I think that's a load of allied propaganda bullshit. The gewhr43 was more accurate, had a higher rate of fire, and could reload almost twice as fast. The only thing the M1 had on the gewhr was it was more reliable, although in general the g43 was actually pretty reliable too.
@MrOhaiMark When you said "higher rate of fire" when comparing semi-automatic rifles I almost laughed. You think a rifleman is going to fire off the full round per minute capabilities of that rifle? I don't think his trigger finger could even move that fast! Not even to mention how accurate he would be! Accuracy wise, the gewehr had a shorter barrel, which generally means... less accurate. Finally, no... the Gewehr can't be reloaded "twice as fast" as the Garand... this isn't call of duty.
@MrOhaiMark The Garand was also simpler to take apart and clean, had better egronomics, and was cheaper to produce with better quality. Both were gas operated, and could fire as fast as you could pull their triggers, fire rate was the same. The G43's accuracy was good, but varied depending on build quality, which was not always good, unlke the Garand. Relaoding the G43 was slower, since it required 2 clips of 5 rounds to be loaded in one after the other, while the M1 only had 1 clip
@MrOhaiMark The M-1 also had better sights with better sight picture, I've seen many reports and veteran accounts that many German soldiers would often scavenge American M-1's over the G-43's in fact after the G43 went up against the M-1 in Italy, the German High Command saw how the Gewehr wasnt up to par with the M-1, and ordered it to be used as a specialist's weapon, away from the frontlines, there, as a sniper's weapon, it did a respectable job, as a service rifle, it was decent.
@MrOhaiMark The G43 was also a very rare weapon in battle especuially on the Western Front, 2-4 rifles in every platoon, issued to squad leaders, specialists, or machine gun teams, then, most troops preferred the MP-40 or Mauser 98 over it, or if they were lucky, American M-1 rifles or carbines
The Kar98k and Mosin were amazing bolt action rifles, hell most bolt actions are made on the principles of the Mauser 98. But what I would rather have is the all American 30.06 M1 Garand. Can't go wrong with the good ol 30.06
"...The germans and Japanese were struggling with turn of the century bolt action rifles..." Germans no way, if hitler wasn't an idiot the would have had a better rifle then the kar 98k but nooo because he used in ww1 that meant it was good enough for germany. Germany made the first assault rifle and had to freaking hide it from their freaking feuher because he was to stubborn to accept a new rifle. Before it was the STG44 it was the mp43 so hitler would think it a submachine gun. Idiot...
Fedorov 1916 wasn't an assault rifle, it used a full power rifle cartridge - 6,5x50 (arisaka). So Fedorov was the same weapon class as FG-42, FN FAL, CETME or G3 (automatic rifle or if you want battle rifle).
@MCh2207Cz Thats the mistake most people make with the Federov, and see it used a "6.5x50", though it did use a 6.5x50, the Federov company, after adopting it, modified the cartridge it half scale and power for the Avtomat, today this would be labeled as an intermediate round.
As far as I know it was intended to use Fedorov's unique short 6,5mm round (didn't found the case length). But later it was changed to arisaka round because Russians had already arisaka rifles with their ammo and they had no capacity to produce new round.
addition (youtube limit) - So those few prototypes in short 6,5mm Fedorov round can be called "assault rifle" but those were only few. The absolute majority was produced in arisaka round.
Also the tactical use of Fedorov was more like the BAR, Lewis or Madsen - as a support weapon (LMG). In contrast, assault rifle is intended as a standard issue infantry rifle, not support weapon.
@MCh2207Cz Thats true, though the Federov wasnt always used as assault rifles are today, however the modern specifications of an assault rifle were there with the Federov (even though the assault rifle criteria wouldnt be established until after WWII) since the Federov was fully automatic, operated by a single soldier, featured a detachable magazine, and fired a non full sized cartridge.
@MCh2207Cz Its kind of sad though, that the Russians didnt really explore the Federov's concept, they had a real revolutionary new class of weapon, and didnt fully exploite it because it was determined to be "untraditional". Luckily the Germans revised that idea, and it became what we know today as the assault rifle catagory.
I think that those few short 6,5mm prototypes can be considered as assault rifles - from construction point of view, but not from tactical point of view.
Btw, I think that Russian 7,62x39 (based on the German idea of 7,92x33) is one of the best intermediate rounds. So I think there is not much to regret :-)
@shermonruler But yeah Hitler was a moron still fighting WWI in his head, he had so many chances to defeat the Allies, yet either didnt see them, or didnt like it and refused to act.
After watching the cycle of functioning video for the M1 Rifle, you really can appreciate why it took 16 years to develop. Its very complicated and advanced for its time.
@KozMick1 Yeah John was a genious, too bad the world doesnt really have such legends designing such unique weapons anymore, all "new" weapons are just add-ons to the M-16 and the AK rifles built and invented by companies, not particular individuals like Garand, Stoner, Browning, or Klashnikov.
@KozMick1 it's sad how many people forget that. I've gotten into a few conflabs with arrogant tards that refuse to admit that. their argument is usually that John G was i the states so it was invented by an american,,,, yes, but where was the man born ? anyway.... woot woot!!
@ChromeArty It was invented by an American citizen, in the Springfield Armory and only issued to US troops. M1 = 100% American made. Where the inventor was personally born is irrelivant when designating an invention's origin. Canada had nothing (and didnt want anythnig to do) with the M1 Garand, that rifle is souly an American invention.
@LoneWolf051 yeah.... like how the second world war's duration was from 1942 - 1945 and how the first world war took place inside one year ( 1918 ) facts like those ? dumb fuckin yank
@LoneWolf051 ;LOL !!!! oh my god you fool! that was my whole fucking point!! man your slow, that took you quite a long time to google as well. Now look up how long your Country was involved in each war.... fuck me, i can't believe that shit went over your head. You need to learn when people are fucking with you.
@ChromeArty Ah! but you never said US involvement, you simply said "WWII lasted for this long" and "WWI lasted this long" If you wanted to mention US involvement, you shouldda said so, otherwise people will think that you think WWII was from '42-'45 and WWI was only 1918, making yourself look stupid.
And no the US was INVOLVED with WWI since 1915 (volunteer troops, over 20,000) we ENTERED in 1918.
WWII, we were INVOLVED with the war since 1940 (Battle of Britian, Lend Lease ect)
@LoneWolf051 really dude!? you are truly thick... like I said you really need to learn when people are fucking with you....... fuck, speaking of making oneself look dumb.........
@ChromeArty To the unassuming viewer, they see your posts saying WWI was only a year long, and WWII was from 1942-1945, then they see me "correct" you by putting the actual dates, and yes I knew you were screwing with me, just to get you to post the dates that dumb Americans think the wars lasted, just so that I can come in and look like I'm correcting a moron who doesnt know his history...so, in the end, I made YOU'RE posts look dumb in the eyes of random viewers to this thread.
@ChromeArty To the average joe who sees that, they just see a guy (you) saying WWI was a year long, and WWII was from '42-'45, (not knowing you're just mocking the way some Americans are ignorant about the wars) and they see another guy (me) state the actual dates of the wars...making ME look like the smart one educating you.
@ChromeArty Sad how apparently stepping across a line into a different country, can somehow lead foolish people to believe that the creator is an American, Born in America, All-American.
@KozMick1 Thank you Sir!!! Truly sad indeed. It's impossible to teach an over-patriotic, closed minded American a God damn thing. ..... although Crosby taught them a thing or two at the last Olympic Games :) lol
@KozMick1 He became an American citizen in the early 1900s, and according to the Constitution, everything he does after this point, is American made, Garand was from Canada, but his rifle is 100% American made.
I don't understand why they don't keep such successful weapons still in use today. Instead of keeping this piece of art, the M1 garand, they switched to the M-16 which caused the death of hundreds of soldiers with it's malfunctions. They even rejected the M14 which was a marvelous weapon based on the m1 garand design due to "weight and recoil".
I will be buying my M-1 rifle from the old government stock pile that CMP has. Really excited. This is one rifle that never grows old through time like the Mauser rifles or M1903's.
@reaperflynn3 You won't be dissapointed. I bought my M-1 Garand from CMP and it is my pride and joy of my whole collection of rifles. It's accurate, powerful, and it can be used as a hunting rifle or a competition rifle. I will never get rid of it, hell I'll probably be buried with it. lol
@TheFoozyman The M1 rifle could use a bayonet, or a muzzle mount for a rifle grenade, however the rifle grenades were very slow to load, and werent that accurate or effective. The Garand was very accurate, more than the Arisaka rifles, FAR more accurate than the very poorly made Carcano rifles, the Kar98, Mosin, and 1903 Springfield rifles were slightly more accurate, but the M1 outshot them in speed and firepower, the M1 was the greatest rifle of the war, and one of the greatest of all time.
@LoneWolf051 the mosin was not poorly made german dog, nor were that jap rifle the kar98, or the springfield, i hope you actually learn shit some day you over confident british fat cod nerd
@TechMentalist I'm British? I own all these weapons in my collection and a exremely familiar with them, and I said the Carcano was poor because of its inaccuracy and notorios jamming reputation, and towards the end of the war the Arisaka rifles were very poor and crudely made weapons.
@TechMentalist the mosin and the kar98 were not poorly made.i have shot these guns, the m1 garand is cool but that dosnt mean you could say everything else is poorly made
Might as well strike all those thumbs up ratings from your record, because he didn't say the K98 was poorly made. The guy made a mistake by not adding a period after he said the "Carcano rifles" were poorly made. Look at his comment again...
@TheFoozyman The M1 Carbine and the M1-A1 Carbine werent that great in battle, they werent in the same class as the Garand, the M1 Garand was made for comat, the M1 and M1-A1 Carbines were made for self defence.
@LoneWolf051 M1 carbine isnt for self defence you dumbass. if its used in the fucking military as a RIFLE than what the hell makes you think they made it you your personal self defence use.
@xxuncexx It was developed in the late '30s intended for non combat troops as a means of self defence, providing them with greater firepower and range than a standard sidearm, later, it was found to be a decent frontline service weapon. Every weapons expert and historian knows that.
@TheFoozyman the arisaka, nagant, and berita were all pieces of shit made cheap to be put in the hands of poorly trained conscripts. the 98 and springfield were slightly more accurate but didnt come close to the firepower the garand had
@TheFoozyman Practically speaking, all these guns are rated for at least 1 MOA (minute of angle) which means an inherent accuracy of 1'' for every 100 yards. Most peace-time models are able to do better but many war-time guns may be so roughly made that they are rated for only 2 MOA, but that is rare & a matter of production, not poor design.
@TheFoozyman Well, in my opinion. The M1 Garand has a better rate of fire than all of those guns you just listed. And most of the time it was extremely accurate in battles. And it could be put with a scope. But normally, they insisted on having the Springfield as the Sniper Rifle because it was still good and it would be a little more accurate at most of the times when sniping. And there wasn't any real attachments added to the Garand. It was just a plain regular rifle.
Too bad Garand could have bumped up the clip capacity to 10 instead of 8 or even better have it magazine-fed like the M1 Carbine. so it wouldn't have to make that pinging sound. But nevertheless a good gun to have at your side during WW2. Germans had FG42s and Gewehrs but were never widely "used" or were built too late. Japanese had the Type 8 or something it was copied from the Garand but ran into problems; problems Garand solved very early in the 1920's when he made his gun.
@crawford4140 Actually the M1 is a smallarm, not a gun, and 2 extra rounds arent really a good enough reason to alter the entire design and try to make a magazine fed rifle, which was not liked by the military back then anyways, plus the Garand design was never really meant for a detachable magazine operation, its operation is made for clip feed, thats why the M14 jams far more often than the Garand.
And the Japanese had the M38 Arisaka, the Type 5 only got as far as the blueprints.
@LoneWolf051 the problem with clips is the clips themselves. Biggest complaint of troops was the difficulty of recovering clips after action. If an empty clip was stepped on, it was ruined, & finding them in the mud, dirt, rubble, rocks, & grass was not always easy. Soldiers could find themselves with just 2-3 usable clips out of the 12-13 they started with. Supply-deports didn't always have spares either. M14 may be slightly less reliable but it is hard to lose the big magazines.
The Germans had G43s, Soviets had semi's BEFORE Americans. Yet this video claims that Germans only had bolt-action?
In another video, about the BAR, they said the Germans hadn't equal firepower to the BAR.... Ermmm... MG42, FG42 and STG42? All very good guns which had equal/better firepower than the BAR.
This video is some bullshit propaganda by rednecks.
@MoonHoplite Yes you are right about the Germans having firepower potential equal too or better then the American forces during WW2 but all the weapons you mentioned were expensive to produce in high numbers and the German military leadership failed to captialize on there affectiveness in order to affect the out come of the war. Only Hitlers most elite were even issued the FG42 (Fallschirmjager Infantry aka paratroopers).
@MoonHoplite Yes but again it was also a milled weapon which means its wasnt cheep to mass produce. I agree the STG44 could have drastically effected the pace of the war. Which would have provided the average german solider with much more firepower the an American solider with an M1. The Germans still would have eventually lost the war though cause Hitler had a horrible system of military leadership which left him with the final say in every tactic his army took and not his generals.
No. The Sturmgewehr which literally means storm rifle was disguised under the name Machinepistole 44. Hitler didn't want a new type of weapon that fired an intermediate round so they said it was an SMG. Hitler thought it was ugly because it was made of stamping. Once he saw what it could do , he ok-Ed it. The stormtroops were give the FG-42 which is an automatic rifle.
Not really. As I mentioned, the receiver and bolt more closely resemble the M1/M14 than the M1.
I did read somewhere though, that the Mini 14 apparently borrowed from a prototype carbine that was designed to be cheaper and easier to manufacture than the M1 carbine.
@Dengar12000: I still respectfully disagree. Google image the M1 carbine receiver and the mini 14 receiver and compare the two you'll see what I'm trying to get at.
Yes it was, a sniper is sent forward to recon and observe the situation before the platoon shows up, sniper engagements usually took place before anything big happened.
You mean the Mp44 right? The sturmkaveir were only given to stormtroopers, but it was only okay-ed by Hitler in 1944. It had a very short term of war.
@guitar241990, STG 44 never became standard issued. It only served 2 years and during those 2 years the K98 was standard issued. Many Nazi units were switching their K98's in for STG 44 but it was too late and the war ended.
Well..estimated effective range of the m1 is 440 yards. The k98 around 550. The k98 with optics had an estimated range of 800 yards. Not to metion...aside from the Lee Enfield, the k98 is probably one of the most accurate rifles ever built. The American troops were never usually engaged as far as that.
The gewehr 98 and k98k weren't slouches either. The k98 was a great accurate rifle and better suited for longer ranged targets. You can't really say one weapon won an entire war because the war was won with the effort of many countries. Since Garand was Canadian, why were m1's never issued to Canadian troops in ww2?
Another thing that does not speak well of the M1 Garand as the world beater it is usually claimed to be is that in the Pacific War against Japan, thousands of GIs also dumped the heavy and high-recoil M1 garand is favour of the lighter and handier M1 Carbine. A M1 Carbine was just more effective in jungle fighting than the Garand.
I disagree, I've never heard of any soldier complain about the Garand's weight or recoil, that includes vets and current serving soldiers. They all generally loved their Garands. The Carbine while handier just normally didn't cut it when it came to actual combat, the heavier stopping power needed just wasn't there with the smaller pistol cartridge the Carbine fired. By the way, this notion that any US soldiers started throwing away their Garands is false, please read a history book.
I have read books and have talked with veterans. I know MOST US soldiers did not discard their garands. However, thousands did and they were happy to do so not because the Garand was a terrible gun but because it was simply not the best gun for the job they were asked to do. Carbines and SMGs do not have the hitting power, but when you can hit the target at least 4-5 times with them in the same time it takes to line up 1-2 shots with a garand, the hitting-power issue becomes irrelevant.
they never complained about the garands weight because it was the best rifle at the time. You had 8 rounds of high powered thunder as fast as you could pull the trigger.
the garand has more recoil so you can fire more accurate shots in a shorter amount of time with the carbine instead of the the garand. but with the garand if your enemy was on the other side of a tree or wall or even some sand bags you can blow through all that and still kill the guy the carbine can't. also the carbine doesn't have the range that the garand does. but the carbine was lighter and shorter than the garand. see there are trade offs there is never gonna be a perfect rifle.
@N5II And those history books will tell you of thousands of soldiers doing so. Of course, thosuands represents only a small fraction of the millions of US soldiers who served. What you really should be saying is that the numbers of guns discarded is exaggerated. For every soldier who dumped his garand for a carbine or tommygun, many others used their garands. But to say that no one dumped their garands is as false as those who claim that most did so.
It's .30 cal by diameter but there's a serious difference between .30-60 and the .30 Carbine. .30 Carbine's power is comparable to the .357 magnum granted the .357 is a bigger round but they come close in size and power. .30-60 was designed primarily for dropping large game in one shot, it has great penetration and makes a nice sized hole through targets. It isn't even comparable, .30-60 has on average 2,900 foot pounds while .30 Carbine has about 950 foot pounds. Their nothing alike.
@N5II The comments about the Garands weight are well founded. First, weight isn't a bad thing. you can't get something for nothing. Second, soldiers prefer to carry as little weight as possible. I know a Korean vet that has the highest regard for the M1. Something he said about the rifle is its weight. Try lugging 9 pounds of steel and walnut around with you weeks on end. It gets heavy!
@bsrman36 9 lbs is almost standard on battle rifles, look at the Mauser and Nagant. They weight as much as the Garand does and they've been carried by soldiers since the 1800s. I really don't see why people are even comparing the Garand to the Carbine, their completely different applications. The M1 Carbine is for close quarters to mid range engagements, the Garand is the iconic battle rifle serving perfectly at mid range to long range firefights. Good comment by the way bsrman36.
Thanks. I try to leave comments that productive and beneficial. Youtube has a collection of idiots that comment like....well idiots haha.
When I have to carry a weapon with me everywhere, it gets old pretty fast and I'm happy to turn it in. I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers that complained about the Garand's weight. But when the SHTF, American GIs were glad to have a heavy, tough, hard hitting, ultra reliable, semi automatic rifle.
@N5II 2/2. It really is too bad Truman opted not to update the US weapons arsenal. What made the Garand so special and unique at the time is that there was no standard issue rifle that could match the M1 on the battlefield. At the time, the US was ahead of the curve in weapons development. Had we begun updating our weapons during the 50s, who knows how history would be different today....
@bsrman36 The US was ahead of the curve, but don't leave the Germans out. Fully automatic weapons were criticized by the US saying that they were a waste of ammo etc. The first assault rifle was also created by the Germans.
@RarghImGunnaEatU Actually the Germans only revived the concept of the assault rifle from the Russians, who had working practical assault rifles in 1916, but the Russian governement in 1916 (as the US did 30 years later) believed full auto fire from every soldier was a waste of ammo, and didnt mass produce them.
Then the Germans took that long abandoned assault rifle idea, and invented their StG 44, they did it so well and proved that the assault rifle could be an effective platform afterall.
also in house to house the carbine was better but in german with the m1 garand you could engage enemies farther away. there is just never going to be a gun that is the best for all situations you just have to pick the one that works the best in the given situation
most fighting took place under 150 meters and a lot in cities of europe. I would still chose the m1 garand over a carbine just because you can shoot through a lot more stuff than carbines and kill people behind it
i know but i mean when your breaching and going into a building a carbine is better at that job than a full on rifle. make no mistake the garand was the best rifle in ww2 and if i was in ww2 i would want a garand. but what i was trying to say was no matter what firearm you pick in any situation there is going to be some sort of trade of. with a garand if you run into a room with three guys and one has a carbine or smg, they'll be faster with ther gun than you are with yours.
The problem of the Garand is the same as all rifles in WW2. The enemy was not five hundred yards away. The Garand was the best rifle of WW2 but aimed-fire rifles as a whole were out of date in WW2. The SMG and the Assault Rifle were the weapons that worked best in the kind of combat that one faced most often. That is why thousands of GIs dumped their garands in favour of an MP40 whenever they could find one. I recall a story where one Yank killed another Yank just for his tommygun!
The grand was good to a 1000+yards well that is the m1-C or D sniper verson. The only flaw was the ping and its small round mag, lucky for the Germans that is...
Only if they were going to shoot Hitler, Himmler, and Goering, et al. Of course if they were going to do that, a very inaccurate firearm would suffice to hit a schlub like Goering..
The most important thing about stopping power, given basic penetration, is where you hit. After that, the larger round will have an edge, but will also be harder to shoot. Most US soldiers used black tip armor piercing rounds.
you Know that Deep impact doesn't make the bullet stronger right? so its better to have something more useful like extreme conditioning or steady aim.
My perfect inventory for a soldier in WWII would be an M1 for long range, a Thompson with a drum clip for close quarters, and I might as well throw in a Colt, two.
You know, I've always liked these shows. But I wish they would go farther in depth as to how these rifles work. I'd always been curious as to how the feeding mechanism worked on the M1. I ended up researching it myself in the end.. But it would still have been nice to see it on this.
its easy to find how it works look up m1 garnad animation and there will be some link on a website that has a flash animation that tells you everything you want to know
I agree. The M16 at the time was some sort've alien space gun made out of plastic with 30 rounds, whereas the M1 Garand was ten pounds of whoop-ass that you could use to make Swiss cheese out of Huns.
so it still saw service this is an example of who biased these shows are and how far they are willing to go to make it seem that some guns are far superior to to other(im american so dont leave hateful comments about saying like im from a poor country or something)
im american too, well asian american i was born in the u.s. rifles have their ups and downs but its curtain that the m1 were fielded in lager numbers.(about 5.4 million compared to 402,713 gerwhers) a rifle cannot effect the battle if its not there
i disagree if you have a greater number a good rifle your sure to have an advantage if the enemy has a good quality rifle but in less numbers I <3 RICE
there the rifles one on one and they both work so wats the harm in comparing them if this rifles so great.... theres not harm so why didnt they compare it?
Ah my choice of weapon.
gamebro100 2 days ago
sure is a great gun!
iluv2viddyfilms 1 month ago
Isn't the gewhr43 just as good?
MrOhaiMark 3 months ago
@MrOhaiMark maybe the SVT but the G43 was unreliable and complex... at least thats what they said
curseofa5r5a 3 months ago
@curseofa5r5a
I think that's a load of allied propaganda bullshit. The gewhr43 was more accurate, had a higher rate of fire, and could reload almost twice as fast. The only thing the M1 had on the gewhr was it was more reliable, although in general the g43 was actually pretty reliable too.
MrOhaiMark 3 months ago
@MrOhaiMark When you said "higher rate of fire" when comparing semi-automatic rifles I almost laughed. You think a rifleman is going to fire off the full round per minute capabilities of that rifle? I don't think his trigger finger could even move that fast! Not even to mention how accurate he would be! Accuracy wise, the gewehr had a shorter barrel, which generally means... less accurate. Finally, no... the Gewehr can't be reloaded "twice as fast" as the Garand... this isn't call of duty.
downloadgoblin 2 months ago 2
@MrOhaiMark The Garand was also simpler to take apart and clean, had better egronomics, and was cheaper to produce with better quality. Both were gas operated, and could fire as fast as you could pull their triggers, fire rate was the same. The G43's accuracy was good, but varied depending on build quality, which was not always good, unlke the Garand. Relaoding the G43 was slower, since it required 2 clips of 5 rounds to be loaded in one after the other, while the M1 only had 1 clip
LoneWolf051 1 month ago
@MrOhaiMark The M-1 also had better sights with better sight picture, I've seen many reports and veteran accounts that many German soldiers would often scavenge American M-1's over the G-43's in fact after the G43 went up against the M-1 in Italy, the German High Command saw how the Gewehr wasnt up to par with the M-1, and ordered it to be used as a specialist's weapon, away from the frontlines, there, as a sniper's weapon, it did a respectable job, as a service rifle, it was decent.
LoneWolf051 1 month ago
@MrOhaiMark The G43 was also a very rare weapon in battle especuially on the Western Front, 2-4 rifles in every platoon, issued to squad leaders, specialists, or machine gun teams, then, most troops preferred the MP-40 or Mauser 98 over it, or if they were lucky, American M-1 rifles or carbines
LoneWolf051 1 month ago
Garande was a Canadian!!!
honour123 4 months ago
I have a M1 Garand, M1 Carbine and a B.A.R
GreenDayJaded86 6 months ago
@GreenDayJaded86 Whoopdie fucking doo for you.
R34kicksarse 4 months ago
@GreenDayJaded86 Great
Can I come over to your house in the apocalypse
AccessDenied55 4 months ago
The Kar98k and Mosin were amazing bolt action rifles, hell most bolt actions are made on the principles of the Mauser 98. But what I would rather have is the all American 30.06 M1 Garand. Can't go wrong with the good ol 30.06
rockneverdie1994 6 months ago
"...The germans and Japanese were struggling with turn of the century bolt action rifles..." Germans no way, if hitler wasn't an idiot the would have had a better rifle then the kar 98k but nooo because he used in ww1 that meant it was good enough for germany. Germany made the first assault rifle and had to freaking hide it from their freaking feuher because he was to stubborn to accept a new rifle. Before it was the STG44 it was the mp43 so hitler would think it a submachine gun. Idiot...
shermonruler 6 months ago
@shermonruler Russia invented the first successful, practical assault rifle in 1916. Germany only revised the concept 27 years later.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051
Fedorov 1916 wasn't an assault rifle, it used a full power rifle cartridge - 6,5x50 (arisaka). So Fedorov was the same weapon class as FG-42, FN FAL, CETME or G3 (automatic rifle or if you want battle rifle).
MCh2207Cz 6 months ago
@MCh2207Cz Thats the mistake most people make with the Federov, and see it used a "6.5x50", though it did use a 6.5x50, the Federov company, after adopting it, modified the cartridge it half scale and power for the Avtomat, today this would be labeled as an intermediate round.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051
As far as I know it was intended to use Fedorov's unique short 6,5mm round (didn't found the case length). But later it was changed to arisaka round because Russians had already arisaka rifles with their ammo and they had no capacity to produce new round.
MCh2207Cz 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051
addition (youtube limit) - So those few prototypes in short 6,5mm Fedorov round can be called "assault rifle" but those were only few. The absolute majority was produced in arisaka round.
Also the tactical use of Fedorov was more like the BAR, Lewis or Madsen - as a support weapon (LMG). In contrast, assault rifle is intended as a standard issue infantry rifle, not support weapon.
MCh2207Cz 6 months ago
@MCh2207Cz Thats true, though the Federov wasnt always used as assault rifles are today, however the modern specifications of an assault rifle were there with the Federov (even though the assault rifle criteria wouldnt be established until after WWII) since the Federov was fully automatic, operated by a single soldier, featured a detachable magazine, and fired a non full sized cartridge.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@MCh2207Cz Its kind of sad though, that the Russians didnt really explore the Federov's concept, they had a real revolutionary new class of weapon, and didnt fully exploite it because it was determined to be "untraditional". Luckily the Germans revised that idea, and it became what we know today as the assault rifle catagory.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051
I think that those few short 6,5mm prototypes can be considered as assault rifles - from construction point of view, but not from tactical point of view.
Btw, I think that Russian 7,62x39 (based on the German idea of 7,92x33) is one of the best intermediate rounds. So I think there is not much to regret :-)
MCh2207Cz 6 months ago
@MCh2207Cz Yep, guess not
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@shermonruler But yeah Hitler was a moron still fighting WWI in his head, he had so many chances to defeat the Allies, yet either didnt see them, or didnt like it and refused to act.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051 you know your stuff man. i have to give it to you for putting these idiots in there place.
slater762mm 7 months ago
PING!
leons555 8 months ago
@leons555 Dead ! :)
GSG9941 6 months ago
After watching the cycle of functioning video for the M1 Rifle, you really can appreciate why it took 16 years to develop. Its very complicated and advanced for its time.
TaZ101SAGA 10 months ago
Invented by a Canadian,
KozMick1 1 year ago
@KozMick1 Yeah John was a genious, too bad the world doesnt really have such legends designing such unique weapons anymore, all "new" weapons are just add-ons to the M-16 and the AK rifles built and invented by companies, not particular individuals like Garand, Stoner, Browning, or Klashnikov.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
@KozMick1 it's sad how many people forget that. I've gotten into a few conflabs with arrogant tards that refuse to admit that. their argument is usually that John G was i the states so it was invented by an american,,,, yes, but where was the man born ? anyway.... woot woot!!
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty It was invented by an American citizen, in the Springfield Armory and only issued to US troops. M1 = 100% American made. Where the inventor was personally born is irrelivant when designating an invention's origin. Canada had nothing (and didnt want anythnig to do) with the M1 Garand, that rifle is souly an American invention.
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@LoneWolf051 hahahahahahahahahahahaha funny
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty Yeah it is funny, how you laugh and ignorrantly disregard historical facts. tisk tisk.
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@LoneWolf051 yeah.... like how the second world war's duration was from 1942 - 1945 and how the first world war took place inside one year ( 1918 ) facts like those ? dumb fuckin yank
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty Actually WWII's duration was from 1939-1945, WWI was from 1914-1918. Get your facts straight.
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@LoneWolf051 ;LOL !!!! oh my god you fool! that was my whole fucking point!! man your slow, that took you quite a long time to google as well. Now look up how long your Country was involved in each war.... fuck me, i can't believe that shit went over your head. You need to learn when people are fucking with you.
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty Ah! but you never said US involvement, you simply said "WWII lasted for this long" and "WWI lasted this long" If you wanted to mention US involvement, you shouldda said so, otherwise people will think that you think WWII was from '42-'45 and WWI was only 1918, making yourself look stupid.
And no the US was INVOLVED with WWI since 1915 (volunteer troops, over 20,000) we ENTERED in 1918.
WWII, we were INVOLVED with the war since 1940 (Battle of Britian, Lend Lease ect)
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@LoneWolf051 really dude!? you are truly thick... like I said you really need to learn when people are fucking with you....... fuck, speaking of making oneself look dumb.........
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty To the unassuming viewer, they see your posts saying WWI was only a year long, and WWII was from 1942-1945, then they see me "correct" you by putting the actual dates, and yes I knew you were screwing with me, just to get you to post the dates that dumb Americans think the wars lasted, just so that I can come in and look like I'm correcting a moron who doesnt know his history...so, in the end, I made YOU'RE posts look dumb in the eyes of random viewers to this thread.
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@LoneWolf051 uh huh,
ChromeArty 10 months ago
@ChromeArty To the average joe who sees that, they just see a guy (you) saying WWI was a year long, and WWII was from '42-'45, (not knowing you're just mocking the way some Americans are ignorant about the wars) and they see another guy (me) state the actual dates of the wars...making ME look like the smart one educating you.
Clever Americans ; )
LoneWolf051 10 months ago
@ChromeArty Sad how apparently stepping across a line into a different country, can somehow lead foolish people to believe that the creator is an American, Born in America, All-American.
Where was he born? Canada.. WOOT WOOT
KozMick1 9 months ago
@KozMick1 Thank you Sir!!! Truly sad indeed. It's impossible to teach an over-patriotic, closed minded American a God damn thing. ..... although Crosby taught them a thing or two at the last Olympic Games :) lol
ChromeArty 9 months ago
@KozMick1 He became an American citizen in the early 1900s, and according to the Constitution, everything he does after this point, is American made, Garand was from Canada, but his rifle is 100% American made.
LoneWolf051 9 months ago
I don't understand why they don't keep such successful weapons still in use today. Instead of keeping this piece of art, the M1 garand, they switched to the M-16 which caused the death of hundreds of soldiers with it's malfunctions. They even rejected the M14 which was a marvelous weapon based on the m1 garand design due to "weight and recoil".
georgesouv 1 year ago
@georgesouv I agree completely, I'd MUCH rather have a few extra pounds on my rifle, than have it carry a reputation of jamming.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@georgesouv "I don't understand why they don't keep such successful weapons still in use today."
Because it's outdated tech.
"... they switched to the M-16 which caused the death of hundreds of soldiers with it's malfunctions."
Until they sent them proper cleaning kits.
"They even rejected the M14 ... due to "weight and recoil".
Watch a video of an M-14 being fired. It climbs on you. The shape of the rifle acts as a lever. It's stilled used in special cases.
imsiriustube 1 year ago
@georgesouv They use many M14's today.
esh325 1 year ago
john garand reminds me to my grandfather
kjsh987 1 year ago
I will be buying my M-1 rifle from the old government stock pile that CMP has. Really excited. This is one rifle that never grows old through time like the Mauser rifles or M1903's.
reaperflynn3 1 year ago
@reaperflynn3 You won't be dissapointed. I bought my M-1 Garand from CMP and it is my pride and joy of my whole collection of rifles. It's accurate, powerful, and it can be used as a hunting rifle or a competition rifle. I will never get rid of it, hell I'll probably be buried with it. lol
xBMF9000x 1 year ago
@TheFoozyman The M1 rifle could use a bayonet, or a muzzle mount for a rifle grenade, however the rifle grenades were very slow to load, and werent that accurate or effective. The Garand was very accurate, more than the Arisaka rifles, FAR more accurate than the very poorly made Carcano rifles, the Kar98, Mosin, and 1903 Springfield rifles were slightly more accurate, but the M1 outshot them in speed and firepower, the M1 was the greatest rifle of the war, and one of the greatest of all time.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago 11
@LoneWolf051 the mosin was not poorly made german dog, nor were that jap rifle the kar98, or the springfield, i hope you actually learn shit some day you over confident british fat cod nerd
TechMentalist 9 months ago
@TechMentalist I'm British? I own all these weapons in my collection and a exremely familiar with them, and I said the Carcano was poor because of its inaccuracy and notorios jamming reputation, and towards the end of the war the Arisaka rifles were very poor and crudely made weapons.
LoneWolf051 9 months ago
@TechMentalist the mosin and the kar98 were not poorly made.i have shot these guns, the m1 garand is cool but that dosnt mean you could say everything else is poorly made
TechMentalist 9 months ago
@TechMentalist Huh, the K98 "poorly made" whoever said that is obviously not familiar at all with firearms
LoneWolf051 9 months ago 11
@LoneWolf051
M1Garand is a good rifle but Kar98 is better ahah only if you know how to use it. Lol
Snipervenomaz 6 months ago
@Snipervenomaz Just not is a typical combat situation.
LoneWolf051 6 months ago
@LoneWolf051
Might as well strike all those thumbs up ratings from your record, because he didn't say the K98 was poorly made. The guy made a mistake by not adding a period after he said the "Carcano rifles" were poorly made. Look at his comment again...
MX1eleven 1 month ago
@TheFoozyman The M1 Carbine and the M1-A1 Carbine werent that great in battle, they werent in the same class as the Garand, the M1 Garand was made for comat, the M1 and M1-A1 Carbines were made for self defence.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
@LoneWolf051 M1 carbine isnt for self defence you dumbass. if its used in the fucking military as a RIFLE than what the hell makes you think they made it you your personal self defence use.
xxuncexx 8 months ago
@xxuncexx It was developed in the late '30s intended for non combat troops as a means of self defence, providing them with greater firepower and range than a standard sidearm, later, it was found to be a decent frontline service weapon. Every weapons expert and historian knows that.
LoneWolf051 8 months ago 4
@TheFoozyman the arisaka, nagant, and berita were all pieces of shit made cheap to be put in the hands of poorly trained conscripts. the 98 and springfield were slightly more accurate but didnt come close to the firepower the garand had
pze94 1 year ago
WARS ARE MADE ONLY FOR MONEY AND LAND
ZIZELYIANN 1 year ago
@ZIZELYIANN and poontang
pze94 1 year ago
i just love that ping sound from the m1 garand.
alielmir2 1 year ago 2
@TheFoozyman Practically speaking, all these guns are rated for at least 1 MOA (minute of angle) which means an inherent accuracy of 1'' for every 100 yards. Most peace-time models are able to do better but many war-time guns may be so roughly made that they are rated for only 2 MOA, but that is rare & a matter of production, not poor design.
Stritchers 1 year ago
@TheFoozyman Well, in my opinion. The M1 Garand has a better rate of fire than all of those guns you just listed. And most of the time it was extremely accurate in battles. And it could be put with a scope. But normally, they insisted on having the Springfield as the Sniper Rifle because it was still good and it would be a little more accurate at most of the times when sniping. And there wasn't any real attachments added to the Garand. It was just a plain regular rifle.
TheJustinAllenK 1 year ago
Too bad Garand could have bumped up the clip capacity to 10 instead of 8 or even better have it magazine-fed like the M1 Carbine. so it wouldn't have to make that pinging sound. But nevertheless a good gun to have at your side during WW2. Germans had FG42s and Gewehrs but were never widely "used" or were built too late. Japanese had the Type 8 or something it was copied from the Garand but ran into problems; problems Garand solved very early in the 1920's when he made his gun.
crawford4140 1 year ago
@crawford4140 Actually the M1 is a smallarm, not a gun, and 2 extra rounds arent really a good enough reason to alter the entire design and try to make a magazine fed rifle, which was not liked by the military back then anyways, plus the Garand design was never really meant for a detachable magazine operation, its operation is made for clip feed, thats why the M14 jams far more often than the Garand.
And the Japanese had the M38 Arisaka, the Type 5 only got as far as the blueprints.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
@LoneWolf051 the problem with clips is the clips themselves. Biggest complaint of troops was the difficulty of recovering clips after action. If an empty clip was stepped on, it was ruined, & finding them in the mud, dirt, rubble, rocks, & grass was not always easy. Soldiers could find themselves with just 2-3 usable clips out of the 12-13 they started with. Supply-deports didn't always have spares either. M14 may be slightly less reliable but it is hard to lose the big magazines.
Stritchers 1 year ago
These videos are bullshit.
The Germans had G43s, Soviets had semi's BEFORE Americans. Yet this video claims that Germans only had bolt-action?
In another video, about the BAR, they said the Germans hadn't equal firepower to the BAR.... Ermmm... MG42, FG42 and STG42? All very good guns which had equal/better firepower than the BAR.
This video is some bullshit propaganda by rednecks.
MoonHoplite 1 year ago
@MoonHoplite Yes you are right about the Germans having firepower potential equal too or better then the American forces during WW2 but all the weapons you mentioned were expensive to produce in high numbers and the German military leadership failed to captialize on there affectiveness in order to affect the out come of the war. Only Hitlers most elite were even issued the FG42 (Fallschirmjager Infantry aka paratroopers).
PARR53 1 year ago
@PARR53
Stg44 was on the brink of mass production.
MoonHoplite 1 year ago
@MoonHoplite Yes but again it was also a milled weapon which means its wasnt cheep to mass produce. I agree the STG44 could have drastically effected the pace of the war. Which would have provided the average german solider with much more firepower the an American solider with an M1. The Germans still would have eventually lost the war though cause Hitler had a horrible system of military leadership which left him with the final say in every tactic his army took and not his generals.
PARR53 1 year ago
@MoonHoplite but those guns were in early days and had to many problems, especially the russian one
richooo5 1 year ago
God I love the Garand!
pyromaster55 1 year ago
@pyromaster55 Who doesn't?!
deathwing98 1 year ago
@deathwing98 Good point.
pyromaster55 1 year ago
yeah, no the STG 44 came too late and too few were made, so the Wehrmacht kept the K98K.
armalite5 1 year ago 2
Wait...what? I meant paratroopers were given the Fg 42. All Wehrmacht soldiers were issued the STG 44.
guitar241990 1 year ago
No. The Sturmgewehr which literally means storm rifle was disguised under the name Machinepistole 44. Hitler didn't want a new type of weapon that fired an intermediate round so they said it was an SMG. Hitler thought it was ugly because it was made of stamping. Once he saw what it could do , he ok-Ed it. The stormtroops were give the FG-42 which is an automatic rifle.
guitar241990 1 year ago
The Ruger Mini 14 still uses the same basic bolt as the M1.
UCSPanther20 1 year ago
It's more of an M1 Carbine design than the Garand.
CrystalHunter1989 1 year ago
@CrystalHunter1989
Not really. As I mentioned, the receiver and bolt more closely resemble the M1/M14 than the M1.
I did read somewhere though, that the Mini 14 apparently borrowed from a prototype carbine that was designed to be cheaper and easier to manufacture than the M1 carbine.
UCSPanther20 1 year ago
It's the M14 that still uses the exact same reciever as the M1 Garand.
Dengar12000 1 year ago
@Dengar12000
The Mini 14 receiver bears a strong resemblance to the M1 and M14 receiver. Its similar in shape, with some obvious differences.
UCSPanther20 1 year ago
The Mini-14 uses the reciever from the M1 Carbine. Same shape and design, just smaller.
This has already been pointed out to you.
Dengar12000 1 year ago
@Dengar12000: I still respectfully disagree. Google image the M1 carbine receiver and the mini 14 receiver and compare the two you'll see what I'm trying to get at.
Yes, the Mini 14 can be considered a
UCSPanther20 1 year ago
You'd be correct. But, unlike the Garand, the M14 has the ability to fire a 7.62 Nato and/ or a 7.62 incendiary round.
Airsoftsniperkid 1 year ago
And the M1 can fire the 30-06 incindiary, Armor piercing, or armor piercing incindiary rounds, or simply the ball ammo.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
Yeah but wasn't the 03 used mostly by snipers in ww2. The k98 was a standard issue. Until the stg 44 became standard.
guitar241990 1 year ago
Yes it was, a sniper is sent forward to recon and observe the situation before the platoon shows up, sniper engagements usually took place before anything big happened.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
You mean the Mp44 right? The sturmkaveir were only given to stormtroopers, but it was only okay-ed by Hitler in 1944. It had a very short term of war.
Airsoftsniperkid 1 year ago
@guitar241990, STG 44 never became standard issued. It only served 2 years and during those 2 years the K98 was standard issued. Many Nazi units were switching their K98's in for STG 44 but it was too late and the war ended.
TheFalconryFan 1 year ago
Well..estimated effective range of the m1 is 440 yards. The k98 around 550. The k98 with optics had an estimated range of 800 yards. Not to metion...aside from the Lee Enfield, the k98 is probably one of the most accurate rifles ever built. The American troops were never usually engaged as far as that.
guitar241990 1 year ago
@guitar241990 Thats what Springfield '03s were for, extreme long ranges before the standard riflemen moved up.
LoneWolf051 1 year ago
The gewehr 43 also and the Sturmgewehr also.
guitar241990 2 years ago
The gewehr 98 and k98k weren't slouches either. The k98 was a great accurate rifle and better suited for longer ranged targets. You can't really say one weapon won an entire war because the war was won with the effort of many countries. Since Garand was Canadian, why were m1's never issued to Canadian troops in ww2?
guitar241990 2 years ago
Because Garand was an American citizen and requested that his rifle be used by he U.S. so it was developed by Springfield Armory.
LoneWolf051 2 years ago
I doubt the Kar98k would have had that much of advantage at long range.
esh325 1 year ago
the m1 is my favorite wwii rifle
lewisguner1 2 years ago
I like the *PLING* :D
bestgamer94 2 years ago
i love the PING when the cartridge ejects
Rocktecho 2 years ago
the garand is an amazing gun...HOO-RAH
jellodude2 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
i like the lewis gun better
lewisguner1 2 years ago
The Lewis gun is a Machine gun, we're talking about RIFLES.
LoneWolf051 2 years ago
Another thing that does not speak well of the M1 Garand as the world beater it is usually claimed to be is that in the Pacific War against Japan, thousands of GIs also dumped the heavy and high-recoil M1 garand is favour of the lighter and handier M1 Carbine. A M1 Carbine was just more effective in jungle fighting than the Garand.
Stritchers 2 years ago
I disagree, I've never heard of any soldier complain about the Garand's weight or recoil, that includes vets and current serving soldiers. They all generally loved their Garands. The Carbine while handier just normally didn't cut it when it came to actual combat, the heavier stopping power needed just wasn't there with the smaller pistol cartridge the Carbine fired. By the way, this notion that any US soldiers started throwing away their Garands is false, please read a history book.
N5II 2 years ago 29
I have read books and have talked with veterans. I know MOST US soldiers did not discard their garands. However, thousands did and they were happy to do so not because the Garand was a terrible gun but because it was simply not the best gun for the job they were asked to do. Carbines and SMGs do not have the hitting power, but when you can hit the target at least 4-5 times with them in the same time it takes to line up 1-2 shots with a garand, the hitting-power issue becomes irrelevant.
Stritchers 2 years ago
they never complained about the garands weight because it was the best rifle at the time. You had 8 rounds of high powered thunder as fast as you could pull the trigger.
baconator490 2 years ago
the garand has more recoil so you can fire more accurate shots in a shorter amount of time with the carbine instead of the the garand. but with the garand if your enemy was on the other side of a tree or wall or even some sand bags you can blow through all that and still kill the guy the carbine can't. also the carbine doesn't have the range that the garand does. but the carbine was lighter and shorter than the garand. see there are trade offs there is never gonna be a perfect rifle.
aerodynamicband 2 years ago
Plus they had these little things calld muscles...something soldiers lack these days.
LoneWolf051 2 years ago 2
haha its true too.
baconator490 2 years ago
Yeah, anything thats over 10 pounds and isnt made of plastic, they'll bitch and moan about.
LoneWolf051 2 years ago
well im guessing its kinda equal because the modern soldier carried a good 50 pounds of body armor and another 30 of gear, ammo, and the 3 pound gun
baconator490 2 years ago
Yeah, I guess so, In WWII the only body armor was the M1 Helmet
LoneWolf051 2 years ago
@N5II And those history books will tell you of thousands of soldiers doing so. Of course, thosuands represents only a small fraction of the millions of US soldiers who served. What you really should be saying is that the numbers of guns discarded is exaggerated. For every soldier who dumped his garand for a carbine or tommygun, many others used their garands. But to say that no one dumped their garands is as false as those who claim that most did so.
Stritchers 1 year ago
@N5II i agree with you..i thought the carbine was a .30 caliber bullet...like the m1919
MUGSHOT1120 1 year ago
It's .30 cal by diameter but there's a serious difference between .30-60 and the .30 Carbine. .30 Carbine's power is comparable to the .357 magnum granted the .357 is a bigger round but they come close in size and power. .30-60 was designed primarily for dropping large game in one shot, it has great penetration and makes a nice sized hole through targets. It isn't even comparable, .30-60 has on average 2,900 foot pounds while .30 Carbine has about 950 foot pounds. Their nothing alike.
N5II 1 year ago
@N5II The comments about the Garands weight are well founded. First, weight isn't a bad thing. you can't get something for nothing. Second, soldiers prefer to carry as little weight as possible. I know a Korean vet that has the highest regard for the M1. Something he said about the rifle is its weight. Try lugging 9 pounds of steel and walnut around with you weeks on end. It gets heavy!
bsrman36 1 year ago
@bsrman36 9 lbs is almost standard on battle rifles, look at the Mauser and Nagant. They weight as much as the Garand does and they've been carried by soldiers since the 1800s. I really don't see why people are even comparing the Garand to the Carbine, their completely different applications. The M1 Carbine is for close quarters to mid range engagements, the Garand is the iconic battle rifle serving perfectly at mid range to long range firefights. Good comment by the way bsrman36.
N5II 1 year ago
@N5II 1/2
Thanks. I try to leave comments that productive and beneficial. Youtube has a collection of idiots that comment like....well idiots haha.
When I have to carry a weapon with me everywhere, it gets old pretty fast and I'm happy to turn it in. I'm sure there are plenty of soldiers that complained about the Garand's weight. But when the SHTF, American GIs were glad to have a heavy, tough, hard hitting, ultra reliable, semi automatic rifle.
bsrman36 1 year ago
@N5II 2/2. It really is too bad Truman opted not to update the US weapons arsenal. What made the Garand so special and unique at the time is that there was no standard issue rifle that could match the M1 on the battlefield. At the time, the US was ahead of the curve in weapons development. Had we begun updating our weapons during the 50s, who knows how history would be different today....
bsrman36 1 year ago
@bsrman36 The US was ahead of the curve, but don't leave the Germans out. Fully automatic weapons were criticized by the US saying that they were a waste of ammo etc. The first assault rifle was also created by the Germans.
RarghImGunnaEatU 11 months ago
@RarghImGunnaEatU Actually the Germans only revived the concept of the assault rifle from the Russians, who had working practical assault rifles in 1916, but the Russian governement in 1916 (as the US did 30 years later) believed full auto fire from every soldier was a waste of ammo, and didnt mass produce them.
Then the Germans took that long abandoned assault rifle idea, and invented their StG 44, they did it so well and proved that the assault rifle could be an effective platform afterall.
LoneWolf051 11 months ago
@LoneWolf051 Yeah, I seperated them. The Germans had used the first 'real' Assault rifle, though.
RarghImGunnaEatU 11 months ago
@RarghImGunnaEatU Yeah, well, first MODERN platform.
LoneWolf051 11 months ago
also in house to house the carbine was better but in german with the m1 garand you could engage enemies farther away. there is just never going to be a gun that is the best for all situations you just have to pick the one that works the best in the given situation
aerodynamicband 2 years ago
most fighting took place under 150 meters and a lot in cities of europe. I would still chose the m1 garand over a carbine just because you can shoot through a lot more stuff than carbines and kill people behind it
baconator490 2 years ago
i know but i mean when your breaching and going into a building a carbine is better at that job than a full on rifle. make no mistake the garand was the best rifle in ww2 and if i was in ww2 i would want a garand. but what i was trying to say was no matter what firearm you pick in any situation there is going to be some sort of trade of. with a garand if you run into a room with three guys and one has a carbine or smg, they'll be faster with ther gun than you are with yours.
aerodynamicband 2 years ago
The problem of the Garand is the same as all rifles in WW2. The enemy was not five hundred yards away. The Garand was the best rifle of WW2 but aimed-fire rifles as a whole were out of date in WW2. The SMG and the Assault Rifle were the weapons that worked best in the kind of combat that one faced most often. That is why thousands of GIs dumped their garands in favour of an MP40 whenever they could find one. I recall a story where one Yank killed another Yank just for his tommygun!
Stritchers 2 years ago
i love the m1garand....best ever!
bestgamer94 2 years ago
the bar and m1garand we the shiz
willisw509 2 years ago
Why do you guys all say Gewehr 43 but you'll say MP44? You can call it G43.
godzilla96744 2 years ago
every 1 knows Gewehr, its easy Maschinenpistole isnt
GewherWaffe 2 years ago
The grand was good to a 1000+yards well that is the m1-C or D sniper verson. The only flaw was the ping and its small round mag, lucky for the Germans that is...
IrishHitman79 2 years ago
These are legal in canada! But probably expencive as hell.
shorty962 2 years ago
the only way this rifle could have been better was what they fixed. thats the m14.
reaperflynn3 2 years ago
the gewehr 43 cost too much to make so they made not many
AngryChipmunkStudios 2 years ago
Only if they were going to shoot Hitler, Himmler, and Goering, et al. Of course if they were going to do that, a very inaccurate firearm would suffice to hit a schlub like Goering..
DonMeaker 2 years ago
with stopping power and deep impact its much better ;)
CircaSurvive72 2 years ago
The most important thing about stopping power, given basic penetration, is where you hit. After that, the larger round will have an edge, but will also be harder to shoot. Most US soldiers used black tip armor piercing rounds.
DonMeaker 2 years ago
stop playing call of duty world at war or at least dont talk about COD when talking about real guns
1airplane21 2 years ago 24
you Know that Deep impact doesn't make the bullet stronger right? so its better to have something more useful like extreme conditioning or steady aim.
gh0strider117 2 years ago
i salute you john garand.
redslownight 2 years ago
My perfect inventory for a soldier in WWII would be an M1 for long range, a Thompson with a drum clip for close quarters, and I might as well throw in a Colt, two.
greatbuttholeoffire1 2 years ago
and a nother soldier to carry that...
anteracmacash 2 years ago
M1 FOR THE WIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!When you get hit with that thing your down!
SatansCoolo52 2 years ago 4
Theres one great bolt action rifle i kno it was the Lee enfield beautiful rifle agreed?
shouavaj12 2 years ago
agreed shame it wasnt in call of duty world at war
smithers262 2 years ago
hahahaa john garand was canadian :P
paintball254 2 years ago 2
You know, I've always liked these shows. But I wish they would go farther in depth as to how these rifles work. I'd always been curious as to how the feeding mechanism worked on the M1. I ended up researching it myself in the end.. But it would still have been nice to see it on this.
CounterProdClan 2 years ago 4
its easy to find how it works look up m1 garnad animation and there will be some link on a website that has a flash animation that tells you everything you want to know
1airplane21 2 years ago
My grandfather always says this was the best rifle he ever used. He went through both Korea and Vietnam.He says the M16 was not as good.
Suprkit 2 years ago 3
I agree. The M16 at the time was some sort've alien space gun made out of plastic with 30 rounds, whereas the M1 Garand was ten pounds of whoop-ass that you could use to make Swiss cheese out of Huns.
stanslie 2 years ago 3
LOL
cajoby 2 years ago
LOL huns are hmongs which help U.S in vietnam you should've said viets or North korean pigs hehe.
shouavaj12 2 years ago
no the m1 garrand was started to be used in 1942
gmssizzle 2 years ago
Did the US supply the UK with the Garand? I know they did with Thompsons and M4 Sherman tanks.
DudishDanny 2 years ago
The UK used the Lee-Enfield, a damn fine rifle in its own right...
OPE08 2 years ago
what about gwerhr 43 and svt40?
DisposableWarrior 2 years ago
they fail to metion the gerwher 43 german semi auto rifle
1airplane21 2 years ago
thats because the gerwher 43 was only given to a few soldiers as the m1 was standard issue
fartknocker0308 2 years ago
so it still saw service this is an example of who biased these shows are and how far they are willing to go to make it seem that some guns are far superior to to other(im american so dont leave hateful comments about saying like im from a poor country or something)
1airplane21 2 years ago
im american too, well asian american i was born in the u.s. rifles have their ups and downs but its curtain that the m1 were fielded in lager numbers.(about 5.4 million compared to 402,713 gerwhers) a rifle cannot effect the battle if its not there
fartknocker0308 2 years ago
but it was there and thats wat counts not that there werent that many of them and im asian american to btw
1airplane21 2 years ago
i disagree if you have a greater number a good rifle your sure to have an advantage if the enemy has a good quality rifle but in less numbers I <3 RICE
fartknocker0308 2 years ago
there the rifles one on one and they both work so wats the harm in comparing them if this rifles so great.... theres not harm so why didnt they compare it?
1airplane21 2 years ago
because the vid says m1 garand history
fartknocker0308 2 years ago
but they say that the germans only had bolt actions which is not true because they also had the gewher 43
1airplane21 2 years ago
That rifle dident see widespread service till 44... and in small numbers.
Gooseman2k2 2 years ago
but it was still there so its worth mentioning so whats the harm in mentioning it!
1airplane21 2 years ago