|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,541 Likes: 2
Campfire Outfitter
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,541 Likes: 2 |
Anyway, the reason why I'm saying rounds fired (not enemy killed) is because I'm curious as to whether the Garand action - on average - could stand up to the same number of cycles under battlefield conditions as - on average - the M16/M4 rifles. Or your shoulder.  Actually, the Garand is pretty soft recoiling, due to the weight and gas operated system. I have fired in excess of 250 rounds at a range session without problem. The Garand action is robust and usually does not develop issues with headspace or problems with moving parts for several thousand rounds. The Op-rod spring can compress on you, but they are cheap and easily changed. Post campaign, the armourers would look into the rifles' condition, and they also reconditioned battlefield pickups during the campaigns. I maintain mine and have not had to replace any parts other than when I initially acquired and reconditioned them, which involves a complete teardown and make sure the parts are in spec, replacing any that are out. The exception being op-rod springs every couple thousand rounds. I had an SA that lived here for awhile and all it did was eat ammo, just wanting to be fed and cleaned once in a while. My HRA is proving to be the same way, but I've only had it a year or so. My IHC was a money-pit, but it was a total rebuild. Now it is quite a reliable and relatively accurate rifle. All in all, I believe the Garand to be a fairly long-lived rifle under use. Just keep it greased, oiled, and change the op-rod spring once in a while and it'll run under some pretty adverse conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,507
Campfire Regular
|
|
Campfire Regular
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 1,507 |
Most of this generations warriors could stand the recoil of the Garand......never mind a proper sight picture without an optic.
"The liberals preach tolerance and diversity until presented with an opinion other than their own."
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261
Campfire 'Bwana
|
|
Campfire 'Bwana
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 34,261 |
Anyway, the reason why I'm saying rounds fired (not enemy killed) is because I'm curious as to whether the Garand action - on average - could stand up to the same number of cycles under battlefield conditions as - on average - the M16/M4 rifles. Or your shoulder. Actually, the Garand is pretty soft recoiling, due to the weight and gas operated system. I have fired in excess of 250 rounds at a range session without problem. The Garand action is robust and usually does not develop issues with headspace or problems with moving parts for several thousand rounds. The Op-rod spring can compress on you, but they are cheap and easily changed. Post campaign, the armourers would look into the rifles' condition, and they also reconditioned battlefield pickups during the campaigns. I maintain mine and have not had to replace any parts other than when I initially acquired and reconditioned them, which involves a complete teardown and make sure the parts are in spec, replacing any that are out. The exception being op-rod springs every couple thousand rounds. I had an SA that lived here for awhile and all it did was eat ammo, just wanting to be fed and cleaned once in a while. My HRA is proving to be the same way, but I've only had it a year or so. My IHC was a money-pit, but it was a total rebuild. Now it is quite a reliable and relatively accurate rifle. All in all, I believe the Garand to be a fairly long-lived rifle under use. Just keep it greased, oiled, and change the op-rod spring once in a while and it'll run under some pretty adverse conditions. No arguments from me I used an M-1 in the service and it was all you say it is.
Don't vote knothead, it only encourages them. Anonymous
"Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups." Anonymous
"Self-reliance, free thinking, and wealth is anathema to both the power of the State and the Church." Derby Dude
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,534
Campfire Outfitter
|
|
Campfire Outfitter
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 12,534 |
My Dad was a 28 year old Gunny on Guadalcanal and they used the '03 and Thompson almost exclusively. He said he threw his Reising into the sea since it was not reliable. He never saw a Garand until the Army relieved the 1st Marine Division later in the campaign. As one poster stated, marksmanship was everything. He was in G-2-1. Funny. We were taught in Marine Corp History class that Guadalcanal was the first battle in which Marines used the Garand, I remember, 'cause it was one of the test questions. The Marines landed with Springfields and as soon as the Army got there, begged, borrowed or stole Garands as quickly as they could. Hatcher's "Book of the Garand" details this quite well, and the Garand also eventually beat out the 1903 in reliability, also, due to short-stroking, etc., according to the book. Get the book, it's an interesting read.
You can roll a turd in peanuts, dip it in chocolate, and it still ain't no damn Baby Ruth.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,000
Campfire Ranger
|
|
Campfire Ranger
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 16,000 |
I had a conversation some years back with a now deceased brother in law, who drove a landing boat on many of the beach landings in the pacific. Course he was navy, but he said he prefered the 03 with a.p. rounds. Japs didn't think the round would penetrate as effectively as it did, and the 03 didn't jam with the sand like the garand did. If it did get sand in the reciever area was easy to clean out.
THE BIRTH PLACE OF GERONIMO
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,312 Likes: 1
Campfire Tracker
|
|
Campfire Tracker
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 6,312 Likes: 1 |
For those that don't know: The new design was adopted in 1903 and so was called the M1903, better known as the Springfield �03. The Springfield featured a plethora of impressive features that were state of the art for its time. It loaded from a 5-round stripper clip, featured a reinforced locking lug, and a flip-up ladder-sight for long distance volley fire. It also featured an infamous magazine cutoff switch that allowed officer�s to restrict a soldier�s rifle to single-shot loading.
Infantrymen were instructed to load the magazine to capacity, and then engage the magazine cutoff. They were to utilize single rounds and switch the cutoff to the off position to use the remaining reserves in an emergency. This in practice, like many World War I tactics/strategies/policies, was pure lunacy.http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/04/james-grant/gun-review-m1903a3-rifle/More logic from the war department.
NRA Life Member
|
|
|
|
|
440 members (1badf350, 007FJ, 10ring1, 17Hunter, 17CalFan, 10gaugemag, 49 invisible),
1,526
guests, and
1,167
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums81
Topics1,193,988
Posts18,520,103
Members74,020
| |
Most Online11,491
Jul 7th, 2023
|
|
|
|
