From here, that looks new, Tom! You got that from CMP? Boy, those 192 round ammo cans look about the same size as my 7.62 cans with 460 rounds in them.
The Guh-RAND was designed by John GARE-und… where did I see this on youtube… As long as you pronounce John Garand’s name correctly, the rifle is toMAYto toMAHto, IMO.
My Garand is the one rifle I would keep even if the goons kicked down my door to take everything else. I love that rifle. I even used it in a tactical shooting match and it is one of the few times I shot the medium range stage clean. The only other time I’ve shot the medium range stage clean was with my SCAR 16s.
Sweet. Shot a very nice CMP Garand at a winter clinic some few years ago with a close friend who has now “left the range” permanently. We had a great time. He was grinning ear to ear all day. I had tweaked my bad back and was in a tremendous amount of unmedicated pain that day but I knew how much it meant to my friend to be there shooting those guns. There is something very visceral yet comforting about holding and shooting that big ole piece of walnut and pig iron. If you have never done it you don’t know what I’m talking about but you should go shoot a Garand Clinic while you still can. Then you will know.
I wish I could afford a vintage USGI Garand like that one. Mine is a newer & Italian-made. But I just bought myself a can of that M2 ball for Christmas. I figure I’ll put an “open in case of emergency” sign on it.
Dangit! He beat me to it. I was going to send a pic of mine in along with my .308 carbine when I got home off the rig. I got my Garand from the CMP back when they were ungraded and $169. Mine is a International Harvester made in late 1953 and in wonderful condition. Shoots like a dream too. I sometimes offer to let people I see at the range fire a clip from it, since I think it gives them a clue of why Patton praised it and why it’s such a wonderful rifle. And no, my Garand is NOT for sale! (That’s the other thing people ask at the range.)
The Garand was not a bad gun for its time but it had a lot of flaws. It had no steel liner in the action to keep the stock wood from mushrooming out thereby destroying accuracy in only a short amount of time. It had a poorly designed gas system that was too abrupt and often resulted in broken op-rods. Its bolt had no roller on the bolt lug which resulted in galling of the right frame rail so a special water resistant grease called Lubra-plate was issued so the gun could be fired in the rain. It had an en-block clip which prevented mounting an over the bore scope mount and the magazine could not be topped off as well resulting in soldiers wasting their last few rounds by simply firing them off into thin air so they could reload a full magazine quickly which in turn caused them to run out of ammo much more quickly.
In todays world the younger crowd is not interested in acquiring an obsolete military rifle as the AR 15 is all the rage although even with all of the M1’s glaring faults it was still a way more reliable weapon than the AR-15/M16 which continues to this very day to be an very unreliable weapon unless kept very clean and drowning in oil.
Of course the best battle rifle ever issued was the M14 which corrected all of the M1’s glaring faults. The M14 was just too expensive to make anymore and it was incorrectly thought at the time that the newer lighter recoiling 5.56 would be more controllable in full auto which it turned out was not true either as most soldiers were off target by the time the second round was fired just as it was with the full auto M14 when it was shot in that full auto mode.
Now of course we have the plasticky framed FN SAR with its flexing plasticky receiver that has been seen to take on stress cracks when used in the heavy recoiling .308 caliber. How long it lasts in 5.56 mm I have not heard yet. I have heard the original plasticky mag latch was wearing out so fast they had to alter the design and put a sheet metal wrapping around the latch to make it last a little longer. I do not own one and never will.
You were starting off strong then you lost. The M16/M4 is not a unreliable platform. Doesn’t even need much cleaning. I got my suppressed MK18MOD1 over 6 rounds without cleaning or malfunctions. And it outperforms the M14 in the dirt, mud or sand any day of the week.
As for the M14. A unreliable, poorly manufactured gun. That sucks in the mud or sand. And not that accurate. T
You gave yourself away. Anyone who has had ‘real experience’ with either gun knows how unreliable the M16 was and is. Remember the Jessica Lynch saga where here entire squad was annihilated by AK 47 toting soldiers whose weapons did not all jam up like Jessica’s Squad’s M16’s all did. Not one M16 worked that day. The M16 needs to get an award “The most unreliable Assault rifle ever made in modern times” only the WWI French Chauchat was worse.
I myself used to compete in National Match Across the Course shooting and believe me unless these turkey guns were drowning in oil it did not take long for them to jam up with a gas system that was spraying burnt powder all over the inside of the receiver. Some failed in as little as 30 rounds of fire.
Jessica Lynch and her squad had old, not maintained guns, with unknown round counts on. That they didn’t know how to do a single tap rack bang on.
Why is it you never hear Special Operations complain about the M16 in Vietnam? Why didn’t the Aussies complain about the gun. Why was it always guys who received the least amount of training who complained. Why is it the best trained guys, who fought in the worst conditions in Vietnam always choose the M16, and leave it in the dust.
How am I and others in my community able to go thousands of rounds without cleaning or malfunctions with our M4? How was the Army able to crush the Marines at Camp Perry when they went to the M16 versus the Marines with their M14.
And the M14 is not being used as a sniper rifle in any service. A DMR yes. But that’s only cause it is far cheaper to field M14s than M110s.
You should watch the international news or even U.S. news some time. The M14 is indeed being used as a sniper rifle complete with updated stock. As a matter of fact you have to look close on some of the Service creations to make sure it is an M14 and not some new exotic super weapon.
Your hyperbole about M16/AR15 is pure baloney. I have competed in National Matches and I have seen with my own eyes as well as used such weapons so unlike you I know what I am talking about. The weapon is a turd in the reliability department and I have seen just about all makes including el-cheapo knock offs to custom built super rifles jam up especially when shooting in the rain during a match. Why do you think the military invented LSA fluid at a cost of millions of dollars. They did it to make the M16 shoot a few minutes longer in the rain when it got dirty from heavy firing.
I especially was amused to no end on your multitudes of lame excuses on the 100 per cent failure of the Jessica Lynch catastrophe. Would not a person of even minimal mechanical knowledge admit the truth that the “Desert Foxes” who used the AK 47 are known for taking very little care of their weapons but the AK 47 keeps right on spitting out the ammo while the M16 seems to be only good in combat as a toilet plunger to clean out clogged up toilets as it sure does not work in desert conditions where you cannot drown the gun in oil to make it work.
Article number one is not worth discussing because it was only advertisement propaganda for the Ar15. They harped on several defective weapons that were either early production guns or guns that were manufactured out of spec and they even admitted they were defective. So why even discuss this? They wanted to give the impression that all the M14’s manufactured were like this. I personally fired an “Original M14” on the National Match course and it outshot all the AR 15’s that day especially at the longer ranges while the AR 15 using military ammo was vastly inferior in accuracy especially in the wind.
Video number one: They admitted the M14 had a defective extractor and it had been modified with an over the action scope rail that was trapping the wind blown dust. Not a fair comparison to the AR 15 at all.
Video Number two: In this video, the mud test, I would say is valid and the AR15 was the winner but the AR 15 overall is still a poor performer with the accumulation of burnt powder which still stops the gun cold while the M14 has always been the clear winner in firing long term without jamming up in a fire fight because the action does not accumulate burnt powder to the degree the AR 14/M16 does. This has been proven for over 50 years of use by both weapons. The M14 is the clear winner here.
In conclusion I would opt for the M14 hands down. No soldier should be sent into the field with an M16 that cannot keep firing in a firefight unless the gun is drowning in oil.
I forgot also to point out that in both WWII and Vietnam both the M1 and M14 had a very good record for reliability but the M16 has had nothing but trouble in both Vietnam and in the Middle East as well. The Jessica Lynch episode in the Middle East proved the M16 is not a good combat rifle. Its vastly inferior to the AK 47.
Sounds like you need to get busy and build the perfect Infantry rifle.
Look at the Garand in historical context -if I’m going to war in 1943 this is the rifle I want. If I was forced to carry a bolt gun I’d go with an Enfield (10rd magazine vs 5, decent accuracy, quickest action of all bolt designs) but in this old man’s opinion the Garand is a better choice for the era. Firepower is putting heavy effective long range rounds on target and no WW2 period rifle does it better. Could John Garand have made a better design? Of course. There are alway ” should have’s and could have’s” in every design, but all of the critics out there have to remember that the M-1 design was the first mass produced semi auto infantry rifle issued wholesale to an entire army. It worked well, and remains one of the classic firearm designs. Are there better rifles out there now? Probably. Was the Garand the best tool available when it was time to run across a stretch of sand in Normandy or defend a town named Bastogne? A bunch of American farm boys and mechanics carrying this rifle saved the world .
my my my…..
Tom in Oregon, as a fellow Garand owner, I salute you.
From here, that looks new, Tom! You got that from CMP? Boy, those 192 round ammo cans look about the same size as my 7.62 cans with 460 rounds in them.
Yes. Quite a few years ago.
You oughta take that bad boy turkey hunting. With AP rounds. 🙂
So, so cool.
Very nice….
I am drooling on my keyboard. Beautiful rifle.
A classic right there. Patton’s weapon of choice.
Hotototototooootootootootootootootootooootoototootototoot!!!!
So frickin hot.
Tom raises the bar again. Nicely done.
It’s not a weapon of war; it’s a hunting rifle! It’s got a wood stock! 🙂
Nice!!
Classic, not plastic.
Of all my rifles, my springfield garand will always be my favorite.
There aren’t many great weapons, and there aren’t many good wars. This was a great weapon for a good war.
Scha-wing!
Holy moly. Very nice.
Now, the question of the day: Do you say Guh-RAND or GARE-und?
(I’ve read the man himself pronounced it the second way, but hear the first way far more often).
Still, though, between this and the M1919 with Gatlin crank (and a few others), I’m seeing myself as woefully outdone, firearms ownership wise.
The Guh-RAND was designed by John GARE-und… where did I see this on youtube… As long as you pronounce John Garand’s name correctly, the rifle is toMAYto toMAHto, IMO.
“Get off my lawn!”
My Garand is the one rifle I would keep even if the goons kicked down my door to take everything else. I love that rifle. I even used it in a tactical shooting match and it is one of the few times I shot the medium range stage clean. The only other time I’ve shot the medium range stage clean was with my SCAR 16s.
I would love to have one of those. But in .308 instead of .30-06.
Sweet. Shot a very nice CMP Garand at a winter clinic some few years ago with a close friend who has now “left the range” permanently. We had a great time. He was grinning ear to ear all day. I had tweaked my bad back and was in a tremendous amount of unmedicated pain that day but I knew how much it meant to my friend to be there shooting those guns. There is something very visceral yet comforting about holding and shooting that big ole piece of walnut and pig iron. If you have never done it you don’t know what I’m talking about but you should go shoot a Garand Clinic while you still can. Then you will know.
I wish I could afford a vintage USGI Garand like that one. Mine is a newer & Italian-made. But I just bought myself a can of that M2 ball for Christmas. I figure I’ll put an “open in case of emergency” sign on it.
Dangit! He beat me to it. I was going to send a pic of mine in along with my .308 carbine when I got home off the rig. I got my Garand from the CMP back when they were ungraded and $169. Mine is a International Harvester made in late 1953 and in wonderful condition. Shoots like a dream too. I sometimes offer to let people I see at the range fire a clip from it, since I think it gives them a clue of why Patton praised it and why it’s such a wonderful rifle. And no, my Garand is NOT for sale! (That’s the other thing people ask at the range.)
The Garand was not a bad gun for its time but it had a lot of flaws. It had no steel liner in the action to keep the stock wood from mushrooming out thereby destroying accuracy in only a short amount of time. It had a poorly designed gas system that was too abrupt and often resulted in broken op-rods. Its bolt had no roller on the bolt lug which resulted in galling of the right frame rail so a special water resistant grease called Lubra-plate was issued so the gun could be fired in the rain. It had an en-block clip which prevented mounting an over the bore scope mount and the magazine could not be topped off as well resulting in soldiers wasting their last few rounds by simply firing them off into thin air so they could reload a full magazine quickly which in turn caused them to run out of ammo much more quickly.
In todays world the younger crowd is not interested in acquiring an obsolete military rifle as the AR 15 is all the rage although even with all of the M1’s glaring faults it was still a way more reliable weapon than the AR-15/M16 which continues to this very day to be an very unreliable weapon unless kept very clean and drowning in oil.
Of course the best battle rifle ever issued was the M14 which corrected all of the M1’s glaring faults. The M14 was just too expensive to make anymore and it was incorrectly thought at the time that the newer lighter recoiling 5.56 would be more controllable in full auto which it turned out was not true either as most soldiers were off target by the time the second round was fired just as it was with the full auto M14 when it was shot in that full auto mode.
Now of course we have the plasticky framed FN SAR with its flexing plasticky receiver that has been seen to take on stress cracks when used in the heavy recoiling .308 caliber. How long it lasts in 5.56 mm I have not heard yet. I have heard the original plasticky mag latch was wearing out so fast they had to alter the design and put a sheet metal wrapping around the latch to make it last a little longer. I do not own one and never will.
You were starting off strong then you lost. The M16/M4 is not a unreliable platform. Doesn’t even need much cleaning. I got my suppressed MK18MOD1 over 6 rounds without cleaning or malfunctions. And it outperforms the M14 in the dirt, mud or sand any day of the week.
As for the M14. A unreliable, poorly manufactured gun. That sucks in the mud or sand. And not that accurate. T
You gave yourself away. Anyone who has had ‘real experience’ with either gun knows how unreliable the M16 was and is. Remember the Jessica Lynch saga where here entire squad was annihilated by AK 47 toting soldiers whose weapons did not all jam up like Jessica’s Squad’s M16’s all did. Not one M16 worked that day. The M16 needs to get an award “The most unreliable Assault rifle ever made in modern times” only the WWI French Chauchat was worse.
I myself used to compete in National Match Across the Course shooting and believe me unless these turkey guns were drowning in oil it did not take long for them to jam up with a gas system that was spraying burnt powder all over the inside of the receiver. Some failed in as little as 30 rounds of fire.
Jessica Lynch and her squad had old, not maintained guns, with unknown round counts on. That they didn’t know how to do a single tap rack bang on.
Why is it you never hear Special Operations complain about the M16 in Vietnam? Why didn’t the Aussies complain about the gun. Why was it always guys who received the least amount of training who complained. Why is it the best trained guys, who fought in the worst conditions in Vietnam always choose the M16, and leave it in the dust.
How am I and others in my community able to go thousands of rounds without cleaning or malfunctions with our M4? How was the Army able to crush the Marines at Camp Perry when they went to the M16 versus the Marines with their M14.
And the M14 is not being used as a sniper rifle in any service. A DMR yes. But that’s only cause it is far cheaper to field M14s than M110s.
You should watch the international news or even U.S. news some time. The M14 is indeed being used as a sniper rifle complete with updated stock. As a matter of fact you have to look close on some of the Service creations to make sure it is an M14 and not some new exotic super weapon.
Your hyperbole about M16/AR15 is pure baloney. I have competed in National Matches and I have seen with my own eyes as well as used such weapons so unlike you I know what I am talking about. The weapon is a turd in the reliability department and I have seen just about all makes including el-cheapo knock offs to custom built super rifles jam up especially when shooting in the rain during a match. Why do you think the military invented LSA fluid at a cost of millions of dollars. They did it to make the M16 shoot a few minutes longer in the rain when it got dirty from heavy firing.
I especially was amused to no end on your multitudes of lame excuses on the 100 per cent failure of the Jessica Lynch catastrophe. Would not a person of even minimal mechanical knowledge admit the truth that the “Desert Foxes” who used the AK 47 are known for taking very little care of their weapons but the AK 47 keeps right on spitting out the ammo while the M16 seems to be only good in combat as a toilet plunger to clean out clogged up toilets as it sure does not work in desert conditions where you cannot drown the gun in oil to make it work.
http://looserounds.com/2015/01/30/the-m14-not-much-for-fighting-a-case-against-the-m14-legend/
http://weaponsman.com/?p=20589
Heres what happens when a M14 goes against a AR in the mud and sand. Shocking how bad it does. Oh wait, its actually not.
https://www.full30.com/video/6618755f336970e55e6c50c1fe894ff8
https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4
Ok lets take the video’s one by one.
Article number one is not worth discussing because it was only advertisement propaganda for the Ar15. They harped on several defective weapons that were either early production guns or guns that were manufactured out of spec and they even admitted they were defective. So why even discuss this? They wanted to give the impression that all the M14’s manufactured were like this. I personally fired an “Original M14” on the National Match course and it outshot all the AR 15’s that day especially at the longer ranges while the AR 15 using military ammo was vastly inferior in accuracy especially in the wind.
Video number one: They admitted the M14 had a defective extractor and it had been modified with an over the action scope rail that was trapping the wind blown dust. Not a fair comparison to the AR 15 at all.
Video Number two: In this video, the mud test, I would say is valid and the AR15 was the winner but the AR 15 overall is still a poor performer with the accumulation of burnt powder which still stops the gun cold while the M14 has always been the clear winner in firing long term without jamming up in a fire fight because the action does not accumulate burnt powder to the degree the AR 14/M16 does. This has been proven for over 50 years of use by both weapons. The M14 is the clear winner here.
In conclusion I would opt for the M14 hands down. No soldier should be sent into the field with an M16 that cannot keep firing in a firefight unless the gun is drowning in oil.
I forgot also to point out that in both WWII and Vietnam both the M1 and M14 had a very good record for reliability but the M16 has had nothing but trouble in both Vietnam and in the Middle East as well. The Jessica Lynch episode in the Middle East proved the M16 is not a good combat rifle. Its vastly inferior to the AK 47.
Sounds like you need to get busy and build the perfect Infantry rifle.
We already have the perfect infantry rifle. It was and still is the M14 which by the way the U.S. is still using, often as a sniper rifle.
Look at the Garand in historical context -if I’m going to war in 1943 this is the rifle I want. If I was forced to carry a bolt gun I’d go with an Enfield (10rd magazine vs 5, decent accuracy, quickest action of all bolt designs) but in this old man’s opinion the Garand is a better choice for the era. Firepower is putting heavy effective long range rounds on target and no WW2 period rifle does it better. Could John Garand have made a better design? Of course. There are alway ” should have’s and could have’s” in every design, but all of the critics out there have to remember that the M-1 design was the first mass produced semi auto infantry rifle issued wholesale to an entire army. It worked well, and remains one of the classic firearm designs. Are there better rifles out there now? Probably. Was the Garand the best tool available when it was time to run across a stretch of sand in Normandy or defend a town named Bastogne? A bunch of American farm boys and mechanics carrying this rifle saved the world .
Beautiful.
CMP Special Grade is still the best bargain in guns anywhere, IMO. If you don’t have one, get one.
That is all.