View Full Version : HSLD State of the Art Rifle
NousDefionsDoc
08-31-2006, 17:31
LINK (http://www.jouster.com/cgi-bin/garand/garand.pl?read=112039)
SOF Truth #1
The Reaper
08-31-2006, 18:10
He lives in Mass.
State of the art assault weapon for there. Till they outlaw it as well.
TR
Peregrino
08-31-2006, 19:27
I don't understand what the big deal is. 60+ years ago a few MILLION GIs taught "Krauts" and "Japs" to respect the M1. Six years later they did it again for the North Koreans and Chinese. M1s did a fair amount of street fighting in Europe / the Phillipines, and the jungle fighting on the Pacific islands was "up close and personal" too. I love both of mine - and shoot them fairly regular too. My M-4s may be lighter and it's certainly easier to carry lots of ammo for them but the M1 is still a respectable weapon. The rest is nothing more than training and motivation. While I would prefer longer engagement ranges, I wouldn't feel "undergunned" with an M1. My .02 - Peregrino
NousDefionsDoc
08-31-2006, 19:33
The rest is nothing more than training and motivation.
And there is the point Brother.
Humans are more important than Hardware.
;)
82ndtrooper
08-31-2006, 22:07
We'rent some of the M1's modified to accept only .308 Winchester ammunition ? If one were purchased from the CMP program I suppose you'd have to have a qualifed gunsmith inspect the chamber and headspace ?
Nice thread !!:)
I used my M1 Carbine in a similar match earlier this month. No rails, lights, optics, or any of that. That thing is pretty handy.
We'rent some of the M1's modified to accept only .308 Winchester ammunition ? If one were purchased from the CMP program I suppose you'd have to have a qualifed gunsmith inspect the chamber and headspace ?
Nice thread !!:)
Actually the CMP program inspects all the rifles it sells and guarantees they fall within army specs.
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/m1garand.htm#Service
Service Grade Rifles are authentic U.S. Government rifles manufactured 50 to 60 years ago. Most of these rifles have been refinished or rebuilt at least once while in military service and will likely have some parts from other manufacturers. Condition will vary greatly from very good to very well worn. Rifle wear will be exhibited by worn and mixed colors of the parkerized finish; there may be some minor pitting on the metal parts; wood will be basically sound but may have minor hairline cracks, dings, scratches and gouges; wood may not match in color, type of wood or condition; bores will be generally good with only minor imperfections; the barrel crown may be nicked, but the muzzle will gauge less than 3 and the throat erosion will gauge less than 5 - well within US Army standards.
The Reaper
09-01-2006, 06:47
We'rent some of the M1's modified to accept only .308 Winchester ammunition ? If one were purchased from the CMP program I suppose you'd have to have a qualifed gunsmith inspect the chamber and headspace ?
Nice thread !!:)
Most of the conversions were done with a chamber insert, IIRC, for the Navy. If you got a real one, you would have a collectible rifle.
The rifles sold by the CMP are already inspected and are safe to fire.
TR
82ndtrooper
09-01-2006, 09:10
Most of the conversions were done with a chamber insert, IIRC, for the Navy. If you got a real one, you would have a collectible rifle.
The rifles sold by the CMP are already inspected and are safe to fire.
TR
I wont wager any guesses on why the Navy wanted to change the caliber of the weapon :munchin Surplus ammo ?
Thanks for the reply's
Springfield Armory was making them new in .308 as well, albeit with new production, non military parts and selling for about $1200+
Gene Econ
09-02-2006, 20:51
I wont wager any guesses on why the Navy wanted to change the caliber of the weapon :munchin Surplus ammo ? Thanks for the reply's
The Navy changed the caliber because they were a whole bunch smarter than the Army. A bunch of M-1s yet the standard issue ammo was 7.62 X 51.
So the Navy did their thing like TR said and I have personally shot some of these Navy re-chambered M-1 Garands not many years ago with issued Lake City M-80 Ball in eight round clips and take my word for it -- it is a much more pleasant and accurate experience than shooting the lousy M-2 Ball out of a Garand.
Many guys had their M-1s re-barreled to 7.62 X 51 when that particular cartridge proved itself to be more accurate than the old M-72 'Match' out of a Garand.
About two months ago I shot some issued Navy M-80 that I plucked from its eight round Garand clips through a state of the art Palma Rifle at 600 yards and it shot the ten ring without a problem. Issued M-80. The secret is that this M-80 that the Navy liked for its re-chambered Garands used an extruded powder and not that lousy ball powder loaded in normal M-80.
Gene
Gene Econ
09-02-2006, 21:03
I don't understand what the big deal is. 60+ years ago a few MILLION GIs taught "Krauts" and "Japs" to respect the M1. Six years later they did it again for the North Koreans and Chinese. M1s did a fair amount of street fighting in Europe / the Phillipines, and the jungle fighting on the Pacific islands was "up close and personal" too. I love both of mine - and shoot them fairly regular too. My M-4s may be lighter and it's certainly easier to carry lots of ammo for them but the M1 is still a respectable weapon. The rest is nothing more than training and motivation. While I would prefer longer engagement ranges, I wouldn't feel "undergunned" with an M1. My .02 - Peregrino
Peregrino:
The reason why the Garand dominated close combat was because of its semi-automatic capability, not its 'accuracy' or power. Joes thought it too long and too heavy and would have preferred a shortened M-1 with less recoil. Hence the abortion termed the M-14, followed by something more user friendly for Joe called the M-16.
I would have a significant lack of confidence if I had to go into Mousl today with an M-1 and a bandoleer of eight round clips.
Have I told you how much the issued M-2 Ball suckes? I have shot that stuff from 1943 lots through the late 1960's and M-2 Ball must be the worse shooting ammo I have ever fired through a steel tube. I have gone to the point of 'Pull / Pushing' issued 150 grain M-2 bullets with issued 7.62 149 grain ball bullets just to ensure I get some sort of consistenty. Three minutes at least.
So far the issued 'Green Tip' M-855 Ball from an issued M-4 will outshoot an M-1with issued M-2 Ball at any range. Man what crap the Joes had to shoot in WWII and Korea.
Gene on Ball Ammo
Peregrino
09-03-2006, 21:40
Gene - I am willing to bet that if you found yourself in harm's way tomorrow with only an M1 to play with that you wouldn't abandon it until you were actually in physical posession of something more to your liking. And I'll also bet that if you did set it aside afterwards, it wouldn't be operable for the next passerby to pick up and use. (I'm pretty sure you don't want one used against you ;) .) The point of my comments is that the M1 Garand is far more versatile than our "modern prejudices" give credence to. I'm not surprised the competitor was able to do well in his shooting game. It's not the weapon, it's the man using it. And, unless I missed his point completely, I think that was where NDD was going from the beginning. Even swords, axes, and knives are still legit weapons (spent yesterday at a local SCA event :p ). After all - isn't that the rationale behind the 21 foot rule?
True, the M1 is no longer "state of the art" and even during its heyday other weapons were more convenient to use in urban combat. (I can only imagine the logistical problems faced by units with 6-8 different types of individual/crew served weapons and their associated ammo.) But we ALL know how GIs bitch about everything they've ever been issued - and yet somehow they still manage to do the job despite the supposed "shortcomings" of the aforementioned "defective" equipment. Every weapon has its detractors, even the M-16 went through teething pains (and both the weapon and its ammo STILL have vocal detractors). I agree about the accuracy comment in favor of the M-16 (family), that's why I quit shooting M1s/M14s/M1As in Service Rifle years ago. I also agree with your comments about the M-2 Ball ammo. I've shot a fair amount myself and I know how it shoots. I've still got several cans of it "laying around here somewhere" including some corrosive stuff that's so bad it'll probably have to be destroyed. (The newer stuff does make a fair "Mexican Match" though.)
Just hoping to clarify the issue a bit - Peregrino.
NousDefionsDoc
09-04-2006, 11:16
And, unless I missed his point completely, I think that was where NDD was going from the beginning.
Roger that.
Gene Econ
10-01-2006, 20:50
It's not the weapon, it's the man using it. And, unless I missed his point completely, I think that was where NDD was going from the beginning. Even swords, axes, and knives are still legit weapons (spent yesterday at a local SCA event :p ). After all - isn't that the rationale behind the 21 foot rule? ..... But we ALL know how GIs bitch about everything they've ever been issued - and yet somehow they still manage to do the job despite the supposed "shortcomings" of the aforementioned "defective" equipment. (The newer stuff does make a fair "Mexican Match" though.) Just hoping to clarify the issue a bit - Peregrino.
Peregrino and NDD:
True -- the man using the weapon makes a difference. However, history has proven that there are limits to how much a man can make that difference. The Japanese lost WWII because of this belief. We won, not as much because our guys were any better, but because we had better weapons. A semi-automatic rifle verses a five shot repeater that -- during WWII -- was already twenty five years obsolete.
One thing I have found kind of weird about the Joe's is their acceptance of equipment that is prone to failure. The M-4, M-9, and rebuilt M-16A2 in that order of numbers of failures to function in one way or the other. The guys clear the malfunction and shoot until it does the same thing again. I honestly think that most of them simply accept that weapons will fail to function. It is kind of frustrating but there is a real ugly part of this too and it deals with laziness by "armorers" and a real broken logistical system.
Well, certainly I would take a Garand if that was the most modern weapon available. You better bet I would rather have a Garand than face someone with a sword or knife. Given a choice between an 0-3 and a Garand, I would take the Garand. Given a choice between an M-14 and a Garand, I would take the M-14. Given a choice between the M-14 and an M-16A1, I take the M-16A1. Between the A-1 and A-2 and I will take the A-2. Between the A-2 and the M-4 -- I will take the A-2. Between the M-4 and an M-14? I have more trust that the M-14 will function than an M-4. Between a issued Garand and an issued M-4? Not really sure. One thing for sure is I would rather bet on an M-4than a rock or sword. I can always throw the M-4 at the guy when it fails to function and grab up a rock.
Gene
NousDefionsDoc
10-01-2006, 20:55
We can agree to disagree, although I only disagree to a point.:cool:
You keep saying "I". That is the point. I will take my Green Hatted Brothers with a Garand over anybody with an M4.
Of course one should always use the best available weapon for the METT-T. But I will take mindset over technology any day.
The Reaper
10-01-2006, 21:59
Gene:
No doubt, you have taught more people with the M-4 than I, but I have never had any real problems with them in the thousands of rounds I have shot through issued and civilian M-4 variants.
I have seen bad ammo and bad mags, and am not a real fan of the gas impingement system, but most of the well-maintained M-4s I have used have done well over 1,000 rounds MTBF, in some cases, more than 5,000 rounds. I have easy access to an M-1, several M-1As/M-14s, and plenty of M16s/M4s. Unless I knew that I was going to an area with regular requirements to engage beyond 250 meters, I would opt for the M-4, some good mags with the green followers, and the Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo. Over 250 meters, I would take the SPR.
Are the problems you are noting due to maintenance, service life, ammo, mags, what? It appears to be Army policy not to maintain a round count or service life on small arms, and just shoot them till someone has the fortitude to turn it in to maintenance and refuse to take it back.
I have seen a LOT of M-9 failures, with most of the Berettas I recently saw on the range choking at least once per mag. That appeared to be a combination of bad mags and excessive use/wear.
Sorry to hear that your troops do not have good rifles. Five years into this war, you would think that we would have most of the small arms issues sorted out.
TR
Team Sergeant
10-02-2006, 08:24
We can agree to disagree, although I only disagree to a point.:cool:
You keep saying "I". That is the point. I will take my Green Hatted Brothers with a Garand over anybody with an M4.
Of course one should always use the best available weapon for the METT-T. But I will take mindset over technology any day.
I agree with this one hundred and ten percent.
It is training and mindset that makes a warrior, not a weapons system. With the proper training and mindset the warrior becomes the weapons system.;)
CPTAUSRET
10-02-2006, 09:17
I agree with this one hundred and ten percent.
It is training and mindset that makes a warrior, not a weapons system. With the proper training and mindset the warrior becomes the weapons system.;)
Not piling on!
But having been shot down more than a couple of times...I initially relied on whatever projectile weapon I had (M-14, B-model, CAR 15-Cobra), eventually the projectiles run out, and I relied on my knife. It happened to be the Aviator issue knife, the one with the sharpening stone in the pocket, never thought much of it prior to that.
It so happened I needed to use a knife more than once.
Gene Econ
10-02-2006, 21:24
I have seen bad ammo and bad mags, and am not a real fan of the gas impingement system, but most of the well-maintained M-4s I have used have done well over 1,000 rounds MTBF, in some cases, more than 5,000 rounds. I have easy access to an M-1, several M-1As/M-14s, and plenty of M16s/M4s. Unless I knew that I was going to an area with regular requirements to engage beyond 250 meters, I would opt for the M-4, some good mags with the green followers, and the Mk 262 Mod 1 ammo. Over 250 meters, I would take the SPR.....Sorry to hear that your troops do not have good rifles. Five years into this war, you would think that we would have most of the small arms issues sorted out. TR
TR:
I note you say that it would be either an M-4 or an SPR. Where is that Garand with its eight round clips of very poor ammunition? He, he, he. The new SPR is to me the top of the heap that an AR-15 design will ever become. I would actually spend money to buy one of those if it were original. They are that good and dependable. So I ask myself, if Crane can make this new SPR so damn good, why can't Rock Island make a service grade that functions?
I did not make my comments based on laziness of some Joes who refuse to clean their carbines or rifles. I make them based on brand new carbines or rebuilt M-16 A-2 Rifles.
I also realize something. You fellows shoot a whole bunch more ammo out of that carbine or A-2 than anyone from 1960 would have dreamed to shoot out of an M-14 or M-1. I once tried doing some CQM with a rack grade M-14. You simply could not shoot fast enough to match the amount of ammo guys were cranking out of their M-4's or A-2's. The recoil became unpleasant after about two magazines as well.
So I figure two things. First, the M-4 has genetic problems that can not be fixed. This means it is more prone to failure than a 20" BBL service AR. The ammo is very high pressure and is designed for a 20" bbl. It will wear out the M-4 faster. Second, it isn't the barrel length that guys piss and moan over, it is stock length. Put a collapsable on an M-16A2 or A4 and you would not have the mechanical problems or the complaining. We did it with a FA Battalion and Rock Island went ballistic even though there were absolutely no failures of any of these M-16A2's.
I do agree with the SOPMOD round counter thing. I think that weapons should be turned in and rebult based on round count, even though it will cost more money in Class IX. But then it is starting to sound like you guys are heading down the road of a competitive shooter!
Gene
The Reaper
10-02-2006, 23:20
Gene:
Funny you should mention the number of rounds fired. I was just thinking the same thing earlier today and believe that your point is well taken.
Look at the basic load for an M-1 or an M-14 rifleman (or for that matter, an AK), compared to an M-16 or M-4 shooter.
IIRC, the basic load for an M-16 is 210 rounds, for the M-14 was 100 rounds, and for the M-1 was 88-104 rounds.
When patrolling, I carried at least 17 mags for my M-16 or M-4. If I were going to be away from regular resupply, I would have a lot more in bandoliers. That would be over 500 rounds loaded.
I never carried an M1 in the field, but by my count, that same number of loaded rounds would be over 60 M-1 clips (5x M-1938 belts), or 25 M-14 mags (12x 2 mag pouches). I do not recall anyone humping that many mags for the M-14, and I doubt few did it with the M-1.
My 17 M-16 mags weighed less than 20 lbs., loaded. 63 M-1 clips weigh over 30 pounds, plus the weight of the extra belts or bandoliers. The 25 M-14 mags weigh well over 30 lbs.
In addition to humping around the ammo, you might actually have to shoot it.
I have fired more than 1,000 rounds of 5.56 in a day without feeling beat up from the recoil. I have never burned through more than 300 rounds of 7.62 from a rifle at one time, but it hurt enough that I would say that anyone shooting 1,000 rounds of 7.62 NATO or .30-'06 in one session from a variety of positions is going to be pretty badly bruised.
In short, I suspect that soldiers carried less ammo and did less shooting than we do today. We can ignore the argument over whether those rounds were more accurate or more effective than the ones fired today. As a standard issue rifle, the M-1 Garand lasted 20 years, the M-14 lasted seven years, and the M-16 has been with us for 42 years with no end in sight. Some units still have M16A1s. In that time, I am certain that our rifles have had more rounds cycled through them than any predecessor has ever had. I think that says something about the design of the weapon and the fact that many are simply shot up. I have seen no issue M16s or M-4s that did not run well out of the box, with good mags and ammo. I have a 10.5" CQB-R carbine that has shot everything from 40grain to 77 grain ammo without a hiccup. The 18" makes almost as much MV as the 20" M-16s. The 16" is not a bad length, but the 14.5" loses a lot of velocity and has the timing cut to a marginally reliable level if the mags and ammo are not up to snuff, and as they are made by the lowest bidder, caveat emptor.
Having said all that, I would not want to have Bob Howard, or Ola Mize, or Fred Zabitowski after me if I had an M-134 Mini-Gun with a trailer full of ammo and they had Krag-Jorgensons. I think that is the point that is being made. A good soldier gets max effectiveness out of whatever he is issued, but the best hardware in the world is less than effective in the hands of a bad soldier. It is the man, not the hardware.
The mandated round-count maintenence and rebuilds would save more money in SGLI and precision ordnance costs than it took to conduct it. If vehicles were operated under the same logic, we would do nothing but operator maintenance on them till they quit running.
Good discussion, hermano.
TR
brianksain
12-24-2006, 12:18
Great thread.
Note: Although it has been over 35 years since we went to the 16 ... There are a lot and I mean A LOT ... of M14s being issued these days.
Cracked stocks, no magazines or cleaning equipment, no mounts or glass ... no owner manuals.
Rifles are older than the parents of the soldier it is issued to. I hear it every day. Still doing good work when they can get the parts for 'em.
SAGE stocks popular. Collapsible, has rails.
Love those old girls ... was will'd the personal M1A of Bruce Robinson, the guy that invented the mildot master ...
But I sure like my 15/16s too.
BK