Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Good enough for WWII so.. you're welcome.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
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.Usually military rifles don't have good triggers.
I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ and what a soldiers life was worth. Was it worth spending more time and money to machine a better weapon if the person using it had a higher likelihood of dying and the weapon getting piled up in some enemies weapons depot?While that is typically true of most foreign military arms, I've not had that experience of US Martial Arms save the Trap Door which is typically heavy but clean to break.
The M1903 has one of the finest two stage triggers I've ever used period end of story and typically they break around a pound on the second stage. The Garand and M14 typically have very nice breaking triggers in the 6 to 8 lb range as I stated earlier , if the finish has worn they can be smoother and cleaner breaking still. A nice trigger job should result in 5lbs or a bit less , as already stated 4.5 lbs is considered the minimum safe weight for an M1 or M14 trigger though .
What most don't get when it comes to triggers is that smoothness in the pull and a clean break equates to a lighter felt pull are more important in many cases than an actually light weight.
Its similare to a standard AR15 trigger, you can tune them but good luck finding a drop in match trigger. Maybe Giessle can change that.
No, it didn't work like that at all.I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ 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.I think it also has a lot to do with $$$ and what a soldiers life was worth. Was it worth spending more time and money to machine a better weapon if the person using it had a higher likelihood of dying and the weapon getting piled up in some enemies weapons depot?
I'm not sure where the M1 fit into the ranks as far as who was issued them and how many were issued. I do know the closer you get to the bottom, the worse the gear you got.
@Andy54Hawken gets a tag because I think he's a history teacher or was if I recall right? I'd love a history lesson on who used these weapons. I simply don't know.
Just look at the differences with the AR series of rifles in or military. Those at the bottom, get the ones with the worst triggers, mags, you name it. Move up in training and importance you get a nice rifle overall. Not that they don't issue grenade launchers and saws to the lower guys too, but they are usually not first to engage if you know what I mean.
Were you in the military? I wasn't, but know plenty that were and are. From what I'm told, the bottom gets the rejects and left overs. They are tested to function, so they perform to the checklist. That doesn't mean they were made to be the finest.No, it didn't work like that at all.
The desire was to put a quality weapon in the hands of the private soldier, train him to use it well, and support him. The M1 Garand was the best battle rifle on the field in WWII, and it went into the hands of the lowliest soldier in the US Army. In the overall cost of manufacturing a rifle, the cost difference between a mediocre single-stage trigger like in a mil-spec AR and a decent two-stage trigger like in an '03, Garand, M-14, etc. is not that large.
The difference isn't about $$ 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.
Good post, thanks for the history.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.
Yes, - but questioning my service isn't the point here - facts and history are. Fortunately, I'm skilled at both.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.
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.
So you've read the Albert Speer biography?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 .