In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.

Garands? Why?

thesupermonkeythesupermonkey Member Posts: 3,905 ✭✭
edited January 2002 in General Discussion
Ok, ok... I give.What is the deal with the Garands? Beach, 1,000 yards? Surely you jest sir! I mean, I understand that it is a piece of history, but what is soooooo great about these Garands? Who makes the best Garand(Spring Field Armory?)? What kind of accessories can you get for them? What kind of groupings are you talking about at 1,000 yards? How much is too much for one? Gimme' the low down, on Garands...Munkey
"Mommy said there were no real monsters but there are..."
· Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
«1

Comments

  • bhayes420bhayes420 Member Posts: 1,314 ✭✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can't even see a target at 1000 yards, much less hit the dang thing!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    When I shoot mine at one hundred yards it looks like one thousand yards through the sights. I can hit the 300 yard target but that is the longest range around here to shoot. The Garand is just something special, maybe it's the sound after the last round is fired.
    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • offerorofferor Member Posts: 8,625 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Last time I looked, Garands loaded 5 rounds from a stripper clip. That's why I'd prefer, at the very least, a Springfield M1A. And how come both these guns are so heavy? In the Garand, I think the Tanker would be fun, personally. It's carbine length and probably hefts easier -- but of course won't drive a tack at 1000 yards, but with iron sights I can't hold any gun still enough to do that anyway, without a prop, which of course is not what I'm talking about -- range conditions. We're talking about standing in a field and holding that thing out in front of you -- or are we? You Garandites hoping for sitting or prone positions to get your 1000-yard bullseye?
    "The 2nd Amendment is about defense, not hunting. Long live the gun shows, and reasonable access to FFLs. Join the NRA -- I'm a Life Member."
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    PING! Dude, check your thumb!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    Garands hold 8. Its not a stripper clip. Its a plain ol' clip. I can shoot 40 rounds loading 8 at a time with a clip faster than most can shoot 40 having to change a 20 round mag.[This message has been edited by simonbs (edited 01-23-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • concealedG36concealedG36 Member Posts: 3,566 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    The M1A clips hold 5. The GI mags are 20 round, so they fill up with 4 clips. My M1A is very heavy, but when I use it at the range I use my bipod and when hunting I prop it up on my blind "bench". The M1A and Garand are not pleasant to carry all day.And, you guys are correct, 1000 yard shots are not meant to be done offhand, but they are attainable. How many other rifles can you even hit a 1000 yard target with, especially without a scope? The M1 Garand is a piece of history, maybe that's what interests some people. The .30-06 cartridge is powerful too. I say get one of each and then supplement the collection with an AR-15 for lighter weight all-day carry. G36
    Gun Control Disarms Victims, NOT Criminals[This message has been edited by concealedG36 (edited 01-23-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    G36 has the right idea!We should be well-rounded people.Nothing wrong with your Garand in the safe with a FAL on one side and an AK on the other.Don't forget your Bushy and M1A!Nothing like a Rem 700 next to a smokepole.How 'bout a Glock next to a Peacemaker?!?And last, but not least, your .218 BEE next to your .50 BMG.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • gunpaqgunpaq Member Posts: 4,607 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Another advantage of the Garand is when you run out of ammo it makes a damn nice club and pike when things get down to hand to hand.
    Pack slow, fall stable, pull high, hit dead center.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Some history is better left dead.It's too heavy,the gas system sucks and it cant be lubed in combat or it will freeze in the winter and jam from dust in the summer.Think about it- If it was so great there would still be stocks of them in Army warehouses. They're not the choice of foreign armies or insurgents anywhere in the world. They are the Edsel of the gun world and were obsolete at the end of WW2.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    Mine has never jammed.I hunt with mine.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Monkey....With 51clicks up and 3clicks left my Garand will hold the X or 10 ring all day at 1000 yards(the rifle will easily hold shots within a 24" diameter)...I might not be able to do that but the rifle can. The fly in the 1000 yard ointment is the shooter. If the shooter misses a wind change, miscalculates the wind speed by 3mph, or even misses the shadow of a cloud passing over at that range you will be praying that the shot just stays on paper.At 1000 yards if you see a 10mph full value wind you need to crank in about 18 clicks(1/2 minute of angle windage knob) to offset. If the wind is actually 13mph and you make the perfect shot the 3mph difference is going to throw you off 30 inches and you can only hope to catch the 8 ring...and thats for a perfect shot! If you see a 3/4 value 12mph wind and it's actually a full value wind at 15mph the shooter is off by 52 and a half inches give or take a little bit. The Garand can make that shot it's the shooter who doesn't.Accessories for a Garand?....glass bedding, National Match sights, and a trigger job. For techies who want the latest "Star Wars" stocks and whizbang flash adapters and muzzle brakes...they would be disappointed. I guess you could go real super duper high tech and put a Krieger bull barrel on it...but the rifle still doesn't look that different from a stock Garand.Monkey a lot of rifles can shoot like that it just seems to be more fun with a Garand! BeachP.S. With apologises to "Quigley Down Under" I don't think Gary Anderson on his best day with a couple of his Olympic Gold Medals stuffed in his pocket could make a 1000 yard offhand shot....he might get lucky but the rest of us won't! 1000 yards is strictly prone position. Beach
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    It's just one of those old soldier things...it's a way cool wall-hanger, fires a vicious powerful round, and since "Private Ryan" and "Band of Brothers", everybodys gotta have one.....But its a damn big log to hump all day long! But take note: the M1A is still a standard Army sniper rifle, being the military M-14 upgraded to the M-21 sniper system with better everything, synth stock, and a Leatherwood range-finder scope that will enable you to off the enemies' head at 1000 yds IF your that good...
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    OOOPS double tapped post - see below
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis[This message has been edited by Shootist3006 (edited 01-23-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Saxonpig, you have it wrong. Moder combat arms use lighter ammo and selective fire not because that is better than the Garand but because it is too difficult to train riflemen to shoot accurately - hence the need for increased firepower to (hopefully) increase hit probability. Increased firepower means carry more ammo, to do that the ammo needs to be lighter weight, thus the reasoning behind the 5.56 and the 7.62X39. Not because the arms are better but because the bean counters don't want to spend the training time to teach recruits to shoot!BTW, as Beach said, any 1000 yd. shot should be from the prone position (with a tight sling). I have tried it from a sitting position and my groups expand about 4Xs (a 20 inch group [on a VERY good day] becomes an 80 inch group). Shooting offhand, I would expect that to become a 200 inch group - at least.TO ALL, I don't know why this machine has started double tapping posts, maybe the sear is a little worn. Sorry 'bout that.
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis[This message has been edited by Shootist3006 (edited 01-23-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • COWBOYKIDDCOWBOYKIDD Member Posts: 239 ✭
    edited November -1
    I shot my dads garand the first time 8 yrs ago and was very impressed with the acuracy.Unfortunatly he gave the gun to his brother before he died. After looking for a good one since I have been side tracked buying other guns. Then a year ago I found one and bought it. Forgot all about the last shot thing LOL thought I broke it when I heard tin fly. Yeah ok. This may sound dumb but I heard you should only shoot military ammo because factory ammo may be too hot? I wasnt sure so I bought a couple cases of military and it shoots very good.Is this a tale or?
    Politicians Love Gun Control / China Has Gun Control Do any of you reload 30-06 for the garand? If you do what combinations do you use? Bullets,Powder? Thanks[This message has been edited by COWBOYKIDD (edited 01-23-2002).]
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Boy, some of you are really confused between a Garand and an M-14, a stripper clip and an enbloc, 5 and 8, blind magazine and 20 rd. magazine, what gives, some of you are getting old, just kidding, but I know you know what you're talking about, you're even confusing me.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    saxon is correct, the math is supposedly 2 men to care for 1 wounded.
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Exactly. Thats why we love 5.56 so much. You can carry a huge amount of 'em (300-400 rounds in mags) and even if you only wing 'em, they're pretty messed up and out of the fight...US Army studies concluded that infantry combat occurs at close ranges under 300 yards, and he who flies the most rounds in the air wins...but I still want a Garand, just to hang on my wall and scare the crap out of my shooting buddies when the thing goes off. It sounds like a damn anti-tank gun....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Saxon, You are forgetting two very important factors. First; while I agree that most combat takes place close-in (my experience says 100 yards or less - 300 is for desert or mountain warfare), it is vital that, when it is possible to engage at longer ranges, you be able to do so. Second (and more important); the smaller calibers have little or no penetration. You are pretty safe behind a 4" concrete wall if you are facing either a 7.62X39 or a 5.56. Not so with a 30-06, it will punch right through and still have enough punch to do some real damage. My ideal weapon for combat in a built-up area is the BAR. No, it isn't good for stepping in and sweeping a room - but you don't need to step in, stand outside and sweep the room with fire. (Yes, a grenade works even better but you gotta get close to use it.)
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • joeaf1911a1joeaf1911a1 Member Posts: 2,962 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Dont under rate the M-1 Garand. Time was,when soldiers were taught to shoot and hit.Not spray and pray and not a "mouse gun"that the women soldiers could handle easily.I was a WW 2 infantryman and mostly we were issued, or obtained clipped armour peircingammo for the M-1. A brick wall or oak treewas not stopping M-1 A.P. rounds. Even lightarmoured vehicles were given a fit. No, notTiger tanks or anything near them. Will themodern "mouse gun" do it?? Accuracy is justwhat was called for. Max. of 3 m.o.a. andsometimes better. Remember, its a "battlerifle" for men trained to shoot.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • PelicanPelican Member Posts: 1,061 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Shot on a battalion team in '62 with a Garand. Could maintain 10-12" groups from prone on the 1000 yd line if dead calm. This was an amory built NM.If I could find that gun today I would buy it, price no object. Wish I had kept the serial number, I'd advertise for it. v35, there are a lot of ex-gyrenes that were in Korea that would disagree with your assessment.
    "Audemus jura nostra defendere"- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Don't let yer mouth write a check yer body can't cash!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey, agreed, that in it's day the M-1 Garand was the ruler of the battlefield. How could you be in a Wehrmacht company equipped with bolt action Mausers and face off against a company of US Army packing 30-06 semi-autos and expect to survive? In that day, gun for gun, we out-classed the enemy in small arms. But today, don't be so quick to poo-foo the 5.56, especially the ss109 round..it's pretty dangerous. I take more issue with the M-16 than the ammo. I think that weapon is junk. Especially after getting my SAR-3 (AK-74) in 5.56...holy *, what a fun little blaster THAT thing is.....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • royc38royc38 Member Posts: 2,235 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    I can't speak for the Garand at 1000 yds but I can speak for 350yds. It held its own against a M1a and a MIV #2 Enfield. The only people that ever bad mouth a Garand seem to be people that never fired one. They are heavy but very balanced. With the exception of the 8 rd capacity, they still can take out any bad guys as good as anything else out there modern or not. And I for one would never want to run up against someone who had one pointed at me at any distance.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    Ah, the Browning BAR. The gun that looks like a machine gun, is called a squad automatic weapon, and ends up being about as useful as a smoking, sputtering, 16-lb rock.It is really heavy, (considerably more so than the M1, which is already heavy), has a seriously screwed up trigger system, and (worst of all) is quite unable to take belt-linked ammo. It has to take paltry (by squad machinegun standards) 20-round mags.Even the Vickers and Maxim 1903 take linked belts. Yes, it's that sad.This makes it almost useless for heavy, sustained supression fire, which is the only real ostensible purpose for any machine-gun after the trench warfare of WWI.Plus the forward stock has a nasty habit of bursting into flames if you fire more than 2 mags in a row without letting it cool.Oh, did I mention, it's got a fixed barrel. No switching out your barrels on that machine-gun. Why? It doesnt have another one.Righto.The M-60 thankfully pushed it aside eventually.By the way....I've been looking at the schematics for the new version of the M-60, the E3. Saco Defense looks like they did a great job. Most of the original problems have been dealt with.I'd take the 7.62 NATO over the 5.56 in a machine gun any single day of the week, and I've never been a big fan of the M249 SAW. The weight difference is only 4 lbs, so why force your machine-gunner to shoot that little pissant 5.56 round?Generally when you shoot something, you'd like it to die soon afterwards. Not jump like a bee stung it and run away to stick a Q-Tip in the little bitty hole you just made.Stir Stir Stir This conversation's lookin' good!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    I must be confused on some nomenclature.I thought the 60 was already being replaced with the M249, which is actually bigger than the 60 and fires 7.62.I thought the SAW was just an addition to the squad, not the main machine gun.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    The M-249 SAW is basically the FN Minimi with a few minor alterations.Both fire the 5.56 though.The Minimi, the M60, and the SAW are all technically "squad automatic weapons", or light machineguns. They're designed to be lugged around for supression fire by the one guy in the squad who's a machine gunner.The M60 fires the 7.62 NATO cartridge. It's a helluva lot louder and more damaging than the 5.56-firing Minimi or SAW, and only weighs 4 pounds more.That's not to say the original version doesnt have it's own problems, but my vote still lies there.I believe the US uses a tripod-mounted Momma-Deuce for immobile machine-gun fire. Like perimeter defense or something like that.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    About two years ago, I saw a belt-fed macine gun that fires 7.62 that would be replacing the 60. It was slightly larger than the 60.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • jltrentjltrent Member Posts: 9,333 ✭✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    The boy ask about Garand's and now all everybody is talking about a m-60.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • Shootist3006Shootist3006 Member Posts: 4,171
    edited November -1
    Bullzeye, obviously you never carried a BAR. Those that have loved it. Yes, it was heavy (my recollection is 19.5 lbs. - not 16) and had a difficult trigger - well not really the trigger, it was the open bolt that gave a few trouble until they learned to shoot it.Never saw a fore-end catch fire and if you selected slow cyclic rate of fire, you could shoot forever without needing to worry about barrel heat (slight hyperbole there - but, with fire discipline you needn't worry about melting the barrel).What it was was accurate at 1000 yds (would hold about a 6' group - more than good enough) and RELIABLE. The 20 round mag simply meant that your ammo was in manageable size loads, no worrying about twisted or kinked belts or links and two other guys to carry more ammo. I hated the weight but loved the gun, never failed me and capable of punching through almost anything.
    Quod principi placuit legis habet vigorem.Semper Fidelis
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • XracerXracer Member Posts: 1,990 ✭
    edited November -1
    If, indeed, the purpose of a rifle was to wound, not to kill, the M1 suited it's purpose admirably....as any member of "The Flat Thumb Club" can attest.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • simonbssimonbs Member Posts: 994 ✭
    edited November -1
    PING! Dude, watch your thumb!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • BullzeyeBullzeye Member Posts: 3,560
    edited November -1
    16lbs. 1 oz.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • beachmaster73beachmaster73 Member Posts: 3,011 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    bullzeye......the weight you quote is without the bipod. Shootist is right; in standard military configuration it weighed in at 19 pounds. Beach
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Agreed, Saxon...I wasn't comparing tactics, just small arms, particularly infantry rifles. I think everybody here should go out and buy an M-1 now, a bunch of clips and a case of 30-06 GI ammo, and go blast away....come back when you're done and then we'll all know what we're talking about....Nobody should misunderstand, I like the rifle, I think the '06 is the ultimate rifle round, and after firing one long ago, have been looking for a reasonably nice Garand to buy, just because it's history, it's way cool, and it's deadly.....I like it!
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • v35v35 Member Posts: 12,710 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    Pelican, I was there too. Yes,infantry on line felt they put the enemy down very well when hit. Yes, the M-1 outclassed both the WW-1 Moisin Nagant bolt action rifle and the pistol caliber PPSH41 select fire submachinegun they used. However, the M1 had serious design defects as did the BAR when it came to handling dust,rain, cold and corrosive ammo. Both of them were unnecessarily heavy to march and run with, along with all the other stuff one has to carry and thats what the Army and Marines do mostly. Just carrying one from the car trunk to the shooting bench gives a distorted perspective on life in the field with a M-1.The more I talk about it the less I want to see another M-1. They're pteradactyls.
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • robsgunsrobsguns Member Posts: 4,581 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Bullzeye, you stepped in this one bud. I'm not sure where you get your info. but I've carried and fired and employed both the M249 and M240G, our current machine guns in the light and medium class, and both work very well for what they are designed to do. The SAW is not a piece of crap as some may infer, not state, but infer. The 240G, the replacement to the 60, is a much better weapon than the 60, and quite effective. If you, not you personally Bullzeye, anyone, have not used these 2 weapons, you are just quoteing books and hearsay, these guns work, and they are a lot better than their predecessors. The 60 sucks in my book, as it was undependable. As far as weight goes, stop whining, the weight of these guns is the least of your worries when you've got a 70lb. pack on, its 98 degreees, and the guy next to you cant carry himself let alone the 240G, so now you've got your weapon and his. Weight? give me a break. Soldiers, Marines, what have you, just need to step up to the plate and get their sorry butts in shape. What kills me the most is the comment about WWII soldiers not wanting to fire their 1917s because of recoil. I just got one of these great rifles, and it doesnt have any recoil, it just lets you know its their. Those must have been some sorry soldiers that couldnt handle the recoil of the 1917. I'll take the weapons you, some of you, are slamming to combat any day. I'd much rather do that than go up against an enemy, with a Garand, when my enemy has a 30 round mag. attached to an AK variant. For those of you with combat experience, or just experience training with these weapons, or the old ones, I'm sure you can understand my logic here. Let hear from the folks that have fired these weapons, not just the ones who have READ about them. If I offend its not intentional, its just that I get tired of people complaining about the weapons systems we have, when they're better than anything we have had in the past, and have been doing just fine for the U.S. these past couple decades. Can we do better, sure, but for now, they work!
    SSgt Ryan E. Roberts, USMC
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • steve45steve45 Member Posts: 2,940 ✭✭✭
    edited November -1
    v35, I guess you dont own any bolt action rifles because they would be old and useless?
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • COWBOYKIDDCOWBOYKIDD Member Posts: 239 ✭
    edited November -1
    Ok Everyone passed by my post... I just want to know if it is a wives tale or not, Is there a difference between military ammo and store bought stuff? Thanks Kidd
    Thieves in 3 piece suits = Politicians,Doctors & Lawyers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • COWBOYKIDDCOWBOYKIDD Member Posts: 239 ✭
    edited November -1
    Ok Everyone passed by my post... I just want to know if it is a wives tale or not, Is there a difference between military ammo and store bought stuff? Thanks Kidd
    Thieves in 3 piece suits = Politicians,Doctors & Lawyers
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
  • madminutemadminute Member Posts: 68 ✭✭
    edited November -1
    Hey ROBSGUNS: Is the 240g the same M-240 we tankers had mounted to the left of the main gun as a co-ax MG in the M-60 tank? If so, that weapon has been in the inventory for awhile now, but not as an issue SAW like the '60....but we tank guys got in on it early, because if a crew had to bail, the loader could pull 2 pins and drag the gun out to take along, and the kit with the pistol grip, bipod, and stock were there for easy conversion to infantry weapon....the 240 is a Belgian FN-MAG 7.62mm, and kills the M-60 in every category.....
    · Share on FacebookShare on Twitter
Sign In or Register to comment.