefield mass range.our ordnance dept was killing our troops from civil war on.look at the weapons they gave the troops.trapdoor/krag even the 1903.there best was the 1911/1918/bar/and garand.even the m14 did not work the way it was planed.by the way the mannlicker clip is a fine system,think about it.if you put couple clips[garand]in your jacket seam you have two fast reloads.I did think the g43 was better till I got a garand.

 

[geekWithA.45]

In addition to simply having both the industrial capacity and know how, I also have to point out that adopting the second generation of a technology almost always has huge advantages to the long haul.

 

[Gator]

...it is apparent that the Garand rifle was barely made in sufficient quantities in barely enough time to equip troops headed overseas just in time for various campaigns in which US troops took part.

True for the ETO, but the Marines were still using the 1903 in the Pacific during Guadalcanal!

The M1's en-bloc clip is less of a disadvantage than you might think.

+1 for the reasons ACP230 stated, plus they are as quick, if not quicker, to reload and it is easier to simply give troops bandoleers full of pre-loaded clips than it is to issue bulk ammo for the troops to load in magazines, which are easily lost and damaged. There is also no gaping mag well for dirt and mud to get into.

P.S. I would love to have a slim little .276 Garand! That indeed would have been a wonderful battle rifle.

P.P.S. The .276 Pederson was very close in size and performance to the 6.8 SPC. We would have been 60+ years ahead of the game.

 

[Vaarok]

The Pedersen required drywax ammo. The Johnson got killed because the Army had spent three million on the M1 and didn't like some upstart Marine reserve officer coming up with a rifle made from an '03 barrel, an A-5 triggergroup, a knitting needle, and $300 in machinist work that beat it consistently.

The Johnson was much simpler to manufacture, more accurate, more reliable, faster loading, easier to clean, and incidentally shared parts commonality with the M1941 LMG, which was nigh six pounds lighter regarded as so far superior to the BAR it's almost a crime it wasn't adopted.

But the Army was in charge of weapons adoption and standardization, and the Army said the Marines couldn't have the Johnson.

 

[roscoe]

Exactly - and imagine a Johnson rifle in .276 Pederson . It would have been lighter, had a higher magazine capacity, in addition to the earlier listed advantages.