At least their consistent.
Wanted: a Rifle - TIME
Printable View
At least their consistent.
Wanted: a Rifle - TIME
Good read. Not everything in life is perfect. Thanks Dan.
Sometimes we forget what goes into the development of a new rifle. Not only from a mechanical aspect but also the crap they had to put up with from the media. Coming from a top of the line, proven-standard of the day- bolt action battle rifle did not help matters. The thing is, we needed a rifle above the standard of the day to give our guys a decisive edge. Nothing wrong with the Johnson rifle, but from a purely asthetic point, fortunately the Garand was chosen.
The one constant is that the new media are always in search of a scandal.
It is also interesting that the NRA came out against the Garand. Can I assume that the Gas Trap was the culprit cited in this report?
Bob
With every new design, of anything, there is always a period of time where it must be tested on the job. Usually it needs some tweaking. These are simply referred to as FM's.
The M-16 was perfect from the time McNamarra handed it over to the troops, wasn't it?
I believe that the Garand has stood the test of time, and has lived up to what Patton said about it.
And that is exactly what's wrong with media that looses sight of the forest when it is counting twigs. I'd agree with you about the Garand and point to the love for the weapon witnessed by CMP sales as proof.
Bob
I doubt the barrel warped from heat. I bet it was from the hand guards being to tight.
As for the Johnson. It had a tube loaded spring for the bolt that was built into the wooden stock just like the M16 which Melvin Johnson worked on with Stoner as his bolt design was carried over also. If the stock was off the rifle it was useless. The two small screws that hold the stock on the Johnson were and still are prone to cracking the stock as they come loose from firing. Recoil then rattles the stock and crack it goes. This cracks it right down the middle thru the end at the drum magazine and also up top rearwards at the bolt cover. These cracks are on more than 80% of all Johnson’s I have seen and the only repairs I have had to do to every one I have worked on. This is not considering the men falling on the rifle as taught with the butt end down first. The Johnson rifle would have surely broken and been of no use in combat.
I love the Johnson rifle for plinking as it is accurate as heck but it would have never made it in combat and that is a fact not a opinion.
Rick B
The Johnson would have been fun with a bayonet...
We do have 70 years of hindsight that the author didn't have.
It is interesting to see how the rifle was viewed during the testing of the "gas trap" design. What surprises me is that the BAR was around 20 years before the final acceptance of the Garand and they could have used it's basic gas system and it's magazine. With those already proven designs the Garand would have even been better.
I see nothing wrong with the Garand gas system. The Army was very aware of the advantages and disadvantages of detachable box magazines. They didn't want them and specified clip loading for the new design.
The simple 8 round steel clip has been condemned by "expert" writers for years. However, most of the actual users of the M1 seemed to be very fond of the rifle and its loading system.
Those "proven designs" were eventually used, in the M-14. It corrected all the minor faults with the Garand's gas system, magazine capability, and top-off ability. It proved itself everywhere it was used.Quote:
could have used it's basic gas system and it's magazine. With those already proven designs the Garand would have even been better.
But, alas our government had to go "cheap" and the finest US rifle ever made was relegated to the scrap heap.
"Whoever is right, Melvin Johnson makes sense when he says: "The point is not whose rifle, or whose face, or what procedure. . . . The real problem is to get a suitable, manufacturable, reliable, rugged rifle, and plenty of them." "
And that they did, with the M1 Garand.:thup:
I think these are examples of the cracks Rick mentioned. This crack ran back to the pistol grip, making it about 6" long.Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick B
I know one GI that was happy to have a Garand over the '03, my Dad.
Jiml
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
Yes Jim that is it exactly :thup:and I bet teh top side is cracked also in a loop just at the bolt release cover. The bolts were so small and this area was so thin it clearly would have proven to be a issue and would have gotten allot of men killed. I love the rifle but not for combat without some changes to the stock mounting area. Rick B
Yeah I think it does, not very familiar with the Johnson. I have images of this becuause I repaired it for a guy 2 or so years ago.
If you look carefully you can see how far back the crack runs, almost beyond the grip.
JimL
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
I repair them with repair screws or dowels sometimes. They hold up well. Rick B
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
https://www.milsurps.com/images/imported/deleted.gif
One of the greatest opponents of the M1 was Fred C. Ness who was editor of the “Dope Bag” a feature of the “American Rifleman” magazine. He surreptitiously acquired on loan an early M1 and tested it by clamping it in a vise and firing it as rapidly as possible. The rifle, according to him, strung shots vertically. As I became familiar with the M1, I always believed that it was because the stock ferule bore against the lower barrel band when cold. As the rifle heated up in extended firing, the barrel had a tendency to lengthen relieving this pressure and causing the shots to string. I cannot, of course, prove this. The review is in an early “American Rifleman” magazine.
For a complete story of the M1, I would suggest that one get and read a copy of General Hatcher’s M1 rifle book. The politics in the ordnance at the time were quite extensive and had a lot of influence.
The article by Ness appears in the May 1940 AMERICAN RIFLEMAN and runs for three pages. The rifle used was evidently an early “gas trap” rifle though the article indicates that the “gas port” rifle was currently in production. During these tests the rifle was NOT clamped in a vise, but was fired from normal rifleman positions. A total of 692 rounds were fire with 304 being single loaded and 388 from clips. A summary shows 50 hand loads, 80 commercial, 120 M2 ball and the remainder were M1 ball. Interesting article. Ness attributes the vertical stringing to bending of the barrel by the op rod and op rod spring. Just a follow up for info. Firing was conducted to and including 600 yards and included some 16 shot RF strings.
If I remember correctly either “LOOK” or “LIFE” magazine also carried an article on the M1. The M1 was a controversial issue at the time.
A system w/ correctable flaws, persons in positions of authority w/ special interests to foster & a large dose of media hype... shades of the M16.