The M1 Garand: Great Rifle or Major Mishap

M1karava

M1karava

Active member
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?
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
Interesting

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.
 
Last edited:
M1karava said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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.
 
Jesus...It was a question...from what I am seeing it was a great weapon that revolutionized WWII for the Americans. And without it we would have had way more trouble winning the war.

Once again I like the rifle don't get me wrong, My buddy has one and trust me...it kills hogs just fine.
 
M1karava said:
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?
Click to expand...

As an owner of three M1 Garands I have some insight with the platform.

I've competed with them and I've done some good hardcore training with them. I did WWII reenacting and during my involvement in the hobby we did "tacticals". A series of War games in which a town is taken over by either Allied or Axis forces and you fight for the town. These were done at Camp Blanding, Florida. At a MOUT Facility. Blanks were used instead of live ammunition of course for safety reason.

During the war games you'd hear MP40s, MG42s, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M2 Brownings, etc... Hardly did you ever hear the "ping" of the Enbloc Clip either when it was ejected or when it would hit concrete. The Only "ping" you'd hear is the consent ringing in your ears because of hearing damage.

Did I use the "ping" to my advantage? Yes... I would throw a empty clip on the ground and a Jerry would attempt to poke his head out or run across a roadway.

Did the Jerries know when we'd run out of ammo? Sometimes yes. But that is a small price to pay when your average infantry soldier has a 4-1 advantage.

Rapid firepower, quick to reload, and all around handy. Your average soldier will not engage multiple targets when he's armed with a bolt action because of the slower rate of fire. Your average soldier will engage multiple targets when he's armed with a semi-automatic rifle or a full automatic rifle/SMG because of the faster rate of fire. It's mostly psychological but it's fact...

Read some of the after action reports from WWII... Pretty interesting stuff.
 
I think 5.56 saw combat in Afghanistan and was wounded so he's not just some weekend warrior.

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.
Click to expand...

Greater emphasis on Machine Guns and combined arms.
 
Wallabies said:
I think 5.56 saw combat in Afghanistan and was wounded so he's not just some weekend warrior.



Greater emphasis on Machine Guns and combined arms.
Click to expand...

Been there done that.

When I got out I got into WWII reenacting as a hobby. Never fired the M1 Garand in anger while I was in the sandbox but I have had some trigger time behind the platform to a point that I can get a pretty good idea on it's pros and cons.
 
5.56X45mm said:
As an owner of three M1 Garands I have some insight with the platform.

I've competed with them and I've done some good hardcore training with them. I did WWII reenacting and during my involvement in the hobby we did "tacticals". A series of War games in which a town is taken over by either Allied or Axis forces and you fight for the town. These were done at Camp Blanding, Florida. At a MOUT Facility. Blanks were used instead of live ammunition of course for safety reason.

During the war games you'd hear MP40s, MG42s, M1 Garands, M1 Carbines, M2 Brownings, etc... Hardly did you ever hear the "ping" of the Enbloc Clip either when it was ejected or when it would hit concrete. The Only "ping" you'd hear is the consent ringing in your ears because of hearing damage.

Did I use the "ping" to my advantage? Yes... I would throw a empty clip on the ground and a Jerry would attempt to poke his head out or run across a roadway.

Did the Jerries know when we'd run out of ammo? Sometimes yes. But that is a small price to pay when your average infantry soldier has a 4-1 advantage.

Rapid firepower, quick to reload, and all around handy. Your average soldier will not engage multiple targets when he's armed with a bolt action because of the slower rate of fire. Your average soldier will engage multiple targets when he's armed with a semi-automatic rifle or a full automatic rifle/SMG because of the faster rate of fire. It's mostly psychological but it's fact...

Read some of the after action reports from WWII... Pretty interesting stuff.
Click to expand...

Thats my feeling too. The M1 did have a few flaws, The fact that only full cartridges could be loaded was bigger issue than the PING IMHO.

But all in all, the pros vastly outweighed the cons. It was a revolutionary system. I'd put it as one of the top 5 rifles ever made.

If the OP allows me to expand his question alittle...

Which of the 4 semi-automatic rifles of WWII was the best? Which of the following would you want to carry into battle?

1. The Gewehr 41/43
2. The Soviet SVT-40
3. The M1 Garand
4. The M1 Carbine -technically not a rifle.
 
I have spend hours upon hours drilling with decommissioned M1s, pretty good bit there at color guard to. But I have a family friend with the local Sheriff's department who has one, I'm used to holding the the thing, and it seems alittle unusual seeing wood finish on a service rifle these days, but I know how to work the rear sight, with windage, and I can work the bolt and the Enbloc system pretty well with it, also upon disassembly it doesn't take me long to identify the rifles fooling build up points. Just I never go to fire the thing!

But lastly coupled with the fact that when you flip it upside down and realize, that getting hit in the jaw with an little over 10 pound sturdy rifle, kinda would reassure me Little be. And plus I have never been in the field of combat, but I see it as not having a weapon to just fire at the enemy, but especially from drilling while armed so much, I see it as an extension of the body, that over ten pound amalgamation of wood and steel would be my third arm so to speak, and out of familiarity I would rate it with praise. Cause when you are not using the weapon, you gotta carry it everywhere with you with that "leap and bound" rule in mind at all times.
 
Last edited:
mmarsh said:
Thats my feeling too. The M1 did have a few flaws, The fact that only full cartridges could be loaded was bigger issue than the PING IMHO.

But all in all, the pros vastly outweighed the cons. It was a revolutionary system. I'd put it as one of the top 5 rifles ever made.

If the OP allows me to expand his question alittle...

Which of the 4 semi-automatic rifles of WWII was the best? Which of the following would you want to carry into battle?

1. The Gewehr 41/43
2. The Soviet SVT-40
3. The M1 Garand
4. The M1 Carbine -technically not a rifle.
Click to expand...

The M1 Carbine... Light, handy, 15rd magazine capacity. The forefather of the modern day combat rifle. The M2 Carbine (full auto version) did come out in late 1944. But of course the STG-44 is the first true "Assault Rifle". The M2 Carbine is America's first.

Combat even in WWII was around 250 yards. You can only shot at what you can see and 250-300 yards is the max for most engagements.

I own all four rifles listed.

My Walther K43 is a fun rifle to shoot. It's not as rugged as the M1 Garand but you can see a lot of where it got it's idea from the SVT-40/SVT-38.

My SVT-40 is a dog.... Finnish capture. Still shoots good though. Simple system, rugged, and reliable but just hard to manufacture especially on Soviet Wartime tech.

The Garand and Carbine are great rifles. My three are all Springfield Receivers. Two are Korean War rebuilds and one is Danish. Was rebuilt after WWII with Beretta parts. Both carbines are top quality guns. WWII builds. One is a Quality Hardware receiver with a Winchester Barrel and the other is a mix master Underwood that I built to look like a post war Israeli Model.

If the war continued and the bomb didn't work and we invaded Japan the M1 Garand would have evolved into the T20E2 Model. A Detachable box magazine fed design. It worked off BAR magazines and was select fire. It later evolved into the T44 Design which became the M14.

t20e2.jpg


RC_P1010002.jpg


T20E2 Garand
 
Yeah I really liked the M14. Only got to shoot it once when a freind of the family brought one over, nice rifle. This may not be true but I heard some soldiers were employing it as a designated marksman rifle currently. I dont know if there is any truth behind that or what.
 
I was issued am M1 when I joined the Marine Corps in 1961, I came to know the rifle very well. I find that most people who were issued one understand them. I am glad that someone already de mythed stories about the noise of the clip (isn't it fun to use the word clip instead of magazine and be correct?) ejecting. I heard that in boot camp, but never from a veteran. In 1966-67 I carried a M14 in vietnam and soon learned how loud a fire fight could be. the second problem mentioned about being down to 2 rounds and wanting a reload is simple, Pull the op rod to the rear and hold it there, then reach across the action with the thumb of the hand holding the bolt open and hit the clip release latch and the clip and and remaining rounds will eject.

I don't understand the statement about the empty clip landing on the ground and getting too dirty to work. The ammo was always issued (at least to me) loaded into clips and we never reused them, they were of course very reuseable.

The M1 was the fastest rifle to reload that I ever shot. the embloc clip was completly enclosed and not subjected to damage, also you wern't distracted by trying save it when it was empty. You can soon learn to reload without looking at the rifle, very important.


he went into younder village and never returned
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top