M1 Garand & M1903 Springfield - Page 2

agtman · December 21, 2016, 04:59 PM

Quote:

Many other lies were told about those rifles. Receivers were often soft due to the heat required for welding. * * * Avoid them all! If you already have one, fire it at your own risk!

Good advice. I'd avoid ANY M1 - whether full-size or "Tanker" - that had a welded receiver. Beyond the obvious safety reason, it's unnecessary.

You can buy a stripped original M1 receiver to build up a Tanker if that's what you want. Before CMP stopped selling them, I bought several stripped Grade C receivers. If you've got an old, shot-out gunshow junker, as long as the receiver is intact, you've got the basis to re-build it into what you want. Every other part needed can be scrounged from a source. Barrels, sights, wood, etc.

Mike Stacey at Columbus Machine Works rebuilds standard M1 op rods and can build the correct op rod necessary for an 18" Tanker. Shuff has perfected the length and correct bend of the 16" Mini-G's op rod, which he makes by cutting down, reshaping, and re-pistoning old, out-of-spec standard op rods.

The point being: if you want to go short with an M1, the resources are out there to do it safely. Build or buy. A Mini-G from Shuff or a Tanker from Fulton Armory - if you care to pay the freight.

The CMP, I believe, even offered some Tankers for sale a few years ago, so the shortened Garands are obviously popular.

Just FYI ...

kilimanjaro · December 21, 2016, 05:05 PM

Jungle fighting requires fire superiority, you get that with semiautomatics, not bolt actions. If visibility and deflection are an issue, which they are, the more rounds out, the better.

James K · December 23, 2016, 02:08 AM

The USMC has always been smaller than the Army; the services simply have different missions. It might also be noted that the U.S. and the U.K. are (AFAIK) the only nations that have a distinctive Marine Corps. Other nations give navy personnel such training as may be needed for land duty or small arms use.* In the U.S. WWII service, the larger warships carried a Marine detachment, usually about 100 men under command of a major (out of a total crew of about 2700 men (no women)). They acted as a landing party as needed, guarded the ship at dock, and, in combat manned some of the lighter guns. They also acted (as President Truman famously said) as "the Navy's policemen", guarding both the brig and any enemy prisoners.

Before WWII, the USMC had only about 19,000 men; during the war, the service was expanded to roughly 470,000. Marines participated in early action in the Pacific simply because they were more immediately available, but the numbers were insufficient for the major actions in that region, and most of the troops for the later fighting were from the Army.

Jim

In WWII it was common to read or hear about "Jap Marines", but Japan had no Marine Corps as a separate service. The Imperial Navy ships had special detachments who performed some of the duties of U.S. Marines, but they were sailors (and their helmets featured an anchor), not "marines".

JK

smarquez · December 23, 2016, 02:15 AM

I have an M1 and have shot a Springfield 03A1 many times. I love my M1 and shooting the 03A3 is a dream. Great sights and trigger. Perfect ergonomics for me. I missed the boat when 03A3s were cheap so I kind of hold off buying one. My M1 is from back when CMP (then DCM) sold them for $165 to your door.
The 03A3 is the last real itch I need to scratch.

agtman · December 23, 2016, 06:38 PM

Quote:

The 03A3 is the last real itch I need to scratch.

I had one - bought from the CMP 5 years ago. An 03A3 is waaaay overrated, trust me.

Sold it for more than I paid, and with that money I promptly bought a CMP SG M1 Garand stocked in USGI wood. It's a great shooter too.

baddarryl · January 8, 2017, 09:54 PM

On this subject does the CMP sell any of those welded Garands? I just got a service grade from them, but haven't even disassembled it yet.

P5 Guy · January 9, 2017, 01:20 PM

baddarryl, no the CMP does not sell welded up Garand receivers.
IIRC they had a batch of drill rifles but I think they were all bolt guns 1903/M17s

Screwball · January 9, 2017, 01:37 PM

I liked The Pacific... because of the M1903 use, and the scene where the Marines find a Garand in the Army supply. Only issue is that they used A3s over the older versions.

ClaymoreAKM · January 9, 2017, 01:49 PM

The Army wasn't fully switched over from M1903 to M1 Garand until late 1942/early 1943. Plenty of Army units still carried the '03. In fact there was an entire Army Infantry Regiment in the Normandy Campaign armed with M1903s because of the decision of it's Regimental commander.

Anyway, no, as stated the ballistics from an M1903 and Garand are the same pretty much. Both fired the same round. Accuracy from an M1903 was superior to a Garand which is why most snipers in the USMC and Army carried a '03.

As far as the jungle fighting was concerned, the marines and the Japanese did just fine with bolt guns, though the Garand had an edge. the true weapon that dominated the Jungle was the BAR and various light machine guns employed by both sides.

**44 AMP** · January 15, 2017, 05:51 PM

Quote:

the true weapon that dominated the Jungle was ...

The JUNGLE!

The Japanese named Guadalcanal the "Island of Death" and it wasn't because of the Springfield, Garand, BAR, or any of our weapons. We were usually better armed than they were, and it was a factor, but the jungle itself played a huge role, against both sides, as well. About 2/3 of the Japanese who went to Guadalcanal died there. We killed about 1/3, the jungle got the rest.

Both sides learned a lot of hard lessons, and when applied, made the jungle (in all facets, like disease, difficulty keeping supplied, etc) less of a killer in later campaigns, but it always got some of the troops fighting in it.

tahunua001 · January 15, 2017, 07:07 PM

malaria, dysentery, starvation, and other non bullet firing causes killed as many, if not more soldiers in the south pacific than bullets.

jersurf101 · January 16, 2017, 09:25 AM

I am a former Marine and I own and shoot both rifles. I have a Mixmaster Springfield M1 and 2 1903 A3s that are both Smith corona and made within 1 month of each other in 1944. One was kept pristine and sold through the dcm and I inherited it. This rifle is truly mint and I don't fire it often but she is a tack driver. The other was sporterized and I bought it off of an older gentleman. It has not been drilled or cut and could be returned to original. The bill of sale was in the buttstock and he bought it at the Alabama ordinance depot in 1966 for 47.00 or so.

I love the O3A3 and I do not think there is a better military bolt. That is pure opinion and not fact but these rifles shoot! That said the Garand is vastly superior as a combat weapon. Especially in the jungle. I would take the Garand every time over the O3A3 for a COMBAT role.

eastbank · January 16, 2017, 03:53 PM

my late uncle served in ww-2(army) in the south pacific and told me that he and seven other men ran into 11 japanese at very close range(40-50 yards) as they were taking a rest break they heard them moving towards them and all got ready and when the japanese came up they opened fire with their m-1 garands and to him it seemed like the fireing lasted but 20-30 seconds, him self fireing only 8 rounds as he didn,t get a second clip into his rifle before it was over. all the japanese were shot dead with many having several hits. eastbank.

Model12Win · January 16, 2017, 08:32 PM

I'd rather have the Springer.

The M1 could jam in heavy mud, not an issued with the Springer.

eastbank · January 17, 2017, 07:35 AM

in the case of my late uncle, i,m sure he was glad they had m-1,s as some of the men,even him could have been wounded or killed, but being able to fire 50-60 shots in seconds gave them the upper hand against the japanese. eastbank.

**44 AMP** · January 17, 2017, 10:44 AM

Quote:

The M1 could jam in heavy mud, not an issued with the Springer.

EVERYTHING can jam in heavy mud. It's usually less of an issue with a bolt action, but they are not immune.

The semi auto's advantage over the bolt action in ammo capacity, and especially rate of aimed fire is the reason to have a semi auto in the first place.

That jungle ambush probably would have ended the same way if our side had used Tommyguns, M1 Carbines, or BARs.

Chris_B · February 1, 2017, 05:34 PM

I just noticed a deficiency in photos

Chris_B · February 1, 2017, 05:38 PM

Quote:

I'd rather have the Springer.

The M1 could jam in heavy mud, not an issued with the Springer.

I'd rather not be in a war!

RickB · February 2, 2017, 12:35 PM

I have both an '03 and a Garand.
If I were going to do a lot of holding, carrying, and marching, like my grandfather did in the Great War, I'd prefer the lighter, sleeker '03.
If I were going to do a lot of shooting, I'd prefer the Garand.
The sights on the Garand are miles better than the early, WWI-vintage '03s, but on par with the '03A3s of WWII.
All of the discussions about capacity, firepower, the "ping", etc., vary greatly with the circumstances.
For all of the stories about Germans waiting for the ping to attack, I've heard stories from the Pacific about Japanese counting the five rounds fired from a Springfield before charging; unless you are facing a single opponent, neither story makes much sense.

sig220mwxxxx · February 4, 2017, 01:21 AM

I read your post and then Old Ropers and I guess he has a problem with reading comprehension. You said nothing but good about both army and marines in the Pacific. The fact that the enlisted men in the army actually "made presents" of their m1s to the marines speaks loudly of the togetherness and can do attitude of the US soldier.

**44 AMP** · February 4, 2017, 02:59 AM

Quote:

For all of the stories about Germans waiting for the ping to attack, I've heard stories from the Pacific about Japanese counting the five rounds fired from a Springfield before charging; unless you are facing a single opponent, neither story makes much sense.

The most unbelievable things do happen in war, and some believable things are unable to be proven. And then there are things that just make good stories...

I've heard all kinds of different stories about the "ping". Enemy attack after the ping, GIs bouncing empty clips off rocks to make a ping to get the enemy to attack, GIs working in pairs, one shooting, one in reserve until the ping of the first GI going empty drew the enemy out...all kinds of stories.

Probably all of them happened somewhere, sometime, to somebody. What I know is that from more than a dozen or so yards away, I can't hear the ping of an M1 going empty. It occurs to me, that if you are close enough to hear the ping as a distinct sound, you're also in grenade range.

And, I would think that, if you cannot see the individual who's M1 "pings", then all you know is that somebody is momentarily out of ammo.

So I take the ping thing stories with a grain of salt, like any sea story.

Boncrayon · February 4, 2017, 10:24 PM

I acquired a Remington 03-A3 .30-06 fully parkerized in pristine condition. It came with the original stock (which I kept) but added a sporterized stock for comfort. Wanted to put a scope on it until the gunsmith asked if he could show it to his fellow shop smith. His comment was, "this has not been shot very much, has it?" Both gun smiths said if it was theirs, they wouldn't alter it since it would mean removing some of the steel to do so. I took their advice. It is a wartime sniper rifle.

Chris_B · February 5, 2017, 06:12 AM

Quote:

I acquired a Remington 03-A3 .30-06 fully parkerized in pristine condition. It came with the original stock (which I kept) but added a sporterized stock for comfort. Wanted to put a scope on it until the gunsmith asked if he could show it to his fellow shop smith. His comment was, "this has not been shot very much, has it?" Both gun smiths said if it was theirs, they wouldn't alter it since it would mean removing some of the steel to do so. I took their advice. It is a wartime sniper rifle.

Hi. I'm a little confused.

If your Remington was a wartime sniper rifle, it already is drilled and tapped for the 'scope mount. The mount uses the dovetail that normally is home to the rear sight, and a drilled and tapped hole on top of the receiver, just a bit rearward of the handguard

The sniper version of the 03A3 was marked '03A3' but that marking and the serial number were offset to the edges of the receiver on each side so that the scope mount would not obscure either set of markings.

Could you please post some photographs of your rifle? It may be 'scope-ready at this very instant with no modifications.

January 9, 2017, 01:49 PM	#34
ClaymoreAKM Member Join Date: January 2, 2017 Location: South of the Mason-Dixon NC Posts: 32	The Army wasn't fully switched over from M1903 to M1 Garand until late 1942/early 1943. Plenty of Army units still carried the '03. In fact there was an entire Army Infantry Regiment in the Normandy Campaign armed with M1903s because of the decision of it's Regimental commander. Anyway, no, as stated the ballistics from an M1903 and Garand are the same pretty much. Both fired the same round. Accuracy from an M1903 was superior to a Garand which is why most snipers in the USMC and Army carried a '03. As far as the jungle fighting was concerned, the marines and the Japanese did just fine with bolt guns, though the Garand had an edge. the true weapon that dominated the Jungle was the BAR and various light machine guns employed by both sides. __________________ Love Your Gun? Hate Your Gun? REVIEW YOUR GUN!

January 15, 2017, 07:07 PM	#36
tahunua001 Senior Member Join Date: July 21, 2011 Location: Idaho Posts: 7,839	malaria, dysentery, starvation, and other non bullet firing causes killed as many, if not more soldiers in the south pacific than bullets. __________________ ignore my complete lack of capitalization. I still have no problem correcting your grammar. I never said half the stuff people said I did-Albert Einstein You can't believe everything you read on the internet-Benjamin Franklin

February 2, 2017, 12:35 PM	#44
RickB Senior Member Join Date: March 1, 2000 Location: Boise, ID Posts: 8,518	I have both an '03 and a Garand. If I were going to do a lot of holding, carrying, and marching, like my grandfather did in the Great War, I'd prefer the lighter, sleeker '03. If I were going to do a lot of shooting, I'd prefer the Garand. The sights on the Garand are miles better than the early, WWI-vintage '03s, but on par with the '03A3s of WWII. All of the discussions about capacity, firepower, the "ping", etc., vary greatly with the circumstances. For all of the stories about Germans waiting for the ping to attack, I've heard stories from the Pacific about Japanese counting the five rounds fired from a Springfield before charging; unless you are facing a single opponent, neither story makes much sense. __________________ Runs off at the mouth about anything 1911 related on this site and half the time is flat out wrong.

February 4, 2017, 01:21 AM	#45
sig220mwxxxx Senior Member Join Date: April 16, 2011 Location: Marshall, Texas Posts: 104	Wyosmith I read your post and then Old Ropers and I guess he has a problem with reading comprehension. You said nothing but good about both army and marines in the Pacific. The fact that the enlisted men in the army actually "made presents" of their m1s to the marines speaks loudly of the togetherness and can do attitude of the US soldier.

February 4, 2017, 10:24 PM	#47
Boncrayon Senior Member Join Date: March 24, 2008 Posts: 920	M1 Garand & M1903 Springfield I acquired a Remington 03-A3 .30-06 fully parkerized in pristine condition. It came with the original stock (which I kept) but added a sporterized stock for comfort. Wanted to put a scope on it until the gunsmith asked if he could show it to his fellow shop smith. His comment was, "this has not been shot very much, has it?" Both gun smiths said if it was theirs, they wouldn't alter it since it would mean removing some of the steel to do so. I took their advice. It is a wartime sniper rifle.

December 21, 2016, 05:05 PM	#27
kilimanjaro Senior Member Join Date: November 23, 2009 Posts: 3,963	Jungle fighting requires fire superiority, you get that with semiautomatics, not bolt actions. If visibility and deflection are an issue, which they are, the more rounds out, the better.

December 23, 2016, 02:08 AM	#28
James K Member In Memoriam Join Date: March 17, 1999 Posts: 24,383	The USMC has always been smaller than the Army; the services simply have different missions. It might also be noted that the U.S. and the U.K. are (AFAIK) the only nations that have a distinctive Marine Corps. Other nations give navy personnel such training as may be needed for land duty or small arms use.* In the U.S. WWII service, the larger warships carried a Marine detachment, usually about 100 men under command of a major (out of a total crew of about 2700 men (no women)). They acted as a landing party as needed, guarded the ship at dock, and, in combat manned some of the lighter guns. They also acted (as President Truman famously said) as "the Navy's policemen", guarding both the brig and any enemy prisoners. Before WWII, the USMC had only about 19,000 men; during the war, the service was expanded to roughly 470,000. Marines participated in early action in the Pacific simply because they were more immediately available, but the numbers were insufficient for the major actions in that region, and most of the troops for the later fighting were from the Army. Jim In WWII it was common to read or hear about "Jap Marines", but Japan had no Marine Corps as a separate service. The Imperial Navy ships had special detachments who performed some of the duties of U.S. Marines, but they were sailors (and their helmets featured an anchor), not "marines". JK

December 23, 2016, 02:15 AM	#29
smarquez Senior Member Join Date: March 8, 2011 Posts: 135	I have an M1 and have shot a Springfield 03A1 many times. I love my M1 and shooting the 03A3 is a dream. Great sights and trigger. Perfect ergonomics for me. I missed the boat when 03A3s were cheap so I kind of hold off buying one. My M1 is from back when CMP (then DCM) sold them for $165 to your door. The 03A3 is the last real itch I need to scratch.

January 8, 2017, 09:54 PM	#31
baddarryl Senior Member Join Date: March 29, 2011 Location: Cape Fear! Posts: 1,683	On this subject does the CMP sell any of those welded Garands? I just got a service grade from them, but haven't even disassembled it yet.

January 9, 2017, 01:20 PM	#32
P5 Guy Senior Member Join Date: December 1, 2005 Location: Tampa Bay Posts: 1,804	baddarryl, no the CMP does not sell welded up Garand receivers. IIRC they had a batch of drill rifles but I think they were all bolt guns 1903/M17s

January 9, 2017, 01:37 PM	#33
Screwball Senior Member Join Date: May 16, 2012 Location: ME Posts: 771	I liked The Pacific... because of the M1903 use, and the scene where the Marines find a Garand in the Army supply. Only issue is that they used A3s over the older versions.

January 16, 2017, 09:25 AM	#37
jersurf101 Senior Member Join Date: January 27, 2013 Location: Eastern NC Posts: 553	I am a former Marine and I own and shoot both rifles. I have a Mixmaster Springfield M1 and 2 1903 A3s that are both Smith corona and made within 1 month of each other in 1944. One was kept pristine and sold through the dcm and I inherited it. This rifle is truly mint and I don't fire it often but she is a tack driver. The other was sporterized and I bought it off of an older gentleman. It has not been drilled or cut and could be returned to original. The bill of sale was in the buttstock and he bought it at the Alabama ordinance depot in 1966 for 47.00 or so. I love the O3A3 and I do not think there is a better military bolt. That is pure opinion and not fact but these rifles shoot! That said the Garand is vastly superior as a combat weapon. Especially in the jungle. I would take the Garand every time over the O3A3 for a COMBAT role.

January 16, 2017, 03:53 PM	#38
eastbank Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2008 Location: pa. Posts: 2,450	my late uncle served in ww-2(army) in the south pacific and told me that he and seven other men ran into 11 japanese at very close range(40-50 yards) as they were taking a rest break they heard them moving towards them and all got ready and when the japanese came up they opened fire with their m-1 garands and to him it seemed like the fireing lasted but 20-30 seconds, him self fireing only 8 rounds as he didn,t get a second clip into his rifle before it was over. all the japanese were shot dead with many having several hits. eastbank.

January 16, 2017, 08:32 PM	#39
Model12Win Junior member Join Date: October 20, 2012 Posts: 5,854	I'd rather have the Springer. The M1 could jam in heavy mud, not an issued with the Springer.

January 17, 2017, 07:35 AM	#40
eastbank Senior Member Join Date: February 7, 2008 Location: pa. Posts: 2,450	in the case of my late uncle, i,m sure he was glad they had m-1,s as some of the men,even him could have been wounded or killed, but being able to fire 50-60 shots in seconds gave them the upper hand against the japanese. eastbank.

February 1, 2017, 05:34 PM	#42
Chris_B Senior Member Join Date: February 9, 2007 Posts: 3,101	I just noticed a deficiency in photos