Garand vs Johnson

[clancy]

Gentlemen,
Again, a question for the new guys. Here is a small file on the test between the Johnson and the M1 Garand Rifle. My question to you is do you think that the Johnson Rifle was given a fair test by US Ordnance and SA? Have fun with this one. BTW I know that the date is wrong it should read 1940.





Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read this data. I hope you learn some data on the M1 Garand.
Clancy

ps could use some hits
NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF

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.

[Skippy]

ANyone here every handled both?
How would such a person compare the two if they had no political affiliations?

[Winchester-1897]

I've only ever handled the Garand, so I can not give an opinion.

[Jason]

I own both an M1941 JSAR and a Springfield M1D. Personally I prefer the more simple engineering of the JSAR (no gas system), also having a removable bbl and being able to randomly add cartridges to the 10r magazine are a plus.

[Chuckindenver]

i own both, love shooting both, but, the Johnson is cooler, and gets more attention at the range.
felt recoil is more with the johnson the the Garand, the Johnson will out group any standard garand i have shot.
but.
the Garand is more affordable, and easier to get that a Johnson, and cost a lot less.

[mike radford]

Chuck has more experience with the 2 than I do. I recently shot my only Johnson. It was a real pleasure to shoot. I could only get a 8 or more MOA from it. It may be the individual rifle. I hate a rifle I can not shot well in the end.

With a good Garand I can get sub-3 MOA consistently. I have several I can do near MOA. Of these, I have shot a dozen or more.

The Johnson is a great platform. I wish I would have gotten one at the $200 range 25 yrs ago. I hope someone will post some targets from a Johnson which are tight. Mine were not.

[Bob Womack]

I haven't shot a Johnson, however, I've heard that there was no practical way to use a bayonet on the Johnson without damage, given that the barrel moves. Any thoughts on that?

Bob

[BruceV]

With respect, I have no experience w/ the Johnson. I have some modest experience w/ the Garand. As a pastor I have over 25 years of experience dealing with institutional structures and programs. The process of development that led to the adoption of the M-1 Garand was extensive and exhaustive. Doubtless there were advocates for each proposed weapon that was considered. From what I've read, the Johnson came late in the game. Mr. Johnson was himself effective in public relationship. But the M-1 Garand was deemed to be a superior weapon. With war looming, a decision had to be made. One can only wonder what would have been the consequences for the U.S. if at such a late date the decision had been made to develop the Johnson for combat use. Maybe it would have worked well. But there is no doubt that as developed and deployed the M-1 Garand worked extremely well indeed. JMHO. Sincerely. BruceV.

[Hank Stone]

I have this link concerning Garand and Johnson info.

http://www.johnsonautomatics.com/

[Bob Womack]

Thanks for the link, Hank. Here's what the site had to say about the bayonet:

The bayonet Johnson developed for the Model 41 rifle is unlike any other used by the US military in recent years. It was designed to fulfill the requirements of the Army Ornance Board, who specified any rifle design submitted for military use must have provision for fitting a bayonet. Tests with the standard Model 1905 bayonet caused the Johnson rifle to malfuction as it impaired the barrel's recoil, so this lightweight one was developed. In essence this bayonet was an afterthought with little or no practical use. In the field the marines referred to these bayonet as 'tent pegs' due to their similarity to the GI peg.

So I guess that answers that particular question.

Bob