Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Posted: 5/23/2017 11:41:49 PM EDT
This last weekend I attended a reenactment up in Minnesota. The weather was cold and rainy throughout with everything from a steady drizzle to sideways downpours. Only the second night did the rain let up some.

During this time myself and the group I was with dug foxholes and lived in them a large part of the reenactment. We stayed in them, slept in them, ate in them, and even battled in them. Needless to say we got pretty wet and muddy, not to mention our equipment.  The gritty mud got into every crease of our uniforms and every nook of our field gear.  Our jump boots became saturated and changing out socks did little. Constantly being wet and muddy, even for a weekend, really starts to wear on you.


Our foxhole. We fit 3 guys in here.



It also wears on your weaponry. One of the M1919 machine guns developed surface rust throughout even with constant care and attention. The blank firing mortar jammed up with mud so that round would not freely fall into the tube, even with the rounds being carefully stored out of the mud.  My M9A1 bazooka also developed minor surface rust but preformed flawlessly during the reenactment. However, one weapon that did not preform well was the M-1 rifle.

During the weekend all members of the reenactment group paid careful attention to their rifles. We placed them carefully in our foxholes or leaned them against trees to keep any mud or mud out of their actions. At one point, overnight, I did happen to bump my M-1 and press it against the muddy side of the foxhole but cleaned it well the next morning.


The offending rifle. It's a franken rifle, nothing special with it other than it's been perfectly reliable before this weekend. It's wearing a wartime stock.



In the afternoon we had a public battle where we defended our line of foxholes against the attacking Germans. Of the 3 M-1 rifles in my foxhole, all three malfunctioned in one way or another. My rifle fired a couple of en bloc clips fine before failing to eject with each round. I then treated it as a bolt-action rifle, cycling the bolt with each round. I continued in this fashion for another couple of clips before my trigger froze up completely. I could not depress the trigger at all; the bolt was in battery so some debris must have clogged up the trigger group. The other rifles in my foxhole were also rendered bolt-action rifles by the end of the battle, which took roughly 8 minutes. The three of us were shocked at the poor performance of our rifles.

Upon cleaning, we found our rifles gritty with mud. Not clogged nor encased, but a light layer of mud. I cleaned out the trigger group, which freed the trigger, and otherwise cleaned out the action. After this it again functioned 100%.  


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.



One rifle failed to even fire after a short time,  with the hammer striking the firing pin but the primer not being struck. It turned out that the extractor and ejector both became clogged with mud. The clogged pieces of the bolt kept the round from seating flush against the face of the bolt. A quick cleaning fixed this issue.

So after a short battle, a majority of the M-1 rifles became inoperable or malfunctioned in one way or another. Had the battle continued and reinforcements not arrived we would have been at the mercy of the Germans.

So, with such careful care and attention to our rifles how did they jam up so badly? I believe the mud and dirt that ended up in the rifles rubbed off of our uniforms and gear, not to mention on the blank ammunition we were using. I noticed the ammo i pulled from my soaked, dirty bandoleer was gritty and this no doubt introduced a bit of dirt into the action.

Anyways, I've always loved the M-1 but was a little disappointed in its performance this weekend.  We've all heard mixed reviews of its reliability in combat, and this weekend was just a small taste of what it went through in combat. The open areas in the receiver and exposed bolt rails are prone to let grime into the action. It amazes me that our veterans were able to keep their weapons running in  such horrible field conditions.

On a positive note, there was no rust to be found on the rifle by the end and it performed flawlessly in the rifle grenade role.

A long read but I hope you enjoyed it.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:44:35 PM EDT
[#1]
So, Patton was wrong?
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:47:13 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
So, Patton was wrong?
View Quote
I wouldn't necessarily say he was wrong. It gave our guys a leg up on the enemy...when it worked.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:47:16 PM EDT
[#3]
Interesting.

Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:48:51 PM EDT
[#4]
The rifle wouldn't cycle with blanks?

I KNEW they should've gone with the Johnson Pedersen!







(Seriously, though--your thread is fucking retarded).
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:52:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Interesting.

Open actions don't like being pressed into mud. Blanks probably didn't help anything either.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:53:30 PM EDT
[#6]
You didn't dig enough.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:56:36 PM EDT
[#7]
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.
Link Posted: 5/23/2017 11:57:53 PM EDT
[#8]
TL;DR: OP shoots blanks unsuccessfully, blames rifle.

Mic drop.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:00:13 AM EDT
[#9]
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:01:03 AM EDT
[#10]
Interesting, makes you wonder how they did during the war ans also how the weapons of WW1 during trench warfare

Cool post OP
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:02:18 AM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
TL;DR: OP shoots blanks unsuccessfully, blames rifle.

Mic drop.
View Quote
You obviously did not read the write-up. Using a blank adapted rifle, I was able to get through 2 en blocs before it malfunctioned. Then roughly 2 more en blocs as a single shot rifle before the trigger froze up. Had nothing to do with blanks, had everything to do with the M-1 being completely open to dirty and debris.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:03:34 AM EDT
[#12]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
TL;DR: OP shoots blanks unsuccessfully, blames rifle.


Mic drop.
View Quote
Pretty much what I was thinking. Blanks gonna be blanks, I don't care how tight the BFA is on or whatever the equivalent ya'll or using.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:04:59 AM EDT
[#13]
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
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:06:26 AM EDT
[#14]
Another vote for blanks as an issue not the rifles.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:07:22 AM EDT
[#15]
thunder....Patton..............



thunder.....Patton..........


thunder......
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:08:42 AM EDT
[#16]
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:09:04 AM EDT
[#17]
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:09:30 AM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Another vote for blanks as an issue not the rifles.
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:13:28 AM EDT
[#19]
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. 
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:14:31 AM EDT
[#20]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
thunder....Patton..............



thunder.....Patton..........


thunder......
View Quote
Don't take my word for it. There are numerous reports of M-1 rifles failing in combat. I'd listen to the Dogfaces on this topic before I'd listen to Patton.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:14:58 AM EDT
[#21]
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,  

Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:17:06 AM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
This exact phenomenon is talked about in those two (very long) podcasts, this is the same phenomenon as the 1911 love, but applied to a rifle.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:17:29 AM EDT
[#23]
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%
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:18:36 AM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Couple of youtube channels you might look into.

C&Rsenal

The Great War
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:20:32 AM EDT
[#25]
Voluntarily laying in a muddy hole with two other guys in a rainstorm on your days off. OP took an IQ test, and failed.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:20:59 AM EDT
[#26]
What in the fuck did I just wander into?
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:22:57 AM EDT
[#27]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Eh,

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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:45:38 AM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
In before someone knocks real world experience in favor of some guy on the internet dumping mud on a rifle in a youtube video. 
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:49:11 AM EDT
[#29]
Semi auto battle rifles malfunctioning with blanks? Imagine that.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:54:10 AM EDT
[#30]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The problem with the Garand and it's derivatives is that it's insides are on the outside.
View Quote
Fortunately Kalashnikov fixed that problem with his improved Garand
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:57:54 AM EDT
[#31]
Kar 98K & Arisaka <<< M1 Garand


End of story. WW2 won. Go home.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:59:51 AM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Kar 98K & Arisaka <<< M1 Garand


End of story. WW2 won. Go home.
View Quote
So the Chauchat was the greatest LMG of WWI... and the SKS/AK-47 was better than the M14/M16.... interesting argument.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 12:59:54 AM EDT
[#33]
EDIT: LAG DOUBLE
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:03:27 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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




2:18, is that how it's pronounced?
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:09:08 AM EDT
[#35]
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:10:10 AM EDT
[#36]
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?
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:15:55 AM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u066pdhSxvo



2:18, is that how it's pronounced?
View Quote
Show-shaw
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:19:23 AM EDT
[#38]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
You didn't dig enough.
View Quote
My thoughts exactly.  That's a glorified shell scrape, rather than a proper foxhole/trench.  


Nonetheless, cool pics OP.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:20:32 AM EDT
[#39]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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?
With Artillery, Air Superiority, and Logistics, same way all wars are won.

Individual Infantry Rifles have very little impact.

Quoted:


Show-shaw
How I pronounce it.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:21:17 AM EDT
[#40]
Another vote for blanks, especially with it being wet, bye bye oil.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:21:55 AM EDT
[#41]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:26:21 AM EDT
[#42]
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:27:39 AM EDT
[#43]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The rifle wouldn't cycle with blanks?

I KNEW they should've gone with the Johnson Pedersen!







(Seriously, though--your thread is fucking retarded).
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:31:51 AM EDT
[#44]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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.
Which one is #1? M14 or AK?

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.
Whats the cut-off date?

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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:34:26 AM EDT
[#45]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

Which one is #1? M14 or AK?
View Quote
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:41:12 AM EDT
[#46]
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:45:23 AM EDT
[#47]
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.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 1:49:17 AM EDT
[#48]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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 think any of the rifles you mentioned have a compelling case for "Most Overrated Rifle".

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)
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 2:03:28 AM EDT
[#49]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
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
Ian and Karl weren't virtually dumping virtual mud on a virtual rifle. I'm sure threefeathers' M1 worked well especially since he paid attention to care and maintenance, but any weapon that allows ingress of mud, dirt, or sand into the action or trigger components will fail with enough exposure to it. Same as the AK, G3, and Vz. 58 that failed the same test.
Link Posted: 5/24/2017 2:07:37 AM EDT
[#50]
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. 
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 4
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top