Clancy it'll be interesting to read your further posts. During my research about the Garand, I had read about this issue a while back someplace but I agree with the other posters that the solution was lubrication.....or at least that was the concensus. The Garand is a very happy rifle with proper lubrication and a dry rifle does not repond well and lack of lubricant even affects the direction of the ejection of spent brass. The drier it is, the further back the brass ejects. Properly lubed up, it should throw brass at about 2 o'clock. As it dries out, the brass will go to 3 and even 4.
What I find interesting is that the report you posted is dated 1942. That's four years after the rifle was introduced into the field (1938) and had been adopted by the services. It's interesting that I've never, once, read a report from the field that any Garand had failed under any circumstances. Considering that it was well represented on the beachs of Normandy, full of sea-water and sand, I find it curious that that some gun historian hasn't pointed out any prevelent equipment failures along these lines. And, while we have all shot our rifles over these many years (albeit under much more controlled circumstances) I've never read about anyone with a really serious stoppage or failure to eject outside of a metal failure or parts breakage. After all, these are 50 year old rifle.
Look forward to reading more.
Rome