More Thoughts on the M-1

[Wild Bill]

The M-1 Garand was the infantry rifle. The BAR was the support weapon for the squad, much like a very light machine gun.

Here are some thoughts I put together a few years ago on the Garand.

A NEW RIFLE FOR A NEW WAR
By Wild Bill Wilder

Guns played a major role in the establishing and externsion of the United States. They seem to have more mportance here than anywhere else. Estimates are that the citizenry of the United States is the best armed of any country in the world. But this is not a new fad, or idea. It has always been that way, from the time of the long barreled rifles of the Colonial Army that decimated the British Red Coats up and down the coast of the Colonies during the Revolutionary War until now.

American pioneering in the field of weaponry has always been at the forefront. The desire for more powerful, practical guns led to the creation of the percussion caps, repeating arms, metal cartridges and the machine gun.

The availability of these weapons and peripherals was due in part to the huge industrial revolution in this country and mass production. Gunmakers here became legend, including John Hall, Samuel Colt, Remington and a host of others.

This firepower heritage is also evident in the Armed Forces of the United States. It is a clear-cut fact that soldiers equipped with the best weaponry available has been at the top of the priority list for all the branches of the military. In the area of small arms the push has always been toward more powerful, effective weapons for the soldiers.

Other countries might lean toward greater manpower, brilliant leadership, clever tactics or mass striking ability, but in the American army, the emphasis has been on the quality of the weapon. The soldier must have a weapon upon which he can rely or he will not do his job properly.

There have been bad moments in arms development, such as the early problems with the M-16A1 in its introduction in Vietnam, but by and large, the designers keep on until they get it right.

A Pressing Need

This was why the Ordnance Department of the Army spent forty years in pursuit of a good semi-automatic rifle for its troops. Experiments in the area began at the turn of the 20th century, but need forced the production of the Springfield Armory's single-shot bolt-action .303 rifle. It was rugged and accurate, but it was heavy and slow.

Working the bolt to eject the empty cartridge and insert a fresh one into the chamber took time. In war, time can mean life. Neither did it provide the firepower needed for a modern war of machine guns and cannons. Something more efficient was needed.

After World War One ended, ordnance experts put a high priority on the development of a high-powered, relatively lightweight weapon. It would have to be simple to maintain, light to carry and accurate, with real hitting power.

The theory was that such a weapon could double or even triple an infantry unit's firepower over a bolt action rifle in battle. It would improve the results, since theoretically a man would have to make only a slight adjustment in his sighting with a semi-automatic weapon, compared to the operation of a bolt to eject the empty cartridge and insert a new one into the chamber.

Other nations of the world had the same problem, but could not find an answer. Their solution was to provide their troops with lightweight machine guns to enhance the firepower of the rifle squad. The United States also had advocates of this idea, but they were voted down.

Large numbers of light machine guns were more expensive, complicated tactics, and could be cumbersome, thus hindering mobility. No, the answer would come in the form of an adequate semi-automatic rifle for the ordinary ground slogger.

During the 1920s this project became a top priority in the area of military research. Artillery, machine guns and the development of other ordnance took second place to this urgent need. In a streamlined army, mobility and firepower would have to go hand in hand. The specs sent out to designers was for a rifle that weighed less than 8.5 pounds; would be accurate up to 800 yards without special sighting equipment, and fired a bullet of no less than .276 caliber.

The Competition Begins

There were three promising contenders for the prize. Captain Julian S. Hatcher was an ordnance officer with an encyclopedic knowledge of gun design. John D. Pederson, an independent gun manufacturer seemed to have some promising ideas in the matter. Finally John C. Garand, an employee at the Bureau of Standards had done extensive work in the area of designing lightweight machine guns.

Eventually Hatcher dropped out of the race, but Pederson and Garand continued to design and experiment. In 1926 Garand presented a rifle to the Army, but it was found to be lacking. Seven years of work went down the drain and he began again, this time with a .30-caliber weapon.

Various tests ("The Pig Board" and "The Goat Board") groups used animals to simulate humans, anesthetized them, and ran firing tests on how the weapons destroyed flesh. After another four years of arguing and test models, it was finally decided that the rifle fabricated by Garand firing a .276 bullet would do the job. The Ordnance Department approved it unanimously.

When it reached the Chief of Staff, General Douglas MacArthur, it was completely rejected. MacArthur did not consider himself a marksman and he did not spend a lot of time shooting weapons. It was the size of the bullet that irked him.

Having been in war, he refused to give the men under his command a small bullet with which to dispatch the enemy. It would have to be a .30-caliber or nothing. Another three years of development by John Garand had been tossed by the way.

Undaunted, he went back to the "drawing board," and by the end of 1935 had come with a weapon that just might be the one. It was a gas-operated, .30 caliber, semi-automatic rifle that weighed 9.5 pounds. It used a clip that held eight rounds of ammunition. When empty, the clip was ejected and the bolt remained open for the insertion of a full one.

Its overall length was 43.6 inches and could be handled by the average soldier with relative ease. After inserting the clip and working the bolt once, the weapon could be fired again and again with only a squeeze of the trigger.

The rifle fired about 40 rounds a minute in the hands of the average soldier and up to 100 rounds a minute when used by an expert. It seemed to be the one! On January 6, 1936, it was officially classified as the "Rifle, semi-automatic, M1."

Production Wheels Grind

The wheels of the Army turn, oh so slowly! It took nearly two years to get through all the protocol and paperwork to the production line. When it finally began, in 1938, the earliest models were plagued with problems. The guns made by Garand for the testing had been carefully hand tooled. The models coming off the Springfield armory assembly line were mass-produced on older machinery that could not be properly adjusted to the fine tolerances in the M1's design.

One of the worst problems was the "seventh-round stoppage." Loaded with an eight round clip, the rifle tended to jam on the seventh round. A weak spring in the rifle itself that forced the bullets upward and then ejected the empty clip was found to be the problem. The rear sight was also a problem. It did not work well initially.

Discovering the problem to be in the outdated tooling machinery, new equipment was ordered. Rifles began to come off the lines at about 100 a day, which was still well short of the need. Even worse, the first batches of completed rifles were shipped off to England for the British Army.

During this time, the old war-horse, the NCO of the Army, continued to bad-mouth the weapon. The primary reason was that it was much easier to achieve "expert marksman" with a Springfield than with a Garand. In a day when a sergeant's top pay was $30 a month, the extra $5 was equal to one-sixth his pay. No one wanted to lose that bonus, so the weapon was talked down among the soldiers.

Brigadier General Sidney Hinds recalled, "When in 1941 we were first issued the US rifle, .30 M1 Garand, it was a gift from 'Uncle' received by most of us with varying emotions, attitude and conjectures. The old soldiers, most Experts and Sharpshooters with the Springfield said very frankly, 'Its no good.' 'You'll never hit the broad side of a barn.' 'You'll shoot up all the ammo in five minutes.' And so on, far into the night.

The Garand, in spite of the fine technical data and propaganda,' would have to be sold to the foot soldier on the ground and to really prove itself in the hard and bloody usage of battle." No one really wanted it initially. That would change with the coming of war.

In 1940, a few congressmen got wind of the ill rumors and held hearings (which they have ALWAYS loved to do) on the viability of the new weapon. The Garand was put to another test in May and won hands down over all competitors. It was then decided that the M-1 would be the rifle of the US Armed Forces.

The Marine Corps, dissatisfied with the Army's test, held one of its own in San Diego in May of that year. There had been in development in the Marine Corps another rifle, called the Johnson Rifle.

The three were put to a test together. Marine NCOs were not about to release the Springfield, so just prior to firing, a few M1 clips dropped in the sand did the job. The M1 jammed horribly, and made a very poor showing. The Marines would keep their Springfields (and their $5) for a time. It was no matter. There were not enough to go around, and the Army would gladly take them.

Not Enough to Go Around

By the beginning of World War II, the new rifle was still a scare commodity. Production had lagged far behind demand. Now with a war on, all trainees were obligated to use the old Springfield. Only troops going overseas would get the M1 Garand. Secretary of War Stimson urged General Marshall to relax production standards so that weapons could be produced more rapidly.

Marshall adamantly refused. He would stick to the old Army tradition of aiming for perfection in weaponry. This was a World War! Whatever rifle his soldiers carried, it would have to withstand the heat of the North African deserts, the sweltering humidity, and sand of the Pacific, and the mud of Western Europe. Only the best would be good enough. The British, who had lowered the standard for the Enfield Rifle, came to regret their decision. General Marshall never regretted his.

Swap, Trade or Steal

When the 1st Marine Division landed at Guadalcanal on August 7th, 1942, the standard weapon was still Springfield bolt-action rifle. There were only a few test Garands on the island. After a number of massed charges and attacks by the Japanese, Marines who had sweated blood working the bolts on those rifles were hungry for something better.


When US Army troops began to reinforce the Marines, they brought with them the new M-1 Rifle. At the risk of life and limb (worth far more than $5 a month), the Marines did everything in their power to get one.

In addition to being a very deadly weapon, the M-1 had 40 percent less recoil than the Springfield '03. It had only 72 parts compared to 92. The only tool required to take it apart and put if back together was one every soldier would have available - a .30-caliber bullet.

The pointed nose and the rim of the cartridge were all it took to take it apart and put it back together. The Marines began bartering with Japanese flags, swords and any other item of interest, trying to coax the new rifle from its user.

It was only a matter of days till the Army troops discovered the superiority of their weapon and refused any such offers. Then came the looting, the stealing of weapons in the night. GIs were forced to tie their weapons to their bunks or to their own bodies to keep them from disappearing as they slept.

US Army Colonel John George tells in his book, Shots Fired in Anger, "Leathernecks were appropriating all they could lay their hands upon by 'moonlight requisition.' In daylight, they would come over to our areas to barter souvenirs with freshly landed doughboy units; any crooked supply sergeant who had an extra M1 could get all the loot he wanted."

At last, shipments of rifles for the Marines began reaching Guadalcanal, but by now the Marines were on their way back to Australia. By early 1943, most US units were equipped with the M1. It would continue as the primary weapon for another 15 years and still see service in 3rd world countries over 50 years later.

During that period, over 4,040,000 rifles were produceded by the Springfield and Winchester Armories. Major General Julian S. Hatcher, who had been one of the original competitors for the design of the weapon, commented on its use. "It is estimated that during World War II more shots were fired with the Garand than were ever fired with the Springfield in all its history."

Today in a new millenium, many armies of the third world countries still use and praise the old M-1 Garand. Like the B-52, the M-60, the M-16 (modernized) and the Huey helicopter, the fact that they are still used in quantity in service indicates something of the long-lasting quality of the weapon.
Sources:

There's a War to be Won, Perrett
The Encyclopedia of Weapons of WW2, Bishop

[azraelck]

Very well written, Wild bill. The only thing is that the US never used a .303 cartridge. That's the British round. It was a rimmed cartridge, and IIRC a rim fire (like a .22LR). The .30-40 Krag, .30-06, and later 7.62x54mm NATO all used a .308 inch diameter round. The .30-06 and 7.62NATO rounds are both center fire, rimless cartridges. They were not necessarily the same exact bullets; in fact the .30-06 had two or three different types itself. The .30-40 Krag is a round-nose, old type bullet, just of the same diameter as it predecessors.

The U.S. also never used a single shot bolt gun. The .30-40 Krag was a repeater. It replaced the Trap-Door Springfield. It was subsequently replaced by another repeating bolt gun, the excellent M1903. The Trap-Door Springfield and prior rifles were not bolt guns.

What you may have been thinking about was the US M1917 rifle, which was based on the British P14 Enfield. That Enfield was to replace the SMLE, but due to World War I, the SMLE proved to be competent enough that it was kept. However, it was difficult to manufacture, and Britain faced shortages. The U.S. produced a large number of P14's for Britain, chambered for the standard .303 British round, but when the contract ran out and the U.S. was at war as well, they found their own M1903 was in short supply. The P14 was modified to become the M1917, firing the U.S. standard .30-06 round. The twin rifles came to equip the bulk of both countries' troops in the war, and performed admirably in that conflict. They were used in home guard units during WWII, and were later distributed to allies abroad.

[Wild Bill]

Well now, Azraelck (You gotta tell me how to pronounce that - [&:], I certainly appreciate the insight into that little fact. You seem to have a really good in depth knowledge of small arms.

I confess I never delved into it that deeply and took the word of the sources as fact. I do believe that the info that I gleaned largely jibes with the actual history of the weapon.

Have you ever held or fired a Garand? I have. It is a very impressive weapon. Of course, it is nothing to compare with the more modern weapons, but like the Sherman tank, produced in great numbers, it got the job done.

I never fired the BAR, but have held it and cleaned it. It is a very hefty weapon to be hauling around on sandy beaches or deep jungle.

Its staccato sound is both assuring and frightening.

I appreciate the clarification.

WB

[azraelck]

I know how to pronounce it, but I have no idea how in the bloody hell to get it across in text. So pretty much any way that suits you is fine. It's not like it's my real name anyway, and it's easier to get across than Domhnall.

IMO, I cannot begin to get a solid grasp of the tactics used in combat without knowing about the weapons used. So I do know a bit about arms, not just rifles and such, but swords from the ancient times to now. To me, if you don't understand the weaponry you use and what you'll face, then you are not as capable of planning the battle. No offense meant to those who think differently, that's just my personal thought on the matter. As for sources, information on the rifles can be found easily enough. Add in a slightly obsessive nature when it comes to things that interest me, and a photographic memory, and you'll have me. Plus, I'm completely insane. Ask me about cars, I'll kill this message board just talking about Studebakers. And I've only recently got into them, with my '53 and all.

I have handled several Garands, and spoken to three men who were trained with them, and served with them. Unfortunately, my finances crashed about the time I started to buy one, so I haven't gotten to fire one yet. I am a fair shot with a rifle, nothing spectacular but I hit what I aim for. Truth be told I'll take a Garand over an M16 any day, despite the disparity in fire-power. To shorten things, the veterans who used them I've spoken too wouldn't trade theirs in for a fight. My grandfather speaks very highly of the M1 rifle, not so highly of the lighter M1 rifle, or the M1911 for that matter. Both my great uncles carried rifles, and both swore they'd take the Garand once again at need. In one uncle's case, he did, having several in his collection that disappeared over the years as he got older. Alzheimer's got him, so a lot of things were lost or stolen, and he never knew. They way we got him to stop driving was by his son taking his truck, claiming to be going to fix the brakes, and then not doing so. He forgot the truck existed within a week.

I have witnessed a BAR. Every time I think on it, it kinda awes me. Especially since I know about the .30-06 pretty well, and know what it can do. That's some heavy fire-power. That's why I don't consider it a rifle, and it is certainly not a machine gun. It served a separate purpose all together, though it was used in both roles at need. I doubt I'll ever own a real one, as I don't really care for fully automatic weapons, and as such most likely won't ever get a class III license. The cost isn't justifiable to me, for 1 gun.

[264rifle]

I would like to meet the guy (or gal) who could fire 100 rounds a minute from an M-1 and hit anything. I have one with a stainless steel barrel in .308.

There was a method that was told to me by an old Winchester worker. You grasp the fore-end with the non-firing hand VERY firmly and hold the rifle at just above waist level such that the elbow of the the nonfiring hand is just above your belt and solidly in your stomach. Holding your firing arm so as to press the rifle against your side, without grasping the rifle with your hand, you place your firing finger into the trigger guard and pull gently rearward. After the rifle goes off the first time and recoils rearward your non-firing arm and abdomen act as a recoil system and keep bouncing the rifle forward into the suspended "trigger" finger. Some peaple could get some rather astonishing rates of fire this way. When your job is to fire tens of thousands of rounds through a gun just to see what breaks yoou might get a little creative;) Don't know how useful this is at anything longer than across the room ranges.

To fire 96 rounds a minute means 11 reloads.

That quible and Azraelck's comments aside I think that you gave us a pretty good sumation of the M-1 History.

[azraelck]

For that, anyone who tries to fire 100 rounds/min from any gun that's able to, is not likely to be able to hit anything. As the barrel heats up, the accuracy starts to drop. When you fire like that, it's VERY difficult to get any sort of accuracy out of a gun. I tried to do a few speed runs with my MAS 1936/51, and I noticed my aim wanders up and to the left under sustained periods of rapid (or as rapid as one of those guns can be!) fire. Of course, my time is skewed because I can't find the 5 round chargers that's be used with it, making me have to manually load one round at a time.

Of course, no smart @$$es standing 3 foot from a large wall either. I mean at least at 100 yards. The world record held by the SMLE is at 300 yards. 38 shots into a 12" target in under a minuet from a bolt action rifle. IIRC, it was set before WWII, and hasn't been broken. I intend to try.

[264rifle]

It might have been set befor WW I.

[azraelck]

IIRC, it was set after WWI. I'll have to dig around a confirm it.

I do have a correction. The .303 is a center-fire round, not rim-fire. It is still a rimmed, tapered cartridge. My mistake.