Design the Garand to be new

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

In British service, the magazines of both the SMLE and the later Enfield No.4 were normally only removed for cleaning. Loading was done using the charger clips, via the bridge charger guide on top of the bolt housing.
 
As a brief detour, I always like the scene in the movie "Battleground" (1949) when the cooks and wounded are being sent to the line, one of the men says " How does this work? I haven't fired anything but the 03." The other GI says, "This is a semi automatic, gas operated, clip fed, 30 cal...." "Look, ya aint sellin it to me, how does it work?' "Oh, you just pull this back , put in the clip and you are ready to go."
 
I gets the feeling that the M1 Carbine was the pragmatic choice. The average rear echelon can't shoot a 45 so give em a small rifle.

Was the the Carbine front line entry? Or was that the choice of the infantry soldier?

I would say choice of the M-14 and 7.62 NATO was pure dogma. It was not the way to swing and held back the way forward.
 
The M1 Carbine was issued to support troops. The M1 was issued to the infantry. Some infantrymen did carry carbines but unless they were officers, it was unauthorized. Some infantrymen also carried German submachine guns picked up on the battlefield- also unauthorized.
 


The US Army wanted a semi-auto rifle, and the Garand was the best of those tested and developed. They are fully the equal of the SMLE in mud, believe it or not. The user was also issued Lubriplate, a lubricant used for outboard boat motors, and that did NOT wash off in a rainstorm or when "hitting the beach". The parkerized finish kept them from rusting if you did any maintenance whatsoever. All in all, the Garand was an excellent rifle, reliable and sturdy, which is why it got the accolades it did, Was it perfect? No, immediately after the War, the Ordnance Dept. sought out any and all criticisms, and the most common complaint was the weight, and some wanted a carrying handle on it, ala BAR or BREN gun. Other than that, the en-bloc clip got some comments, (which is how the M-14 got it's 20 round box magazine).
Overall, though, the Garand was well-liked by it's users.
 
Was there any blowback from carrying the M1 Carbine? Surely some asshat must have said something.
 
The Basket said:
Was there any blowback from carrying the M1 Carbine? Surely some asshat must have said something.
Click to expand...
Generally carrying unissued weapons was overlooked since there was no regulation against it as far as I know. In addition to my issued M14, I carried a Walther PP in a shoulder holster s well as a Randall Model 1 "All-Purpose Fighting Knife" when I was in the field in Germany during the Cold War ('61-'63) and only got stopped once by a very young MP who took issue with my Randall since it had a blade longer than 4". The M14, PP, and a few grenades didn't seem to concern him at all. At MP headquarters. the old duty sergeant looked at me, looked at the MP, and told me "get outta here".
 
At Pearl Harbour sailors were threatened with court martial for smashing open ammunition lockers during the attack.

Never underestimate officer stupidity.

During ww1 Canadian soldiers would ditch the Ross for a SMLE but had to keep the Ross handy for when the brass appeared.

A Japanese soldier who threw away their type 99 would be meeting their honoured ancestors in very short order.
 
My dad was a Marine Sgt at Guadalcanal. His Marines were arm with 03 Springfields, Bars, late 30's stuff, some of the later Army troops came in with new Garands.
Soon Marines started getting Garands from careless Army troops, there were no complaints from his higher commanders, though I'm sure those Army troops got hell.

In Vietnam we were allowed to carry anything we wanted in the helicopter, within reason, as long as we had our official weapons with us.
Then we got a new CO, things changed then.
His reasoning was he didn't want us crashing with more weapons than we could easily retrieve. And didn't want us out there with guns, that we maybe couldn't get good ammo and maintenance support for.
I guess he sorta had a point there.
So things depended on your higher chain of command, and how they saw the rules.
 
The Johnson rifle was not issued but it did manage to see service.

It was recoil operated so the barrel pushed back a little. Problem is that a bayonet is a problem and wear and tear affects accuracy.

The bayonet issue was solved by putting a small light bayonet on there.

Possible Garand replacement?
 
The Johnson was a good rifle, but by the time it was available, Garand tooling and all the other stuff needed to produce it was already "online" and turning out rifles.

Why get rid of the good rifle you already have, to get another that wasn't quite as robust, dirt resistant, and had more small parts?

By that time, the Garand had about 20 years worth of development, while the Johnson still had hiccups.
Of course, all of this is explained and commented on, in Hatcher's book.................................................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

From WW2 Bachem's Ba 349 Natter (Viper), to the cold war
Replies
1
Views
492
Gnomey
85 years ago today, Sept 1 1939, the second world war began.
Replies
1
Views
428
MIflyer
M
New Movie Release on 6 Oct 2023 - One to Watch!!!
Replies
4
Views
6K
special ed
S
I
Help needed with the translation of my WWII Japanese Going To War Banner
Replies
8
Views
1K
ironmannf
I
O
British Balloon Bombs in the Balkans, Summer 1943?
Replies
4
Views
381
Old MacDonald
O
Menu
Log in
Register