Arms Locker banner

1 - 18 of 18 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
because it malfunctioned badly in the extreme cold of that area and time. IIRC, it was supposedly because of the gun oil congealing, but the M1 also had numerous "fixes" that were well known to be needed, to include replacement of the operating rod on the early models. Elmer Keith said that in rapid-fire, the Garand would not 'hold elevation", due to the barrel's heating up.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,582 Posts
Your so full of sh^t , your eyes are brown. Try reading "Infantry Operations & Weapons Usage in Korea" by SLA Marshall, he will set you straight. Even though you are a ho^o! I will admit that the original pattern sights left alot to be desired, thats why all serious riflemen have '48 pattern sites on their rifles.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
I believe that the Korean War soldiers cursed the M1 more for its weight than anything else. Everything that I have heard and read points to the fact that the Garand was an extremely reliable rifle.

RIKA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,890 Posts
My father was in Korea, in the 101st. It was the M1 carbine that was hated because it jammed in the extreme cold. Guys would talk big about how they didn't have to carry all the weight of the Garand, and how "handy and light" the carbine was. Then winter came and the frist thing they did if they lived through the fight that pointed out the unreliability of the carbine in the cold was to find a Garand. When grunts wanted to stay alive, it's the real rifle they wanted.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,484 Posts
Gramps was issued a Carbine in France.He said he'd rather had the Garand.Called the Carbine a "pop gun".
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,890 Posts
The carbine was designed so that support troops could have something more effective than a pistol. In that role, it worked fine. It just doesn't work in the frontline grunt role.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,277 Posts
Col. Herbert said the Garand worked fine in Korea cold. That's what he used to become the most decorated soldier in the Korean war (he was a Sargent then.)

Col. George of the Merrill's Maruaders (he was a Lt. then) said the Garand worked fine in the tropics. He served on Guadacanal was well as the Maruarders. While we are at it he said in Guadacanal he used his private scoped Winchester 70 to pot Japs and he found that scope very usefull in brush.

Audie Murphy said the Garand worked fine in the ETO where he used it for years to become the most decorated soldier in WW2!

Now if you want to talk G.I.s cursing weapons, then talk the AR-15/M16. Many a G.I. DIED in Vietnam cause that gun jammed. Whole platoons were found with almost half of their M16s broken down with cleaning rods in their barrels trying to get the stuck case out of the chamber.

Stup*kid is fos on this. He knows his CAR is a POS trash rifle that is not worth a tinkers da*n in combat.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,582 Posts
I guess this means that erika/gunkid is wrong again!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
The biggest problem with the M-16 in Nam was piss-poor, out of spec ammo, lack of a chrome bore, the lack of .22 caliber cleaning kits, and it was initially given to troops who had trained on the M-14, and it was newly issued in a war zone without a break-in and debugging period.

The Garand was loved by troops who had actually seen combat. It worked and it was also heavy enough that you could also club someone with it.

Personally, I don't find the Garand that heavy or that excessivly large. Anyone who is male and bitches about the weight of a Garand needs to do more pushups.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,117 Posts
Discussion Starter #10
Far more REALLY experienced vets loved the CARbine. If ALL you have to lug around is the 30 lbs of Garand and fighting gear, that's one thing. That's all US soldiers had to do. THE SURVIVALIST, however, has to FORAGE and he has no masses of trucks, planes, choppers, etc, to bring him supplies, medical care, etc. What you pussies can't thru you thick skulls is that I CAN outwalk you, with whatever amount of gear you want to try to carry. I just aint as stupid as you are, "thinking' that it's a good idea to pointlessly risk getting hurt, sick, or overlooking something. That IS what excessive fatique does to you. You get so tired that you WELCOME a swift, painless death.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,944 Posts
andy said:
Far more REALLY experienced vets loved the CARbine. If ALL you have to lug around is the 30 lbs of Garand and fighting gear, that's one thing. That's all US soldiers had to do. THE SURVIVALIST, however, has to FORAGE and he has no masses of trucks, planes, choppers, etc, to bring him supplies, medical care, etc.
No, the thinking, prepared, non-sociopath survivalist will usually have a basecamp and backup. Hence, he won't have to carrying EVERYTHING he owns on his back, 24/7/265.

andy said:
What you pussies can't thru you thick skulls is that I CAN outwalk you, with whatever amount of gear you want to try to carry.
No you can't. You're over 50, out of shape, have bad ankles, and never practice treks in excess of over 1/2 day, if you do that.

You need to be aware of this, correct it, and also change your strategy to adjust for it.

andy said:
I just aint as stupid as you are, "thinking' that it's a good idea to pointlessly risk getting hurt, sick, or overlooking something. That IS what excessive fatique does to you. You get so tired that you WELCOME a swift, painless death.
Excessive fatigue comes from trying to carry EVERYTHING you own on your back while not having things like adequate sleeping gear or someone to watch your back.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
The M1 Garand was extremely reliable in Korea. The M2 Carbine required more maitainance to keep it running, but was very effective in combat. American infantry in Korea were armed with a mixture of M1 Garands and M2 Carbines. Both were very effective weapons.
The weapon soldiers really cursed in Korea was the M3A1 aubmachine gun. No one wanted to carry one .
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,582 Posts
Just curious, was there a time that the M3 or M3A1 SMG was useful? reliable? worth carrying as a defensive weapon?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,151 Posts
Garand said:
Just curious, was there a time that the M3 or M3A1 SMG was useful? reliable? worth carrying as a defensive weapon?
I never heard anyone say anything good about them. The cocking mechanism on the M3, the handle and ratchet system broke frequently. The M3A1 eliminated this system completely, but the fact remained the "grease gun" was an inaccurate, slow firing (350 -450 RPM) pretty cheesy weapon. It had a cute feature of spitting lubricating oil into your face from the twin recoil springs. The collapsible stock was a joke, as it often collapsed while it was fired. It was the US version of the Sten gun, if that give's you a hint. The magazines were an absolute PIA to load and were not reliable. The weapon was completely out of place in Korea, due to the short range of the weapon. It was used to some extent in Viet Nam being issued to CIDG troops. I bought one just to have for $5.00 and after firing it, I realized I had paid too much. It was also dangerous. If it was loaded and the ejection port cover left open, any jar would move the heavy bolt back far enough to allow it to slam forward and fire. I threw mine in a river.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,805 Posts
Garand said:
Just curious, was there a time that the M3 or M3A1 SMG was useful? reliable? worth carrying as a defensive weapon?
In my experience it was not. I never met any experienced American who had the sligtest use for one. Soldiers who were issued one because it was their TO&E weapon would "loose" it and gladly pay the $11.87 statement of charges in order to get an M2 Carbine or an M1 Garand.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,815 Posts
andy said:
Far more REALLY experienced vets loved the CARbine. If ALL you have to lug around is the 30 lbs of Garand and fighting gear, that's one thing. That's all US soldiers had to do. THE SURVIVALIST, however, has to FORAGE and he has no masses of trucks, planes, choppers, etc, to bring him supplies, medical care, etc. What you pussies can't thru you thick skulls is that I CAN outwalk you, with whatever amount of gear you want to try to carry. I just aint as stupid as you are, "thinking' that it's a good idea to pointlessly risk getting hurt, sick, or overlooking something. That IS what excessive fatique does to you. You get so tired that you WELCOME a swift, painless death.
Hey NUTTY JOHN, I will come to Pagosa Springs, CO, and video tape you doing your mighty firearm feats. That way you can prove it to the world your fantastic firearms ability. Are you up to it JOHN?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,648 Posts
Don't forget, he already agreed to do a hike with Teuf, of course that was before Gunkid got himself removed from that site...

:devil:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
10,279 Posts
Garand said:
Just curious, was there a time that the M3 or M3A1 SMG was useful? reliable? worth carrying as a defensive weapon?
Dad tells a story of when he was in Viet Nam in 1968. He had just come out of the latrine when this 4 star General comes strutting down the road. The only guy walking near him was a big ugly Master Sergeant carrying a M3 Grease Gun with a big pack of magazines strapped to his leg. Guess it must have been the General's bodyguard. Anyway, Dad stood stiff at attention til the General passed by. He recognized the Grease gun and wondered how Sarge had gotten his hands on one of those. Then he figured that if you're the general's bodyguard you can get whatever you want.

Guess that the General figured that the GG would work for close quarters anyway.

Dad isn't here just now so I can't ask the Gen's name but it was in Chu Lai 1968.

RIKA
 
1 - 18 of 18 Posts
Top