|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 30, 2011 19:33:31 GMT -5
Hey, it's kind of dull lately. I thought I'd start a food fight.
In your humble opinion, which was the better battle rifle, the M1 Garand, the German G43 or the Russian SVT-40?
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Dec 30, 2011 19:52:30 GMT -5
Guns and Ammo ran a story called "The Damned Good Garand" a while back about this very same topic. I think I have it somewhere upstairs.
IIRC, the conclusion was that the M1 was the best.
In particular, it's ease of maintenance and dependability helped it win. The G43 had a complicated gas system that didn't agree with the corrosive ammo (the noncorrosive 8mm was apparently scarce), and the SVT had a fragile stock and difficulties with the rimmed ammunition.
Also, the M1 was faster to reload. The enbloc wasn't as finicky as needing two stripper clips per magazine. I've read accounts of Marines and soldiers who reloaded so quickly that it sounded like one string of 16 shots.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 30, 2011 21:25:23 GMT -5
The enbloc clip has been criticized, but it's actually (imho) a good design. The only real drawback is that practically speaking there's a limit to how big a clip you can make. The original Garand designed for the .276 Pedersen cartridge held ten round, since the diameter of the case was smaller. And that story about the enemy hearing the clink of the empty clip being ejected and knowing you were empty I think is totally bogus. If you could actually hear that sound in the middle of a firefight, how would you know which guy it came from or whether the guy next to you was still loaded. There's another probably BS story I read once, that when Marines on Guadalcanal got M1's they'd fire five rounds, then wait a moment to see if any Japanese popped up, assuming they were reloading their Springfields.
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Dec 30, 2011 21:46:31 GMT -5
Yeah, its kind of hard to pick out individual shots and pings, and then manage to charge that particular soldier or Marine The SVT-40 and Gew43 were limited issue, while the M1 was standard issue. Most of the time, the Garand would have been facing bolt-action designs. The 8 round capacity was pretty good even compared to the Gew43, as whatever capacity advantage the Germans had was nullified by the M1's faster reload capability. Now, once we start talking about the STG44, we're in trouble
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 30, 2011 22:22:05 GMT -5
I agree completely with Tiny. The Garand was the best of the three but the STG44 was the next step and the main battle rifles that followed it prove it. The transition from the Garand to the M14 was a logical one but clearly as good as it was, given it's short lifespan as the main battle rifle it wasn't up to the task compared to the next generation of main battle rifles.
The ping legend is dubious at best although fearing it, some GIs I talked to hurled empty ones to give the enemy the impression they were reloading. According to them it was a trick that worked more than once but who knows?
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Dec 30, 2011 23:31:31 GMT -5
2ndBat- did you have the M14 in your unit while you were in Vietnam? I was wondering because the Marine veterans I've spoken to all loved the M14, but had a lot of issues with the M16, the answer to the AKM. One Marine said it was fine once the ammunition casings were made properly, another says he refuses to touch an AR-based rifle to this day.
I find it rather strange that we seem to be going in circles with regard to military rifles. The .276 Pedersen was supposed to be a step towards the intermediate round, as well as the postwar British .280. Both of those were abandoned in favor of full powered loads, and then the U.S. went to 5.56mm not too much later. Now, in Afghanistan, we're finding that it is hard to make a small 5.56mm round perform against both armored and unarmored targets, and against targets at longer ranges period. The 7.62x51mm has seen a bit of a comeback, and now there are 6.8mm rounds on the civilian market. I think a U.S. Army report at one point suggested a 7mm round as the next step.
I personally believe that a new battle rifle chambered in either 7mm or 7.62x51mm NATO would do the job fine. Today's recoil control technology is a bit different than that of the 50s, and fully automatic fire is mostly reserved for the SAWs and 240 Bravos. A larger projectile would solve the issue of stopping power and penetration, as well as grant more range.
I just wish that a rifle worthy of carrying on the M1's legacy would have been developed: utterly reliable, hard hitting, and forward thinking
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 31, 2011 0:44:32 GMT -5
From the Wikipedia article on teh Pedersen Rifle:
It's interesting that there's a modern 7mm08 cartridge (.308 necked down to 7mm) that's pretty close to the .276 Pedersen, but a bit higher velocity.
Anyway, one ofthe great strengths of the M1 is the design of the bolt and camming action of the operating rod. You just can't make it simpler and more reliable than it is (except the M14 added that little roller to bolt lug). I like to joke that the M14 was the best battle rifle of WWII, it was just 12 years too late. But an M14 redesigned around something like the 6.8mm SPC would be a kick-ass reliable weapon.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 31, 2011 2:02:35 GMT -5
In ROTC we had M1 Garands and M14s as drill and issue weapons. In the regular Army I always had M16s. By the time I went overseas the M16 teething problems were pretty much solved and I for one never had any problems with the gun whatsoever. I loved the light weight and especially the ability to carry so much ammo. The M14 box magazines and ammo were large and heavy!
The key improvements in the M16 were attributed to GIs doing a better job of keeping the rifle clean and in fact that probably had some marginal impact on the improved reliability. The two biggest changes were the right metals being used in the bore chamber (In accordance to the design!) and the correct type of powder. Two huge improvements. Both problems that should have been avoided all together. The cleaning issue was a way for the Military to deflect their screw ups and they played it to the hilt. The rifle did require cleaning in a way that the M1 and the M14 simply didn't. (Or the AK for that matter) The magazines also required care (not unlike airsoft magazines!)
Locations where wars are fought always seem to be extremes and weapons reliability is enormously critical for a weapons reputation. The Garand earned it's wonderful reputation because it did what a war rifle is supposed to do. It made you feel like a soldier and like you could take on a tank. It had incredible stopping power and it always worked.
A day at the range with the M1 or the M14 was something you felt for a week afterwards however. The rifles kick...alot. I remember at basic training when an instructor put an M16 on his forehead and dumped a mag on rock and roll and then put in a new mag and stuck it up to his nuts and dumped another mag. It seemed unreal. The lack of kick is a factor that is simply not appreciated today.
In the sand pit the M14 is very popular as it is an environment where range and the ability to punch through cinderblock walls is a huge advantage. In my time in the army I can't imagine a case where I was likely to see a bad guy beyond 200 meters. 50 meters is probably more like it. Walls for enemy hootches were bamboo or flattened beer cans! The M16 worked really really well in that environment. The M16 has been the longest serving main battle rifle in US Army history (By a lot!) It has served the military extremely well and the initial challenges were quite brief relative to it's long history but to those early Marines it was tarnished forever. There are some procurement folks at the Pentagon that should have been shot.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Dec 31, 2011 13:07:11 GMT -5
Same here with ROTC. We initially had M1's and some M14's. If I remember, the M1's disappeared the summer between my sophmore and junior year and everyone had M14's. Our summer camp in 1970 was the first to have M16's, for which I'm eternally grateful, except that cleaning them was a bitch compared to an M1. Big fingers and small nooks and crannies to get at. I spent most of my active duty time after Ft. Benning in Alaska. The M16 had some issues with the cold. If you weren't careful, frost would form inside the chamber. Then when you chambered a round the frost would compress into a ring at the front of the cartridge, the bolt wouldn't close and the whole thing freeze up. About all you could do was take it somewhere warm and thaw it. At least with an M1/M14, you could put the butt on the ground and step on the cocking handle. The two finger cocking handle on the M16 didn't give much leverage.
MacNamara has a lot to answer for. My understanding is that, besides the change in powder, a lot of the problems in Vietnam came from not chrome plating the chamber, which MacNamara's Whiz Kids decided wasn't necessary because it saved a few bucks. Stupid!
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Dec 31, 2011 15:11:22 GMT -5
The chrome lined chamber was one of the things that got a lot of soldiers and Marines killed. I think it was a cent or two to get the chambers chrome lined to handle the military spec powder, but of course, it cost extra...
I'll be doing a second semester history project, and I'll probably cite this as an example of bureaucratic incompetence that cost lives
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Dec 31, 2011 15:26:51 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Schmozilla on Dec 31, 2011 22:17:36 GMT -5
Were America! When i get a Gun License My First gun will definitely be a Garand. I Love that gun, Its a Damn Good Piece of Work!
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 4, 2012 23:29:11 GMT -5
Yikes Volkstrum...I too was stationed in Alaska briefly. (Ft Richardson) Tomahawk Apache! 1973-74 or somewhere thereabouts (between Vietnam and Thailand) General Lathram was Brigade commander and Col. Swartzkopf was XO.
You no doubt participated in Falcon Thrust? I liked Alaska a lot. I was allergic to green foliated areas where people were killing each other and found it a refreshing break. Gorgeous part of the world.
The Arms rooms were better armed than the Army was with all the private weapons. Weatherby 500s and Ruger 44 mags. I always said if the poop hit the fan forget the issue weapons. The M16 was very poorly designed for that terrain.
Schwartzkopf ended up as my last boss at the 1st Brigade of the 9th at Ft Lewis when I was there.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 5, 2012 14:22:18 GMT -5
I was at Richardson from Jan 72 to May 73. Then I went to the 4/9th at Ft. Wainwright until May 74. Heck of a place to play soldier, but it did give an interest in the Finns and the Winter War. All in all, I think the M14 would have been a better weapon there than the M16. I always kind of had a feeling that in winter, the Russkies would just shake the spent 5.56mm bullets out of their parkas and keep coming.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Jan 6, 2012 0:00:08 GMT -5
Wow! as my father always said "Small world but I wouldn't want to have to paint it!" Ahkios, wool shirts, mickey mouse boots and arctic canteens that were utterly worthwless but $55.00 if you lost one. Loved the train to Fairbanks. I made a small fortune buying Kroean War vintage winter hats in Seattle for $2.88 each and selling them up in Alaska for $25.00 so guys could dump the ugly nylon ones. I still have a couple of them along with my applesauce brown beret with the 23rd Infantry insignia.
|
|
|
Post by remrat on Jan 6, 2012 0:24:04 GMT -5
As for witch gun I would rather be stuck with to defend myself. As much as I love German engineering I would go with the SVT-40 Mainly because I own one, mine is a shortened version so it beats the Garand along with the fact that it has a 10 round detachable magazine. For the g43 it looks cool but a friend of mine has one and (I haven't shot it ) it feels like a hunk of S*&t.
|
|
HornetWSO
Private 1st Class
"We may not have a history, but we have a rendezvous with destiny!"
Posts: 551
|
Post by HornetWSO on Jan 6, 2012 13:11:25 GMT -5
Remrat, I understand your propensity to choose the SVT over the Garand for self protection, and I agree the shortened length makes it faster and easier to wield, but ... along the lines of battle rifle, do you choose the SVT over the Garand?
|
|
|
Post by remrat on Jan 6, 2012 18:16:47 GMT -5
That's a good question and a hard one to answer I have never shot a Garand (Not sure why ) but it seems that the Germans had a real tendency to pick up SVT's whenever they had the chance. But I haven't seen may photos of Germans wielding M1 Garands. So that is my reasoning although it is somewhat Void until I shoot a Garand.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 6, 2012 18:52:03 GMT -5
The Germans used large numbers of SVT-40's, but that might also reflect availability. Between Kasserine Pass and the Battle of Bulge there weren't that many major setbacks for the Americans where the Germans could acquire large numbers of Garands and stock of .30-06 in clips. In contrast, there was continuous combat on the Eastern Front from 1941 to 1945, with the Germans capturing immense numbers of weapons.
Took a little searching, but as far as I can tell the Germans captured 93,000 Americans during the war. Some of those were aircrew and rear echelon types or vehicle crew who didn't have M1's. Some of those captured probably destroyed their weapons. So the total take of M1's probably didn't amount to 20-30,000 useable weapons, with the bulk of them probably captured later in the war. On the other hand I've read that the Germans particularly liked the M1 Carbine, gave them an official designation, Selbstladekarabiner 455(a), and used them when they could get them.
|
|
Adler69
Master sergeant
Legio Patria Nostra
Posts: 2,859
|
Post by Adler69 on Jan 6, 2012 23:45:31 GMT -5
I have fired all 3 rifles and the M1 is the best of all 3 Ease of maintenance , stopping power , high rate of fire and fast reloading , it beats hands down the G43 and SVT40 in all the above points.
On an event we even had a competition against the Oregon National Guard and we beat the Guardsmen with our M1s , we could fire our 8 rounds , reload and fire again faster than the M16A2 armed Guardsmen.
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jan 7, 2012 13:11:52 GMT -5
In the Guns and Ammo article above, as best I could read it, the author makes a gross misstatement. On the last image, he claimsthat the SVT-40 was so unreliable that the Russians withdrew it from service an used it for ceremonial purposes. I wonder where he got that from. It's possible he's confusing the SVT-40 with its predecessor, the SVT-38, which proved to have problems during the Winter War, and was terminated after only 150,000 had been made. The SVT-40 fixed most of the problems and according to Wikipedia over 5 million were produced.
|
|
|
Post by aj czarkowski on Jan 7, 2012 14:26:44 GMT -5
I don't think he meant the SVT40 because it was used in Korea and the VC used it in Vietnam
|
|
|
Post by tinydata on Jan 7, 2012 15:21:03 GMT -5
Probably an error, but the M1 is still superior. The only thing that the Garand doesn't have in its favor is magazine capacity, but the enbloc system nullifies that.
Detachable magazines are kind of a hit or miss. It was difficult to get magazines for the Gew43 or the SVT40. Stripper clips were used and those are excessively fiddly, especially once you try to cram the second clip in. The enbloc is no-fuss no-hassle.
If I need either a self defense weapon or a battle rifle, I'll still take the M1 over the other two.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Jun 17, 2013 1:41:11 GMT -5
The enbloc wasn't as finicky as needing two stripper clips per magazine. i though that the g43 and svt-40 both used magazines?
|
|
|
Post by volkssturm on Jun 17, 2013 11:02:40 GMT -5
Both the SVT40 and The Gew43 had detachable box magazines, but they also could be loaded from stripper clips. This idea hung around for long time. The M14 also had a stripper clip attachment, as did one of the models of the FN FAL that the British tested in the '50's. The ordnance people at the time seemed to be obsessed with the idea that the soldiers would loose all their box magazines and render their weapons useless.
|
|
stuka
Sergeant
The one and only
Posts: 1,205
|
Post by stuka on Jun 18, 2013 7:52:17 GMT -5
lack of confidence in their ability to be responsible then?
|
|
|
Post by lonewolf051 on Dec 17, 2013 19:06:35 GMT -5
lack of confidence in their ability to be responsible then? Pretty Much....the mags were made detachable mainly for cleaning and ease of maintinance, not for reloading, the quality of these rifles compared to the M1 are fairly shotty and crude...and constantly removing and inserting mags would soon wear out the mag latches, and before long result in failure to lock the mag into the magazine well. These rifles were all meant to be fed with stripper clips....mags could be used, however troops were only issued 2 mags.....and 6-12 stripper clips as basic loadout, so clearly they were meant to still use stripper clip feed
|
|
shiftysgarand
Corporal
BangbangbangbangbangbangbangbangPING
Posts: 1,165
|
Post by shiftysgarand on Dec 17, 2013 21:06:37 GMT -5
Whereas it's awfully hard to lose a Garand magazine...
|
|
|
Post by brownien on Dec 17, 2013 21:43:54 GMT -5
Well in the case of the Garand, enblocs normally came in crates and bandoleers already loaded with ammo. For the Svt, and G43, the primary way troops got ammo was pre-loaded stripper clips. I'm sure from a military standpoint, giving each soldier only a few magazines, and resupplying them with plenty of ammo already suited for use in the standard issue battle rifle, is logistically the Mose efficient means of supply.
|
|
2nd Bat
Master sergeant
Posts: 11,813
|
Post by 2nd Bat on Dec 17, 2013 22:59:44 GMT -5
Adler69 is the only one on our site who has shot all three. I respect his opinion greatly and will go with his choice. Having said that I am still having trouble figuring out how he and his buddies put more rounds down range With their Garands vs the m16. Now if it was hits in a 60 second time frame or 3 minutes on targets 300 yards away I'll buy it. Volume of fire alone...no contest the M16 has the garand beat by a ton.
|
|