I haven't seen this, but i'm Pretty Sure many of y'all here have seen and read this one guys view about the M1 Garand. I REALLY like some of the 79 Replies about his view of the M1 Garand.
Overrated guns of history: the M1 Garand Gun Nuts Media
Printable View
I haven't seen this, but i'm Pretty Sure many of y'all here have seen and read this one guys view about the M1 Garand. I REALLY like some of the 79 Replies about his view of the M1 Garand.
Overrated guns of history: the M1 Garand Gun Nuts Media
A very young writer, made obvious by the preface references to video games, not particularly old games either.
I find the assessment of the rifle to be rather juvenile as well, comparisons drawn against very dis-similar items.
However I am of mixed opinion of the M1 Garand, as a rifle design. I have never owned or fired one, which doesn't lend my opinions a lot of credit. However I have owned an M14 (Norinco M305/M-14S) and fired a high dollar Smith Enterprise build. Between them all I have a couple thousand rounds.
While different from the M1, and M14 is operationally very similar.
My main issues with the M14 platform where weight, generally average accuracy, and the violence with which the mechanism operates under recoil. Everything just gets crashed around, and I didn't care for it. By contrast my SVT-40 is a smooth shooting pussycat that is easy to hold on target for rapid follow-up shots.
https://youtu.be/KydwknyfUrg?t=3m27s
https://youtu.be/ed8PZcJtLpA
The M14 is the only rifle to leave my collection, it just didn't capture my interest.
Now that I have some other firearms in the collection I am thinking about revisiting the M1/M14 platform in the way of an M1 Garand.
As a soldier's rifle in the time it was developed, I won't deny it was effective and by all reports quite reliable. Is it over-rated? That could be argued from a lot of angles without resolution.
Apparently the author doesn't know about the MG 42. As machine guns go I was under the impression they were the best, and more experienced members than me can say for sure, but I still haven't figured out how you get M1 thumb loading the rifle.
Wow, not being as enlightened so much as the respondents to the spurious case made by the writer,{the very young one} Im still trying to figure out how to make all those violent actions occur at the same time; with every firearm I own. I guess I better get with it. Even though this seems like an obvious attempt to create controversy, and being successful in that respect, I bet the most dangerous thing some of the commentators ever came nearest to was a overheated game boy screen let alone being behind any of the weapons that were discussed. However the slow -mo that accompanied the link was very interesting to me though. Thanks for putting that one up, there are some useful/beneficial things to be discerned there.
clearly he is ill informed - you can't get M1 thumb while loading unless it is a single round or an empty rifle.
I myself also think that's what he's EXACTLY doing to this Iconic USGI American Rifle.Quote:
Originally Posted by Doco overboard
This has to be one of the most bizarre, off-the-wall stories I've ever read. There is absolutely no logic underpinning the story -- no comparisons with other weapons (except the M1 Carbine) , no critiques of the times, and not any evidence to back up the facts. The comment comparing the rifle to the carbine's effectiveness has no basis in fact -- if the rifle had no advantages over the carbine, they would not have produced 4 million rifles and it would have been reviled by both the Army and the Marines. The M1 Rifle received very few criticisms in post WWII and Korean analysis of the weapon. Yes, it did need to be kept clean, but, compared to other weapons of the time, it rated quite favorably by infantrymen in both the European and Pacific theatres. The author is just another poorly informed writers who needed to fill up space.
That was a poorly written article, devoid of much in the way of facts , and one that if this guy ever becomes a famous writer I am sure he will regret. His knowledge of firearms and their history was appalling. If bolt actions were so obsolete by 1916, why did they last as the basic issue weapon for almost very Army for another 50 years? he simply knows nothing about the developmental history of the service rifle. I doubt he has ever really shot many of these arms, his knowledge likely coming from watching reruns of "combat" or perhaps in heavy combat of airsoft replicas.
His failure to acknowledge the No4 MK I or the K31 as particular shows a rather shallow knowledge base.
I would like to see this fellow write about civil war rifles. I expect he would say they all sucked because they were not bolt action rifles.
A complete failure to appreciate the M1 was the first really usable self-loading rifle in its 1940 form, and had a longer service career in both the US and one of two primary NATO issue rifles until around 1960. Pretty impressive.
I suppose we all have moments of stupidity in print that we later regret.
In my opinion, this, my friends, is a classic example of the progressive philosophy at work. I say this a-politically. Let me explain.
The primary premise of the progressive philosophy, as an outlook in general, is, "Things and people are getting better." That is the fundamental thought underpinning the outlook. It is sacred and central. History is a hill that we are pushing mankind up. We must take the steps to see to it that the future is better than the past. The present is, and must be, better than the past. The problem is, when carried to its extreme, this thought process simply doesn't conform to reality. There is good and bad in most ages of man. So, what do you do when confronted with things or people in the past who aren't worse than, and perhaps are better than, those of the present, and thus don't conform to your foundational idea that everything today is better than it was in the past? Unless you are really honest, you begin trying to find ways to tear down those things of the past so that they can be worse than what we have today and prove your philosophy.
And this is what you see repeatedly in progressive historians: a philosophically-driven need to do whatever is necessary to drive history forward and up, even if it means shoving the past down.
Bob
Wow,
Bob, never quite heard any approach like that. Might explain the writers cluelessness.
Truly well put Bob. 50% of the current Millennial generation (according to a recent Harvard study) actually believes that the future will not be better than the past, and thus they have has no commitment to improving our fate. This is a serious problem, and one that we, as an older generation must confront. (I'm actually starting a Leadership Institute to address this issue, but that's out of the league of this post. BTW, Bob, I'd like to quote your full statement -- with attribution -- in a blog on leadership, with your permission.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Womack
To stay on track, here are the facts, from a US Army analysis of Weapons and Equipment usage during the Korean War, conducted by Johns Hopkins University, surveying 636 Infantry soldiers in groups of 4-6 to gauge what actually happened in the field of battle:
CONCLUSIONS
The Infantryman's Load
1. Some of the clothing and equipment issued infantrymen in Korea proved non-essential and was either turned in or discarded by the soldier to increase his mobility and fighting power. This resulted in an average reduction in weight of individual clothing and equipment from 75 to 41 lb.
2. The average weight of clothing and equipment, plus weapons and ammunition actually carried by infantrymen in various jobs, was between 62 and 95 lb.
The M-1 Rifle
3. The M-1 rifle was most often fired at ranges less than 300 yds, both in the offensive and in the defensive. It was also fired most often in daytime offensive fighting at unseen targets without using sights and, in daytime defensive fighting at seen targets using sights. At night very few targets were seen and sights were practically never used. In combat the sling was never used, and elevation and windage adjustments were very rarely made, "Kentucky" windage being relief on almost exclusively.
4. M-1 rifle sights proved deficient in that the peep sights were difficult to keep clean and use in the rain and, on some
rifles, the rear sight had a tendency to loosen;(while the front sight would sometimes break off entirely.
5. Zeroing or test firing the M-1 in the combat area was not generally done.
6. The automatic loading feature or the M-1 tended to mal* function, probably because of the rifleman's failure to maintain his weapon properly.
7. A total of 1,354 M-1 rifles were used by 334 men (of those interviewed) during their combat service in Korea.
8 A sturdy cleaning rod attached to the rifle was considered necessary.
9- The noise caused by releasing the safety on the M-I was loud enough to alert the enemy in some situations
10. The noise caused by ejection of the empty clip from the M-1, despite the fact that at close range it could be heard by the enemy, was considered valuable by the r1fleman as a signal to reload.
11. In cold weather the M-l was difficult to reload when the issue mitten was worn. If the mitten was removed to facilitate reloading, the hand quickly became numb.
Ammunition
12 The rifleman in Korea normally carried 144•196 rounds for his weapon
13" Little use was made of tracer ammunition.
14 The web cartridge belt and the bandoleer used by the rifleman to carry ammunition had serious deficiencies. They were both uncomfortable. Ammunition in the cartridge belt got bent and wet and much ammunition dropped out of the bandoleer.
Grenades
15. The infantryman normally carried from three to four grenades.
16, White phosphorous grenades were carried less frequently than the fragmentation type either because men feared a WP wound from accidental detonation, or because they believed the WP grenades to be less effective.
17. The noise caused by pulling the pin on a grenade was considered undesirable as it might warn the enemy that a grenade was to be thrown.
18. The issue of mixed grenades having different fuzes and silent types, long and short burning times) caused confusion. One standard type of fuze was desired
19- Rifle grenades were rarely used
The Bayonet
20. The bayonet was used extensively.
21. Most of the men interviewed reported a lack of basic bayonet training
The Browning Automatic Rifle
22. Most BAR men discarded the bipod.
23 Most rifle squads increased their firepower by employing at least two BARs.
24. A twelve-man squad with two BARs was considered a better organization than the present one because of the increased firepower
25. The BAR was difficult to keep clean and had a high malfunction rate, particularly in winter and wet weather.
26. There was a high loss rate in BAR magazines.
The Light Machine Gun
27. There was a trend to increase the firepower of the rifle platoon by adding a second LMG.
28. The traversing mechanism on the A4 LMG was usually either left loose or removed altogether.
29. Men felt they should be trained in firing the A4 LMG from the hip when circumstances do not permit use of the tripod.
The 3.5 Rocket Launcher
30. Many units did not carry the 3.5 Rocket Launcher in the attack during the phase of the war when enemy armor was absent but substituted a BAR or an LMG.• Those units that did carry the rocket launcher seldom used it unless armor appeared.
Recoilless Rifles
31. The 57-mm Recoilless Rifle was habitually carried in the attack and was frequently used. Twelve to eighteen rounds per gun were carried.
32. The primary objection to the 57-mm RR was that it tended to draw enemy fire because of its back flash.
Notice, there is no reference to 'M1 Thumb". The bizarre writer should stick with the facts and leave his twisted opinions in his own head.
The following quote from the link amuses me, I've read it elsewhere as well:
" and it has a safety that requires you to put your finger in the trigger guard to disengage."
Question. Why do you disengage the safety? Answer. Because you're about to fire.
Question. Where do you put your trigger finger when you want to fire? Answer. On the trigger which is in the trigger guard.
When disengaging the safety the finger is moved forwards away from the trigger and then rearwards onto the trigger to fire. No problems there.
I've owned my Garand 20 years with no dramas, apart from the occasional tendency to spit out a half full clip. In short it does what it says on the box.
Oh and contrary to what is said in the article about not being able to top off a part loaded clip in the weapon, yes you can.
Very well put Bob, eloquent in fact. If I may, I will now give the response of an urban hardened streetwise individual.
Ahem,,,,,Up yours Glocktard.!!!!
Musical Garands - YouTube
This fella needs to read General S.L.A. Marshall's book "Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons- Korean War"
That will tell him some things about the M1 rifle.
You've got my permission, with my pleasure. Send me a link to your file once you write it, if you will please.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seaspriter
Bob
Clearly one thing that's lost to the older generation here is the modern art of trolling and the clown who wrote this article appears to be a Jedi Master at it.:lol::lol::lol:
basically he has written the piece to stir people up and hence get views and responses. as brent mentions it is called "trolling". in the case of using outrageous headlines to hook the reader it is called "click bait" a lot of "news" sites, some blogs and youtube channels work off the number of hits they get creating a income from advertising. i believe people can make a LOT of money off it.
I guess if the writer had used one in a conflict he/they may have a rather more appreciative approach to the weapon there is not one weapon today or then that will fulfill all the required parameters but if they cover a few then its done its job, it should be reliable in battle conditions, able to kill the enemy and most of all crunchie proof the rest is just icing on the cake.
From me I think the reference to the Kennedy dynasty was ill advised and completely wrong when you consider what John F Kennedy did for his crew after that Japanese destroyer cut them in half I thought the troller got off lightly really poor taste.
I am not stirred up brent65, I just think it is in poor taste to slap in their views on a political matter when that person was taken out by who we will never know but the reference none the less was made against one of the United States Presidents (dec).
And to be frank the wheel of life will look after them nicely as it will bite them good and proper I feel, me I got bigger things on my mind like when is the Army going to fix our range so I can start slinging lead again it has been nearly 18 months and still no movement that's what gets me mad brent65. But we cannot whinge about it otherwise they are just as likely to say get st*ffed and close it all together.......their perogative
You seem to miss the point also cinders the point of trolling is to stir people up and get a reaction
We said. In the jargon of Cassius Clay/Mohammad Ali this was also known in the boxing ring as "Rope a Dope" -- baiting people into untenable positions.Quote:
Originally Posted by brent65
The problem with "trolling" or "rope a dope" is that one's credibility is torn asunder. Many will stop following the troller because s/he is not worth the time or energy. I carefully screen this (and other forums) to see who is commenting -- some are value added commenters, others just use up space, some are controversial but stimulating, others try to use us for their ego-maniacal purposes (recall the recent exclusion of "Captain O").
Yes that was a red herring type of person that chap, eventually they will run out of sites to join and just end up being their own moderator on their own site with just one member themselves LMAO.........:rofl:
I didn't even have to open the article this time, I saw it on another forum a year or so ago. That forum came up with exactly the same conclusion as you all have. I think it was discovered that the writer was very young, as in too young to own a firearm. The knowledge was all based on internet gossip and World of Warcraft sort of games.Quote:
Originally Posted by brent65
The GCA Journal featured the M1 portion of the combat survey in the Fall 2015 issue and put the complete 89-page report up on our web site. You can go to theGCA.org to read it all.
I went to the web site and have not read such dribble in a long time. The writer is clueless about the M1 rifle. He make of held one in a previous life.
--fjruple