View Full Version : Is the M1 obsolete???

February 5, 2006, 11:38 PM
...I am having serious doubts of the opinion that it is..compared with 'modern' weapons...I haven't shot one yet..but it is coming..I think the Garand has merits that put it ahead of todays'..I may change my mind after I shoot one for a while but I somehow think I doubt it...

February 5, 2006, 11:52 PM
That depends on your definition of "obsolete".

In my opinion, any rifle that can put eight .30 caliber bullets inside
a 6 inch ring, fired in under 30 seconds, at a range of 200 yards,
is NOT obsolete.

My M-1 Garand will do that. It's nothing special, as Garands go.
A Winchester receiver made in 1943, rebuilt by Army armorers
in 1963. A new barrel and a few other new parts. But the rifle shoots
like it was designed to do, and I think it is still one of the most
dependable auto-loading battle rifles ever built.


February 5, 2006, 11:52 PM
It was obselete as a military weapon by the early 50's but it was an excellent battle rifle when it went into service and has many fans. In terms of accuracy, it can be made to shoot very well - close to the M-14.

The major weakness it has in everyday shooting is the gas-operating rod system which is relatively fragile by today's standards. The garand was designed for medium-burning powder and a 150 gr bullet. Slower powders and/or heavier bullets can bend or break the operating rod. Be careful when shooting commercial ammo - most of it is slower burning powder, so buy 150 gr bullets and not 180 gr. For handloads and match ammo don't load anything heavier than 165 or 168 gr bullets and use a medium powder like IMR 4895.

Remains one of my fav rifles to shoot at the range - especially when the clip flies-out on the last shot.

February 6, 2006, 12:40 AM
Is obsolete, no. In need of being modernized, yes. If you give a squad of trained troops Garands and another with M-16s there are of course situations where the M-16 troops will have the advantage and others where the guys with M1s will have the advantage. However, most often the M-16 will have the advantage. In Iraq we are modernizing M-14s as fast as we can. The M-14 is basicly a Garand that was modernized in the 1950s and is now being modernized in the early 21st century. As much as we would like, the "do-it-all" weapon does not exist, no matter what everyone says. There are things that a Garand can do that an M-16 could only dream of and vice versa.

February 6, 2006, 06:42 AM
It's a classic, very accurate and a piece of American history. I love the rifle and love shooting it but I will take an AR over it anyday in a combat situation, that's what I will say on it.

February 6, 2006, 08:34 AM
It was "obsolete" as the gentleman says by war's introduction...because
1) Overly heavy and (particularly given its weight) under capacity for 1/2 the troops that carried it, but because of military/industrial politics we had no (real) immediate replacement. We really needed something in the way of a spitzer'd 30-30 (i.e., x39) or 7-30 Waters (30-30 necked down to 7mm) for most soldiers - and in a weapon with the weight (3/4 +/- scale M1A/M14) that caliber suggests - well within our industry's abilities but such research/manufacture never really took place....and the majority of the rest of the troops could've carried something shooting a .243 or 7mm-08 short action type round in a semi-auto platform. AND

2) because today there is "at least" the M14 and M1A not to mention the various other .308 and AR platforms.

High Planes Drifter
February 6, 2006, 09:54 AM
I wouldnt be so quick to cut down the effectiveness of the M1 when comparing it to more moden assault rifles. There were instances in the Korean conflict where GI's faced North Korean and Chinese infantry armed with Soviet provided SKS and even AK47 rifles. I saw this on the History Channel. I BELIEVE(dont hold me to this), this was said during the program "Our Time in Hell". It is also in use today in African countries where Im sure it commonly meets the AK47 on the field of battle. Would I choose it over an M4 to clear a house? Noway. As someone said above, there is no perfect rifle. A rifle is a tool; no more, no less. And one should pick the right tool for the job if at all possible. In the cold grey morning the M1 is still an 11.25 pound (loaded), eight shot rifle. There are better choices today for CQ combat. But I do believe the M1 still has a place for fighting. Maybe not in our military, we have a modernized version. But for someone who wants a hardy weapon for a reasonable price, sure. Or for someone in Ca, who is limited in choices, absolutely.

Also, I wouldnt call the its gas system delicate. As long as you use ammunition designed for it, you wont have any problems with it.

February 6, 2006, 10:16 AM
I don't consider Garands obsolete. I agree with the 'match the tool to the task at hand' approach. The biggest short coming I see is the limited capacity due to the eight round clip, hence the M14. I also don't have a problem with the weight. You can shoot a 100 round high power match with no discomfort whatsoever. I wouldn't want to shoot 100 rounds of .30-06 out of a light hunting rifle in the same amount of time. The weight also helps with offhand shooting, as evidenced by all the additional weight applied to AR type target rifles. I own Garands and AR's and love shooting them both. They each have their place.

February 6, 2006, 01:28 PM
By commonly used strict definition, the M1 Garand is obsolete in that more advanced designs are available, and it's no longer produced.
Obsolete doesn't mean junker, it's still a very effective weapon and caliber. Obsolete generally just means surpassed by subsequent developments or evolution.
It's roughly similar to a 286 vs the most current Dell, in the computer world. The 286 did what it was designed to do, but later developments superseded it in general utility.

February 6, 2006, 01:35 PM
Obsolete is a funny and fickel thing when it comes to firearms, as sometimes
it just means something lighter and shorter came out, or funding fell through on a new military firearm project making it "obsolete" before it gets off the ground.Or politics can make something obsolete. Some folks confuse obsolete
with inneffetive, and thats not really the case. A M1, a BAR,A Thompson, a Carbine,a M1919 was what we won a world war with at squad and platoon level. And while every one of these weapons have been deemed by the system to be obsolete...they will still do everything they were capable of doing the day they were shipped from the war time factory. Unlike aviation
where a Sopwith Camel fighter from WW1 wouldnt stand a chance against a F16...a person with a WW1 infantry rifle can easily kill his assault rifle armed contemporary and at greater distance/thicker barriers. What we simply have done in the time since WW2 is back off the power to so called intermediate calibers, quest for better ergonomics, lighter weight, and higher capacity....
that is simply what separates old from new.
Another example of this is a Thompson smg armed person going up against a HK UMP .45 smg armed foe...TSMG may be heavy and obsolete but its just as deadly out to the same ranges as its uber tactical contemporary.

February 6, 2006, 01:54 PM
Ah, Thompsons. "We didn't need 'em in 1914 and we don't need 'em now!"

Byron Adams
February 6, 2006, 03:35 PM
In 1968 I was an infantryman with the 4th Inf in the Central Highlands and carried an M16 using the M193 round.The rifle and cartridge worked.
We were in Bam be Thout at the southern end of the Highlands and met up with an ARVN patrol. Each ARVN was carrying an M1 Garand with several bandoliers.It was a site as they are small in stature and all I could see was their helment and Garand. Byron

February 6, 2006, 03:53 PM
Byron, you must have gotten one of the only M16 rifles that worked there. I went through three in November of 1967 in two weeks. All failed with bolt-over jams. I finally got my M14 back after trading the M16 to an ARVN Ranger for his M2 Carbine, a dozen mags, and a case of ammo. I couldn't keep the M2, but I was told that I'd be reassigned my old TRW M14 if I got it back.

Most ARVN troops near the Rung Sat Special Zone were armed with M2 Carbines, or M3A1 Grease guns. The Garands had been phased out in 1966 around us. :)

February 6, 2006, 04:12 PM


Firearms for the most part are always effective if the operator is. :)


Byron Adams
February 6, 2006, 06:14 PM
JR47, Welcome Home. I got to Nam in Oct 68. A lot of changes had happened to the 16. The powder went back to the Dupont formula. The one the Army decided to use was ball powder producing way too much carbon. Our bolt carriers were chrome,visable chrome. LSA had replaced the oil you probaby had.I cleaned my rifle constantly. I recall opening a crate of ammo and stamped on it was "Dupont Powder". My 16 did well March 5th and 6th,1969. Put a lot of rounds through it thanks to the 66 NVA reinforced with Chinese Nung. What division were you with.
Seeing the ARVN's I spoke of must have been mid Nov 68. Byron

February 6, 2006, 06:56 PM
Is it obsolete? No, all it needs is a folding synthetic stock, picitinney rails, tritium sights, Surefire light, and a vertical foregrip and it will do anything you ask it to.:D

Just kidding, but I do know a deputy who carries one in a Bell and Carlson stock with a light for a patrol rifle. Weight has been slightly reduced with the stock and it seems to balance a little better, IMHO.

February 6, 2006, 07:42 PM
Yes, they are obsolete. Please box all yours up and ship them to me for proper disposal.



In my book, the M1 is a newfound passion and as such is NOT obsolete. It is a sexy rifle that is an absolute hoot to shoot (something about it makes shooting it feel less sterile than shooting, say, an AR15). Plus, they're mostly "grand old men" with a lot of history in them. My 18 year old brother is completely smitten with the "ting!", the personality, the history...all of it.

I can't imagine how it would ever become obsolete as a gold standard "must have". Like a 1911.

February 6, 2006, 07:51 PM
Pardon what may be a stupid question, but why can't clips with a higher capacity than 8 rounds be used/made for the M1 Garand? Is there such a thing? If so, wouldn't that go a long way toward keeping the Garand in the running?

February 6, 2006, 08:13 PM
The size of the clip itself is a specific size so that just as it seats it unlocks the bolt. If you made it any taller, the bolt wouldn't be able to close. Any shorter and it wouldn't be able to strip off a round. The only thing you can do with it is make clips that hold less than 8 rounds for hunting/competition purposes.

February 6, 2006, 10:02 PM
Byron and JR47

I went thru basic at Ft. Lewis in fall 1968 and they were still using M-14's as basic training rifles. I served as a U-21 crew chief at Long Thanh in 1969. We were issued M-14's and a few M-60's for perimeter security. Just before the Cambodian offensive they took our M-14's away and gave us new M-16's still in little white bags from Colt. Mine and lots of the others had jamming problems. We all wanted our M-14's back.

February 6, 2006, 10:13 PM
Also, I wouldnt call the its gas system delicate. As long as you use ammunition designed for it, you wont have any problems with it.

I said it is 'relatively fragile' by today's standards and it is. Most other gas operated rifles will shoot factory ammo without turning part of the rifle into a pretzel (the op-rod). The most common factory load for the 30-06 is 180 gr. but it puts a severe strain on the op-rod and should not be used in the garand.

I mentioned it only to help prevent a less knowledgable shooter from finding out the hard way.

(='.'=)This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny.

February 6, 2006, 10:31 PM
Mark655, also went through basic in Ft Lewis in the fall of 68, B-5-1, trained with the m14, scrawny lil guy then and god was it heavy, found myself in the 11th ACR in the republic of in may of 69, my issue weapon was an m16, what little I fired it I found it to be quit reliable, though my weapon of choice was the M2 or M60, being on an ACAV we were able to pack such things, found them quite reliable to. To answer the thread, is the M1 obsolete, perhaps, do I own one, yes, also and m1a and an m1 carbine, and a couple of ars and a fn fal and an ak and so on, as was pointed out in earlier posts, the right tool for the right job, got to wonder how well the M4 would perform if Irag had heavy forests and jungles.

Robert Foote
February 6, 2006, 11:11 PM
"Obsolete" meaning what? First determine what it is you want to do. Unless you have a string of gunbearers following you some compromising will probably be in order. To me a rifle that delivers reliability, power, and accuracy in the proportions needed will suffice. The Garand does that, and does it well. The M14 is a "product-improved" M1 and has plusses and minuses over its predecessor. The M16 is some peoples' idea of progress. I am less convinced--but it has its niche if that's where you happen to be at the time.

My 1972 CJ-5 is probably obsolete by some yardsticks. I just don't say that it in its presence, and it still packs the mail.

Come to think of it, the M14 is experiencing a bit of a comeback in the current unpleasantness--and what it does is not all that much different from what an equivalent Garand can do...

High Planes Drifter
February 7, 2006, 09:00 AM
I mentioned it only to help prevent a less knowledgable shooter from finding out the hard way

point taken.

February 7, 2006, 10:43 AM
Yes and no.

Yes -- for today's battlefield and load requirements, a heavy, "relatively delicate" (as noted above), full power battle rifle with a capacity of only 8 rounds, no way to top off, heavy ammo

No -- Reliable, great sights, great long range cartirdge, battle proven, relatively inexpensive...if I found myself against the swarming unwashed masses with only a Garand, I certainly could do worse

February 7, 2006, 11:08 AM
It is obsolete, like those bolt action guns that out-sell every other rifle type.

It is not as good a military gun as the ones we have now, but those aren't as good as the ones we haven't bothered to produce.

I really doubt the Army would be all that badly off if they were still carrying M1s. They'd still get the mission done. But that doesn't mean it is as good a tool for the job.

February 7, 2006, 11:33 AM
Well, one has to explain the grounds for calling a rifle obsolete.

For a percentage of Americans, using the word obsolete with an American battle rifle is a fighting word. For them, no rifle made for an American soldier or marine was ever obsolete.

Obsolete, doesn't mean the rifle can't still do what it did in 1898, 1918, 1942, 1944, 1951, 1965 and 2005. That's not what made the rifle obsolete.

The 30-40 Krag, of the Spanish American War, was made obsolete by the Springfield M 1903, one of the battle rifles used by Americans in WWI. The latter rifle had more velocity and greater potential on downrange targets.

The bolt action rifle the Springfield M 1903 was made obsolete by the semi-automatic M1 Garand.

The semi-automatic M1 Garand was suppose to be made obsolete by the automatic select fire M14. Unfortunately, the ordinance department never discovered that the M14 was one horrible, inaccurate rifle on full automatic.

The M14 was made obsolete by a true automatic M16. Unfortunately, the ordinance department decided to use a different gunpowder than used by the inventor, as if there was only one powder for all calibers. Also, the M14 did not match up effectively in a 50 yard firefight with an AK-47.

No rifle exists that can cover a combat situation from 25 yards to 700 yards, effectively in both cases. Compromises are made. An M14, with its larger cartridge, is more efficient than any M16, at 700 yards. An M16, with a 20 inch barrel, has more effectiveness than the semi-automatic M14, in a firefight from 50 to 200 yards.
The M4, a modern rifle, might soon draw the obsolete designation in a coming attraction. The M4 with its short barrel reminds me of another obsolete American rifle, the M1 Carbine.

I can hear the howls from the peanut gallery saying the M1 Carbine and the M4 are not obsolete.

Such is obsolete!

February 7, 2006, 12:31 PM
I love the M1 Garand, but the M14 and M1A made it obsolete years ago. Please tell me one thing the M1 Garand can do that the M14/M1A can't....and don't give me that old argument that the 30-06 is better than the 308. As a military weapon, the 308 is as good as the 30-06 and the M14/M1A holds 20 rounds instead of 8...am I missing something?

February 7, 2006, 04:19 PM
Ok. Got your attention. US Army 1968. Today - vision is shot. So, give me a Garand with an Amerga Ranges, Inc. forward scope mount (no tap/no drill - replaces the rear handguard), Smith rings and a Leupold or Burris scout scope and I will shoot better than some 30 years ago.

M14. Yeah. Had one. When we went to M16s, I asked if I could keep mine. Didn't know - Marines were allowed to do so. Something told me that the performance of the M16 would not be adequate. I dare say, on speculation, that if the company had been given the option, most would have stuck with the M14, including the smaller guys.;)

February 7, 2006, 05:33 PM
Just semantics but obsolete meaning the design is no longer effective,say like a sherman up against a T72.Obsolescent meaning the weapon is still effective
but showing its age so to speak.In the right situation such as long range enggagements Id much rather have the Garand than than any 5.56 made.At any rate I sure dont think the garand is obsolete and is still probably as effective as most 7.62x51 battle rifles.The only drawback I see is the en bloc
8rd clip because of the inability to top off the weapon until its empty.I dont see the 8 rd capacity itself as a big liability,with alittle practice an impressive rate of fire can be achieved.Changing the parameters of the discussion alittle look what beretta was able to do with the design,the BM 59 and variants of it.7.62x51,20 rd detachable mags,some models equipped w/bipods and FA, an excellent weapon then and now and while many would call it obsolescent by that token so would the M14.personally I would consider myself well armed with a Garand particularly in the wide open spaces of the west.

February 7, 2006, 05:40 PM
I'd like to think no, they just improved on it a little.


February 7, 2006, 07:10 PM
Compared against the M16A4 by me:

Garand Drawbacks:
1) Heavy
2) Big
3) Low capacity
4) Difficult/impossible to mount modern optics (ACOG, EOTech, etc)
5) Complex & relatively fragile op rod system
6) Parts availability
7) Monolithic (i.e. not modular - no upper swaps, etc.)

Garand Advantages:
1) More powerful round for longer effective range/penetration/etc.

Lots of drawbacks for an advantage that may be moot (CQB, for example). The P-51 is obsolete as well. However, like the Garand, it is still cool beyond all belief.

February 7, 2006, 08:24 PM
Lets put this to rest - A Garand CAN be topped off. It isnt as convenient as other rifles, but you can do it with no problem. Its not like the whole action locks up. You can easily pop open the action and depress the magazine catch to pop the partially full en-bloc out. You can then add rounds to the en-bloc or dump it in favor of a new one.

This whole "no top off, ever" idea is spawned from video games.

Little Wolf
February 8, 2006, 12:34 AM
Let me just say that I would MUCH rather have an M1 (in .308) than any type of AR (or .223 rifle in general) for combat, or any situation other than competing in a highpower match.

The M1 is much more reliable, has a a greater effective range, and much more stopping power. I wouldn't trust my life on the AR series as I don't consider them reliable. The M1 has few drawbacks (most of which were addressed by the M14). However, the way you guys try to put down the rifle is unreal. Complaining about the size/weight? Come on! A fully loaded A2 weighs only TWO POUNDS less than an M1. I mean give me a break, are you guys boys or men? This is combat, what is a few pounds for a rifle when your average combat load is 60-80 lbs alone?

Next you'll complain about being able to carry less ammo. Yeah, well I'll need less ammo with the .308 or .30-06. One shot, one kill. If I have to shoot someone two or three times with a .223, I don't consider it a benifet that I can carry twice the ammo (would you rather have an AR chambered in .22lr that will allow you to carry 600+ rounds easily?). Not to mention the things that.223 can't even do, such as penetrate barriers and be an effective stopper at 200+ yards.

As for the ammo issue, the Garand was created to cycle and deal with surplus issue ammo. You shouldn't be using anything else, anyway. The standard load is more than enough needed to put a man down (Or several men if you line them up!).

And forget optics, iron sights are the only way to go on a combat rifle, imho. Yep, the M1 Garand is pretty much where it's at. The only rifle I'd rather have in a combat type situation is an M14, or maybe a G3/FAL. But the extra capacity of those rifles is something that will only make a difference during human wave attacks at close/medium range.

February 8, 2006, 12:49 AM
Mt thread was not intended to argue the m1 over late model weapons..rather I am thinking of advantages that might be useful to a civillian like myself...I prefer to own and shoot guns that I enjoy...I have never found shooting the ar15 interesting...I will try the Garand soon and think in the back of my mind that I will take to it in a BIG way...I also see some good merits about the gun...some think the round capacity is too small...I disregard this as I prefer the 1911 over any double-stacked automatic...the m1 has no magazines to foul up or lose...in a prolonged fight...unless there is a large supply of magazines on hand...at some point the empty magazines have to be recharged...the m1 can be reloaded over and over with it's clips with no pause...also the signal of an empty gun is quick with the m1...as soon as the last round is fired out comes the clip...the operator of an ar-15 or m-14 will likely not know it until he pulls the trigger again and nothing happens...some said that the ping sound could give away the unloaded gun to an opponet..but that would have to be in close proximity and the opponet would need to know that he is facing a Garand and what the sound meant..could be misinterpretated as the clinking of empty brass on the ground...although I always admired WW2 weapons I have not seriously considered the m1 as a long range weapon of possible defense until recently...

February 8, 2006, 12:59 AM
..how often do (did) soldiers top off magazines during a fight???..more likely I think they fire until empty then reload..repeat..repeat..

February 8, 2006, 10:21 AM
In my opinion it is...........Essex

February 9, 2006, 07:02 AM
Some countries were still manufacturing and issuing bolt action rifles into the 1950's. Many of them got very little use, however, before being replaced with semi-automatic rifles, and the net result was that a lot of very good condition rifles made it to the surplus market. Amazingly enough, that is still happening, since some armies hang on to their old rifles for a long, long time. As a matter of fact, India was manufacturing Lee-Enfields in 7.62 in the 1960's. Amazingly enough, I don't have one.

I suppose there would have been arguments about the obsolete bolt-actions back then. Some gun writers of long ago thought the '03 Springfield superior to the M1, too. At least they weren't arguing caliber. At any rate, battles were still being fought with bolt action rifles in the 1950's, as well as with M-1 and anything else soldiers could get their hands on. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think AK's saw much, if any, action before 1960 and the Vietnam war (ours, not the French's) was well along before AK's started showing up.

I recall photographs of long Mausers being used in Yugoslavia (as well as Steyr scout rifles), so none of them ever go away, I guess, until someone takes them away and cuts them up or drops them in the sea.

And speaking of photographs, there is one of soldiers or Marines somewhere in the South Pacific during WWII. There are two men firing BAR's over a barricade and about four men loading magazines behind them. That was one way to do it.

Also, notice in the photo of the man with the scoped M-14 how his flak jacket appears to have extended shoulder sections over his upper arms. Also notice that his comrade is not in desert camo. I wonder what sort of stock the M-14 has?

February 9, 2006, 07:09 AM
Also notice that his comrade is not in desert camo.

Look closely at his sholder area he is wearing Desert Camo. :) Just his vest isn't like the people in the backround and like the majority of pictures and vedios of US troops in Iraq :)

On a note about the M1 or any other "old world" so called obsolete design can be used effectivly but you need to realize the weapons limitations and deal with them in the battlefeild. :cool:

I've read all over these forums that US troops dont even use the "Brust" mode on there M16's and only stay on Semi-Auto well if thats the case it doesnt have any advantage over the M1 in fire rate. :) And I'm sure with alittle bit of practice you can be reloading the M1 just as fast as the M16 as you dont need to physicly remove the clip to insert another. With alittle practice I'm sure someone can be just as effective as someone with a "modern" rifle. :cool:


February 9, 2006, 07:14 AM
BlueTrain, Do you have a link to the BAR photo? Perp

Art Eatman
February 9, 2006, 12:04 PM
I'm pretty much in with iamkris. The whole style of warfare has changed, and the good points of the M1 are less important now.

Just a side-note, but I don't know how many folks are familiar with the bayonet drill with an M1. Up close and personal it's a terrible weapon even without ammo. The M16 isn't quite the same, somehow. But, how many times would that scenario occur in today's battlefield?

Today's most important weapon for the infantry is the radio, IMO. The tactics have "sorta" made the M16 more of a close-range, self-defense weapon while calling for the Big Stuff.

Generalizing, of course...


February 10, 2006, 12:01 AM
..fact is, I was considering the M1 for my own possible use...longer-range than some of my handier guns...I have never enjoyed shooting any of the AR15 types...and frankly, I have no use for the 223...I think the M1 is a good choice...sturdy rifle, good sights, easy no-nonsense loading, will drop animals much bigger than a man...not a bad way to hold a defensive position if necessary...and fun to shoot if nothing else.

February 10, 2006, 08:37 AM
If you ran dry on ammo, the M1 makes a much better impact weapon/bayonet handle than the M-16 series.

February 10, 2006, 10:32 AM
Is the M1 obsolete???

In terms of a battle weapon as compared to what's out there today? I'd have to say yes. Even in WWII it was obsolete. Many veterans of that war have stated so. I personally interviewed nemerous combat vets from that war, and they all agreed that if they had a magazine fed rifle that held more than 8 rounds, they would have had more fire power and less men would have died. Some went on to say that men in their rifle companies were killed while trying to reload. A lighter version of the BAR or a magazine fed M-1 with 20 rounds would have saved many lives. Many went on to say that the M-14 would have been a gem!

February 10, 2006, 10:42 AM
TPAW, the M1 was the worst battle rifle in WWII, except for all the other battle rifles! How many Axis soldiers were killed trying to load their bolt action rifles? You can't fight todays war with tomorrows technology, it doesn't work that way. It was a very fine weapon during WWII and Korea.

February 10, 2006, 07:32 PM
It was a very fine weapon during WWII and Korea.

It was even worse in Korea during the enemy's human wave attacks. With the hundreds, perhaps thousands of North Koreans and Chineese charging our lines, the last thing a GI needed was to have to re-load after every 8 shots!

February 10, 2006, 08:34 PM

On a note about reloading the M1 tell me didnt the majority of the Axis only have bolt action rifles with 5 round clips ?? :confused:

That means the American troops could shoot 3 more between reloads and shoot as fast as they can sight in a enemy and shoot them. The Axis had to operate the action of the weapon between each shot!

The M1 was ahead of its time. :cool: It was a short time though with the advent of the M14, AK47 and other semi-auto weapons but for the war itself it was better then the others avalible. :)


February 10, 2006, 08:55 PM

That means the American troops could shoot 3 more between reloads and shoot as fast as they can sight in a enemy and shoot them. The Axis had to operate the action of the weapon between each shot!

I suppose that may be true, but the enemy also had semi and automatic weapons during WWII. During Korea, the NC's and Chinese had an abundance of semi auto and automatic weapons. My comments are those of the men who fought those wars, they would know best and I respect their opinions. When your company of maybe 75 or so men are being attacked by hundreds perhaps a thousand or more enemy during one of their human wave attacks, the situation is grim regardless of how you look at it. But I see your point.

February 10, 2006, 08:56 PM
I didn't care for the M1 over fifty years ago, I was a lefty and it was awkward to load and fire right handed, although I did fire expert. Presently my two favorite
rifles are an 03A3 which is very accurate for me. The other is an 1896 Krag Carbine, also accurate. So I am in no position to call the M1 obsolete.

I would think that the M14 was a better rifle simply because of the magazine and containing more rounds. Yet if I had to go into combat I would prefer an old M1 to my slower bolt actions, but mine are much more accurate. I would not relish desert fighting with the present M16, M4, or similiar arms. Jungle use, maybe.

On the rifle range at Camp Matthews some women were firing 03s at 1000 yds. quite better than we with our M1s at 500 yds. Semper Fi

Robert Foote
February 10, 2006, 09:07 PM
I would like to know how this "fragile" M1 op rod business works. After firing I put a couple drops of bore cleaner in by way of letting it run down the end of the op rod and into the cylinder. Normally I don't do anything else to that end of the system for a year or so--and when I do it's still pretty clean.

At the other end I apply some Militec grease as per usual. Compared to cleaning the ARs this is heaven. Trouble? What trouble?

The rifle was built to handle the old M1 172 grain ball boattail load which was no sissy load--and noticeably heavier than the M2 150 grain flat based one. I routinely fire 168 grain BTHP Sierras with 47 grains of 4895 with no ill effects to the rifle.

As a solo shooter the M1A's 20 round box has its points. With a rifle squad the M1 does a lot of pinging but anything downrange will catch a lot of hell.

The Garand is one of those tools that you grow to appreciate more and more with time.

February 10, 2006, 09:14 PM

I understand that 100%. But I was just stating that in WW2 it was ahead of its time as most infantry had bolt actions. :)


February 10, 2006, 10:53 PM

I understand that 100%. But I was just stating that in WW2 it was ahead of its time as most infantry had bolt actions.

I see it differently. Just because most infantry had bolt actions (if that's accurate, it doesen't really matter), the fact that other semi and automatic weapons were already on the battle field, does not qualify the M-1 as being ahead of its time. It only means that we were able to produce more. As a rifle action, it was not ahead of it's time. Semi and autos existed long before the M-1. JMO

February 10, 2006, 11:09 PM

Yes Semi-automatic weapons and fully-automatic weapons were around but Germany and Japan never seriously went to issue them en-mass to there troops. They could have but they didnt. :)


February 11, 2006, 01:03 AM
Yes Semi-automatic weapons and fully-automatic weapons were around but Germany and Japan never seriously went to issue them en-mass to there troops. They could have but they didnt.

Thank God for us! Happy Shooting......;)

March 2, 2006, 12:52 PM
The M-1 Garand is heavy, yes, but so are many bolt action hunting rifles once you put a sling, ammuntion and a scope on them. The difference is just a couple of pounds for many rifles in the .270 cartridge size and up. The M-1 is also not easy on the shoulder with its metal buttplate and potent cartridge, at least not compared with shooting a lightweight .223 Remington chambered rifle or carbine.

However, if you need thump at distance taking out a handful of targets per rifle, then the M-1 will do the job. Up close and personal, with the baynet fixed, you can gut and skullcrush to your heart's content and it will still be in one piece, more than likely, after you get done doing it.

the AR-15/M-16/M-4 variants work well for shorter range, large multitarget scenarios where you need to fire and retarget when the enemy may be across the street from you rather than 300 or more yard away. You can carry more ammo, but you might also need to fire more ammo to receive the same results.

To my mind, the M-1 and M-14 aren't obsolete, period. They are, however, not as well suited for some of the environments we fight in now. House to house sweeps and street fighting are better done with light, nimble, high capacity weapons that you can point fast and transition from and to another weapon, such as a handgun or shotgun.

If we had to face most of the opposition in the deserts rather than in populated areas, the suitability of the .223 chambered firearms would be a significant disadvantage at distant targets. I think in that situation a larger diameter, heavier bullet fired out of a more potent cartridge case shot with precision would be more suitable.

Rarely is anything totally obsolete, rather the tactics used make it either suitable or unsuitable for use. If certain firearms are obsolete, why then do we arm soldiers and marines with bayonets or fighting knives when they have more efficient firearms?

I have respect for the old warhorses as they still do what they were designed to do even decades after they were designed. Even the Krag rifles can hold their own in the deer woods against a modern Browning bolt action. My Garand can harvest the venison when the AR-15 pattern would just wound it unless I fired several shots rapidly in a row to take it down. Then again, I prefer to use one shot per target to get the job done. I can't speak for our currently deployed fighting men and women. They have different job requirements.

March 2, 2006, 07:47 PM
I always feel the opinions of those who actualy used weapons in combat to be the best. I thank all you vet's for your opinions and your service.

March 2, 2006, 08:55 PM
IMHO the platform is almost irrelevant, it's the guy pressing the trigger. I've had the good fortune to attend a great number of formal training courses and the skill level of most of the instructors is such that I wouldn't want to be within a mile of some of them no matter what weapon they were using.

Doc TH
March 2, 2006, 10:21 PM
Many of the reasons already posted.

March 2, 2006, 10:34 PM
dadgummit, I just got mine. Guess I'm behind the game. :mad:



Guess the 1911s obsolete as well.

March 2, 2006, 11:57 PM
Hey JR47 it's Riverrat66 here. I saw your reply about the M1's. I'd love to own one just for sake of owning one. In fact I went through all the CMP requirements to purchase an M1 several years ago but never sent in the paperwork to finalize the sale. Shame on me, now the price has increased substantially.
Most ARVN troops near the Rung Sat Special Zone were armed with M2 Carbines, or M3A1 Grease guns. The Garands had been phased out in 1966 around us.
Same same for the ROK's. I threw my M-16 overboard and said I lost it just to get my M-14 back, the early M-16's were junk, as you know! I especially hated the Rung Sat area.

Our bolt carriers were chrome,visible chrome
Byron Adams, That made all the difference in the world! BTW I did some work with the 4th Division near Tuy Hoa in 66'.

marks655, it seems everyone wanted their M-14's back!

Blackhorse, "a scrawny lil guy" with an M-60? :cool:

I think the M-14 is far superior to the M1 and it's time has passed. It's a collectors item and has a lot of romance connected to it but I for one would not want to go into combat with one.

March 3, 2006, 12:40 AM
Other than magazine capacity I would have no problem with the M1 as a combat rifle in modern times if needed.

cracked butt
March 3, 2006, 04:33 AM
About as obsolete as the SMLE, SKS, or Mosin Nagant which are also still in use in a few backwater areas of the world.
Is it obsolete in terms of the US military's objectives, Yes.

Ceol Mhor
March 3, 2006, 11:16 AM
The M1 isn't obsolete, but it's not a weapon well-matched with current military doctrine and tactics. If you were to build a military unit around the M1, I expect you could easily have something as effective as a typical modern unit designed around the M16.

March 4, 2006, 06:06 AM
The M1 isn't obsolete, but it's not a weapon well-matched with current military doctrine and tactics. You just defined it as obsolete.:D

March 4, 2006, 02:41 PM
We talk as though obsolete somehow denoted failure. It doesn't. It simply means that the object is no longer a modern first choice.

The bolt-action sporter is obsolete, as is the 1950-1960 musclecar. Swords are obsolete, as are Bowie knives. Yet, all of them are fully capable of performing the same as they did in their heyday.

The M1 Garand could no longer be sustained as a front-line weapon. There aren't enough parts, or armorers, to do so. The M14 is rapidly approaching the same status.

Then again, most of us that are 50+ years of age are also considered as obsolete by the military leadership today.:)

March 4, 2006, 06:00 PM
Then again, most of us that are 50+ years of age are also considered as obsolete by the military leadership today.:)
You mean I can't sign up to go over and fight in the big sand box? :mad: Now you're really making me feel old!;)

March 4, 2006, 08:03 PM
Tried, was told that I'm too old for my specialty. I imagine that I'm not PC enough, either.

Tim R
March 4, 2006, 08:35 PM
It was even worse in Korea during the enemy's human wave attacks. With the hundreds, perhaps thousands of North Koreans and Chineese charging our lines, the last thing a GI needed was to have to re-load after every 8 shots!

TPAW, have your ever been around a practiced M-1 shooter? Reloading is not a problem. While I agree it would have been better to have more rounds available in a mag, the M-1 loads rather quickly. I also believe if the M-1 was mag feed, there still would have been complaints it wasn't a 30 round mag.

You also have to remember the enemy was looking for a weak spot in the line to over run. I don't think even modern weapons would have been enough to stop them in most cases.

March 4, 2006, 08:47 PM
What? No one here been in a firefight? You LIE DOWN in dirt, muck, whatever. And lying down with an M1 doesn't bend or pop loose the mag, the rifle doesn't fill up with muck through the mag well, and oh, you reload after 8 rounds. But you ain't counting.

March 4, 2006, 10:40 PM
What? No one here been in a firefight?
More times then I care to remember and I'm not buying it. I can understand your love for the M1 especially if you carried one and it served you well and saved your life but I had my M-14 in the mud, slop and muck so badly you couldn't even recognize it and never once did it fail me nor did the magazine ever "pop" loose. And 20 rounds is much better then 8! One other thing no one has mentioned, the M-14 with the use of a special tool could become fully automatic although very uncontrollable. Also you can put a scope and tripod on the M-14 something I don't believe is possible on the M1 but correct me if I'm wrong.