Talk:M1 Garand

Untitled

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Move to M1 Garand

I propose that we move this article to M1 Garand. "Rifle" is an unnecessary qualifier, and should be removed. See also M4 Sherman etc.--Patton^t/c 23:24, 8 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agreed. "Rifle" is redundant. M1 Garand rifle should redirect to M1 Garand. I believe for this you just have a mod delete M1 Garand, move M1 Garand rifle there, and then make the redirect. Good call. MatthewVanitas (talk) 00:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree. The term "rifle" is only needed as a disambiguation if there is such a thing as the "M1 Garand toenail clipper". It's pretty well a given that there will only be one M1 Garand to choose from. And, yes, I did just disagree with you on the M3 article. I'll caution you to tread lightly as there is a consensus on this as well... that I disagreed with but still a consensus. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Agree- the "Rifle" aspect of the title is redundant and there is nothing else known as an "M1 Garand" except the rifle. Most other firearm articles also omit the "rifle" suffix (except where the name is inherently non-descriptive), and there's no reason for M1 Garand to be any different.Commander Zulu (talk) 00:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

• Comment: I've added this proposed rename at Wikipedia:Requested moves#9 February 2009. That way, if (and only if) there's a consensus to rename, generally after five days or more, an admin will see it and rename the article. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 01:32, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
• Support. No-brainer, per WP:NAME. Nice to see that firearms articles are gradually moving towards current naming conventions. Even if there were another M1 Garand, the correct title would be "M1 Garand (rifle)" anyway. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 11:06, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Disagree - Personally I prefer "M1 Rifle (Garand)". "Garand's M1 Rifle" or "Garand M1 Rifle" at worst. If this is an encyclopedia than it should use and promote factually correct terms, names and titles. Not culturally dumbbed down terms, names and titles. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 14:59, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

That, I didn't expect. You propose to make it more confusing? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 16:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• Our naming conventions explicitly favour "dumbed down" article titles if they are the most commonly-used titles for the subject and they are unambiguous. It goes so far as to state that articles should not be placed at "official" titles above popular ones. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Then by all means, change it to "Gurrand (gun) yo". --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

Well, that's one way to handle it. How about something constructive, though. Your suggestion was to make it more complicated however technically slightly more correct than it is now. Problem is, that's not per Wikipedia guidelines. You can get super-techincal and title the article the exact nomenclature the US Army used. Something like, "United States Rifle, M1. Caliber .30". Frankly, I don't want to be writing redirects till my fingers are numb like this: M1 Garand when 99% of the time people are seeing "M1 Garand" in the wikified article. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 01:51, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

There is no consistency in that... The term "United States Rifle, M1. Caliber .30", is not appropriate in my opinion. Let me use the article on the P226 as an example which is "SIG P226", appropriate, as is Garand M1 Rifle. Manufacturer than model. As for consistency, you want to use English that is popular and used by the majority of people in articulating a title for this article. Than you better write it in English that is used by the giant majority of English speakers as well, not correct English grammar. Remove all "an"s before vowels, maybe even replace "a"s with "uh"s for example. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 12:39, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

This isn't the right venue to argue with Wikipedia's general naming conventions (and frankly these are arguments which are old and settled by now). Nor are straw man arguments about replacing titles with a series of grunts likely to sway anyone's opinion. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:59, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• Support Per WP:COMMON and nom. --Narson ~ Talk • 17:05, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

I support this attempt. M1 Garand 'rifle' is redundant. There is no confusion with simply using 'M1 Garand' as the title, given that there is no such thing as an "M1 Garand Tank" and the like. ~~ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Brenden (talk • contribs) 09:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Caliber listing for M1 Garand

In the article about the Garand, the caliber is listed as .30-'06 or 7.62 x 51 mm NATO. The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO (.308) is used in the M1A. The metric description for the .30-'06 should be 7.72 x 63 mm. Further in the text, there is reference to a civilian version of the Garand offered in .30-'06 and .308. The .308 version would be an M1A offered by Springfield Armory. BOSF53 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you're wrong on all counts. Garand was offered in .308 as well as 30-06. Metric designation is not "7.72mm" anything. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The M1A is a version of the M14 not the M1. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

7.72mm was a typo. Should have been 7.62mm. Would you not agree that the primary round was .30-'06 (7.62 x 63mm)? Some M1's were 'modified' for .308. Don't know what your source is, but the Military Channel's program listed the cartridge for the M1 as .30-'06. All the military manuals I have refer to it as .30-'06, and all the ammo I have bought at matches for the Garand have been standard issue .30-'06. BOSF53 (talk) 18:45, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some of the confusion here is the way the layout is done. Reading .30-'06 7.62 x 51 mm makes it seem that the two are equivalent, rather than .30-'06 and 7.62 x 51 mm. BOSF53 (talk) 20:04, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The US Navy converted over 30,000 M1 rifles to 7.62mm NATO after 1963 as sufficient numbers of M14 were not available to them for issue. The US Army also experimented with this prior to the development of the T44/M14, and held out the possbility for performing further conversions as a contingency should a major war break out before enough M14 could be built. --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Not even going to justify the "Military Channel" reference. I'll just chalk this up to ignorance of the facts. Read D.E. Watters' post above. Military Channel... <sigh>. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your post Mr. Watters. Perhaps I am ignorant to the facts as Mr Nukes points out. That's why I ask questions and try to learn things. Were the M1's that were converted to 7.62 NATO issued as .30-'06 and re-barreled, action modified, etc, or were they 'manufactured' as 7.62 NATO? It would seem the modifications would be quite extensive if starting with a stock Garand. 24.136.247.14 (talk) 11:11, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

The 7.62mm M1 rifles were all converted from .30-06. Actually, it didn't require much reworking. Some conversions used a chamber insert in the original .30-06 barrel, while others were rebarreled. The other requirement was a spacing block in the magazine to compensate for the difference in cartridge length. I can't remember if they had to play with the size of the gas port in the barrels using the chamber inserts. --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse my curt posts above. The only modification required for the .308 (7.62x51mm) in a Garand was a chamber insert. These were inserted in the chamber and a cartridge fired to seat them. Later, problems with the inserts coming out and imperfect 'fixes' to keep them in prompted the manufacture of new barrels and rebarreling troubled rifles. There are other things that can be done to tune a Garand to work better with .308, but they are not necessary. Primary user was the Navy however it became popular with civilian shooters as well. Commercial Garands were also produced in .308 as well as the Italian series of Garands and later Garand descendants, many of which were in .308. These are distinguishable from the M14 which is an entirely new weapon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

For clarity, the M1 Garand is available in both calibers. The CMP currently issue both I believe but their matches require the weapons to be specifically .30-06 and no .308 re-chambered weapons are allowed.Ref If the CMP re-arsenals such that it is rendered a .308, then they will stamp it as such.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

The original M1 Garands were designed for 30.06, the standard rifle round of the American military. The previous uses of the 30.06 round in American use include(but are not limited to) the m1903 springfield, the 30.06 chauchat, and the BAR. Before Nato, it was common for countries to have their own calibers. Blamazon (talk) 19:19, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Actually, I am wrong about that. I think John Garand's first design was in .273, but the military wanted him to make it in 30.06 so he did that and created the M1.Blamazon (talk) 19:27, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The "distinctive Ping" heard from the clip being ejected?

This has already been discredited as being hearsay. The only thing that you can hear whether you are 75 yards or 15 yards away and downrange is the bolt racking forward after reload. The person operating the weapon may hear a ping however slight but he/she is the one handling the weapon and not a german, italian or japanese downrange listening for a distinctive ping waiting for the right moment to charge. By the time they would hear anything,(which would be the bolt racking forward) it would be too late. Just ask any dead japanese or german soldiers. So, can we remove this nonsense from the article? These are always the things that are heard by people who have never been on the battlefield or simply put the myth to the test. 71.60.202.180 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)R.G. Infante Jr. LCDR, USN (Ret)

You'll need a reliable source debunking this if the information is to be removed as the statement you question is sourced by two works. I have also wondered about the pings from time to time, seeing has how a soldier is rarely alone (meaning that even if one guy has an empty rifle, you'll probably get shot by his buddy if you charge when one rifle is empty) and how can a ping be heard over the sound of gun fire prevalent on the field of battle etc. What you say makes a lot of sense, but as I said, you'll need a source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

I asked my dad about this years ago (he was an infantryman in Korea). He never heard of this issue and he sas someone who liked to take local knowledge seriously. Amcalabrese (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

I own one, and I could barely here the ping when my clip ejected since my buddy fired his M14 at the same time as it did. To be fair, I was wearing earmuffs, but on a battlefield a lot more shooting would be going on. And yeah, you'd need a more reliable source than me. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. I also own a match-grade M-1, and served for fifteen years as a Marine, all but 3 of those years in infantry units. Riflemen in combat typically do not wear hearing protection. Once the firing starts, you aren't hearing a bloody thing for several hours. Since this is both common sense and practical experience - neither of which are recognized by Wikipedia, it does not count as a source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

The sentence in the Function section of the main article "It was even harder and slower to reload than the M1903 rifle" relates to the infamous "ping" of the ejected clip. Actually the M1 is to my knowledge the quickest and easiest battle rifle to reload bar none. Given any service rifle or rifles you may like (including an M1) let them all start with a single round in the chamber, simulating the last round. Let all rifles fire their last round simultaneously and begin to reload and fire another shot. I'm assuming all shooters are well familiar with their rifles. I'll wager the M1 will beat all with the next round fired. After the last shot the bolt is locked to the rear and the magazine is empty. A new clip is retrieved and inserted. The loading hand is swung out of the way and the rifle returned to the shoulder and the trigger pulled. I think it is a very rapid and easy procedure and simpler (i.e. fewer steps) than any other service rifle. Relating to the ping, the enemy soldier, even if he heard it would have to be very close and quick to beat the rapid reload and following shot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktate749 (talk • contribs) 23:58, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

OK, I particpate in military matchs. Several particpants and competitors use M1 Garand and '03 Springfield rifles. My observations (yah, I know, WP:OR, but this Talk:M1 Garand) are that (a) the "ping" is inaudible over gunfire, sometimes with M1 Garand shooters on either side of me, and (b) the Garand guys reload with en-bloc clips faster than the Springfield guys using stripper clips.(Course of fire is standing off-hand, ten rounds per target, with most Garand shooters using one clip loaded with two and one with eight, which would mean ejection of two empty clips per target.) My father fought in New Guinea and the Philipines in WWII and never recounted an "M1 clip ping" story. My first encounter with the "M1 clip ping" was a 1950s war comic book. Naaman Brown (talk) 12:56, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Additionally, all I've heard indicates that the "ping" is actually from the ejected clip hitting a hard surface, not from the ejection itself. If the clip landed on dirt, leaves, grass, or any other such soft surface, it wouldn't make that noise. Icanhasaccount has an account 19:13, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

• The clip definitely pings as it is released from the rifle. It can make another as it hits a hard surface, but there's always one from the release. You can youtube "garand ping" for real world examples, as well as real-world "proof" (such as a camera's microphone can give) that the ping is indeed hard/impossible to hear when it happens during live-fire. Nothing RS enough to change the article though. Crow^Caw 20:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)

The ping is from the ejection, you prove this by racking the bolt before firing the last round. You aren't going to able to hear the ping during a firefight, and chances are its a bad idea anyway to charge when you think you hear the ping since that might be the only person reloading. If you want to hear the ping, load one round into the clip and insert. Then rack the bolt and the clip will pop out with a ping. The idea that german, italian, or german forces timed their attacks using the sound of garand pings is at best, far-fetched. For one thing, garands aren't the only weapon used. LMGs, SMGs, and pistols do not have audible and recognizable sounds for reloading besides a lack of. Second, it is unlikely that enough rifleman would be reloading at the same time for an attack to be a good idea. This idea has been well known in military history. Third, japanese "banzai" attacks are often exaggerated in their effectiveness and their quantity. As you can guess, charging through the open with melee weapons against a modern army(meaning they have machine guns) is a bad idea and is very wasteful. The Japanese realized this and stopped doing it afterwards. The first battle where banzai tactics were no longer used was on Peleliu. American forces on Peleliu and several battles afterward believed that banzai attacks were coming, and deployed against them. This ended up costing time and resources for the Americans. (Infromation on Peleliu is drawn from "WITH THE OLD BREED" by E.B.Sledge)Blamazon (talk) 19:35, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Canada

Canada used the M1 with the 1SSF. Also, post war in Europe some troops were issued them to have compatibility with US troops. These rifles were marked with a W. In addition, the Dominion Arsenal in Quebec made en blocs. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

What is T1E1?

The "Development" section talks about T1E1, T2E3, etc, but doesn't indicate what these terms mean. What are they? --Badger151 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Experimental versions as seen here.
⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Canadian Origin?

While Mr. Garand may have been Canadian, does not necessarily mean the country of origin was Canada. In fact, Garand was working for a US company (Springfield Armory)in the US, meaning the country of origin is the United States rather than Canada... I find it odd either way that Canada is listed as an origin country of such a mass produced firearm, yet they do not even use it. AloDurranium (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

The inventor was a US citizen at the time of the product's patent and production. The patent reads that he was of Springfield Massachusetts. In the 1920's, as later, the US naturalization process may have required a renunciation of foreign citizenships, even Canadian. In a formal article, it may be best to simply describe the inventor as Canadian-American. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:30, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Did it increase total ammunition expenditure in action ?

Or did it simply allow more rapid fire at key moments ? I'm thinking that you could chew up a lot of ammunition pretty quickly with it. What about overheating : would it limit total ammunition expenditure ? If the former, did ammunition supply to the frontline to support it require extra resources compared to troops equipped with bolt-action rifles ? Do we know how many rounds an infantryman equipped with it expended compared to troops in similar action with bolt-action rifles ? Rcbutcher (talk) 10:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

Without looking at actual statistics, I'd guess it probably did, man for man. Knowing how much that number increased is pretty hard, tho. Unlike, frex, the American Civil War (in which, legend has it, repeaters were discouraged because the logistics train couldn't support the added expendtiture), by the time the Garand appeared, crew-served weapons like the M1917, not to mention vehicle-mounted MG, would eat up mountains of ammo, & the supply train to keep them fed was well-developed. Also because of that, the number of rounds dedicated to the Garand is a bit hard to break out. (IDK what the individual carry ammo was; had it gone up from the 60/man of the ACW?) Hope that's some help. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:58, 26 June 2015 (UTC)

The basic load for a US Army rifleman was 88 rounds (ten clips plus one in the rifle, 11 X 8 = 88).

Of course many soldiers carried a lot more than that, but that's what the standard was.

Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Thanks for that. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:59, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Most likely yes, but I doubt it was wasteful. Semi-automatic weapons have much more potential and capabilities than bolt-action rifles. It can give a single soldier more firepower than several soldiers with bolt-action rifles(for a short time). This makes it more effective at suppressing enemies.

Don't forget that America was not the only country with semi-automatic rifles. The Germans had the g41 and g43. I think the Russians had the SVT-40. So it was definitely a recognized advantage for riflemen. The notion that you could inadvertently waste ammunition seems far-fetched to me. You have to pull the trigger every time you want to fire a round, and the kick from a rifle round is enough that you can't really spam the trigger and get any useful effect(unless you aren't trying to hit something).

Logistically, ammo was distributed in units of fire(one unit per weapon/soldier per day). For the Garand, a unit of fire was 100 rounds. This was supposed to last one day of heavy fighting. This is probably more than a unit of fire for the 1903 springfield, but I still doubt it required any significant ramping up of production for rifle cartridges. After all, a unit of fire for the LMG(BAR in this case) is 1500 rounds. I can only imagine what a unit of fire was for the M1919 belt-fed machine gun. But given how much more ammo the machine guns would probably need, I doubt that semi-automatic rifles require really any extra cartridge production.(unit of fire data taken from "WITH THE OLD BREED" by E.B.Sledge)Blamazon (talk) 20:20, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061109091157/http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf to http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)

To edit or not to edit

We used M1 rifles on rare occasions for target practice in the Greek army (in 2004) in addition to the normally distributed G3A3 rifles we had. I suppose they did that simply to get rid of old ammunition. Should I edit the entry under Users from "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard." to "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard and for training." or is my first person testimony too vague and too unencyclopaedic? Iago2¹² 12:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Personal recollection is not considered a reliable source, I'm afraid. If you can find a source for this info (e.g. a magazine article), we're in business.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The most recent American Presidential inauguration showed ceremonial guards armed with M1 Garands.Blamazon (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Demilitarized models ?

"Demilitarized models have modifications to prevent reversion. The gas cylinder lock screw is welded to the gas lock and gas cylinder and the firing pin hole is welded closed on the bolt face. The barrel is drilled-out, plugged and welded at the chamber mouth and then welded to the receiver". Can somebody please translate this to meaningful civilian language. Demilitarized ? Reversion ? The basic idea being ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

DONE...--RAF910 (talk) 19:44, 7 August 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps demilitarized should be changed to read "drill rifles". Are there other civilian, non-military uses, besides drilling - (how boring!). For example, CMP rifles may have been part of the US civilian marksmanship program. Also, in the separate drill article, it seems that those doing the most drills/drilling is still the military, so the term de-militarized just does not seem to fit, either way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 00:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915225950/http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com:80/fieldstrip.html to http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/fieldstrip.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921011646/http://www.ruger.com:80/products/mini14/index.html to http://ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Editing back-and forth re commie use in Vietnam -why?

This does seem to be a simple fact, with US weapons received in small numbers directly from the OSS, further tiny amounts captured or stolen from the French in the South or the Chinese in the north (or abandoned by them), considerable amounts received from the Chinese, captured during the Korean way, even before the fighting escalated in the south. Anmccaff (talk) 03:09, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

By itself, perhaps, but with the non-standard formatting, this is typical of an IP-hopping user that adds unsourced info to several articles at a time. Also, users of small numbers of captured weapons aren't generally included in Users/Operators lists. It'll need a reliable source that verifies the significance of the usage. - BilCat (talk) 05:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

See these contributions for an example IP. Both IPs locate to Bangkok, Thailand, so are presumably the same user. - BilCat (talk) 05:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Ah, but what if it's Alan Dawson?

Joking aside, yeah, those are valid points, and there doesn't seem to be a real standard across articles where to draw the line. Sometimes that varies, too, with specific using units: 50 oddball pistols used by some kind of oddball special forces might be significant, while a thousand obsolescent or personally owned weapons out of an army of a million might not be. There's a couple of intel reports floating around DTIC that might be useful, if memory serves, but the only one I could dig up now, this, doesn't get into numbers of weapons, just their basic loads. This claims that substantial conversion of VC to standard PAVN armament occurred in 1964. Anmccaff (talk) 06:11, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Who's Alan Dawson? This one is dead, so if he was editing WP, I wouldn't dare revert him! Anyone alive will have to cite reliable sources. The DTIC mention would probably be notable, as it's about conversions. - BilCat (talk) 06:22, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Dawson is a Canuckistani newsie who was living in the US when he got an invitation to join the army, or go back north. Decided to join. Became a war correspondent, was bureau chief in Saigon when it fell; his book on this is one of the standard texts. Last I heard, he was newsicating for the Bangkok Post. Dunno if he's still around.

Good reporter. I worked for an old arty colonel who knew him, and later ran into himself on the old relay BBS nets. Worth reading. Anmccaff (talk) 06:42, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

A suggestion on fixing this: why not make a clean section break between the "standard" weapons and the substitute, occasionally used, captured, &cet? Anmccaff (talk) 15:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

PS: still kicking, still writing, still with the Post,still, from the look of some recent articles, a damned good newsie. This looks like it might be of some use on some other pages.

Getting back to the article, BilCat, any thoughts on splitting the sections into common or standard weapons on the one hand, and rara aves on the other? Anmccaff (talk) 01:15, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

1919

BilCat, Trekphiler, I looked at the AfD for the model 1919, and it looks, frankly, like a POV based decision. I think it might deserve an article, even though its influence was mostly indirect. Anmccaff (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

I wasn't seeing a particular POV, but it didn't look like strong opposition, either. Problems with who wrote it can be overcome, if the original pagedata is salvageable, & I'd be happy to redo, if it is. The merge &/or notability issue remains... TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Any admin should be able to userfy it for you, if it's not a copyvio. But I don't know if it would need to go though Deletion Review to be restored to mainspace. I've no opinion on notability, as I haven't seen the sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

IMO, it's safe to guess I can get it back up; I rescued Hiroahata Merc Hirohata Merc after it was taken down off a copyvio, & that only needed rewording; this wouldn't even need that. It would, tho, be right back at the "non-notable" that got it nom'd AfD in the first place...& unless we can get more than just us agreeing it's worth putting back, it's a waste of effort. Much as I want to bluelink it, I'm not doing a futile exercise... So, I'm going to flag it at MilHist & Firearms & see if it gets any interest. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC) (link correction 23:19, 10 May 2017 (UTC))

It's up on the post-wiki wiki The article would, I think, survive a good-faith AfD, although it is kinda thin; given the subject matter, and the former filer, it'd still be vulnerable. So, yeah, maybe waiting on a few better sources will have to do. Anmccaff (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Better to put material into this article as part of the background and development rather than try and build a separate borderline-AfD article??. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Maybe a section here, but that seems a bit OT, & over-emphasis 1 type to the exclusion of others... (If I had my way, they'd all get a page.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd thought about the mis-labling, also, that really should be named Garand primer-actuated rifles or suchlike. Anmccaff (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Adding sourced information here is a good first step. If someone objects that it's too much information, then it would be easier to make a case for splitting it to its own article. (There's more than one way to work a bureaucracy!) - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I believe that's our solution! Well done, M. Poirot. :D Who knows the Admin to ping for release of the relevant pagedata? Will you oblige us? Agatha Christie ^{I always knew you weren't French} 23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

I think the best solution is to incorporate elements of the userfied recovered page into M1 Garand and use Model 1919 as a redirect. Over at the Milhist talk page, there was a ref to "M0" that I'm less sure of using.--Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 00:47, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

That "M0" was a joke...a pun on predating the M1. The Unknown Comic ^{get the last laugh} 00:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

Here's a reference and images for the Garand's 1919 and his other prototypes...https://www.nps.gov/spar/learn/historyculture/experimental-rifles-by-john-garand-1919-36.htm However, please do not overstate the importance of the 1919. It had nothing in common with the M1. It's just one of the many designs that John Garand worked on. He didn't start working on the M1 prototype until 1926.--RAF910 (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

I was thinking that perhaps, it would be better to only generally mention that John Garand work on other prototype firearms on this, the M1 rifle page. However, we can go into more detail about his earlier designs on the John Garand page. There, it would be more appropriate to discuss the milestones on his journey to develop the M1 rifle. We can also go into more detail on his post WWII works such as the T20 which led the way to the M14 which he also consulted on.--RAF910 (talk) 16:32, 11 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503023852/http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html to http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509040711/http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf to http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205063717/https://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg to http://up.wiki.x.io/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Yugoslavia

The stuff recently added looks quite possibly partly true, but so badly sourced I nuked it awaiting something more authoritative. Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

Good call, I translated and read the source. No mention of Yugoslavia use of Garands in it. Samf4u (talk) 17:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027203952/http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429075927/http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg to http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)

To claim it's a refuted myth, you need to cite better sources than this one, and present them on the talk page

(Re ruses based on clip ejection) On the other hand, he didn't claim it was a refuted myth in the article, he merely removed it from there....which I think might have its points. I know of no contemporaneous cites for this at all, and if it were common enough to be worth mentioning in an article there should be. Anmccaff (talk) 20:30, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

The IP removed an existing source, claimed either there was no source or that it was unreliable, and claimed it was a myth that had been refuted. If they or anyone else wants to challenge the reliability of the cited source, they can do that, but to simply remove it per their edit summary is disingenuous or misleading.

Frankly, I removed it myself once as trivial, but was reverted. Clearly enough people want this in the article that removal needs to be discussed first. If the consensus is to delete it for whatever reason, I'm fine with that. - BilCat (talk) 21:05, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Well, I think this also has the usual prove-a-negative problems too, yes, but I think you did the right thing removing it before. Anmccaff (talk) 21:12, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Either way, its removal needed to be discussed. That's now happening, so however it turns out is good. - BilCat (talk) 21:22, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm responsible for adding this in March 2015. After checking every book I have on the subject I've failed to find a specific mention of the occurrence. I have changed the article to properly reflect the info in the Canfield book and I sincerely apologize for my mistake (especially to you Bilcat). Samf4u (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2017 (UTC)

The oldest known source for this is Roy E. Dunlap's 1948 book "Ordnance Went Up Front", which is cited in the article. However, both this and the idea that Aberdeen Proving Ground tested plastic clips to alleviate it are discussed in the video "Four Annoying Gun Myths" by Ian McCollum and "Bloke on the Range" at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8rv337snZ9k. The arguments in the video as to why this is a myth and how it came to be in Dunlap's book seem pretty persuasive, but I think consensus should be reached before the information is removed. --Chuckhoffmann (talk) 17:43, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Isn't Dunlap the fellow who wrote "I do not like the M-1 rifle, and never have?" An expert, surely, but maybe a bit of bias. Anmccaff (talk) 18:49, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

PS: John George's Shots fired in anger : a rifleman's eye view of the activities on the Island of Guadalcanal... another contemporaneous classic, gives a fairly good disection of all the weapons used in that campaign, mentions disapprovingly the inability to top off a magazine- and the habit some troops had of firing off a round or two just to allow reloading, IMS, and says nothing about faking the clip ejection ping.

PPS A lot of good works that used to be only found here and there are coming up on Hathitrust now. Anmccaff (talk) 19:09, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002055115/http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Ljungman

Ljungman was used quite commonly for direct-gas systems, including some that had only a passing resemblance to the AG42. Anmccaff (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)

Foot Note 1

Foot note 1 is mostly already contained in the lede. Why the redundancy? --84.132.147.249 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)

Those are the official US military designations.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)

Add picture of M1 used by another nation

Could someone help me include the picture from https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copenhagen_2014-05-21_(14109673437).jpg showing Norwegian Drill soldiers with their M1's? Bjs5005 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

I think that picture might be good to illustrate the unit, but as an illustration of the M1? It really only shows the rifles’ slings. Qwirkle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Garand Reloading

I have been digging up information on the Garand since I knew WWII existed. But I still have the same question I had since then.

While inserting a full en bloc clip into the open magazine well with your thumb on the top of the first cartridge case(not the bullet, because this causes Garand thumb) and completely push the clip into the gun(all the way), you can simply lift your thumb up quickly and the bolt will chamber a round. You can do this because if you have your thumb firmly on the top cartridge case, your thumb has enough friction to hold the bolt back long enough to let the gun automatically chamber the first round without having to hold back the bolt or get Garand thumb.

Am I right about this?Blamazon (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Adjutant General John B. Shuman hyperlink removed

The page to which "Adjutant General John B. Shuman" was linked to did not exist, so I removed it and made it a normal part of the text back on Feb 24 of this year. Chevy217 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Question on some of the Countries under Users

Under the section of Current Users, some of the countries have the M1 Garand as only a ceremonial weapon, such as Belgium, Greece, and Turkey, which makes sense. But then under Former Users, there are countries which still use it as a standard ceremonial weapon, such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and the United States, are not under Current Users, which does not make sense. Is there a reason on why there are not all under the same section or should they be moved to be correct? CloneCommanderFordo (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Yeah i know for a fact that it is still used for training conscripts in the Thai army as i have photos of them in use dated 11/2/24 unsure as to why it is considered former. Bawbagimusprime (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

More Detailed Info on Service Adoption in World War II

This discussion relates specifically to remarks at the very end of the current “Development” section and the beginning of the subsequent “Service Use” (all of these considerations would more appropriately be located in the latter section.) Quote, “...the Army was fully equipped by the end of 1941.” And in the Service Use section, “They were used by every branch of the United States military.” Yes, but . . .

I’m not going to attempt to edit the article now because I know very little about it, but I note that in The Pacific by Hugh Ambrose it implies that Marine riflemen on Guadalcanal were originally supplied with 1903 Springfields (relatively slow bolt action weapons similar to their Japanese opponents), and states that when they were relocated out of that theater they were forced to relinquish the preferred Garands with which many of them had been fighting (presumably acquired from adjacent Army sources.) A commonly understood foundational attitude of the US military in the 20th century has been “when possible send a bullet instead of a man.” Thus sending bullets more quickly is obviously preferable. Obvious questions would be When was the USMC finally “fully equipped” with them? and Why were these advanced forces not so equipped in the first place? WiserMrnatural (talk) 23:20, 19 October 2024 (UTC)

WWII is not my forte, but as a general rule the USMC has (until very recently, in the past 10-15 years) always been slower than the US Army when it comes to equipment modernization, despite being a smaller force. This is due to the fact that the USMC was, and is, generally considered to be a conventional force (not a special operations force) and has suffered greatly from budgetary constraints due to its unique position as part of the Department of the Navy. I understand that it doesn't fully answer your question about the date they were finally fully equipped, but I hope it gives some context as to why the USMC was slower to adopt new technology. ⇒SWATJester ^{Shoot Blues, Tell VileRat!} 00:28, 20 October 2024 (UTC)