M1 Garand at 1200 Frames Per Second

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

  • No ad networks!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • TheOriginalMexicanBob

    Ultimate Member
    Jul 2, 2017
    32,176
    Sun City West, AZ
    It’s hard (because of recoil), but you can walk fire on someone running, etc.

    If one thinks a M1 is hard recoil-wise...try a 1903 Springfield with a Type "S" stock, Mosin-Nagant or 98K Mauser...none have stocks particularly conducive to recoil control.

    Replacing a 1903 S-stock with a pistol grip C-stock makes for a much more comfortable shooting rifle...though still harder recoiling than an M1. Back in the day it seems there was little if any thought given to stock design by militaries of the world...just what was easiest and cheapest to mass produce.
     

    TomisinMd

    Ultimate Member
    Mar 11, 2013
    1,728
    Elkton, Md
    Thanks for the link. These videos are mesmerizing to watch. To think He did this without the aid of video or computers shows true genius! Im also amazed at the side by side. Two totally different cartridges and the Garand is that much faster?? Also, look at how far vertically the AR round has to travel!
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    If one thinks a M1 is hard recoil-wise...try a 1903 Springfield with a Type "S" stock, Mosin-Nagant or 98K Mauser...none have stocks particularly conducive to recoil control.

    Replacing a 1903 S-stock with a pistol grip C-stock makes for a much more comfortable shooting rifle...though still harder recoiling than an M1. Back in the day it seems there was little if any thought given to stock design by militaries of the world...just what was easiest and cheapest to mass produce.

    Parroting what InRange was saying and I agree with their experience (though not shooting at people), with a bolt gun unless it is across a LOT of open ground, if something is running, you probably only have the one shot, or if you are lucky a second one if the first made whatever it is run. A semi like a Garand you can probably get two, possibly three. Something like a 5.56/5.45 you can probably get off 4 or 5.

    I don’t consider a Garand hard recoiling compared to a bolt gun, but it is compared to an AR-15. A semi you also don’t disrupt cheek weld or sight picture nearly as much as a bolt gun.

    I LOVE bolt guns. They are my favorite action type, but they aren’t as practical for war, hunting, whatever else compared to a semi. About the only place they succeed is very long range shooting as they have slightly higher muzzle velocities than a semi or similar barrel length and they are usually easier to make more accurate. But even then at extreme ranges I can Kentucky windage shots faster on to a target with a semi.

    A 1903A3 is right near the top of my bucket list. Garand was at the top, which I finally just got. It’ll have to wait awhile though as I don’t have the $900-1500 laying around.
     

    JoeRinMD

    Rifleman
    Jul 18, 2008
    2,014
    AA County
    If one thinks a M1 is hard recoil-wise...try a 1903 Springfield with a Type "S" stock, Mosin-Nagant or 98K Mauser...none have stocks particularly conducive to recoil control.

    Replacing a 1903 S-stock with a pistol grip C-stock makes for a much more comfortable shooting rifle...though still harder recoiling than an M1. Back in the day it seems there was little if any thought given to stock design by militaries of the world...just what was easiest and cheapest to mass produce.

    I picked up a Garand from the CMP and was actively shooting it in competitions before I bought a 03-A3 with the "S" stock. I couldn't believe the difference in recoil shooting the same M2 ball ammo. It was like night and day. The extra weight of the Garand coupled with the gas operation made a huge difference in dampening the recoil. I enjoy shooting the Garand, but not the 03-A3. I've been looking for a "C" stock to replace the straight stock on the 03-A3, but haven't found one yet.

    JoeR
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    I picked up a Garand from the CMP and was actively shooting it in competitions before I bought a 03-A3 with the "S" stock. I couldn't believe the difference in recoil shooting the same M2 ball ammo. It was like night and day. The extra weight of the Garand coupled with the gas operation made a huge difference in dampening the recoil. I enjoy shooting the Garand, but not the 03-A3. I've been looking for a "C" stock to replace the straight stock on the 03-A3, but haven't found one yet.

    JoeR

    The CMP sells "C" Stocks:
    http://estore.thecmp.org/Catalog/Item/086
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    The Garand vs an AR comparison becomes more interesting if you compare the Garand with 8 round en-block clip with a Maryland "Compliant" AR using 10 round magazines. The sustained rates of fire would be similar so you would would have to start comparing things like target acquisition because of reduced recoil vs the differences in range and penetration because of the ballistic differences in the cartridges.

    GREAT! The new 9 mm vs .45 ACP debate.:D

    See photograph in Hatcher's Notebook page 405
    https://archive.org/details/Hatchers_Notebook

    Penetration of 32 1/2 inches of oak by .30-06 bullet weighing 150 grains, driven at a muzzle velocity of 2700 f.s. Range 200 yards.
     
    Last edited:

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    The Garand vs an AR comparison becomes more interesting if you compare the Garand with 8 round en-block clip with a Maryland "Compliant" AR using 10 round magazines. The sustained rates of fire would be similar so you would would have to start comparing things like target acquisition because of reduced recoil vs the differences in range and penetration because of the ballistic differences in the cartridges.

    GREAT! The new 9 mm vs .45 ACP debate.:D

    See photograph in Hatcher's Notebook page 405
    https://archive.org/details/Hatchers_Notebook

    I mean, I have more practice with an AR, but I can certainly reload an AR faster than a Garand. Plus 2 rounds more if 10rnd mag vs 8rnd clip. I can also carry more ammo with the AR as lighter. And the lower recoil enables a much higher practical rate of fire (for 99.9999% of users)

    Also your typical AR platform is probably 2-2.5MOA with a 55gr ball ammo that it likes. A Garand seems to be slightly less accurate off the rack (I don’t mean a rack grade). And yes, I know plenty of people have made their Garands more accurate. Plenty of ARs can push 1MOA without anything particularly special, very few Garands can.

    I love my Garand as I’ve said, but the AR had 20 odd years of advances in materials science and design and battlefield lessons before it was even born. It has been refined since then for 60 odd years. The Garand had relatively minimal changes over its 20 odd year service life.

    If I couldn’t have a detachable magazine rifle though, a Garand might just be my go to.
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    I mean, I have more practice with an AR, but I can certainly reload an AR faster than a Garand. Plus 2 rounds more if 10rnd mag vs 8rnd clip. I can also carry more ammo with the AR as lighter. And the lower recoil enables a much higher practical rate of fire (for 99.9999% of users)

    Also your typical AR platform is probably 2-2.5MOA with a 55gr ball ammo that it likes. A Garand seems to be slightly less accurate off the rack (I don’t mean a rack grade). And yes, I know plenty of people have made their Garands more accurate. Plenty of ARs can push 1MOA without anything particularly special, very few Garands can.

    I love my Garand as I’ve said, but the AR had 20 odd years of advances in materials science and design and battlefield lessons before it was even born. It has been refined since then for 60 odd years. The Garand had relatively minimal changes over its 20 odd year service life.

    If I couldn’t have a detachable magazine rifle though, a Garand might just be my go to.

    But the cyclic rate of the M1 is faster (watch the video). And the M1 will hold it's accuracy to a much longer range.
    Hornady 55 gr. GMX 5.56x45mm 200 yd zero @ 1000 yds Drop -446.8 Wind Drift 201.7
    Hornady 168 gr A-max (Garand) 200 yd zero @1000 yds Drop -380.4 Wind Drift 109.5

    Most shooters can't shoot anywhere near the accuracy potential of their gun.

    Don't forget that penetration the AR shooter better not hide behind a tree or a car. There was a reason they started issuing .30-06 AP as the standard infantry round in WW II, penetration is important on the battlefield.

    When the design is right the first time it doesn't need to be tweeked.

    You need to practice more with your Garand.:party29:
     

    Doco Overboard

    Ultimate Member
    I don't think anyone ever wanted to turn their garand in because it wouldn't work.
    It's Intent was always for a combat purpose plus it will take a 16" bayonet if you have a need for that sort of thing. Would love to fire one in the original .276
    Could also be considered the strongest action type designed and produced as far as I know.
    I will second it to the Krag for golden means of proportion and machine work magnificence though.
     

    Wongler

    Member
    Nov 6, 2013
    48
    Carlisle, PA
    I picked up a Garand from the CMP and was actively shooting it in competitions before I bought a 03-A3 with the "S" stock. I couldn't believe the difference in recoil shooting the same M2 ball ammo. It was like night and day. The extra weight of the Garand coupled with the gas operation made a huge difference in dampening the recoil. I enjoy shooting the Garand, but not the 03-A3. I've been looking for a "C" stock to replace the straight stock on the 03-A3, but haven't found one yet.

    JoeR

    I'm in the same boat. I love shooting my Garand, but I hate shooting my 03-A3.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    But the cyclic rate of the M1 is faster (watch the video). And the M1 will hold it's accuracy to a much longer range.
    Hornady 55 gr. GMX 5.56x45mm 200 yd zero @ 1000 yds Drop -446.8 Wind Drift 201.7
    Hornady 168 gr A-max (Garand) 200 yd zero @1000 yds Drop -380.4 Wind Drift 109.5

    Most shooters can't shoot anywhere near the accuracy potential of their gun.

    Don't forget that penetration the AR shooter better not hide behind a tree or a car. There was a reason they started issuing .30-06 AP as the standard infantry round in WW II, penetration is important on the battlefield.

    When the design is right the first time it doesn't need to be tweeked.

    You need to practice more with your Garand.:party29:

    Compare to 150gr M2 Ball or else look at 77gr 5.56.

    Also 55gr M193 has better hard armor penetration than M2 Ball at short range. I am pretty sure M995 has better penetration than M2 AP.

    One part to remember is that .30-06 M2 was “knee capped” because of the size of existing ranges and safety concerns. So M2 Ball was 150gr and flat base instead of the M1 175gr boat tail. M2 AP is heavier, but still flat base and could be loaded hotter (but not for the Garand without changing its gas system).

    The cyclic rate is higher in the Garand. That doesn’t translate to rate of fire for practical accuracy. That is strictly based on recoil for any self loading rifle. An AR-15 has a higher rate than an AR-10.

    Any advantages the Garand has over an AR-15 are limited to its cartridge, not about the rifle design itself. You can find AR platforms chambered in .30-06 and if you feel you must have a .30-06 self loading rifle, those would likely be a much better platform.

    It’s an awesome rifle for its day and it continues to be fun today and can be practical for a number of things, but it was surpassed a long time ago or it would still be the principal battle rifle of a lot of nations. I am not aware of any that still use it.
     

    Melnic

    Ultimate Member
    MDS Supporter
    Dec 27, 2012
    15,282
    HoCo
    COOL video.
    One thing I find interesting is comparing this to an AR15.
    In an AR 15 slow motion, you will see the bolt carrier bounce. But since the bolt assembly itself is hidden, you can't see it partially rotate or not.
    Here with the M1 you can see the op rod bounce and a slight partial rotation of the bolt.
    If the op rod were to bounce enough to rotate that bolt more after the next trigger was pulled (assuming the trigger could be pulled that fast). I think bad things would happen. (not sure there or not).
     

    Blacksmith101

    Grumpy Old Man
    Jun 22, 2012
    22,156
    It’s an awesome rifle for its day and it continues to be fun today and can be practical for a number of things, but it was surpassed a long time ago or it would still be the principal battle rifle of a lot of nations. I am not aware of any that still use it.

    What changed was the battlefield tactics. Due in part to our losing the traditions that celebrated and practiced marksmanship compounded by the conflict of the time partnering us with our primary ally being of smaller stature the result changed the tactics and equipment from “a rifleman went to war” to “spray and pray”. History has shown that even in the close confines of dense jungle this did not work to well, we did not win. And in the more open conflicts we have been engaged in since there has been a renewed interest heavier calibers shooting at longer distances.

    No single platform can be optimal in all situations which is what brings variety to spice up our collections and our lives.

    The Philippines returned their Garands very recently.
     

    lazarus

    Ultimate Member
    Jun 23, 2015
    13,678
    What changed was the battlefield tactics. Due in part to our losing the traditions that celebrated and practiced marksmanship compounded by the conflict of the time partnering us with our primary ally being of smaller stature the result changed the tactics and equipment from “a rifleman went to war” to “spray and pray”. History has shown that even in the close confines of dense jungle this did not work to well, we did not win. And in the more open conflicts we have been engaged in since there has been a renewed interest heavier calibers shooting at longer distances.

    No single platform can be optimal in all situations which is what brings variety to spice up our collections and our lives.

    The Philippines returned their Garands very recently.

    Even in WWII it took a significant amount of rounds down range for the average kill. Also then, Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan most engagements are at intermediate caliber distances. It is occasionally you’ll find a situation where long range engagement is needed. It is still the exception. Which is why there is continual interest in something longer range, but nothing is ever really done about it because the extra weight or reduced ammunition capacity is generally not worth the trade off.
     

    Users who are viewing this thread

    Forum statistics

    Threads
    274,922
    Messages
    7,259,125
    Members
    33,349
    Latest member
    christian04

    Latest threads

    Top Bottom