M1 Garand

The M1 Garand has been regarded as the best firearm in WW2, can someone please tell me why?

 

Best is a subjective term and some will disagree. What makes it stand out to me as a basic infantry rifle is that it was semi-auto at a time when most armies were still using bolt action. Indeed, at the time of US entry into the war, the M1903 Springfield was still commonly issued to US troops and remained so for a long time. So, the M1 Garand was the latest thing in 1942/43.

US forces did not regard it as perfect for all uses and the M1903 Springfield was still the preferred sniper's rifle.

 

The reasons that the Garand was so popular among GIs were:

Semi-Automatic firing
Large Caliber round, one shot kill capability
Long Range
High Caliber
Fast Reload time (of a new magazine)
Extremely, extremely reliable
Very accurate

Bad things about it:

Somewhat heavy
Magazines could not be partially reloaded
The rifle made a lound *ping* when the magazine was expended, so enemies knew when they could run at you, however some GIs used this to their advantage by throwing empties at rocks and waiting for the charge

The Garand was undoubtedly the best service rifle in use during World War 2.

 

What makes a semi-auto superior over a bolt action is the ability to get off a second aimed shot faster than any bolt. Bolt actions tend to be off target when the bolt is cycled to put in a fresh round. The British Lee-enfield had a short bolt throw which cut down on the problem.

 

Official nomenclature -- US rifle, cal.30, M1

I will refer to these rifles as "Garands" (after the inventor, John C. Garand) hereafter as a matter of convenience for that was a term of endearment and convenience employed by so many GIs.

I have shot many thousands of rounds using the Garand rifle (in match competition firing) -- it was indeed a superb Infantry weapon. In addition to its superior rate of aimed fire, it had the best issue sights I have encountered on a military rifle (positive click adjustments for elevation and windage), was extremely accurate and very reliable.

I was issued two Garands in the US military and fired numerous others in my capacity as NCOIC Marksmanship Training/Range Officer.

They made up into excellent target rifles and accurized versions were produced by Military Marksmanship Centers -- with polished sears/hammer hooks, crisply adjusted trigger pulls and carefully bedded barrelled actions in the stocks -- I have scored several possibles (100x100) at 600 yds on the "B" (National Match course) target using two such rifles.

I have also fired Springfield bolt action rifles (US Rifle, cal.30, Model 1903, A1 and A3) quite frequently. This was also a fine Infantry weapon although the rate of aimed fire was naturally not on a par with the Garand and the sights were inferior by comparison.

Both the Garand and Springfield 1903 rifles used the 30/06 rimless cartridge -- a very powerful and accurate round. The commonest cartridge configuration issued in WWII used the 150 grain flat based cupro-nickle bullet at muzzle velocity of approx. 2800 fps -- tracer, incendiary and armor-piercing versions were issued in lesser quantities. Some long range cartridges (AKA competition cartridges) using a 172 grain boat-tail cupro-nickle bullet at a muzzle velocity of approx 2650 fps were issued, mainly for use in sniper rifles (equipped with leather cheek pieces and telescopic scope sights).

Both rifles were equipped with leather (older pre-war) or web adjustable slings and the Springfield with the M1 (earlier WWI vintage) bayonet and the Garand with either the M1 or M5 (short WWII) bayonet.

Incidentally, the Garand can be readily loaded with a partial clip by those who attain the skill -- usually target competition shooters who are used to initially loading with a partial clip of two rounds at the start of each rapid fire string (loading with a full eight round clip after the first two rounds are discharged) -- I can load a partial clip with ease and reasonable rapidity (I have had a lot of practice). I think the old saw about a weakness of the Garand being the "ping" of the ejected clip allowing a rush by an opponent during the reloading of a new clip in combat is overblown and somewhat of a myth. Even a moderately dexterous soldier can reload very rapidly and resume delivering aimed fire in a split second. Partially expended clips can be easily ejected via the clip release latch on the side of the receiver. It can also be loaded and fired as a single shot weapon if the need should arise, in fact, that is the way it is used in competitive/qualification long range shooting (600 & 1000 yards).

The Garand was the standard US issue Infantry rifle in WWII (and also in the Korean War). It was in general use by early 1942. The last unit to use 1903 Springfield rifles as standard issue was the US Marine Corps at Guadalcanal -- once they saw the effectiveness of the Garands in the hands of the Army units they soon adopted that weapon (and some Johnson rotary magazine semi-automatic rifles). The Springfield 1903 rifle was issued and used in a sniper configuration on a limited basis during WWII (and also in the Korean War).

In my opinion the best features of the "Garand" are its property of being able to deliver rapid aimed fire, its rugged reliability & dependability and its excellent sights.

The feared "M1 thumb" is a rookie mistake experienced when first learning to handle the rifle in basic training -- it is a result of incorrect handling during dissassembly and assembly training and dry firing exercises -- depressing the follower with the bolt locked open without controlling the operating rod handle -- the bolt then slams shut on the thumb (or fingers) producing a painful bruise. The correct drill is to position the heel of the right hand against the operating rod handle to prevent it from flying forward as the thumb depresses the follower -- just allowing the bolt to engage the bevelled rear of the follower then swinging the hand up and away thereby allowing the bolt to lock home.

Most recruits experience an "M1 thumb" at least once (the painful lesson is usually well learned) and it is considered a rite of passage by many small arms instructors. This situation does not occur during live firing as the top round in the clip controls the operating rod closure.WII (and also in the Korean War).

 

I meant to add the following summary to my previous posting:

In my opinion the best features of the "Garand" are its property of being able to deliver rapid aimed fire, its rugged reliability & dependability and its excellent sights.

I also should have added that it can be loaded and fired rapidly as a single shot weapon if the need should arise.

 

Originally posted by jamesicus@May 6 2004, 05:05 AM
I have shot many thousands of rounds using the Garand rifle
On another forum I visit, there was a discussion on "M1 thumb", a condition you could get from reloading incorrectly and getting your thumb caught. Apparently it would cause a very painful blood blister to form under the tumbnail.

Did it ever happen to you?

 

Originally posted by angie999+Jun 3 2004, 10:15 AM-->(angie999 @ Jun 3 2004, 10:15 AM)</div><div class='quotemain'><!--QuoteBegin-jamesicus@May 6 2004, 05:05 AM
I have shot many thousands of rounds using the Garand rifle
On another forum I visit, there was a discussion on "M1 thumb", a condition you could get from reloading incorrectly and getting your thumb caught. Apparently it would cause a very painful blood blister to form under the tumbnail.

Did it ever happen to you?[/b]Just a couple of times when I was first learning to handle the weapon -- and only during dissassembly and assembly training and dry firing exercises.

The reason for this happening is failure to hold the operating rod handle back when depressing the follower in order to close the bolt and cock the weapon for firing/dry firing or in order to check/test the trigger pull. The drill is to position the heel of the right hand against the operating rod handle to prevent it from flying forward as the thumb depresses the follower -- just allowing the bolt to engage the bevelled rear of the follower then swinging the hand up and away thereby allowing the bolt to lock home.

The "M1 thumb" results from depressing the follower with the bolt locked open without controlling the operating rod handle -- the bolt then slams shut on the thumb (or fingers) producing a painful bruise.

Most recruits experience an "M1 thumb" at least once (the painful lesson is usually well learned) and it is considered a rite of passage by many small arms instructors.

This situation does not occur during live firing as the top round in the clip controls the operating rod closure.

 

Just out of curiosity, when did the US Army stop issuing the M1 and adopt the M14? (I was wondering why the M14's "lifespan" was so short as an issue weapon - what was wrong with it?)

B.

 

Quite a lot of people say that the M14 is an M1 modified for full auto and with a detachable magazine holding more rounds. They are clearly members of the same weapon family. The M1 was used up to the Korean war and for a while afterwards.

The objective was obviously to increase firepower and inthe process replace the .30-06 cartidge with the .308 (7.62mm), which became the NATO standard. However, I have read a number of accounts of the M14 being very hard to control on full auto. Interesting to note that the British L1A1, introduced after the M14, could only fire semi-auto, although based on the FN FAL, which had full auto capability.

By the time the M16 came along, which was a military version of the commercially designed Colt AR15, it was realised that there were advantages in reducing the weight of ammo to be carried, plus whether in jungle, or using APCs, modern infantry do not need a heavy, long range weapon. I remember reading an article on combat ranges in the American Guns & Ammo magazine in the 1960s which came down firmly on the side of effective range needing to be no more than 300m. You can disagree with this, but it was the line of thought which prevailed.

American troops were still using M14s when they started to get involved in Vietnam, but the M16 was well tested there under field conditions and found not to be lacking.

Personally, in the hypothetical event that I needed to go to war, I would far rather have the current model of the M16 than the British load of junk known as the SA80. Mind you, being a natural left handed shooter may have something to do with it, as you can't fire the SA80 left handed without damaging the left side of your face rather badly.

 

Thanks for that Angie. So, basically, the M14 was Ok(ish) but had problems at a time when a better model (M16) became available. Were the Americans the first to adopt the 5.56mm cartridge when they adopted the M16?

B.

(P.S. the L1A1 actually is capable of firing on full auto - it just takes a little tinkering, and you'd be OK with a SA80 - it's available in left handed versions!)

 

Originally posted by BAYERNWALD@Jun 12 2004, 10:09 PM
Were the Americans the first to adopt the 5.56mm cartridge when they adopted the M16?


I believe so. The calibre was originally introduced commercially as .223 Remington. As origninally introduced, it was only marginally ballistically stable. It could sometimes be deflected even by hitting a leaf when in flight, but it also caused nasty wounds by tending to "keyhole" on impact, thus delivering all or most of the energy to the target. In service, it has been modified somewhat to make it more stable in flight.

Didn't know about the leftie SA80. Is this recent? I remember handling one and discussing it at the army stand at an agricultural show a few years ago and this was never mentioned. I remain unimpressed by this weapon and I prefer the M16, but I will say that the sights are superb and it is really easy to acquire a good sight picture.

Back in my 20s, I used to shoot target rifles for sport, but I always though that shooting military equipment would be a lot more fun!

 

Was the M1 issued in large numbers to the British during WW2?
The reason I ask is that I've seen a photo of a British Airborne soldiers using an M1 at Oosterbeek, but I never knew we had them.

 

Originally posted by Lee@Jun 15 2004, 03:47 PM
Was the M1 issued in large numbers to the British during WW2?
The reason I ask is that I've seen a photo of a British Airborne soldiers using an M1 at Oosterbeek, but I never knew we had them.
I don't know of any being issued to British troops in the ETO.

The standard issue to British troops at the time was the Lee Enfield no 4. Issuing the M1 to part of the division would have immensely complicated ammunition supply.

The Lee Enfeild might look a bit more like an M1 than earlier models, as might captured Mauser K98k's if they were using them.

Is the photo on the web? If so could you post a link? Otherwise is it in a published source?

 

Angie - I got the picture from the Airborne Soldier Forum (click).

This is the picture:

 

Lee.

That's the M1 carbine. This US weapon was quite widely issued both during and after WW2 to British troops (it was supposed to replace the pistol, but didn't). My dad had one in Korea (and there's one hanging on my attic wall! ).

You can see many photos of WW2 Brits armed with this weapon, especially in the Far East.

The other M1 (Garand) that we're talking about was the standard issue US service rifle of WW2. I've seen the occasional photo of the odd British soldier carrying one of these, but it was pretty seldom.

Dave.

 

Originally posted by BAYERNWALD@Jun 16 2004, 01:35 AM
That's the M1 carbine.
In the words of my hero.....D'oh!

Well, I never said I was a weapons expert

Thanks for clearing that one up for me.

 

I would have to do more research, but I think the M1 Carbine may have been issued as a personal weapon to some members of the Glider Pilot Regiment who, if possible, were supposed to get out of the action so as to live to fly another day (but they were trained infantry).

Of course they could not do this at Arnhem and they performed very well in the defence of Oosterbeek. A late friend and former member of the GPR used a PIAT there until wounded and eventually captured.

 

Originally posted by BAYERNWALD@Jun 15 2004, 07:35 PM
I've seen the occasional photo of the odd British soldier
After receiving an email from a continental European forum member, and after re-reading my post, I think I should have used my command of the English language better. Instead of "odd British soldier", I should have written "occasional British soldier". No I didn't mean a soldier with one eye in the middle of his forehead and 3 legs!!!!

Dave.

 

Originally posted by angie999@Jun 13 2004, 03:02 AM
Didn't know about the leftie SA80. Is this recent?
Angie.

No, it's not really recent. It was something we were told while training on this weapon (the original idea was that it could be "reversed" for LH shooting, similar to another "bullpup" - the Steyr AUG (???)) back in 1988/89(ish). We were shown one single shot "demonstration model" of it, but I couldn't tell you if it became general issue (we were issued with either the Mk.I or Mk.II - I think there's been at least one more modification(and improvement) since my day, so I wouldn't be surprised if the LH service rifle is a reality).

Dave.

(P.S. Given the choice, there's no way I'd have swapped it for the trusty old SLR!!!)