The M1 Garand Rifle and M1 Carbine

Sunday, 15 June 2008
0830


Those who know me well know that I am a passionate shooter and collector of military rifles. I am especially fond of the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. I have a fairly extensive library of reference books on firearms, with special attention paid to these rifles. I also have a pretty reasonable collection of the rifles themselves. I love to read about them, handle and admire them, and shoot them.

When people ask me how many I have, I give the standard gun collector’s answer: “More than I need, but less than I want”. :-)

When I hold one of these rifles in my hands, I feel a vivid connection to the past that I find fascinating. Who knows where it has been? From the engineers who designed it, to the factory workers who made it and the soldiers who carried it, it has “been there” when history was made, and it remains behind long after the people have passed on. Whose hands held it as they stormed a beach or took a hill, fought the Nazis across Europe or sweated in the jungle on some remote Pacific island? Has it seen desperate combat or did it spend the war leaning against the wall or sitting in a rack in a headquarters or supply depot someplace?

The original markings tell the beginning of the story – the manufacturers’ codes, proof marks, dates, ordnance stamps, rebuild marks, etc. The rest is written in the accidental markings - every ding in the wood and every mark on the metal would have a story to tell, if only it could.

Since being deployed, I’ve been away from all my personal things for nearly two years, but while home on leave I had a chance to reconnect a bit. I had to write a paper for the Command and General Staff College on the development of a military technology between WWI and WWII, and I chose the semiautomatic rifle. While I did not have time to dig into storage and get out the actual rifles, it was fun to find my books and go over them for background information, rereading favorite passages, flipping through the familiar pages of photos, engineering drawings, production history, and first-hand accounts of their performance in battle.

We all have our passions in life, and I am as guilty as anyone of wanting to share mine with others, sometimes overenthusiastically. But it occurs to me that perhaps the paper I wrote might help my friends and family to understand a little better why these rifles mean so much to me. In addition to their ingenious engineering, utilitarian beauty, and the pure fun of shooting them, they played an enormously important role in U.S. military history. When I pick them up at home or on the range, they come alive in my hands and give me a very real sense of connection to the people, places, and events that helped to shape the world we live in.

Mood: Thoughtful
Music: Silence

=================================================

The Development and Effect of the Semiautomatic Rifle in WWII

MAJ Bradley J. Foster, 6 June 2008

Today, every modern military force in the world equips its soldiers with some variety of select-fire automatic rifle. In the first half of the 20th century, however, this was not yet the case. During WWI, nearly all soldiers were equipped with bolt-action rifles (Sharpe, 1938). For the armies of most nations, this continued to be true through WWII. The United States Army, however, expanding upon research started during WWI, was the first army to develop, adopt, and field semiautomatic rifles as general-issue individual weapons. The M1 Garand rifle and the smaller and lighter M1 Carbine gave the American soldier a distinct advantage in firepower over his enemies, which contributed significantly to his effectiveness and to the success of American arms in WWII (Canfield, 1988). The German effort, although resulting in more advanced designs, was less successful (Smith, 1948). The WWII experiences with the development and deployment of semiautomatic rifles holds important lessons for today’s military leaders as we approach contemporary issues of transformation.

After the western front in WWI devolved into trench warfare, both sides made efforts to break the stalemate. The German Army developed assault tactics relying on special formations armed with submachineguns. The U.S. Army developed the Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) for a similar purpose. Although it was a fine weapon, it was too heavy and required too much ammunition for use as the primary individual battle rifle. It was better suited for use as a squad automatic weapon, which was its primary role in WWII (Whelen, 1945).

The major U.S. development during WWI for arming the individual soldier with a more powerful assault weapon was the Pedersen Device. Known officially as the “Automatic Pistol, Caliber .30, Model of 1918” to protect its Top Secret status, this device was actually a replacement bolt for the M1903 rifle which accepted a 40-round magazine of .30 caliber pistol-sized cartridges. The idea was that each soldier could temporarily turn his bolt-action rifle into a close-range semiautomatic assault weapon, and then return it to its bolt-action configuration for long-range use as needed. Intended for the Spring 1919 offensive, the Pedersen Device was put into production but was never issued due to the November 1918 Armistice. It was subsequently deemed impractical for a variety of reasons, and nearly all of the 65,000 devices produced were destroyed (Hatcher, 1947).

During the 1920s, research continued at Springfield Armory and the Army tested various designs for a semiautomatic battle rifle. John C. Garand (an engineer at Springfield Armory), Johnson, Pedersen, and several other designers competed. In the Aberdeen tests in 1929, the .276 caliber Garand rifle came out on top. Army Chief of Staff General Douglas MacArthur subsequently directed that the new rifle be chambered in the standard .30-06 service caliber, thereby permitting the use of the huge stocks of ammunition remaining from WWI, maintaining ammunition interchangeability with the existing inventory of M1903 and M1917 bolt-action rifles, and enabling the use of existing machinery and tooling to produce both rifle barrels and ammunition. A Garand modified to .30-06 caliber was tested and finally accepted as the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, in 1936 (Hatcher, 1947 and Duff, 1993).

Early production of the M1 Garand (as the new rifle was commonly called) was limited by peacetime budgets and production problems, and by early 1940 only about 50,000 had been produced. These early M1’s were of a design known as the “gas trap” which proved temperamental and subject to malfunction in the field. An improved gas mechanism was developed and standardized in February 1940. These so-called “gas port Garands” then began to be produced in large quantities at Springfield Armory. Winchester was engaged for M1 production in 1943, eventually delivering 513,880 rifles (Duff, 1993). By the end of the war in 1945, a total of 4,040,802 M1 Garand rifles had been produced for issue to American troops (Poyer and Riesch, 1995).

The M1 Garand was widely recognized as the finest infantry rifle in the world, which gave American troops a decisive advantage on the battlefield:

“John Garand’s rifle was the single most significant small arms development in the history of warfare. No other rifle in this nation’s history so outclassed that of its adversaries. The accuracy, reliability, ruggedness, and most of all, its firepower, could not be matched by any of the Axis powers during World War II.” (Duff, 1993).

“(The M1 Garand) rifle was probably the very best in the war, and the best military hand weapon ever placed on the battlefield in appreciable numbers. Its employment had the very desirable effect of doubling the strength of our frontline platoons, in either defense or attack. It gave an American squad the ability to slug it out on the trail with a Japanese company, and hold for a long time. The gun was amply accurate, powerful, and it was quite reliable.” (George, 1947)

In 1940, the War Department recognized the need for a light carbine rifle to supplement the M1 Garand. Many soldiers, including most officers as well as support troops such as cooks, truck drivers, mechanics, clerks, etc. did not need or could not easily carry the large, full powered M1 Garand. Nonetheless, they needed a more effective personal defense weapon than the standard M1911 .45 caliber pistol. The requirement called for a rifle weighing five pounds chambered for the moderately-sized .30 Carbine round, developed from the commercial .32 Winchester. The competition was eventually won by Winchester, and their design was adopted as the U.S. Carbine, Caliber .30, M1 in October 1941 (Whelen, 1945 and Riesch, 1995).

The M1 Carbine would become a testament to the effectiveness of American industrial mobilization. Unlike the M1 Garand, which was developed and primarily produced by the government-owned Springfield Armory (with a significant but secondary production run by Winchester Repeating Arms), the M1 Carbine was a collaborative effort of private industry on an emergency basis to meet anticipated wartime needs. As designed by Winchester, only two hand-built prototypes of the rifle existed, and there were no engineering drawings, only a few sketches. Inland Division of General Motors had received an initial contract for an engineering study of the rifle. Winchester and Inland engineers worked together to test, modify and refine the original Winchester design for mass-production. Ironically, the working group of Winchester and Inland engineers put the finishing touches on the final Ordnance drawings for the M1 Carbine on the afternoon of December 7th, 1941 (Ruth, 2001).

The M1 Carbine was eventually manufactured under contract by ten major prime contractors and over 1600 subcontractors. American G.I.s were issued M1 Carbines bearing not only the well-known Winchester logo, but also those of other companies such as Inland and Saginaw Steering Gear (automotive parts), IBM and Underwood (typewriters), Rockola (jukeboxes), National Postal Meter, and several others. Production of the M1 Carbine eventually exceeded that of the M1 Garand. With over 6 million rifles fielded, it became the most-produced firearm in American military history (Riesch, 1995).

Although initially intended as a substitute for the M1911 .45 caliber pistol to arm officers and support troops, the M1 Carbine became very popular with frontline combat troops (particularly Airborne and Special Operations Units) because of its small size, light weight, and the ability to carry a larger quantity of ammunition for the same weight.

“The carbine turned out to be an ace weapon of this war, as far as I am concerned. It was light and handy, powerful, and reasonably accurate. If I had to make my own way in hostile jungle, traveling with the lightest possible kit where I should be likely to encounter enemy at any time, the carbine is the weapon I should choose.” (George, 1947)

The only Axis nation to contribute significantly to the development of the semi-automatic rifle during WWII was Germany. Early inter-war German development concentrated on the light machinegun, resulting in the MG34 and later MG42, both crew-served weapons (Smith, 1948). The German Army continued to depend on the submachinegun for close-assault troops, and on the wide deployment of light machinegun teams for adding firepower to traditional infantry formations. The primary issue weapon for the individual German soldier was the Mauser 98k, a bolt-action rifle little different from its WWI ancestor.

Development of the military semiautomatic rifle in Germany started late compared to the United States. The first rifle fielded was the Gewehr 41 (G41M), a 10 pound gas-operated rifle in the standard German 7.92mm caliber with a 10 shot detachable magazine, manufactured by Mauser. Like the M1 Garand, this rifle used a gas operating system. It had a distinctive cone-shaped gas trap at the muzzle end which was temperamental and subject to fouling. The locking mechanism was complicated and had more parts than the M1. The rifle was very well-made and finely finished, which proved to be impractical both for mass-production and for field use. (Dunlap, 1948).

The other early German rifle fielded was designated the G41W, manufactured by Walther. This rifle shared the muzzle cone gas trap design of the G41M, but had a completely different breech locking and firing mechanism. It was not as finely finished as the G41-M, and was better-adapted to mass production. While the breech and locking mechanisms worked well in the field, the gas trap design continued to cause problems, making this rifle less than satisfactory (Smith, 1948).

In 1943, the Germans modified the breech and locking mechanisms of the G41W and combined them with the gas operating system of the Russian Tokarev rifle to produce the G43, which was the most successful and extensively-deployed German semiautomatic rifle of the war. The rifle was well-designed for mass-production, and made extensive use of stampings and steel castings (Dunlap, 1948). By this time, however, German industry was becoming resource-constrained, and the rifles were made to a lower quality standard. “The rifles as manufactured never approached the value of the design itself” (Smith, 1948).

The final German semiautomatic rifle of WWII actually represented a breakthrough in small arms design. Designated as the MP43, MP44, and StG44 in its various development versions, this rifle used a reduced-size 7.92mm round designated 7.92mm Kurz (short). It took a 30-round detachable box magazine, and was made extensively from steel stampings with minimum use of machining operations. The select-fire feature of this rifle gave the infantry soldier the accuracy and power of a semi-automatic battle rifle with the fully-automatic firepower of a submachinegun when needed. The StG44 was a true select-fire assault rifle in the modern sense of the term. Although it was an excellent concept which greatly influenced postwar small arms design, it was manufactured in insufficient quantities, too late to affect the outcome of WWII (Smith, 1948).

Comparison of the American and German experiences with semiautomatic rifles in World War II can yield important lessons for today’s military leaders. The first of these is that the early recognition and adoption of technological advances can give a decisive advantage in warfare. While this may seem self-evident in principle or in hindsight, it requires great foresight and determination to transform new technology into practical weapons systems when faced with conservative attitudes and limited budgets. The U.S. Army worked for nearly twenty years to field a semiautomatic rifle, and eventually succeeded due to the perseverance and ingenuity of firearms designers and Army Ordnance officers dedicated to the concept. On the other hand, “while Germany was among the first nations to do extensive experimental work in the field of semiautomatic rifles, her army failed grievously in evaluating the needs for such weapons for their infantry.” (Smith, 1948)

Even within the United States military establishment, such conservatism and lack of foresight was not easily overcome. While the Army adopted the M1 Garand early on, the USMC resisted the change and went to war armed with the bolt-action M1903 Springfield. When Army troops landed on Guadalcanal in 1942 and the Marines there saw the M1 Garand in action, this attitude quickly changed. Enterprising Marines picked up, traded for, or simply “midnight requisitioned” M1 Garands whenever they could, and very soon the USMC adopted the M1 Garand as their standard infantry weapon (George, 1947).

The second important lesson to be learned is that good engineering is not enough. The technology must be adapted to production realities and fielded early enough and in sufficient quantities to make a difference – timely adoption and the mobilization of industry are crucial to the success of a new technology. The U.S. Army’s Ordnance establishment and U.S. industry were able effectively to cooperate to produce enormous quantities of the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine. Once German armaments engineers were focused on the problem, they actually developed a weapon that was superior to anything the allies had, and which greatly influenced small arms design for the rest of the 20th century. But due to the inevitable engineering challenges of testing and adapting design concepts to the realities of battlefield conditions and to the requirements of mass production, their effort was too little, too late to influence the outcome of World War II.

Today’s military leaders would do well to heed these lessons when accused of being obsessed with “Next War-itis” and told to focus only on the immediate needs of the moment. Our job is not only to meet our immediate needs today, but to look ahead and prepare for the military challenges we will face in the future.


Bibliography:

Canfield, Bruce; A Collector’s Guide to the M1 Garand and M1 Carbine; Lincoln, RI; Andrew Mobray Publishers, 1988.

Canfield, Bruce; U.S. Infantry Weapons of World War II, 3rd Ed.; Lincoln, RI; Andrew Mobray Publishers, 1998

Duff, Scott A.; The M1 Garand – World War II; Greensburg, PA; South Greensburg Printing Co, Inc and Scott A. Duff Publications, 1993.

Dunlap, Roy F.; Ordnance Went up Front; Plantersville, SC; Small Arms Technical Publishing Company, 1948.

George, Lt. Col John; Shots Fired in Anger; Washington, D.C.; National Rifle Association, 1981 (Originally published by the Small Arms Technical Publishing Company, 1947).

Hatcher, Major General Julian S.; Hatcher’s Notebook; Harrisburg, PA; Military Service Publishing Company, 1947.

Poyer, Joe and Riesch, Craig; M1 Garand 1936 to 1957; Tustin, CA, North Cape Publications, 1995

Riesch, Craig; U.S. M1 Carbines Wartime Production; Tustin, CA; North Cape Publications, 1995

Ruth, Larry L.; War Baby! The U.S. .30 Caliber Carbine; Corbourg, Ontario CA; Collector Grade Publications, 1992 (2nd printing 2001).

Sharpe, Philip B.; The Rifle In America; New York, NY; William Morrow & Company, 1938.

Smith, Walter H.B.; Rifles (Volume Two of The N.R.A. Book of Small Arms); Washington, D.C. and Harrisburg, PA; The National Rifle Association of America and The Military Service Publishing Company, 1948.

Whelen, Colonel Townsend; Small Arms Design and Ballistics; Plantersville, SC; Small Arms Technical Publishing Company, 1945.

Heat, Wind, and Dust

Saturday 14 June
0800

Maybe I should have called it "Earth, Wind, and Fire". I am definitely back in the desert. Since I got back we have had only one or two reasonably clear days. Most of the time the wind has been blowing pretty fiercely, which in this part of the world means that there is dust in the air. They say that the week before I came back was really bad, and I believe it. There are drifts of accumulated sand alongside of every structure and object outside that are far larger than anything I’ve seen since I’ve been here. Right now it’s not quite “sandstorm” intensity, but quite often the visibility has been only about 500 yards, and you get grit in your eyes and teeth and a grungy feeling all over just from being outside.

The temperature has fluctuated a little since I’ve been back, but mostly it’s just been hot, in the 110F – 115F range. Coupled with the dust, it is not very comfortable to be outside, and I am grateful that my duties do not require me to remain outside for very long at a time.

For a long time now I have been dreaming of a wilderness trip upon my return home. Backpacker Magazine has sustained me with stories and images of the kind of wilderness I crave. For the past few months, I had settled on Isle Royale in Michigan’s Lake Superior as my dream destination, and while I was home I bought the trail map and guide book at REI. I’ve been reading it since returning, and it's a nice escape. I am afraid I probably won’t have time to go there before it closes for the season this year, but I’ll at least get in some kind of weekend trips during the fall, and maybe be prepared to tackle Isle Royale next spring or summer.

I read a quote from Thoreau recently that seems quite appropriate for me. It perfectly captures my attitude towards the outdoors in general, and toward wilderness in particular:

"I come home to my solitary woodland walk as the homesick go home. I thus dispose of the superfluous and see things as they are, grand and beautiful.
- Henry David Thoreau

Only six weeks to go before I start out-processing! :-)


Mood: Happy
Music: The Eagles – Take it Easy

Back from R&R

Sunday, 8 June 2008
1800

Well, I am back from R&R and mostly recovered from jet lag, but not from the leave itself.

I bet the four people worldwide who were reading this blog have officially given up, since it’s been over two months since I made an entry in it! Oh well – it just emphasizes some observations about myself that I made a bit earlier. I have turned more inward towards the end of my time here. Things don’t seem as new and exciting, and I just don’t feel like making new entries as much anymore, perhaps since my thoughts seem likely to interest nobody but myself.

Another major part of it is the fact that I’ve had other external concerns that have dominated my attention outside of work, and there is only so much of me to go around. The largest of these concerns is that since the beginning of the year I’ve really tried to focus more on getting ILE-CC completed. (ILE-CC is Intermediate Level Education, Common Core, more widely known as Command and General Staff College). I have to get this done to get promoted, and the clock is ticking, so it’s been on my mind more and more lately. I’m now within striking distance of completion, but more on that later.

It felt strange coming back here. On the one hand, I didn’t really want to come back because my leave was too short and I wanted to spend more time with my family. On the other hand, I felt a sense of excitement and anticipation because I only have about seven weeks left until I start out-processing to go home for good. So coming back here was the beginning of the end of my tour. There was also a strange sense of comfort and familiarity - I have been here so long that it feels like home in its own bizarre way. That in itself tells me it’s time to go!

While I enjoyed most of my time on leave, it was anything but relaxing. Although I did have a list of things that I needed to while I was home, I had envisioned a relaxing, leisurely time including walks in the woods, quiet time with my kids, and just generally recharging my batteries. It didn’t work out that way at all.

First of all, I started off by doing almost everything they tell you not to do in the briefings they give when you prepare to travel back to CONUS. They even have a Chaplain come in and talk about family relationships and reintegration. Returning service members have a lot of problems getting reintegrated to their families, and so the Army takes the time to warn you and try to get you ready for what will happen.

One of the main things they told us was not to try to do everything on the first weekend. Take it easy, get over the jet lag, relax, and just take it all in as you get used to being with your family again. I totally violated this advice, mainly because of the timing of my leave to coincide with my son’s graduation from high school. Almost as soon as I got back on Friday night, family started arriving in town, and it was a hectic schedule of visits, meals, parties, etc. I wanted to see everyone and everyone wanted to see me, so by the beginning of the following week I was more exhausted than when I first arrived home after the flight!

I also had a lot of trouble with the reintegration to my family, since there really wasn’t yet any integration to start with. Since coming back to Kuwait last fall, my townhouse had been closed and my property moved into storage. As a result, I do not have a home to “return” to, in the sense that it is a comfortable and familiar place where I have (or had) established routines and “rules of engagement”. I was staying at a friend's home, and was a newcomer to their home and their ways of doing things. This kind of transition is hard enough under normal circumstances, but coupled with being home on leave it was very, very difficult. I didn’t have “my own space”, did not have any of my familiar surroundings, and found it hard to adjust to the change. For about the first week or week and a half I was pretty hard to live with, and it caused a lot of stress.

My list of “things to do” was pretty demanding. Unfortunately, they were all things that simply had to be done while I was physically at home, and which could not wait until the end of my tour. They included visits to my doctor and chiropractor, a visit to court to straighten out some records, a visit to the bank to straighten out an investment account that was messed up, a visit to the U of M ROTC department to see about a teaching job, digging through my property storage area to find highly specialized reference books for one of my ILE-CC papers, and going through those books to collect facts, statistics, and quotes for the paper so I wouldn’t have to carry all the books back to Kuwait. Although I tried to do these things when everyone was at work or in school, they still ended up taking time away from visiting with my family.

So, on balance I did everything they said not to do – front-loaded the leave with a rush of family events, walked into a new living situation like a bull in a china shop, and tried to cram a year’s worth of necessary errands and activities into two weeks.

Now that the leave is over and I’m back here, we’re left feeling sad and lonely, as though we didn’t have time to breathe, much less relax and spend time together.

The only saving grace is that this was not a mid-tour leave, but is towards the end of my tour. In two months I’ll be home, and will be much better able to relax and get settled in. I am hoping that this time spent together on my leave will have taught us some important lessons, and that when I return we’ll have a better understanding and be able to integrate much more gracefully and happily.

Meanwhile it’s back to work, both on my day-to-day military responsibilities and on my military education. Today I finished and submitted the paper I worked on during my leave. Five down, three to go…..


Mood: Hopeful
Music: Silence