Does the M1 Garand have a good trigger?

[Member 75490]

Surprisingly, I could not find an answer anywhere on Google.

I want to know what the trigger is like on the M1 Garand, such as if it hits a wall and breaks clean or not. Any details are appreciated. Thanks

Read More

 

[03A3Sporter]

Yes the Garand has a a decent trigger , most of the as issued guns break pretty cleanly break between 6 to 8 lbs . A tuned trigger can break just under 5lbs .

 

[ron]

The Garand trigger can be tuned to an excellent trigger. It is a two stage trigger. First stage is
2 to 3 pounds and second stage 1.5 to 2 pounds. 2nd stage you hit the wall and have a nice
clean break. By Highpower rules minimum trigger pull is 4.5 pounds.

How To Improve an M1 Trigger

How To Improve An M1 Trigger In One Easy Lesson I remember the day back in 1985 when my first M1 arrived in the mail from the DCM. A very nice condition H&R that I promptly took out to shoot. I thought it was the best $165 I ever spent. The fly in the ointment was the gritty GI trigger...

www.milsurps.com

How many of you guys have trigger jobs done on your Garands? - CMP Forums

Please post your questions and comments regarding CMP Garand Sales here!

b34da70920f9-006155.vbulletin.net

 

[Certaindeaf]

Surprisingly, I could not find an answer anywhere on Google.

I want to know what the trigger is like on the M1 Garand, such as if it hits a wall and breaks clean or not. Any details are appreciated. Thanks

Good enough for WWII so.. you're welcome.

 

[Member 34319]

Usually military rifles don't have good triggers.

 

[Aero Denezol]

I would say yes. Mine are both around 4 lbs., I didn't do any work on the triggers. Of course mine are CMP guns, I don't know if "parts correct" Garands have different triggers from CMP guns. Also, the Garand is heavy, which makes a steady trigger pull easier.

 

[03A3Sporter]

Usually military rifles don't have good triggers.

While that is typically true of most foreign military arms, I've not had that experience of US Martial Arms save the Trap Door which is typically heavy but clean to break.

The M1903 has one of the finest two stage triggers I've ever used period end of story and typically they break around a pound on the second stage. The Garand and M14 typically have very nice breaking triggers in the 6 to 8 lb range as I stated earlier , if the finish has worn they can be smoother and cleaner breaking still. A nice trigger job should result in 5lbs or a bit less , as already stated 4.5 lbs is considered the minimum safe weight for an M1 or M14 trigger though .

What most don't get when it comes to triggers is that smoothness in the pull and a clean break equates to a lighter felt pull are more important in many cases than a actually light weight.

 

[JuglansRegia]

Its similare to a standard AR15 trigger, you can tune them but good luck finding a drop in match trigger. Maybe Giessle can change that.

 

[Member 34319]

While that is typically true of most foreign military arms, I've not had that experience of US Martial Arms save the Trap Door which is typically heavy but clean to break.

The M1903 has one of the finest two stage triggers I've ever used period end of story and typically they break around a pound on the second stage. The Garand and M14 typically have very nice breaking triggers in the 6 to 8 lb range as I stated earlier , if the finish has worn they can be smoother and cleaner breaking still. A nice trigger job should result in 5lbs or a bit less , as already stated 4.5 lbs is considered the minimum safe weight for an M1 or M14 trigger though .

What most don't get when it comes to triggers is that smoothness in the pull and a clean break equates to a lighter felt pull are more important in many cases than an actually light weight.

I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ and what a soldiers life was worth. Was it worth spending more time and money to machine a better weapon if the person using it had a higher likelihood of dying and the weapon getting piled up in some enemies weapons depot?

I'm not sure where the M1 fit into the ranks as far as who was issued them and how many were issued. I do know the closer you get to the bottom, the worse the gear you got.

@Andy54Hawken gets a tag because I think he's a history teacher or was if I recall right? I'd love a history lesson on who used these weapons. I simply don't know.

Just look at the differences with the AR series of rifles in or military. Those at the bottom, get the ones with the worst triggers, mags, you name it. Move up in training and importance you get a nice rifle overall. Not that they don't issue grenade launchers and saws to the lower guys too, but they are usually not first to engage if you know what I mean.

 

[titsonritz]

Its similare to a standard AR15 trigger, you can tune them but good luck finding a drop in match trigger. Maybe Giessle can change that.

Standard milspec AR triggers are single stage, Garands and M14s have a two stage trigger...there is nothing similar about them.

OP yes, even the standard triggers are decent, tuned NM are even better.

 

[Oro]

I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ and what a soldiers life was worth. Was it worth spending more time and money to machine a better weapon if the person using it had a higher likelihood of dying and the weapon getting piled up in some enemies weapons depot?

I'm not sure where the M1 fit into the ranks as far as who was issued them and how many were issued. I do know the closer you get to the bottom, the worse the gear you got.

@Andy54Hawken gets a tag because I think he's a history teacher or was if I recall right? I'd love a history lesson on who used these weapons. I simply don't know.

Just look at the differences with the AR series of rifles in or military. Those at the bottom, get the ones with the worst triggers, mags, you name it. Move up in training and importance you get a nice rifle overall. Not that they don't issue grenade launchers and saws to the lower guys too, but they are usually not first to engage if you know what I mean.

No, it didn't work like that at all.

The desire was to put a quality weapon in the hands of the private soldier, train him to use it well, and support him. The M1 Garand was the best battle rifle on the field in WWII, and it went into the hands of the lowliest soldier in the US Army. In the overall cost of manufacturing a rifle, the cost difference between a mediocre single-stage trigger like in a mil-spec AR and a decent two-stage trigger like in an '03, Garand, M-14, etc. is not that large.

The difference isn't about $$ from the start, but whether there is an individual emphasis in design on excellence (which John Garand possessed), and an institutional emphasis on marksmanship.

How this got aborted on the way to the M-16, I've always wanted to find out and wonder if it's documented anywhere.

 

[solv3nt]

I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ and what a soldiers life was worth. Was it worth spending more time and money to machine a better weapon if the person using it had a higher likelihood of dying and the weapon getting piled up in some enemies weapons depot?

I'm not sure where the M1 fit into the ranks as far as who was issued them and how many were issued. I do know the closer you get to the bottom, the worse the gear you got.

@Andy54Hawken gets a tag because I think he's a history teacher or was if I recall right? I'd love a history lesson on who used these weapons. I simply don't know.

Just look at the differences with the AR series of rifles in or military. Those at the bottom, get the ones with the worst triggers, mags, you name it. Move up in training and importance you get a nice rifle overall. Not that they don't issue grenade launchers and saws to the lower guys too, but they are usually not first to engage if you know what I mean.

I believe there's more than 8M produced from 1942 into the Korean war in the 50s. If I recall, 5M is the approximate number manufactured during WWII. From the onset of the war, the US was behind in production of weapons. Our Marines were the first to start fighting, and they were in the Pacific theater prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Marines first started fighting with the Springfield 1903. The US started building the 1903a3 variant which were used to supplement the 1903. The a3 only had a few variations from the original. Also, Springfield was not, to my knowledge, a contractor for the a3. I haven't researched it, but I would assume that they were in the process of implementing the M1 and other weapons.

The M1 major production was started near the middle of 1942. I have a sub 500k Springfield serial traced back to October or so.

The M1 was the primary rifleman's weapon, replacing the 1903 and a3. The M1 Carbine was provided to paratroopers and tank crews due to the size, along with fighters that were not the primary riflemen.

The a3 was given to many second tier troops, and many made it through the war unfired.

The a3 was modified for a scope, and that variation is the a4. The major difference is that the serial number was rotated such that the d&t wouldn't cover/interfere with it.

 

[Member 34319]

No, it didn't work like that at all.

The desire was to put a quality weapon in the hands of the private soldier, train him to use it well, and support him. The M1 Garand was the best battle rifle on the field in WWII, and it went into the hands of the lowliest soldier in the US Army. In the overall cost of manufacturing a rifle, the cost difference between a mediocre single-stage trigger like in a mil-spec AR and a decent two-stage trigger like in an '03, Garand, M-14, etc. is not that large.

The difference isn't about $$ from the start, but whether there is an individual emphasis in design on excellence (which John Garand possessed), and an institutional emphasis on marksmanship.

How this got aborted on the way to the M-16, I've always wanted to find out and wonder if it's documented anywhere.

Were you in the military? I wasn't, but know plenty that were and are. From what I'm told, the bottom gets the rejects and left overs. They are tested to function, so they perform to the checklist. That doesn't mean they were made to be the finest.

Also, I'll disagree about it not being about money. It's always about money.

 

[Member 34319]

I believe there's more than 8M produced from 1942 into the Korean war in the 50s. If I recall, 5M is the approximate number manufactured during WWII. From the onset of the war, the US was behind in production of weapons. Our Marines were the first to start fighting, and they were in the Pacific theater prior to the attack on Pearl Harbor.

The Marines first started fighting with the Springfield 1903. The US started building the 1903a3 variant which were used to supplement the 1903. The a3 only had a few variations from the original. Also, Springfield was not, to my knowledge, a contractor for the a3. I haven't researched it, but I would assume that they were in the process of implementing the M1 and other weapons.

The M1 major production was started near the middle of 1942. I have a sub 500k Springfield serial traced back to October or so.

The M1 was the primary rifleman's weapon, replacing the 1903 and a3. The M1 Carbine was provided to paratroopers and tank crews due to the size, along with fighters that were not the primary riflemen.

The a3 was given to many second tier troops, and many made it through the war unfired.

The a3 was modified for a scope, and that variation is the a4. The major difference is that the serial number was rotated such that the d&t wouldn't cover/interfere with it.

Good post, thanks for the history.

 

[solv3nt]

Also, Hitler was adamant about overseeing all weapon development, and was prone to making new weapons function the same as he experienced in WWI in the trenches.

For example, he had a bolt action rifle in the trenches, so he didn't trust semi-auto rifles. He didn't believe retractable landing gear were reliable, hence the fixed landing gear on Stuka dive bomber. All attempts at making a fast, lightweight tank were met with contempt, and the armor, guns and engines were increased to make the less vulnerable.

 

[Oro]

Were you in the military? I wasn't, but know plenty that were and are. From what I'm told, the bottom gets the rejects and left overs. They are tested to function, so they perform to the checklist. That doesn't mean they were made to be the finest.

Also, I'll disagree about it not being about money. It's always about money.

Yes, - but questioning my service isn't the point here - facts and history are. Fortunately, I'm skilled at both.

The Garand, which is what is under discussion, was not a cast-off 2nd-tier weapon like you disparage it. Standard issue M-16s and M-4s were also distinctly not bottom-tier rejects that went to the lowest ranked service member. That's just not a broad-stroke accusation you can make wrt an entire weapon class or system. Are there priorities in distribution of equipment, and differences? Yes - it's a form of common sense. But how you are describing it is far from accurate.

 

[03A3Sporter]

Also, Hitler was adamant about overseeing all weapon development, and was prone to making new weapons function the same as he experienced in WWI in the trenches.

For example, he had a bolt action rifle in the trenches, so he didn't trust semi-auto rifles. He didn't believe retractable landing gear were reliable, hence the fixed landing gear on Stuka dive bomber. All attempts at making a fast, lightweight tank were met with contempt, and the armor, guns and engines were increased to make the less vulnerable.

No sir there is no documented evidence to that effect anywhere. The design of the JU87 had been finalized before Hitler became Chancellor and well before he declared himself Fuhrer .

 

[solv3nt]

No sir there is no documented evidence to that effect anywhere. The design of the JU87 had been finalized before Hitler became Chancellor and well before he declared himself Fuhrer .

So you've read the Albert Speer biography?

 

[Andy54Hawken]

@Reno
So the M1 Rifle....

We of course used it in WWII and Korea...also it was used by National Guard units till the 1970's...
Most infamously at Kent State.

Also it was issued to .....
South Korea....
South Vietnam...
Brigade 2506 during the Bay of Pigs Operation...
Many NATO countries used it , till they developed their own battle rifle.

From personal experience....
The M1 was used by some PDF troops in Panama...it was kinda weird being shot at by M1's during our invasion of Panama.
After all the M1 is a "good guy" rifle....
Andy

 

[RVTECH]

The one and only Garand I have EVER shot (Mikej's) has a great trigger and for a 'first timer' I shot it pretty accurately !