The M1 Garand

(GarandGuy @ Dec 2 2005, 08:32 PM) [post=42486]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>..... The M1 carbine was somewhat similar to the M1 in terms of its mechanism. The bolt and operating rod functioned the same way, though the carbine was loaded with a box magazine of .30 carbine rounds instead of an en bloc clip of .30-06 rounds. The M1A1 carbine was identical to the M1 aside from the fact that it had a folding wire stock instead of a full wooden stock .....[/b]
The Us Carbine cal .30 was issued in four models:

M1 -- basic configuration: semi-automatic fire only.
M1A1 -- featuring a folding metal buttstock for use by paratroops.
M2 -- basic configuration: semi-automatic or fully-automatic fire via selector lever.
M3 -- semi-automatic fire with modified grooved receiver for mounting an infrared 4X "Snooper Scope".

Fifteen round steel detachable plain box or thirty round "banana" box magazines were available for issue.

 

Well the M2 doesn't really count as a WWII weapon as it was only produced in the spring of '45 and few if any made it to the frontlines before the end of hostilities. The M3 was used on Okinawa to good effect, but once again saw more action in the Korean War. Same goes for the 30 round magazines. Few if any were used during WWII.

 

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY FIELD MANUAL
FM 23-5
for the U.S. Rifle, CALIBER .30, M1

Can be referenced online at:

http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/garand/m1.htm

 

(GarandGuy @ Dec 2 2005, 08:32 PM) [post=42486]The old clip will then go flying out and the fresh one can be inserted. [/b]

And wasn't the distinctive "Ping" just one of the Coolest sounds of WW2.

Problem was, the Germans would sit tight until they heard the "Ping" and then he/they knew the American needed to reload, and hence wait until this point, before jumping out and shooting said American in "Mid-Reload".

Until, of course, some bright spark came up with the idea of keeping spare clips in his pockets. He would then throw the spare empty clip against a rock etc, causing it to replicate the "Ping" sound. The German would hear this, and jump out in readyness to shoot said American. Only to find the crafty GI had fooled him, resulting in one dead German.

The things you think of Eh!!!

 

The ping is another of those aggravating myths about the M1 that just won't go away. I own several M1 rifles and can tell you from personal experience that no one but the shooter can hear the ping. With only one rifle firing you can't hear the ping from 5 feet away. In a combat situation where the range could be anywhere from point blank to several hundred meters away with many weapons being fired no German soldier would ever hear the ping. There are no firsthand accounts of any soldier every being rushed because a German or Japanese soldier heard the ping of the rifle. All of these stories generally start out with "I heard once" or "My dad's friend's uncle's grandpa had a buddy that got rushed when a Jap soldier heard the ping from his rifle". A pile of rubbish that is completely false. If you don't believe me check out Bruce Canfield's (the guru of U.S. small arms) article on the matter.

 

(GarandGuy @ Dec 19 2005, 02:20 PM) [post=43343]The ping is another of those aggravating myths about the M1 that just won't go away. I own several M1 rifles and can tell you from personal experience that no one but the shooter can hear the ping. With only one rifle firing you can't hear the ping from 5 feet away. In a combat situation where the range could be anywhere from point blank to several hundred meters away with many weapons being fired no German soldier would ever hear the ping. There are no firsthand accounts of any soldier every being rushed because a German or Japanese soldier heard the ping of the rifle. All of these stories generally start out with "I heard once" or "My dad's friend's uncle's grandpa had a buddy that got rushed when a Jap soldier heard the ping from his rifle". A pile of rubbish that is completely false. If you don't believe me check out Bruce Canfield's (the guru of U.S. small arms) article on the matter.
[/b]

If you were being shot at you would be too busy hearing the "whooosssh" or the cracker ping from the shot not any ping from the mag.

Maybe it was one out and the enemy was good at counting!

 

(spidge @ Dec 18 2005, 11:44 PM) [post=43348](GarandGuy @ Dec 19 2005, 02:20 PM) [post=43343]The ping is another of those aggravating myths about the M1 that just won't go away. I own several M1 rifles and can tell you from personal experience that no one but the shooter can hear the ping. With only one rifle firing you can't hear the ping from 5 feet away. In a combat situation where the range could be anywhere from point blank to several hundred meters away with many weapons being fired no German soldier would ever hear the ping. There are no firsthand accounts of any soldier every being rushed because a German or Japanese soldier heard the ping of the rifle. All of these stories generally start out with "I heard once" or "My dad's friend's uncle's grandpa had a buddy that got rushed when a Jap soldier heard the ping from his rifle". A pile of rubbish that is completely false. If you don't believe me check out Bruce Canfield's (the guru of U.S. small arms) article on the matter.
[/b]

If you were being shot at you would be too busy hearing the "whooosssh" or the cracker ping from the shot not any ping from the mag.

Maybe it was one out and the enemy was good at counting!
[/b]Yeah, for all the Jap would have known you might have your bayonet fixed or have another rifle.

 

Garand guy the ping noise does exist and here are alot of sources to back me up. Some of them also say that it was not as loud as people make out but it was there. There is a fair bit of dispute about it but overall people say that it does exist though sometimes would be hard to hear through the noises of combat.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand
http://www.militaryfactory.com/smallarms/d...smallarms_id=52
http://www.ww2incolor.com/phpBB2/viewtopic...=1050&start=45&
Regards, Jack

 

I didn't say the ping doesn't exist, only that the shooter is the only one who can hear it. I own five M1 rifles and I'm very tired of having to argue this point with people who watch too much Saving Private Ryan. When only one person is firing the rifle it is very hard for anyone but the shooter to hear it, and the shooter here's only a faint sound compared to the report of the rifle. For anyone near the shooter to hear it, it would have to be very, very quiet around, and the person would have to be within 5 feet of the shooter. Now if you want to argue the point about the rifle being unreloadable in the middle of the clip I'm going to attach a picture of me and one my rifles clearly showing the clip eject button on the left of the receiver. Thank you and have a nice day.

The picture won't post and I have no clue why. I really want to put the picture up so if I could get some help, I'd be much obliged. When I try to add the attachment, the picture disappears.

 

Thanks id like to see that.

 

This is the clip release on the receiver.

 

OK cool thanks would you mind if I reposted on other websites to prove to others because im sure that would help but if not thats fine.
Thanks, Lt. Winters

 

I think it will be useful to repeat a modified version of one of my previous posts here:

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 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 a Garands in the US military and fired numerous others in my capacity as a Marksmanship Training Instructor/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.

 

Good post james, but the bayonet mounted on the 03 Springfield is the M1905 bayonet that was introduced in 1905 to replace the original integral rod bayonet that was mounted on the M1903 before the rifle was rechambered from .30-03 to .30-06. As a shooter of both the M1 and M1903, I can definitely say that the sights on the M1 and M14 are vastly superior to the sights of the 03. The 03's sights are very poor for combat use. The sights are very good for target shooting but for combat they are fragile and hard to acquire a good sight picture with. And yes, Winters you can post that picture on other sites.

 

While I was sorting through photographs of me shooting Garands, I came across this photograph of me dry firing a Winchester model 70 heavy barrel target rifle (Redfield International Mk 8 sights) in 30/06 caliber in preparation for a high power rifle match. I thought it would be instructional to post it and the accompanying story in this thread for it illustrates aimed rapid fire function of a semi-automatic versus a bolt action rifle.

Although I was issued two match grade Garands, I opted to use this bolt rifle in the NRA matches -- it was extremely accurate at 600 yards.

The rapid fire strings in the National match course are 10 shots, standing to sitting, at 200 yards in 50 seconds and 10 shots, standing to prone, at 300 yards in 60 seconds -- for semi-automatic rifles. For bolt action rifles the time allowances are 60 seconds and 70 seconds respectively if they are assigned their own relay. If it is impractical to assign them their own relay (just one or two in the match, for instance) they are mixed in with the semi-automatic rifles and all shooters get the longer rapid fire time limits.

Actually, I soon became proficient at working the bolt rapidly and got off my shots within the lower time limits with the same accuracy as with my Garands.

 

(GarandGuy @ Jan 6 2006, 05:32 AM) [post=44102]Quoted post[/post]</div><div class='quotemain'>..... the bayonet mounted on the 03 Springfield is the M1905 bayonet that was introduced in 1905 to replace the original integral rod bayonet that was mounted on the M1903 before the rifle was rechambered from .30-03 to .30-06 .....[/b]

Yes, I once owned a "converted" rod bayonet Springfield M1903 rifle.

</div><div class='quotemain'>...... As a shooter of both the M1 and M1903, I can definitely say that the sights on the M1 and M14 are vastly superior to the sights of the 03. The 03's sights are very poor for combat use. The sights are very good for target shooting but for combat they are fragile and hard to acquire a good sight picture with .....[/b]

Certainly, a peep rear sight is indeed far superior to an open sight. An open rear sight is rugged enough in combat when it is used in battlefield range configuration -- with the elevation ladder down -- but it can be damaged quite easily when the ladder is raised for long range use. It should be noted that the Model 1903A3 Springfield rifle, as issued, came equipped with a peep rear sight in order to provide a better sighting arrangement.

I fired a Springfield Model 1903A1 National Match rifle in competition for a while -- I used to employ the PJ O'Hare micrometer peep sight attachment (most '03 competition shooters did in those days).

 

If you don't mind my asking how much did you pay and sell the 03 in .30-03 for?

 

Sorry, GarandGuy, that should read "converted" rod bayonet Springfield M1903 rifle. As you know, genuine ones are extremely rare. .

 

Yeah that's why I was asking because I was seriously interested in how much dough one cost. I've only seen one unconverted in my 30 plus years of shooting and it was NOT for sale. A gunsmith friend of mine when I was 12 had one in the back room of his store. I would frequent gun shops as a kid and he took to me and would show me his private collection. When he showed me that and explained to me what it was I was awed. Then he gave me a stripper clip of .30-03 rounds made in 1903 and I was like normal kids in a candy store!

 

I will only be able to contribute occasionally to this forum in the future. I now have serious health problems that sap my energies and affect my ability to concentrate. I need to devote most of my time and energy to my family and the accomplishment of a multitude of projects to which I am committed. I have enjoyed my participation on this Forum and have learned much from all of you -- thank you for your gracious acceptance. I will contribute from time to time as I am able.

I will continue to maintain my non-commercial/non-profit website Portal to my Web Sites & Pages -- please visit it periodically for updates and additions.

I hope you continue with your excellent informational posts, GarandGuy!