Gun and Game Forum banner

1 - 15 of 15 Posts

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
on a lark i decided to look it up.
the govt. said 4 MOA was considered acceptable.
i saw them for sale that guarantees under 2.5 moa with match ammo for $1500.
no thanks.
they are cool and all but .......
i thought they would be a lot better shooters.
call me suprised!
my wasr -10 gets 4 MOA

i guess 'BACK IN THE DAY" they were exceptional shooting rifles.
these days 1 MOA isnt that big of a deal

hyper accurate target rifles they aint i guess.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,224 Posts
most service grade M1's will run 2-3" groups. well built match guns are quite capable of 1" groups. my NM M1 is pretty well beat up, and in need of a rebuild before too long, and with danish surplus does 1.5" 5 shot groups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,427 Posts
You are right Billy, target rifles they weren't. That is unless a man with a mauser was your target. While I have several Garands that shoot better than I do, I still remember that they were produced during wartime to hit man-sized targets. Now, the quality on the post-war Springfields is a different story . . . . no rush, better metalurgy, etc.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
i would imagine that if you could see a man you could probably hit him with it.(within reason)
3006 goes a long ways.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,239 Posts
Please put time frame into your analysis

Please note the Garand, when it went into
production in the 1930's, was as phenominally
advanced weapon to issue to the infantry.
It had a firepower advantage the Germans and
Japanese could never approach with their bolt
action rifles. Also, please note millions of people
were brought into the army during WW2 who had
no skills with a rifle. Exceptional accuracy was
not the primary goal. Combat dependability,
firepower advantage, and enough skill to hit an
enemy soldier counted for a great deal in winning the land war.

Note some gunsmiths have done exceptional work
with the Garand and barrels have been made to
the finest standards for target grade competition.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
For all of it's advanced features and the accuracy that the Garand was capable of, it was designed as a tool for the basic infantryman, as was his mess kit, entrenching tool, etc. I love Garands but back in the day they were just another piece of standard-issue equipment for the standard-issue soldier.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
935 Posts
Please note the Garand, when it went into
production in the 1930's, was as phenominally
advanced weapon to issue to the infantry.
It had a firepower advantage the Germans and
Japanese could never approach with their bolt
action rifles. Also, please note millions of people
were brought into the army during WW2 who had
no skills with a rifle. Exceptional accuracy was
not the primary goal. Combat dependability,
firepower advantage, and enough skill to hit an
enemy soldier counted for a great deal in winning the land war.
Note some gunsmiths have done exceptional work
with the Garand and barrels have been made to
the finest standards for target grade competition.
You seem to have a unique quality of stating the obvious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
741 Posts
4 MOA is plenty good enough. The Army did and does consider the individual rifleman a 200-yard weapon system. Many rifles (and troopers) are better than this, of course. However, for planning purposes, anything beyond 200 yards calls for the employment of different weapons.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
4 MOA is plenty good enough. The Army did and does consider the individual rifleman a 200-yard weapon system. Many rifles (and troopers) are better than this, of course. However, for planning purposes, anything beyond 200 yards calls for the employment of different weapons.
This is true. We shot for quals at 200, 300 and 500 meters but the target at the 500 line were BIG. At that range it's just harrassment by small arms.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
30,670 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
im glad i started this thread.
it gives me lots to think about.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,220 Posts
Accuracy is in the stock too. The receiver should fit tight aganist the recoil lug area and when trigger guard is locked in there should be decent resistance about 3/8" before locking into place on well fitting stock. A loose stock causes the group to wonder all over the place like the 4 MOA or worse. I havent attempted to glass bed a Garand stock yet, but soon, have issues with couple rifles. One way to tighten up recoil area is a shim. I found a "Pendeflex" file holder to works well.
Cut to fit around recoil lugs.
Press all into stock.
Use exacto knife to trim.
Whal-la tight rifle.
http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b97/kkbud/DLWRG05100jpg.jpg
Pic is first circled 3 shot group bench rest @ 100 yrds before and after changing gas tube and op rod. Hmm? There was no problem with originals. Garand is CMP Danish Rack Grade Less Wood. With new commercial barrel. The other holes are from the off-hand standing position.

Since then the Boyds stock has loosened up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
186 Posts
Boy, there's lotsa shimmed Garands out there, LOL. A friend of mine was complaining his misfired about every 4th round. I made him a pair of shims from a plastic "Big Gulp" cup, stuck them under the floor plate to keep the trigger group from rattling around. Later on I sent him a link to Reinhardt-Fajen but I don't know if he ever got the hint.
 
1 - 15 of 15 Posts
Top