The Japanese Garand

[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.

[pocketshaver]

the shoo-shoo was a good rifle overall. other then the crappy magazines.

every non 1903 rifle made for ww1, was done as stop gap measures. Springfield NEVER had the ability to do the production needed so SOMETHING was needed. And all those rifles that were not the standard US rifle pattern, were ALWAYS going to get retired afte the war

[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

[Bob Seijas]

Wow, great post!

[Bob Womack]

Dick Culver was heavily involved with troubleshooting the problems with the M-16. The way he put it was that once he had the temerity to criticize it, they said, "You grouched about it, YOU FIX IT." Everything from the post above is correct. A problem with McNamara's cost-saving of recycled WWII powder was burn timing: As you may know, each time a cartridge is fired, the gas expansion first causes the brass case to expand to seal against the chamber wall to contain the gasses at the back end. As the pressure subsides, the case contracts and the seal is broken. Because it expanded slower than the spec'd IMR powder, the cartridge case was still expanded and pressing against the chamber when the extractor tried to pull it out. This stop extraction of the case and ruined the cycle.


Once they shot it with the right powder it worked fine except for that rusting chamber. The next solution created a new problem. As mentioned above, they chrome plated the chamber. Problem was that they plated existing chambers without relieving them by the diameter they were going to occupy with the added chrome plating, so they ended up with a tight chamber that exhibited an extraction problem but for a new reason.


Much like an aircraft crash, where one factor rarely takes down the plane but instead it is a confluence of multiple, small screw-ups, the introduction of the M-16 was a massive, rolling organization cluster screw-up, likely heavily abetted by the dismantling of the arsenal system that had overseen prevention of this kind of cluster screw-up.


Bob

[Bob Seijas]

When IHC had its infamous jamming problem that halted production for three months, one test was run when they began to suspect the function firing machine. They took a rifle that jammed and fired 10,000 rounds from the shoulders of shooters over a weekend. They filmed it all. The rifle functioned perfectly.

[BEAR]

Mr. Colt, while I understand and agree to a lot of what you wrote, I still have my observations and opinions. I bow, sir, to your vast experience and tremendous knowledge of this subject and I will sink back into the primordial ooze from whence I came.

This string of messages needs to return to the subject at hand, namely, the Japanese Garand and the fact that if they had developed it earlier then we would be speaking Japanese. Or something along those lines.

BEAR

But I warn everybody … don't get me started about the "grassy knoll" and the AR15.

[RCS]

BEAR, The Japanese recovered examples of our M1 Rifle as early as Jan 1942, how many examples did they manufacture by 1945 ? not many, and how
well did they work ? I do not think the Japanese could have mass produced their copy of the M1 rifle at any time during WW2.

[Daan Kemp]

This wandering and explanations from and amongst experts and the qualified and the experienced and the I-know-I-was-there about stuff, etc, that has absolutely nothing to do with the original topic is what makes these threads so absolutely worth while following.

[Col. Colt]

Bob, thank you for that additional information on the jamming problem for IHC. I know there is a LOT that I do not know - and 10,000 rounds on film should have made their point to US Army Ordnance. We are all here, just learning from each other. The older I get (past six decades now) the more amazing bits of knowledge crop up - illogical, "they wouldn't have dared", etc. People are amazing. And, in the final analysis, actual witnesses to an event trump every other person's speculations. A lot of us can be a bit cynical - and that is because of all the disappointing behavior we've seen in our fellow man. But we have all also seen a lot of Nobility come from that same, flawed but magnificent Creature!

Bear, all of us her bring the spirit of interest and inquiry to any discussion - and it is ALL useful - if only to evoke more information from others that WE (and especially I) learn from. I think Churchill once remarked that even when he was wrong if he inspired better information to enter the knowledge stream, he had served the ends very well. I've eaten a lot of humble pie, and Bob just provided me another thoughtful slice - that is actually quite good!

Thanks to all who contribute here - books are great, but there are amazing resources right here. I only wish we could capture and collate it all - some of our most sage contributors are getting old - and when one of them dies, unless he imparted it here, it goes with him. Take notes - I do! CC