Gun Review: M1 Garand Rifle

For some folks, the M1 Garand is a venerated object, a potent symbol of American greatness during World War II. Some of these people make an almost holy exercise out of researching serial numbers and finding the correct elusive parts. Yea, verily, for some searcheth out the lock bar rear sight, even from the very bowels of the earth, while others locketh not the rear sight, lest they anger the spirit of John C. Garand.

For others, especially those young whipper-snappers who cut their ballistic teeth on AR style rifles, the Garand is an ancient, clumsy and heavy thing, a dinosaur thigh bone left over from the Pleistocene Era of firearms. I mean who really wants that much petrified wood on a rifle, anyway? And whaddya mean it might bite my thumb off if I don’t load it just right?

But for some real whackos like me, the Garand is a powerful and accurate semi-automatic rifle that can really bring the oomph downrange, especially if you can get your hands on the right ammo. And the right ammo would be the US military surplus armor piercing round.

Because of the way United States ammunition laws are written, .30-06 AP ammunition can be owned by us mere peasants, uh, oops, I mean civilians. I was lucky enough to purchase a couple of cans of it from the Civilian Marksmanship Program the last time a batch came up for sale.

There are plenty of Internet stories circulating about .30-06 AP ammo being more accurate than standard M2 ball ammo. Heck there’s one story of the National Matches at Camp Perry issuing surplus AP ammo due to a shortage of match ammo. So I decided to find out for myself, and document the results for TTAG’s loyal readers.

To that end, I offer up some glimpses of what my Springfield Garand can do at 300 yards using two different types of military surplus ammo.

My M1 was originally purchased from the ODCMP as a Service Grade rifle by somebody else. He then sold it to me. Later, I added an Amega Ranges scout mount and a Nikon 2.5-8X EER scope with quick-detach rings, mainly because my eyes turned about two years ago, and I now wear glasses.

I shoot my scoped Garand at 300 yards because that’s the longest range I can get to in under an hour’s drive. I’d love a chance to shoot out to 500 or 600 yards, or even farther just to see how this rig performs.

The target I shot was a piece of cardboard trimmed to sort of look like a torso. It’s 24 inches tall by 18 inches wide. I stapled an 8.5 inch X 11 inch piece of yellow paper into the center of the target, hoping the contrast with the white cardboard would give me an area to center the crosshairs. At 300 yards, however, the yellow blended in with the white background, so I wound up just holding right in the middle of the whole thing.

The first group I fired on that target was 8 rounds of Greek surplus M2 ball. The M2 round became the standard round for the Garand during WWII, and served into Korea and beyond. It’s a 152 grain, flat-based, FMJ bullet that exits the muzzle just a shade over 2800 feet per second. The Greek M2 holes are marked with a red, magic-markered “G2.” I marked it as G2 because I fired a prior group on another target, just to make sure the scope was still dialed in to 300 yards.

As you can see, all eight red G2 holes remained on the toro-sized slice of cardboard. Four of them hit the 8.5X11 inch sheet of yellow paper. Not too bad for a military-issued rifle built in 1953, if you ask me.

Then, I followed up with another 8-round clip of US surplus AP ammunition. The AP bullets are marked with black tips, and contain a steel penetrator core.

This steel core enhances accuracy allegedly because it gives the bullet an internal axis around which to rotate as it spins out of the rifling. The bullet also weighs a little more, coming in at around 163 grains, instead of the 152 of the standard M2 bullet.

Whatever the cause, the dark alchemy of AP became quickly apparent when I checked my target. Gah-Zinga! All eight of the AP rounds hit the yellow paper at 300 yards. To differentiate from the other group, I marked these with green magic marker. The biggest spread was vertical, and measured just over 6.5 inches, or barely over 2 MOA, with two rounds in one hole, right in the middle, only a few inches above the dead center of the yellow paper. That’s barely over 2 MOA with a 58-year-old, semi-automatic military surplus rifle shooting even older military surplus ammo.

I’d call that more than acceptable.

One downside of the AP ammo is that since most of it was made before the 1960s, much of it has corrosive primers. For many modern shooters, corrosively primed ammo is more intimidating and arcane than the Riddle of Steel was for Thulsa Doom.

My corrosive ammo cleaning solution is the super-secret and almost impossible to obtain mystical elixir known by the exotic name of “Windex.” The cleaning procedure itself is a dark and mysterious rite which involves squirting a few shots of this “Windex” down the barrel and onto the Garand’s gas piston, which are then wiped off and swabbed out with patches. Then I just clean it with Hoppes 9.

Despite its age, and configuration as a service rifle, not a target gun, the Garand can still perform quite impressively even at 300 yards. The last thing I’ve got to say is BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG BANG-PING!

66 Responses to Gun Review: M1 Garand Rifle

  1. avatartdiinva says:

    Real men do not use a scoped M1 but other than that great article.

    • avatarAaron says:

      Including designated marksmen and snipers in a military unit?

    • avatar3006AL says:

      The author explained, adequately his vision problems which most of us have. We all will experience the need for glasses sooner or later ( you too)! The problem is with glasses the rear sight is blurred and target clear or without glasses the rear sight is clear and target blurred. “Real men” also use scopes to shoot better and if hunting, not run the chance of wounding game! I bet this rifle will improve greatly with match grade ammo! the M1 – a great rifle!

    • avatarMax says:

      I guess the M1C and M1D were used by wimps . . . I’d love to see you say that to one of them in person.

  2. avatarTTACer says:

    Has any work been done-bedding, trigger? If not ~2moa with milsurp ammo is amazing. Hell, even if you have had work done it’s amazing.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      My dad was a pre-war [that means WWII] regular. The stock M1 was that accurate. He could duplicate Roy’s results with open sights, hence my smart ass remark. He thought the ’03 Springfield was more accurate though.

      • avatar3006AL says:

        I salute your dad, a member of the “Greatest Generation!” My uncle served in Belgium; came home on the Queen Mary.

    • avatarJoe Grine says:

      How do you figure that to be 2 MOA? at 300 yards, 2 MOA is a 6 inch group. Those look like 10-12 inch groups to me? Call it 3-4 MOA?

      • avatarRoy Hilll says:

        Hey Joe Grine.

        When I put a tape measure into the group made by the AP ammo and indicated by the green magic marker, it measures 6.5 inches across the widest part.

        At 300 yards, 6.5 inches is barely bigger than 2 MOA, which would be about 6.2 inches at 300 yards.

        I sent the photo of the tape measure inside the AP group in with this post (or at least really thought I did), but for whatever reason, that photo didn’t get into the final version.

        • avatarJoe Grine says:

          Ok, I see that now. Kinda hard to tell from the small image. Me being color blind probably doesnt help much either. A little over 2 MOA is pretty good for an off-the shelf Garand. I will try to get a hold of some AP ammo and see if I get similar results.

  3. avatarJohn says:

    I’d love to have a Garand some day. I’d probably whisper “Get off my lawn” before every shot though.

  4. avatarBob H says:

    Michael Z. Williamson (sci-fi author) has a great piece on Garand fan-boism.–almost-as-good-as-a-real-rifle

  5. avatarMartin Albright says:

    Every time you put a scope on an M1, Baby Jesus cries. In my nightmares I see Cheaper Than Dirt offering a folding plastic stock and a bolt-on M-16 style flash suppressor so some yahoo can “bubba up” his M1 like it was an SKS. AAAugh! It hurts my brain!

    Interesting thing about the AP ammo – I’d honestly never heard of it’s apparent accuracy.

    I really think a lot of the ‘corrosive primer’ concern is overblown (though it’s useful for selling cleaning gear.) Sure, if you shoot hundreds of rounds of nothing but corrosive in your Mosin-Nagant and you never clean it and you live in a foxhole in the Ukraine for a year, it will corrode your bore. But on an American-made rifle that you’re only shooting 100 – 200 rounds and then taking home to your nice, warm house and cleaning it with Hoppes or something else, I don’t think you’ll have any problems.

    The only real “problem” with the Garand is the weird internal magazine with the 8 round en-bloc clips. A very strange WW1 holdover from the bolt-action days. Why the Ordnance department thought that was a good idea in a day of magazine-fed machine guns is a mystery to me (and of course, the M14 is nothing but a product-improved M1. The Italian BM59 and BM62 are also product-improved M1s with real box magazines.)

    • avatarBLAMMO says:

      WHAT?!! And do away with the clip “pling”?!!

      • avatarBen Eli says:

        German soldiers actually learned to wait for the “pling” they new it meant several seconds of freedom from fire. According to unsubstantiated rumors I heard from a mostly reliable source, GI’s would mimic the sound by hitting pieces of metal. Ze Germans would then poke their heads only to hear that other great sound the Garand makes.

        • avatarDon says:

          My uncle said he and his buddies would have one clip on a wooden dowel that they’d pling against their receiver…


        • avatarBen Eli says:

          Just out of curiosity, how well did that work for them?

    • avatarDesertRat says:

      I dunno, I’m quite fond of the C and D variants of the M1. The scout scope option eliminates some of the shortcomings of the C and D variants while adding a few of its own.

  6. avatarChris Dumm says:

    Don’t hate on the scope too much! I know it doesn’t quite look right, but lots of us with middle-aged (or older) eyes have the Devil’s own time shooting iron sights at distant targets. I don’t necessarily need the magnification of a scope; I just need my aiming point and my target to be in the same focal plane. I’m hopeless with iron sights, but even a nonmagnifying red dot can keep me on target like the old days.

    And the Ultimak scope rail mounts (probably the subject of a future Gear Review) absolutely kick ass. They let you scope the unscopable (AK, Mini-14, M1 Carbine, M1 Garand, M1A1) precisely and reliably without modification.

    • avatarLeo Atrox says:

      “Unscopable” M1 Garand? I’m pretty sure that the US converted some of those to a sniper platform (M1C and M1D).

  7. avatarRoy Hill says:

    This rifle has had no work done to that I am aware of.

    The scope mount clamps onto the barrel and can be removed and replaced with the original hand guard in minutes.

    My 41-year-old eyes make iron sights harder to use all the time.

  8. avatarRalph says:

    Nice article, nice gun, killer accuracy (literally). A word about Windex: it’s the ammonia in it that neutralizes and washes away the corrosive salts. Plain ammonia mixed with water is just as effective and ten times cheaper than Windex. Also, I’m not sure, but does every Windex product contain ammonia? Because without ammonia, Windex would be an ineffective anticorrosive.

  9. avatarRoy Hill says:

    Ralph, I always get the Windex “Original,” the blue liquid in the squirt bottle.
    It says “with Ammonia-D” on the label. Roger that on the cheaper homebrew version. I just like the convenience of the pre-mixed and packaged Windex.

  10. avatarjlottmc says:

    I’ll show my age here. I’m a relatively young pup at 30, so I should gravitate toward the latest greatest whiz bang stuff. I don’t. I will own a Garand some day, oh yes I will. Most of my rifles right now are WW I, WW II bolt action surplus. Thing is, they are scary accurate. When I was a Devil Dog, and in the armory, I got to play with some of the older stuff. Thing about it was not only was it still perfectly serviceable, but it felt better than the M16 and all the plastic junk too. Only reason I would ever consider a tupperware weapon is if I had to hump it for a long way, otherwise, wood and steel all the way.

  11. avatarGregg says:

    Awesome article, “petrified wood” had me laughing out loud.

  12. avatarStephen H says:

    The gnarly state of my grandfather’s thumb is one of the first things that comes to mind when I see these rifles.

  13. avatarPete says:

    “Comment to provoke insane jealousy” time: I got my Garand in 1982 from the [then] CMP – total cost, $125 delivered via US mail. Included a GI cleaning kit and sling. The rifle was arsenal refinished around 1952-3. 2MOA with iron sights and national match ammo. The neat thing about this old, “heavy” warhorse is that you can fire a 60-rnd match with no pain to your shoulder, even with .30-06 ammo. and guess what? It’s effective on “man-sized” targets out to 600-800 yards. Try that with your 5.56 or 7.62X39 mouse gun.

    I saw a photo in the paper about 25 years back of a Haitian anti-Papa Doc Duvalier rebel. He was laying flat on the ground in a good supported prone position, shooting an M-1 Garand. At the time I thought “bet he is doing far more damage to the enemy with that WWII semi-auto than any 100 of his buddies are doing with their spray-and-pray AK-47s on full auto.” And I would still take a Garand over an AK47 or M16 at anything over 100 yards, with a decent bit of cover and a steady position.

    Of course, given the above criteria, I would take my modern DPMS LR308B with a 6-24x scope at 600-800 yards, over the Garand. But the .308 weighs 12 lbs with the scope, so you aren’t gaining any portability. And the bull barrel/scope combination is designed for accuracy. On the other hand, the Garand will last a LOT longer in real battlefield conditions, including mud/rocks/sand/bashing enemy soldiers with the buttstock.

    • avatartdiinva says:

      Your are correct. Beyond 100 meters automatic rifle fire is not very effective. Aimed fire will drive your enemy to ground where you can drop artillery and mortars on him. An infantryman equipped with a NATO 7.62 or 30-06 rifle will be far more effective then modern lightweight rounds in anything but the jungle or deep forest. While urban combat has some of the close range characteristics bricks and stone will succumb to heavy rounds where 5.56 will just bounce off.

  14. avatarSean says:

    My service grade M1 is at least that accurate. Not with me shooting it, but others have had great success shooting it. I can get fist size groups at 200 yards. A few High Master shooters I know can shoot way better than I can with it. They were all impressed with the gun.
    And yes, with AP , it is more accurate. I can shoot about a playing card size group with AP at 200 yards on a very, very good day.

  15. avatarLeo Atrox says:

    The weekend before last I shot the M1 Garand for the first time. It feels very heavy, but it’s not really any heavier than an M16 loaded with the accessories that go on it now. The difference is really in the weight distribution. The old war-horse is front heavy and, as a result, the off-hand shooting position is tiring. The old timers at the range said that it actually helps accuracy. I beg to differ, but to each his own.

    It’s a great rifle. It took a little getting used to inserting a clip into the top and keeping the blade of my hand on the charging handle. Once you get used to inserting the clip, you can get it in there without releasing the bolt … And your hand is there against the charging handle just in case. No smashed thumb for me.

    I had a lot of fun shooting the old thing. I would like to eventually have one of my own, but I keep spending my money on more modern firearms. I’m not yet wealthy enough to become a collector.

  16. avatarJim Farmer says:

    My late dad served in the U.S. Army during World War II (1939-1945). Just prior
    to Pearl Harbor on Sunday, December 7th, 1941 he was in the National Guard. He
    trained with the .30 caliber bolt action Model 1903 Springfield rifle during basic
    training. In 1942 he was involved in the construction building of the Alaskan/Canadian
    or Alcan Highway which ran from Dawson Creek, B.C. Canada to Fairbanks, Alaska.
    Alaska didn’t become a state until 1959. In May 1943 he was in on the invasion of Attu
    in the Aleutian Islands. He carried a Garand M-1 rifle wrapped in a shelter half while
    operating a bull dozer (Cat) during construction of the Alcan Highway. Though he never had to fire a shot in anger, his M-1 was always withing reach just in case the
    Japanese invaded the mainland. Too, he mentioned while in British Columbia or B.C.
    Canada they were so isolated and remote the company commander allowed G.I.’s to
    supplement their meager rations with moose meat. Thus the only rifles they would
    have had would either be a .30 caliber ’03 Springfield or M-1 Garand. I’m uncertain
    if full metal jacketed military or sporting .30-06 ammo was used to bring in the meat.
    Nonetheless they killed several moose for fresh meat which was delivered to camp
    via a snow sled pulled behind a Cat. The RCMP (Royal Canadian Mounted Police)
    visited the camp and mentioned moose being illegally killed. However, the CO or
    whoever denied to the Mounties they were killing moose. Well… a situation like
    this where a company needs fresh meat what is the alternative?

    • avatarRalph says:

      My dad enlisted in June ’41 and after basic was sent to build the Alcan Highway. I think he spent most of his time in Alaska, but for all I know, our respective fathers may have eaten the same moose. My old man told me that mosse meat looked bad but tasted delicious. My father also drove dozers and trucks. He, too, carried the M1 Garand, which he praised the rest of his life (which ended all too soon). He never mentioned the 1903 Springfield, so I don’t know whether it was issued to soldiers on the Alcan detail. He probably trained with it, though.

      Thanks for reminding me about my dad’s tales.

  17. avatarJack says:

    When i was a 13 year old farm boy,dreaming of going “up north” deer hunting,and dreaming at the time of the relatively new rifle make;Weatherby. I saved my allowance,and sent in for a .303 British Enfield. It was delivered to my mailbox by our postman. It took me another lifetime to get my hands on a box of .303′s. My first target was an old five gallon pail i walked down about 200 paces to an open spot on the ridge that flanked the 20 acre field behind our farm house.Years later i did a more careful assessment of the distance,and i put it at about 150-175 yards. I had some sort of a rest configured behind the house where i could rest my Enield on. I raised the the ladder sight. I use the term ladder sight,because i fogot what to call the adjustable rear sight. It seems as though it were some sort of peep in a folding tower. I put the front sight on the pail, lined it up in the peep,and squeezed off a round. I was totally forgiving of the Enfields obscure looks when that pail jumped from the bullet impact,and rolled down the hillside. I ran just about all the way to the pail to see where my bullet had hit.It was near dead center. I never did get to use it “up north” though. The Enfield had the looks of an ugly rifle that had been dragged behind the tractor for a days plowing,but it was totally accurate. My 72 year old eyes demand a scope nowadays though. I believe the rear sight was adjustable to somewhere around 800 yards,or more.not sure,it’s been about 60 years since then.

  18. avatarJack says:

    Time,and memory may have moved that hole in the five gallon pale from some place other than dead center to dead center,never the less it still makes me smile to think that i hit that pail on the first try.

  19. avatarJim Farmer says:

    You know speaking of the .303 British it too was formerly chambered in the John M.
    Browning Winchester Model 1895 lever action box magazine rifle and carbine. Reason:
    It was first chambered in the Winchester Model 95 I believe in 1898 when the
    Klondike Gold Rush in Alaska commenced. Actually for Canadian hunters who hunted
    in the Far North due to ammo logisitics and availablity. Remember the venerable
    .303 British was officially the military caliber of Britain and the Commonweath:
    Australia, India, New Zealand, Canada, South Africa, etc. up to 1957. Originally the
    .303 British was developed in 1887-88 with Cordite poweder being loaded in 1892.
    Also, the 1891 vintage 7.62mm Russian chambered in the Russian/Soviet Mosin-
    Nagant bolt action rifle, including a number of Winchester Model 1895′s (1915-1916)
    for the Czarist Imperial Russian Government, I understand to date remains in common use with hunters and fur trappers in Siberia. Thus proving bullet placement
    and marksmanship still beats caliber for bringing home the meat. If a hunter or shooter is proficient, competent, safe, and accurate with a standard rifle caliber:
    .300 Savage, .303 British, 7.62mm Russian, 7mm Mauser (7×57), or even the .30-06
    Springfield, then why do they need a magnum?

    • avatarJack says:

      Thanks for the history info on the British Lee Enfield,and it’s .303 round. That ugly old rifle brings back some fond memories of my childhood,and president Eisenhauer.

    • avatarJack says:

      I mentioned my dream of a Weatherby when i was a boy. I finally got one new in 1973 in .300 Weatherby magnum. You have shed light on a truism that i found out after blasting a few deer with what my hunting buddy called my “cannon” In 1977 i bought a 6MM Ruger M77,and have shot a truckload of deer with it. All one shot kills, except one using 86???grain,and mostly 100 grain bullets. My Weatherby is in new condition after 38 years. It still looks better than the new ones. Mine has beautiful wood on it. It was also a wedding present from my wife. The gun,two boxes of shells,and a rather fancy for the time guncase,and leather sling,along with a Redfield scope cost her $425.00 on the head.

      • avatarDavid Johnson says:

        $425 in 1973 was a month’s take home pay for my father in 1973. Granted, he didn’t have a particularly good paying job but still … What a nice rifle I could get if my wife let me spend a month of my take home pay today.

  20. avatarBill Falin says:

    The M-1 is one of my all time favorite rifles. My son and I have 4 between us. All have been worked on by Gerald ‘Hook’ Bouden and all will shoot on average about 1.5 MOA (8-16shots) with decent ammo. Some days with good light on the target and a solid rest 1 MOA. We also have several 1903 Springifelds which I bedded. They are all 1 MOA rifles and often will keep five shots in 3/4 MOA. The 1903 is more accurate in my experience but I like them both. They might be more accurate than my results indicate but my 58 year old eyeballs are the limiting factor. I built a homemade version of a 1903A4 and with 168 Sierras I can keep all rounds on the head of an E type silhouette at 600 yards and more all day long until I get tired of heating up the barrel. I went Distinguished shooting the M-14 while spending summers with the Army Shooting Team. I really like my Match M1-A but my favorite semi-auto is still the M1 and my favorite bolt gun is the 1903; my pre-64 M-70s, Remington 700s and 98 Mausers notwithstanding. I enjoy a lot of different rifles. Many such as the M-4 (Car-15) are specialized and thus better suited for some situations but when I operate a M1 or 1903 Springfield it is time spent with an old friend.

    • avatarJack says:

      I hesitate to buy an AR type of weapon,but would like to own onefor fear the FBI will come aknockin.I to relish all rifles,and shooting them. One of my favorites is my Whitworth markX Express rifle in .375 H&H. This gun is too accurate for words,but i only shoot it a few times a year. It has a good deal of recoil.

  21. avatarJohn Dillinger says:

    War would have been shorter if the Johnson would have been selected over the Grand!

    • avatarJoe Grine says:

      The war would have shorter if Hitler had captured Moscow in 1941 or if he had won the Battle of Britian, or if the U.S. had invented the A-bomb earlier, or if the ME-262 had been fielded in sufficient numbers in 1943, or if the Japanese had decisively prevailed at Midway. I don’t think the Johnson would have made a damn bit of difference. As a matter of fact, I don’t think ANY Infantry weapon could have changed the course of the war.

      • avatar... says:

        Actually, if Hitler hadn’t been so against Assault Rifles (much like Nancy Pelosi) and had allowed the STG44 to be issued, then the Germans would have likely succeeded against the Russians. That’s right, the “Rifle that won WWII” wouldn’t be the good ol’ Garand anymore.

    • avatarMax says:

      The only way the Johnson could have shortened the war was if one of my brothers (506th/101st) dropped into Berlin with one and dropped Hitler with it.

      By the way, Johnny, it is spelled GARAND, but you do have one thing right – the Garand was, and is, GRAND.

  22. avatarCharlie Knapp says:

    Finally got a Garand after shoot possiables at 600 yards at P I in 1959 It is a thrill own a piece of history made in 1942 rebarreled in 1952 by the Springfield armory and shoots like it was made yesterday.. Fell in love with one back then and still love it.. Just a great shooting piece.. Like Patton said the greatest battle implement devised. He was right and it still is a great shooter to this day.. Enjoy shooting and hope all others do also Simper Fi..

  23. avatarBill Befort says:

    These days when you get a resupply of ammunition in the middle of a fight, you have to fill magazines before you can load your rifle. Not so with the Garand en-bloc clip: it let you fully load the rifle, in one move, with prepackaged ammunition straight out of the can. It wasn’t such a dumb idea. It meant that in sustained action you weren’t limited by the loaded magazines you happened to have on hand; if you got fresh ammo you could use it at once.

    In 1967 when the M16 was still new, our 5.56mm ammunition came in 20-round pasteboard boxes like hunting ammo — no stripper clips, as at present, for filling magazines. If you ran out of loaded magazines, your M16′s deliverable rate of fire dropped to that of a Springfield — and I don’t mean an ’03, I mean a trapdoor. The only answer was to carry 15 or 20 loaded magazines, twice what you were likely to require, so you’d never find yourself reloading them under fire.

    Anybody know why the Army never addressed the “pling” issue by making M1 clips out of some kind of tough plastic instead of steel? And as long as we’re on the subject, does anyone know why the Army put up for so long with the position-disclosing smokiness of M2 Ball ammunition? This — still evident to any present-day shooter of M2 Ball — made enough difference in WWII combat that Gen. Marshall specifically mentioned it in postwar reports, contrasting it with the low-observable German ammunition, but I never see a reference to it in historical writing now.

    • avatarMax says:

      The “ping” made by the ejection of a spent Garand enbloc cannot be heard in the noise of battle – I speak from experience.

  24. avatarSulaco says:

    From shooting Black powder I don’t think Windex will wash away corrosive salts any better, maybe less better…than real hot water. Most BP cleaning is with boiling water poured down the barrel so that it heats the metal fast and evaporates the water out of the metal without rusting. In WWII they issued a cleaner just for the corrosive salts primered weapons but its apprentley so toxic that it can’t be made anymore and many shooters husband a 70 year old can of cleaner like gold.

    • avatarJohn says:

      Check out RB-17 cleaner. The stuff is magic. It removes absolutely everything without damaging the metal.
      The military currently has a contract for it, but it’s not too hard to find regardless of the increased demand.

      Dropping some on a patch, then running a brush down the barrel will do so much more than Hoppe’s #9, Shooter’s Choice, CLP, or any other solvent will do.

  25. avatarCavScout says:

    M1 Garand, the Mercedes-Benz of Semi-Auto rifles. My Father owned one for several years, it was his issue rifle when he was drafted. We had alot of fun shooting that rifle together and, working up handloads for it. America owes a huge debt of gratitude to J.C. Garand.

  26. avatarjustin says:

    I love the m1 garand ( was it General George S. Patton’s favorite gun?) This is one of my favorite guns one of the others is the colt model 1911.

  27. my father serive inww2 he worked on the great arttis andanoaly gay is freind was agun smith my father had one of to m1grands that soot afifty round clip init is freand mad the clip fit

  28. avatarToecutter says:

    The M-1 Garand is and outstanding battle rifle and I greatly admire mine and consider it a heirloom. However I at one time owned a cross breed variant rifle known as the BM-59. A magazine fed equivalent of the M-1 Garand. The magazine fed feature is the only modification that could possibly be made to the original design of the M-1 that would improve it’s battlefield quality. The BM-59 was the interim development between the Garand and the M-14. I love them both and would have a difficult time in choosing which one to grab if the SHTF. I do favor my M-21.

  29. avatarFred says:

    I inherited an M1 Garand. I have a lot to learn about it. The proper use of the sling seems complicated. I thought a sling was for carrying the rifle to leave hands free. Seems the sling is suppose to be wrapped around the left arm steadying the rifle when shooting. The little push button on the left side of the receiver seems to do nothing. That button must do something? The butt plate has a compartment in it. I suppose a cleaning kit was stored in the holes? It is easy to hirt oneself cleaning this rifle. The trigger assembly has a sharp spring projecting out. I sliced my finger on that spring removing the trigger assembly. One could get their thumb smashed by accidently releasing the bolt when pushing down on the magazine. The cocking lever is noticable if cycling it several times. I have not shot it yet. Being a semi auto I would think the recoil would be less than a bolt action. Hoping the barrel is not shot out.

  30. avatarVernon says:

    You do realize that I’ll be out for guts?( I mean. You killed it. I sympathize with your eyes but dam. A scope on a WWII masterpiece.) but good review

  31. avatarKen Fielding says:

    I have a very nice M1 and have ordered a UltiMAK – M-12 optic mount (which is exactly at the same level as the original wood it replaces.) I am planning on buying the Nikon EER 2.5 x 8 that you described in your article in the next few days.

    Are you still happy with this scope? What type and what height rings did you use to mount this scope. I want a removable scope mount. What would you recommend (good quality but won’t break the bank.)
    Thanks in advance for your reply.

  32. avatarTom says:

    I ended up scoping my garand using the amega mount and a 2.5 leupold EER scope. I put the same mount on my M1 carbine and can switch the scope between the two using quick detachable rings. I recorded the settings so the switch is quick. I have had a few garands over the years and this one is by far the best accuracy wise and looks new. The trigger was tuned and stock glassed. With very little load development, it is shooting a little over an inch at 100 yards ( 5 shot groups ). Now that I’m retired and have more time to shoot, I will be working on matching a load to the rifle and shooting out to 400 yards. The garand is fun to shoot but hard on brass. Of three 1903 rifles I have, one is a tack driver with reloads. Since I also shoot a Vepr in 308, a m40A1 clone and car 15, I am busy reloading and cleaning. The Vepr is the easiest semi auto rifle to clean. I gave my 303 away to a friend. It shot ok and had a fast bolt but I prefer a rimless case for military rifles. The M40A1 is the most accurate rifle I own.

  33. avatarTom says:

    Correction to above-just looked and have ultimak mount on M1 carbine

  34. avatarBenjandpurge says:

    Pretty sure the sound of the En-block flying out and alerting the germans is one of those fond wartime stories. I’ve heard it a few times myself, it is persistent. But, I have read that german soldiers couldn’t hear it during firefights and that they knew that even if an American soldier had just fired his eight rounds and had to reload, that there was also another soldier or soldiers nearby that didn’t and was ready to shoot. Makes sense. Plus, all bets are off if the American has a back up sidearm. Just wouldn’t be a smart move on the german’s part to charge and maybe kill one guy knowing they’d run a greater risk of getting killed themselves by leaving their position. That being said, I just ordered a Garand from the CMP and can’t wait to get my mitts on it.

  35. Pingback: Fish Fry Part 1 | Armstrong Delusion

  36. avatarFrank Tims says:

    I started basic with an M-1 made by Winchester in 1944 (had date stamped). After I got used to the recoil (badly bruised shoulder on first day of live fire), it was a sweet weapon, and with battle sight, I could hit almost anything. It performed superbly. Then, about the 7th week, we were told to bring our rifles to the supply room for exchange — “new” rifles. I signed for a new M-1 from the H&R (Harrington and Richards I think). A real POS. Frequent jams, failure to eject, operating rod handle jumped the track on the close combat range, my confidence went to hell. Oh, I longed for my old reliable Winchester. I later heard that there were problems with H&R rifles (M-16) in Nam. I believe it. You bet your life on your rifle.

  37. avatarsgt. rjsailer says:

    I joined the corps in 61 trained with the m1 then the m14 then nam the m1 was great so was the m14 i still have a m1 im 70 and still use my m1

Leave a Reply

Please use your real name instead of you company name or keyword spam.