A Critique of the M1 Garand

[volkssturm]

An interesting little article here on the M1 Garand. It had its flaws, and by the end of the end of the war it was becoming obsolescent, but for its time it was a darned good weapon. I have soft spot for the M1. It wouldn't be my first choice if I had to go to war, but I'd feel reasonably confident I could defend myself in a war if that was what I had.

www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/12/14/hindsight-is-3006-critique-of-the-m1-garand/

[2nd Bat]

The Garand is my all time favorite rifle but I am delighted that I had an M16A1 and XM177 when total strangers were interested in killing me.

[stuka]

I am sure having any semi or fully automatic rifle would be optimal in those situations

[2nd Bat]

Even in my youth the length and weight of the weapon, especially the weight of the ammo would have greatly effected my combat ability in the close in fighting that was typical in SE Asia. I think the close proximity of combat in WW2 (especially in the Pacific and Western Europe) surprised the weapons designers who still valued long range precise accuracy. Aimed shots were NOT the common killers one might assume as suppressive fire and recon by fire often scored hits. Especially with a round like the 30-06 which turned "cover" into mear "concealment" everywhere it went.

[volkssturm]

Been pondering the might have beens (one of my favorite activities). Looking back with 20/20 hindsight, it seems obvious that a 20 inch barrel instead of 24 would have been adequate. The 18 inch on the T26 or "Tanker" Garand was too short. If I had an excess of spare cash it would be interesting to have a gunsmith make up what I'm going to call the "Armored Infantry Garand", because it would probably have been more convenient for guys riding in half-tracks. An Airsoft shortened Garand seems like a doable project. It wouldn't be historically accurate, but it might be fun in a game.

As 2d Bat points out, the .30-06 is a wicked powerful cartridge. The M2 ball used in WWII was actually toned down from the M1 Ball, which was causing problems on rifle ranges because it was penetrating the berms where the target scorers were stationed. It also made developing the M1 Garand more difficult. An interesting possibility, which never would have happened because of national pride and budget problems, would have been if the US and UK went in with the French on developing a common cartridge. The French adopted the 7.5x54mm in the late 20's. Its performance is pretty close to the 7.62x51mm NATO. If it, or something like it had been adopted, they could have shaved about a half inch off the Garand's receiver, and probably shaved a little weight off as well. The actual bullet diameter of the 7.5 is so close to the US .30 and UK .303 that existing rifles could have been rechambered for the new cartridge, though barrels would have had to be set back on the US rifles or a spacer added, which was done with some M1's to convert them to 7.61 NATO.

Of course, we all could have gone with the .276 Pedersen. The British were actually watching US trials and considering adopting the .276. But General MacArthur said no.

[2nd Bat]

It is quite possible the barrel might have been shortened a bit but a very real probability if more and more Stg 44ss and G43s were encountered would have been the transition to a BAR like box magazine.

[volkssturm]

The T22 with selective fire and a 20 round box mag was ordered into production in the summer of '45. The surrender of Japan caused it to be canceled. A little short sighted, in view of the Korean War 5 years later. The selective fire feature was apparently not really practical, but the box mag would have been useful.

You have to wonder about US Ordnance at times. They seemed to move with glacial speed most of the time. They spent the entire war trying to improve the M1919 and make it competitive with the MG34 and MG42, but the closest they came was the M1919A6. The Germans were faster and more innovative, but they weren't so good at producing mass quantities.

[2nd Bat]

The two are often interested. Constantly tweaking and improving often creates production, logistics and training issues. During the critical years of the war the Garand was dominant.

[volkssturm]

Here's a mud test of an M1. A very extreme test and somewhat contrived. In the real world I think you'd have more problems than just having to fire your rifle if you were dealing with this much mud. But it does point to some weaknesses in the M1 design.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6J5m4_Is_s

[shiftysgarand]

There's a reason troops were trained to keep their rifles out of that much mud. It would be interesting to see how enemy weapons (Kar98, Type 38, MP44 etc.) would fair in the same test. Submachine guns I bet would work pretty well due to the enclosed design.

[insterburger]

One of the other drawbacks of a shortened Garand (at least one still using the .30-06 cartridge) would be the heavier kick a shortened barrel would produce. Dealbreaker? No, but having the standard rifle length barrel did make the Garand more versatile than a short-barreled rifle would be.

I do recall speaking with a Korean war vet about just this topic, and he said the length of the Garand was never a problem for them. He showed me how they held it when clearing buildings or in other CQB situations-- with the buttstock tucked under the arm so that the trigger is just ahead of and slightly above the waist. This was an army vet who had seen considerable combat, and he did not see the length of the Garand as a problem at all, FWIW. (BTW, he also called bullsh#t on the story that the "ping" of the enbloc ejecting would tip the enemy that you were empty... "when we were fighting there was so damn much noise no one was listening for a ping, they were keeping their heads down because they knew someone else wasn't out" or something to that effect.)

I will say, when held up against the other primary battle rifles in both the European and Pacific theatres in WWII, the Garand was years ahead of what both our enemies and allies were fielding.

[volkssturm]

Here's a kind of interesting video. A two gun action match between a Garand and a Russian SVT-40.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=_jW0q794-cI

It was supposed to be against a repro FG-42 but they managed to break the buttstock on the FG-42 and switched to the SVT40. As long as the M1 is, the SVT looks really long.

[2nd Bat]

I never bought into the "ping" deal as viable for the reasons stated. Combat is really loud!

[volkssturm]

And here's a Youtube video called "What Ain't Necessarily So About the M1 Garand." Touches on some interesting points.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=o2idYNKWGm4

[2nd Bat]

Nicely done.

[volkssturm]

Some random thoughts on the Garand. I think perhaps the key to it was the use of a rotary bolt. One of the common problems with early self-loaders was failure to extract, with the fired cartridge case getting stuck in the chamber. Some early rifle, including the Pedersen design that competed with the Garand, required lubricated cases, which is a definite drawback. The M1 bolt turns as it opens, which gives a little twist to the cartridge case helping to break it free (called primary extraction). The Gew-43 uses a flap locking system and the SVT-40 uses a tilting bolt. In both the bolts travel back and forth but don't have the turning motion, making them more prone to failure to extract or, worse, ripping the rim off a fired case. The long stroke gas system of the M1 isn't as elegant as the short stroke tappet system of the SVT-40 (copied in the Gew-43). On the downside, it adds weight. On the plus side it produces reliable power to work the bolt and the weight of the components once put in motion can help overcome adverse conditions, like the build up of fouling in the chamber, dirt in the action, etc.

A might have been weapon was produced by Winchester that would have been interesting if it went into production. It merged aspects of the Garand and the M1 Carbine. The receiver was essentially and M1 Garand, but the gas system was the short stroke piston of the Carbine. It would have used a detachable box magazine and was lighter than the M1. It was produced too close to the war to be considered for further development, which is a shame.