User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 2:12:09 AM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
That is a possibility. Blanks can be finicky at times. But I think the fact that the rifles were working fine at the beginning of the battle before degrading during the battle points to mud and dirt being the major factor. But the blanks could add to the susceptibility. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Interesting. Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either. Add that to open action finickiness and I can see trouble happening very easily in a very dirty environment. M14 is a direct descendant and that thing does not frigging like a dirty environment at all if you don't clean it religiously. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 2:21:34 AM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Interesting. Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 3:08:03 AM EDT
[#3]
My Father swore by the Garand. Which he carried in WWII and Korea. Said it never let him down. He was in Korea for most of the war.
Ed |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 6:55:22 AM EDT
[#4]
If the M1 jams up and becomes a de facto bolt action rifle. It probably wasn't a super big deal in WW2 when the enemy had only real bolt action rifles.
You guys could have worn out springs and such. Sorta like how the 1911 had a good reputation in WW1 and WW2, but by Vietnam, those guns needed to be replaced. I love the M1, it's my favorite rifle to shoot. But I think having an uncovered action is not a great idea for a combat rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:08:10 AM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I don't think you understand the difference between blanks and live ammo. Blanks do not have the same force by far. Live ammo will force all the parts to function. Go back to a live range and dig in during a rain storm. Big difference. How do you think we won WWII? I would not be surprised if the blanks are underpowered. but again... old beat up rifles, with possibly worn parts. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:09:20 AM EDT
[#6]
So a weekend playing war beats the experience of the actual experience of the actual Soldiers and Marines in WWII and Korea (and peace time until the mid-1960s)?
How was the airborne operation into Minnesota? C-46 or C-47? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:11:47 AM EDT
[#7]
Quoted:
http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b367/thunderw21/001/FB_IMG_1495417717080_zpsyzv8t8ct.jpg Mud everywhere, before the battle. You can't tell, but the rain is falling sideways. I'm on the left. Notice how wet and muddy my bandoleer is. The ammo inside is just as bad. You guys look pretty clean to me. Like you were going out on the town on a 72 hour pass or something. Good to hear you had fun though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:13:18 AM EDT
[#8]
Thanks for posting OP, cool info
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:28:00 AM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You didn't dig enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:40:30 AM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
With Artillery, Air Superiority, and Logistics, same way all wars are won. Individual Infantry Rifles have very little impact. How I pronounce it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:47:23 AM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you forgot russians, millions of dead russians, thats what won it Russians had Massed Arty down to a science, but not so good with the Logistics/Air Superiority thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 7:58:12 AM EDT
[#12]
I'll take the word of the combat vets I knew over a reenactors weekend experience. Two comments from ETO vets stick in my mind: a combat engineer told me he loved the M1 and said "if we could see it we could hit it" . Another, a combat infantryman in the 83rd Infantry Division (came up as a replacement just before the Bulge) who I knew very well for 30 years told me this when I asked him about which weapons worked best: "we could carry any weapon we wanted to, but if you wanted to stay alive you carried an M1". As far as the Marines go, you should read about their reactions on Guadalcanal when the Army showed up with the M1s and the Marines were able to make a real live combat comparison between the '03 and the M1. They couldn't wait to dump the bolt action. If I had to go to war I would rather take the M1 than any bolt action ever made.
Steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:04:20 AM EDT
[#13]
Interesting.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:07:09 AM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I wouldn't necessarily say he was wrong. It gave our guys a leg up on the enemy...when it worked. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So, Patton was wrong? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:24:32 AM EDT
[#15]
This thread is stupid. I gummed up a perfectly clean M240 with blanks. It ran 100 percent with live ammo. Doesn't prove anything.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:27:25 AM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I would argue the SKS is the best rifle of the Garand's era: shorter, lighter, higher magazine capacity, faster shot recovery, better battle sights, accuracy on par w/Garand, cartridge no less effective within realistic combat ranges, disassembly, maintenance and reassembly is less complicated, carrying more ammo easier. Flame away.  My SKS not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:27:26 AM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This thread is stupid. I gummed up a perfectly clean M240 with blanks. It ran 100 percent with live ammo. Doesn't prove anything. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:30:09 AM EDT
[#18]
What kind of blanks and what blank firing adapter were you using OP?
Article on various BFA's available for use in re-enacting. http://www.90thidpg.us/Equipment/Articles/M1BFA/index.html Here's a BFA which can be used w/ hotter higher pressure "Hollywood Blanks": http://www.atlanticwallblanks.com/M-1-GARAND-BLANK-FIRE-ADAPTER_p_90.html Fulton Armory has tips for getting BFA Garands to function reliably: http://www.fulton-armory.com/faqs/M1G-FAQs/BFA-Config.htm What am I getting at with these links? Perfectly clean well oiled rifles have troubles running blanks. The Blanks and your Blank Firing Adapter are causing your rifle to be unreliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:35:15 AM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before someone knocks real world experience in favor of some guy on the internet dumping mud on a rifle in a youtube video. It was cold and frozen. How much mud could he have actually had to deal with? |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:36:05 AM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You didn't dig enough. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 8:44:22 AM EDT
[#21]
Reenacting guns are notoriously picky with blanks. Reenactors don't help things much either.
Military BFAs are looked at as "farby", but those things were designed to work with blanks. Reenactors are all about looks over function, so barrels are drilled and tapped with questionable orifices for BFA operation. Additionally, reenacting blanks are also notoriously varied in their quality. New made ones are star crimped from live brass vs. specifically made like GI ones. For example, that slight tapered neck on 7.62 blanks that 60s/240s use helps feeding more than a blunt star crimped one. Sorry, but I will take the recorded words of Vets over reenacting tales of woe. Using questionable (and probably underpowered) ammo, out of a improperly set up Garand and then questioning the validity of the weapon is absurd. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 9:05:13 AM EDT
[#22]
Many of you are pointing to the blanks as the culprit, and while they may cause some issues they have little to do with the problems we were having: trigger frozen up with debris in the trigger group, a bolt that would not properly seat a round thanks to mud packed into the extractor and ejector, multiple failures to go into battery thanks to debris in the rails and camming/locking surfaces, along with dirt gumming up the internals.
It shouldn't be hard to see that a rifle with gaping holes in its action and its working parts on the outside would have problems with mud and debris entering the rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 9:28:42 AM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Mine performed perfectly when we dug in for a solid month in January of 1960. We were facing a Russian infantry company. This was the beginning of the direct Russian intimidation of Allied troops to see if we would budge. Direct confrontation between U S and Russian troops was rare so we knew something was up I loved my M 1 and I was the point squad leader. I had the grenade launcher on that day so I could mark the position of a T37-85 tank about a hundred meters away. Note, I had a long career that was broken by 4 years in college before I volunteered for Vietnam, then another 4 year break while I got my MS and was a college level head wrestling coach. I say that because I went back in after being Title Nined in coaching wrestling. I spent my last ten years with 19th Group, 8/40 Armor as the Scout Platoon Sgt. and the 6th Army AMU at Ord. So the reason I included this. Maintenance of machine guns in cold, wet, icy weather. I sent for a oil named ESSEX and sprayed a coat of it on the innards and outter of our machine guns and wiped them daily. That worked on our 50's, M 60's and 1919A6's. Also, automatic and semiautomatic guns run well wet, by that I mean don't spare the oil, http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y119/threefeathers/Berlin/010Daninwinterof61.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 10:40:31 AM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many of you are pointing to the blanks as the culprit, and while they may cause some issues they have little to do with the problems we were having Go repeat the exercise with live ammo and you'll very likely have a completely different result. Just a few seeds for thought - cleaner burning leaving less residue behind thus attracting/holding less external gunk. Proper gas proportions forcing the operating system through the gunk (and incidentally clearing crud from key places. Try this another way: You've put a banana in your tailpipe, are driving on bald tires, and running grandpa's 30 year-old mower gas but you can't figure out why your Jeep is stuck in the mud. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 10:43:18 AM EDT
[#25]
Blanks do not produce the same amount of gas to the system with the blank adapter installed as firing a live round.
Its the same reason M4/m16 always have a high stoppage rate when compared to live ammo. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 10:43:34 AM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many of you are pointing to the blanks as the culprit, and while they may cause some issues they have little to do with the problems we were having: trigger frozen up with debris in the trigger group, a bolt that would not properly seat a round thanks to mud packed into the extractor and ejector, multiple failures to go into battery thanks to debris in the rails and camming/locking surfaces, along with dirt gumming up the internals. It shouldn't be hard to see that a rifle with gaping holes in its action and its working parts on the outside would have problems with mud and debris entering the rifle. Getting lots of debris INSIDE the trigger group? Getting mud and debris inside the extractor and ejector? That's operator error and not a weapons malfunction. I cannot even imagine what you'd have to do to even accomplish that, short of deliberately shoving mud inside the action. 
No offense, but your weekend of cosplay does not in ANY way reflect the experience of myself or that of my men. It is a VERY reliable rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 11:12:26 AM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Many of you are pointing to the blanks as the culprit, and while they may cause some issues they have little to do with the problems we were having: trigger frozen up with debris in the trigger group, a bolt that would not properly seat a round thanks to mud packed into the extractor and ejector, multiple failures to go into battery thanks to debris in the rails and camming/locking surfaces, along with dirt gumming up the internals. It shouldn't be hard to see that a rifle with gaping holes in its action and its working parts on the outside would have problems with mud and debris entering the rifle. To me, this points up the problem with reenacting. A weekend in the rain does not qualify as a test of an infantry rifle, or anything remotely related to combat. My 83rd Division buddy fought from the Bulge to the end of the war in Europe, and over the years I knew him he educated me on the experiences and feelings of a WW2 combat infantryman. First and foremost, a reenactor doesn't have to live with the constant fear of being killed or maimed, which is the most overriding, pervasive experience of war, even when not in the line. My friend described his front line experience as "always cold, always exhausted, always filthy, always with some sh-t in your pants. Reduced to the lowest level of human existence, living like an animal." None of that can be experienced by reenacting. Steve |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 11:32:55 AM EDT
[#28]
Unless you're going to park a Sherman over the top, that's one pitiful foxhole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 11:39:07 AM EDT
[#29]
Remember, veterans are going off of memories that are 70+ years old. Not too discredit the vets, but often times they remember things wrong. I've had vets tell me things that were plain wrong; it happens.
Let's go to sources that are closer to the events themselves. Here are just a few after a quick search. 
So these veteran accounts and documents, along with the 1950s tests as quoted earlier in this thread, show the M-1 will shut down quickly and totally when exposed to dirt and mud. Hence why soldiers were instructed to keep their rifles and ammunition clean every chance they got; sounds like the M-1 was a maintenance hog. They knew the M-1 was susceptible to dirt and mud. At the time it was a fine rifle and still is, but let's not lie to ourselves: its design opened itself up to the elements and it was known, at the time, to be susceptible to dirt and mud. Over the years it's developed a god-like reputation that cannot be challenged without people flying off the deep end. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 11:48:44 AM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Getting lots of debris INSIDE the trigger group? Getting mud and debris inside the extractor and ejector? That's operator error and not a weapons malfunction. I cannot even imagine what you'd have to do to even accomplish that, short of deliberately shoving mud inside the action. 
Mud gets everywhere in combat conditions, whether directly from the ground, from rubbing against dirty clothing, or from ammo that's been in mud encrusted pouches and bandoleers.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 11:51:06 AM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No action likes being pressed into mud and they will all jam with mud in the action. The AK suffers from this. The AR...not so much. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:04:32 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So the Chauchat was the greatest LMG of WWI... It was only those idiot Americans who re-chambered it for .30-06 that had issues. In 8mm Label they ran just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:09:36 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol Outside of blanks and cosplay the Garand is very reliable. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:11:17 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I was issued a Garand. I commanded troops that were issued Garands - mostly in a training battalion, so the entire point was to push the men as hard as possible in shitty environments, etc. On multiple occasions we spent weeks in the field in very muddy conditions (digging a trench system, w. bunkers etc and living in them- ankle-deep in mud). We did not experience any reliability issues like what you are describing, even with blanks. Getting lots of debris INSIDE the trigger group? Getting mud and debris inside the extractor and ejector? That's operator error and not a weapons malfunction. I cannot even imagine what you'd have to do to even accomplish that, short of deliberately shoving mud inside the action.
No offense, but your weekend of cosplay does not in ANY way reflect the experience of myself or that of my men. It is a VERY reliable rifle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:11:43 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Another vote for blanks as an issue not the rifles. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:16:34 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I was issued a Garand. I commanded troops that were issued Garands - mostly in a training battalion, so the entire point was to push the men as hard as possible in shitty environments, etc. On multiple occasions we spent weeks in the field in very muddy conditions (digging a trench system, w. bunkers etc and living in them- ankle-deep in mud). We did not experience any reliability issues like what you are describing, even with blanks. Getting lots of debris INSIDE the trigger group? Getting mud and debris inside the extractor and ejector? That's operator error and not a weapons malfunction. I cannot even imagine what you'd have to do to even accomplish that, short of deliberately shoving mud inside the action.
No offense, but your weekend of cosplay does not in ANY way reflect the experience of myself or that of my men. It is a VERY reliable rifle. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:21:13 PM EDT
[#37]
Quoted:
This last weekend I attended a reenactment up in Minnesota. (Cut for space) http://i23.photobucket.com/albums/b367/thunderw21/001/FB_IMG_1495417717080_zpsyzv8t8ct.jpg Mud everywhere, before the battle. You can't tell, but the rain is falling sideways. I'm on the left. Notice how wet and muddy my bandoleer is. I have to say, this thread was a bad idea. A weekend reenactment isn't as tough on equipment or people as a field exercise in the real infantry, let alone combat. Others have mentioned the blank and worn parts issues. I think that's a large part of what you experienced. I don't see "Mud everywhere." Your bandolier looks remarkably clean. I've gotten way muddier (and sandier) as a member of Air Force Security Forces. Compared to that, I got off the charts muddy when I was an infantryman in the other branches, and I have seen pictures of grunts who were long term dirty that made my short term worst look relatively clean. I guess it's all about perspective. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:25:28 PM EDT
[#38]
@thunderw21
Were you guys carrying the guns loaded during the dig in and live in phase, or were you carrying them with the actions open to be able to show clear? In a reenactment scenario, I can see it making sense to carry the guns action open, but that would practically never happen in true field use. Failure to eject would be an odd failure for a mudded gun. I would expect failure to fire or failure to feed first. The higher pressure of real ammunition would likely not see the same problem in the same conditions. Manually actuating each round could also lead to mud from your hands getting into the gap in the rear of the receiver and getting into the trigger group. I must say I am more sure this was a blanks/ammo problem then a failure of the M1 design. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:28:29 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See my post above. Other veteran experiences differ from DK-Prof's. 
You can always find a Vet that's bitching about something, and it's never their own fault. A few individual 'experiences' with the words 'perhaps' or 'maybe' are taken with a grain of salt - if not the rifle would have never been in service for over 30 years. Our esteemed professor has been in worse conditions than yours for longer, with more men, for a real military, and relatively recently. His rifles were professionally gauged, maintained, and operated and his results were completely different. See a pattern? As a point of reference people will point at the book Blackhawk Down as to why M4s are so bad in combat. If you actually go through the book you'll find all the negative experiences were mentioned by only one soldier, the rest had very positive comments/no troubles. I'd also point out that soldier is now teaching others how to fight with their M4s, so it couldn't have been that bad. ;-) |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:28:34 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See my post above. Other veteran experiences differ from DK-Prof's. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I was issued a Garand. I commanded troops that were issued Garands - mostly in a training battalion, so the entire point was to push the men as hard as possible in shitty environments, etc. On multiple occasions we spent weeks in the field in very muddy conditions (digging a trench system, w. bunkers etc and living in them- ankle-deep in mud). We did not experience any reliability issues like what you are describing, even with blanks. Getting lots of debris INSIDE the trigger group? Getting mud and debris inside the extractor and ejector? That's operator error and not a weapons malfunction. I cannot even imagine what you'd have to do to even accomplish that, short of deliberately shoving mud inside the action.
No offense, but your weekend of cosplay does not in ANY way reflect the experience of myself or that of my men. It is a VERY reliable rifle. Out of 6 million rifles made and uncountable engagements, two points of data does not a argument make. I would be more inclined to listen to someone with first hand experience with the M1 in true field conditions for a general tone vs two anecdotes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:34:01 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
See my post above. Other veteran experiences differ from DK-Prof's. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:35:19 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Voluntarily laying in a muddy hole with two other guys in a rainstorm on your days off. OP took an IQ test, and failed. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:37:02 PM EDT
[#43]
Blanks make anything and everything other than bolt action rifles and pump shotguns run like shit.
The youngest M1 is what, 60+years old? Lots of bits and pieces in M1s that don't really improve with age and use. (Example, I have an M1 that gave 7-round jam issues even after replacing virtually the entire gun with NOS parts...and it turned out to be a stock issue). I think, generally speaking an M1 on barrel #4, with 50k rounds through it, is less reliable than an AR with the same amount of wear (in part because the AR is getting a new barrel extension on new barrels). All of the feeding relating stuff in an M1 (clip latch, accelerator, follower rod, bullet guide, etc) is equivalent to the disposable magazine of a detachable mag rifle. ETA: My grandfather got shot in the neck while rolled over on his side trying to clear an M1 jam in the pacific...but he still liked the M1. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:39:57 PM EDT
[#44]
Man, some of you are really triggered by OP's post.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:40:42 PM EDT
[#45]
I would under no circumstance evaluate any firearms reliability shooting freaking blanks.
.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:43:24 PM EDT
[#46]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:44:33 PM EDT
[#47]
Sounds about right to be honest. Never worked with the Garand but we had an M-14 with us when we deployed. I got to work with it plenty.
We never had ours jam but... During cleaning it was surprising where dirt and debris was collecting as opposed to the M4's we were issued. I would say that the rifle is reliable but, it likely required maintenance you were not used to. Also the kind of maintenance that would be somewhat difficult in the field. I imagine vets of that day had an accelerated cleaning method similar to that of modern troops popping the rear take down pin to remove the bolt. Probably removing the trigger would be my guess. Then wiping down the assembly and the action from the bottom. Doing this right before that battle would have likely kept the rifle in fighting shape longer. Also inspecting and cleaning off your rounds. Kinda gives me renewed respect for the AR when I think about it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:44:34 PM EDT
[#48]
You need to improve your foxhole.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 12:54:07 PM EDT
[#49]
The forgotten weapons guys did mud testing videos with a bunch of different rifles including the garand, the ar15 and and AK variant. The garand was rendered inoperable if mud got onto the outside of the action. There were too many moving parts exposed that the mud can get in and jam up. The AK also jammed because the loose tolerances allowed mud to enter the action.
The AR fared the best because the tighter tolerances prevented the mud from entering the action, while the DI system served to blow mud out of the ejection port. They ran perfectly. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 5/24/2017 1:12:15 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The forgotten weapons guys did mud testing videos with a bunch of different rifles including the garand, the ar15 and and AK variant. The garand was rendered inoperable if mud got onto the outside of the action. There were too many moving parts exposed that the mud can get in and jam up. The AK also jammed because the loose tolerances allowed mud to enter the action. The AR fared the best because the tighter tolerances prevented the mud from entering the action, while the DI system served to blow mud out of the ejection port. They ran perfectly. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
