The M1 in the American Rifleman

[Mk VII]

It may be worth calling attention to the scanned copies of the American Rifleman available online from back when it was a magazine you'd actually want to read.

American Rifleman 1923-2015 : Free Texts : Free Download, Borrow and Streaming : Internet Archive
The August 1938 edition is here with the article by Major Guy H. Drewry introducing the M1 to the NRA membership. So too is the April 1940 edition with the editorial, 'The Courage To Be Frank' expressing doubts about the M1, and the May 1940 edition with NRA staffer F.C. Ness's evaluation, in the Dope Bag column, of an early (muzzle cap) rifle, and exactly one clip, that he had borrowed. He praised some features; some of his criticisms, such as of the early sight which would not hold its zero, were justified, other appeared to be peculiar to the example they tested.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Surpmil]

There's a nice there from 1960-something on how to make a decent hunting rifle out of an M1 with tools every handyman has.

[Bob Seijas]

They damaged the reputation and acceptance of the new M1 and were very embarrassed when it eventually proved to be the magnificent weapon it became. The NRA was in the grip of the same old school shooters who damned it as "Not the '03." A Rifleman article, something like "Wanted: an Infantry Rifle" blatantly charged it with all the conservative complaints about autoloaders and the belief that war would involve long range marksmanship. They had no clue about the "fire and maneuver" that modern war turned out to be. They never admitted it, either, just went on to praise the Garand as if their earlier criticism never happened.

[fjruple]

They damaged the reputation and acceptance of the new M1 and were very embarrassed when it eventually proved to be the magnificent weapon it became. The NRA was in the grip of the same old school shooters who damned it as "Not the '03." A Rifleman article, something like "Wanted: an Infantry Rifle" blatantly charged it with all the conservative complaints about autoloaders and the belief that war would involve long range marksmanship. They had no clue about the "fire and maneuver" that modern war turned out to be. They never admitted it, either, just went on to praise the Garand as if their earlier criticism never happened.

Bob-- ...And it still goes on today, the M1 had it teething problems like any new weapon system. Just like when the M16 was first adopted. The AR15 was not a refined product. When the issues were worked out, the M16A1 was a fine rifle. I found that there a lot of Elmer Fudds who never had to wear body armor, carry a rifle and a 55 lb pack into combat are the ones that complain. Little did the people who wrote the NRA article know what awaited the world shortly. The refined M1 and other equipment in the "fire and maneuver" warfare help save our "fat" from the fire that was to come.

[RCS]

There were some powerful elected officials and well known gun writers of the day that were looking forward for the M1 Garand to have a bad performance during the National Matches and testing.
Then they could promote their beloved Johnson rifle as the first choice to adopt instead of the M1 Garand rifle.

I have fired a few Johnson 1941 rifles and I can relate to the violent ejection pattern of these rifles, something was wrong with the timing and design. They also made a point that the Johnson
barrel could be removed in the field - like it was really important for the infantry soldier to be able to change out his rifle barrel in combat ? The Johnson bayonet ! not worth talking about it.

Then there was talk how the Johnson 1941 light machine gun could replace the BAR. It was obvious that Johnson could not adopt a magazine like the 20rd BAR (or FG 42) and used the awkward
single cartrdige feed on his design.

I did know a collector who owned Johnson serial number R13 and even years ago it was valued at 10K

[browningautorifle]

I have fired a few Johnson 1941 rifles and I can relate to the violent ejection pattern of these rifles, something was wrong with the timing and design. They also made a point that the Johnson
barrel could be removed in the field - like it was really important for the infantry soldier to be able to change out his rifle barrel in combat ? The Johnson bayonet ! not worth talking about it.

Yes on all this. I once mentioned to this forum about my violent ejection pattern and they suggested it was a collapsed barrel latch spring...I think. That's what handles the barrel recoiling. Mine would launch the brass right off the range to my right, easily ten yards. I'd stand so it would go into the woods. The ejector caved in the rim so it was useless for reloading.

[Mk VII]

I had a Johnson, in the 1980s, and I don't recall the ejection being violent - indeed it struggled to function at all, in the beginning, until it recalled the rudiments of semi operation.

[browningautorifle]

I don't recall the ejection being violent

That was the story line last time we all talked about one of those, I'd never even known anyone in Canada that owned one let alone shot it. Let alone owned the bayonet too... Mine was in good shape and I loaded ammo to military spec, have no info from wartime about it's details on the range.

[GaryWKeim]

The ejection of my m1918 BAR is frightful... to those in the booths to my right. I wouldn't want to take one of those hot shells in the cheek.

[Rick B]

Johnson rifles had a poor butt stock. Two small screws holding it on and if you fell on the rifle wrong you would break the butt stock off disabling the rifle completely. Accurate rifle but poor design that Stoner and Johnson got right with the plastic AR rifle later on. Rick B