Gentlemen,

...M1 Garand Rifle never made it through the testing stage and the Project was dropped by Ordnance. How do you think we would have done in WW2 ?

NEED a FEW HITS thanks
Sites:
http://www.garandm1rifle.com

http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy
Email:
[email protected]

Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this
Clancy

you mean if all we had were the Tompson, M1 carbine, greaase gun,  and the BAR?
we would have cleaned up  

Well, the Springfield was a good rifle, and we still would have been on a even footing compared to the other armies of the world at the time.  

My guess is that you would have seen a stronger emphasis on coming up with a better Automatic Rifle or Squad Machine Gun.  I know for a fact the Ordnance Department did not really want to adopt the M1919A6 but deicded at the time it was better than nothing and meant they could simply put a stock kit on the existing gun instead of retoolilng for a new design.  They actually looked into making a version of the MG42 in 30-06 and had a few prototypes.  You also would probably have seen a greater distribution of SMG's, and I bet a Greasegun type weapon would have been adopted much sooner.

How crazy would that have been- Mauser K98's and MG42's vs. Springfields (which are essentially 30-06 Mausers) and a30-06 MG 42's (M1942 LMG?)!

[ETA]  Who knows, if the Garnd got dumped for whatever reason the USMC might have been carrying the Johnson Automatic Rifle as their standard weapon.  mayeb even the Army in limited numbers...

We would have adopted the johnson instead.  Some thought that the johnson was better but some preference was given to the garand because it was developed at springfield.

I have never handled a johnson and reserve my opinion on that rifle compared to the garand.

Quoted: We would have adopted the johnson instead.  Some thought that the johnson was better but some preference was given to the garand because it was developed at springfield. I have never handled a johnson and reserve my opinion on that rifle compared to the garand.

 Just stick your hand down your pants....it's all the "johnson" you'll ever need.

yea...I have the pecker version.  It differs from the johnson by having a longer barrel.  

I'm about as much of a Garand man as a Garand man can get, BUT, I think we would have been in much worse shape if the 1903 Springfield hadn't been invented.  At any rate, the rifle didn't win or lose WWII.  The resolve of the US soldier and the might of the US Military was  the reason why the war was won.

I believe WWII was won by superior American manufacturing.  No one else could even hope to keep up with US production.  We did not have the best trained army in the field they were very good but not the best I am sorry to say, but we did have more palnes, tanks, ships, guns, etc than anyone else.

Kind of makes you wonder what would happen now that we have little manufacturing left in this country compared to WWII times.

Quoted: Kind of makes you wonder what would happen now that we have little manufacturing left in this country compared to WWII times.

We have plenty of manufacturing capability - there is still a lot of machinery in operation, and quite a bit sitting surplus.  THE problem is the demise of the American steel industry.  Our government should have NEVER let the steel mills die - even if they just mothballed the equipment and real estate.  They got undercut by the Japanese, and now the Japanese are selling steel to us for twice the price it should be.  All of the equipment at Bethlehem, USX, etc is gone- sold in auction - probably to the Japanese.  If we had to go to a full-blown defensive war right now we would be S-C-R-E-W-E-D just on the inability to make our own steel.

Quoted: Quoted: Kind of makes you wonder what would happen now that we have little manufacturing left in this country compared to WWII times. We have plenty of manufacturing capability - there is still a lot of machinery in operation, and quite a bit sitting surplus.  THE problem is the demise of the American steel industry.  Our government should have NEVER let the steel mills die - even if they just mothballed the equipment and real estate.  They got undercut by the Japanese, and now the Japanese are selling steel to us for twice the price it should be.  All of the equipment at Bethlehem, USX, etc is gone- sold in auction - probably to the Japanese.  If we had to go to a full-blown defensive war right now we would be S-C-R-E-W-E-D just on the inability to make our own steel.

Funny how the govermnet will subsidize the airlines and passenger rail systems with taxpayer dollars, but won't save ciritcal industries from going under.  

Gonna be a hell of a war one day when all we have left to fight with are kids who only know how to wait tables and use cash registers.  Becoming a service industry society  dependent on other countries for production has been the downfall of many an mjor power during history.

It's already happening.  Just look at the LC plant situation.  Hell we can't even manufacture enough ammo to supply our troops.

Johnson would have been adopted instead, ability to be reloaded before out, load from Strippers, 2 rounds more, removable BBL. Minuses, stronger recoil, no handgards for bayo fighting, did not SEEM to be as accurate. Marines thought highly of it and the LMG was a good weapon also.

Quoted: I'm about as much of a Garand man as a Garand man can get, BUT, I think we would have been in much worse shape if the 1903 Springfield hadn't been invented.  At any rate, the rifle didn't win or lose WWII.  The resolve of the US soldier and the might of the US Military was  the reason why the war was won.

The 1903 springfield was created under license from mauser. They added the magazine cut-off, but its a mauser made in the USA.

I've read that the Marines issued Johnsons actually liked the weapons, especially the LMG.
Would have been interseting if they were issued in the numbers that the Garand and BAR were.