M1 Garand: Our New Service Rifle (NRA Review, August 1938)

hm1996

Moderator
Staff member
I was issued my first Garand in 1952 which precipitated a lifelong infatuation with John Garand's creation. Found the following article from the August, 1938 issue of the American Rifleman quite interesting and thought I'd share with any other Garand aficianados out there.



Quote:

M1 Garand: Our New Service Rifle

(Original 1938 Review)
From the August, 1938 issue of American Rifleman By Maj. G.H. Drewry

garand-300x140.jpg


For more than thirty years the Ordnance Department endeavored to obtain a satisfactory semi-automatic or self-loading rifle to replace the bolt action Springfield. These efforts were not confined to the development within the Department. Invitations were extended periodically to gun designers in this country and abroad to submit weapons for test, and tests were made of those received which showed any promise of meeting the specifications prescribed.

During this period of thirty odd years many rifles were received and tested. Mechanisms embodying every known principle of operation were represented in the many types submitted.

After many tests of various calibers, it was decided that the caliber .276 cartridge developed sufficient power for a shoulder weapon and that the use of this smaller cartridge would facilitate the design of a reliable and durable self-loading rifle within the prescribed weight limit and would also reduce the load of the individual soldier due to the lighter weight of the cartridge. Of the several rifles in this caliber submitted for test, two were outstanding: the Pedersen; and the Garand, designed and developed by Mr. John C. Garand. Both Mr. Pedersen and Mr. Garand carried on their development work at the Springfield Armory.

A number of each of these types were manufactured and submitted to the services for test. Both rifles performed very well. However, to adopt a weapon of this caliber involved further complication of the supply problem by the introduction of another type of ammunition.

In the meantime, Mr. Garand, who has been in the employ of the Ordnance Department at the Springfield Armory for the past eighteen years as a designer of automatic weapons, completed a test model of a semi-automatic rifle designed to function with either the Caliber .30, M1, Model 1906, or the caliber .30, M1, service cartridge. This rifle appeared so promising in its preliminary tests that decision to adopt the caliber .276 was held in abeyance. The results of continued tests of the caliber .30 weapon were so excellent that the caliber .276 project was abandoned altogether and the caliber .30 weapon as developed by Mr. Garand was adopted as the standard shoulder weapon of our Army. This action was taken in January, 1936.

The new rifle, with which our troops are to be equipped, is officially known as the “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1,” and popularly as the “Garand Semi-Automatic Rifle.” It is of the gas-operated type and employs an en-bloc type of clip holding eight rounds. A small amount of gas is diverted through a port at the muzzle into a cylinder where it impinges upon the piston of the operating rod, driving it to the rear. The location of the port at the muzzle rather than at some point nearer the breech permits the use of gas at a lower pressure, thereby decreasing the stresses on the operating parts of the rifle.

The rifle has seventy-two component parts, which include springs, pins and screws; weighs about nine pounds; is forty-three inches overall in length; has a pistol-grip type stock; and provision is made for attaching a bayonet.

The rear sight is mounted on the receiver as close to the eye as possible and is of the aperture being seven-hundredths of an inch. The front sight is of the blade type protected by guards similar to those on the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1917.

The first production models were completed and delivered to troops in August, 1937. Since that time a small but constant monthly production, limited by the equipment available, has been maintained.

The total number of rifles for which funds have provided to June 30, 1938, is approximately 7500, and it is expected to complete the delivery of these during the current calendar year. For the fiscal year beginning July 1, 1938, funds have been provided for the manufacturer of and additional quantity of rifles, and funds have also been provided to greatly increase the equipment, such as new and more modern machines, tools, jigs, fixtures and [gages], required in the production of this weapon. These additional facilities will permit a much greater daily production rate than is now available.

In the meantime, the rifles which have been delivered to troops continue to give excellent service. Every organization so far equiped has submitted enthusiastic reports of their performance under all conditions which have been encountered. Demands for this rifle to replace the Springfield are increasing tremendously as its superiority is realized from actual experience with it. This undoubtedly will result in greatly increased yearly appropriations for the production of larger quantities. Even so, it will take several years to complete the rearming of the Regular Army and the National Guard, and as priority will undoubtedly be given to equipping these organizations, it will probably be many years before any of these rifles will become available for other purposes.

From the August, 1938 issue of American Rifleman - thanks to the NRA! ~Mike P., Guns & Gear Editor

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2012/05/02/m1-gar.../#ixzz1vATbHTg2

Regards,
hm
 
Another neat fact is that not only did John Garand design and build the Garand he also designed and built the tooling and machinery used to produce them.
 
Depends on the type and and condition. The CMP is the best route on getting one that is safe and functions correctly and they varying grades to choose from.
 
Originally Posted By: Ricky BobbyWhat is the value of these rifles?

Or maybe I should ask, what should a guy expect to pay for one?

Just curious.

Under more reasonable administrations, the DCM, later known as CMP (see explanation embedded in the Fox news story below) disposed of government surplus M1's through their program which was sponsored by the U S Army for the purpose of training American youth in firearms safety and marksmanship with an eye on possible future military service.

I purchased my first DCM rifle for $76 IIRC. Later the price increased to $98 and they were shipped directly to your door via US mail (after an FBI background check).

The supply of M1's has all but been exhausted but CMP does manage to build a few garands from parts and still offers them for sale. Not sure what current situation is but price ranges from $525 to $950 on their site: http://www.odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm .



Quote:
Obama Administration Reverses Course, Forbids Sale of 850,000 Antique Rifles

Published September 01, 2010
FoxNews.com

The South Korean government, in an effort to raise money for its military, wants to sell nearly a million antique M1 rifles that were used by U.S. soldiers in the Korean War to gun collectors in America.

The Obama administration approved the sale of the American-made rifles last year. But it reversed course and banned the sale in March – a decision that went largely unnoticed at the time but that is now sparking opposition from gun rights advocates.

A State Department spokesman said the administration's decision was based on concerns that the guns could fall into the wrong hands.

"The transfer of such a large number of weapons -- 87,310 M1 Garands and 770,160 M1 Carbines -- could potentially be exploited by individuals seeking firearms for illicit purposes," the spokesman told FoxNews.com.

"We are working closely with our Korean allies and the U.S. Army in exploring alternative options to dispose of these firearms."

Gun control advocates praised the Obama administration for taking security seriously.

"Guns that can take high-capacity magazines The garand uses an 8 round en-bloc CLIP, not a magazine. are a threat to public safety," said Dennis Henigan of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. "Even though they are old, these guns could deliver a great amount of firepower. So I think the Obama administration's concerns are well-taken."

But gun rights advocates point out that possessing M1 rifles is legal in the United States -- M1s are semi-automatics, not machine guns, meaning the trigger has to be pulled every time a shot is fired -- and anyone who would buy a gun from South Korea would have to go through the standard background check.

"Any guns that retail in the United States, of course, including these, can only be sold to someone who passes the National Instant Check System," said David Kopel, research director at the conservative Independence Institute. "There is no greater risk from these particular guns than there is from any other guns sold in the United States."

M1 carbines can hold high-capacity ammunition clips that allow dozens of rounds to be fired before re-loading, but Chris Cox, chief lobbyist for the National Rifle Association, noted that is true about any gun in which an ammunition magazine can be inserted -- including most semi-automatics.

"Anything that accepts an external magazine could accept a larger capacity magazine," Cox said.

"But the average number of rounds fired in the commission of a crime is somewhere between 1 and 2 … this issue just shows how little the administration understands about guns."

He called the administration's decision "a de facto gun ban, courtesy of Hillary Clinton's State Department."

Asked why the M1s pose a threat, the State Department spokesman referred questions to the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives. ATF representatives said they would look into the question Monday afternoon, but on Wednesday they referred questions to the Justice Department. DOJ spokesman Dean Boyd referred questions back to the State Department.

According to the ATF Guidebook on Firearms Importation, it would normally be legal to import the M1s because they are more than 50 years old, meaning they qualify as "curios or relics." But because the guns were given to South Korea by the U.S. government, they fall under a special category that requires permission from the State Department before any sale.

Kopel said that he hopes the State Department spokesman's statement that it is working to "dispose" of the guns does not mean they want to melt them down.

"It seems to have this implication of destruction, which would be tremendously wasteful," he said. "These are guns that should be in the hands of American citizens for marksmanship and safety training."
As was the policy practiced by previous administrations under the auspices of the Director of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM), a branch of the U S Army which later was transferred to the Civilian Marksmanship Program (a civilian board) still in existance but which has nearly exhausted their supply of M1's.

Asked whether melting the guns down would be a good option, Henigan said: "Why let them into the country in the first place? If there is a legally sufficient way to keep them out, we think it's perfectly reasonable to do so."

Past administrations have also grappled with the issue of large-scale gun imports.

The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.

In contrast, 200,000 M1 rifles from South Korea were allowed to be sold in the U.S. under the Reagan administration in 1987.

A decision like that would be better for everyone, Cox said.

"M1s are used for target practice. For history buffs, they're highly collectible. We're going to continue to make sure that this backdoor effort that infringes not only on lawful commerce but on the Second Amendment is rectified."

Henigan disagrees.

"They clearly were used as military guns, and the fact that they likely can take high-capacity magazines makes them a special safety concern," he said.

The White House referred questions on the issue to the Pentagon, which referred questions to the U.S. Embassy in South Korea, which deferred back to the State Department.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/09/.../#ixzz1vAzTQ82Y

Regards,
hm
 
I hope Korea hangs onto them until we have a Republican President to bring them home. I qualified in basic with one and have wanted one for a long time, I'm hoping for a repatriation from Korea.
 
Originally Posted By: jumprightinitI hope Korea hangs onto them until we have a Republican President to bring them home. I qualified in basic with one and have wanted one for a long time, I'm hoping for a repatriation from Korea.

Yeah, Jump. Would be a real shame to see the only large quantity remaining destroyed. It is not beyond the realm of possibility, however. Remember:

Quote:The Clinton administration blocked sales of M1s and other antiquated military weapons from the Philippines, Turkey and Pakistan. It also ended the practice of reselling used guns owned by federal agencies, ordering that they be melted down instead.


While Clinton ordered the destruction of many fine firearms, including Model 52 target .22RF's, M1C & M1D sniper rifles, etc. (all collector items), NRA fought the order and got the destruction stopped. Unfortunately, some were destroyed before it was discovered and a restraining order obtained.

Regards,
hm
 
What anti gun people are thinking is beyond my understanding.As with any law,it only works on people who do not plan to break the law anyway.Any time something bad happens we get another law passed.As everyone knows we already have thousands of laws that cover everything under the sun so if a law meant anything there would be no crime at all.That's like having two hounds,one a good dog and one a trash runner,you can't catch the trash runner so you beat the good dog,makes as much sense as antis thinking.
 
As most of us know, getting firearms out of the hands of the private citizen is just one step along the path for those who want to establish a government run "utopia".

The method isn't important--they will use whatever is available.

There is presently a UN Small Arms Control Treaty being negotiated that, if ratified by the Senate, will destroy our Second Amendment and weaken our national sovereignty.

http://www.un.org/disarmament/convarms/ArmsTradeTreaty/

Remember what President Reagan said about the most scary words in the English language: "We are from the government, and we are here to help".
 


Write your reply...
Back
Top