ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 http://www.m1-garand-rifle.com/history/john-garand.php 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 People here flip shits over their beloved Kalashnikov, the man who has supplied all of our enemies firearms. The weapon used in the slaughter of millions, to this very day! But not a word about Garand. And the rifle he designed that was the mainstay of WWII, The tool that liberated the whole world from the oppression of the nazis. nice Thanks Chile, for reminding us 6 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
sobrenegade 795 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 Happy Birthday Mr. Garand. Looking at it one way, if it wasn't for you, it is entirely possible I may not have been conceived and able to even write this. Thanks for my Father's life. (I never thanked a dead person before) 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Garys4598 1,065 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jerry52 893 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 Hubba Hubba 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted January 2, 2016 Report Share Posted January 2, 2016 Happy Birthday To You! A long lasting and probably wrong rumor has it that when "Doug Out Doug" ... or "Bug Out Doug" Douglas MacAuthur was head of the Army department of weapons design he personally prevented the future development of a B.A.R. box magazine version of the Garand. His reasoning was that he hated the Brits who marched in parade, (Dougie loved parades) with their S.M.L.E. rifles resting sideways on their shoulders because of the non kinda detachable box magazine. He did NOT want US troops parading anyway like the Brits. Thus no big mag. One can imagine how the war may have been conducted with all the Garands having a 20 rd detachable box magazine. Dougie also had a small notion that ammo resupply would have been impossible. Maybe yes, maybe no. Anyhow, long ago and kinda far away. Now history. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 "Ping" Thanks Chile! 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 I shot my m1 and my m1a today to celebrate I embrace the "ping" 2 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Dad2142Dad 6,559 Posted January 3, 2016 Report Share Posted January 3, 2016 Many used it as bait to bring them in. I have to get one of these when other projects get finished 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
HB of CJ 1,263 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I can not help but wonder if the "ping" would work today? Just thinking. Dangerous. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
james lambert 3,059 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I can not help but wonder if the "ping" would work today? Just thinking. Dangerous. If let your enemy get close enough to hear the 'ping' you fucked up The Garand is a spectacular rifle, but lacks FA and high capacity needed in todays environment 4 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Plenty of close fighting where spitting distance was a matter of a few yards.Yep, dangerous indeed, but that also was double edged. Allied soldiers would sometimes throw an empty clip on debris, PING! German would pop up and get shot.Or a couple would fire while a few more waited for the moment they ran out, same results. Edited January 5, 2016 by ChileRelleno 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
cscharlie 107 Posted January 5, 2016 Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 I've always liked the 3006 round. If you ran out of ammo, the Garand is solid enough to crack some skulls... I use to call it a real mans rifle... Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ChileRelleno 7,071 Posted January 5, 2016 Author Report Share Posted January 5, 2016 If you ran out of ammo, they had these cool things called bayonets. Butt stroking someone's skull was just a follow-through. And lord forbid you ever had to use it as a club, shit be waist high then. Damn I miss the war stories from my granddad's and a couple of uncles. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Gaddis 1,689 Posted January 6, 2016 Report Share Posted January 6, 2016 I can not help but wonder if the "ping" would work today? Just thinking. Dangerous. I think you would have about as much chance of hearing the Grarand clip go "ping" as it ejects in a true firefight than you could talk in a conversational voice with your family after blasting off your 12 gauge shotgun in a home invasion scenario without having ear protection on. Like all those Hollywierd bullshit gangster movies where they talk normally in a car (with the windows rolled up) right after shooting someone in the head that's in the car with them. Ain't gonna happen, I'm afraid. 1 Quote Link to post Share on other sites
gunfun 3,931 Posted January 8, 2016 Report Share Posted January 8, 2016 I can not help but wonder if the "ping" would work today? Just thinking. Dangerous. If let your enemy get close enough to hear the 'ping' you fucked up The Garand is a spectacular rifle, but lacks FA and high capacity needed in todays environment Yes. Plus it has a million and one potential service problems and is very unreliable compared to any modern service weapon. Great for it's day, but it has way too much going on inside. Have you ever seen the Army service manual for trouble shooting M1 Garands? It is about 200 pages, because every problem has about 6 variables that need checked and adjusted. Garand made something that worked and satisfied the military politics of the day. It's been suggested that his bigges contribution was custom designed tooling and process managment more than the rifle itself. Garand was a tool maker and figured out how to combine a lot of machining operations with custom tools. Also methods of quality control. That had a lot to with our ability to mass produce them affordably at several different companies. Other guns like the Pederson could never have been made as cheaply or as quickly. Not that the garand was cheap or easy to make, but for the 40s, the most modern thing about it was the production. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.