Am I the only one who has been watching Band of Brothers and really, really, really wanting to get an M1 Garand more than ever? I am sure I am the only one because most of you probably watch it while cleaning your Garand. I need to get on the band wagon. Heck I have even been thinking of getting a repo Carbine paratrooper stock for my existing carbine. Now I am thinking about the semi Thompsons too. There is just something about those WWII guns that is beautiful. I wish I hadn't bought my big screen TV and DVD system. I am so broke! I might just be a rebel and get my paperwork in order and order an M1. CMP takes credit cards right?
Band of Brothers and the M1 Garand.
- Thread starter El Rojo
- Start date
Will Beararms
New member
Indeed the Garand came from a time when we were more concerned with the safety of our women and children than with political correctness. Our nation was closer to God then and we had no moral problems with totally destroying, not wounding an enemy soldier to root out an evil empire. Now we have killed far more in Abortion clinics than Hitler ever did on the field in occupation or in his death camps. The Garand was designed to kill not to maim. The current fodder propogated by idiots like Robert McNamara was designed to wound which is a wimps way out IMHO.
Now as we have slipped into a moral quagmire, we justify the flimsy .223 as a weapon to wound since the enemy will be slowed down by more wounded. In truth the enemy we face today will be content with leaving the maimed in the field to die for allah and in truth the most effective manner to fight a battle is to completely destroy the enemy as we did in WWII. Last time I checked no more Nazi's or Imperialist Japanese have tried to take over the world for a second time.
Now, since we have no moral compass, we think carpet boming and cruise missles will somehow make us better but since we have long arms that only maim, we are okay. If we were in tune with God as a Nation, we would have no problem arming a soldier with a weapon designed to kill instead of wound and instructing him to destroy the enemy. Air strikes are needed and justified but our troops should be equipped with tools to kill and eliminate, not just wound. Yes the .223 is deadly but the whole premise of its origin is based upon board room rationalization instead of cold hard facts. So yes, I love the Garand, a one-shot, one kill weapon designed by men unconcerned with political correctness and silly theories.
Sorry for the long post and I have my fireproof jockeys on so flame away.
Now as we have slipped into a moral quagmire, we justify the flimsy .223 as a weapon to wound since the enemy will be slowed down by more wounded. In truth the enemy we face today will be content with leaving the maimed in the field to die for allah and in truth the most effective manner to fight a battle is to completely destroy the enemy as we did in WWII. Last time I checked no more Nazi's or Imperialist Japanese have tried to take over the world for a second time.
Now, since we have no moral compass, we think carpet boming and cruise missles will somehow make us better but since we have long arms that only maim, we are okay. If we were in tune with God as a Nation, we would have no problem arming a soldier with a weapon designed to kill instead of wound and instructing him to destroy the enemy. Air strikes are needed and justified but our troops should be equipped with tools to kill and eliminate, not just wound. Yes the .223 is deadly but the whole premise of its origin is based upon board room rationalization instead of cold hard facts. So yes, I love the Garand, a one-shot, one kill weapon designed by men unconcerned with political correctness and silly theories.
Sorry for the long post and I have my fireproof jockeys on so flame away.
I have heard the arguments many times both for anf against, that the .223 was designed to wound, and that its adoption by the US military was in response to a change in military doctrine (better to wound than to kill, etc.). I have never seen any evidence that the "wounding theory" was official military doctrine and affected the adoption of the .223.
The following quote comes from "Firearms Tactical" (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm) and would seem to, at least in part, refute this idea.
"The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980’s. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic."
The article is a little long to include full length here, but it provides some good information.
I have also read reports (can't remember where - maybe at Firearms Tactical, sorry) comparing the terminal performance of both .223 and 7.62 (7.62x39, 7.62x51, and .30-06) bullets. IIRC, at <300 yards (normal infantry engagement distances?), the .223 was superior to the .308 in fmj configurations.
When I find the references, I will post them.
The following quote comes from "Firearms Tactical" (http://www.firearmstactical.com/briefs13.htm) and would seem to, at least in part, refute this idea.
"The increased wounding effects produced by bullet fragmentation were not well understood until the mid-1980’s. Therefore the wounding effects of the original M16 rifle bullet were not an intentional U.S. military design characteristic."
The article is a little long to include full length here, but it provides some good information.
I have also read reports (can't remember where - maybe at Firearms Tactical, sorry) comparing the terminal performance of both .223 and 7.62 (7.62x39, 7.62x51, and .30-06) bullets. IIRC, at <300 yards (normal infantry engagement distances?), the .223 was superior to the .308 in fmj configurations.
When I find the references, I will post them.
Sorry man, I’m one of the guys cleaning my M1A while watching Band of Brothers. I have to laugh when I hear people say that the M1 family of rifles are too big, too heavy, and too powerful for CQB and urban warfare. They worked fairly well when American GI's were cleaning the Germans out of European towns and cities. I'll admit that there may be smaller/lighter choices, but the M1/M14/M1A works just fine and has the extra horsepower when needed.
Derek Zeanah
New member
What they taught my dad in ROTC back in the Vietnam era was that our troops had some abysmal hit ratio -- something like one hit per 10,000 rounds fired in Korea (not accurate, someone please post real data) -- and the thinking was to increase the number of rounds fired by increasing bullets per pound.
But then, some of the information I've seen lately makes me think the *real* reason was industrialist friends who would benefit from the move to a new weapon design in an uncommon caliber.
<shrug> We'll probably never know. Hell, we can't even decide if we (collectively) think it was a wise move.
But then, some of the information I've seen lately makes me think the *real* reason was industrialist friends who would benefit from the move to a new weapon design in an uncommon caliber.
<shrug> We'll probably never know. Hell, we can't even decide if we (collectively) think it was a wise move.
Marko Kloos
Inactive
I do want a Garand, but for now I watch Band of Brothers while cleaning my M1 Carbine. It doesn't have the Para stock, but it's still plenty cool. Mine was made in 1943...I always wonder who has cleaned and carried it before me.
Baba Louie
New member
When (not if) we get involved in the ground war action in Afghan, I think that the majority of troops would/will appreciate a REAL battle rifle, shooting a REAL killing round at the longer ranges they're gonna face than the M-16/M-4 5.56 combo, etc.
The Russians had their AK's while the Afghani's had old .303 Enfield bolt actions (and Stingers).
Which would you prefer if you were gonna hide, shoot then scoot from behind rocks, boulders, etc. at 2,000 - 3,000 meters above sea level?
A better battle rifle has not been realized than the Garand Family (including the M-14) for semi-auto and CQB. You can sing the praise of the L1A1 family, but I'd rather be 200 yd. shooting and/or butt-stroking the enemy with one of those heavy old Garands (not really, I'm too old) than any nylon-fiberglass new-fangled toy by Mattel.
I know, I know, the ammos too heavy, the rifle is too heavy, the recoil is too heavy. But when TSHTF, I'd feel right dangerous with one of those old 1937 designed arms in my paws. Battle proven.
'nuff said
Adios Qweeksdraw
The Russians had their AK's while the Afghani's had old .303 Enfield bolt actions (and Stingers).
Which would you prefer if you were gonna hide, shoot then scoot from behind rocks, boulders, etc. at 2,000 - 3,000 meters above sea level?
A better battle rifle has not been realized than the Garand Family (including the M-14) for semi-auto and CQB. You can sing the praise of the L1A1 family, but I'd rather be 200 yd. shooting and/or butt-stroking the enemy with one of those heavy old Garands (not really, I'm too old) than any nylon-fiberglass new-fangled toy by Mattel.
I know, I know, the ammos too heavy, the rifle is too heavy, the recoil is too heavy. But when TSHTF, I'd feel right dangerous with one of those old 1937 designed arms in my paws. Battle proven.
'nuff said
Adios Qweeksdraw
I have decided to put myself further in debt and order not one, but two M1 Garands from the Civilian Marksmanship Program. I think I am going to get a service grade and a Danish rifle. I figure I can keep the service grade as is and do what tinkering I want with the Danish rifle. Then I think I am just going to reload a bunch of ammo on my Dillon RL 550B by ordering a bunch of surplus components from Jeff Bartlett. Anyone else know a better place to get surplus bullets, brass, and powder? I think I will go start that thread in reloading.
Those of you interested in getting one of those great rifles like in Band of Brothers, go check out the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The main requirements are a birth certificate or naturalization card, membership in a state affiliate club (NRA does NOT count), and to shoot 50 rounds in a match in the last 5 years (veterans and LEOs automatically qualify). They are the absolute best deal on a USGI Garand. They do have the new Garands for sale with the new recievers with USGI parts, but my understanding is those are not very good guns. You can get a Danish grade for the same price anyway.
Keep this thread going, I am excited about this prospect.
Those of you interested in getting one of those great rifles like in Band of Brothers, go check out the Civilian Marksmanship Program. The main requirements are a birth certificate or naturalization card, membership in a state affiliate club (NRA does NOT count), and to shoot 50 rounds in a match in the last 5 years (veterans and LEOs automatically qualify). They are the absolute best deal on a USGI Garand. They do have the new Garands for sale with the new recievers with USGI parts, but my understanding is those are not very good guns. You can get a Danish grade for the same price anyway.
Keep this thread going, I am excited about this prospect.
Band of Brothers has been an incredible experience to date. The last episode was very intense and really hit home for me. I went to the range on saturday and put a couple of boxes through my Garand. I wondered about where it has been in the past and what it has seen. It has a 6 digit serial number and was manufactured in Spring 1942. I truly honor that rifle as a historical link to the great americans that won that awful war.
inGobwetrust
New member
The gun I would love to have from "Band Of Brothers" is the Thompson SMG. The Tommy Gun is just so cool! I'm not much of a shot from long range so the Garand, while very appealing, would probably not be the right choice for me.
I've seen episodes 2 thru 6 (don't have cable but got lucky when traveling and caught the B.O.B. "minithon" a few weeks back). Notice what the smart officers and NCOs carry. They have a choice of any small arm. Do they carry a Thompson? No. A Carbine? Nope. Grease gun? Naw. Springfield? Not. They carry a Garand! -- Kernel
Have you guys read the book?
I forgot to mention this. If you really want to appreciate the series, go read Stephen Abrose's book Band of Brothers. It is really cool to see how much of the movie is just like the book. Really not much is different. The thing is, you are going to know what happens in the next episodes. For example. I knew Spiers was going to take over for Dike because I read about it in the book. The series and the book go along real well. In fact, it made me feel good to read that book. Makes me really appreciate what all of those guys went through. They really praise Leautinut/Captain/Major Winters too. Those guys really love him. Go get the book.
I forgot to mention this. If you really want to appreciate the series, go read Stephen Abrose's book Band of Brothers. It is really cool to see how much of the movie is just like the book. Really not much is different. The thing is, you are going to know what happens in the next episodes. For example. I knew Spiers was going to take over for Dike because I read about it in the book. The series and the book go along real well. In fact, it made me feel good to read that book. Makes me really appreciate what all of those guys went through. They really praise Leautinut/Captain/Major Winters too. Those guys really love him. Go get the book.
Haven't seen the flick,
but want a Garand in a bad, bad way.
Something about 8 rounds of '06 that feels oh-so-nice. The escalating price of preban mags gets me sicker and sicker. Gotta rotate the mags on my semis and AK enough as it is... what a pain in the arse.
The war wood, the inexpensive clips, the '06... I think I have been enlightened to a wonderful, iron sighted rifle.
Sure do want one...
but want a Garand in a bad, bad way.
Something about 8 rounds of '06 that feels oh-so-nice. The escalating price of preban mags gets me sicker and sicker. Gotta rotate the mags on my semis and AK enough as it is... what a pain in the arse.
The war wood, the inexpensive clips, the '06... I think I have been enlightened to a wonderful, iron sighted rifle.
Sure do want one...