User Panel
|
Interesting.
Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either. |
|
The rifle wouldn't cycle with blanks?
I KNEW they should've gone with the (Seriously, though--your thread is fucking retarded). |
|
Quoted:
Interesting. Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either. View Quote |
|
No-one should be surprised, P&S had a podcast on this subject, with a variety of experts and the consensus was that the M1/M14 simply was not a very good rifle when compared to more modern designs.
The M1 was fine, even great for the late 30s early 40s, but the M14 was outdated badly upon adoption. Their other belief was the BAR, Thompson, and M60 were all even worse. I agree with them whole heartedly, the Thompson was quite possibly the most disappointing gun I ever fired, even in F/A. |
|
TL;DR: OP shoots blanks unsuccessfully, blames rifle.
Mic drop. |
|
I was a "Kraut Killer" years ago with the 30th ID. I kept my M-1 as clean as I have always kept my M16's and never had nary a problem.
I would wear a 3-snap gas mask bag, two bandoleers and a ammo belt slam full of enbloc clips, too....I have always been a big believer in firepower. Keep better care of your weapons and ammo, OP; it's not the weapon's shortcomings. |
|
Interesting, makes you wonder how they did during the war ans also how the weapons of WW1 during trench warfare
Cool post OP |
|
Quoted:
TL;DR: OP shoots blanks unsuccessfully, blames rifle. Mic drop. View Quote |
|
|
It was these two...
P&S ModCast 95 - Gun Nerds 2: The Revenge or maybe this one (mostly doing with later US weapons) P&S ModCast 97 - Gun Nerds 3: US Military Weapons |
|
thunder....Patton..............
thunder.....Patton.......... thunder...... |
|
The problem with the Garand and it's derivatives is that it's insides are on the outside.
|
|
Mud Test: M1 Garand |
|
|
Open action, not surprising but remember every other nation was using a bolt action with lower capacity magazines. That meant more chances of mud and debris from the shooters hands making it into the action.
|
|
|
Quoted:
Blanks did not cause my trigger to freeze up or another's bolt to become clogged with mud, not to mention the layer of dirt that permeated the interior of each rifle after the battle that wasn't there before. View Quote |
|
It was the best rifle of its era, plus they're fun as hell to shoot. I love taking my Garand out.
But lets not hold any delusions that they're impervious to mud, there are ingress areas all over the rifle. The OP's post surprises me 0% |
|
Quoted:
Interesting, makes you wonder how they did during the war ans also how the weapons of WW1 during trench warfare Cool post OP View Quote C&Rsenal The Great War |
|
Voluntarily laying in a muddy hole with two other guys in a rainstorm on your days off. OP took an IQ test, and failed.
|
|
Quoted:
It was the best rifle of its era, plus they're fun as hell to shoot. I love taking my Garand out. But lets not hold any delusions that they're impervious to mud, there are ingress areas all over the rifle. The OP's post surprises me 0% View Quote Personally, I'd rather have a Enfield no.1 mk.3 or no.4 mk.1 or the M1 Carbine, or the BREN (if we count LMGs), MP38/40, or PPSH/PPS43 or the STG44. I own a Garand, it really isn't very impressive. pistols would be: P35/P38/TT34. |
|
Quoted:
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 View Quote |
|
Semi auto battle rifles malfunctioning with blanks? Imagine that.
|
|
|
Kar 98K & Arisaka <<< M1 Garand
End of story. WW2 won. Go home. |
|
|
Quoted:
So the Chauchat was the greatest LMG of WWI... and the SKS/AK-47 was better than the M14/M16.... interesting argument. View Quote Failed To Load Title 2:18, is that how it's pronounced? |
|
lol
Outside of blanks and cosplay the Garand is very reliable. |
|
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?
|
|
View Quote |
|
|
Quoted:
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? View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
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? Individual Infantry Rifles have very little impact. Quoted:
Show-shaw |
|
Another vote for blanks, especially with it being wet, bye bye oil.
|
|
Quoted:
It was the best rifle of its era, plus they're fun as hell to shoot. I love taking my Garand out. But lets not hold any delusions that they're impervious to mud, there are ingress areas all over the rifle. The OP's post surprises me 0% View Quote Flame away. |
|
The OP rod and ammo being constantly exposed really fucked with it's operation.
Still a great rifle but just not without it's flaws. Any rifle with the parts that make it go exposed like a Garand will jam in muddy conditions even if it is a light coating of mud. |
|
Quoted:
The rifle wouldn't cycle with blanks? I KNEW they should've gone with the (Seriously, though--your thread is fucking retarded). View Quote Though it was still a great rifle. |
|
Quoted:
No it isn't it raises actual criticisms with the second most over hyped rifle of all time. Though it was still a great rifle. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
No it isn't it raises actual criticisms with the second most over hyped rifle of all time. Though it was still a great rifle. Quoted:
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. MP44/STG44 is hard to argue against, but I'd also take a SKS over a Garand and over most anything else that wasn't designed to have removable magazines or be selective fire. |
|
Quoted:
Which one is #1? M14 or AK? View Quote Not to mention they think cause it's Russian it's the best for some reason. I was gonna put the Mosin at #2 but other than retards who think every Mosin is a sniper rifle most know it is a barely mediocre rifle unless it is Finish then it is a good rifle. So in my opinion (not that it matters) the Mosin would be #3 but just barely behind the Garand. |
|
Not quite an honest assessment when you are skewing your test by introducing ammo not used in combat.
The OP's assessment is not useless but far from anything approaching conclusive. Its interesting but that's about it. |
|
Lol at everyone who doesn't know about the historical concerns about the Garand's reliability in mud and sand. From Time magazine, March 24, 1941:
Last week the U. S. Marine Corps released a report on the Garand rifle. Because the Marines know a lot about small arms, and had just adopted the Garand, the report was authoritative and timely. It was also: > The only official, fully documented account of Garand performance ever published. >A grave indictment of the Garand's dependability. The Test. Until lately, the Marines' standard rifle was the 38-year-old war-tested Springfield, which was also the Army's rifle until 1936.* Since the Army adopted the Garand, the Marine Corps has been under pressure to do the same. Although the Marines are part of the Navy, they get their small arms from the War Department, and wartime supply problems would be simplified if both services used the same rifle. Last winter the Marine Corps decided to have the rifle matter out once & for all. A board was appointed to test the bolt-action Springfield and three semi-automatic rifles (Garand, Winchester, Johnson). The board included such acknowledged experts as Lieut. Colonel William W. Ashurst, a crack rifleman, and Lieut. Colonel Merritt A. Edson, who had earned Marine Corps fame in Nicaragua, hunting down Sandinistas. The Winchester, barely out of the laboratory, was never in the running. The much-publicized Johnson did better than the Winchester, did not equal the Garand in over-all performance. For practical purposes the tryout resolved into a contest between 1) the Garand and the Springfield, and 2) the different systems of combat fire which each represented. The old-fashioned Springfield puts down a sure but comparatively slow fire (12-15 aimed shots a minute, for an average rifleman), is therefore the darling of those who believe with Colonel William Prescott of Bunker Hill ("Don't fire until you see the white of their eyes") in deliberate, sharpshooting marksmanship. The Garand is three to three-and-a-half times faster, is therefore the logical choice of those who put high fire power above all else. But, said the Marine board: "Two things stand out as essential in the shoulder weapon for the Marine Corps; one is 'dependability,' and the other 'volume of fire.' Bearing in mind the amphibious missions in the Marine Corps, the board places dependability first. . . ." After boiling down results of all the tests for accuracy, ruggedness, general fitness for combat, the board rated the rifles: 1) Springfield; 2) Garand; 3) Johnson; 4) Winchester. Best that the board could say for the Garand was that it was "superior to the other semi-automatic rifles . . ."; "superior in the number of well-aimed shots that can be fired per minute"; could be quickly cleaned in the field. Sum & substance of the findings was that the Garand was a fair-weather rifle, excellent on the practice range but far from good enough for the Marines when the going got tough. The going in the test was very tough. Examples: > The rifles were doused in mud "of light consistency." Results: "The M-1903 [Springfield] rifle can be operated. However, the bolt became harder to operate as the test progressed. . . . The M-I [Garand] rifles would not function and the longer an attempt was made to operate the bolt by hand the harder it became to open." > The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles . . . failed this test." > The board assumed "that troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach." Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; "the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty. ..." The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first. >All the rifles got a thorough dousing in fresh water (assumption: heavy rain). Results: the Garands failed again. > One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On over-all efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage. >The Johnson hand-fired "with ease" through most of the mud, salt water and fresh water tests when the Garand failed, but had so much trouble (broken parts) in other phases that the board rated it well below the Garand. Said the board: "In those tests which simulated adverse field conditions, such as exposure to dust, rain, mud, salt water, sand, etc., the [Springfield] could always be operated with some degree of proficiency. Whereas the semi-automatic weapons generally failed to function mechanically and, in most cases, the gas-operated rifles [Garand, Winchester] could not even be manually operated after a few shots had been fired. . . . The tests . . . were undoubtedly severe as it was believed that they had to approach the extreme in order to be all inclusive. . . . The board realizes that only a certain proportion of the rifles in any one operation . . . will be subjected to the severest conditions, and that the remainder will function normally." This proportion might work out all right for a large force carrying semiautomatics. But "it is ... doubtful if this is true for the Marine Corps, where small units are usually employed and thereby place a correspondingly greater value on reliability and efficiency of each individual rifle." The Army's Side. A fair question was: Why, then, did the Marine Corps adopt the Garand? In an explanation last week, Marine Corps headquarters in Washington put more emphasis on the Garand's high fire power, less on the Springfield's dependability, than the testing board did. That was the Army's case. After the Marines adopted the Garand, Under Secretary of War Robert Porter Patterson declared that the report completely vindicated the Garand. When the report first came out he showed only that portion which called the Garand the best of the semiautomatics. General Charles Macon Wesson, too, talked as though the report proved all that he and his Ordnance Department had claimed for their creation. He also said that Ordnance tests had already and conclusively proved the Garand's efficiency. Up to last week, $24,000,000 had been appropriated for Army Garands, and the Marines have $3,000,000 more to spend for them. Some 100,000 had been issued to troops, including a few to the Marine Corps. Civilian Engineer John C. Garand and his co-workers at Springfield Armory had licked many of their worst production problems, still had a tough job, but were doing very well at it. Winchester Repeating Arms Co. has been trying to get into Garand production for 17 months, has a contract for 65,000 Garands, last week was edging into real production after 17 months of arduous effort. By next year the Army expects to have enough Garands (400,000) for its expanded force (not all soldiers are riflemen). Wavell's Experience. In the light of the full report, released by the Marines last week, another general's experience with small arms was significant. The New York Times Magazine reprinted excerpts from three lectures which General Sir Archibald Wavell, British commander in the Middle East, delivered in 1939. In a discourse on good generals and how they are made, he had evoked the mud, the blood, the guns of World War I: "Rifles and automatic weapons submitted to the [British] small arms committee are, I believe, buried in mud for 48 hours or so before being tested for their rapid firing qualities. The necessity for such a test was very aptly illustrated in the late war, when the original Canadian contingent arrived in France armed with the Ross rifle, a weapon which had shown its superior qualities in target shooting . . . in peace. In the mud of the trenches it was found to jam after a very few rounds ; and after a short experience of the weapon under active service conditions the Canadian soldier refused to have anything to do with it and insisted on being armed with [another] rifle." *The Army last week, had about as many Springfields as Garands in service, but was substituting Garands as fast as production (about 700 a day) permitted. |
|
Quoted:
AK by far, only because so many tards think it is the greatest weapon of all time cause video games, movies, and "Nam Vets" told them so. Not to mention they think cause it's Russian it's the best for some reason. I was gonna put the Mosin at #2 but other than retards who think every Mosin is a sniper rifle most know it is a barely mediocre rifle unless it is Finish then it is a good rifle. So in my opinion (not that it matters) the Mosin would be #3 but just barely behind the Garand. View Quote I'd go: Mosin M14 Garand AK (at the end of the day, at least its a intermediate cartridge capable of decent accuracy, reliability, and isn't quite as heavy as the others, but still a pig compared to an AR) |
|
Quoted:
In before someone knocks real world experience in favor of some guy on the internet dumping mud on a rifle in a youtube video. View Quote |
|
Living and working in the mud, something it sounds like some of you have never done, is enlightening. It gets on and in everything. There's nothing you can touch that isn't gritty, your hands, body, clothes, hair, your clothes, everything in your pockets and everything in your equipment is either wet and muddy, or dry and gritty.
I worked construction in Seattle, I know what it's like to be muddy. And you find out really quickly which tools will work and which fail. I'd try to keep stuff in the truck, but too many times people get their wet and muddy asses in the truck to warm up and dry out, I'd try keeping freezer bags in my tool box, but there's nothing to clean your hands on before you open it and get stuff out. At the end of the day we'd go back to the motel and shower and put on clean clothes, but in the morning you're back in your dry, gritty coveralls, back in the gritty, wet truck seat and by the time you get to the jobsite you might as well never have left. I feel your pain OP, mud sucks. |
|
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.