HealzDevo
Staff Sergeant
These are very good videos thank-you. I look forward to seeing more eventually.
Rifles and Machineguns of WW2
- Thread starter CharlesBronson
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
I have a new question now. Do you think that the Reising Sub Machine gun was really needed? It may have been light weight but how it was made was unreliable. I know for a fact that the Marine Paratroopers in the pacific used them.
James Pickering
Airman
Official nomenclature -- US rifle, cal.30, M1plan_D said:
I will refer to these rifles as "Garands" (after the inventor, John C. Garand) hereafter as a matter of convenience for that was a term of endearment and convenience employed by so many GIs.
I have shot many thousands of rounds using the Garand rifle (in match competition) -- it was indeed a superb Infantry weapon. In addition to its superior rate of aimed fire, it had the best issue sights I have encountered on a military rifle (peep rear sight with positive click adjustments for elevation and windage), was extremely accurate and very reliable.
I was issued two Premium Grade Garands in the US military and fired several different ones in my capacity as Base NCOIC Marksmanship Training/Range Officer.
They made up into excellent target rifles and accurized versions were produced by Military Marksmanship Centers -- with polished sears/hammer hooks, crisply adjusted trigger pulls and carefully bedded barrelled actions in the stocks -- I have scored several possibles (100x100) at 600 yds on the "B" (National Match course) target using two such rifles.
I have also fired several Springfield bolt action rifles (US Rifle, cal.30, Model 1903, A1 and A3). This was also a fine Infantry weapon although the rate of aimed fire was naturally not on a par with the Garand and the sights were inferior by comparison. Additionally, I have fired British Lee-Enfield miltary rifles (SMLE Mk III 4) and German Military Mauser rifles in their various configurations on the firing range and found them to be adequately accurate. In my experience, the Garand is much more accurate at longer ranges (500, 600 1000 yards) due to its superior sights.
Both the Garand and Springfield 1903 rifles used the 30/06 rimless cartridge -- a very powerful and accurate round. The commonest cartridge configuration issued in WWII used the 150 grain flat based cupro-nickle bullet at muzzle velocity of approx. 2800 fps -- tracer, incendiary and armor-piercing versions were issued in lesser quantities. Some long range cartridges (AKA competition cartridges) using a 172 grain boat-tail cupro-nickle bullet at a muzzle velocity of approx 2650 fps were issued, mainly for use in sniper rifles (equipped with leather cheek pieces and telescopic scope sights).
Both rifles were equipped with leather (older pre-war) or web adjustable slings and the Springfield with the M1 (earlier WWI vintage) bayonet and the Garand with either the M1 or M5 (short WWII) bayonet.
Incidentally, the Garand can be readily loaded with a partial clip by those who attain the skill -- usually target competition shooters who are used to initially loading with a partial clip of two rounds at the start of each rapid fire string (loading with a full eight round clip after the first two rounds are discharged) -- I can load a partial clip with ease and reasonable rapidity (I have had a lot of practice). I think the old saw about a weakness of the Garand being the "ping" of the ejected clip allowing a rush by an opponent during the reloading of a new clip in combat is overblown and somewhat of a myth. Even a moderately dexterous soldier can reload very rapidly and resume delivering aimed fire in a split second. Partially expended clips can be easily ejected via the clip release latch on the side of the receiver. It can also be loaded and fired as a single shot weapon if the need should arise, in fact, that is the way it is used in competitive/qualification long range shooting (600 1000 yards).
The Garand was the standard US issue Infantry rifle in WWII (and also in the Korean War). It was in general use by early 1942. The last unit to use 1903 Springfield rifles as standard issue was the US Marine Corps at Guadalcanal -- once they saw the effectiveness of the Garands in the hands of the Army units they soon adopted that weapon (and some Johnson rotary magazine semi-automatic rifles). The Springfield 1903 rifle was issued and used in a sniper configuration on a limited basis during WWII (and also in the Korean War).
In my opinion the best features of the "Garand" are its property of being able to deliver rapid aimed fire, its rugged reliability dependability and its excellent sights.
The feared "M1 thumb" is a rookie mistake experienced when first learning to handle the rifle in basic training -- it is a result of incorrect handling during dissassembly and assembly training and dry firing exercises -- depressing the follower with the bolt locked open without controlling the operating rod handle -- the bolt then slams shut on the thumb (or fingers) producing a painful bruise. The correct drill is to position the heel of the right hand against the operating rod handle to prevent it from flying forward as the thumb depresses the follower -- just allowing the bolt to engage the bevelled rear of the follower then swinging the hand up and away thereby allowing the bolt to lock home.
Most recruits experience an "M1 thumb" at least once (the painful lesson is usually well learned) and it is considered a rite of passage by many small arms instructors. This situation does not occur during live firing as the top round in the clip controls the operating rod closure.
Nonskimmer
Captain
Good post. If I'm not mistaken, the M-14 was a direct continuation of the M-1 Garand design. Basically an improved "Garand".
James Pickering
Airman
Yes, actually an upgrade -- chambering for the 7.62mm NATO cartridge, substitution of a box magazine for the en-bloc clip of the Garand and provision of a selector lever in order to chose semi-automatic or full-automatic fire.Nonskimmer said:
Glider
Captain
May I also add excellent shooting. A possible at 600 yards with a standard rifle is impressive.
James Pickering
Airman
Actually not that unusual with an accurized Garand. There would usually be several clean 600 yard targets by NRA Master class shooters in High Power rifle matches.Glider said:
Glider
Captain
I suggest there is a whole world of difference between a Master Class shooter, and a Glider Class shooter.
James Pickering
Airman
While I was sorting through my rifle shooting photographs, I came across the attached one of me dry firing a Winchester model 70 heavy barrel target rifle (Redfield International Mk 8 sights) in 30/06 caliber in preparation for a high power rifle match. I thought it would be instructional to post it and the accompanying story in this thread for it illustrates aimed rapid fire function of a semi-automatic versus a bolt action rifle.
Although I was issued two match grade Garands, I opted to use this bolt rifle in the NRA matches -- it was extremely accurate at 600 yards.
The rapid fire strings in the National match course are 10 shots, standing to sitting, at 200 yards in 50 seconds and 10 shots, standing to prone, at 300 yards in 60 seconds -- for semi-automatic rifles. For bolt action rifles the time allowances are 60 seconds and 70 seconds respectively if they are assigned their own relay. If it is impractical to assign them their own relay (just one or two in the match, for instance) they are mixed in with the semi-automatic rifles and all shooters get the longer rapid fire time limits.
Actually, I soon became proficient at working the bolt rapidly and got off my shots within the lower time limits with the same accuracy as with my Garands.
Although I was issued two match grade Garands, I opted to use this bolt rifle in the NRA matches -- it was extremely accurate at 600 yards.
The rapid fire strings in the National match course are 10 shots, standing to sitting, at 200 yards in 50 seconds and 10 shots, standing to prone, at 300 yards in 60 seconds -- for semi-automatic rifles. For bolt action rifles the time allowances are 60 seconds and 70 seconds respectively if they are assigned their own relay. If it is impractical to assign them their own relay (just one or two in the match, for instance) they are mixed in with the semi-automatic rifles and all shooters get the longer rapid fire time limits.
Actually, I soon became proficient at working the bolt rapidly and got off my shots within the lower time limits with the same accuracy as with my Garands.
P38 Pilot
Tech Sergeant
The M1 Garand is not only a great infantry rifle but very beautiful. I like it.
But I have another question: What are your opinions on the Reising SMG? I have heard about it jamming up and being light weight.
But I have another question: What are your opinions on the Reising SMG? I have heard about it jamming up and being light weight.
James Pickering
Airman
I have never fired a Reising SMG and the only knowledge I have of it are as a result of reading written articles and on-line search references.P38 Pilot said:
James Pickering said:
Your absolutely right James, I've shot the Garand a good couple of times myself and it is a very accurate rifle, and it certainly doesn't lack power.
However as it uses a gas driven reloading mechanism it is inherently less accurate than a bolt action rifle. However as you said yourself the main deciding factor for accuracy is the sights, and the Garand sure did have better sights than both the K98k and SMLE No.4.
If you ask me the Garand is the best battle rifle of WW2.
The most accurate rifle of WW2 however, is the K98k, the best Sniper-rifle of WW2.
The best 'bolt action' battle rifle has got to be the SMLE No.4, with its smooth action and good iron sights.
The post was very good. However, while talking of the rifle in combat this paragraph means nothing. While you are able to reload mid-clip, with a lot of practice, a rookie soldier in the midst of conflict would not be able to. And the trademark 'ping' of the Garand would have been some problem, as you never want to tell the enemy when you've ran out of ammo.
James Pickering
Airman
plan_D said:
Not so, never was a problem -- an anecdotal myth.
wmaxt
Staff Sergeant
plan_D said:
Plan if the enemy soldier is close enough to hear the ping in combat then your not going to be thinking about shooting him with your rifle anymore anyway, loaded or not.
wmaxt
Nonskimmer
Captain
You would think that in most combat scenarios like those that occurred in WWII, the "ping" probably wasn't heard by the enemy very often anyway. With rifle and machine-gun fire going off all around, and at any kind of distance, an enemy isn't going to hear that kind of sound coming from your weapon. In any case, GI's and marines were pretty proficient at reloading their weapons quickly. If it's close enough for hand-to-hand, you're in sh*t anyway.
If you're close enough to hear the 'ping', you're still going to be in a situation to shoot someone. It's exactly the same as if the enemy realises a machine gun is reloading, or changing the barrel. In urban combat it could very well end up in a situation where a U.S soldier was rushed, and killed because the enemy heard he was out of ammo. Even if he rushed him and stabbed him because the soldier had no way of defending himself while reloading. No matter how quick someone is at reloading, there's still time involved. I'm not saying the 'ping' was a major problem, I'm not saying it's even a problem that needed fixing. I'm saying that at some point during the war, a U.S soldier would have been killed because the enemy heard he was out of ammo and saw/heard his chance. And unless you have every single combat encounter a U.S soldier ever had while using the Garand in any war, then you can't say it never was a problem. It's simple logic, you'd never-ever-ever-ever-ever want to inform your enemy that you're reloading.
James Pickering
Airman
In the midst of combat that "ping" is swallowed by the "sound of battle". I never remember hearing it in the midst of rifle fire. Recruits are required to reload during rapid fire strings -- 10 shots, initial loading with two cartridges, reloading with a full clip in 50/60 seconds -- on the firing range, and they were amazed to find that this could be accomplished in two or three seconds -- finger on the trigger. Such reloading is soon an automatic response. I believe an enemy would have to be within about ten yards in order to successfully press home an assault on a Garand equipped soldier in the act of reloading -- if he could even hear the "ping" -- avoid the bayonet point -- and the most probable eventuality that the soldier had successfully reloaded with his finger on the trigger.wmaxt said:
I do not remember any such a documented report during the Korean war, nor have I been able to trace one. I also checked with "Gunner" Kenton (see post bearing his name on this Forum) who spent WW2 as a USMC Ordinance Gunnery Sergeant in the Pacific -- and was in charge of a Division small arms Battlefield recovery unit -- to see if he could recall such a documented event. He couldn't.
James Pickering
Airman
I agree -- please see my previous posting on this subject.Nonskimmer said:
