M1 Garand & M1903 Springfield

Wyosmith, When I enlisted we had serial # and those # tell you appr when they enlisted. 1941 was only 54K Marines vs 1.5 million Army.

Marine serial # started 1905 ended 1972 and was less then 3 million Marines serve in those 67 year and end of WWII army had 8.3 million soldier,


If you honestly think Marines didn't do their part during WWII you shouldn't call yourself a Marines and your disgrace as it is for saying that.
Click to expand...

Where did that come from?

I didn't see where Wyosmith discreted the marines or anyone else. What I read was he was saying the Army did their part in the South Pacific as well as the marines. Which is true, there were more Army division in the SP then Marines.

I was army, but I have nothing but respect for Marines, more so then any other service (except army paratroopers of course). Sure I play the rivalry game, teasing my marine friends, but in Vietnam, we weren't different services, we were brothers.

But facts are facts:

US Military Casualties in WWII;

Army (including Army Air Corp) KIA 318,274
Marines KIA 24,511

www.nationalww2museum.org/learn/education/for.../ww2.../ww2-by.../us-military.html?

Those numbers tells me the Army did their part. But It also says the Marines did their part.

All were brothers who at the time of need, found their "safe place" defending their country.
 
If you honestly think Marines didn't do their part during WWII ....
Click to expand...

AT EASE!!! Gentlemen ...

More than one bar fight I've been a party to began with words like that, and we simply are NOT having it here. Plenty of room in the brig for EVERYONE who goes there, and I don't care who starts it.

First off, while discussion of the roles played by the rifles and troops is on topic, arguing about which branch gets what credit and how much is not, and taking it right to the edge of personal attack, (which is even worse) is simply not allowed, and will not be tolerated.

Second, if you have an issue with someone, or something they said, take it to PM, or report it to a moderator. THAT is our policy, and it applies to EVERYONE.

Is that CLEAR??!!
 
Thanks 44 AMP.
I was just writing to Kraigwy to thank him for READING what I wrote, and to old roper to advise him to do so.
 
Last edited:
No "Tanker" Garands issued anywhere, at any time. Strictly experimental(for Paras like James K says) and marketing things. There are some rumours regarding 'field modifications' though. Probably led to charges of destroying government property. snicker.
Any of 'em seen now are cobbled together by assorted importers and may or may not work correctly. Milsurps they ain't.
Isn't any room in a tank(of any type) for a rifle of any kind anyway. Even an M1 Carbine at 35" is a tight fit in a tank. And no self-respecting cavalryman would let himself get caught with a rifle either.
 
Just to point out, "Tankers" drive more than just "Tanks" in the military, or they used to anyways. So it would be more accurate to call them "vehicle crewmember variants" but "Tanker" just sounds better, ask any Cavalryman, he'll tell ya :D

Jimro
 
Many other lies were told about those rifles. Receivers were often soft due to the heat required for welding. * * * Avoid them all! If you already have one, fire it at your own risk!
Click to expand...

Good advice. I'd avoid ANY M1 - whether full-size or "Tanker" - that had a welded receiver. Beyond the obvious safety reason, it's unnecessary.

You can buy a stripped original M1 receiver to build up a Tanker if that's what you want. Before CMP stopped selling them, I bought several stripped Grade C receivers. If you've got an old, shot-out gunshow junker, as long as the receiver is intact, you've got the basis to re-build it into what you want. Every other part needed can be scrounged from a source. Barrels, sights, wood, etc.

Mike Stacey at Columbus Machine Works rebuilds standard M1 op rods and can build the correct op rod necessary for an 18" Tanker. Shuff has perfected the length and correct bend of the 16" Mini-G's op rod, which he makes by cutting down, reshaping, and re-pistoning old, out-of-spec standard op rods.

The point being: if you want to go short with an M1, the resources are out there to do it safely. Build or buy. A Mini-G from Shuff or a Tanker from Fulton Armory - if you care to pay the freight.

The CMP, I believe, even offered some Tankers for sale a few years ago, so the shortened Garands are obviously popular.

Just FYI ... :cool:
 
Last edited:
Jungle fighting requires fire superiority, you get that with semiautomatics, not bolt actions. If visibility and deflection are an issue, which they are, the more rounds out, the better.
 
The USMC has always been smaller than the Army; the services simply have different missions. It might also be noted that the U.S. and the U.K. are (AFAIK) the only nations that have a distinctive Marine Corps. Other nations give navy personnel such training as may be needed for land duty or small arms use.* In the U.S. WWII service, the larger warships carried a Marine detachment, usually about 100 men under command of a major (out of a total crew of about 2700 men (no women)). They acted as a landing party as needed, guarded the ship at dock, and, in combat manned some of the lighter guns. They also acted (as President Truman famously said) as "the Navy's policemen", guarding both the brig and any enemy prisoners.

Before WWII, the USMC had only about 19,000 men; during the war, the service was expanded to roughly 470,000. Marines participated in early action in the Pacific simply because they were more immediately available, but the numbers were insufficient for the major actions in that region, and most of the troops for the later fighting were from the Army.

Jim

In WWII it was common to read or hear about "Jap Marines", but Japan had no Marine Corps as a separate service. The Imperial Navy ships had special detachments who performed some of the duties of U.S. Marines, but they were sailors (and their helmets featured an anchor), not "marines".

JK
 
I have an M1 and have shot a Springfield 03A1 many times. I love my M1 and shooting the 03A3 is a dream. Great sights and trigger. Perfect ergonomics for me. I missed the boat when 03A3s were cheap so I kind of hold off buying one. My M1 is from back when CMP (then DCM) sold them for $165 to your door.
The 03A3 is the last real itch I need to scratch.
 
The 03A3 is the last real itch I need to scratch.
Click to expand...

I had one - bought from the CMP 5 years ago. An 03A3 is waaaay overrated, trust me.

Sold it for more than I paid, and with that money I promptly bought a CMP SG M1 Garand stocked in USGI wood. It's a great shooter too. :cool:
 
On this subject does the CMP sell any of those welded Garands? I just got a service grade from them, but haven't even disassembled it yet.
 
baddarryl, no the CMP does not sell welded up Garand receivers.
IIRC they had a batch of drill rifles but I think they were all bolt guns 1903/M17s
 
I liked The Pacific... because of the M1903 use, and the scene where the Marines find a Garand in the Army supply. Only issue is that they used A3s over the older versions.
 
The Army wasn't fully switched over from M1903 to M1 Garand until late 1942/early 1943. Plenty of Army units still carried the '03. In fact there was an entire Army Infantry Regiment in the Normandy Campaign armed with M1903s because of the decision of it's Regimental commander.

Anyway, no, as stated the ballistics from an M1903 and Garand are the same pretty much. Both fired the same round. Accuracy from an M1903 was superior to a Garand which is why most snipers in the USMC and Army carried a '03.

As far as the jungle fighting was concerned, the marines and the Japanese did just fine with bolt guns, though the Garand had an edge. the true weapon that dominated the Jungle was the BAR and various light machine guns employed by both sides.
 
the true weapon that dominated the Jungle was ...
Click to expand...

The JUNGLE!

The Japanese named Guadalcanal the "Island of Death" and it wasn't because of the Springfield, Garand, BAR, or any of our weapons. We were usually better armed than they were, and it was a factor, but the jungle itself played a huge role, against both sides, as well. About 2/3 of the Japanese who went to Guadalcanal died there. We killed about 1/3, the jungle got the rest.

Both sides learned a lot of hard lessons, and when applied, made the jungle (in all facets, like disease, difficulty keeping supplied, etc) less of a killer in later campaigns, but it always got some of the troops fighting in it.
 
malaria, dysentery, starvation, and other non bullet firing causes killed as many, if not more soldiers in the south pacific than bullets.
 
I am a former Marine and I own and shoot both rifles. I have a Mixmaster Springfield M1 and 2 1903 A3s that are both Smith corona and made within 1 month of each other in 1944. One was kept pristine and sold through the dcm and I inherited it. This rifle is truly mint and I don't fire it often but she is a tack driver. The other was sporterized and I bought it off of an older gentleman. It has not been drilled or cut and could be returned to original. The bill of sale was in the buttstock and he bought it at the Alabama ordinance depot in 1966 for 47.00 or so.

I love the O3A3 and I do not think there is a better military bolt. That is pure opinion and not fact but these rifles shoot! That said the Garand is vastly superior as a combat weapon. Especially in the jungle. I would take the Garand every time over the O3A3 for a COMBAT role.
 
my late uncle served in ww-2(army) in the south pacific and told me that he and seven other men ran into 11 japanese at very close range(40-50 yards) as they were taking a rest break they heard them moving towards them and all got ready and when the japanese came up they opened fire with their m-1 garands and to him it seemed like the fireing lasted but 20-30 seconds, him self fireing only 8 rounds as he didn,t get a second clip into his rifle before it was over. all the japanese were shot dead with many having several hits. eastbank.
 
in the case of my late uncle, i,m sure he was glad they had m-1,s as some of the men,even him could have been wounded or killed, but being able to fire 50-60 shots in seconds gave them the upper hand against the japanese. eastbank.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top