Garand

[RicInOR]

Didn't General George S. Patton call this rifle the greatest battle implement of all time?

Wasn't always viewed that way.
From 1940

LIFE

Read More

 

[Medic!]

Here you go.
What do you think?

 

[KKG]

Georgie never got a look at the "Improved" version. It is called the M-14.

 

[ma96782]

I can remember seeing them (Johnson Rifle) offered for sale in Shotgun News (long ago).

And back then, Shotgun News also offered for sale....the Pedersen device along with the 1903 Springfield (with cut in receiver) to go along with it.

Can't remember the prices though.

Aloha, Mark

 

[ron]

I have seen Johnson's shooting matches against Garands. Johnson's do not
appear to be more accurate. Rare to see and very valuable firearm. Legal
in John C. Garand matches. Unfortunately, the Johnson's recoiling barrel mechanism resulted
in excessive vertical shot dispersion that was never fully cured during its production life, and
was prone to malfunction when a bayonet was attached to the reciprocating barrel. The Johnson
also employed a number of small parts that were easily lost during field stripping.
Partially because of lack of development, the M1941 was less rugged and reliable than the M1.

 

[Ownerus]

The 1941 Johnson is an interesting rifle, both mechanically and historically but it's not the equivalent as a battle rifle of the M1 Garand. It's even bulkier than the M1 as well as several inches longer. It doesn't reload as quickly as the M1 IMO which sorta obviates any advantage of the 10 round magazine. And, as has been mentioned, it has lots of little fiddly bits. The tent stake bayonet is sort of a joke. Still, it's rare enough to fall into Holy Grail territory for military collectors. Gotta love it for that alone

 

[Boboclown]

Interesting video on what Winchester was trying to do with the M1 Garand. Seems it was outdated even during the war.

The tent stake bayonet is sort of a joke.

The Russians used the spike bayonet on their Mosin Nagants, and the Chinese used some folding spike bayonets as well. They don't have as many uses as bladed bayonets go, but they are easier and cheaper to make, which is why they were still in use at the time. Nothing gets a government entity excited like the word "cheap." They were also easier to use against someone with a heavy coat. Given the sole purpose of a bayonet, at least at the time, was to stab that probably was the reason the Russkies had it. The Chinese? Probably the same reason, the were pretty stab happy in thought.

 

[KKG]

Interesting video on what Winchester was trying to do with the M1 Garand. Seems it was outdated even during the war.

The video just showed that they were already trying to get to something like the M-14. A Larger magazine (rechargeable w/striper clips w/o removing) and Fully Automatic (aka:BAR). I believe it was a mistake when our government decided to go with the M-16. It turned out to be another really bad example of the Government sticking there nose into Military business and getting a lot of GIs killed. Of course, we did keep the Blade Bayonet. Which became more and more of a Knife.

 

[Ownerus]

[QUOTE="Boboclown, post: ]

The Russians used the spike bayonet on their Mosin Nagants, and the Chinese used some folding spike bayonets as well. They don't have as many uses as bladed bayonets go, but they are easier and cheaper to make, which is why they were still in use at the time. Nothing gets a government entity excited like the word "cheap." They were also easier to use against someone with a heavy coat. Given the sole purpose of a bayonet, at least at the time, was to stab that probably was the reason the Russkies had it. The Chinese? Probably the same reason, the were pretty stab happy in thought.[/QUOTE]

True, it's just that the Johnson bayonet is about one third of the length of an SKS bayonet. 'Course the Brits made an even sillier spike for the No.4 Enfield.

 

[No_Regerts]

Just imagine the cadences you could call if the johnson rifle had been adopted.

This is my rifle, this is my johnson...

 

[KKG]

Yes, everybody was looking for a higher capacity magazine. They didn't really get it until the M-14 came along. The M-14 did it the right way, by giving the Gun a Full Automatic fire power!

 

[Tony617]

Yes, everybody was looking for a higher capacity magazine. They didn't really get it until the M-14 came along. The M-14 did it the right way, by giving the Gun a Full Automatic fire power!

 

[Ownerus]

Never got to fire the M14 full auto but I've gathered it had control problems. Too powerful for the weight of the gun. But even as a semi only, it's the cats meow as a battle rifle IMO.

 

[KKG]

Never got to fire the M14 full auto but I've gathered it had control problems. Too powerful for the weight of the gun. But even as a semi only, it's the cats meow as a battle rifle IMO.

I DID and I can't agree with you more. The Full Automatic Selector Switch was a regular part of my Kit and I installed many of them. I feel that the Bipod did make a difference in the Controllability. After Installing one I then "sold" lots of Bipods because I would require the Shooter to "Try It, You'll LIKE It" before I left. I "lead" a number of "ambushes" during Basic and the Full Automatic fire proved to Win the Day more than once.

 

[Boboclown]

The video just showed that they were already trying to get to something like the M-14. A Larger magazine (rechargeable w/striper clips w/o removing) and Fully Automatic (aka:BAR). I believe it was a mistake when our government decided to go with the M-16. It turned out to be another really bad example of the Government sticking there nose into Military business and getting a lot of GIs killed. Of course, we did keep the Blade Bayonet. Which became more and more of a Knife.

They were trying to modify the M1 Garand to be select fire and use detachable magazines even during WWII, seems even then they thought the concept of a semiauto only rifle that is fed by an 8 round clip was outdated.

True, it's just that the Johnson bayonet is about one third of the length of an SKS bayonet. 'Course the Brits made an even sillier spike for the No.4 Enfield.

True, but the rifle was already long. Regardless of the length the spike is better to stab through heavy coats with.

Yes, everybody was looking for a higher capacity magazine. They didn't really get it until the M-14 came along. The M-14 did it the right way, by giving the Gun a Full Automatic fire power!

They ended up modifying them to be semiauto only after realizing that the recoil was too much for full auto. They replaced the M14 with the M16 because they wanted something easier to shoot on full auto. If the U.S adopted the FAL in .280 British, probably would not have the M16. However, that was never gonna happen. The FAL worked better for the Australians in Vietnam than the M14 did for the U.S, mostly because their poor logistics meant they had to make every shot count. Whereas something like the M16 made more sense for the U.S because it had the logistics, it just had the idiots who wanted to cheap out which caused it to have problems initially.

 

[Ownerus]

The 8 rd Garand clip gets a lot of not-love but, in the context of the times, militarily and especially economically it makes a lot of sense. The rifle was developed to compete with the other guys 5 shot bolt action AND it was done during the Great Depression. A cheap stamping of a clip that can be pre-packaged ready to stuff into the rifle was not a bad system. Again, in the context of the times. Not the be all end all by any means but definitely an improvement over what was and what the other guys had. An evolutionary step forward.

 

[Boboclown]

The 8 rd Garand clip gets a lot of not-love but, in the context of the times, militarily and especially economically it makes a lot of sense. The rifle was developed to compete with the other guys 5 shot bolt action AND it was done during the Great Depression. A cheap stamping of a clip that can be pre-packaged ready to stuff into the rifle was not a bad system. Again, in the context of the times. Not the be all end all by any means but definitely an improvement over what was and what the other guys had. An evolutionary step forward.

Definitely, compared to bolt actions its a huge step. I did not leave that out of context. However I had to include the FG-42, StG 44 (and 45), as well as the Volkssturmgewehr when I said it was outdated still by that point. The M1 Garand was by this point already outdated, not that we would have known about the German rifles (aside from what they had in WWI). We weren't the only ones. To give the U.S credit, they did come up with the M1 Carbine, which was a huge step up still.

Granted, while the Germans did have better arms, they had poor logistics and a not-so-smart guy in charge.

 

[taroman]

Johnson was a Marine officer with political connections, so was able to generate significant visibility.
One of the big drawbacks was that it required lubricated cartridges due to weak primary extraction.
Imaging having to use lubricated ammo in combat!
Not a problem for the Garand with it's rotating bolt.

 

[Boboclown]

The Johnson had issues with feeding when the bayonet was attached due to the added weight to the reciprocating barrel. However, the Johnson had a rotating bolt too. It was also expensive to make in comparison.

 

[Ownerus]

Johnson was a Marine officer with political connections, so was able to generate significant visibility.
One of the big drawbacks was that it required lubricated cartridges due to weak primary extraction.
Imaging having to use lubricated ammo in combat!
Not a problem for the Garand with it's rotating bolt.

You are conflating the Johnson rifle with JD Pedersen's entry into the service rifle competition. It was a toggle delayed action and not truly a locked breech so it needed lubricated cases.
The 1941 Johnson is a rotating bolt similar to the M16 (or more likely t'other way 'round) though actuated differently . It works fine with the same ammo as a Garand.