HSLD State of the Art Rifle
 

LINK

SOF Truth #1

He lives in Mass.

State of the art assault weapon for there. Till they outlaw it as well.

TR

I don't understand what the big deal is. 60+ years ago a few MILLION GIs taught "Krauts" and "Japs" to respect the M1. Six years later they did it again for the North Koreans and Chinese. M1s did a fair amount of street fighting in Europe / the Phillipines, and the jungle fighting on the Pacific islands was "up close and personal" too. I love both of mine - and shoot them fairly regular too. My M-4s may be lighter and it's certainly easier to carry lots of ammo for them but the M1 is still a respectable weapon. The rest is nothing more than training and motivation. While I would prefer longer engagement ranges, I wouldn't feel "undergunned" with an M1. My .02 - Peregrino

And there is the point Brother.

;)

Chambered
 

We'rent some of the M1's modified to accept only .308 Winchester ammunition ? If one were purchased from the CMP program I suppose you'd have to have a qualifed gunsmith inspect the chamber and headspace ?

Nice thread !!:)

I used my M1 Carbine in a similar match earlier this month. No rails, lights, optics, or any of that. That thing is pretty handy.

Actually the CMP program inspects all the rifles it sells and guarantees they fall within army specs.

Most of the conversions were done with a chamber insert, IIRC, for the Navy. If you got a real one, you would have a collectible rifle.

The rifles sold by the CMP are already inspected and are safe to fire.

TR

Navy
 

I wont wager any guesses on why the Navy wanted to change the caliber of the weapon :munchin Surplus ammo ?

Thanks for the reply's

Springfield Armory was making them new in .308 as well, albeit with new production, non military parts and selling for about $1200+

The Navy changed the caliber because they were a whole bunch smarter than the Army. A bunch of M-1s yet the standard issue ammo was 7.62 X 51.

So the Navy did their thing like TR said and I have personally shot some of these Navy re-chambered M-1 Garands not many years ago with issued Lake City M-80 Ball in eight round clips and take my word for it -- it is a much more pleasant and accurate experience than shooting the lousy M-2 Ball out of a Garand.

Many guys had their M-1s re-barreled to 7.62 X 51 when that particular cartridge proved itself to be more accurate than the old M-72 'Match' out of a Garand.

About two months ago I shot some issued Navy M-80 that I plucked from its eight round Garand clips through a state of the art Palma Rifle at 600 yards and it shot the ten ring without a problem. Issued M-80. The secret is that this M-80 that the Navy liked for its re-chambered Garands used an extruded powder and not that lousy ball powder loaded in normal M-80.

Gene

Peregrino:

The reason why the Garand dominated close combat was because of its semi-automatic capability, not its 'accuracy' or power. Joes thought it too long and too heavy and would have preferred a shortened M-1 with less recoil. Hence the abortion termed the M-14, followed by something more user friendly for Joe called the M-16.

I would have a significant lack of confidence if I had to go into Mousl today with an M-1 and a bandoleer of eight round clips.

Have I told you how much the issued M-2 Ball suckes? I have shot that stuff from 1943 lots through the late 1960's and M-2 Ball must be the worse shooting ammo I have ever fired through a steel tube. I have gone to the point of 'Pull / Pushing' issued 150 grain M-2 bullets with issued 7.62 149 grain ball bullets just to ensure I get some sort of consistenty. Three minutes at least.

So far the issued 'Green Tip' M-855 Ball from an issued M-4 will outshoot an M-1with issued M-2 Ball at any range. Man what crap the Joes had to shoot in WWII and Korea.

Gene on Ball Ammo

Gene - I am willing to bet that if you found yourself in harm's way tomorrow with only an M1 to play with that you wouldn't abandon it until you were actually in physical posession of something more to your liking. And I'll also bet that if you did set it aside afterwards, it wouldn't be operable for the next passerby to pick up and use. (I'm pretty sure you don't want one used against you ;) .) The point of my comments is that the M1 Garand is far more versatile than our "modern prejudices" give credence to. I'm not surprised the competitor was able to do well in his shooting game. It's not the weapon, it's the man using it. And, unless I missed his point completely, I think that was where NDD was going from the beginning. Even swords, axes, and knives are still legit weapons (spent yesterday at a local SCA event :p ). After all - isn't that the rationale behind the 21 foot rule?

True, the M1 is no longer "state of the art" and even during its heyday other weapons were more convenient to use in urban combat. (I can only imagine the logistical problems faced by units with 6-8 different types of individual/crew served weapons and their associated ammo.) But we ALL know how GIs bitch about everything they've ever been issued - and yet somehow they still manage to do the job despite the supposed "shortcomings" of the aforementioned "defective" equipment. Every weapon has its detractors, even the M-16 went through teething pains (and both the weapon and its ammo STILL have vocal detractors). I agree about the accuracy comment in favor of the M-16 (family), that's why I quit shooting M1s/M14s/M1As in Service Rifle years ago. I also agree with your comments about the M-2 Ball ammo. I've shot a fair amount myself and I know how it shoots. I've still got several cans of it "laying around here somewhere" including some corrosive stuff that's so bad it'll probably have to be destroyed. (The newer stuff does make a fair "Mexican Match" though.)

Just hoping to clarify the issue a bit - Peregrino.

Roger that.

Peregrino and NDD:

True -- the man using the weapon makes a difference. However, history has proven that there are limits to how much a man can make that difference. The Japanese lost WWII because of this belief. We won, not as much because our guys were any better, but because we had better weapons. A semi-automatic rifle verses a five shot repeater that -- during WWII -- was already twenty five years obsolete.

One thing I have found kind of weird about the Joe's is their acceptance of equipment that is prone to failure. The M-4, M-9, and rebuilt M-16A2 in that order of numbers of failures to function in one way or the other. The guys clear the malfunction and shoot until it does the same thing again. I honestly think that most of them simply accept that weapons will fail to function. It is kind of frustrating but there is a real ugly part of this too and it deals with laziness by "armorers" and a real broken logistical system.

Well, certainly I would take a Garand if that was the most modern weapon available. You better bet I would rather have a Garand than face someone with a sword or knife. Given a choice between an 0-3 and a Garand, I would take the Garand. Given a choice between an M-14 and a Garand, I would take the M-14. Given a choice between the M-14 and an M-16A1, I take the M-16A1. Between the A-1 and A-2 and I will take the A-2. Between the A-2 and the M-4 -- I will take the A-2. Between the M-4 and an M-14? I have more trust that the M-14 will function than an M-4. Between a issued Garand and an issued M-4? Not really sure. One thing for sure is I would rather bet on an M-4than a rock or sword. I can always throw the M-4 at the guy when it fails to function and grab up a rock.

Gene