M1/Enemy Opinion of the M1 Rifle

eclancy · 06-08-2005, 10:48 AM

If you don't like quiz questions don't read on. Thanks

Gentlemen,
Here's a late dated file about July 21, 1945. Germany is defeated but the war goes on with Japan.
This file is from Chief of Research and Development Service.

"In our opinion the most authoritative testimony of the effectivness of our M1 Rifle lies in the fact that.."
What did Germany and Japan do to combat the effect of our M1 Rifle?
Need hits to both of my sites.
Sites:
http://www.garandm1rifle.com
http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy
Email:
garandm1rifle@rcn.com
More files on this are in the up coming Books
Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this
Clancy

leemozoid · 06-08-2005, 12:27 PM

The Japanese were too little/too late with their type 5, a virtual copy of the Garand rifle. The Germans actually produced a superior squad automatic rifle in the STGw but their industrial production cabability was so severly damaged by the daily bombings that they were unable to produce it in sufficient quantites to prevent their inevitable destruction. The quality of that rifle is evidence in its influence on Kalashnikov and his development of the AK 47. I've hit both sites too, Ed. (many, many times each!)

phrogg · 06-08-2005, 01:22 PM

Leemozoid pretty much said it. The Germans invented the Sturmgewer 44 in 1944, and that would have kicked everything's !!! as a standard infantry weapon. Luckily, the Allies managed to take Germany out before they could mass produce it, otherwise we might all be speaking German right now.

Japan just made as much of the cheapest possible guns as quick as they could, hence the horrible quality of the Arisaka rifles made in WWII.

I actually never heard about Japan copying the M1 Garand, but I did see something like that in a game at some point. That's interesting. I know for a fact they copied Germany's jet engine and were going to improve upon it, and would have devastated our side had we not have dropped the nukes and won the war in time.

The Garand was good, but not THAT good. I'd take a Garand over an M-16 for anything beyond 50 yards any day, but an M-16 can at least be used up close for killing people.

The M-14 is a good gun. It's just a garand with a reliable feeding magazine, and with 30 shots of .308 in semi auto, you really can't complain.

Neither the Garand, the M-14, the M-16, or the AK is really the best gun ever made. None are perfect all around. The only reason the Garand was so good in WWII was because it had the vast rate of fire advantage over the bolt action rifles everyone else was using, and it was a lot more accurate than the Jap rifles which weren't made to any standard but being able to shoot.

As for your post, eclancy... I don't get exactly what you're looking for, other than hits to your site, but ok. o_O If you have a more specific question you need answered, I'm sure we could help.

practical · 06-08-2005, 07:49 PM

I personally like the G3/MP10/MP5 family of rifles. Super reliable, accurate, and available in a variety of calibers for any use. That doesn't mean I don't have an itch for a Garand and a M14 though. I've shot both and love both.

7mmag6 · 06-09-2005, 12:06 AM

watch out practical the dam things are addicting, I sure do like my m1a also

Gyrene · 06-09-2005, 01:11 AM

7mmag6 - You are so right about the M1 Garand and M1A addiction. I have been addicted to the M1 Garand since way back in maybe 1944 or 1945. I first fired an M1 Garand in 1949, and that confirmed my addiction, I didn't want to let go of it, but alas, the Naval Service (read: U. S. Marine Corps) was very intent upon it staying in their inventory. I had to volunteer to get the use of one not too long after that.

As to spray and pray with the full autos, it is definitely good in controlling crowds, but it is the aimed shot that gets the job done, except for crowd control. The M1 Garand works very well in close quarter battle, which was confirmed by many more dead German Wehrmacht, and Japanese soldiers, than USGI's. It is true some of the pistol caliber full autos work a little better in the close in fighting where the enemy blood splatters on you, but they are next to useless when you get much beyond 60 to 75 yards, except for crowd control.

The Germans had a very good semi-auto rifle in the G43/K43 series. It fired the 8mm (7.92 x 57mm) which was the round fired in the K98k, and other Mauser designs. If they had made more of them, earlier in the war, we would have really had a bad time, because everywhere they turned up we had a bad time, and it is good for us the G43/K43 was not more plentiful. It had a few problems, but all of the problems were easy to work out (except for the quantity the Germans needed).

The "Japanese Garand", was "too little too late", for them too. The early ones had problems, but the Japanese got most of the problems worked out. As to the Arisakas, they were a pretty good rifle, and not as crude as the Mosin-Nagant {They always work though; unless you get a round down between the follower and the bottom of the magazine! They get there, if you are not watching what you are doing!} used by the Russian Army. The big problem with the Arisaka, was the ammo, which had two major problems, it was scarce (the Japanese soldiers couldn't count on being resupplied (mostly due to the USGI's interfering with their logistics); and the loads in the rounds were far too inconsistent (some of them even were loaded with wooden bullets; most of the lead bullets were underweight, and some only had partial copper jackets, or no copper at all (again mostly due to the USGI's interfering with their logistics)), and many were shorted powder. When your back is against the wall, and the only thing you have left is your spit, that is what you do, SPIT!

The German and Japanese soldiers were very good soldiers, and at least as good as ours (I am not discussing their politics, only their soldiering and combat capabilities), but they were underarmed against the M1 Garand which overcame their efforts.

Even today, you don't want to go up against any military armed with the M1 Garand, they are devastating at distances you can barely stick 5.56 x 45mm (.223) projectiles in wood, the .30-06 will blow the wood apart, or punch through. The .30-06 proof test, early in its life, was to shoot through 60 inches of pine at 200 yards, and another test later, it had to shoot through 24 inches of oak at 200 yards. The 5.56 x 45 (.223) could never do that, and when the enemy is behind any kind of barricade, they are safe from the 5.56 x 45.

================================================== ========
SOME DETAILS ABOUT SPECIFIC RIFLE CARTRIDGES
Taken from data published by Major Richard Culver USMC Retired

7.62 NATO (M14 & M60 Machine-gun):
Bullet Weight = 150 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2700 fps.
Muzzle Energy = 2427 ft. Lbs.
Energy at 500 yds. = 1576 ft. lbs.

5.56 NATO (XM16E1):
Bullet Weight = 55 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 3185 fps
Muzzle Energy = 1239 ft. lbs.
Energy at 500 yds. = 252 ft. lbs. {Wimpish at best!}

.22 Long Rifle (Generic .22 Rifle):
Bullet Weight = 40 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 1335 fps. (high velocity ctg.)
Muzzle Energy = 158 ft. lbs
Energy at 500 yds. = ? {You still wouldn't want to get hit by one at 500 yards!}

7.62 X 39 (SKS & AK-47):
Bullet Weight = 125 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 2400 fps.
Muzzle Energy = 1598 ft. lbs.
Energy at 500 yds. = 414 ft. lbs. {Respectable Knock Down power!}

.30 Carbine:
Bullet Weight = 110 grains
Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2000 fps.
Muzzle Energy = 976 ft. lbs.
Energy at 500 yds. = 182 ft. lbs. {Pretty wimpish!}

The 5.56 x 45mm sure makes the 7.62 x 39 look good, in comparison!

`

grndesert · 06-09-2005, 04:51 PM

The M1 Garand is one of the best guns ever made. "So say all the 'oldtimers while they
have their coffee at DQ. Being most of these guys were in WWII,Korea and Vietnam.
Actual combat experience is what I would go by. The M1 is a legend and a joy to shoot.

eclancy · 06-12-2005, 09:23 AM

Gentlemen,
I was away from the computer on Sat.

Here is the answer to this quiz:

"The Germens tried unsuccessfully to put a semi-automatic weapon of comparable type and caliber into production." That would be the G 43.

Japan change their infantry rifle from a 6.5 the caliber at the beginning of the war to a 7.7 caliber and was equipping their troops with the larger caliber as rapidly as possible. Yes, they did make a copy of the M1 Garand, but only built about 200 of them and never put them into mass production.

Sites:
http://www.garandm1rifle.com
Email:
garandm1rifle@rcn.com
More files on this are in the up coming Books
Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this
Clancy
ps Gyrene, nice post Thanks

Gyrene · 06-18-2005, 11:37 PM

eclancy - The Germans did put the G-43/K-43 into production, that is why there are so many of them here (in the USA) in the hands of gun collectors. They were produced by both Mauser and Walther, from 1943 to the end of the war.

http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl12-e.htm

Several friends of mine have some pristine G-43's, in sniper configuration (with original scopes with matching S/N's to the rifles; contrary to what the link has to say, they are G-43's), and shoot them fairly regularly. I will be picking up 1 of each (G-43 [Gewehr] and K-43 [Karabiner]) soon; the major difference is about 1 3/4" in the length, at least in the G-43/K-43 rifles and carbines that I have had the pleasure of handling. I am sure there was a reason for the differences in length, because the Germans always have a reason when they do things.

There were much smaller quantities in the hands of the German soldiers, than M1 Garands in the hands of USGI's, in part, because they were started into production far too late in the War. They were too little, too late to overcome the effects of the M1 Garand. As I had stated earlier, when the German soldiers had them, they were a serious problem for our troops, and it is a very good thing they did not have more.

`

06-08-2005, 10:48 AM	#1
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,337 Trader Rating: (0)	M1/Enemy Opinion of the M1 Rifle If you don't like quiz questions don't read on. Thanks Gentlemen, Here's a late dated file about July 21, 1945. Germany is defeated but the war goes on with Japan. This file is from Chief of Research and Development Service. "In our opinion the most authoritative testimony of the effectivness of our M1 Rifle lies in the fact that.." What did Germany and Japan do to combat the effect of our M1 Rifle? Need hits to both of my sites. Sites: http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy Email: garandm1rifle@rcn.com More files on this are in the up coming Books Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this Clancy __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy

06-08-2005, 12:27 PM	#2
leemozoid Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: SW Missouri Posts: 166 Trader Rating: (0)	They attempted to produce copies for their own troops. The Japanese were too little/too late with their type 5, a virtual copy of the Garand rifle. The Germans actually produced a superior squad automatic rifle in the STGw but their industrial production cabability was so severly damaged by the daily bombings that they were unable to produce it in sufficient quantites to prevent their inevitable destruction. The quality of that rifle is evidence in its influence on Kalashnikov and his development of the AK 47. I've hit both sites too, Ed. (many, many times each!) __________________ Character is doing what is right when no one is looking. Former Rep. J.C. Watts (Oklahoma) Last edited by leemozoid; 06-08-2005 at 03:06 PM.

06-08-2005, 07:49 PM	#4
practical Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: Baton Rouge, LA/Casper, WY Posts: 736 Trader Rating: (0)	I personally like the G3/MP10/MP5 family of rifles. Super reliable, accurate, and available in a variety of calibers for any use. That doesn't mean I don't have an itch for a Garand and a M14 though. I've shot both and love both. __________________ Eric "The secret to life is honesty and fair dealing, if you can fake that you've got it made"

06-09-2005, 12:06 AM	#5
7mmag6 Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 337 Trader Rating: (0)	watch out practical the dam things are addicting, I sure do like my m1a also __________________ This is my rifle. There are many like it, but this one is mine

06-09-2005, 01:11 AM	#6
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886 Trader Rating: (0)	7mmag6 - You are so right about the M1 Garand and M1A addiction. I have been addicted to the M1 Garand since way back in maybe 1944 or 1945. I first fired an M1 Garand in 1949, and that confirmed my addiction, I didn't want to let go of it, but alas, the Naval Service (read: U. S. Marine Corps) was very intent upon it staying in their inventory. I had to volunteer to get the use of one not too long after that. As to spray and pray with the full autos, it is definitely good in controlling crowds, but it is the aimed shot that gets the job done, except for crowd control. The M1 Garand works very well in close quarter battle, which was confirmed by many more dead German Wehrmacht, and Japanese soldiers, than USGI's. It is true some of the pistol caliber full autos work a little better in the close in fighting where the enemy blood splatters on you, but they are next to useless when you get much beyond 60 to 75 yards, except for crowd control. The Germans had a very good semi-auto rifle in the G43/K43 series. It fired the 8mm (7.92 x 57mm) which was the round fired in the K98k, and other Mauser designs. If they had made more of them, earlier in the war, we would have really had a bad time, because everywhere they turned up we had a bad time, and it is good for us the G43/K43 was not more plentiful. It had a few problems, but all of the problems were easy to work out (except for the quantity the Germans needed). The "Japanese Garand", was "too little too late", for them too. The early ones had problems, but the Japanese got most of the problems worked out. As to the Arisakas, they were a pretty good rifle, and not as crude as the Mosin-Nagant {They always work though; unless you get a round down between the follower and the bottom of the magazine! They get there, if you are not watching what you are doing!} used by the Russian Army. The big problem with the Arisaka, was the ammo, which had two major problems, it was scarce (the Japanese soldiers couldn't count on being resupplied (mostly due to the USGI's interfering with their logistics); and the loads in the rounds were far too inconsistent (some of them even were loaded with wooden bullets; most of the lead bullets were underweight, and some only had partial copper jackets, or no copper at all (again mostly due to the USGI's interfering with their logistics)), and many were shorted powder. When your back is against the wall, and the only thing you have left is your spit, that is what you do, SPIT! The German and Japanese soldiers were very good soldiers, and at least as good as ours (I am not discussing their politics, only their soldiering and combat capabilities), but they were underarmed against the M1 Garand which overcame their efforts. Even today, you don't want to go up against any military armed with the M1 Garand, they are devastating at distances you can barely stick 5.56 x 45mm (.223) projectiles in wood, the .30-06 will blow the wood apart, or punch through. The .30-06 proof test, early in its life, was to shoot through 60 inches of pine at 200 yards, and another test later, it had to shoot through 24 inches of oak at 200 yards. The 5.56 x 45 (.223) could never do that, and when the enemy is behind any kind of barricade, they are safe from the 5.56 x 45. ================================================== ======== SOME DETAILS ABOUT SPECIFIC RIFLE CARTRIDGES Taken from data published by Major Richard Culver USMC Retired 7.62 NATO (M14 & M60 Machine-gun): Bullet Weight = 150 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2700 fps. Muzzle Energy = 2427 ft. Lbs. Energy at 500 yds. = 1576 ft. lbs. 5.56 NATO (XM16E1): Bullet Weight = 55 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 3185 fps Muzzle Energy = 1239 ft. lbs. Energy at 500 yds. = 252 ft. lbs. {Wimpish at best!} .22 Long Rifle (Generic .22 Rifle): Bullet Weight = 40 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 1335 fps. (high velocity ctg.) Muzzle Energy = 158 ft. lbs Energy at 500 yds. = ? {You still wouldn't want to get hit by one at 500 yards!} 7.62 X 39 (SKS & AK-47): Bullet Weight = 125 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = 2400 fps. Muzzle Energy = 1598 ft. lbs. Energy at 500 yds. = 414 ft. lbs. {Respectable Knock Down power!} .30 Carbine: Bullet Weight = 110 grains Nominal Muzzle Velocity = approximately 2000 fps. Muzzle Energy = 976 ft. lbs. Energy at 500 yds. = 182 ft. lbs. {Pretty wimpish!} The 5.56 x 45mm sure makes the 7.62 x 39 look good, in comparison! ` Last edited by Gyrene; 06-09-2005 at 02:14 AM.

06-08-2005, 01:22 PM	#3
phrogg Senior Member Join Date: Apr 2005 Posts: 107 Trader Rating: (0)	Leemozoid pretty much said it. The Germans invented the Sturmgewer 44 in 1944, and that would have kicked everything's !!! as a standard infantry weapon. Luckily, the Allies managed to take Germany out before they could mass produce it, otherwise we might all be speaking German right now. Japan just made as much of the cheapest possible guns as quick as they could, hence the horrible quality of the Arisaka rifles made in WWII. I actually never heard about Japan copying the M1 Garand, but I did see something like that in a game at some point. That's interesting. I know for a fact they copied Germany's jet engine and were going to improve upon it, and would have devastated our side had we not have dropped the nukes and won the war in time. The Garand was good, but not THAT good. I'd take a Garand over an M-16 for anything beyond 50 yards any day, but an M-16 can at least be used up close for killing people. The M-14 is a good gun. It's just a garand with a reliable feeding magazine, and with 30 shots of .308 in semi auto, you really can't complain. Neither the Garand, the M-14, the M-16, or the AK is really the best gun ever made. None are perfect all around. The only reason the Garand was so good in WWII was because it had the vast rate of fire advantage over the bolt action rifles everyone else was using, and it was a lot more accurate than the Jap rifles which weren't made to any standard but being able to shoot. As for your post, eclancy... I don't get exactly what you're looking for, other than hits to your site, but ok. o_O If you have a more specific question you need answered, I'm sure we could help.

06-09-2005, 04:51 PM	#7
grndesert Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Harris Co. Texas Posts: 133 Trader Rating: (0)	The M1 Garand is one of the best guns ever made. "So say all the 'oldtimers while they have their coffee at DQ. Being most of these guys were in WWII,Korea and Vietnam. Actual combat experience is what I would go by. The M1 is a legend and a joy to shoot. __________________ I Protect my 1st amendment right by my 2nd amendment right!! :guitar: :gangster:

06-12-2005, 09:23 AM	#8
eclancy Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: N. Catasauqua, Pa Posts: 1,337 Trader Rating: (0)	Gentlemen, I was away from the computer on Sat. Here is the answer to this quiz: "The Germens tried unsuccessfully to put a semi-automatic weapon of comparable type and caliber into production." That would be the G 43. Japan change their infantry rifle from a 6.5 the caliber at the beginning of the war to a 7.7 caliber and was equipping their troops with the larger caliber as rapidly as possible. Yes, they did make a copy of the M1 Garand, but only built about 200 of them and never put them into mass production. Sites: http://www.garandm1rifle.com Email: garandm1rifle@rcn.com More files on this are in the up coming Books Thanks again for taking the time and effort to read and reply to this Clancy ps Gyrene, nice post Thanks __________________ http://www.garandm1rifle.com http://www.users.fast.net/~eclancy

06-18-2005, 11:37 PM	#9
Gyrene Senior Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: CA Posts: 886 Trader Rating: (0)	eclancy - The Germans did put the G-43/K-43 into production, that is why there are so many of them here (in the USA) in the hands of gun collectors. They were produced by both Mauser and Walther, from 1943 to the end of the war. http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl12-e.htm Several friends of mine have some pristine G-43's, in sniper configuration (with original scopes with matching S/N's to the rifles; contrary to what the link has to say, they are G-43's), and shoot them fairly regularly. I will be picking up 1 of each (G-43 [Gewehr] and K-43 [Karabiner]) soon; the major difference is about 1 3/4" in the length, at least in the G-43/K-43 rifles and carbines that I have had the pleasure of handling. I am sure there was a reason for the differences in length, because the Germans always have a reason when they do things. There were much smaller quantities in the hands of the German soldiers, than M1 Garands in the hands of USGI's, in part, because they were started into production far too late in the War. They were too little, too late to overcome the effects of the M1 Garand. As I had stated earlier, when the German soldiers had them, they were a serious problem for our troops, and it is a very good thing they did not have more. `