Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I'm sure Utah, Badger, and some others will be familiar with all of this. But its interesting. John Garand started designing rifles while employed with the Bureau of Standards. His first the Model T1920, patented and of which less then 20 examples were made. Then the Model 1921, model 1924, model T3E1. The Model T3E1, bore some resemblance to the later M1 Garand, incorporated the "en bloc", but was chambered for the then Army decision to change to .276 caliber. The rifle was tested and passed, but the decision was made to retain the 30-06 caliber. Model T1E1, The T1E1 was the 1st of the Garand type but was changed to chamber the 30-06. All of which had some new inceptions later incorporated into the M1 Garand. The last Model, T1E2, (small parts change design to lower chances of breakage)was later changed to "U.S. Rifle , Caliber .30 M1" on August 3, 1933. Almost 3 years of extensive testing, until approval came on Jan. 9, 1935 as the new rifle for the US Army. The M1 Garand was the first Military Rifle given the designation "M". Many writer make the mistake of writing "M-1", note: the Military never used a dash between the "M" and number. There was a heated debate between the critics of the "Johnson" rifle, designed by Marine Corp Officer Melvin Johnson, and the then approved Garand, of which was the better Military rifle, after the M1 had been approved. Grew so heated in the press, that a Congressional hearing was held. Test on both showed the Garand was clearly the superior of both. It was then Chief of Staff Douglas McArthur who ordered that the .276 cartridge program be abandoned, and the 30-06 be retained as the standard cartridge. On March 3, 1944, Secretary Cordell Hull, bestowed the first Civilian Medal of Honor to John Garand. Between 1941 until VJ Day 1945, some 4,028.395 Garand were manufactured by Springfield and Winchester. Rumours that Winchester first 500 produced M1s were blued, rather then parkerized. Springfields parkerizing were in shades of gray to greenish gray. Were many Winchesters had almost a blackish tint early in production. Just a few interesting things, there are more in Model variations especially sniper. Korean War models, cleaning equipment, take down and cleaning tools, slings, bayonets, etc. Someone could have a huge collection just on the various add ons. MT
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Good read Marshal. Funny how seeming little issues can affect history. If the Quartermaster Corp had not had a huge inventory or .30 caliber ammunition on hand we could be shooting a smaller caliber. Wonder if that would have affected the outcome in things. Probably not. As you may or may not know, I am a big fan of the 30-06 cartridge both for hunting large animals and for target shooting. I guess you could say "It is not for everybody". It's little brother, 7.62x 51 (308) is a close second, but big brother still has the hammer. Times change tho, and I am left with the problem that 30-06 ammunition is not as widespread as it once was. Of course the off the shelf ammunition could be harmful to the M1 Garand, unless you have an adjustable gas plug to compensate for the pressure curve on the op rod and bolt to receiver frame contact. Overloading the system could damage the op rod, and even destroy the receiver. But the availability of the brass and bullets, not to mention the ever present issue of powder and primers, is much more acute than it was, say fifteen years ago. Other than that, what is not to like. The PINNNNNGGGGG is still there.
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 PPU makes 30-06 Garand ammo. It's pretty good stuff and reasonably priced for those who don't reload.
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I see that the CMP is selling CREEDMORE ammunition as M1 compatible. Apparently it is loaded in or near the Southern Store. Federal and Hornady are also selling M1 Specific 30-06 ammunition, but it is mostly for the long range target shooters and if I recollect is in the 165 grain bullet class, rather than the 150 grain bullet. The stuff is out there, you just have to look for it. By the time I shoot up those two spam cans, I will either be too old to get to the range or the doomsday clock will have run out of time. Pinnngggg.
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The PPU stuff is getting hard to find too. People have discovered it.
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The down side is that the Garand is hard on brass. Seems the stripping from the clip and ejection process all put stress and dings in the brass. I have not heard much said about head separation or case splitting but a lot about dings and gouges. I suppose loading to the max might be an issue also. I never go beyond the mid point in the manual.
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The down side is that the Garand is hard on brass. Seems the stripping from the clip and ejection process all put stress and dings in the brass. I have not heard much said about head separation or case splitting but a lot about dings and gouges. I suppose loading to the max might be an issue also. I never go beyond the mid point in the manual. Yeah they sure do git banged up.
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Brass is getting expensive too! I was wondering if anybody is shooting the 165 grain bullets for long range target? I can't see that far, but I am curious about the ballistics. I think I had best stay with the 150 grain FMJ BT
Chantry Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I'm sure Utah, Badger, and some others will be familiar with all of this. But its interesting. John Garand started designing rifles while employed with the Bureau of Standards. His first the Model T1920, patented and of which less then 20 examples were made. Then the Model 1921, model 1924, model T3E1. The Model T3E1, bore some resemblance to the later M1 Garand, incorporated the "en bloc", but was chambered for the then Army decision to change to .276 caliber. The rifle was tested and passed, but the decision was made to retain the 30-06 caliber. Model T1E1, The T1E1 was the 1st of the Garand type but was changed to chamber the 30-06. All of which had some new inceptions later incorporated into the M1 Garand. The last Model, T1E2, (small parts change design to lower chances of breakage)was later changed to "U.S. Rifle , Caliber .30 M1" on August 3, 1933. With the original Springfield Armory about 40 minutes away, I've seen at least some of the prototypes. Definitely worth the visit if you're in CT or MA for some unknown reason.
Stubborn Dutchman, SASS # 61363 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I shoot a 168 grain bullet in CMP competitions. They are more stable than the 150's. It's not just my findings either, as just about every M1 shooter on the line is shooting 168 grain boattails.
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 Brass is getting expensive too! I was wondering if anybody is shooting the 165 grain bullets for long range target? I can't see that far, but I am curious about the ballistics. I think I had best stay with the 150 grain FMJ BT I don't know about the rest, but me and several other shoot 150gr out to 500 yds with no problems. (Yes the targets are way larger, and the only scope used is the spotting scope). MT
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 PPU makes 30-06 Garand ammo. It's pretty good stuff and reasonably priced for those who don't reload. PPU is some good stuff, even for the brass. I have probable 1500 rds of that never fired left. MT
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The local boys at my club shoot 200 yard max targets. That is as long as the range is. I must question some of them about that. I would shoot the discipline too, if I could get up and down, and see the targets.
Chickasaw Bill SASS #70001 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The club can reuse my targets , cuase they AIN'T no holes in em helpin keep cost down CB
Dawg Hair, SASS #29557 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I found out how little I knew about the Garand when I joined the Garand Collectors Assoc. The amount of facts they put out in their quarterly magazine will put you on overload for the next ten years. You'd have to be very wealthy and extremely lucky to be able to own one of each variation of the rifle. Right now I'm just happy with my single one!..........................but...............................................hmmmmm
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The man has caught the fever.
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 The man has caught the fever. It starts with one, and then grows. Be it another rifle or the things that go along with it/them. It's easy to get hooked. MT
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 At camp Perry the standard bullet was the 168 grn Sierra boat taIL. some used the 190 grn at 600 to better buck the wind. The 168 was so dominant that when they issued 118 ball for the service rifle matches I knew guys that would go to their hooch that night and pull all the 174 grn GI bullets and seat 168 grn Sierra's. We called that Mexican Match ammo. We weren't very PC
Alpo Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 I don't know if you mentioned this in your write-up. If you did I musta skipped over it. I used to wonder WHY eight rounds. Seemed like a stupid amount. Then i found an explanation one day. The original gun, in 276 caliber, held ten. Redesigning it to use aught-six, which used a case larger in diameter, reduced the capacity to eight.
Ramblin Gambler Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 How many things were named M1 anyway? So far, I have M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1 tommy gun, and I think I've heard of at least one other M1.
Badger Mountain Charlie SASS #43172 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The military is very proud of their M series. No matter what it is, they usually have an M for it and it stands to reason that there was always a #1 model. Of course, being the military, there are exceptions. Nobody knows why there are exceptions, but there have to be exceptions for the program to work. Or not work. Which ever is the case. And one can always fall back on the old axiom of THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO DO SOMETHING, THE RIGHT WAY, THE WRONG WAY AND THE ARMY WAY. SSGT BUXTON TAUGHT ME THAT.
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 Brass is getting expensive too! I was wondering if anybody is shooting the 165 grain bullets for long range target? I can't see that far, but I am curious about the ballistics. I think I had best stay with the 150 grain FMJ BT Here you go Badger. The 155 and 150 do hold good groupd at 100yds. The shooter with practice I'm sure could improve his grouping. I like the 150 for practice. Serious competition I'll go to the Sierra 168gr. MT https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oq77fhnmrR0
Sparky Nelson Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 How many things were named M1 anyway? So far, I have M1 Garand, M1 Carbine, M1 tommy gun, and I think I've heard of at least one other M1. Wikipedia lists 22 items called "M1" under firearms and military equipment. (Not all of them are U.S. military though.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1
Bugs Bonney SASS # 10171 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 In the Air Force it appears they can only count to 100 or so. Bombers were always prefixed with the Letter B for bomber (duh) with lots of missing numbers for the stuff that didn't make it. You all know the B17, B24, B25, B26, B29, B66, B52. Fighters started out with a P for pursuit and changed to F for fighter during WW2, P38, P40, P47, P51, then the F series started F80, F84, F86 someone got the bright idea in the 50's that we were getting close to 100 so we got the century series. F100, F101, F102, F104, F106 F111 but suppose someone ran out of fingers and toes on his family and suddenly we have B1's, B2's, F16"s F18's and F22's. For some reason they have always hated A for attack aircraft. The A26 was renamed the B26 even though we already had a B26 and we all know how much in love the Air Force is with the A10. What are they going to do when it is time for another B17 etc.? Retire their number and hang it in the Air Force Museum in Dayton I guess!
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 The military is very proud of their M series. No matter what it is, they usually have an M for it and it stands to reason that there was always a #1 model. Of course, being the military, there are exceptions. Nobody knows why there are exceptions, but there have to be exceptions for the program to work. Or not work. Which ever is the case. And one can always fall back on the old axiom of THERE ARE THREE WAYS TO DO SOMETHING, THE RIGHT WAY, THE WRONG WAY AND THE ARMY WAY. SSGT BUXTON TAUGHT ME THAT. Exception? Now they went backwards, the M4. Its hard to understand their designation. Such as what were all the Models between and up to the M14? MT
DocWard Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Wikipedia lists 22 items called "M1" under firearms and military equipment. (Not all of them are U.S. military though.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1 When I went into the Field Artillery, a motor sergeant wanted me to move a 155SP Howitzer after he saw M-109 as one of the things I was qualified to drive. It took a minute for me to convince him I could drive this: https://www.google.com/search?q=m109+truck&biw=1210&bih=621&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=ocrVmLiBR9CKAM%253A%253BhMvWGKvGFwzvGM%253Bhttp%25253A%25252F%25252Fonlytruecars.com%25252Fgallery%25252Freo-m-109.html&source=iu&pf=m&fir=ocrVmLiBR9CKAM%253A%252ChMvWGKvGFwzvGM%252C_&dpr=1&usg=__y2DHp5Is4x8G_VZNbUmxnfrRY9Q%3D&ved=0CCcQyjdqFQoTCML4s_GF2cYCFYt4PgodSAsB0g&ei=5yykVYLpFIvx-QHIloSQDQ#imgrc=ocrVmLiBR9CKAM%3A&usg=__y2DHp5Is4x8G_VZNbUmxnfrRY9Q%3D But not this: https://www.google.com/search?q=m109+howitzer&biw=1210&bih=621&espv=2&tbm=isch&imgil=BgDnR75iUF0OeM%253A%253BI0fFO2rovNMxRM%253Bhttps%25253A%25252F%25252Fcommons.wikimedia.org%25252Fwiki%25252FFile%25253AM109_self_propelled_howitzer-back_right_ID_DM-SN-93-00866.JPEG&source=iu&pf=m&fir=BgDnR75iUF0OeM%253A%252CI0fFO2rovNMxRM%252C_&usg=__w98dq9cPRIQT_cqstKqr-bKDkgc%3D&ved=0CDMQyjdqFQoTCPHx6pSH2cYCFUx6PgodSY8Dgg&ei=Pi6kVfHaBMz0-QHJno6QCA#imgrc=BgDnR75iUF0OeM%3A&usg=__w98dq9cPRIQT_cqstKqr-bKDkgc%3D
Steel-eye Steve SASS #40674 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Exception? Now they went backwards, the M4. Its hard to understand their designation. Such as what were all the Models between and up to the M14? MTThey didn't go backwards; M1, M2, M3 and M4 carbines. The M4 is the carbine version of the M16.
Marshal Dan Troop 70448 Posted July 13, 2015 Author Posted July 13, 2015 They didn't go backwards; M1, M2, M3 and M4 carbines. The M4 is the carbine version of the M16. Your right, wasn't even thinking. Thanks, MT
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 The original M16 carbine was the XM177 aka CAR15.
Utah Bob #35998 Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 So what's an M3 carbine? Only M3 I know of is a SMG. http://www.rockislandauction.com/photos/53/p_standard/ASQ824-T-F2C-L.jpg[/img
DocWard Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2014/11/24/m3-carbine-infrared-sniper-carbine/
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.