I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
30-06; .303, and 308 are all nominally 30 caliber rounds. The numerals after the 30 are used to differentiate the cartridge from other 30 calibers and different armories use various naming conventions (the -06 comes from the year of acceptance). The differences can be based on differences in case and or bullet.
Although many cartridges are nominally 30 caliber, there can be minor differences in bullet diameter from how different armories classified the rounds with the measure sometimes being applied to the bullet mold or to the bullet with or without jacket, etc..
The .308 is based on a short version of the 30-06 to enable its use in fully automatic weapons as the 30-06 recoil renders shoulder arms not effective for aiming. They share the same bullet.
The .303 is only three thousandths of an inch larger diameter than the 30-06 (.311 versus [ironically] the Springfield’s .308) or seven and a half thousandths of a millimeter larger. That is well less than a half a human hair’s difference so, practically, both will travel down the same barrel. The difference is in chambering and the ballistics of shape and charge.
@halnywiatr Ok that was explained really well, thank you.
I'm still fuzzy on why the US would call a 7.62mm a .308 when it's smaller then a .303. Wouldn't calling it a .302 make more sense? Or better yet, why would the British use the number .303, when as you said it's actually .311? Its seem the only standardization is in meteoric.
I hate to sound nit-picky but I just started reloading my own ammo & my books don't answer these questions. They don't even hint at an explenation.
Why did the Lee Enfield beat the M1 Garand. The M1 actualy out ranged the Enfield because the Enfield had a smooth but weak bolt and you could put more rounds down range with an M1. Why did the Enfield beat it. Not to mention a 30-06 is more powerful than the 303
@Americanpride01343 The service length is the only thing that would beat the Garand. The Enfield was used for 60 years (est) and is actually still used in some countries.
@Americanpride01343 You are mistaken a bit. The .303 round performs better then the 30-06 does. One thing soldiers bitch about on then Bren Gun was the .303 was too acturite. Sure the 30-06 can drop targets a little farther then a .303, but the M1's sites limit the shooter on range, the Enfield's sites don't. The bolt design is the best in the world. So good, a well trained soldier can effectively fire, 35-40 rouns a minute, not the 15 or so this show claims. It's better.
@JimmyG228 It doesn't perform better. The 30/06 has a longer case which holds more powder. Really though, it's splitting hairs to say one is better then the other. How do the M1 Garand's sights limit the shooters range?
@esh325 According to my reloading handbook the M1 limits size, weight & amount of power so that it can only fire the 150 or 168 grain 7.62x63mm. Given the 168 is bigger/heavier with more punch I'm gunna compare it to the SMLE’s .303 British round.
The 168 grain 7.62x63mm max loads at 48.5 (IMR-4895 recommended)
The SMLE fires a larger/heavier 180 grain round with a max load of 46 grains of powder. So you are partly wrong. The SMLE fires a larger round with more bank for buck...
@JimmyG228 The 30/06 in 150 or 168 will be a good deal faster then the 180 gr. 180 GR is excessive as it is. A semi automatic rifle like the Garand is well worth it over a bolt action rifle like the Enfield with a negligible amount of power over the Garand.
@esh325 Faster doesn't mean more punch. A 62 grain 5.56x45mm fires faster then the M1, SMLE, Springfield & maybe faster then a Mauser, but we all know a M16 is less powerful then all those rifles. Since the difference is only 380 FPS it doesn't help the M1 really at all against the better performance of the .303 Brit.
Yes the M1 is Semi, but a well trained soldier can fire nearly as fast as a GI with an M1. This lies about the rate of fire of the SMLE, it really is about 35 a min.
@JimmyG228 Faster could mean less drop. More grains doesn't mean much more lethality either. In a British comparison between the Garand,Enfield, and EM2 rifle, the Garand could fire 43 aimed shots a minute versus the Enfield with 27 shots a min. Look up the EM2 rifle. The Enfield can't match the Garand's firepower.
@esh325 You're just not hearing me or something, I'm not making up these numbers of rounds per min fired. I have no military training with a SMLE but I can fire my No4 at a rate of about 36 rounds per min. I did the math.
Faster doesn't mean less drop, the aerodynamics does. That is 1 thing the 7.62x63 has on the .303 Brit.
More grains do directly translate into more damage, otherwise known as, more powerful or more deadly. The .303 is more powerful & more deadly. Face it already budz.
@esh325 You are right it was on a range in good conditions, but then again when those numbers are configured, they test them on ranges in good condition too, M1 is not an exception to that. They are all tested on ranges to determine rate of fire, so it's not like I had an unfair advantage over a GI with a M1.
@esh325 You are right, we always train for our last war. I wasn't BSing either about British, Canadian & other armies training troops to effectively fire at the enemy at ranges past 1000m with their service rifles. The Canadian, Anzacs & Brits could even use there support infantry weapons to fire effectively at the enemy that far too. In the Great War the Germans schooled us on that tactic in 1914. Though out the war, into WW2, & Koreathe tactic was still taught & used.
@esh325 As for the sites; you can only mill up the rear aperture site of the M1 (& M14s) to fire aimed rounds at 800m effectively despite the 7.62x63 able to drop targets well past 800m. The 1903 Springfield was great up to 1400m ish (conditions & marksmanship pending). A SMLE's sites can be set up to 2,000m. Mind you I doubt you could drop someone at 2,000, but you can aim, fire & drop a target at 1600 (1 mile) with a SMLE. Thus making the SMLE better in those two respects.
@JimmyG228 Old rifles have overly optimistic sight adjustments.They made it 800m's because they understood 1400m's or 2000's is ridiculous for a combat rifle. Very rarely will anybody hit at that range, so those two things you listed are hardly an advantage at all. I don't think any soldier was at a disadvantage because of those two things.
@JimmyG228 Even 800m's might be too optimistic for a combat rifle. Battlefield tacticians came to the conclusion after WW2 that most soldiers were limited to 300m to 400m for accurate fire with their sights in combat.
@esh325 Very true & good point, however troops in the UK, Canada & many other counties were trained to fire effective surpressing fire at ranges well past 1000m. No GI could to that in WW2 with a M1.
@JimmyG228 Perhaps one or two advantages the Enfield has over the Garand would be reliability, and maintenance. In trials with the M1 Garand, it was noted that the Garand would fail badly in sand and mud versus bolt actions rifles like the Springfield. Don't quote me on this, but I believe that was the reason why the British rejected the Garand. And field stripping and cleaning an Enfield is a lot easier then the Garand.
This is stupid, all the rifles in the series are awesome. The Garand is a beauty. I dont go a day without playing or cleaning mine. But i also take care in givng respect to the Nagant, Enfield and even the Mauser. I my own colection after my Garand, the Mauser K98K is such a beauty of a rifle, I love it.
I have two M1's (CMP resto & a Korean War-issued M1), both Mosins (91/30 & the M44 carbine with the bayonette), I used to own a K98, and I have a few other rifles. All are great. Even have a couple AR's and have never had a jam with any of those.
Check out the "Marlin Guide Gun", that's something I think I want next. Awesome little gun.
@cavalrytm I also have an AR, love it with a pasion lol. To be honest, hypothetically of course I'd probably want a Mauser, 1903 or an enfield, and a STG44 as my arms, the bold acvtion for reliable long shots and the STG44 for the raw accurate short range rifle needed in urban combat
1)This forum has gotten off topic has it not? The issue at hand is that of the Garand. A fantastic rifle said to be the "rifle that won the war". As a Canadian, and as a history student and firearm enthusiast I feel like I should weigh in on this. This topic actually came up in my History of WW2 class and we discussed it. It is a term to gereralize the true fact that besides the Mosin Nagant the Garand did kill more Axis troops then any other rifle.
5) To sum up the latest argument on here: ChromeArty did down play the rifle not the US's role Cavalrytm. Your both in the wrong as I see it, and I am a personal friend of ChromeArty. THE CREDIT FOR WINNING THE WAR SHOULD BE SHARED BY ALL ALLIED NATIONS. WE ALL FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE FOR FREEDOM OF THE WORLD AND TO STOP THE SPREAD OF OPPRESSION. WE ALL SACRIFICED OUR YOUNG MEN FOR OTHERS FREEDOMS. WE ESPECIALLY AS NEIGHBORS SHOULD ALWAYS GET ALONG FOR THE BETTERMENT OF BOTH NATIONS!!!!!!
agreed! thank you. Now lets just hope everyone takes the time to read what you have said carefully... and don't start calling you a Commie or something :) I lost the plot on this thread due to peoples inability to read... I hope the same doesn't happen to you.
More assumptions about the "yanks", huh? Whoops, sorry, this is the part where I'm supposed to say in a southern dialect, "Yall are ignarent commies, we shuld nuke all yall back to the stoneage. Yeehawww go Amurrrica!!"
"I lost the plot on this thread due to peoples inability to read"
You lost the plot because of YOUR inability to read, combined your refusal to stay on topic and address the 3 questions I asked. That, and just arguing wildly to "win".
4) This can all be argued all day. The fact does remain that all the Allies fought in both Campaigns, the US fielded more troops and killed more Japanese then anyone else. The statement that "the Garand won the war" is a bit of an overstatement but not by much. Without our brother-en south of us who knows how far Nazi Germany would have gotten.
3) the fact remains, in Europe, Russia fielded more troops and killed more Germans than, Brits( Canadians, Indians etc) and the US combined. The losses on the eastern front cannot compare to the losses faced in the west. The Russians did more to destroy the Nazi's and took far more ground. This being said. Without the US, England would have fallen, and maybe Russia as well. The US supplied England with everything after France fell. They also provided Russia with much needed military supplies.
I have always strongly believed in giving credit where it's due. I respect the sacrifices of the Brits, Canadians, French Resistance, Aussies, Russians, etc. Throughout school and college, world history with a focus on the military aspect has been a passion of mine.
What I don't respect are the scumbags who hate the US because it's "cool" to do so, and spread their lies, rewrite history, and tarnish our accomplishments in a relentless, misguided propaganda campaign.
@cavalrytm Um, i'm sorry my friend but Patton was one half of the push north in the begining and then west, he was right beside Monty(overrated). While Patton was great please remember that the Bris fought side by side untill the months after D day where they finally split. Kinda gotta look at a map my friend, while Patton was faster(Tanks) The Russians Cleared from deep inside Russia to the middle of Germany including Berlin. Not to mention the Baltics, the Balkins down to Greece.
I'm sorry too, because I'm not stating an opinion. These aren't even my words:
"In 1944, Patton assumed command of the U.S. Third Army, which under his leadership advanced farther, captured more enemy prisoners, and liberated more territory in less time than any other army in military history."
Regarding the Russians, they caught one hell of a lucky break when one of the worst winters in modern history struck during the German offensive, similar to Napoleon 100 years earlier. Not bashing the Russian sacrifice, but the Germans had been on a roll until then.
In the west, Patton's 3rd US Army in 1944 liberated more territory in the less time than any other army in HISTORY, but was told to halt because the Allies agreed at Yalta to LET Russia take Berlin first.
@cavalrytm Dont get me wrong Patton and the third army were great, and I mean great, I will not discredit where credit is due, but you cannot forget that the straight fact that Germany sent more troops to the east then they had in the west. I am not going to say anymore about this except you cannot say that the GARAND won the war without giving credit to the others Like the NAGANT, ENFIELD 1 AND 4.
I actually never said it won the war. The argument started because I could just tell, by his tone, what type of a person Chrome is. And my assumptions were proven right because his bias "showed through" in his responses.
Regarding why people say the M1 won the war, I don't think it's should be taken literally. It was the only semi-auto main/primary rifle in the war. So what they mean by the "won the war" comment, is that it was arguably the top main/primary rifle.
@cavalrytm There was a few acually, it was the first though. Russia had the STV40, germany had the STG44 and the GEw43 i think it was called, but yes no other was made in that quanity and no other was as good. Garands are just pure awesomeness lol
2) Its is a fact that the war was considered half over by December 1941 but it should be known that the ground fighting in Europe was only 6months old. (not counting the month in Poland and 6 weeks in France) The Russians and Germans had only been at war for 6 month by the time the US entered the war.
1)This forum has gotten off topic has it not? The issue at hand is that of the Garand. A fantastic rifle said to be the "rifle that won the war". As a Canadian, and as a history student and firearm enthusiast I feel like I should weigh in on this. This topic actually came up in my History of WW2 class and we discussed it. It is a term to gereralize the true fact that besides the Mosin Nagant the Garand did kill more Axis troops then any other rifle.
Limitations? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. The M1 forces the shooter to learn and use the weapon for accuracy, not suppressive fire. The whole point of a firearm is to kill a target, not make him put his head down and let someone else kill him.
A neighbor of mine when I was a kid told me that a guy in his unit in Vietnam was actually using a Garand instead of the M14 or M16, despite being reprimanded several times. He was in 28 skirmishes, recorded 30+ kills and survived the war.
@Keichwoud357 very very good question, considering that the Americans were only in the 2nd world war for half of it.... not to mention the Mosin Nagant easy killed more Germans than the Garand. Maybe it should be called ''the rifle that won the pacific theatre'' ... but then, that wouldn't really be true either.
Actually, I'm half Canadian and grew up in southern Ontario for the first 13 or 14 years of my life. I am more than familiar with the general attitude of people on both sides of the border. Americans go about their business and don't have anything to say about Canadians. Canadians on the other hand have a butthurt disposition and bitch about the US daily. You can't find a candy bar in Canada without a maple leaf printed on it screaming "LOOK AT US! WE'RE DIFFERENT!"
@cavalrytm wait a minute.... legible? .. you couldn't read that? ... that explains everything...
especially where you instantly turned this into America vs. Canada, instead of a discussion about firearms. All I stated is the moniker "rifle that won WW2" is BS... and this comes from a guy who owns one! I love the rifle, but the rifle that won the war?... hilarious Americans think they won WW1 as well. I guess the Springfield M1903 is the rifle that won WW1 then?
More idiotic psychobabble and desperate reaching. There's an old saying, "You can't reason with unreasonable people". Knowing that, I'm not sure why I'm even wasting more of my time on you. Hell, another Canadian posted a comment backing me on this about an hour ago, right here on this page.
Oh, and your relentless, almost-ad hominem attempt to question my education is not going to work. You still haven't answered the 3 questions below. Keep avoiding them, clever fox.
@cavalrytm blah blah blah blah grow up man. I look at one in every three of your childish messages. Is this really that important to you!? you need to get out more boy.
This is the last message of yours I will read, they are amusing, but I have things to do... you may know what that's like one day
"I look at one in every three of your childish messages."
There it is, folks. The guy has a reading comprehension problem, just as I called it. You can't debate the issue at hand and/or expect others to read your posts, if you don't read there's in turn. Pretty fucking basic human interaction 101.
@cavalrytm all I'm asking you to do, is some research. But try books that weren't printed in America... you be amazed at the shit you've had crammed down your throat.
Second, I actually own both rifles. A Korean War-issued M1, and both standard & carbine versions of the Mosin Nagant. (Just a disclaimer before the typical "you've probably never fired either gun" excuse gets thrown at me.)
Having said that, please explain (A) how, in your warped reality, 1941-1945 was half of WW2 (Sep 1939 - Sep 1945), (B) how the M1 was not the finest MAIN battle rifle of the war, and (C) how it did not outmatch the Arisaka in the pacific theatre.
You embarass yourself and the rest of us Canadians with your antics.
Cavalry merely stated that he wasn't surprised a Canadian was trashing something American. And he was right, because your anti-American bias became obvious through your responses.
He stated that he is half-Canadian and spent the first 14 years of his life there. He addressed the debate and asked 3 pretty clear questions. You responded by dodging those questions and trolling. You're an embarassment.
I didn't say ANYTHING about that. Those were your words.
"He began this childish shit by attacking Canadians"
I made absolutely no insults towards Canada in my opening comment. I went after just YOU. In fact, I have yet to say "Canuck", while you on the other hand have been using our derogatory slang term from the very beginning. It's funny, MX is right that your anti-American bias exposed itself.
@MX1eleven not to mention, you should learn to interpret what you read a bit better, just like your buddy cav. I didn't downplay the yanks role in the war, I stated that calling the M1 the rifle that won the war is BS... that comment downplays England, Canada, Australia, France, India, Poland, ..... and the list just keeps going.
Lol, your own people hate you. You know what you are? You are the guy with the mental disability who comes back with "no YOU guys are stupid" when everyone else points it out. Your infantile behavior has been hilarious. Everything from getting rattled by comments with big words in them, to flat out trolling instead of discussing the issue. You STILLLL haven't answered the 3 questions!!!
I think it's underestimated how the M1 was a quantum leap in firepower over the bolt actions of the enemy in WWII. Imagine 10 guys firing at a position with an M1 dumping 80 rounds in about 3 seconds. With the en-bloc clip the M1 can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds.
My grandfather used this gun in WWII, he worked in an armory once he had served for a while. I asked him about the pinging noise, and he said that that was the dumbest thing he'd ever heard. The chances of you being close enough for the enemy to hear the noise your magazine makes is slim at best, and you could pop in another one in a split second. But the most important reason why is because you simply don't hear that kind of thing in the chaos of battle when rounds are flying over your head.
John Garand was born in Quebec, raised in the U.S. from the age of 11 and was an American by the time he went to work on the M1. He was Canadian-American and we can both be proud of him. And thank him.
Why do people say its Canadian? Please let me know where he invented it, in the US or in Canada? It's American. Fuck the Statue of Liberty, when i think of America an M1 Garand pops up in my head.
@MRcalibrecincuenta Well John C. Garand, the creator of the M1 Garand, was born in a French-Canadian family. He had been hired in a tool factory when he came to the U.S. in Rhode Island. So it's safe to say it is an American rifle, made with Canadian efficiency :)
@BrennerBay The British intended on using Mauser type rifles since after the Boer Wars, war time pressures stopped that from happening. Had the M1 Garand never been invented, I really doubt it would have changed the out come of WW2. The M1 Garand was obsolete after WW2. The M14 was obsolete by Vietnam.
@BrennerBay How America saved Britain during WW2 is a lot more complicated then only rifles. The Enfield did good service. I have fired many of them and they are good rifles. The M1 Garand was a great rifle, but it was not perfect. In early trials, they noted the M1 Garand would shut down very easily in sand and mud. It was heavy. The action was not strong enough to fire full powered 30/06. The ping from the en bloc could alert enemy soldiers some times. Aduible some times, some times not.
@BrennerBay It really depends on the the fighting. I have no doubt that it was audible some times. And some times it wasn't audible. It was serious enough of an issue that the army tested plastic clips to muffle the sound..They never fixed those reliability issues though with the Garand. As it was the first general issue semi automatic issued to an army its problems were overlooked. The other side only had bolt actions anyways.
@esh325 at the time it could shoot full powered 30-06. the round changed over time and was loaded with larger loads or faster burning powder. at the time M2 ball was the full powered 30-06 round.
This is from Walt Ehlers, last surving MOH awardee from action in Normandy, When asked, Ehlers dismisses the danger of the pinging sound alerting the enemy to a soldier with an empty rifle. “You’ve got a bunch of other men; they don’t all go empty at the same time. There’s always somebody there to be shooting. But it only takes a few seconds to reload it. You’re ready to go again.” I'll take his word over You Tube "experts" and the Military channel.
Comparing the Mauser Kar98k with the M1 Garand. Yeah, sure.
Compare the MP44 with the M1 Garand - I think it's quite clear what is more effective? M1 Garand with greater accuracy than the MP44, but 24 bullets less per round. MP44 heavier, sure but still 30 rounds. :) If German troops needed a similar weapon in my opinion the Gewehr 14 was quite able?
@TiasAhlgreN Here is the problem. They didn't make enough MP44s or Gewehr 41s or 43s. Had they gotten id of the KAR98 and replaced it with those two rifles than they would've caused many more casualties and probably could've bought themselves time.
@TiasAhlgreN They also used developed their jet fighter plane but Hitler wanted a bomber version. Had they developed the jet fighter they would've achieved air superiority.
well the us wouldnt have gotten envolved if the japanese didnt attack but the japanese had a very good army to thats why we dropped bombs on them and not germany.
@southparkfan2717 and without Russia and the other countries that helped US in the World War 2, US didnt fight alone against Germany, that's why the war was called of World War 2.
@soladetenis And what would have happened in Europe had Dec. 7 not happened? The French surrendered like the pussies they are, the British ran and isolated themselves on their Island, and the Germans would have won in Russia if they only had one front to worry about.
@southparkfan2717 dude I love US 2, but if US had to go fight Germany alone, it would lose, u gotta understand that Hitler had the most powerful army on Earth, thats why people fought together a team work.
@soladetenis Sorry, it's vice versa)) No offense, USA+Allies helped Russia when it was clear the Reich was going to lose.
I know, being disinformed it's not ur personal fault but is the result decades of propaganda machine, which is still in action.
When USSR was still together we learned lots of bullshit about you, guys, too. But after 80's we started to inform ourselves from unbiased sources(you should do it too) and understood that USA is not just about Nuking little exasperated countries))
The Garand should be number one right below the AK-47 and the M-14 or tied with that weapon. No other weapon could be dragged through the muck like these 3 and still carry accruracy. The M-16 is a good weapon but to delicate with maintenance
I disagree with the Garand being number 4 on this list if you're comparing the actual guns though. The Garand for it's time was decent, but using tricks to make people think you've run out of ammo when the standard rifle of the war was a bolt action is like having someone pretend their colt revolving rifle grenaded in the Civil War.
The Garand was decently accurate but it's clip system sucks. The gas system is also a bit finicky in stock models, and the gun doesn't like mud. FAL's are superior.
@IcabodCrane I have fired many Garands and all of them were reliable except for one.The clip system might not have been the best, but detachable magazines are heavy and break a lot more often then fixed magazines. Perhaps a 10 round 30/06 stripper clip system would have been better. Where did you hear the Garand wasn't reliable in mud? According to a test video I saw, the FAL does poorly in sand and mud conditions. One of the reasons the Israel's went to an AK type rifle, the Galil.
I've looked up a good deal of sources...the FN49/AL (direct ancestor of the FAL) was heavily favored in the Korean War by many troops because it was considered more reliable and more accurate than the Garand, and the FAL/CETME rifles both are shown to last far longer than the M14 or Garand. Comparing them to the AK-47 is moot, because the AK-47 is an extremely simple weapon proven to outlast most anything...but it's not going to give you anywhere near the accuracy or range.
@IcabodCrane You said that the FAL and CETME would last longer, well there hasn't been a CETME rifle or FAL rifle that been through WW2,Korean War, and other wars. There are still Garands from the 1930's that around that have been rebuilt numerous times. So the FAL and CETME having a longer life is more theoretical then true.
In terms of the amount of rounds you can fire through them, yes they will last longer if the many references I've gone through are right. I was speaking in terms of how many rounds can be fired through them before they need to be rebuilt.
Ohh...I'm talking actual battle use. The sources I've read show around a 10-15k round lifespan for a Garand or M14 before it needs a major rehaul...the CETME/G3's and FAL's have been shown to last as long as 50-60k before they need anything more than a barrel. Bottom line is, the FAL is still used by many countries, the M1 Garand is not.
@IcabodCrane Where did you find this data? If it would be nice if you could send me it to read as I'm always interested in things like service life gun. The FAL has been mostly replaced by 5.56x45 weapons around the world. If they are still using it, it's probably because they can't afford a 5.56x45 weapon.
Some are using them more along the lines of specialist rifles...but I do believe Argentina is using them still. I doubt it's because they can't afford 5.56 since the 5.56's are less expensive, especially when it comes to the ammo...though regunning a whole nation can be expensive or else we would've switched/fixed the M16's direct impingement already (which they are planning to do).
In terms of sources, reply to my PM and let me know exactly what stuff you'd like.
Also in terms of the Garand...the ping noise they make did, infact, kill many soldiers...so a 10 round stripper would have been a slightly slower way to reload but wouldn't have required cowardly tricks to avoid such a big design flaw. It usually depends on what sources you're reading though...because one of the biggest problem with US GI's and pro-US gunners is they're almost -never- willing to admit any flaw in their gun systems whatsoever, even when you point it out comprehensively.
@IcabodCrane I agree. Everybody thinks Americans weapons are perfect, but like every other countries weapons, they have their short comings and positives.
@IcabodCrane i know they can not take weather worth shit they can not take hot rounds at all and it's not the most accurate gun out there in battle and the chamber door is the worst thing ever since you have to reload quickly you can get the m1 thumb
Exactly. I find it sad how many people call it the rifle that won the war...it was the soldiers who won the war, and considering the Garand still got a lot of soldiers killed when it was the only high-powered semi on the field says a lot about it's effectiveness. Then I hear people say "It was good enough for my Grandfather, it's good enough for me" Well, does this mean all the people who's Grandfathers died in the war should buy Foreign guns? Overall...the Fn49 was better.
I find it funny how many people are arguing over the accuracy of AK-47's, when half of them aren't taking into consideration who made them, what type, so forth and so on. The AK-47 design has shown MOA with PSL's, but your standard combat issues were made with generous tolerances and wont give you that kind of accuracy. I'd consider 5 moa to be about the worst to expect from an AK that isn't entirely torn up, but it's still no sniper rifle.
The biggest factor with the AK-47 is the shit ammo. Russian ammo is usually laquered steel with corrosive primers and isn't made for accuracy in the slightest. Steel/non-brass cases don't expand to the chamber so it's not a tight fit, this significantly changes the dynamic of your accuracy. If you took a well made AKM style rifle made for the civilian market and put some good reloads or brass-case ammo in it, it will give you surprisingly better accuracy than the surplus.
@IcabodCrane I have shot both types of ammo in the AK and I can't for sure if the brass really shot any better. I'd have to do a side by side to draw any conclusions. If we're talking about today, most Russian is not corrosive.
I have a question for Americans and/or anyone who understands the imperial measurement system:
NATO standard is to use meteoric, as a former NATO soldier I understand well meteoric calibers. However the equivalent imperial calibers make no sense to me.
Case in point; 30-06 & .308 are both 7.62mm, why the different numbers if they are the same caliber?
Then .303 to the logic of the number .308 implies the .303 is smaller then .308, however .303 is 7.7mm, which is bigger. How can this be?
JimmyG228 3 days ago
@JimmyG228
30-06; .303, and 308 are all nominally 30 caliber rounds. The numerals after the 30 are used to differentiate the cartridge from other 30 calibers and different armories use various naming conventions (the -06 comes from the year of acceptance). The differences can be based on differences in case and or bullet.
halnywiatr 2 days ago
@JimmyG228
Although many cartridges are nominally 30 caliber, there can be minor differences in bullet diameter from how different armories classified the rounds with the measure sometimes being applied to the bullet mold or to the bullet with or without jacket, etc..
The .308 is based on a short version of the 30-06 to enable its use in fully automatic weapons as the 30-06 recoil renders shoulder arms not effective for aiming. They share the same bullet.
halnywiatr 2 days ago
@JimmyG228
The .303 is only three thousandths of an inch larger diameter than the 30-06 (.311 versus [ironically] the Springfield’s .308) or seven and a half thousandths of a millimeter larger. That is well less than a half a human hair’s difference so, practically, both will travel down the same barrel. The difference is in chambering and the ballistics of shape and charge.
halnywiatr 2 days ago
@halnywiatr Ok that was explained really well, thank you.
I'm still fuzzy on why the US would call a 7.62mm a .308 when it's smaller then a .303. Wouldn't calling it a .302 make more sense? Or better yet, why would the British use the number .303, when as you said it's actually .311? Its seem the only standardization is in meteoric.
I hate to sound nit-picky but I just started reloading my own ammo & my books don't answer these questions. They don't even hint at an explenation.
JimmyG228 2 days ago
@JimmyG228 Anything after the 30 is not a measurement; it is a name designation. It could just as well be .30Q or 30-YZ.
halnywiatr 2 days ago
@halnywiatr Oh ok, now I get it. Thanks. So for example the AK-47 could easily been called, say a 30-47 then right?
JimmyG228 1 day ago
My third favorite American gun.... And I think that's it. Just 3
thehumangunstore 2 weeks ago
ha a canadian made the american legend
youtub442 3 weeks ago
Why did the Lee Enfield beat the M1 Garand. The M1 actualy out ranged the Enfield because the Enfield had a smooth but weak bolt and you could put more rounds down range with an M1. Why did the Enfield beat it. Not to mention a 30-06 is more powerful than the 303
Americanpride01343 4 weeks ago
@Americanpride01343
Well, the list wasn't a straight up rifle vs rifle comparison. It took other factors into consideration such as service length, etc.
If it was a true firearms comparison, the AK would be beaten badly by weapons like the M14. Just as an example.
cavalrytm 4 weeks ago
@Americanpride01343 The service length is the only thing that would beat the Garand. The Enfield was used for 60 years (est) and is actually still used in some countries.
maximcan69 4 weeks ago
@Americanpride01343 You are mistaken a bit. The .303 round performs better then the 30-06 does. One thing soldiers bitch about on then Bren Gun was the .303 was too acturite. Sure the 30-06 can drop targets a little farther then a .303, but the M1's sites limit the shooter on range, the Enfield's sites don't. The bolt design is the best in the world. So good, a well trained soldier can effectively fire, 35-40 rouns a minute, not the 15 or so this show claims. It's better.
JimmyG228 3 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 It doesn't perform better. The 30/06 has a longer case which holds more powder. Really though, it's splitting hairs to say one is better then the other. How do the M1 Garand's sights limit the shooters range?
esh325 2 weeks ago
@esh325 According to my reloading handbook the M1 limits size, weight & amount of power so that it can only fire the 150 or 168 grain 7.62x63mm. Given the 168 is bigger/heavier with more punch I'm gunna compare it to the SMLE’s .303 British round.
The 168 grain 7.62x63mm max loads at 48.5 (IMR-4895 recommended)
The SMLE fires a larger/heavier 180 grain round with a max load of 46 grains of powder. So you are partly wrong. The SMLE fires a larger round with more bank for buck...
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 The 30/06 in 150 or 168 will be a good deal faster then the 180 gr. 180 GR is excessive as it is. A semi automatic rifle like the Garand is well worth it over a bolt action rifle like the Enfield with a negligible amount of power over the Garand.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@esh325 Faster doesn't mean more punch. A 62 grain 5.56x45mm fires faster then the M1, SMLE, Springfield & maybe faster then a Mauser, but we all know a M16 is less powerful then all those rifles. Since the difference is only 380 FPS it doesn't help the M1 really at all against the better performance of the .303 Brit.
Yes the M1 is Semi, but a well trained soldier can fire nearly as fast as a GI with an M1. This lies about the rate of fire of the SMLE, it really is about 35 a min.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Faster could mean less drop. More grains doesn't mean much more lethality either. In a British comparison between the Garand,Enfield, and EM2 rifle, the Garand could fire 43 aimed shots a minute versus the Enfield with 27 shots a min. Look up the EM2 rifle. The Enfield can't match the Garand's firepower.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@esh325 You're just not hearing me or something, I'm not making up these numbers of rounds per min fired. I have no military training with a SMLE but I can fire my No4 at a rate of about 36 rounds per min. I did the math.
Faster doesn't mean less drop, the aerodynamics does. That is 1 thing the 7.62x63 has on the .303 Brit.
More grains do directly translate into more damage, otherwise known as, more powerful or more deadly. The .303 is more powerful & more deadly. Face it already budz.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Even if it was true, it's under ideal shooting range conditions that you did it. I'll show you a picture that proves otherwise.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@esh325 You are right it was on a range in good conditions, but then again when those numbers are configured, they test them on ranges in good condition too, M1 is not an exception to that. They are all tested on ranges to determine rate of fire, so it's not like I had an unfair advantage over a GI with a M1.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@esh325 You are right, we always train for our last war. I wasn't BSing either about British, Canadian & other armies training troops to effectively fire at the enemy at ranges past 1000m with their service rifles. The Canadian, Anzacs & Brits could even use there support infantry weapons to fire effectively at the enemy that far too. In the Great War the Germans schooled us on that tactic in 1914. Though out the war, into WW2, & Koreathe tactic was still taught & used.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@esh325 As for the sites; you can only mill up the rear aperture site of the M1 (& M14s) to fire aimed rounds at 800m effectively despite the 7.62x63 able to drop targets well past 800m. The 1903 Springfield was great up to 1400m ish (conditions & marksmanship pending). A SMLE's sites can be set up to 2,000m. Mind you I doubt you could drop someone at 2,000, but you can aim, fire & drop a target at 1600 (1 mile) with a SMLE. Thus making the SMLE better in those two respects.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Old rifles have overly optimistic sight adjustments.They made it 800m's because they understood 1400m's or 2000's is ridiculous for a combat rifle. Very rarely will anybody hit at that range, so those two things you listed are hardly an advantage at all. I don't think any soldier was at a disadvantage because of those two things.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Even 800m's might be too optimistic for a combat rifle. Battlefield tacticians came to the conclusion after WW2 that most soldiers were limited to 300m to 400m for accurate fire with their sights in combat.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@esh325 Very true & good point, however troops in the UK, Canada & many other counties were trained to fire effective surpressing fire at ranges well past 1000m. No GI could to that in WW2 with a M1.
JimmyG228 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 They were training for the last war (WW1). That training was all changed around after WW2.
esh325 2 weeks ago
@JimmyG228 Perhaps one or two advantages the Enfield has over the Garand would be reliability, and maintenance. In trials with the M1 Garand, it was noted that the Garand would fail badly in sand and mud versus bolt actions rifles like the Springfield. Don't quote me on this, but I believe that was the reason why the British rejected the Garand. And field stripping and cleaning an Enfield is a lot easier then the Garand.
esh325 2 weeks ago
Gran Torino, Clint Eastwood.
LordWellington15 1 month ago
This is stupid, all the rifles in the series are awesome. The Garand is a beauty. I dont go a day without playing or cleaning mine. But i also take care in givng respect to the Nagant, Enfield and even the Mauser. I my own colection after my Garand, the Mauser K98K is such a beauty of a rifle, I love it.
maximcan69 1 month ago
@maximcan69
I have two M1's (CMP resto & a Korean War-issued M1), both Mosins (91/30 & the M44 carbine with the bayonette), I used to own a K98, and I have a few other rifles. All are great. Even have a couple AR's and have never had a jam with any of those.
Check out the "Marlin Guide Gun", that's something I think I want next. Awesome little gun.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm I also have an AR, love it with a pasion lol. To be honest, hypothetically of course I'd probably want a Mauser, 1903 or an enfield, and a STG44 as my arms, the bold acvtion for reliable long shots and the STG44 for the raw accurate short range rifle needed in urban combat
maximcan69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1)This forum has gotten off topic has it not? The issue at hand is that of the Garand. A fantastic rifle said to be the "rifle that won the war". As a Canadian, and as a history student and firearm enthusiast I feel like I should weigh in on this. This topic actually came up in my History of WW2 class and we discussed it. It is a term to gereralize the true fact that besides the Mosin Nagant the Garand did kill more Axis troops then any other rifle.
maximcan69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
5) To sum up the latest argument on here: ChromeArty did down play the rifle not the US's role Cavalrytm. Your both in the wrong as I see it, and I am a personal friend of ChromeArty. THE CREDIT FOR WINNING THE WAR SHOULD BE SHARED BY ALL ALLIED NATIONS. WE ALL FOUGHT SIDE BY SIDE FOR FREEDOM OF THE WORLD AND TO STOP THE SPREAD OF OPPRESSION. WE ALL SACRIFICED OUR YOUNG MEN FOR OTHERS FREEDOMS. WE ESPECIALLY AS NEIGHBORS SHOULD ALWAYS GET ALONG FOR THE BETTERMENT OF BOTH NATIONS!!!!!!
maximcan69 1 month ago
Comment removed
maximcan69 1 month ago
agreed! thank you. Now lets just hope everyone takes the time to read what you have said carefully... and don't start calling you a Commie or something :) I lost the plot on this thread due to peoples inability to read... I hope the same doesn't happen to you.
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
More assumptions about the "yanks", huh? Whoops, sorry, this is the part where I'm supposed to say in a southern dialect, "Yall are ignarent commies, we shuld nuke all yall back to the stoneage. Yeehawww go Amurrrica!!"
"I lost the plot on this thread due to peoples inability to read"
You lost the plot because of YOUR inability to read, combined your refusal to stay on topic and address the 3 questions I asked. That, and just arguing wildly to "win".
cavalrytm 1 month ago
4) This can all be argued all day. The fact does remain that all the Allies fought in both Campaigns, the US fielded more troops and killed more Japanese then anyone else. The statement that "the Garand won the war" is a bit of an overstatement but not by much. Without our brother-en south of us who knows how far Nazi Germany would have gotten.
maximcan69 1 month ago
3) the fact remains, in Europe, Russia fielded more troops and killed more Germans than, Brits( Canadians, Indians etc) and the US combined. The losses on the eastern front cannot compare to the losses faced in the west. The Russians did more to destroy the Nazi's and took far more ground. This being said. Without the US, England would have fallen, and maybe Russia as well. The US supplied England with everything after France fell. They also provided Russia with much needed military supplies.
maximcan69 1 month ago
@maximcan69
I have always strongly believed in giving credit where it's due. I respect the sacrifices of the Brits, Canadians, French Resistance, Aussies, Russians, etc. Throughout school and college, world history with a focus on the military aspect has been a passion of mine.
What I don't respect are the scumbags who hate the US because it's "cool" to do so, and spread their lies, rewrite history, and tarnish our accomplishments in a relentless, misguided propaganda campaign.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm Um, i'm sorry my friend but Patton was one half of the push north in the begining and then west, he was right beside Monty(overrated). While Patton was great please remember that the Bris fought side by side untill the months after D day where they finally split. Kinda gotta look at a map my friend, while Patton was faster(Tanks) The Russians Cleared from deep inside Russia to the middle of Germany including Berlin. Not to mention the Baltics, the Balkins down to Greece.
maximcan69 1 month ago
@maximcan69
I'm sorry too, because I'm not stating an opinion. These aren't even my words:
"In 1944, Patton assumed command of the U.S. Third Army, which under his leadership advanced farther, captured more enemy prisoners, and liberated more territory in less time than any other army in military history."
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@maximcan69
Regarding the Russians, they caught one hell of a lucky break when one of the worst winters in modern history struck during the German offensive, similar to Napoleon 100 years earlier. Not bashing the Russian sacrifice, but the Germans had been on a roll until then.
In the west, Patton's 3rd US Army in 1944 liberated more territory in the less time than any other army in HISTORY, but was told to halt because the Allies agreed at Yalta to LET Russia take Berlin first.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm Dont get me wrong Patton and the third army were great, and I mean great, I will not discredit where credit is due, but you cannot forget that the straight fact that Germany sent more troops to the east then they had in the west. I am not going to say anymore about this except you cannot say that the GARAND won the war without giving credit to the others Like the NAGANT, ENFIELD 1 AND 4.
maximcan69 1 month ago
@maximcan69
I actually never said it won the war. The argument started because I could just tell, by his tone, what type of a person Chrome is. And my assumptions were proven right because his bias "showed through" in his responses.
Regarding why people say the M1 won the war, I don't think it's should be taken literally. It was the only semi-auto main/primary rifle in the war. So what they mean by the "won the war" comment, is that it was arguably the top main/primary rifle.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm There was a few acually, it was the first though. Russia had the STV40, germany had the STG44 and the GEw43 i think it was called, but yes no other was made in that quanity and no other was as good. Garands are just pure awesomeness lol
maximcan69 1 month ago
@maximcan69
Ever see the cheap, blatant copies of the M1 that the Japanese made towards the very end of the war?
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm Yes I have. ChromeArty actually showed me. They look funny though eh?
maximcan69 4 weeks ago
@maximcan69 America made more of everything because nobody could bomb its factories
jackzero99 4 weeks ago
2) Its is a fact that the war was considered half over by December 1941 but it should be known that the ground fighting in Europe was only 6months old. (not counting the month in Poland and 6 weeks in France) The Russians and Germans had only been at war for 6 month by the time the US entered the war.
maximcan69 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
1)This forum has gotten off topic has it not? The issue at hand is that of the Garand. A fantastic rifle said to be the "rifle that won the war". As a Canadian, and as a history student and firearm enthusiast I feel like I should weigh in on this. This topic actually came up in my History of WW2 class and we discussed it. It is a term to gereralize the true fact that besides the Mosin Nagant the Garand did kill more Axis troops then any other rifle.
maximcan69 1 month ago
Comment removed
maximcan69 1 month ago
I'm 4th generation Canadian and I'm siding with cavalrytm on this one.
MX1eleven 1 month ago
Limitations? Sorry, but I don't agree with that. The M1 forces the shooter to learn and use the weapon for accuracy, not suppressive fire. The whole point of a firearm is to kill a target, not make him put his head down and let someone else kill him.
A neighbor of mine when I was a kid told me that a guy in his unit in Vietnam was actually using a Garand instead of the M14 or M16, despite being reprimanded several times. He was in 28 skirmishes, recorded 30+ kills and survived the war.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
Why is this known as "The Rifle That Won World War II"?
Keichwoud357 1 month ago
@Keichwoud357 very very good question, considering that the Americans were only in the 2nd world war for half of it.... not to mention the Mosin Nagant easy killed more Germans than the Garand. Maybe it should be called ''the rifle that won the pacific theatre'' ... but then, that wouldn't really be true either.
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
A Canadian downplaying something about the United States? I'm shocked! [end sarcasm]
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm a yank thinking a Canadian is downplaying their role in a War, when only stating facts... huh weird....(end sarcasm)
you should pick up a WW1/WW2 history book written in any other country than yours and learn something
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
Actually, I'm half Canadian and grew up in southern Ontario for the first 13 or 14 years of my life. I am more than familiar with the general attitude of people on both sides of the border. Americans go about their business and don't have anything to say about Canadians. Canadians on the other hand have a butthurt disposition and bitch about the US daily. You can't find a candy bar in Canada without a maple leaf printed on it screaming "LOOK AT US! WE'RE DIFFERENT!"
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm I see you crying and bitching all over this forum!
your ignorance is amazing! merry xmas my poor, misinformed, patriotic little friend. Not to mention it took you 4 days to cobble together a response.
Like I said... do some research
like I said
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
So what you’re saying is… you don’t have a legible, coherent rebuttal?
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm wait a minute.... legible? .. you couldn't read that? ... that explains everything...
especially where you instantly turned this into America vs. Canada, instead of a discussion about firearms. All I stated is the moniker "rifle that won WW2" is BS... and this comes from a guy who owns one! I love the rifle, but the rifle that won the war?... hilarious Americans think they won WW1 as well. I guess the Springfield M1903 is the rifle that won WW1 then?
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
More idiotic psychobabble and desperate reaching. There's an old saying, "You can't reason with unreasonable people". Knowing that, I'm not sure why I'm even wasting more of my time on you. Hell, another Canadian posted a comment backing me on this about an hour ago, right here on this page.
Oh, and your relentless, almost-ad hominem attempt to question my education is not going to work. You still haven't answered the 3 questions below. Keep avoiding them, clever fox.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm blah blah blah blah grow up man. I look at one in every three of your childish messages. Is this really that important to you!? you need to get out more boy.
This is the last message of yours I will read, they are amusing, but I have things to do... you may know what that's like one day
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
"I look at one in every three of your childish messages."
There it is, folks. The guy has a reading comprehension problem, just as I called it. You can't debate the issue at hand and/or expect others to read your posts, if you don't read there's in turn. Pretty fucking basic human interaction 101.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm
theirs*
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm wow dude, your mad! :) makes me smile
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
You mean "you're", right? That's hilarious after your little "dictionary" comment...
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm all I'm asking you to do, is some research. But try books that weren't printed in America... you be amazed at the shit you've had crammed down your throat.
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
Second, I actually own both rifles. A Korean War-issued M1, and both standard & carbine versions of the Mosin Nagant. (Just a disclaimer before the typical "you've probably never fired either gun" excuse gets thrown at me.)
Having said that, please explain (A) how, in your warped reality, 1941-1945 was half of WW2 (Sep 1939 - Sep 1945), (B) how the M1 was not the finest MAIN battle rifle of the war, and (C) how it did not outmatch the Arisaka in the pacific theatre.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@ChromeArty really!? that's all ya got?
I believe you initiated the trolling BS when you decided to attack my nationality because I disagree that the M1 won WW2......
pot calling the kettle black I'd say.
......pathetic indeed
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
You embarass yourself and the rest of us Canadians with your antics.
Cavalry merely stated that he wasn't surprised a Canadian was trashing something American. And he was right, because your anti-American bias became obvious through your responses.
He stated that he is half-Canadian and spent the first 14 years of his life there. He addressed the debate and asked 3 pretty clear questions. You responded by dodging those questions and trolling. You're an embarassment.
MX1eleven 1 month ago
@MX1eleven ??? He began this childish shit by attacking Canadians you moron! wow. Go suck Harpers dick then move to the states were you belong.
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
"downplay the yanks role in the war"
I didn't say ANYTHING about that. Those were your words.
"He began this childish shit by attacking Canadians"
I made absolutely no insults towards Canada in my opening comment. I went after just YOU. In fact, I have yet to say "Canuck", while you on the other hand have been using our derogatory slang term from the very beginning. It's funny, MX is right that your anti-American bias exposed itself.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@MX1eleven not to mention, you should learn to interpret what you read a bit better, just like your buddy cav. I didn't downplay the yanks role in the war, I stated that calling the M1 the rifle that won the war is BS... that comment downplays England, Canada, Australia, France, India, Poland, ..... and the list just keeps going.
fuck you kids are dumb.
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
Lol, your own people hate you. You know what you are? You are the guy with the mental disability who comes back with "no YOU guys are stupid" when everyone else points it out. Your infantile behavior has been hilarious. Everything from getting rattled by comments with big words in them, to flat out trolling instead of discussing the issue. You STILLLL haven't answered the 3 questions!!!
It's obvious you desperately want the last word.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm lol! merry xmas buddy! how long did you spend in front of your dictionary looking for words to make you sound smart? lol pathetic
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
You are a riot, "buddy". See you in hell.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@cavalrytm :) yep, you're mad thanks for the grammar lesson
ChromeArty 1 month ago
@ChromeArty
Lol, absolutely pathetic. Couldn't engage in a legitimate debate, so you resort to half-assed trolling attempts. Your failure is complete.
cavalrytm 1 month ago
@MrEnleft and if they're close enough to hear the ping you've got a lot bigger problems going on anyways
CarlsoSpiceyWeiner69 1 month ago
I think it's underestimated how the M1 was a quantum leap in firepower over the bolt actions of the enemy in WWII. Imagine 10 guys firing at a position with an M1 dumping 80 rounds in about 3 seconds. With the en-bloc clip the M1 can be reloaded in less than 2 seconds.
That's an almost constant stream of bullets.
The Mausers and stripper clips couldn't compare.
vl5150 1 month ago
My grandfather used this gun in WWII, he worked in an armory once he had served for a while. I asked him about the pinging noise, and he said that that was the dumbest thing he'd ever heard. The chances of you being close enough for the enemy to hear the noise your magazine makes is slim at best, and you could pop in another one in a split second. But the most important reason why is because you simply don't hear that kind of thing in the chaos of battle when rounds are flying over your head.
MrEnleft 1 month ago
John Garand was born in Quebec, raised in the U.S. from the age of 11 and was an American by the time he went to work on the M1. He was Canadian-American and we can both be proud of him. And thank him.
NoGoodBoyo1000 1 month ago
No. 4 ?!
NoGoodBoyo1000 1 month ago
@halo99yo Because there aren't any Chinese rifles on the list.
Awesomechild96 2 months ago
HOW COME THEY DON'T PLAY DISCOVERY CHANNEL IN CHINA ANY MORE????????????
halo99yo 2 months ago
Why do people say its Canadian? Please let me know where he invented it, in the US or in Canada? It's American. Fuck the Statue of Liberty, when i think of America an M1 Garand pops up in my head.
MRcalibrecincuenta 2 months ago
@MRcalibrecincuenta Well John C. Garand, the creator of the M1 Garand, was born in a French-Canadian family. He had been hired in a tool factory when he came to the U.S. in Rhode Island. So it's safe to say it is an American rifle, made with Canadian efficiency :)
99thJediWarrior 2 months ago
@99thJediWarrior Doesn't matter his roots, it was made in America therefore it is American.
MRcalibrecincuenta 2 months ago
@MRcalibrecincuenta Who cares. It's a fucking gun, only dumb inbred hicks care if it's american or not.
EnigmaHood 1 month ago
thank you Canada!
sappy441 2 months ago
Its an american gun invented by a canadian wtf????
Zambi000 3 months ago
i love that noise that it makes when it runs out of ammo
(call of duty =3)
lazyac19 3 months ago
The M1 Garand is #4 and the SMLE is #3 is totally absurd.
The historic first of the Garand are countless.
Even Klashnikov considered the Garand to be a great influence.
The SMLE was obsolete by WW2.Its influenced nothing since.
Only the English remember it al all.
If it werent for the Garand,the English woulda ended up carrying
Mausers and speaking German.
To place the Garand AFTER the SMLE is typical British bullshit.
BrennerBay 3 months ago
@BrennerBay The British intended on using Mauser type rifles since after the Boer Wars, war time pressures stopped that from happening. Had the M1 Garand never been invented, I really doubt it would have changed the out come of WW2. The M1 Garand was obsolete after WW2. The M14 was obsolete by Vietnam.
esh325 3 months ago
@esh325
It was droves of AMERICAN soldiers that saved the British bacon.
The Garand made the difference enough times on the battlefield
to certainly have saved some lives and turned the odds.
It may be obsolete,but what it inspired goes far beyond a POS like the SMLE.
BrennerBay 3 months ago
@BrennerBay How America saved Britain during WW2 is a lot more complicated then only rifles. The Enfield did good service. I have fired many of them and they are good rifles. The M1 Garand was a great rifle, but it was not perfect. In early trials, they noted the M1 Garand would shut down very easily in sand and mud. It was heavy. The action was not strong enough to fire full powered 30/06. The ping from the en bloc could alert enemy soldiers some times. Aduible some times, some times not.
esh325 3 months ago
@esh325
Really very doubtful someone could hear an enbloc clip "ping"
during a gun battle. See...its not like the range.Theres expolsions
and machine guns and a hundred guys shooting at once.
Running,jumping and gasping for air can also be a distraction.
So its unlikely youre going hear a little old "ping".
All rifles have problems in the begining,the SMLE ammo went through 4 variants.
Its how that rifle is looked at by history...only the English bring up the SMLE.
BrennerBay 3 months ago
@BrennerBay It really depends on the the fighting. I have no doubt that it was audible some times. And some times it wasn't audible. It was serious enough of an issue that the army tested plastic clips to muffle the sound..They never fixed those reliability issues though with the Garand. As it was the first general issue semi automatic issued to an army its problems were overlooked. The other side only had bolt actions anyways.
esh325 3 months ago
@BrennerBay The reason the Enfield had 4 models wasn't because of reliability though.
esh325 3 months ago
@esh325 at the time it could shoot full powered 30-06. the round changed over time and was loaded with larger loads or faster burning powder. at the time M2 ball was the full powered 30-06 round.
WinchesterMod94 2 months ago
@WinchesterMod94 I don't think it could fire the older M1 Ball which was made for Springfields.
esh325 2 months ago
The best rifle in the world is the one in your hand. No, wait a minute, that's beer.
toadster58 3 months ago
@toadster58
rum and coke
XKS99 2 months ago
What a badass fuckin rifle! USA!
ssimon64 3 months ago
The sound it makes when it ejects the empty clip is just legendary...
javiersuarez15 3 months ago in playlist More videos from 7dc
@m14Lover308 The M14 is a better rifle, yes. I think the M1 Garand is ranked higher because of its combat significance.
esh325 3 months ago
@esh325 Yeah the M-14 is an evolution of the Garand, so naturally its more evolved/advanced
LoneWolf051 3 months ago
@LoneWolf051 evolution of the FN FAL and the M1. i readed it in a soldier book of the dutch army 1980
GunMaker91 3 months ago
This is from Walt Ehlers, last surving MOH awardee from action in Normandy, When asked, Ehlers dismisses the danger of the pinging sound alerting the enemy to a soldier with an empty rifle. “You’ve got a bunch of other men; they don’t all go empty at the same time. There’s always somebody there to be shooting. But it only takes a few seconds to reload it. You’re ready to go again.” I'll take his word over You Tube "experts" and the Military channel.
mindeloman 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ping.....it's time to shoot US soldiers !
Erkl1996 4 months ago
M1 garand-m16
saj12100 4 months ago
Cindy,Cindy,Cindy Lu
I love my rifle more than you
You used to be my blazing sun
Now it's my Garand M1
Our cadence in Korea 1952
joeasmythe 4 months ago 33
get off my lawn you nazis BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG PING
bman4099 4 months ago
Canadian gun?! i wonder how many dislikes Garand got on his youtube channel...
shobin05 4 months ago in playlist More videos from 7dc
@shobin05 What do you mean?
Keichwoud357 4 months ago
Canadians know how it's done!
toothpickcity2 4 months ago
No... The MP44/STG44 gave the enemy 30 rounds.
So it's not 8 bullets vs 1 before reloading.
Comparing the Mauser Kar98k with the M1 Garand. Yeah, sure.
Compare the MP44 with the M1 Garand - I think it's quite clear what is more effective? M1 Garand with greater accuracy than the MP44, but 24 bullets less per round. MP44 heavier, sure but still 30 rounds. :) If German troops needed a similar weapon in my opinion the Gewehr 14 was quite able?
TiasAhlgreN 4 months ago
@TiasAhlgreN Here is the problem. They didn't make enough MP44s or Gewehr 41s or 43s. Had they gotten id of the KAR98 and replaced it with those two rifles than they would've caused many more casualties and probably could've bought themselves time.
lastswordfighter 4 months ago
@lastswordfighter True, and they should have started producing those Stealth bomb planes earlier, and never touched the Soviets...
TiasAhlgreN 4 months ago
@TiasAhlgreN They also used developed their jet fighter plane but Hitler wanted a bomber version. Had they developed the jet fighter they would've achieved air superiority.
lastswordfighter 4 months ago
well the us wouldnt have gotten envolved if the japanese didnt attack but the japanese had a very good army to thats why we dropped bombs on them and not germany.
brucetravers16 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@brucetravers16 Hope you're joking... what a retard!
Travmapunk 4 months ago
GET OFF MY LAWN!!
7commenter7 5 months ago 65
@7commenter7 Hahaha Grand Torino!
NgJackal1990 5 months ago
@NgJackal1990 Hell yea!
7commenter7 5 months ago
no but it would have been a bicth to british and russians forces without the u.s
SniperKillerS2010 5 months ago
I'm tired of hearing all this crap about it being "the rifle that won the war"! THE UNITED STATES DID NOT WIN THE WAR!!!
Keichwoud357 5 months ago
@Keichwoud357 The war would not have been won without the United States.
southparkfan2717 5 months ago
@southparkfan2717 I still think it should be called "the rifle that helped the Allies win the war".
Keichwoud357 5 months ago
@southparkfan2717 and without Russia and the other countries that helped US in the World War 2, US didnt fight alone against Germany, that's why the war was called of World War 2.
soladetenis 5 months ago
@soladetenis And what would have happened in Europe had Dec. 7 not happened? The French surrendered like the pussies they are, the British ran and isolated themselves on their Island, and the Germans would have won in Russia if they only had one front to worry about.
southparkfan2717 5 months ago
@southparkfan2717 dude I love US 2, but if US had to go fight Germany alone, it would lose, u gotta understand that Hitler had the most powerful army on Earth, thats why people fought together a team work.
soladetenis 5 months ago
@soladetenis I disagree our manufacturing might would overcame the Nazis.
Gunfan762 4 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@soladetenis Sorry, it's vice versa)) No offense, USA+Allies helped Russia when it was clear the Reich was going to lose.
I know, being disinformed it's not ur personal fault but is the result decades of propaganda machine, which is still in action.
When USSR was still together we learned lots of bullshit about you, guys, too. But after 80's we started to inform ourselves from unbiased sources(you should do it too) and understood that USA is not just about Nuking little exasperated countries))
Travmapunk 4 months ago
The sound is more like *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *BANG* *ping*.
UggmunsStudios 5 months ago
@UggmunsStudios It's not a bang, it's more of a *POP*.
PkayerZxz2 5 months ago
@UggmunsStudios
Garand: Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, Bang, PING!!!
Soldier: Oh Shit!?
Enemy: Bang!
e0o9kii 5 months ago
@e0o9kii Implying the soldiers couldn't take cover to reload.
locolalo1364 4 months ago
I walk my post from sun to sun and take no shit from anyone. M1 was what we had, and it did the job.........
joeasmythe 5 months ago
"phat! phat! phat! phat! phat! phat!" "PWANG!" love the M1-garand's sound
aussieblackhawk123 6 months ago
The Garand should be number one right below the AK-47 and the M-14 or tied with that weapon. No other weapon could be dragged through the muck like these 3 and still carry accruracy. The M-16 is a good weapon but to delicate with maintenance
coporal4 6 months ago
I disagree with the Garand being number 4 on this list if you're comparing the actual guns though. The Garand for it's time was decent, but using tricks to make people think you've run out of ammo when the standard rifle of the war was a bolt action is like having someone pretend their colt revolving rifle grenaded in the Civil War.
The Garand was decently accurate but it's clip system sucks. The gas system is also a bit finicky in stock models, and the gun doesn't like mud. FAL's are superior.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane I have fired many Garands and all of them were reliable except for one.The clip system might not have been the best, but detachable magazines are heavy and break a lot more often then fixed magazines. Perhaps a 10 round 30/06 stripper clip system would have been better. Where did you hear the Garand wasn't reliable in mud? According to a test video I saw, the FAL does poorly in sand and mud conditions. One of the reasons the Israel's went to an AK type rifle, the Galil.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
I've looked up a good deal of sources...the FN49/AL (direct ancestor of the FAL) was heavily favored in the Korean War by many troops because it was considered more reliable and more accurate than the Garand, and the FAL/CETME rifles both are shown to last far longer than the M14 or Garand. Comparing them to the AK-47 is moot, because the AK-47 is an extremely simple weapon proven to outlast most anything...but it's not going to give you anywhere near the accuracy or range.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane There isn't a CETME rifle or FAL that is 74 years old yet like the M1 Garand so that statement can't be true.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
What does a CETME or FAL being 74 years old have to do with my statement?
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane You said that the FAL and CETME would last longer, well there hasn't been a CETME rifle or FAL rifle that been through WW2,Korean War, and other wars. There are still Garands from the 1930's that around that have been rebuilt numerous times. So the FAL and CETME having a longer life is more theoretical then true.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
In terms of the amount of rounds you can fire through them, yes they will last longer if the many references I've gone through are right. I was speaking in terms of how many rounds can be fired through them before they need to be rebuilt.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
Also, the Fn49/AL was the direct forefather of the FAL and did see the Korean War.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@esh325
Ohh...I'm talking actual battle use. The sources I've read show around a 10-15k round lifespan for a Garand or M14 before it needs a major rehaul...the CETME/G3's and FAL's have been shown to last as long as 50-60k before they need anything more than a barrel. Bottom line is, the FAL is still used by many countries, the M1 Garand is not.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane Where did you find this data? If it would be nice if you could send me it to read as I'm always interested in things like service life gun. The FAL has been mostly replaced by 5.56x45 weapons around the world. If they are still using it, it's probably because they can't afford a 5.56x45 weapon.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
Some are using them more along the lines of specialist rifles...but I do believe Argentina is using them still. I doubt it's because they can't afford 5.56 since the 5.56's are less expensive, especially when it comes to the ammo...though regunning a whole nation can be expensive or else we would've switched/fixed the M16's direct impingement already (which they are planning to do).
In terms of sources, reply to my PM and let me know exactly what stuff you'd like.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@esh325
Also the CETME/G3 is still used too, though it's now a specialist weapon known as the PSG-1. Sort've like the M21ebr/M25 are to the M14/M1a.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@esh325
Also in terms of the Garand...the ping noise they make did, infact, kill many soldiers...so a 10 round stripper would have been a slightly slower way to reload but wouldn't have required cowardly tricks to avoid such a big design flaw. It usually depends on what sources you're reading though...because one of the biggest problem with US GI's and pro-US gunners is they're almost -never- willing to admit any flaw in their gun systems whatsoever, even when you point it out comprehensively.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane I agree. Everybody thinks Americans weapons are perfect, but like every other countries weapons, they have their short comings and positives.
esh325 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane i know they can not take weather worth shit they can not take hot rounds at all and it's not the most accurate gun out there in battle and the chamber door is the worst thing ever since you have to reload quickly you can get the m1 thumb
MrDip02 5 months ago
@MrDip02
Exactly. I find it sad how many people call it the rifle that won the war...it was the soldiers who won the war, and considering the Garand still got a lot of soldiers killed when it was the only high-powered semi on the field says a lot about it's effectiveness. Then I hear people say "It was good enough for my Grandfather, it's good enough for me" Well, does this mean all the people who's Grandfathers died in the war should buy Foreign guns? Overall...the Fn49 was better.
IcabodCrane 5 months ago
I find it funny how many people are arguing over the accuracy of AK-47's, when half of them aren't taking into consideration who made them, what type, so forth and so on. The AK-47 design has shown MOA with PSL's, but your standard combat issues were made with generous tolerances and wont give you that kind of accuracy. I'd consider 5 moa to be about the worst to expect from an AK that isn't entirely torn up, but it's still no sniper rifle.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane The sights I think are the biggest factor with the AK. I still find them difficult to use. I have to practice more.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
The biggest factor with the AK-47 is the shit ammo. Russian ammo is usually laquered steel with corrosive primers and isn't made for accuracy in the slightest. Steel/non-brass cases don't expand to the chamber so it's not a tight fit, this significantly changes the dynamic of your accuracy. If you took a well made AKM style rifle made for the civilian market and put some good reloads or brass-case ammo in it, it will give you surprisingly better accuracy than the surplus.
IcabodCrane 6 months ago
@IcabodCrane I have shot both types of ammo in the AK and I can't for sure if the brass really shot any better. I'd have to do a side by side to draw any conclusions. If we're talking about today, most Russian is not corrosive.
esh325 6 months ago
@sqwareroot So? Its not our fault we made good guns. :/
TAYL0R16 6 months ago
@sqwareroot
The M14 is what the big boys use at Camp Perry for the 1000 yard service rifle competion, try doing that with an Ak47 LOLOL
Blahblobify 6 months ago
@Blahblobify They didn't build the AK-47 to shoot at 1000 yards. If they want to shoot at 1000 yards then they use another rifle like the SVD.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
Well thanks a shitload DURHHHH that's what I was saying.
Staying on a silhouette at 200 yards is the best you can expect with an AK.
Blahblobify 6 months ago
@Blahblobify That's not true. I have a video of somebody shooting an AK to 400 yards. I have the link if you want.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
AK's shoot about 5 MOA so at 400 yards he'll be lucky to get less than a 20" group
Blahblobify 6 months ago
@Blahblobify If you saw the video, he hit every time so that's a kill shot every time.
esh325 6 months ago
@esh325
i saw the video, but he didn't do a close up of the target,how do you know they were all "kill shots"?
i couldn't even tell he hit it more than 5 or 6 times, all I saw was him shooting at it
Blahblobify 6 months ago