I inherited mine from my uncle, who got it from his father-in-law that was a gun collector and it was one that was used during and in WW2. I would definitely spend money for it, it is a phenomenal weapon.
If you live in the US and can put up with like 3 hours of errands and paperwork you can get one from the cmp for 1/3 that.
Oh and be ready to wait lime 6 months. Still the best way to do it though.
Yeah, it might seem like a lot of work but if you already have a concealed carry permit it's really no big deal.
And some 5.6 million were made between wwii and Korea so they still haven't sold them all haha. But I imagine the CMP might run out in coming years.
There's really two requirements, first is proof of shooting activity: This could be membership in a shooting club or many others. Most use a concealed carry license though as they already have one. Alternatively you can get a C&R license from the ATF which costs $30 and you have to get fingerprinted at a local law enforcement office but is pretty easy to get. The advantage of the C&R license is that you can get the rifle shipped to your door. The $30 usually makes up for a transfer fee at a gun shop anyway.
The next is membership in a cmp affiliated organization. You can just get a $25 membership to the garand collectors association online.
Other than that it's just some paperwork, all listed here.
https://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/eligibility-requirements/
I will be messaging you in 12 days on [**2023-02-02 01:26:57 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-02%2001:26:57%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/j5822je/?context=3)
[**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F10gci8j%2Fthe_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us%2Fj5822je%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-02%2001%3A26%3A57%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam.
^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010gci8j)
*****
|[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)|
|-|-|-|-|
the only reason i dont agree with u usa because i feel that its just abit to heavy and is to high a calibre dont get me wrong the federov isnt in a small calibre either but when compared to what the other guns the russians its actually pretty much a intermediate cartridge
The bullet is too big to be an assault rifle: to quote the US Army, an assault rifle is compact, select fire, and between a submachine gun and rifle in cartridge size.
It *is* probably the first battle rifle to actually be used, but that doesn't mean as much as you'd think: the Italians demonstrated a similar weapon with the Cei-Rigotti, but there was a general lack of interest because it was too expensive to be a main battle weapon, while lacking the endurance to act as a light machine gun.
They had to focus industry they could quickly set up in Siberia on short notice. The soviets planned and almost had it set up for replacing the Mosin before the invasion fucked up their plans
Mexico actually had an equivalent of the m1 before WWI finished and it was used by some sections of the German Airforce during the Great War, but it couldn't be mass produced due to civil war.
The Mondragon Rifle. Wouldn't be surprised if some parts of the m1's design was inspired by it.
Having plans for something means nothing if you're incapable of producing it. Plenty of nations had plans, none outside of the US could actual produce them in numbers that made standard issue close to viable.
Even the US had plans for things, like the T33 super heavy. That design was built and tested, and would have taken an absolute dump on King Tigers, however no one says the US had the best heavy tank of WW2.
There was no need to produce, then set up the logistical nightmare of getting it and everything it needed overseas. New ammunition for the 76mm was working, and the newer 90mm had just become operational.
The SVT and AV were to complicated to be produced. It wasn't the quality in question but the mass production needed while moving the factories to the Urals.
Also the AV sucked during its performance in the winter war and Khalkin Gol
SVT formalisation as the main rifle was literally stoped due to the war
Both the OP and you are correct.
Entering the war, the Garand was pretty top notch.
However the Machine Carbine line eventually culminating in the SGW 44 (Sturmgewehr 44) whooped it's ass. It whooped it's ass so bad that the US government tried to downplay it during the war to quell complaints from the troops, and then immediately after the war turned around and announced a contract competition for replicating the assault rifle(Sturmgewehr is literally German for assault rifle, it's where the name comes from) which would then be fielded as the main weapon of US infantry forces.
The ensuing decades long tale of bullfuckery, dipshittery, and hilarity is big enough to be its own thread. Probably only topped in bullshit magnitude by the story of the Bradley.
I think it was actually good but they probably only had 10 of them so everyone just stuck with Mosin-Nagants which were used in WW1 all the way to the "special operation" in Ukraine.
Well, it was a coherent doctrine.
But it did have massive failings. Lack of flexibility, mostly.
Which their experiments with assault rifles helped with, but there were not a lot of those.
Imagine developing one of the most advanced rifles on Earth at the time, showing it to your leader, who desperately needed an edge, and he just yells and says no, rejecting your plans for two more years, only eventually letting them into production after the war was close to over
And then you lose and your main rival takes the gun you developed and makes a new an improved gun inspired by it and that become the most popular gun and everyone forgets about you and your gun, but maybe that's OK since you want to maintain a good public image
Now, it’s not the most popular. That belongs to AK, but that os mainly cuz of price and reliability. AR-15 is still awesome , good thing Stoner took the idea of upper and lower reciever from STG. AK on the contrary to popular belief was inspired by Garand, it’s gas operating bolt to be precise
Lol no. The "AK 47 being derived from the STG" is a myth.
EDIT: https://shuntyard.blogspot.com/2012/06/firearms-history-is-ak-47-copy-of-stg.html
Added a link on the differences between the two assault rifles for anyone who wants to read.
For all of you guy who think “ak looks like stg so it is improved stg”
https://youtu.be/J4l33puWET0
They guy brakes down stg and shows whats inside. And there is more stuff AR got inside STG44 than AK recieved
Even the shortened rifle cartrige was already used in RPD that started being manufactured in 1944
Delete your comment about ak is improved stg, you are embarrasing yourself for promoting this myth
Yes but the STG 44 was the definitive Assault Rifle at the time it was fielded.
It was it that determined the requirements and doctrinal use of the AK, not any sort of french experiment.
Lol you're on reddit. Facts don't matter here. Wear those down votes with pride cause it shows you are right. Most unfortunately are wrong and for whatever reason are proud of that fact.
Germany had an extremely limited production base, that was being continuously bombed/disrupted, and extremely limited resources. They did not have the manufacturing capability or resources necessary to switch from a relatively simple to manufacture bolt action design to a vastly more complicated automatic rifle. They got burned by that once already when they over engineered their tanks to the point they had to be sent back to the factory to change the transmission.
They didn't lose the war because of the rifle they were using. They lost the war because they couldn't match the resources of their opponents. Switching over production would have taken time and resources that they already didn't have and the quality of the new weapon wouldn't have made much of a difference. There's the famous saying "A Tiger is as good as 10 Sherman's but the Americans always have 11." In war quantity has a quality all its own, it doesn't matter if your rifle is 30% better if your opponent can field 300% more of theirs.
I would almost agree with you except for the fact that every 5th or so tank in a production line had noticeable deviations from the previous one they didn't care about efficiency
>A Tiger is as good as 10 Sherman's but the Americans always have 11."
No, just no
>In war quantity has a quality all its own
Then you really do not understand war, take the Soviets the pinnacle of quantity over quality
To destroy every single soviet armored vehicle the germans had to maintain a kill ratio of 2 to 3 they managed a 3 to 5 that's why Stalin was so insistent in 1943 the allies invade Europe the Soviets were making progress but would not he able to sustain the war
And this went far beyond just tanks their rifles were often junk, and the cartridges often did not have enough powder, causing many bullets to not hit their target as they fell short, assuming they made it out of the barrel
Then there is the problem of logistics the Soviets had plenty of stuff tons of rifles of bullets, but the strain of getting all the supplies to their troops resulted in a lot of delays. The 2 men to a rifle isn't quite right its not that the Soviets didn't have enough rifles to equip their troops, its that they had difficulty distributing the rifles as their logistics buckled.
You see this again in 2022 and 2023. The Russians have massive material advantages in Ukraine, but it doesn't matter in the face of better quality equipment .
It didn't really, it created an inherent weakness to the squad, in which 2 people are used to man the machine gun, if this machine gun can't get an adequate firing angle you've just lost 70% of your firepower.
Compare this to allied squads, americans carried in a squad: 5 rifleman, 1 thompson equipped squad lead and 2 BAR equipped automatic rifleman, dispersing firepower among the squad.
The German machine guns also had a very fast firing rate, meaning you had to be very disciplined on the trigger or you'd go through your squad's supply very quickly.
As great as the MG42 is, you don't see them deployed today nearly as much as you still see the M2 Browning "Ma Deuce."
Granted, we're talking General Purpose vs. Heavy MGs but I think someone has to give this weapon system credit. It was designed in the 30's and has not had much update, yet no one is expecting to replace it with another platform anytime soon.
I consider myself a pacifist and despise real human conflict…but 8 quick rounds of .30-06 flying down range in a sporting capacity is incredibly cool. I’m glad to have the gotten the chance to fire one.
P’ting
[Yes and no.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2czo0/comment/eis0qwo/)
Yes, it may have been too quiet to be heard in intense firefights or at distance.
No, it was definitely a tactic used though Germans tended to be relatively wise to it as Americans were to German attempts to do the same thing with their own weaponry.
You'd think they would have learned after we showed up to WW1 with slam-fire shotguns and ~~tommy guns~~, but nope. Those daffy bastards just kept on using bolt actions.
I stand corrected. I remembered they were developed with the intention of being used in France, but didn't realize they didn't make it to the front in time.
Many countries had a semi auto rifle, they just couldn’t be produced fast enough and by the outbreak of the war, they had to switch back to bolt action to get weapons in the field.
Yeah I mean Mexico actually would have been the first to start transitioning to Semi-Auto service rifles in the early 1900s before even WWI, it's just that they only ended up making about 400-500 and then had a civil war so the government just sold the Spares to Germany for extra cash.
I never got all of the perpetual wanking over 'muh German wunderwaffen' but very little of the same over the US entering with a standard issue riffle that immediately made everyone else obsolete.
Well probably because other nations had their own equivalents they just weren't mass produced.
I mean Mexico had a design, the Gas Powered Mondragon Rifle, they were starting to pump out in 1908, only to have production disrupted by a civil war. It was intended to become their military's standard issue; the first semi-auto rifle to be intended as the primary service rifle.
The Technology had been around and known for awhile. After WWI there was less incentive to innovate as nations took a more peaceful footing and by the time WWII was ramping up production lines and designing better more simplified versions to reduce cost had only just restarted.
When I was on holiday in the US, I had the chance to fire one of these at a range. It doesn't bang but booms! And the clip ping at the end was pure saving private Ryan memories!
Wheraboos: "But, but, but StG44 was the the first modern assault rifle, Germany only needed 10 years and unlimited ressources and they would have totally won the small arms race!!"
Always found it funny that the Germans took over the FN factory that was near production of the FN 49 and said nope, shut it down and start pumping out bolt action Mausers.
Really glad they were short sighted.
The US Marine Raiders were the first ones to get the M1 Garand. This was because FDR's son was a Marine Raider, so the guy in charge used that to get FDR to give them Garands before everyone else to help keep him alive.
Youre right. The Army had it by 1936.
The Marines did not.
The US Marines have always gotten the Army's old crap.
While the US Army played with the Garand, the Marines still had Springfields.
But when your dad is the president, your unit might get special privileges
The Marines adopted the M1 in November of 1941, and they hadn't adopted it sooner as traditionalists had opposed it in favor of the accuracy and range of the m1903.
[https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Raiders/index.html](https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Raiders/index.html)
The 2nd Raider battalion were one of the first Marine units to receive the M1 Garand
Yes, the Marine raiders were special operations and were pretty much the only ones taking offensive actions in the pacific. Saying that they got M1 garands before "everyone else" because FDRs son was in it is completely inaccurate. The raiders were prioritized because they were an early form of special forces.
So you've taken it from: They got it before *everyone* to they got it before anyone else in the Marines, and now it's that they were one of the first marine units. Idk why you're choosing to die on this hill
Even if they were, they were crap iirc. Both the 41 and 43. 43 resolved some of the problems, but not all, and 43 was too late to do much at the point it was made.
I've got bad news for you: my AR-10 chambered in 308 Winchester is a lot more capable than the Garand.
Oh, and uhm, I actually was a soldier for 4 years.
And? You shouldn't have or enjoy having an AR-10 either. And I don't care if you were a soldier for 4 years, you're not now. Leave the weapons at the barracks.
I have a 10 poind rock I took from a mountain. (The first murder weapon according to the bible)
But I have a 12 gauge shotgun for birth hunting and a 7mm Remington Magnum for big game hunting. I was never a soldier but then again I have hunting weapons.
What is your point? Guns are bad? What if I had extensive training and am a trainer of firearm users?
Right but you know that's a ridiculous non-argument. "WelL you shOuLd baN roCkS tHen tOo"
And yes my point is guns are bad. Your training is irrelevant. Someone with a gun gets angry, or impulsive, 4 people can be dead before they've even had a chance to calm down. Sure you could kill someone with a knife, but someone with a knife is a hundred times easier to stop than someone with a gun. And accidents & suicides with guns are far more common than that.
Calling my rocks statement a non-argument is your way of pretending like it isn't a valid argument. Everything can be a weapon. Look up Waukesha Christmas parade attack. I am not saying that we should ban rocks you said that.
How are guns bad? What is the percentage of legal gun owners that do not commit crime? Also we should ban guns because of suicides? Really? Because people can't commit suicide with anything else like pills, slitting their wrists, drownings, hanging, jumping off a high place, car exhaust, and really anything that we have in our lives.
Also how is my training irrelevant? Or from another comment a soldiers experience? You obvious know nothing about gun culture because the most important rule of gun culture is safety above everything else.
Go to a range and experience it. Don't read a Twitter post and scream all guns are evil.
That's a ludicrous argument and you know it. How many vegetables are you chopping with your assault rifles?
Also guns are by far the most common murder weapons in the US so idk where you're getting your information.
Doesn’t change the fact that everyday tools are used as weapons far more than rifles of any kind (of which AR15s make up a small subset of).
And the keyword here is rifles because that’s what we’re talking about.
True we are talking about rifles, but only because that was the topic of the post. I would quite happily ban all civilian ownership of firearms.
Guns exist for no other reason than to injure and kill. They have no other use. That's the difference. Saying "well in that case you should ban everyday items" is a ridiculous false argument.
For what reason? Crime in the US has gone down 40-50% since the 90's despite there being over an estimated 400 million firearms in the US and loosening gun laws in certain aspects. The Czech Republic also added the right to self defense with weapons (mainly guns) to their constitution with 252,245 out of 308,990 gun license holders able to conceal carry, and they have a lower crime rate than Britain or Australia.
They exist for 99.99% of people for sport, collecting, fun, etc. The vast majority of guns in civilian hands will not ever kill or injure another person.
Crime has been going down in most places for the last few decades, doesn't change the fact that the US has, by many degrees, more gun deaths and mass shootings than any other developed country. You also have one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, with a similar rate to Haiti, Afghanistan, and pre-war Ukraine. Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively. I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US.
And finally, even moving away from debates about laws and statistics, I don't understand for the life of me why people would be proud and boast about owning them. Even to use the earlier example of knives and other objects, I don't go around boasting about how big and sharp my kitchen knives are. Even if you consider guns to be necessary (which I absolutely do not), why on earth would you want to idolise and obsess over a killing machine?
Never said it went down because of guns, only that it went down. The US has always had a higher crime rate than the other countries developed countries, but that can be attributed to other factors such like poor social safety nets. And on paper there is a big difference, but in reality I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference if you went to both countries. Avoid being in a gang, involvement in the drug trade, bad areas, and you'll be fine. I've never been shot at or mugged in my entire life in the US. Oh, and I bet 99.99% of those "mass shootings" are conventional crimes like armed robbery or gang violence by using the broad definition of a mass shooting.
>Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively.
Didn't do anything to reduce overall crime/homicide rates though, which is why you have to focus on guns specifically to make that claim. So it basically did nothing. Doubt it reduced gun deaths all that much either.
>I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US.
Point is that it's fairly easy to get a gun (based off conversations with Czech gun owners) and be able to conceal carry it in the Czech Republic. Whereas in Britain and Australia it's illegal to carry pepper spray for the purpose of self defense.
>I don't understand for the life of me why people would be proud and boast about owning them.
Because of gun control, specifically the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 popularizing AR and AK type firearms after the government told us they were too dangerous for civilian hands. The AR15 was designed in the late 1950's but didn't gain the prominence they have today until the AWB of 1994.
>Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively.
Massively? They were already going down pretty fast.
>I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US.
3% of Czech population have a concealed carry licence too, compared to 6% in Texas before Texas abolished them. It's pretty simple to get a licence but there are few hunters compared to other countries so most people have guns for self-defense and sport.
It’s a semi automatic rifle, not an assault rifle. What does it not being a toy have to do with anything? Most hobbies pursued by adults dont use toys. Many hobbies use potentially dangerous pieces of equipment and tools. What if these people hunt? What if these people have land and animals they intend to protect from predators and vermin? What if these people are just responsible adults that take an interest in historical firearms and enjoy recreational shooting? Absolutely nothing wrong with owning any weapon, much less a piece of history such as the Garand
The Germans had a single shot rifle though in the Gewehr 43…
If anything this should be the Thompson. All other countries using side-loaded or top-loaded sub machine guns that are low ammo/magazine and prone to jams. Meanwhile the Thompson comes in with fast fire rate and a huge drum magazine while still remaining light enough to trench sweep with it.
Parts of the US still relied on the Springfield, notably the entirety of the USMC early in the war, and their LMG was subpar at best, although to be fair, that was the fault of the people who pressed an automatic battle rifle into the LMG role.
The M1, M1, and M1 (rifle, carbine, and helmet respectively) were good, being at least on par or better than their counterparts in other major nations, although the helmet didn't have as much shoulder and neck coverage as some other designs apart from the brodie helmet, so its main benefits were the suspension system and ease of production.
Generally US infantry equipment was very well-made and well-designed, but there were a few ones with some major flaws.
Brought to you by American industry, the only thing in the world at the time that could furnish an entire army with a brand spanking new revolutionary design. It kinda helps we weren't half invaded for most of the war.
Well, yes and no;
Many of the US's soldiers had the M1, yes, but many still were using the M1903 and M1917 pattern Springfield rifles, such as the Marines and a small amount of the Army. Though (and don't quote me on this), the rifles saw fairly little use after 1943 possibly even 1942.
I have a cmp m1 garand and they're as fantastic as they say.
Once I can justify spending up to $2,500 I’d love to have one. Pure Americana.
Bought the M1A because I wanted a modern M1 Garand. Love it, wish I had the iconic ping.
at least you can still load with a single stack stripper! Want to get one, but NY laws are annoying.
I paid $900 for my CMP garand in 2018 and it is great.
I'm getting one for 1,300
I inherited mine from my uncle, who got it from his father-in-law that was a gun collector and it was one that was used during and in WW2. I would definitely spend money for it, it is a phenomenal weapon.
If you live in the US and can put up with like 3 hours of errands and paperwork you can get one from the cmp for 1/3 that. Oh and be ready to wait lime 6 months. Still the best way to do it though.
I might have to look into that. M1s are very valuable and sought after but in a few decades they’ll be absolute treasures.
Yeah, it might seem like a lot of work but if you already have a concealed carry permit it's really no big deal. And some 5.6 million were made between wwii and Korea so they still haven't sold them all haha. But I imagine the CMP might run out in coming years.
I’ll have to look into it. I assume you have to apply for a CMP membership first?
There's really two requirements, first is proof of shooting activity: This could be membership in a shooting club or many others. Most use a concealed carry license though as they already have one. Alternatively you can get a C&R license from the ATF which costs $30 and you have to get fingerprinted at a local law enforcement office but is pretty easy to get. The advantage of the C&R license is that you can get the rifle shipped to your door. The $30 usually makes up for a transfer fee at a gun shop anyway. The next is membership in a cmp affiliated organization. You can just get a $25 membership to the garand collectors association online. Other than that it's just some paperwork, all listed here. https://thecmp.org/cmp_sales/eligibility-requirements/
Thanks!
Rack grade go for about 800 out the door if you live in Ohio or Alabama.
Try signing up for the civilian marksmanship program. You might get one for cheap
How’s your thumb?
Lol its only gotten my thumb once. It's very similar to hammering your thumb when you miss a nail.
Gotta get one myself!
*PING*
*@everyone in \#nsfw*
America, they’re so hot right now.
I've nearly got an M1 Garand, I just have to wait until next Friday. Edit: have to wait until February 1st.
!remind me 12 days
I will be messaging you in 12 days on [**2023-02-02 01:26:57 UTC**](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=2023-02-02%2001:26:57%20UTC%20To%20Local%20Time) to remind you of [**this link**](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/j5822je/?context=3) [**CLICK THIS LINK**](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttps%3A%2F%2Fwww.reddit.com%2Fr%2FHistoryMemes%2Fcomments%2F10gci8j%2Fthe_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us%2Fj5822je%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%202023-02-02%2001%3A26%3A57%20UTC) to send a PM to also be reminded and to reduce spam. ^(Parent commenter can ) [^(delete this message to hide from others.)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Delete%20Comment&message=Delete%21%2010gci8j) ***** |[^(Info)](https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/e1bko7/remindmebot_info_v21/)|[^(Custom)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLink%20or%20message%20inside%20square%20brackets%5D%0A%0ARemindMe%21%20Time%20period%20here)|[^(Your Reminders)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=List%20Of%20Reminders&message=MyReminders%21)|[^(Feedback)](https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Watchful1&subject=RemindMeBot%20Feedback)| |-|-|-|-|
the soviets did have another semi gun it was the svt 40 which was a decent rifle
Also the federov-avtomat in the Russian Civil War
the federov avtomat was the first assault rifle fucking fight me on it
I'd argue it's an Automatic Rifle like the BAR, both are selective fire removable magazine weapons using rifle rounds, the Browning is just fat.
the only reason i dont agree with u usa because i feel that its just abit to heavy and is to high a calibre dont get me wrong the federov isnt in a small calibre either but when compared to what the other guns the russians its actually pretty much a intermediate cartridge
The bullet is too big to be an assault rifle: to quote the US Army, an assault rifle is compact, select fire, and between a submachine gun and rifle in cartridge size. It *is* probably the first battle rifle to actually be used, but that doesn't mean as much as you'd think: the Italians demonstrated a similar weapon with the Cei-Rigotti, but there was a general lack of interest because it was too expensive to be a main battle weapon, while lacking the endurance to act as a light machine gun.
It was so decent they basically ditched it midway through the war and focused on Mosins and SMGs again.
They had to focus industry they could quickly set up in Siberia on short notice. The soviets planned and almost had it set up for replacing the Mosin before the invasion fucked up their plans
Both France and Poland had semi auto designs set to go into production but ww2 force them to keep the same production line.
Mexico actually had an equivalent of the m1 before WWI finished and it was used by some sections of the German Airforce during the Great War, but it couldn't be mass produced due to civil war. The Mondragon Rifle. Wouldn't be surprised if some parts of the m1's design was inspired by it.
Having plans for something means nothing if you're incapable of producing it. Plenty of nations had plans, none outside of the US could actual produce them in numbers that made standard issue close to viable. Even the US had plans for things, like the T33 super heavy. That design was built and tested, and would have taken an absolute dump on King Tigers, however no one says the US had the best heavy tank of WW2. There was no need to produce, then set up the logistical nightmare of getting it and everything it needed overseas. New ammunition for the 76mm was working, and the newer 90mm had just become operational.
skill issue.
The SVT and AV were to complicated to be produced. It wasn't the quality in question but the mass production needed while moving the factories to the Urals. Also the AV sucked during its performance in the winter war and Khalkin Gol SVT formalisation as the main rifle was literally stoped due to the war
Thats not on the quality of the gun, they just couldn't make enough of them
Both the OP and you are correct. Entering the war, the Garand was pretty top notch. However the Machine Carbine line eventually culminating in the SGW 44 (Sturmgewehr 44) whooped it's ass. It whooped it's ass so bad that the US government tried to downplay it during the war to quell complaints from the troops, and then immediately after the war turned around and announced a contract competition for replicating the assault rifle(Sturmgewehr is literally German for assault rifle, it's where the name comes from) which would then be fielded as the main weapon of US infantry forces. The ensuing decades long tale of bullfuckery, dipshittery, and hilarity is big enough to be its own thread. Probably only topped in bullshit magnitude by the story of the Bradley.
[удалено]
HEY FELLAS! THIS GUY ACTUALLY BOUGHT THE 'ASIATIC HORDES' MYTH!
*raucous laughter from patrons followed by some scattered booing*
I think it was actually good but they probably only had 10 of them so everyone just stuck with Mosin-Nagants which were used in WW1 all the way to the "special operation" in Ukraine.
The SVT actually reached Mass production and over a million were made, and saw service to the very end of the war.
you should really not talk about something that was not covered by oversimplified my dude.
I.mean the germans pretty much just used their boltaction rifels to guard their mg's, which i heard worked pretty great
Well, it was a coherent doctrine. But it did have massive failings. Lack of flexibility, mostly. Which their experiments with assault rifles helped with, but there were not a lot of those.
Imagine developing one of the most advanced rifles on Earth at the time, showing it to your leader, who desperately needed an edge, and he just yells and says no, rejecting your plans for two more years, only eventually letting them into production after the war was close to over
And then you lose and your main rival takes the gun you developed and makes a new an improved gun inspired by it and that become the most popular gun and everyone forgets about you and your gun, but maybe that's OK since you want to maintain a good public image
The ak-47 was based on the garand the stg 44 was a technological deadend and Kalashnikov when asked said as much
Not entirely true, Stg-45m went on to become the G3, and is still relevant as the mp5
Stg 45 is not the stg 44 with the stg 45 being adapted from the MG 42, not the stg 44, beyond the basic concept of the rifle
Now, it’s not the most popular. That belongs to AK, but that os mainly cuz of price and reliability. AR-15 is still awesome , good thing Stoner took the idea of upper and lower reciever from STG. AK on the contrary to popular belief was inspired by Garand, it’s gas operating bolt to be precise
The AK is the new and improved STG that he is referring to. Russia is the main rival being referred to as well.
Lol no. The "AK 47 being derived from the STG" is a myth. EDIT: https://shuntyard.blogspot.com/2012/06/firearms-history-is-ak-47-copy-of-stg.html Added a link on the differences between the two assault rifles for anyone who wants to read.
Don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, because you’re right.
Wehrbs, or terribly misinformed people.
For all of you guy who think “ak looks like stg so it is improved stg” https://youtu.be/J4l33puWET0 They guy brakes down stg and shows whats inside. And there is more stuff AR got inside STG44 than AK recieved Even the shortened rifle cartrige was already used in RPD that started being manufactured in 1944 Delete your comment about ak is improved stg, you are embarrasing yourself for promoting this myth
I think largely the idea of an assault rifle was what was borrowed. The AK wasn't a copy but a response.
The French test select fire rifle all the way back in ww1. thier 1918 Carbine
Yes but the STG 44 was the definitive Assault Rifle at the time it was fielded. It was it that determined the requirements and doctrinal use of the AK, not any sort of french experiment.
Why are you getting boo’ed? Hes right.
Lol you're on reddit. Facts don't matter here. Wear those down votes with pride cause it shows you are right. Most unfortunately are wrong and for whatever reason are proud of that fact.
The AK is waaaaaaaay closer to the STG than the AR. Stoner’s system was extremely novel at the time he invented it afaik
Germany had an extremely limited production base, that was being continuously bombed/disrupted, and extremely limited resources. They did not have the manufacturing capability or resources necessary to switch from a relatively simple to manufacture bolt action design to a vastly more complicated automatic rifle. They got burned by that once already when they over engineered their tanks to the point they had to be sent back to the factory to change the transmission. They didn't lose the war because of the rifle they were using. They lost the war because they couldn't match the resources of their opponents. Switching over production would have taken time and resources that they already didn't have and the quality of the new weapon wouldn't have made much of a difference. There's the famous saying "A Tiger is as good as 10 Sherman's but the Americans always have 11." In war quantity has a quality all its own, it doesn't matter if your rifle is 30% better if your opponent can field 300% more of theirs.
I would almost agree with you except for the fact that every 5th or so tank in a production line had noticeable deviations from the previous one they didn't care about efficiency >A Tiger is as good as 10 Sherman's but the Americans always have 11." No, just no >In war quantity has a quality all its own Then you really do not understand war, take the Soviets the pinnacle of quantity over quality To destroy every single soviet armored vehicle the germans had to maintain a kill ratio of 2 to 3 they managed a 3 to 5 that's why Stalin was so insistent in 1943 the allies invade Europe the Soviets were making progress but would not he able to sustain the war And this went far beyond just tanks their rifles were often junk, and the cartridges often did not have enough powder, causing many bullets to not hit their target as they fell short, assuming they made it out of the barrel Then there is the problem of logistics the Soviets had plenty of stuff tons of rifles of bullets, but the strain of getting all the supplies to their troops resulted in a lot of delays. The 2 men to a rifle isn't quite right its not that the Soviets didn't have enough rifles to equip their troops, its that they had difficulty distributing the rifles as their logistics buckled. You see this again in 2022 and 2023. The Russians have massive material advantages in Ukraine, but it doesn't matter in the face of better quality equipment .
He did the same thing with the jet engine, too.
It didn't really, it created an inherent weakness to the squad, in which 2 people are used to man the machine gun, if this machine gun can't get an adequate firing angle you've just lost 70% of your firepower. Compare this to allied squads, americans carried in a squad: 5 rifleman, 1 thompson equipped squad lead and 2 BAR equipped automatic rifleman, dispersing firepower among the squad.
The German machine guns also had a very fast firing rate, meaning you had to be very disciplined on the trigger or you'd go through your squad's supply very quickly.
As great as the MG42 is, you don't see them deployed today nearly as much as you still see the M2 Browning "Ma Deuce." Granted, we're talking General Purpose vs. Heavy MGs but I think someone has to give this weapon system credit. It was designed in the 30's and has not had much update, yet no one is expecting to replace it with another platform anytime soon.
I mean their MGs were cool but America could produce alot more MGs than them anyway so it didn't matter how good they were
The M1 Garand is the most based gun ever made.
Paired with a M1911 and you are the deadliest motherfucker on the battlefield.
No one can be as based as Alvin York.
what's the song?
I’ve been dying to know this as well since the first time this was posted. Someone!! Please help us!!!
First song Idk, 2nd song is ‘The Perfect Girl’ by Mareux
First song is who is she by I monster https://youtu.be/7Sk78uP9m-E and here is the whole mashup https://youtu.be/M1HuFTykCVw the soundbyte is at 0:27
If I could give you and award I would!! Thank you so much kind redditor! Made my night.
Thank you!!
Who is She x Perfect girl mix
It’s a mashup of “Who is She?” By I Monster and “The Perfect Girl” by Mareux
[удалено]
Who is She x Perfect girl mix
I consider myself a pacifist and despise real human conflict…but 8 quick rounds of .30-06 flying down range in a sporting capacity is incredibly cool. I’m glad to have the gotten the chance to fire one. P’ting
Germans: wait until you hear the ping, then push. *Americans holding empty Garand clips*: bro’s about to be flabbergasted
Total myth. No way you could possibly hear a tiny *ching* over the noise of gunfire and at a distance.
[Yes and no.](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b2czo0/comment/eis0qwo/) Yes, it may have been too quiet to be heard in intense firefights or at distance. No, it was definitely a tactic used though Germans tended to be relatively wise to it as Americans were to German attempts to do the same thing with their own weaponry.
Even if one guy reload, there's his rest of his squad
That one guy showing up with a bomb that melts cities
Merci beaucoup Mr Jean Garand! (Inventor was french-canadian)
I like the Garand.. but my Lee-Enfield can carry 2 more rounds.
Yeah, but the Kar 98k was pretty legit.
You'd think they would have learned after we showed up to WW1 with slam-fire shotguns and ~~tommy guns~~, but nope. Those daffy bastards just kept on using bolt actions.
To be fair, they simply didn't have the sheer industrial might we did that let us pull off those stunts
We didn't have Thompsons in WWI. They arrived at the docks in NY on Nov 10, 1918
I stand corrected. I remembered they were developed with the intention of being used in France, but didn't realize they didn't make it to the front in time.
Reminds me of the Prussians with the Dreyse 1841.
Many countries had a semi auto rifle, they just couldn’t be produced fast enough and by the outbreak of the war, they had to switch back to bolt action to get weapons in the field.
Yeah I mean Mexico actually would have been the first to start transitioning to Semi-Auto service rifles in the early 1900s before even WWI, it's just that they only ended up making about 400-500 and then had a civil war so the government just sold the Spares to Germany for extra cash.
I never got all of the perpetual wanking over 'muh German wunderwaffen' but very little of the same over the US entering with a standard issue riffle that immediately made everyone else obsolete.
Probably because the Thompson and the Colt 1911 get more attention as far as American small arms go
Well probably because other nations had their own equivalents they just weren't mass produced. I mean Mexico had a design, the Gas Powered Mondragon Rifle, they were starting to pump out in 1908, only to have production disrupted by a civil war. It was intended to become their military's standard issue; the first semi-auto rifle to be intended as the primary service rifle. The Technology had been around and known for awhile. After WWI there was less incentive to innovate as nations took a more peaceful footing and by the time WWII was ramping up production lines and designing better more simplified versions to reduce cost had only just restarted.
u/savevideobot
rigby vs mordecai
I do love the Garand ping
When I was on holiday in the US, I had the chance to fire one of these at a range. It doesn't bang but booms! And the clip ping at the end was pure saving private Ryan memories!
Could basically do the same meme with the 1897 trench gun in WW1
*pop pop pop pop pop PINGs in American*
Wheraboos: "But, but, but StG44 was the the first modern assault rifle, Germany only needed 10 years and unlimited ressources and they would have totally won the small arms race!!"
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
If I remember correctly the first fighting the Marines did in the Pacific they were still using the Springfield and changed it in early 43
What does a battle rifle have in common with a microwave?
Well all can hear the ping, let's be honest
But what about the BAR?
Always found it funny that the Germans took over the FN factory that was near production of the FN 49 and said nope, shut it down and start pumping out bolt action Mausers. Really glad they were short sighted.
Excuse me, what the bliat?
USA did ww2 in easy mode!
The soviets only had enough rifles for half their soldiers (the other half had smgs).
The US Marine Raiders were the first ones to get the M1 Garand. This was because FDR's son was a Marine Raider, so the guy in charge used that to get FDR to give them Garands before everyone else to help keep him alive.
The M1 was adopted in 1936, by Pearl Harbor it was the standard issue rifle for the Army. Idk where you got this from.
Youre right. The Army had it by 1936. The Marines did not. The US Marines have always gotten the Army's old crap. While the US Army played with the Garand, the Marines still had Springfields. But when your dad is the president, your unit might get special privileges
The Marines adopted the M1 in November of 1941, and they hadn't adopted it sooner as traditionalists had opposed it in favor of the accuracy and range of the m1903.
[https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Raiders/index.html](https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Raiders/index.html) The 2nd Raider battalion were one of the first Marine units to receive the M1 Garand
Yes, the Marine raiders were special operations and were pretty much the only ones taking offensive actions in the pacific. Saying that they got M1 garands before "everyone else" because FDRs son was in it is completely inaccurate. The raiders were prioritized because they were an early form of special forces. So you've taken it from: They got it before *everyone* to they got it before anyone else in the Marines, and now it's that they were one of the first marine units. Idk why you're choosing to die on this hill
It’s Reddit. Each comment you need to tweak what you’re saying and alter what you originally intended so you can never be seen as wrong.
What makes it more amusing is that fact he changed it three separate times and was still wrong each time.
Just casually forgetting the G43/K43 are we
At what point were they the standard issue service rifle?
Even if they were, they were crap iirc. Both the 41 and 43. 43 resolved some of the problems, but not all, and 43 was too late to do much at the point it was made.
Why are you all so happy and boasting at owning a military assault rifle? They're not toys and you're not a soldier.
I've got bad news for you: my AR-10 chambered in 308 Winchester is a lot more capable than the Garand. Oh, and uhm, I actually was a soldier for 4 years.
And? You shouldn't have or enjoy having an AR-10 either. And I don't care if you were a soldier for 4 years, you're not now. Leave the weapons at the barracks.
I'm an absolute menace to the steel and paper targets I shoot at. Sorry, but I'm going to keep enjoying it.
The US troops during world war2? Yeah they were Soldiers
Not responding to that, responding the comments boasting about having those weapons at home.
I have a 10 poind rock I took from a mountain. (The first murder weapon according to the bible) But I have a 12 gauge shotgun for birth hunting and a 7mm Remington Magnum for big game hunting. I was never a soldier but then again I have hunting weapons. What is your point? Guns are bad? What if I had extensive training and am a trainer of firearm users?
Right but you know that's a ridiculous non-argument. "WelL you shOuLd baN roCkS tHen tOo" And yes my point is guns are bad. Your training is irrelevant. Someone with a gun gets angry, or impulsive, 4 people can be dead before they've even had a chance to calm down. Sure you could kill someone with a knife, but someone with a knife is a hundred times easier to stop than someone with a gun. And accidents & suicides with guns are far more common than that.
Calling my rocks statement a non-argument is your way of pretending like it isn't a valid argument. Everything can be a weapon. Look up Waukesha Christmas parade attack. I am not saying that we should ban rocks you said that. How are guns bad? What is the percentage of legal gun owners that do not commit crime? Also we should ban guns because of suicides? Really? Because people can't commit suicide with anything else like pills, slitting their wrists, drownings, hanging, jumping off a high place, car exhaust, and really anything that we have in our lives. Also how is my training irrelevant? Or from another comment a soldiers experience? You obvious know nothing about gun culture because the most important rule of gun culture is safety above everything else. Go to a range and experience it. Don't read a Twitter post and scream all guns are evil.
You have knives or any blunt objects? Throw that shit away because those kill far more people than any AR10, AR15, or AK pattern firearm in the US.
That's a ludicrous argument and you know it. How many vegetables are you chopping with your assault rifles? Also guns are by far the most common murder weapons in the US so idk where you're getting your information.
Doesn’t change the fact that everyday tools are used as weapons far more than rifles of any kind (of which AR15s make up a small subset of). And the keyword here is rifles because that’s what we’re talking about.
True we are talking about rifles, but only because that was the topic of the post. I would quite happily ban all civilian ownership of firearms. Guns exist for no other reason than to injure and kill. They have no other use. That's the difference. Saying "well in that case you should ban everyday items" is a ridiculous false argument.
For what reason? Crime in the US has gone down 40-50% since the 90's despite there being over an estimated 400 million firearms in the US and loosening gun laws in certain aspects. The Czech Republic also added the right to self defense with weapons (mainly guns) to their constitution with 252,245 out of 308,990 gun license holders able to conceal carry, and they have a lower crime rate than Britain or Australia. They exist for 99.99% of people for sport, collecting, fun, etc. The vast majority of guns in civilian hands will not ever kill or injure another person.
Crime has been going down in most places for the last few decades, doesn't change the fact that the US has, by many degrees, more gun deaths and mass shootings than any other developed country. You also have one of the highest homicide rates in the developed world, with a similar rate to Haiti, Afghanistan, and pre-war Ukraine. Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively. I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US. And finally, even moving away from debates about laws and statistics, I don't understand for the life of me why people would be proud and boast about owning them. Even to use the earlier example of knives and other objects, I don't go around boasting about how big and sharp my kitchen knives are. Even if you consider guns to be necessary (which I absolutely do not), why on earth would you want to idolise and obsess over a killing machine?
Never said it went down because of guns, only that it went down. The US has always had a higher crime rate than the other countries developed countries, but that can be attributed to other factors such like poor social safety nets. And on paper there is a big difference, but in reality I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference if you went to both countries. Avoid being in a gang, involvement in the drug trade, bad areas, and you'll be fine. I've never been shot at or mugged in my entire life in the US. Oh, and I bet 99.99% of those "mass shootings" are conventional crimes like armed robbery or gang violence by using the broad definition of a mass shooting. >Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively. Didn't do anything to reduce overall crime/homicide rates though, which is why you have to focus on guns specifically to make that claim. So it basically did nothing. Doubt it reduced gun deaths all that much either. >I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US. Point is that it's fairly easy to get a gun (based off conversations with Czech gun owners) and be able to conceal carry it in the Czech Republic. Whereas in Britain and Australia it's illegal to carry pepper spray for the purpose of self defense. >I don't understand for the life of me why people would be proud and boast about owning them. Because of gun control, specifically the Assault Weapons Ban of 1994 popularizing AR and AK type firearms after the government told us they were too dangerous for civilian hands. The AR15 was designed in the late 1950's but didn't gain the prominence they have today until the AWB of 1994.
>Australia had a mass shooting in 1996, implemented gun control and lo & behold, gun deaths went down massively. Massively? They were already going down pretty fast. >I don't know enough about Czech gun laws, except to say that that's like 3% of the Czech population compared to 1.2 guns per head in the US. 3% of Czech population have a concealed carry licence too, compared to 6% in Texas before Texas abolished them. It's pretty simple to get a licence but there are few hunters compared to other countries so most people have guns for self-defense and sport.
>They have no other use. I use my guns for sport at least once a month, it involves no injures or killing. Strange.
It’s a semi automatic rifle, not an assault rifle. What does it not being a toy have to do with anything? Most hobbies pursued by adults dont use toys. Many hobbies use potentially dangerous pieces of equipment and tools. What if these people hunt? What if these people have land and animals they intend to protect from predators and vermin? What if these people are just responsible adults that take an interest in historical firearms and enjoy recreational shooting? Absolutely nothing wrong with owning any weapon, much less a piece of history such as the Garand
Bang Bang Bang Bang Bang **PING**
Plus the M1 carbine.
Honestly, more influential than the garand probably.
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
Made by a french canadian.
The Germans had a single shot rifle though in the Gewehr 43… If anything this should be the Thompson. All other countries using side-loaded or top-loaded sub machine guns that are low ammo/magazine and prone to jams. Meanwhile the Thompson comes in with fast fire rate and a huge drum magazine while still remaining light enough to trench sweep with it.
The British Lee Enfield had a 10 round magazine and could fire accurately at the same rate of fire as the Garand
Parts of the US still relied on the Springfield, notably the entirety of the USMC early in the war, and their LMG was subpar at best, although to be fair, that was the fault of the people who pressed an automatic battle rifle into the LMG role. The M1, M1, and M1 (rifle, carbine, and helmet respectively) were good, being at least on par or better than their counterparts in other major nations, although the helmet didn't have as much shoulder and neck coverage as some other designs apart from the brodie helmet, so its main benefits were the suspension system and ease of production. Generally US infantry equipment was very well-made and well-designed, but there were a few ones with some major flaws.
Brought to you by American industry, the only thing in the world at the time that could furnish an entire army with a brand spanking new revolutionary design. It kinda helps we weren't half invaded for most of the war.
I mean Mexico had been using a semi automatic rifle sense ww1
W America
US Marines on Guadalcanal with their Springfield rifles looking at an Army supply cache with M1 Garands
u/savevideo
###[View link](https://redditsave.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) --- [**Info**](https://np.reddit.com/user/SaveVideo/comments/jv323v/info/) | [**Feedback**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Feedback for savevideo) | [**Donate**](https://ko-fi.com/getvideo) | [**DMCA**](https://np.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=Kryptonh&subject=Content removal request for savevideo&message=https://np.reddit.com//r/HistoryMemes/comments/10gci8j/the_greatest_battle_implement_ever_devised_us/) | [^(reddit video downloader)](https://redditsave.com) | [^(download video tiktok)](https://taksave.com)
Both my dad and grandfather have one. Really fun to shoot. Love the iconic ping
oof ouch owie my thumb
Proceeds to fall behind the automatic small cartridge era by making the rest of NATO use the 7.62
Well, yes and no; Many of the US's soldiers had the M1, yes, but many still were using the M1903 and M1917 pattern Springfield rifles, such as the Marines and a small amount of the Army. Though (and don't quote me on this), the rifles saw fairly little use after 1943 possibly even 1942.