The Japanese Garand

[Bob Seijas]

During WWII Springfield got a couple of the new German MG-42 machine guns and tried to reverse engineer it... and failed. It ain't so easy!

BTW, GCA just got a Letter to the Editor from a member: "... about 1976 Sumner's Hardware in Ft. Knox, KY received a large group of guns from an estate. I remember examining a Japanese Garand. I didn't buy it and have regretted it for the rest of my life. I think it was $125. It was it sad shape. The action was jammed, the stock damaged, and the magazine box was missing. I didn't know what a treasure it really was. Lost opportunity."

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.

[browningautorifle]

I think it was $125.

Cheap at twice the price...

[limpetmine]

International had problems with their production because Springfield purposefully gave them incorrect dimensions on some critical parts. H & R came to help I.H. and that's where their deceit was found. Egg on faces all around. Most of the M-1's that went to Iran were I.H.'s, from what I've read.

Not that easy to copy the Springfield M1 rifle - IHC had problems in the 50's and they (IHC rifles) became the favorite gift to the third world nations.

But you really have to credit Winchester, during the 1939 - 1941 time period, they were working on their own 30-06 semi auto, developed the M1 carbine
and started manufacture of the M1 rifle, and it worked !

[mrclark303]

International had problems with their production because Springfield purposefully gave them incorrect dimensions on some critical parts. H & R came to help I.H. and that's where their deceit was found. Egg on faces all around. Most of the M-1's that went to Iran were I.H.'s, from what I've read.

It's astonishing Springfield behaved that way!

Was it sanctioned from the top, or disgruntled engineering staff with an axe to grind, taking it on their own backs?

Always something new to learn on Milsurps...

[mrclark303]

It's hard to see this wasn't carried out with some official nod, as surely SA engineering staff must have been on site at IHC to assist in getting production underway.

You could argue that such an act during a time of national emergency is out right sabotage and treasonous behaviour.

Quite astonishing.

[pocketshaver]

off topic somewhat, but didn't that happen in WW1 with producing the 1911?

And in world war 1 there was a fiasco with the French light machine gun, the Chauchat.. aka shoo shoo by the us troops. The issue is that when the French were forced to make it in 30-06, there were "dimensional issues" in the chamber.... history has claimed it was an "accidental math error by French engineers converting the imperial 30-06 chamber drawings"

[RCS]

The Germans also converted captured examples to fire their 7,92mm cartridge.

Also read that FN in Belgium converted WW1 Franch Chaucat during the 1920's to fire the 7,92mm cartridge for Poland. A lot of work to rebuild these lmg's in something that might work.

[BEAR]

It's stories like these that really raise the hair on the back of my neck. It makes me think of the young men that died because SA wanted to retain control of small arms design and production.
I think back on the debacle that was the rifle trials that led to the adoption of the M14. The T48 was clearly the better design.
Then there is the M16 travesty that led to many men dying in Vietnam because SA didn't want the M14 replaced.
And then there is the after war rifle trials between the M1903 and the M1917.
Springfield Armory's war cry "Not designed here by us, not adopted or built by us".
So, how much truth was there in the low numbered 1903 problem or was it SA trying to live longer in a low money environment.
I have a low numbered RIA that was a OK National Guard target rifle. It was sold at auction in the 50s and the owner used it for hunting deer every year. And such dangerous rifles were rebuilt and used in WWII.
Sorry about my rant, didn't mean to detract from the main topic of the Japanese Garand.
BEAR

[RCS]

Bear, it is an old story about US Ordnance neglecting other weapons such as the Lewis gun in WW1 which was designed in the US and manufactured in England. The
removal from service of almost all Model 1917 rifles after WW1 to keep the native Springfield 1903.

I wrote an article for Digest Books years ago on the US High Standard and HRA T48 rifles. Even some US troops went though basic training with the T48 rifle and as
good a rifle as it tested, it was never going to be adopted. They wanted the M14. Even when the M14 production came to an end, there was even an attempt to
salvage the M14 by having TRW produce some examples in 5,56mm using M16 magazines. Then you have the M60.

[Col. Colt]

Bear, I think we need a whole new thread to address some of your assertions.....
There is evil and there is incompetence and then there is just how things happen in large organizations - especially government run organizations. Quickly:

The M1903 receiver problem was due to limitations and lack of understanding at the time by systems of manufacture in 1903 - not some money issue. Heat Treat was done by eyeball and it had "always worked before" - with low pressure cartridges like the .45/70 and the Krag.
And the M1903 was lighter and more accurate than the clunky M1917 Enfield - but the real reason was that when all three Enfield Rifle makers quit making them - all the parts and support was over - and a Government Arsenal built weapon could not be sidelined by Labor Union strikes - which had happened when Civilian makers were used - cannot have that in a war. So the weapon made in US Arsenals (not commercially) got the nod. That and you could adjust the rear sight for windage and Marksmanship was still KING - read Crossman's "Book of the Springfield" - he is fair with the deficencies of the '03 - but the M1917 had a FRAGILE Ejector, to - broke frequently.

The M14 did have legit advantages over the T48/FN - pistol grip rifles suck for bayonet drill and as a marksman's rifle - at least in the viewpoint of the US.mil in that time period, easy transition for training from the M1 - and I agree. Everything must be evaluated according to where they were then - not from the hindsight of 60 plus years, if you are fair and honest. And the FN sights and trigger SUCK compared to the M14s. The FN was better for conscript dumb troops - not for US Marksmanship trained troops.

The M14 was a full pound lighter - this matters. The M14 could take a salt water dunking and be completely stripped and cleaned by the soldier - the FN required armorer's tools and time to get the salt out. During the trials, the FN choked on Sand - common stuff in the world - and Sand Cuts were eventually added - too late for trials, and the M14 was also more reliable in cold. And the M14 is still successfully in use as an accurate specialist/DMR rifle - the FN is gone. Ever try mounting a scope on an FN/FAL??

The M16s failures were NOT Springfield Armory's fault - McNamara was CLOSING Springfield Armory down in favor of civilian manufacture of our Service Rifles and KILLING the whole Armory System just as the AR/M16 was being adopted and fielded. Thus the original Armalite/Colt ARs did not have the BENEFIT of regular, full Ordnance Testing in sand, dirt, cold, ammo differences. The prototypes with IMR powder tested by the Green Berets (who cleaned the rifles, by the way) worked GREAT.

With it's original IMR powder loaded to original specs, the first AR15/M16s had NO PROBLEMS except chamber rusting from lack of cleaning and cleaning gear (fixed by chroming by Colt and issuing gear). And that was caused by a mistaken belief the Stoner design was "self cleaning" - Ha!

What messed up the AR was the introduction of Ball Powder (cheap by McNamara again - melted down OLD Battleship powder into Ball powder - expense of the Vietnam war) with too much Calcium Carbonate that gummed up the Direct Gas System - IMR powder did not. Colt, to their credit, engineered around all the problems fairly quickly and the M16 became very reliable - with a butt stock cleaning kit and lube added, too.

Without verification by more than one person, in writing - and reviewing all circumstances, I don't believe in just accepting old stories newly told by people with failing memories. Springfield was a MILITARY run outfit - and somebody should have been brought up on charges if these allegations of sabotage of the Civilian Makers was true - hell they would have sued....

I have spent most of my life reading and studying these weapons and their manufacture. Mistakes always get made, and then fixed - in all weapons systems. The early B17s were no prize, either. But unless you have extensive testing (like SA as US Ordnance Department used to do to weapons systems) the Soldier gets to do final test - which sucks. Do some more reading - "common knowledge" is frequently that - common and Wrong. CC