Dont get me wrong I respect the M1Garand, I mean it is my forum namesake. I think it jumped us way ahead in the WWII conflict, but everyone knows there were some small design flaws that got a lot of good men killed. Example when you shoot your last round the clip explodes out the top creating the distinctive Ping!!! Which lets everyone in your immediate area including your enemies that you are now officially out of ammo.

Also you could reload it if you say had two rounds left and you wanted a full clip before storming a position. But it was a flat b#$%* to reload without shooting all of your bullets and letting everyone know your out of ammo.
The 30.06 bullet was a great advantage bigger bullet bigger hits.

What do I know though let me know if you agree or if I am wrong. What do you think Great Rifle or Major Mishap?

I think it was an outstanding weapon. In fact I think like the British Brown Bess, the German Mauser, and the AK-47 it was a weapon that revolutionized infantry doctrine. I have read several ancedots in Normandy where the Germans were fooled into thinking that the fire they were facing was from a entire Company when it fact in was from a single US platoon armed with Garands, a testimont of the weapons effectiveness.

Of the 4 main semi-auto rifles in WWII, the M1 topped them all. It was less finicky and less bulky than the Soviet SVT-40, more numerous amd more reliable that the Gehwer 41/43 and had better range and punch that the M1 carbine.

It was an outstanding weapon, high rate of fire, accurate at all ranges could be fitted with accessories like Sniper Scopes and Rifle Grenades.

Yes the two flaws were bad, and one wonders why John C Gerand didnt correct these obvious flaws before, but clever soldiers in the field developed solutions that could counter these design flaws or at least turn them to their advantage. For example:

1. Most people call the noise the M1 made a "PING" but I guess that depends on the persons ear. One tactic Infantrymen would do is to strike 2 pieces of metal together simulating the same PING noise, a German soldier would standup thinking his opponents rifle was empty and be immediately shot. So while the "Ping" was a problem that wouldn't be corrected until the M-14, soldiers found clever tricks to turn it to their advantage.

2. As for requirement that the gun be empty before a new clip could be inserted, most soldiers countered this by simply firing off into the air the remaining rounds. This was a waste of ammo but it did solve the problem.

Definitely good...Wish we have an upgraded version of it...

Originally Posted by Korean Seaboy

Definitely good...Wish we have an upgraded version of it...

We did, its called the M-14. A reworked M1.

My grandfather used the Garand when he was in the Army following the Korean war, and while he said it fired well, he hated the clip ejection system, because he'd have to spend ten minutes cleaning dirt out of the clip when it hit the ground, or it wouldn't fire right.

I never really researched the weapon to find out how our guys countered the minor disabilities of the M1Garand. even though the GIs of WWII figured out a way to fool their enemy by "faking" their weapon being empty or by just shooting the rounds up in the air to reload But I bet some good men died before they figured out how to do it.

I like the weapon dont get me wrong my buddy has one and it kills hogs just fine.

Originally Posted by M1karava

I never really researched the weapon to find out how our guys countered the minor disabilities of the M1Garand. even though the GIs of WWII figured out a way to fool their enemy by "faking" their weapon being empty or by just shooting the rounds up in the air to reload But I bet some good men died before they figured out how to do it.

I like the weapon dont get me wrong my buddy has one and it kills hogs just fine.

The sound of clip ejection would not have really been a big problem. Hearing one GIs M1 clip ejection would not indicate that all the M1s in a squad or platoon or larger force were empty. So unless you were sure you were engaging only one GI it would not be a good idea to stand up and charge to finish him off. Also the time it took to reload after that sound was short.

While other armies had some limited access to semi-auto infantry rifles the majority of GIs had them. The advantage of troops equipped with semi-autos vs bolt action is obvious.

I stand corrected

Get real on the "ping"

Superman could not hear that noise in a firefight.

I've owned M1s since I was 14, and I've been in firefights.

Takes a milisecond to reload-faster than changing mags.

Some of these stories get out of hand.
Like telling ghost stories arounf campfires.

To say those "flaws" got men killed is preposterous.

Believe it or not, the average GI is a bit more resouceful and resilient that suggested here.

Agreed. Pushing the en-bloc clip straight down into the breech is a very simple and quick method of reloading. Compared to the bolt action rifles it had one less step, there was no manual opening of the bolt. Compared to modern magazine-fed rifles the Garand reloads as quickly or faster, IMO.
The rate of fire increase was exponential and it makes me wonder how the Germans and Japanese used fire and maneuver tactics without a frontline, mass-produced semi-auto rifle.