M1 Garand

Discussion in 'Weapons, Technology & Equipment' started by Vasily, Apr 20, 2004.

  1. jamesicus

    jamesicus Senior Member

    Originally posted by angie999@Jun 12 2004, 04:14 PM
    ..... 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.

    I was assigned to the USAF Marksmanship Center (Lackland AFB, Texas) where we tested and evaluated the M16 (then designated AR-15) weapon in 1960. This project was undertaken to determine if the M16 rifle was suitable to replace the (at that time USAF standard issue) M1/M2 Carbines with a more powerful and accurate shoulder weapon. The power, portability and accuracy of its 5.56 mm ammunition was a significant factor in the recommendation for its eventual adoption.

    By the time the Vietnam conflict started, most USAF airmen were being trained in the M16 rifle which soon became standard issue. US Army troops and US Marines were equipped with M14 rifles at that time. The virtues of the M16 -- light weight, plastic/nylon stock (impervious to the saturated jungle atmosphere), controllability of automatic fire and portability of ammunition (a lot more could be carried on the person) led to its eventual adoption by all branches of the US Military.
     
  2. jamesicus

    jamesicus Senior Member

    Originally posted by angie999@Jun 12 2004, 04:14 PM
    .......... However, I have read a number of accounts of the M14 being very hard to control on full auto ..........


    Yes, the M14 rifle was indeed hard to control on automatic fire selection when the weapon was held freehand or in the prone & kneeling firing positions. The 7.62 mm (NATO) cartridge produced considerable recoil energy -- enough to cause the rifle to climb, even with a very firm grip.

    We used to have the same problem with the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) who's 30/06 cartridge was of the same general power as the 7.62 mm.

    Even strong and experienced shooters have trouble controlling automatic fire with cartridges of this power using freely held shoulder weapons. Some men with big hands and strong fingers would, on occasion and inadvertently, double -- or even triple -- when firing the M1 rifle (Garand) during rapid fire strings on the rifle range. Whenever that happened, those shots would inevitably fly wild -- even though the shooter was using a tight firing sling. We used to have a member of our rifle team who could double and triple almost at will with the M1 rifle (although inconsistently). However, even though he was a big and strong man with an enormous amount of shooting experience, he couldn't keep those round in the bulls eye (200 & 300 yds) although he could keep them in the three ring (A & B US Military target).
     
  3. morse1001

    morse1001 Very Senior Member

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

    that goes for me as well!
     
  4. jamesicus

    jamesicus Senior Member

    Originally posted by angie999@Jun 16 2004, 06:31 PM
    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 ..........

    Many Airborne and Glider troopers were issued the US Carbine, cal 30 M1A1 for whose use it was designed -- it featured a folding stock for portability.

    [​IMG]
     
  5. Spitfire

    Spitfire Junior Member

    Originally posted by BAYERNWALD@Jun 17 2004, 12:24 AM
    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.
    The SA80 family are still all right-hand only, the current L85A2 and L86A2 versions eject from the right-hand side.
     
  6. angie999

    angie999 Very Senior Member

    Originally posted by Spitfire+Aug 11 2004, 10:01 PM-->(Spitfire @ Aug 11 2004, 10:01 PM)</div><div class='quotemain'> <!--QuoteBegin-BAYERNWALD@Jun 17 2004, 12:24 AM
    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.
    The SA80 family are still all right-hand only, the current L85A2 and L86A2 versions eject from the right-hand side. [/b]So how do lefties - and particularly people like me who have a left leading eye - get on with them?

    It is a few years since I have held one, but I was quite impressed with the sight, although I was still uncomfortable about using my right eye.

    I used to be a pretty good shot - no recent practice - but only if I could do the full leftie thing.
     
  7. Doc

    Doc Senior Member

    Originally posted by BAYERNWALD@Jun 12 2004, 10:09 PM
    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!)
    [post=26018]Quoted post[/post]

    Actually, there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with the M-14, so long as it is used in semi-auto mode. It is reliable, accurate, and long-range. In fact, it is one of the most popular weapons among US forces in Afghanistan now, in its M-21 sniper version. The only version of the M-14 which gave problems was the full-auto E-2 version, which was uncontrollable. It died not because of any inherent faults, but due to the military decision to go to the 5.56 mm round-- which decision I won't argue here, except to note that one of the major complaints from US troops in Afghanistan today is that the 5.56 mm (even in its SS109 incarnation) is too short range to be useful. The 7.62 x 51 mm and the .50 BMG are very popular in that theatre, and there is talk about developing a new 6.8mm cartridge to replace the 5.56 mm.

    If I were to go to combat today, and had a choice, I would take the M-14 over the M-16 any day (I own and shoot both, but as a combat weapon for mountains and deserts, the M-14 is preferable. The M-16 is great for short-range fights or urban combat.) Doc
     
  8. Pte1643

    Pte1643 Member

    Originally posted by Blue88@May 3 2004, 09:48 PM
    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.
    [post=24897]Quoted post[/post]

    Obviously a valid point, but it's been said that (in WW1 especially) the British "Tommy" was trained to fire 15 "Aimed" shots in a 60 second period, using his issued SMLE.

    During the first "Contact", between British and Germans at Mons 1914, the Germans were reportedly "Startled" by the accuracy and rate of the British fire directed at them.

    And that's not bad at all from a bolt action rifle.

    But quite how they managed this, with only a 10 round mag' is a mystery. :huh:
    (Maybe an equivalent rate of 15 in 60 secs.)

    Mark.
     
  9. Reverend Bob

    Reverend Bob Senior Member

    My Father's unit's first action with M1 Garands was at Buna, when the Japs had the chance to single out one soldier, they would count off five rounds fired and charge while the weapon was reloading, so the tactic was to hold your fire after five, many Japs learned life's last lesson with the M1.

    As for the M1 Carbine I'll qoute my Dad: "If you hit a guy in the gut five times and he's still trying to get up and run at you, you'll never carry a carbine in combat again".

    His weapons of choice were the M1 Thompson, or the M1 Garand, a .45, a trench knife, and a Machete.

    Cheers
    Rev Bob
     
  10. GarandGuy

    GarandGuy Member

    I tend to see a lot of comments exaggerating the loudness of the ping of the clip ejection from an M1. First off it's not really that loud as the sonic boom of the eigth bullet is still echoing as the clip ejects. Secondly, you would not hear the ping over the din of battle. Even in a squad sized firefight the sound of several dozen weapons firing would definitely obscure the sound of the ping. The whole "listen for the ping and then charge reloading soldier" myth is exactly that. A postwar myth. As an M1 collector it irks me when people who've never handled the rifle tell me that the ping is loud. Now I'll get off my soapbox.
     
  11. plant-pilot

    plant-pilot Senior Member

    (Pte1643 @ May 5 2005, 09:05 PM) [post=34085]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>Obviously a valid point, but it's been said that (in WW1 especially) the British "Tommy" was trained to fire 15 "Aimed" shots in a 60 second period, using his issued SMLE.

    During the first "Contact", between British and Germans at Mons 1914, the Germans were reportedly "Startled" by the accuracy and rate of the British fire directed at them.

    And that's not bad at all from a bolt action rifle.

    But quite how they managed this, with only a 10 round mag' is a mystery. images/smilies/default/huh.gif
    (Maybe an equivalent rate of 15 in 60 secs.)[/b]

    Why is that so amazing? Rapid fire is 1 aimed round fired every 2 seconds. With the bolt action taking about a second, that means 45 seconds to fire 15 rounds. That leaves 15 seconds for the reload in order to get all 15 rounds off in the 60 seconds. And don't forget, 'rapid fire' still means aimed shots.

    It may take practice and skill, but that's what training is all about. Besides, what would the point of setting a standard that was unachievable? None.

    Not only were the GIs impressed with the standard of the British Infantryman's 'Musketry Drills' in the second world war, but during the first few fire fights in WW1, before the trenches and when there were only professional solders fighting in the 'Old Contemptables', the Germans thought they were under machine gun fire when in fact it was only a section armed with rifles.
     
  12. BiscuitsAB

    BiscuitsAB Member

    The SMLE/No 4 rifle could deliver considerabley more than 15 RPM in the hands of a well trained soldier, the record being 39 by S/Sgt Instructor Snoxall at some time in the 1920's, more importantly, all his shots struck a figure target 300 yds distant.
    I can't provide a scource for this at the moment because a lot of my stuff is in storage. However, while serving with the Sultan of Oman's Army in 1970 I spent a lot of range time with the No 4 (yes, some units were still using it, along with the Bren in .303) I managed to get of 30 with most of them hitting a fig 11 at 200 yds. Needless to say there is some "trickery" to this, the thumb and forefinger only leave the bolt handle when recharging the magazine while the middle finger squeezes the trigger.

    "Superiority of fire" is the book title written by the commandant of the School of Musketry at Hythe prior to WWI whose name escapes me at the moment (Mcsomething). This was written between the wars and deals primarily with the formation of the MG Corps but has a very interesting account of the training of riflemen in the period between the Boar War and WWI.
     

Share This Page