M1 Garand & M1903 Springfield

D

Desci

Inactive
I recently watched a few episodes of Spielberg's and Hank's The Pacific. I wouldn't rate it as highly as Band of Brothers but still certainly worth a watch. One of things that intrigued me was the accuracy of and attention to detail when it came to weaponry. It led me to read an article that explained that at the start of the Pacific campaign the US Marine Corps were still using bolt action M1903 Springfield rifle as opposed to the Army who had adopted the M1 Garand a few years earlier. It went on to say that the M1 Garand was better suited to jungle warfare due to its semi-automatic nature but that the sheer power of the Springfield outweighed the M1 when it came to pentrating jungle foilage. All very interesting. Has anybody fired both weapons? I understand that you can't fairly compare them as they are two completely different kind of weapons. But which did you prefer on a personal level? Just out of interest. I'd love to own either of these rifles and have seen that they are still widely available, as are spare parts which I found an abundance of on http://www.for-sale.com/ . But it is their history that I find compelling more than anything else. What do others think?

pacific_rifles_m1_garand_arisaka_1.jpg
 
Last edited:
The bolt action rifle in your picture isn't a 1903, it's an Arisaka.

The ballistics of the 1903 and Garand are essentially equal when it comes to penetrating jungle foliage, as 30-06 doesn't get significantly weaker by being shot through a semi-auto. The M1 Carbine uses the much less powerful 30 Carbine round, so it sounds like someone may have been confusing the Garand with the Carbine, where the 1903 (and the Garand) would have had the advantage.

Jimro
 
The ballistics of the 1903 and Garand are essentially equal when it comes to penetrating jungle foliage, as 30-06 doesn't get significantly weaker by being shot through a semi-auto. The M1 Carbine uses the much less powerful 30 Carbine round, so it sounds like someone may have been confusing the Garand with the Carbine, where the 1903 (and the Garand) would have had the advantage.
Click to expand...

Agree with Jimro.

FWIW, the only advantage an M1 carbine might've had in Pacific Island/jungle warfare is that it was lighter to carry than either a Springfield or M1 Garand, and its ammo capacity was greater due to it being a magazine-fed weapon (15- or 30-rds, take your pick, versus respectively 5- or 8-rds).

But the ballistics of the .30 Carbine cartridge itself are dismal past 100-yds in normal conditions, and for use in dense foliage/jungle conditions you want a cartridge whose projectile is sure to penetrate intermediate barriers, which brings you back to the 30.06/7.62 power-level ...

The solution to the bulk and weight of the Garand for jungle fighting might've come along if John C. and his design team at Springfield Armory had shrunk it a bit into the form of the 18" "Tanker," or something like Shuff's 16" Mini-G, ...

... but that pursuit quickly proved unnecessary when we twice atomized the home island of the recalcitrant Japs, and their surrender ensued.

Obligatory pics follow:

16.1" Mini-G - 30.06.


18" "Tanker" Garand - 7.62/.308.
 
Last edited:
Desci, As you know got the wrong rifle.

http://m1903.com/usmc1903/

I enlisted USMC 1960 and my issue rifle was M-1 Garand. 1960 Marine Corp still had active Enlisted/Officers that served WWII and depend what unit you could get first hand what was used as that might be part of unit's history.

Early part of the WWII some island in pacific had Marines that issue rifle was 1903 Springfield. Without seeing that article be hard for me to speculate on what was said etc. Close in jungle warfare one might want Thompson over carbine.

http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USMC/USMC-C-Wake.html

I've handle 1903 Springfield but never fired one. I got parade duty one time and parade rifle was 1903 Springfield.
 
It led me to read an article that explained that at the start of the Pacific campaign the US Marine Corps were still using bolt action M1903 Springfield rifle as opposed to the Army who had adopted the M1 Garand a few years earlier. It went on to say that the M1 Garand was better suited to jungle warfare due to its semi-automatic nature but that the sheer power of the Springfield outweighed the M1 when it came to pentrating jungle foilage. All very interesting. Has anybody fired both weapons?
Click to expand...

The article got SOME things right.

The Marines fought the entire Guadalcanal campaign (Aug 42-Feb 43) armed with the bolt action 1903 Springfield as their infantry rifle.

Garands had been adopted by the Army, but not enough had been built to equip more than a few of the Army units, at that time. M1 Garand production was stepped up, and Marines did get them, beginning in 43, along with the M1 Carbine, a bit later.

Semi auto (rapid firepower) is a benefit in jungle warfare, but any mention of a difference in power between the M1 GARAND and the 1903 Springfield is an error. THEY FIRE THE SAME AMMUNITION!

Confusion of the M1 Garand (M1 RIFLE in military jargon) with the M1 CARBINE (which does fire a much smaller, less powerful .30 cal round) is the most likely explanation for the mistake.

I have owned and shot both the M1 Garand and the 1903 Springfield. With its semi auto action and heavier weight, the Garand kicks a bit less.

Just FYI, there were ARMY units that fought the entire war equipped with the 1903 Springfield. The Pacific war suffered from the "Europe First" focus of the administration, and supplies of about everything (especially in the early stages of the war) were short, and the Pacific often wasn't the top priority.

That situation improved over time, but read the history of the early pacific war, and you see HUGE mistakes, operations on literally shoestring budgets (men & material), and a very steep learning curve. But we did learn.
 
From what I remember most about the PACIFIC was the evolution of the rifles they used. As the series started they used the Springfield, then the Garand, and later the M1 Carbine seemed to be the most common.

But that's a movie.

My father fought in Burma, He favored the carbine. Told me they were lucky to see beyond 25 yards in the jungle and the Carbine worked great. Lighter, more fire power, smaller and easier to handle in the thick brush.

I haven't use either in combat. I used the M16A1 as a grunt in Vietnam and I liked it for much the same reason my father liked the carbine.

I do shoot both now in the CMP vintage rifle games. I have found, using the same ammo my 1903a3 is more accurate then either of my two Garand's.

Comparing the Garand Match scores with the Springfield Match scores, it appears my experience isn't the exception, but the rule.
 
Sheer power of the Springfield gave it superior penetration?

I don't quite understand that. Both fire the 30-06 cartridge and the gas bleed off to operate the Garand isn't substantial enough to reduce its penetrative power.
 
For an excellent discussion of the Garand versus M1903 in the Pacific, I highly recommend the book : Shots fired in Anger by John B. George https://www.amazon.com/Shots-Fired-Anger-Riflemans-Guadalcanal/dp/1934044296

Mr George was a pre War Camp Perry Competitor and deployed to the Pacific where he personally killed a number of Japanese in combat. He was also a weapons enthusiast and wrote long sections about the advantages and disadvantages of US and Japanese weapons.

As for the M1903 Springfield, he thought it a very accurate target rifle, but as a combat weapon, unreliable and inferior to the Garand. He wrote a long section about the number of parts that broke on the M1903 and all the problems he had keeping his Organizations Springfield’s operational, even though he saw may one M1903 for a thousand Garands. And as for the target accuracy of the M1903, he was fighting in short range encounters, more like the Wilderness battlefield, not the wide, clear fields of Pickett’s Charge. I have been to the Wilderness and Gettysburg Battlefield and if I was shooting at Union Soldiers from Devils Den, I would prefer the M1903, but if I was assaulting Big Round Top or Little Round Top, I would prefer the Garand, because of the underbrush, I was unable to see more than 20 feet ahead of me . I have been on a couple of Pacific Islands and with their natural vegetation, you can’t see 20 feet ahead of you.

Prior to WW2 the target shooting community really thought their game of Bullseye was applicable to combat and it turned it, it was not. I have talked to a number of WW2 veterans, European and Pacific theater. One, who was an Iwo Jima and Okinawa veteran, unless the Japanese were Bonzai charging you, you did not see them. He experienced a Bonzai charge which killed everyone in his company except him and another. But outside of that, the only other time he saw a group of living, fighting Japanese was from 200 yards away, and they were running and disappeared. He saw lots of dead Japanese, but living ones were sort of shy and avoided American attention. They most certainly did not stand up on the top of a berm wearing a large black circular aiming point on their chest.
 
I am a former Marine myself and I have the pride most Marines have in the Marine Corps. I am also very interested in history a large part of which is military history.
It can be safely said I am loyal to the Marine Corps but that loyalty does not over-step the truth or righteousness.

So with that said, I would like to add 2 cents worth to this thread about the M1 Garand and the 1903-A3.

As a Marine myself I have known a lot of other marines. A few of my father’s friends were combat Marines from WW2. My dad was a WW2 vet, a SeeBee, who went in behind the Marines on 4 invasions and thought very highly of the Marines
One old friend of mine was a private in 1942 who went in on the 1st day of the invasion of Guadalcanal. He said they had the bolt action Springfield and fought with it for a few months. When the US Army got there and started to occupy the areas the Marines had taken, they had the M-1 Garands. In the first week of so after the Army arrived the theft of M1s was a bit of a problem as some marines “picked them up”.

However the real truth is this: This is what I was told from Marines who were there.

The US Army got into some very hard fighting and was even integrated right into the Marine lines. They were not there as long as the Marines in the days of combat, but let no one tell you they didn’t get into any fighting. They did! Plenty of it.

After they saw what the USMC had done there and what they were still doing MANY MANY soldiers “lost” their M-1s and let the Marines “find” them.

It was from mutual admiration and respect. The Brass and the records show “that many M-1s were lost”. The real truth is that the soldiers knew they could get replacement M-1s and they also knew that the Marines needed them badly. In the typical American way of doing things in the 40s, the individual soldiers took matters into their own hands. They the "non-rates" of the US Army armed the Marines with M-1s. They took a chance of being court-martialed and they did it anyway. And not just a few of them either.

My old friend told me that by the time they were getting off the island and being sent to Australia most of the Marines were armed with M-1s and all were “lost" by admiring soldiers who would risk getting their a_ _ into a sling for those Marines.
Contrary to what most movies show today, Marines and US Army fought and lived side by side in many island campaigns throughout the war, and inter-service rivalry between them was vary rare.

Apparently there was some inter-service rivalry between naval personal and Army/Air Corps, and even the US army would jab at the Air Corps, but the Marines and the Army got along very well.

Anyone that has been a ground pounder will not find most of this surprising.

Another fact that is not well known about the Pacific theater of war is that the US army committed 93% of the ground troops that fought in the Pacific. The Marines comprised only 7% .

The reason the Marines got such press coverage and the coverage of history was simply because they were often given the “impossible assignments”, and so there is a justified pride in the Marine Corps for what those WW2 vets did, but let no one tell you that “the Army fought in Europe but the Marines cleaned out the Pacific”. (That’s the way it’s usually told.)

The real truth is that the US Army did an awful lot of that “pacific cleaning” themselves and they deserve the recognition for it today.

I am a Marine. I will always be a Marine, and I love the history of the Marine Corps, but I believe the US Army should get a lot more coverage and exposure for their contribution for their WW2 Pacific actions.

I have spoken to several WW2 Marines when I was a young man and they all told me the soldiers of the Army took good care of them whenever possible. I think it was significant that it was the individual soldiers doing this, not something that was policy driven.

Americans helping American, and most times at some level of personal risk.

As it should be!
Much of that story is not told.
It should be.
 
Last edited:
I need to dig out - energize the Kindle with - Roy Dunlap's 'Ordnance Went Up Front.' He was a shooter and gunsmith who, in an unusual match of qualifications and Army assignment, got into small arms maintenance in North Africa and then the Pacific.

As I recall, he was not a fan of the Garand, largely because he saw early distribution of guns not fully debugged. The gas system hanging on the barrel hurt accuracy and it was a while before that was corrected. Drove a target shooter like him nuts.

He criticized the famous BAR, too; or at least the WWII 1918A2. He said the rate reducer was a dirt and water catcher and led to malfunction. He thought the earlier semi-full guns were simpler and better than the slow-fast setup.

Aside, he thought the Italians had good guns, some of them at least. He said everybody liked the Beretta SMGs, not just Italians but any German, Brit, or Yank who could get one. He also thought the Beretta 1934 .380 was an adequate pistol, lighter and less hard kicking than a .45.
 
Love those tanker Garands! From what I read they were used in the South Pacific and were modified on sight for use inside Sherman tanks etc. Very cool!
 
I do not think the "tanker" sawn off Garand was ever issued.
The purpose was for handiness in the landing craft going in on the beaches of the Home Islands. We didn't have to do that, so the short guns finshed by VJ day were converted or reconverted to standard. They were so thorough that when the Aberdeen Proving Ground museum wanted one for display, they had to fabricate it.
 
"Tanker" Garands were never an official issue arm. From what I can find, the term is a made up civilian marketing name, never used by actual tankers, or anyone else.

Check the equipment lists for our WWII era tanks. You won't find a rifle on the lists, anywhere. Thompson submachine guns, and later the M3/M3A1 SMG, were the on (in) vehicle small arms, along with the 1911A1 pistol. Our tanks had built in storage brackets for the SMGs. NOT for rifles. Not even short ones like the M1 Carbine.

Now, tankers were the kind of folks who would USE anything, and having M1 rifle armed infantry around all the time meant that there were probably some M1 rifles (unofficially) stowed on the (outside) of some tanks, but there never was a "shorty" M1 rifle issued for tankers (or anyone else I can find) during WWII.
 
Back fifty years ago, I worked with a guy who had been a USMC medic, from Guadalcanal onward.

He once commented that if a Jap patrol was seen at some distance--say, 400 yards or more--and a guy opened up with a Carbine, the patrol wouldn't even break stride. When a Garand started chugging, they'd scatter.

In Korea (me, 1954/1955) it was Garands and M2 Carbines; grease guns for truck drivers. 1911s for officers. I did occupation duty in an ack-ack outfit.
 
No, they actually did make a few prototype "Tanker" (shortened) Garands ...

Here it is, FYI:

What's a "Tanker" Garand? By Walter J. Kuleck, Ph.D.

The "Tanker Garand" is a "misnomer."

During WWII, two separate prototypes were developed for paratroop use. The first was the M1E5. The M1E5 had a short barrel and a folding metal stock. It was developed and tested in the Summer of 1944, but then abandoned because of the loud report and large muzzle flash from the short barrel.

In the fall of 1944 the Pacific Warfare Board ordered a test quantity of 150 M1 Rifles to be shortened and tested for jungle and paratroop use. These conversions were rather crudely done in the Pacific Theatre of Operations, either in Australia or the Phillippines. A request was made that Springfield Armory manufacture these shortened M1s, and two were sent by air to the USA for testing.

When the Springfield Armory staff saw the improvised short Garands, they recognized that they were the same as the M1E5 but with a normal wood stock. Thereupon they assembled their own version, designated T26.

After testing, the same conclusions were drawn as before; the barrel was just too short to be practical. Thus only one T26 was ever made in the USA. Of the two test rifles sent from the Pacific, one is in the Springfield Armory Museum, and one is reportedly at the West Point Museum. The lone T26 was reported destroyed in testing at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland.

In the 1950's several entrepreneurs, including Robert E. Penney, Jr., acquired a great deal of Garand scrap including cut-in-half receivers and parts sets. They built perhaps ten or twenty thousand rifles by welding receiver halves together. This was crude, but it was the only way at that time to get a Garand outside of the Directorate of Civilian Marksmanship (DCM, now the Civilian Marksmanship Program, CMP).

Robert Penney noted the short Garand at the Springfield Armory museum during a visit there and decided to meld his interest in tanks with his business interests, Alpine and National Ordnance, prime "remanufacturers" of Garands from Garand scrap. Penney decided that a short T26-type Garand would fit nicely in a tank turret, and coined the term "Tanker Garand." However, the short Garands that were tested by the Army during WWII were not intended for use by tank crews! Nevertheless, Penney's name for the T26-type rifle stubbornly stuck; few gun people recognize "T26" but nearly everyone has heard of the "Tanker Garand."

Even now when M1s have been much more available, the popularity of a short Garand remains strong.
Click to expand...

:cool:
 
I also think the claims of the 1903 being superior for penetration is bogus. the minute difference in power is less than the variation in some of that war time production ammo. I've shot most of the 30-06 milsurps from the early 20th century and all of them have the same general amount of power. the M1 is the lightest recoiling but it's also the heaviest and I get fatigued more when shooting free hand for competitions with it than others. the 1903A3 is my favorite for accuracy, recoil management, speed of operation, etc. the M1917 is my favorite action but kicks like a mule on speed.

also, I don't know why the OP has a picture of an Arisaka in a post about 1903s, but I approve, I much prefer the Arisaka to most other WWII designs, I kindof wish that Howa would make a modern arisaka chambered in a common caliber for fun shooting.
 
The term "tanker Garand" was a term made-up by sellers of de-milled rifles welded together from parts. There were a few experiments with shortened M1's for use by paratroops (not "tankers"), but only two or three were made and none were issued. (see Walt Kuleck's article quoted above).

A note of caution on those welded together rifles. First, some sellers claimed at the time that they "carefully" matched parts so the "original" rifles were put back together. A lie. Enough metal had been removed in cutting the receiver that even had the parts been found and put back together, the receiver would have been too short (some were, and will fire out of battery). The parts were very rarely even from the same manufacturer or period.

Many other lies were told about those rifles. Receivers were often soft due to the heat required for welding. (Most receivers had been cut with diamond saws, not with torches, so it was the subsequent welding that made the rifles soft, not the de-milling process.) Some were nicely done and looked good, especially after re-parkerizing. Avoid them all! If you already have one, fire it at your own risk!

Jim
 
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.
 
history

Yeah, the Garand and the Springfield have a lot of history. When I handle either one, I wonder where it might have been and what all it may have seen. I'm lucky enough to have Garands, but not a Springfield, or a M1 carbine for that matter.

There was a grand old gentleman in the neighboring county who was a WWII Med theater vet, artillery unit. I took one of my Garands up for him to handle. He well knew what it was, but stated that his outfit had primarily Springfields as shoulder arms. There is a fairly well circulated photo of a unit at Normandy coming ashore in loose order, D+? . Nearly all are armed with Springfields. Seems like a caption may have stated they were artillery as well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top