I love a good M16/M4 bash as much as the next guy, but while thinking about how many US soldiers were or were not killed by the AR, I started wondering about this:
M1 Garand: total rounds fired in battle / total rifle failures in battle (not due to enemy fire)
M16/M4: total rounds fired in battle / total rifle failures in battle (not due to enemy fire)
Wouldn't it be interesting if the Pentagon actually had the raw data to support a study about that?
Only thing that might be compared would be number of kills/wounded per rounds fired! The M1 wasn't a spray and pray weapon. Marksmanship was dismal at best during WWII but probably slightly better than these last three decades....excluding the USMC! That's why Eisenhower instituted the United States Army Advanced Marksmanship Units....which were abandoned years ago!!
I suspect there was a bit of spray and pray on Guadalcanal and a few other places in the Pacific.
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.
You can see where I'm going with this, right? Pick a number. So many rifles, each. So many rounds fired, each. Dirt, mud, snow, negligence. Is the much revered Garand going to function longer, better, more reliably?
To hear some people talk, you would expect them to believe the Garand would win hands down. I'm not ready to assume that.
I mentioned this in some other post a while ago but there is a small book called "Battlefield Analysis of Infantry Weapons" based on numerous after action interviews of soldiers in the Korean War. Interesting reading and very objective as to the strengths, weaknesses and best uses of the main infantry weapons of the time. For instance, the M1 Carbine was mostly liked and useful while the full auto M2 jammed a lot.
Anyway, regarding the M1. Good, overall reliable weapon but the troops did not use it effectively much past 200 yards. Part of the reason being the sloping terrain of Korea not allowing them to see the enemy beyond the crest of a hill but also because the soldiers didn't think they could hit a ducking, dodging target much beyond 200 yards so wouldn't engage until the enemy was close enough that they were reasonably sure of good hits.
And the BAR was the Queen of the battlefield - i.e. Firepower! Outgoing fire would often start with the BAR man and then spread outward to individual riflemen as they joined the volume of fire.
Aimed fire is a wonderful idea and I admire it myself but apparently lots of bullets going downrange is what the GI wants.
There is a passage in "Guadalcanal Diary" where a single Japanese soldier gets up and starts running down the beach, I think this was the morning after the battle of the Tenaru River. The Marines opened up on him with their Springfields and dozens of bullets were fired but no one hit him as he took to the ground. One lone "old, grizzled Marine with the three fingered glove of a marksman" if I recall correctly, got into a good, sling supported kneeling position waiting for the soldier to get up and run again. As he did the Marine fired one round and killed him.
What this has to do with battlefield stoppages I don't know, but your post just reminded me of it.
I think it was at Tarawa where the volcanic sand really gummed up the Garands. The Higgins boats each had a '03 in them, but by the end of the day, there were all gone, swapped for the Garands.
Of course I will probably be accused of Heresy for suggesting the Garand was not the perfect battle rifle.
I've read some old stuff where the guys brought up on the 1903 hated the Garand.
I once knew a guy who was an Army motorcycle dispatch rider in the European theater. He was regular Army and had been issued a 1903 before Pearl Harbor. (Not an A3.)
He loved his '03, but the Army snatched it right out of his hands on his way to the dock when he shipped out for Europe. When he got to England, they offered him a choice of a Garand or a Thompson.
When he got to France, he located a pristine Mauser K98 and a supply of clean ammo, and he carried that Mauser throughout the rest of the war, knowing that he'd be executed out of hand if he was ever captured with it. He grew to love that Mauser and eventually came to believe it was nearly the equal of his old '03.
He thought the Garand was a POS and was still saying so well into the 1990s.
I forget which other account of the Korean War this was in, but the author told of how the Garand could freeze up in the bitter cold of the Korean winter. The men took to keeping four or five fully loaded captured Mosin-Nagants in their foxholes in that eventuality, those rifles working under any and all conditions.
Aimed fire is a great goal. However it is firepower that will allow movement or help to stop movement. The M16/M4 weapons give firepower and accuracy. If they could fire a 308, and be controlled, they would be almost perfect. Have often wondered how many would have been used in WWII if the soldiers could have chosen them. With the ability to do some of the job of a BAR with a bigger mag and lighter ammo, size and weight of a carbine and decent accuracy, it would have had appeal. Imagine a banzai charge when most of the GI's had several 30 round mags and the ability to go full auto when it got real close.
When he got to France, he located a pristine Mauser K98 and a supply of clean ammo, and he carried that Mauser throughout the rest of the war, knowing that he'd be executed out of hand if he was ever captured with it. He grew to love that Mauser and eventually came to believe it was nearly the equal of his old '03.
Was he ever aware his 1903 Springfield was a copy of the 98?
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.
When he got to France, he located a pristine Mauser K98 and a supply of clean ammo, and he carried that Mauser throughout the rest of the war, knowing that he'd be executed out of hand if he was ever captured with it. He grew to love that Mauser and eventually came to believe it was nearly the equal of his old '03.
Was he ever aware his 1903 Springfield was a copy of the 98?
I've read some old stuff where the guys brought up on the 1903 hated the Garand.
And so it goes.
While attending Camp Hale during WWII my stepfather made sure he failed BAR training so he didn't have to carry the thing. He did like the Garand though, was fairly pleased with it's accuracy, having grown up jump shooting whitetails in New England as a teen and young man.
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.
I read somewhere that marines were allotted 25 rnds a day at Guadalcanal. Would tend to jibe with "marksmanship was everything" if for no other reason than pure necessity.
Probably due to the Navy having to skedaddle with all of their supplies, including ammunition.
In "With the Old Breed", E.B. Sledge wrote about an amtrac bringing up ammunition and mentioned a "unit of fire". One unit of fire was the amount of ammunition one Marine was expected to expend in one day of heavy fighting. A unit of fire for the Garand was 100 rounds. When I read that I thought it seemed pretty low.
One of the reasons for M-1 stoppage in the cold of Korea was that fact the M-1s were oiled to the max and the oil is what froze. There were no synthetics in those days or any synthetic dry lubricants. However, I never heard any of the sour doughs who fought in the Battle of the Bulge or the Winter of 44-45 talk about the M-1 freezing up. By the time I joined in 66 the military had developed synthetics for cold weather use and I never had any freeze ups with M-1 carbine, M-1 or M-14. We were also told that if synthetics were not available to use no lubricant at all to avoid freeze ups.
The best battle rifle is a good controlled feed bolt action rifle and fire discipline. However, if one has to choose a semi-auto than I'll take the M-14 over a M-4/M-16 any day.
I spoke with my Dad extensively about this. He joined up ten days after Pearl Harbor. He liked the accuracy of the 1903A3, which is what he started out with in Basic in southern California. I think they were issued Garands at Fort Lewis, Washington. He felt the firepower of the Garand trumped the accuracy advantage of the Springfield.
Since Dad was in WWII, I knew a lot of veterans of that conflict. Several of my Uncles were too. Some of the stuff said in gun magazines doesn't true up with the stuff I heard. The 1911 wasn't well liked at all. It was seen as "junky" and inaccurate. The Thompson was seen as uncontrollable and the Grease Gun was another gun viewed as junk. The BAR seemed very well liked. Carbines were seen as handy, neat little guns that didn't have good stopping power.
Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert, a veteran of Korea and later Vietnam, was a huge fan of the BAR. Herbert went into the army a private and came out a light Colonel. He was THE most decorated veteran of the Korean conflict. He shot all the WWII era weapons and the BAR was his favorite.
I would imagine the reason the 1911s were "junky" was because most of them were well used. A new or slightly used 1911A1 is okay as a combat arm for the distance they were designed to be used at.
FWIW Dad joined after Pearl Harbor, and was identified as a skilled mechanic, so he spent the war keeping B17's flying. He liked his 03 and qualified expert with it. At some point someone noticed the ace mechanic with the 03, and requisitioned it and gave him an M1 carbine. He was pissed about it, disliked the carbine, and so in his words, "pulled rank with the armorers" (he was a MSgt by then) and demanded a Thompson. He liked the Thompson.
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.
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.
Curdog, the Marines landed at Guadalcanal equipped with the '03, but by the end of the campaign were equipped with M1s.
Some M1s were appropriated early from Army units before general issue. The firepower available was seen as a usable advantage and the Marines picked up or stole every one they could.
My experience is that M1s can suffer feeding issues if not equipped with milspec enbloc clips. I had several M1s, and I chased a feeding malfunction in one until I was going crazy, thinking some part was out of spec. I had gotten this rifle as a non-functioning piece of junk and had literally replaced everything except the receiver, front sight, trigger and safety. Timing was good. But I kept getting a 7th round stoppage. I then tried the suspect clips in another Garand I have known to be a reliable rifle, and had the same problem. Measuring the clip dimensions revealed that the opening on the malfunctioning clips was less than the reliable one, so I simply pulled them open (not easy to do) and the issue disappeared.
The clips were new, too.
It's not easy to top off the rifle if partially emptied. It can be done, but it's a two-handed affair. And like any other weapon that depends on springs, those need to be occasionally replaced.
It is very fast to reload when emptied, though. And the ammo is much bigger, heavier, and more powerful. 200 rounds of M1 ammo in clips is getting on the heavy side.
It is a much more robust weapon than the M16. You can literally beat someone to death with one and not hurt the damn thing.
It's not as accurate as the M16, but accurate enough for the type of battle infantry typically engages in.
In todays combat environment a bolt gun is a good way to get yourself killed. It aint no fantasy where you always have the high ground and targets in the open.
I would imagine the reason the 1911s were "junky" was because most of them were well used. A new or slightly used 1911A1 is okay as a combat arm for the distance they were designed to be used at.
My dad as well as every other W-2 or Korean war vet I've ever known despised the 1911. There were a handful of those guns left over from WW-1, but most were new production guns. It was Coopers fictional writings after the Korean war that created the myth of the 1911 and the 45 acp.
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.
I would imagine the reason the 1911s were "junky" was because most of them were well used. A new or slightly used 1911A1 is okay as a combat arm for the distance they were designed to be used at.
My dad as well as every other W-2 or Korean war vet I've ever known despised the 1911. There were a handful of those guns left over from WW-1, but most were new production guns. It was Coopers fictional writings after the Korean war that created the myth of the 1911 and the 45 acp.
What did they hate about them? I want to know. I've used a 1911 for a good part of my adult life. A 1911 used in the distance they were designed for work very well.
I would imagine the reason the 1911s were "junky" was because most of them were well used. A new or slightly used 1911A1 is okay as a combat arm for the distance they were designed to be used at.
My dad as well as every other W-2 or Korean war vet I've ever known despised the 1911. There were a handful of those guns left over from WW-1, but most were new production guns. It was Coopers fictional writings after the Korean war that created the myth of the 1911 and the 45 acp.
i doubt they were new production as far as i know other than the recent guns all military 1911s were made in 1945 and before.......hell of alot of the ones issues in Korea and Vietnam prolly should have been scrapped long before......
I think it was at Tarawa where the volcanic sand really gummed up the Garands. The Higgins boats each had a '03 in them, but by the end of the day, there were all gone, swapped for the Garands.
Of course I will probably be accused of Heresy for suggesting the Garand was not the perfect battle rifle.
I believe they still issued one 03A3 per squad due to a grenade launcher issue. Meaning one was not developed in enough time for the Garand.
I spoke with my Dad extensively about this. He joined up ten days after Pearl Harbor. He liked the accuracy of the 1903A3, which is what he started out with in Basic in southern California. I think they were issued Garands at Fort Lewis, Washington. He felt the firepower of the Garand trumped the accuracy advantage of the Springfield.
Since Dad was in WWII, I knew a lot of veterans of that conflict. Several of my Uncles were too. Some of the stuff said in gun magazines doesn't true up with the stuff I heard. The 1911 wasn't well liked at all. It was seen as "junky" and inaccurate. The Thompson was seen as uncontrollable and the Grease Gun was another gun viewed as junk. The BAR seemed very well liked. Carbines were seen as handy, neat little guns that didn't have good stopping power.
Lt. Col. Anthony Herbert, a veteran of Korea and later Vietnam, was a huge fan of the BAR. Herbert went into the army a private and came out a light Colonel. He was THE most decorated veteran of the Korean conflict. He shot all the WWII era weapons and the BAR was his favorite.
We, amazingly, still had BARs in the ship's armory in the early 70s and I got to shoot them a few times. One could quickly grow fond of that weapon.
We had similar discussion on WWII reenacting forum. One of the things that was brought up was not many 03-A3's made it out of the continental US. Most used outside were plain old 03's. Some A3's did make it out (and A4's naturally). But the bulk were 03's.
Several hundred thousand 03's and M1917's were given to both the 1eme and 2eme Free French Divisions after the Anfa Accord in 1942. And used up the boot of Italy as Operation Dragoon in South of France.
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.
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.
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.
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 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.
![[Linked Image]](http://s6.photobucket.com/user/EvilTwinMar/media/M1Garandgroup-1.jpg.html)
![[Linked Image]](http://s273.photobucket.com/user/deflave25_2008/media/IMG_4612_zps04ec9d7e.jpg.html)