Gunboards Forums banner
1 - 20 of 106 Posts

·
Copper Bullet member
Joined
·
1,739 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The other thread inspired this. New forums, time to re-hash this one. I won't jump in just yet, because most of you are far more knowledgeable about both of these rifles than I am.

I have one (1) example of each, so all I know is the M1 is easier to shoot, because it simply works, and the sights are natural. But the SVT is more slender and points more easily. As a club, I'd rather have the M1; but with a bayonet, give me the SVT.

Let the technical discussion begin. :D



 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,144 Posts
I think the M1 was a more refined design and the proof of that is the number made and fielded. As well, the M1 design had historical and design "legs" that has kept Mr. Garand's engineering on the battlefield to this very day in the form of the M14.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
712 Posts
I don't have either, but I've wanted both for quite a while. I'll probably get the Garand first, because both of my Grandfathers carried one.

Here's a question...which caliber do you gentlemen think will be widely available as inexpensive surplus for the collector in the future ? 30.06 is of course as American as Apple Pie, and commercial ammo can be found anywhere, but what country's military still widely uses it ? On the other hand, 54r is still being churned out night and day on the other side of the world, provided we can get it imported...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
589 Posts
Why didn't they put magazine on the Garand?
Clips were cheap, easy to produce and more foolproof than magazines. They still are. No moving parts. Only real drawbacks are that you cannot reload while prone without shifting position and you cannot top them off. As to the ping alerting the enemy to the fact that you were reloading, just take off your hearing protection, fire off a clip and see how loud the ping sounds now.
 

·
Platinum Bullet Member
Joined
·
972 Posts
Here is a quick composite of an M1 and 2 SVT's that are all still in original WWII condition.

The M1 and SVT are my two favorite rifles and I have more examples of each of them in my collection than any other rifles or carbines. I have shot both the M1 and SVT40 a lot , but have shot the M1 more and in matches, etc.

I consider the SVT a little more "finicky" than the M1 and the SVT is slightly more complex to maintain. The M1 gas system is easier to access and clean which is a big factor in field conditions and with corrosive ammo. Overall it is faster and easier to field strip and reassemble an M1.

The enbloc clip of the M1 is vastly superior to the stripper clip which was the primary means of reloading for the SVT. Also the non-rimmed .30-06 round gets the nod over the rimmed round. I also prefer the sight system on the M1. With the peep sight it is faster to obtain a sight picture.

Cass
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
12,041 Posts
Why didn't they put magazine on the Garand?
Do you mean the Garand is a single-shot rifle? :)

Of course there is a magazine, which is integral, holds 8 cartridges and is clip-fed.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
11,618 Posts
I've wondered why they didn't design a really rugged removeable magazine for the M1. Make it sturdy with a reinforced lip, etc. Could have made 10 round magazines, and even 20 round mags for special use, if needed.

But I also understand why the design was accepted, given the quick and easy means of of reloading using enbloc clips. Lots of ammo could be carried in bandoliers with minimal added weight.

I wonder how often the GI's were disadvantaged by the "PHWANG!" sound as the empty clip was ejected. I've heard rumored stories of GI's being "rushed" by enemy at the sound of the clip ejection, but I've also heard stories of GI's supposedly throwing empty clips in the air to get the enemy to show themselves.
 

·
Diamond w/Oak Clusters and Swords Bullet Member
None of your business.
Joined
·
17,476 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
118 Posts
How would the Swedish AG42 and the German G43 do against the M1 & the STV40. I have never shot a G43 or STV40 but have shot the M1 and Swedish AG42. I liked both. AG42 had less recoil and was a tack driver thanks to it being a 6.5 vers a 30 cal bullet. Any comments?
Michael Hale
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
In my very humble opinion, virtually ALL contemporary rifles to the Garand were "wannabes". They all wanted to be as accurate, reliable, rugged, and easy to maintain as the Garand. Many copied the action of the Garand. Even the Japanese reverse engineered copies of the Garand for themselves, a country that had NO semi-auto rifle for their troops. That's something that can't be said for the SVTs, G41s, G43, or any other rifle to my knowledge.

While I love my SA SVT 40 and have shot it along side my Garand at times, the SVT was just overpowered by the huge 7.62 x 54r ammo that the Russians shot through it and the complexity of the gas system required too much maintenance, especially in the wide variety of climates the Russians found themselves fighting in. Still, the SVT was attractive enough to have been picked up by both the Finns and the Germans early in the war and used against the Russians, themselves.

I sometimes wonder if the same was true about the Garand. Did the Germans use battlefield pickups against us? I'd guess it might of happened but the caliber wasn't readily available as was the Russian caliber. Just my opinion, however. I've never read about Garands being used against us. Hmmmmm....I'm going to post that as a separate thread.

History has proven that the Garand was the superior semi-auto and that's why more than 6+ million were produced and sent all over the world over 13 +/- years of production. As for removable mags and larger capacity, the Garand was morphed into the BM59 and eventually the M14 as you all know. They had a less favorable history but the M14 has found a place in Iraq having been "rediscovered" by long-range shooters.

It's also my opinion that a removable mag sticking out below the receiver in a Garand would have encumbered the rifle. Watch the old films of our guys hitting the beaches and you'll understand that a mag sticking below the rifle would have caught on a lot of stuff and exposed the action to sand and debris. Also, a magazine has it's own failures, too. While I, too, would have like to have seen at least 10 rounds, the 8 round enblock really works just fine and is easy to insert once you get it down. And, I'd have to believe that any soldier using a Garand for months on end would have become a virtuoso when it came to reloading his rifle. The "ping" of the enbloc story is an urban legand from what I've read but I'd bet that it did probably actually happen as probably did the tossing of an empty enblock to fool the enemy. It just wasn't as widespread as one might believe. In the heat of battle, that ping would certainly have been overshadowed by all the other sounds occuring.

So, I respect the SVT and all the other semi-auto rifles that were introduced during the war but the Garand really is the one true survivor and provided our troops with a superior rifle. Given the choice to select one or the other to run into battle with, the Garand would go with me hands down.

Just my humble opinion. BTW, I own and shoot all of the semi-autos that existed during WWII and I do ocassionally shoot my 1945 Garand in high-power competitions including Camp Perry with it with very satisfying results.

Rome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
589 Posts
The Garand was originally intended to be a 10 shot rifle. The very first test models were in .270 caliber. The clips for these rifles do have a 10 round capacity. Only a few of these were made. One is in the infantry museum at Ft. Benning GA. I believe it was MacArthur who insisted on using 30-06 as the army already had tons of it in stock and it thought to have better terminal ballistics. The larger round meant that the clip could only hold 8 rounds instead of 10 in the space provided.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
170 Posts
I don't know, but speculate that that in the 1930's mindset there were a few reasons for not using a detachable mag in the M1 Garand.

First was as someone already mentioned, the cumbersome nature of a long mag when crawling/shooting prone. As I recall there were some other countries who had experiences with this phenomenon while using detachable mag rifles before WW2, the details are escaping me right now though.

Second, maybe they were still thinking in a WW1 mentality; i.e. troops would usually be shooting at each other from long distances with slow aimed fire.

While perhaps not as advanced as a truly detachable mag, compared to the contemporary stripper clips of bolt action rifles, the enbloc clip still looked pretty modern to people in the 1930's I'll bet.

Also, the school of thought that rank and file conscript soldiers should not be given hi-capacity mags as they would "waste ammo" with rapid unaimed fire. As well as the fear that the detachable magazines would be lost by foot soldiers and render the weapon a single shot rifle. I read once that Stalin didn't want a detachable mag on the SKS, even though Simonov originally did, because he thought soldiers would lose them too often.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
786 Posts
Given the choice between those two, I would have to agree. The M14, while a lot heavier, is a fantastic shooter as borne out by the fact that it's still in service albeit as a support rifle. I agree.

One other item to ponder is that the FN49 and the M1 Garand are almost identical in length, weight, and caliber. The FN49 (mine anyway) has a fixed mag and a 10 shot capability. It's curious as to why Garand designed his rifle the way he did.

Rome
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
336 Posts
The enbloc didn't seem so backward in a time when everybody else had bolt actions and stripper clips. Even the SVT used stripper clips, like the Enfield.

I have one of each and if I were forced to use one of them in real combat. I'd take the Garand.
 

·
Gold Bullet member
Joined
·
4,427 Posts
Springfield Armory never got evacuated due to being in range of German small-arms fire.

The M-1 is another typically American example of how even a politically crippled and overly-complicated rifle design can be mass-produced into success.

The SVT is an example of a superb design that could not be done justice by the production facilities, users, and other resources available to the army that fielded it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
490 Posts
I have both. Like both.

Don't like SVT disassembly or the slap on the cheek I get when firing. Too many little parts to loose in the field too...

Garand hands down..
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,532 Posts
Clips were cheap, easy to produce and more foolproof than magazines. They still are. No moving parts. Only real drawbacks are that you cannot reload while prone without shifting position and you cannot top them off. As to the ping alerting the enemy to the fact that you were reloading, just take off your hearing protection, fire off a clip and see how loud the ping sounds now.
I don't get the no reload without position shift prone. If an enbloc is to your right and within reach, it's like reloading a single shot .22 without taking the rifle off your shoulder. Now reloading a bottom feeding magazine, I get the position shift.
 

·
Gold Bullet Member
Joined
·
3,138 Posts
Just my opinion: The M1 Garand was developed during WWII, when metals were considered crucial war material. A en-bloc clip can be stamped out rapidly, uses less metal, can be made of lower grade metal, and is less prone to failure than a magazine. Also, the ammunition could be loaded into en-bloc clips and stored that way, which is not possible with a magazine. Finally, the en-bloc clips could be discarded when empty, while magazines would be policed, if possible.
 
1 - 20 of 106 Posts
Top