- Messages
- 409
- Reactions
- 524
saved this article from a bit ago
some excerpts on the M1 Garand from an article i had saved
American ordnance stupidly rejected detachable 20-round magazines for the M1, so Garand defaulted back to the 8-round en bloc. Their absurd excuse was that the magazines would get lost and somehow get in the way of "From Here to Eternity" BS parade ground drill & ceremony. FYI, if you want to be a bubblegumtard and do D&C there is nothing stopping idiots from removing the magazine (imagine that) so you can do left and right shoulder, arms all day long with today's M16s, M14s or a M1 Garand had it been loaded by detachable magazines. The tragedy is BAR magazines could have been shared by both automatic riflemen and riflemen to great effect in WW2.
Honestly at the time the U.S. Army Ordnance published their requirements for a semi-automatic rifle they didn't want a box-fed magazine infantry rifle. In fact their exact words were that "a detachable magazine was acceptable--but not desirable". If you were a weapon designer and read that; what kind of rifle would you send to the Ordnance Department dinosaurs? If you go back and study the history of the U.S. Army's quest for reliable semi-auto rifle you will see they were very concerned about Soldiers wasting ammunition. Not only that, but a rifle with a magazine would be more expensive as Soldiers would loose them. Also remember the big selling point with the M1941 Johnson was that it didn't have a magazine nor a clip and its integral rotary magazine could easily be topped off by single rounds and the commonly available stripper clips. Hell, even the FN-49 had a non-detachable magazine and by then it was clear to a blind man that detachable magazines were the way ahead.
Some of John Garand's early versions used detachable box magazines.
He switched to the en bloc clip when he saw which way the wind was blowing in regards to the military's preference for non-detachable mags.
I've heard that one of the reasons they didn't want a detachable mag is that they wanted a more "streamlined" rifle without a protruding mag so that it wouldn't mess up the "manual of arms." I've read that in a couple places, but have no way to know if it's actually true or not.
Garand was a smart guy. He not only designed the rifle, but the fixtures and machines to manufacture it as well. That's one of the reasons it was accepted is that it was developed with an eye toward manufacture all along, unlike many private designs that were submitted before then.
some excerpts on the M1 Garand from an article i had saved
American ordnance stupidly rejected detachable 20-round magazines for the M1, so Garand defaulted back to the 8-round en bloc. Their absurd excuse was that the magazines would get lost and somehow get in the way of "From Here to Eternity" BS parade ground drill & ceremony. FYI, if you want to be a bubblegumtard and do D&C there is nothing stopping idiots from removing the magazine (imagine that) so you can do left and right shoulder, arms all day long with today's M16s, M14s or a M1 Garand had it been loaded by detachable magazines. The tragedy is BAR magazines could have been shared by both automatic riflemen and riflemen to great effect in WW2.
Honestly at the time the U.S. Army Ordnance published their requirements for a semi-automatic rifle they didn't want a box-fed magazine infantry rifle. In fact their exact words were that "a detachable magazine was acceptable--but not desirable". If you were a weapon designer and read that; what kind of rifle would you send to the Ordnance Department dinosaurs? If you go back and study the history of the U.S. Army's quest for reliable semi-auto rifle you will see they were very concerned about Soldiers wasting ammunition. Not only that, but a rifle with a magazine would be more expensive as Soldiers would loose them. Also remember the big selling point with the M1941 Johnson was that it didn't have a magazine nor a clip and its integral rotary magazine could easily be topped off by single rounds and the commonly available stripper clips. Hell, even the FN-49 had a non-detachable magazine and by then it was clear to a blind man that detachable magazines were the way ahead.
Some of John Garand's early versions used detachable box magazines.
He switched to the en bloc clip when he saw which way the wind was blowing in regards to the military's preference for non-detachable mags.
I've heard that one of the reasons they didn't want a detachable mag is that they wanted a more "streamlined" rifle without a protruding mag so that it wouldn't mess up the "manual of arms." I've read that in a couple places, but have no way to know if it's actually true or not.
Garand was a smart guy. He not only designed the rifle, but the fixtures and machines to manufacture it as well. That's one of the reasons it was accepted is that it was developed with an eye toward manufacture all along, unlike many private designs that were submitted before then.
