Talk:M1 Garand rifle

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article M1 Garand rifle has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Version 0.7
 This article has been selected for Version 0.7 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia.

Contents

[edit] Pinging sound

In the article, it says that the pinging noise made from the ejection of the cartridge had little effect one way or another. However, that is not true. Some soldiers even began carrying around empty cartridges with them to throw on the ground so that it emitted the pinging noise, because enemy soldiers would think that the soldier had emptied his clip, when he actually had a full clip, and would poke their heads out to investigate. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 20:09, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Surely there's lots of anecdotal evidence that this was known to both sides during the war, however there is only sparse mention of it ever being exploited by either side beyond the odd cute story. Cute stories aside, reality is a completely different thing. There is little to no mention ANYWHERE of one serious drawback to the Garand, that its aperature sights would clog up with rain, snow, dirt, mud, etc. I'd venture to guess that for every time the 'ping' was recognized during battle by either side, the aperature site was a factor at least 20 times. Again, cute anecdote but not really encyclopedic. --Asams10 (talk) 20:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
When the Discovery network did an analysis of the top 10 combat rifles, M1 Garand was ranked #4. The only real drawback they mentioned was the fact that the pinging noise meant that the clip was emptied, and that the enemy knew that it meant that whoever was firing at them with the rifle, was empty. Watersoftheoasis (talk) 21:32, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
The Discovery Network is not a good source on these things. The Discovery Channel, the Military Channel, and lots of others don't fact-check there work thoroughly, and pick up a lot of myths and legends, and make blatant errors. Besides, I've heard the pinging too, and it is too quiet to be heard over the noise of battle. Quite simply, while it did exist, it was not a problem or issue.--LWF (talk) 21:37, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Even in closer quarter combat? Watersoftheoasis (talk) 22:01, 6 January 2008 (UTC)
Even close-quarters is noisy, besides, the average GI didn't engage in close quarters. Those that did used different firearms for it, as the Garand is rather large for close-quarters. Add to that the fact that GIs would have worked together in close-quarters when at all possible means that someone would have had ammo, negating any possible advantage gained by hearing the ping.--LWF (talk) 02:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
My father was a front line infantryman in Korea and he said he never heard that of the "ping" issue. I say it is MOSTLY an urban legend. --Amcalabrese (talk) 22:22, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
I must (basically) concur w/ Amcal above. The "ping", if it ever was an issue, could be dealt with. 1) in the heat of a pitched battle, one rifle's 'ping' doesn't mean a cotton-picking thing, and 2) GIs could surely come up w/ ways to mitigate something like that, that were discovered to be issues: say a few riflemen in an ambush situation are laying down suppresive fire while their squad buddies move to flank. Their Garands ping and the enemy pops up for the kill...then the flanking team has its chance to acquire them as targets. Silly example I know, but the point is that these things work both ways. By the way, History Channel, Discovery, Military Channel, Mail Call (gotta love R. Lee !) and all the rest, are ENTERTAINMENT first and foremost. They do not necessarily involve scholarly research. Sure, 'experts' appear sometimes - maybe often - but the intent is a good story, not a definitive thesis paper. Engr105th (talk) 22:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Incorporation of References

Hey guys, I've been pushing really hard to get this great article featured. I think the content itself is good as it is, but we really need to start incorporating the references into the text of the article itself. I'll be doing some of it soon, but it would be great to have help. :)

[edit] Garand Advantages?

The article mentions "the distinct edge it gave the Allied forces over their enemy in battle", but it never discusses just what constitutes that edge. Is it due to rate of fire (which is not listed)? Please elaborate on this point. --Blainster 20:09, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

It gave a distinct advantage in rate of fire and to some degree, accuracy, as the user did not have to disturb his sight picture to work a bolt between shots.

Then put that in the article. Aaron L

--Mmx1 04:32, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

That and the fact that it was semi-automatic at a time when most other infantrymen were using bolt-action rifles.

--User:Ctifumdope

"the distinct edge it gave the Allied forces over their enemy in battle"... I wonder if the author of this overall very biased article bothered to do any research at all on the US squad tactics of WWII. Because if he did, he'd know that on squad level the German MG42-Kar98k combination provided for greater firepower than the BAR-Garand combination. Something worthy to note if you make such vast statements as the above. Denis L

Compared to the K98, the Garand gave Allied troops a distinct edge. Compared to the Lee Enfield, the K98 was also inferior. This statement seems to me to be aimed at individual weapons, not at overall tactics or strategic doctorine. In reality, logistics won the war so who cares if the StG44 was superior to the M1 Carbine! It wouldn't have changed the outcome of the war. --Asams10 18:28, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless the German combination of bolt-action rifles and a higher number of faster-firing machineguns gave their rifle companies greater firepower than US ones, despite the excellence of the M1. The best combination, of course, would have been M-1s and more machineguns. But claiming that the M-1 gave US units a firepower advantage is not really accurate. DMorpheus 17:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

ok first of all the germans didnt just run around with mg42's. mg42's were large SUPPORT weapons and were opperated by a CREW of 2 men. Comparing it to the bar is unfair- compare it to a .30 or .50 cal machine gun as it was in that category. the real matchup was kar98k and some mp40s and maybe 1 or 2 mp44s and an mg42 versus an m1 garand bar and 30 cal. m1 garands were the best rifle available at that time- so they definately gave the us an edge. if we hjad all been running around with kar's or in our case springfields we would have been molested. It definately gave us a big advantage.

Well, yes they did just go running around with MG42. That was both doctorine and practice. They were squad automatic weapons, light and heavy support weapons, anti-aircaft weapons, etc. They performed admirably in all roles. They crossed-over roles with the BAR, but they certainly were NOT automatic rifles in the BAR "Walking Fire" sense of the world. The German doctorine was to support the MG's with the ENTIRE SQUAD. The MG42 was mobile, highly effective, and highly lethal. In terms of doctorine, the Germans were superior in most respects. Indeed, we adopted much the same doctorine around the M60 and, today, with the M240 and SAW.--Asams10 04:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Quite, the comparison between the MG42 and the BAR is entirely valid. The BAR was used in the LMG role - what did the Germans use for LMG's? MG 34s and 42s. Face facts, the German adoption of the GPMG concept gave their basic infantry a huge advantage in terms of raw firepower throughout WWII. An MG 42 with a bipod was relatively lightweight, highly mobile and was accordingly issued every squad (in theory) - when your tactics are based around the availablity of a GMPG supplied with 250 round belts and capable of 1200 rpm, the importance of your rifle fire takes a back seat... German Doctrine was for the riflemen to support the machine gun, whereas US (and British) doctrine was for the (light) machine gun to support the riflemen. The qualitive differences between the Kar98 and the Garand are rather irrelevant compared to the doctrinal difference between the squads they were used in.
Besides, everyone knows that the Lee Enfield no.4 was the rifle that won the war... ;-) Getztashida 13:06, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
Except that the comparable belt-fed weapon was at the platoon level, not at the squad level, in the US Army. There is no integrated machine gun in the US rifle squad to this day. The M249 SAW is classified for technical purposes as an automatic rifle, and the person carrying it in the rifle squad is the automatic rifleman. This has been the case since the time of the M1 Garand and the BAR. It has not changed. The BAR was not used in an LMG role, it was used as an automatic rifle. The point being to provide additional firepower for a squad in movement. This was not WWII German infantry tactics, which involved fighting from a base of fire provided by effectively static (in theory) light machine guns. The BAR could be used as a static support weapon, but it was developed with the tactical idea of mobile infantry in mind. Giving the automatic rifleman the ability of the WWII German rifle squad in terms of similar capacity for fire (200 round belts vs. box magazines and a quick-change barrel) if not overall firepower (depending on what you think of 5.56x45mm NATO) only comes around with the adoption of the M249. Prior to this, the combination had been the M1 Garand and BAR, M14 and M14A1 (The M15 was originally supposed to fufill this role, and prior to the development of the M14A1, regular M14s were used), and the practice of just giving the automatic rifleman an M16 too. The trained procedure, rarely held to in the field from most evidence and accounts was that rifleman with M14s or M16s would fire single shots, while automatic rifleman would use their weapons in fully-automatic in order to perform their function. At platoon level, weapons technically comparable to the MG34/42 were held, first the M1919A4/A6, then the M60, and now the M240. While the Vietnam scenario sees some deployment of the M60 with individual squads, it would appear basic rifle squads usually kept to the TO&E. There are of course exceptions, and there were dozens of MTO&Es for Vietnam, but at base these weapons have from WWII onward not been deployed and are still not deployed at squad level. -- Thatguy96 18:03, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Part of Vietnam?

"Part of Vietnam" - Was the sniper variation of the weapon used only in parts of S. Vietnam or were they used everywhere in the beginning of the war? If "part" means part of the war, and not parts of Vietnam, please clarify. Heck, clarify either way, if you know what happened.

As far as I know, the M1 Garand was never used in Vietnam. Not only would the rifle itself have to be refitted for the 7.62 NATO, it would be a complete waste of resources to develop that and have a much more capable rifle, the M14, capable of being used as a sniper rifle, along with it. The M1C/D was used in Korea, but Vietnam is a long shot. - Brenden

It was used in Vietnam, but not extensively as far as I know, and only during the earlier years of the war (before the M16 was general issue). I know they were at least used by second line troops (the non sniper version) during that period of time.--Banana! 01:21, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

The M-14 was derived from the Garand (it was a Garand with a 20-round mag).--User:Ctifumdope

The South Vietnamese were given some Garands for use, along with other surplus WWII gear, early in the war. I believe the South Korean units may have used them as well, but not sure. Also, Beretta re-barreled M1s to 7.62 NATO for the Danish Army, so those do exist, though I don't think the US ever used them. Identity0 10:20, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

The M1 Garand was definitly a part of Vietnam, just not with US forces. It, as has already been noted, was shipped in large quantities to the ARVN along with other equipment of the period, such as M1 carbines, M1919 machine guns, and M1918 BARs. Note that the developments to get it chambered in 7.62x51mm are what largely led to the development of the M14. There were more than one test variant, and the two adopted by the US Navy in the chambering, so its not underheard of. To say that the M14 was a Garand with a 20 round magazine is wrong, but it was in large part derived from the M1. Also, to say that the M14 was much more capable is debatable, when you see the full-auto function being blocked out on rifles after a point. -- Thatguy96 19:59, 7 May 2006

[edit] First semi-automatic rifle in service

I altered that part - Garand was the first self-loading rifle to become a standard issue weapon, but it was not first self-loader accepted to military service, not even close - various semiautomatics saw military service before and during WW1, for example Mondragon.

History part needs some expansion, it should be mentioned for example that first Garands used Bang principle, like G41 et al. --Mikoyan21 11:48, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Caption on infobox image

Someone who knows how to change the infobox may want to fix the formatting caption. Currently the first word of the caption appears on the same line as the image. Raven4x4x 09:57, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Disclaimer

I pulled a prominent disclaimer out of the "Operation" section - it's advisable to avoid these, and rely on the standard disclaimer at the base of each page, since adding them sporadically throughout various pages can imply that everything else is held to a higher standard... Wikipedia:No disclaimer templates has a brief discussion on this, for what it's worth. Shimgray | talk | 19:19, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] One hand vs two

I've noticed the back-and-forth on the one-hand vs two for reloading statement. Here is a personal observation. Most of the semi-auto rifles I own (or have shot) can be reloaded while keeping one hand on the forestock. For example, an M-16 can be unloaded by moving the trigger hand to the magazine release, dropping the magazine, then moving to the charging handle, and pulling it back. At no point does the front hand need to be shifted. Unloading a Garand requires more manipulation, and I don't think it could be done easily without both hands at the receiver. Is this what the anonymous editor was trying to get to? -O^O

[edit] Operation

The Operation section is informative, but sounds as if it is copied directly from a manual. It seems to be addressing a potential shooter and not someone merely interested in the weapon. I think the section should be shorter and should discuss the specific operation of the M1 only where it is particularly noteworthy. I'll chip in in the next few days. --Nuffle 21:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did a fair amount of editing on this for clarity...

Take a look and see what you think. It might need a little more work here and there (and hopefully those places are more clearly visible, but it shouldn't need any reversion. MSJapan 02:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Formatting

The article looks a bit messy visually, it needs some formatting work (e.g. the quick reference table, location and size of images, etc.). MSJapan made some good changes, and I agree, we have more than enough content in here, we're really close to featured article status. Thanks guys.--Banana! 00:03, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The only real major change formatting-wise that I see is the reference table. It should probably be widened to full width just so it takes up less overall space, and moved so that the widening does not interfere with the picture to the right. Most of what's in the table for explanatory text would then fit on one line instead of two or three, and make the thing more presentable. However, my skils lie more in editing than they do in layout, so I can't really help here. MSJapan 04:53, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pronunciation

Can we get the correct way to write the pronounciation of Garand per wikipedia's manual of style?--Banana! 05:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I had a look at IPA chart for English after checking the Manual of Style for pronunciation, and here's what I came up with:
  • "guh-RAND" (IPA: [gʊ.ˈɹʌnd]);
  • "GARE-end" (IPA: [ˈgæɹ.ɛnd]).
I'd have already added it to the article, but I'm not sure that's correct. If more editors take a look we should be able to figure it out. --Squalla 18:36, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
It's displaying trash characters on my screen. I'd suspect that they're international characters and this should be an "English friendy" pronunciation given it's an english article. It's not quite enough to say, "Rhymes with errand" I guess. Looking it up on dictionary.com, my best Websters impression would suggest:
"guh-RAND" should be {gûr-ǎnd'}
"GARE-end" should be {gâr'-ənd} --Asams10 21:10, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
I'll incorporate Asams's characters, unless anyone has a huge objection.--Banana! 21:02, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Why is this article using Noah Webester's pronunciation guide? I don't own a copy of his dictionary, and I haven't a clue what û and â sound like, although ǎ (a-háček) sounds like "yah" in Central and Eastern European languages—are you sure Webster wouldn't use an a-breve (ă)?. I found a reference at Pronunciation respelling for English, but it has references for two different systems called Webster, Merriam Webster's Collegiate Dictionary and Merriam-Webster Online, and neither has these symbols. That article also mentions Webster's New Twentieth Century Dictionary of the English Language (unabridged, 2nd ed.), which has several different symbols for the same sound "partly to allow for different phonemic mergers and splits"!

So thank goodness Wikipedia uses IPA. [gəˈrand], [ˈgærənd] are easier to understand than the above transcriptions, and I think get the point across. They should display in modern browsers, and with template:IPA applied in MSIE 6 on Windows XP, too. —Michael Z. 2006-08-03 20:14 Z

[edit] AK47 Problem

There is evidence to support that AK's gas design was specifically taken from that rifle because of its success in World War II. There is even text in Wikipedia's AK47 article that supports this. --Banana! 01:47, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Yep, lets sort this out. AK's gas system is almost completely different from Garand. Now, there are some similarities in bolt designs, but not as much as between AK and M1 Carbine - which is more commonly cited as inspiration for AK than Garand. Carbine is more closer to AK in both bolt design and operation than Garand. Furthermore, one must question the notion that one or two similar features makes one weapon anothers' "descendant" when everything else is completely different. By that logic, Garand itself is "descendant" of various earlier Steyr-Mannlicher rifles which had many features seen in Garand (90 degree rotating front-locking bolt, enbloc ammo clip, long-stroke gas system...). --Mikoyan21 02:07, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Name the Steyr-Mannlicher rifle. The Garand does not have a 90-degree rotating bolt. The en-Bloc clip was patented by John Pedersen, an American citizen. Please point me to the American or European patent that Pedersen was coppying.--Asams10 02:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Steyr-Mannlicher M95 had 5-round en-bloc clip, which was conceptually similar to Garand one. Some pre-WW1 Mannlicher self-loaders had gas system fairly similar to Garand, and rotating bolt with two front-locking lugs (similar as in their straight-pull rifles). These rifles stayed at prototype or pre-production stages, though. IIRC, AK bolt (at least when I last handled one) does rotate 90 degrees.--Mikoyan21 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Unfortunately I can't find any hard evidence supporting either side of the argument on the internet, so I cant really authoritatively back up my statements on either rifle. However, it seems to me that the AK's gas system is essentially a "modernized" gas/oprod system, modified into a short stroke design, with the gas tube on top and the port in the middle of the barrel instead of at the end. Thus the long oprod was eliminated, and the gas tube was shortened, created a simpler and cheaper design (something essential to the Soviet war industry at that time.) If you look at diagrams of both gas systems, the AK's is almost the mirror image of the garand. The M1 carbine used a gas tappet system, completely different from the AK design, so I don't know where you're going with that.--Banana! 03:57, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
ACK!!! Look, the AK-47 gas system has very little in common with the AK-47. They are two different principles. The Garand is a long-stroke piston. Combustion gasses are in contact with the piston head for a long period of time, the very definition of a long-stroke. On the AK, the gas piston travels a distance shorter than its diameter and then VENTS excess gasses. This defines it as a short stroke. The similarity in the GAS SYSTEM is that both have their piston heads rigidly attached to the 'bolt carrier' or in the case of the Garand, the operating rod.
This is a red herring in the argument that a great deal of the REST OF the AK-47 design was based on the Garand. Prior to examining the StG44, Kalashnikov had obviously examined the Garand and had, indeed, made a prototype gun with many more features in common with the Garand including an en-Bloc clip, the Garand Safety, etc. Once he had examined the German weapon, he incorporated the layout, magazine, and receiver construction techniques to the basic Garand pattern which simplified the construction of the hybrid weapon. That's what happened. Unfortunately, some apologists for the Soviet Union would refuse even a written confession from Kalashnikov himself, so this evidence is lost on them. It's not a personal afront to Russia, it's just patently obvious from the evidence.--Asams10 06:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, my knowlege on the AK isnt as encyclopedic as I'd like it to be :) However, I DID say that the AK was a short stroke design, and I implied the Garand was a long stroke (which I knew it was). Again though, my knowlege of gas systems in general is amatuerish at best so I'll leave the heavy negotiations to you ;D--Banana! 06:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Lets just look what 'rest of the AK-47' holds. Magazine arrangement is completely different. Ergonomics and safety are completely different. Receivers are completely different - both stamped and milled AK's. Bolts have major differences - as you'd expect given that Garands' bolt is operated by operating rod, whilst AK's bolt is inside bolt carrier. So what this leaves? Pretty much the bolt head, which are indeed quite similar. Kalashnikov has specificially denied that AK-47 is a copy of Stg-44 (need to be careful here, as I don't know his actual wording and which question he was answering). AFAIK, he has not denied at all that AK-47 was influenced by preceding weapons - indeed, it would be impossible to design a weapon in a vacuum, without studying earlier designs. As I said, usually it's the M1 Carbine which is cited as one of the sources for inspiration, and indeed, Carbine's bolt and operation is more similar to AK than Garands' is. (Of course, Carbine itself was largely based on Garand). What I question is labeling AK as "descendant" of Garand when the rifles have but few things in common and are enormously different in other respects. With equal justification you could claim that AK is descendant of Stg44 (somewhat similar gas system and magazine) or SKS (similar sights and cartridge) or Remington Model 8 (similar safety) etc. Your speculation of how AK was conceived is merely that, speculation, and likely incorrect. AK and Stg receivers are, in fact, completely different, and so are construction and ergonomics.--Mikoyan21 07:23, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll leave Asams to pick apart your post except for one thing: the M1 carbine was certainly not influenced by the Garand. You need to read the M1 article more carefully ;)--Banana! 07:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I found that an interesting example of different standards within Wikipedia. Carbine article says "Although the M1 Carbine is sometimes described as a development of the M1 Garand, it has a related but different internal design." Whilst that is not exactly inaccurate, Carbine certainly has more in common with Garand than AK ever did, and makes a better candidate for "descendant" claims.--Mikoyan21 07:46, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Add-on: anyway, I certainly support mentioning in the main article that Garands' bolt design was influental in AK and subsesquently in many other rifles derived from AK design. --Mikoyan21 21:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
There is a interview im pretty sure in the history channels moden marvels on the ak47. specifly it includes kalasnivkov deniey he based his gun on the stgg 44. he says it has more to do woth the m1 garand and m1 carbine. Esskater11 01:11 april 4 2007

[edit] Scope Mounts

The G&H scope mount was satisfactory and rugged. The reason that the M1D mount was developed was simply a cost-savings proposition. It was significantly cheaper to build and easier to install. Instead of drilling and tapping holes in a hard, heat-treated receiver, they only had to turn the soft metal on the barrel in a lathe. It is probably better to describe the G&H mount as more expensive, not less satisfactory. --Asams10 19:13, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to say that I changed it back to "satisfactory" because that's what it said before for a long time. I admit I don't know jack about the M1 sniper variants. --Squalla 00:08, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Any Disadvantages to the M1

Seems like this is an advertisment for an M1. I don't believe anything that doesn't have at least some disadvantages. Maybe the GIs didn't like the color. Maybe it was no good for spearing fish. Something must have been lacking / wanting.

The rear sight was prone to losing zero. Not to mention rack grade Garands were not considered to be as accurate as the previous Springfield M1903. --D.E. Watters 01:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

I've heard the loud distinctive noise made when the "en bloc" clip was ejected let the enemy know when a soldier needed to reload.

That myth is dealt with under the "misconception" section of the article. I think that disadvantages that should be noted are the trade-off in accuracy over bolt-action rifles of the period, even if how considerable this was is up for debate; weight; complexity being a semi-auto?; and "Garand Thumb" and other issues associated with reloading (easy or difficult, regardless of it being possible, reloading a partial magazine in a Garand is awkward). -- Thatguy96 17:51, 21 June 2006

From what I understand, the Garand suffers from all the disadvatages of the typical battle rifle, IE long length, heavy weight (especially compared to simplier bolt action designs), excessive recoil, overpowered cartridge. In addition, the "garand thumb" was common (the bolt slamming onto the user's thumb when he inserted a fresh clip). I have not heard anything about the rear sights losing zero, but it could be true. It was also more difficult to field strip and maintain when compared to bolt action rifles. At least some of these triats are mentioned in the article, but the reason why it has so little mention of these disadvantages is that they were insignificant to the rifle's semi automatic action (the most significant thing about it) and its reputation for reliability. --Banana! 06:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

More difficult to field strip than a bolt-action rifle of the time period is false. Both the Mosin-Nagant rifles/carbines and the Mauser 98k require tools (flat head screwdrivers) to completely disassemble. The M1 Garand can be disassembled with a single rifle round, or any device similar to a punch. This is only needed after the M1 has already been broken down past the three groups (Stock, Receiver, and Trigger). Maintenance is also easy, requiring cleaning of the gas cylinder as the opposed to just the barrel when compared to a bolt-action. Brenden 18:25, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Okay, we take it back. The Garand was the perfect rifle! Getztashida 12:49, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Effective/maximum range

I've added Imperial units to the part of the article that mentions the effective and maximum ranges of the rifle, and made it the primary one, with the SI units in parenthesis, for better consistency with the rest of the article. Since it's an American weapon, I'm guessing the ranges were specified in Imperial units, so I tried to keep round numbers in the conversion. If anybody has a verifiable source for these ranges or possible corrections, it would be very appreciated. —Squalla 00:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

550 M maximum effective range??? I think this is understated. The 30-06 round should have effect out to 1000 M, at least.

Not really. I don't have my ballistic references handy, unfortunately, but a 30-06 doesn't just loses a lot of energy by 650 M or so. Besides that, the "effective range" refers to the weapon system, not just the round - hitting a person half a kilometer away with iron sights is a nice feat, and hoping for much more is pushing it. Also that's what the manuals say, so we might as well just go with that ;) Deleuze 06:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The M1 was accurate to 550 meters without a scope- hes right hitting someone 1800 feet away is a nice shot with iron sights. however, if you mounted a scope on it (the m1c version) it was accurate to 800 meters.

[edit] Axis use

"The Axis Powers apparently agreed with that statement with their practice of capturing as many of the weapons as possible for their own use."

Is there any source for this? Exept japanese who even made some copies of Garand, I dont remember never seen any documents, pictures or films of German or Italian use of Garand.--81.197.218.62 14:47, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, not true

Germans did put large number of captured SVT-40's to service, but I doubt they ever captured enough Garands for them to have any worthwhile impact given obvious nonstandard ammunition handicap. --Mikoyan21 11:41, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I have a picture in this website i made a lil ways back it shows two german troops one with a m1 carbine and one with a m1 garnd i think, im not actualy sure ut its for u guys to debate.http://www.freewebs.com/snewbo/militaryphotos.htm ^ thats the link.(ForeverDEAD)

[edit] The rifle that won the war

This is the rifle that won the war? I just read the article. M1 was horrible compared to the German weaponry. We had semi autos while the Germans had mausers that could kill in a spray of bullets.

The thought that the M1 was the great weapons of the war is not true. America, (or the Allies) defeated the Axis because of 1. Supplies. We had a lot of supplies while the Germans often were short on gasoline, food, etc. 2. Number. We had the people and overwhelmed the Germans. 3. Good air force. If it wasn't for the bombers that bombed German factories, we would have been in trouble. Good friend100 06:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously a single rifle wasn't the only thing that won the war. The quote is just a nice bit of rhetoric to show the reception the Garand had among many people. However, it certainly was a superior battle rifle compared to the K98k, which is what the majority of the Wehrmacht carried. The MP40 was mainly an NCO weapon. Deleuze 06:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
Its pretty much been proved that the Germans were so adept at putting factories back into operation that the bombing campaign in fact had little effect on the Germans ability to wage war. The fact that the Germans were waging war on so many fronts and did not have the industrial capacity at base to properly supply the total of their armed forces was the far larger factor in their eventual defeat. -- Thatguy96 13:18, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I beg to differ. By the end of 1944 (and through the end of the war), our bombing missions were using incindiaries primarily and effectively burned out entire industrial centers (i.e. we burned their cities to the ground). A cursory viewing of post-war photos of the different industrial regions should be sufficient to convince you. All this is to say that we were able to destroy faster than the Germans could rebuild and it was a key factor in reducing German supplies to their units (not to mention the negative effect it had on German morale).
In addition, there was no Mauser weapon in circulation during WWII (with the rare exception of the M712 machine pistol) that could "kill in a spray of bullets" as you stated. I'm guessing you're referring to the MG42 or the MP40, both effective weapons when supported by riflemen, by in that respect, you can look at the american BAR (admittedly much less effective in the LMG role than the MG42) or the M1/M3 submachine guns. As stated above, the quote is just something Patton said that conveys the feeling many have about the rifle.--Banana! 19:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
I just saw this, and despite this going on a tangent I'd like to speculate you're looking at the wrong pieces of history in your analysis. The German military machine was a logistical nightmare from day one, and from day one Germany's industrial base simply did not have the capacity to run a protracted war in the East. Germany rolled into Poland in 1939 with over a 100 different types of vehicles in inventory, a logistical problem from any standpoint. The German Army continued to be a scavenger army until the end, even setting up an entire organ within the Wehrmacht for the cataloging, analysis, and subsequent reisssue where applicable of captured equipment. This only added to the problem.
To say that by 1944 our bombing was taking a toll seems to forget that by this point the German Army was largely in retreat in the East, was trying to hold ground in the West, and had been largely ousted from Italy. Germany's internal production capacity even running at 100% was not enough to sustain an Army engaged on two fronts against forces with far superior resources and supply chains. Strategic bombing of German occupied Europe and Germany had been in effect since 1940-1941, and if it took 3-4 years for it to actually make a dent in German production capacity, after their Armies were beginning to come unnraveled by shortages of raw materials and manpower, I think its safe to say that the strategic bombing was of minimal importance in defeating Germany. It wasn't strategic bombing of Germany that caused the fuel shortage, and it wasn't strategic bombing that diverted Army Group South in Russia away from its primary objective to Stalingrad, both far more important factors in the downfall of the German Army, both things that had happened by 1943. Note that if Hitler had bipassed Stalingrad as the initial plan had entailed there is really much to suggest that Army Group South would've succeeded in capturing the bulk of Soviet production facilities and natural resources just beyond the Caucuses, preventing their massive counter-attacks during the winter/spring periods in 1942 and 1943. Trust me, Germany was leveled in the end, there's no denying this, but it wasn't strategic bombing that destroyed the German war machine. Most historical overviews of the campaign by the 8th Air Force will show that it wasn't until the tide had effectively turned, and Germany was cut off from its captured natural resources, that the campaign began to put any "final" nails in the coffin. -- Thatguy96 23:07, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
I suppose. I believe the MG42 was used by 2 soldiers. Good friend100 20:54, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Technically, the M1 is superior to the K98K.

Exactly, and by the way an mp40 only had a repeating rate of around 500 rounds a minute- maybe a little more or less. on top of that accuracy was after 200 feet- it was a lucky shot. the m1 could kill at 600 YARDS thats 1800 feet. and an mp40 cant shoot through three people in close quarters. If its an mp40 versus an m1 the rifle man just sees a nazi idiot trying to hit him from out of his range- fires three shots and takes him out. Maybe in room to room combat a mp40 is better but thats what it is made for.also smgs and rifles are in different categories. the m1 garand was originally developed as a sniper rifle. In close quarters of course an mp40 would win, you can mow people down. but anything beyond that an mp40 became in effective and the kar98k cam into place. The kar was no match for an m1 which was MORE Powerful, MORE accurate, has MORE ammo per clip, and is SEMI AUTOMATIC.

I was comparing the Garand to German submachine guns. I know that the Kar had a slower rate of fire and was not as good but I was simply commenting how the Garand would have been not as effective when German soldiers were spraying bullets around with mp40s and mp44s. Good friend100 15:01, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

The Stg-44 and the MP-40 were issued in nowhere near the numbers that the M1 Garand was. Comparing apples to oranges here. Rifles are rifles, submachineguns are submachineguns. If it walks like a duck, talks like a duck...it's probably a witch. 64.254.97.10 00:51, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Saying it is a superior rifle is more a matter of personal opinion. The whole argument that the M1 Garand was a superior weapon is quite biased since you cannot honestly compare two weapons and come up with a definitave statement that one is completely "superior" to the other. The M1 Garand was more effective than the K98k in some categories on average, however not in all. It would be more accurate to say that the M1 Garand was utilized more effectively than the Kar98k in the war if indeed that fact is true. It is difficult to judge the effectiveness of weapon because of political ties, as one side does not want to admit that their weapon was inferior or they try to say their weapon was superior as a sort of false point of pride and perhaps propaganda.Echo.brian 22:03, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Why is that guy saying that the M1 was more accurate? a bolt action rifle is always more acruate then a semiautomatic rifle, why do u thinks its used by many sniper temas around the world.(ForeverDEAD 05:01, 10 August 2007 (UTC))

The M1 Garand, M1903, and K98 were FUNCTIONALLY identical in terms of accuracy. Take a recruit, throw artillery at him, shoot at him, let him stay up all night on watch, make him march 20 miles with a full combat load, then ask him to shoot the K98 any more accurately than the Garand. On the range with period ammo, they were quite similar. The advantage of being able to fire several aimed shots for each single aimed shot by the K98 in the time allotted was not the only factor that made the Garand superior. Targets don't present themselves on the battlefield for long. A Garand is virtually ALWAYS loaded save for the time it takes to reload (faster than the K98 BTW). The Garand also lets the shooter know when it is empty. Unless the soldier is keen and pays attention to the number of shots they fired (uh, maybe he topped the mag off, maybe he didn't) then there's always that extra time when the bolt DOESN'T go forward that he now has to stop and reload during. You KNOW when the Garand's empty an instant after the bolt locks back and you hear the 'clink' of the clip ejecting. I've always wondered how many armchair Generals walk around thinking that people took accurate shots with any battle rifle during WWII. It was the rare soldier, indeed, who would. Read 'Shots Fired in Anger' and then come back to the discussion.--Asams10 05:47, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Wait, is shots fired in anger a book or a page im confused? Sry for me being stupid.(ForeverDEAD 22:52, 14 August 2007 (UTC))

It's a book. More a definitive reference and no-BS evaluation of American and Japenese firearms and equipment mixed with real-world action in the pacific. I had to do interlibrary loan. Ask about it at your local library. [1]

[edit] Featured article review

I put this up for FA again. I think it really meets the requirements and that this is a solid page. Feel free to post your opinion. Deleuze 07:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I have been thinking about nominating this article myself for a while. The only major parts that may need fixing/improving are the references (I couldn't figure out how to organize those); there are also a couple quotes needing a source. —Squalla 15:35, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Mythbusters" bit

I've added a small bit in the article about "modern uses" which currently contains a brief summary of the "Mythbusters'" uses of the M1. If anyone has anything to add, please do!Belril 05:22, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the trivia per concensus.--Asams10 14:06, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "M1 Garand" moved to "M1 Garand Rifle" without discussion?

I disagree that it is more correct to refer to the M1 Garand as the M1 Garand Rifle. In fact, do a google search of the phrase "M1 Garand Rifle" and "M1 Garand" and you'll end up with over 10 times the number of hits for the latter. That means that over 5 times as many uses refer to "M1 Garand" rather than "M1 Garand Rifle." Further, Deathbunny did not place this in the talk page, discuss it, or get a concensus. He also neglected to fix the countless redirects. I'm reverting the move and placing this in the talk page. If we get a concencus, move it. I doubt there is anybody who would get confused that "M1 Garand" means anything but the rifle.--Asams10 17:28, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Anyone other than Asams10 that's interested, go here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Weaponry task force. Deathbunny 20:43, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

What's that supposed to mean? I went there and no concensus had been reached. STOP changing things without a concensus.--Asams10 22:45, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

There was no poll or consensus to move this page. I am moving it back. Brenden 18:15, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Deathbunny, if you want a discussion on the proper placement of the article in regards to its title, do so here. Your "weapons convention" task force blah blah with a name longer than it's importance, consisting of five people with generalizations on a multitude of weapons on wikipedia deciding what is right and wrong, is absolutely worthless. Brenden 03:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That's neither here nor there, broadly speaking. The whole point of common naming conventions is that they are adopted for a group of related articles (in this case, U.S. weapons with a model number) and then applied without the need to argue over each article's name individually (else it wouldn't be much of a convention, would it?); and WikiProjects (in this case, the Military history WikiProject) are a generally accepted place to work out naming conventions for articles in particular topic areas.
(Now, it may be that the naming convention adopted—which is fairly new—has some issues we did not consider. Personally, I rather doubt it, as most of the possibilities were discussed quite to death; but anything is possible. The best approach here is not to tenaciously attempt to keep one single article out of line with the convention, but rather to bring up the issue on the project page and discuss any problems with the convention as a whole. We would be happy to consider any concerns brought forward; the conventions are certainly not set in stone, and can be modified as appropriate.) Kirill Lokshin 00:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Removing request from WP:RM

The request to move M1 Garand rifle back to M1 Garand has been sitting at Wikipedia:Requested moves for a long time, and I'm removing the listing now. I don't see that there's a consensus regarding what this page should be called, so until there is one, there's no point in doing any more page moves. When a consensus has been arrived at, please feel free to request a move then, if necessary. -GTBacchus(talk) 04:05, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Still in use

The M-1 is still used by the Royal Norwegian Guard Drill Team (Kp3) as their "show rifle". Link to youtube video of a guardsman performing solo bit with an M-1. (the AG3 is used for regular service) Inge 12:58, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Julian Hatcher's death date

The intro for the article mentions Julian Hatcher being a source for pronouncing the name of the gun, and the footnote credits him with a text from 1983. However, his [Julian Hatcher|article] currently says he died in 1963. I'd imagine that's incorrect because the other two bits of information would be impossible had he died that early. Anybody able to correct this? --Edwin Herdman 07:58, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Good points. I believe the reference is from a reprint of an earlier book. I still haven't researched his precise date of birth. --Asams10 16:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inconsistincies?

I noted the maximum effective range given in the info box (500 yd (457 m)) is different than the maximum effective range given in the Design and Mechanics section (600 yards (approx. 550 m)). Could someone please explain/correct?--MKnight9989 12:59, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Maximum effective range is an arbitrary number. 500 yards is correct to list as it is what the US Army Manual states. The other is not wrong as, again, that's an arbitrary number, but both should read 500 yards.--Asams10 13:58, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Name changes

I just wanted to say that the "per consensus" format of weapon designation plus manufacturer doesn't hold here. John Garand was not the manufacturer. While I see either title as acceptable, this shows a glaring issue for weapons with more than one primary manufacturer, and where the common name involves one that is not the manufacturer. The "consensus" should take this into account. -- Thatguy96 23:31, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Even the US government currently calls the rifle, the "M1 Garand". Check [CMP] page. --Asams10 04:40, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't change my point that the "per consensus" change was described as official designation plus manufacturer, which "Garand" is not. That this is an inaccurate common name was not something I said. Furthermore, how the CMP describes the rifle on its website does not change that "Garand" was never part of the official designation. -- Thatguy96 11:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

If you want to argue semantics Thatguy, the M1 Garand has never been printed as being named 'M1 Garand rifle'. It is ALWAYS either U.S. Caliber .30, M1 (military designation) or simply M1 Garand. As Asams10 pointed out, the CMP (a government organization nonetheless) currently calls it the M1 Garand. The 'rifle' at the current end of the article is both unecessary as it is innaccurate. Brenden 01:05, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If you actually read my post and my response to Asams10, you'll notice that I did not dispute that reality in either case. I disputed the assertion that the name change fit the "per consensus" format, which is Weapon Designation + Manufacturer (or some variation of that). Neither "M1 Garand" or "M1 Garand Rifle" fit this format. -- Thatguy96 01:52, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Good Article review

I have taken on M1 Garand rifle for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:S. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I will shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 22:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have commented in detail on each criterion below:

1 Well written FAIL

1.1 Prose

The article text flows logically and is pleasant to read. However there are a few minor points:

  • "The name "Garand" is pronounced variously as [gəˈrand] or [ˈgærənd]; descendants (and close friend Julian Hatcher) of the rifle's designer, John Garand, generally agree it should be the latter." This sentence is a bit awkward: maybe something like "The name "Garand" is pronounced variously as [gəˈrand] or [ˈgærənd]. According to most experts, the latter version is preferred." with a cite to any relevant sources.
Y Done Arthurrh 23:46, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "...the clip system increased the rifle's weight, and prevented it from being fired while reloading." I think this needs rewording for clarity; I don't know any weapon that can be fired whilst it is being reloaded (unless there is a round remaining in the chamber) - presumably this refers to the difficulty of topping up the magazine before it is empty?.
Y Done Arthurrh 23:23, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "A myth that the clips cannot be reloaded can be seen as evidence of the awkwardness of the arrangement." Again, some additional explanation for clarity; maybe along the lines of "Evidence for the awkwardness of this arrangement can be seen in the existence of a myth which claims that the clips cannot be reloaded at all."?
Y Done Arthurrh 23:40, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

1.2 Manual of Style

The article complies with the MoS in its layout; headings and citations are properly formatted; the lead is a fair (if brief) summary of the text; and wikilinks are well-used to add depth. Only one stylistic point here:

  • There are a number of references inside punctuation, mainly from the Accessories section onwards. These need to be moved to directly follow the end-of-sentence punctuation.
Y Done Arthurrh 23:21, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

2 Factual accuracy FAIL

Although generally well-sourced, the article contains quite a few claims that really should be referenced, along with some sections (such as Accessories and Descendants) that contain few or no sources. Some examples are given below:

  • "The British Army tested the M1 Garand as a possible replacement for its Lee-Enfield No.1 Mk III bolt-action rifle, but rejected it after a series of environmental tests designed to simulate combat conditions."
Y Done Arthurrh 23:59, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "A myth that the clips cannot be reloaded can be seen as evidence of the awkwardness of the arrangement."
Y Done Arthurrh 23:52, 2 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "...one or two U.S. soldiers could kill an entire assaulting enemy squad before it reached its objective"
  • "It can be broken down using only a rifle round."
Y Done Arthurrh 00:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
  • "Most operators find the "en bloc" clip simpler and quicker to use than a stripper clip."
Reworded and sourced. S up? 01:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Removed after challenge. S up? 13:10, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

3 Coverage PASS

The article covers its subject in appropriate depth, and remains focused.

4 Neutrality PASS

The article is written from a neutral point of view.

5 Stability PASS

There is no evidence of instability in the recent article edit history.

6 Images PASS

All images used are appropriately captioned, relevant to the article, and have a suitable copyright status.

The outcome of this review is that I have placed GA status on hold, pending the above points being addressed. Editors now have up to a week to make the required improvements, although in rare cases the hold period can be briefly extended.

To help with tracking, editors may like to paste the following template after each recommendation as it is dealt with: {{done}}. Once editing is complete you can let me know on my talk page, and I will re-review the article. In any case I will check back here next Monday (6th August). All the best, EyeSereneTALK 11:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Pass

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I now have no hesitation in passing M1 Garand rifle as a Good Article, and have listed it as such on the Good Articles page under History > War and military > Weapons and military equipment. For future improvement, the task of tracking down references should be continued. Well done! EyeSereneTALK 21:31, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The 500 Club

I'd add post-WW1 research by Germany indicated typical engagement range 500m or less, if I could source it... Can somebody? Trekphiler 20:04, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pederson

Are the references to the Pederson rifle, really references to the M1941 Johnson rifle? Perhaps a mix up with the Pedersen device.--THobern 21:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

John Pedersen had his own .276 semi-auto rifle design in the earlier competitions. The only relation to the Pedersen Device is the inventor himself. D.E. Watters 21:58, 22 August 2007 (UTC)
It's PEDERSEN though that's a common mistake. I believe you'd be interested in the Pedersen rifle and .276 Pedersen articles as well as the Remington 51 and Remington model 14. Pedersen designed many things, it's unfortunate he's only really remembered for the Pedersen Device.--Asams10 03:08, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the links. I saw that it didn't redirect, so came to the conclusion that it might be the device, not a rifle. Just a spelling mistake then.--THobern 20:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by THobern (talk • contribs).

[edit] Israeli and Greek Issue

I seem to recall that both the Israeli and Greek Armies acquired and issued M1s. Maybe there should be some reference to this. [2] 68.116.99.239 20:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Experimental Japanese Garand

Maybe some specifics about the Japanese Garand (Type 5) would be useful. At least that it was chambered in 7.7mm and fed from a 10-round charger. 68.116.112.64 14:22, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Degree of difficulty

"Difficult" to reload partially-expended clips? I always read it was impossible to "top up" an M1. Trekphiler 09:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Difficult yes, impossible no. Arthurrh 16:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lubricated or Waxed?

Please see the talk page under .276 Pedersen where I'll start a discussion on waxed vs. lubricated cartridges.--Asams10 11:44, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fired until empty

The article reads:

In battle, the manual of arms called for the rifle to be fired until empty, and then recharged quickly. Due to the well-developed logistical system of the U.S. military at the time, this wastage of ammunition was generally not critical, though this could change in the case of units that came under intense fire or were flanked or surrounded by enemy forces.

Wait - I'm confused- if fired until empty, then there IS no wastage, no? - Eric 04:01, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

No there saying that after a firefight you have 3 rounds left, the said person would just shoot them quickly into the ground or into nothing so he could reload. Its wasting the 3 bullets you you had in the EN bloc before you reloaded and thats not a big deal Jack The Pumpkin King 04:05, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Rounds or Cartridges would be appropriate. Not bullets.--Asams10 11:38, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ahhh.. Thanks for the clarification, Jack.. I think your explaination should somehow be worked into the article, as to a layman, this is unclear. - Eric 18:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Faster than a speeding Mauser

I've heard its ROF was 5x a bolt rifle. True? Worth mentioning? Trekphiler 05:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Make

Which one is the manufacturer of this weapon?? --201.141.145.218 (talk) 19:16, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Springfield Armory, Winchester, International Harvester, H&R, Beretta, and Springfield Armory, INC. This is from the article. "During 1953-56, M1s were produced by International Harvester and Harrington & Richardson.[28] Beretta also produced Garands using Winchester tooling. Most recently, the M1 was produced by Springfield Armory, Inc. of Geneseo, Illinois." --Asams10 (talk) 00:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Not quite sure if this is the right place to post this but: It's simply not true that the Danish Armed Forces utilized the M1 in a 7.62*51 mm chambered version. DAF used the M1 with the original 30-06 chambered round. I served in the Danish Army in 1992 with the Garand (true, really) and we sure as hell fired 30-06 rounds. My own Savage WIN308 hunting rifle would NOT have accepted the military rounds for the Garand.

Ole2919 (talk) 23:52, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Users

Okay, so rather than turn this into a revert war, I'm just going to say A) I did not say that the honor guard usage was notable, B) the subsequent revert did not answer the question of how it was different from the US entry. If everyone and their mother used the Garand should we not include them all? There doesn't seem to be a notability requirement (Vietnam is included in this list currently) or a requirement that the weapon still be in active front-line use (the vast majority of the entries). It is no less notable that the ROC used the system in the past and currently uses it for its honor guard than the US entry that says the exact same thing. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 22:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I'll make two points. First, there is no reference that says that ROC officially or unofficially use the Garand, if they are disabled or even dummy weapons or anything supporting this. Second, if you list every Garand in every country, you've just listed every country. You'd be hard pressed to find a country in which a Garand isn't presently used. It's rediculous to list every single instance of a Garand being used and say that the weapon is "Used" by that country. There has to be a limit and, frankly, a drill team in Taiwan using Garands is absurd. C'mon... Vietnam? C'mon. Yes, there were Garands in Vietnam and I'm sure they were used... but does that mean it should be listed? No. There aren't any standards because nobody but me and a handful of others care about the content of these articles. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 00:12, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
That's still not answering the question. And we're not talking about presently used. Users sections in firearms articles often mention former and current users. You won't have listed every country where a Garand was ever used once, you'll be listing a lot of countries, but take a look at the Heckler & Koch G3 and even Koalorka who is equally stringent in interpreting Wiki's standards hasn't gone around policing this as arbitrarily as you have just now in this article. Why did you only remove the ROC entry and you left the Vietnam one you just challenged here? What is required for inclusion in a "users" section in your opinion or should we even have them? And you want an official usage citation? Here's one: Gervasi, Tom. Arsenal of Democracy III: America's War Machine. New York, NY: Grove Press, 1984. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 04:13, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
First, it's not arbirary, it's an instant revert. I can go in there and say that Fiji uses the FN2000. Sounds absurd so it'll probably get reverted. I can then go and say that they use the M3 Grease Gun and that sounds a little more reasonable, eh? Unlikely to get reverted... maybe challenged though. But what if one Police station in Fiji has an M3 that they use once a year. Does that mean that "Fiji uses the M3?" No. Since there are no hard and fast rules on Wikipedia about what constitutes a "Use" and what does not, I can add Canada to the list of users of the StG44. Why? I read an article about a police station that confiscated one of them and keeps it in their inventory, ammo and all. They shoot it every once in a while too. This is a curret user by one standard, an absurd example by another.
Now, move to Taiwan. By the text that was added, this is a CEREMONIAL GUARD. Who knows, ten to twenty... maybe more people. Maybe twice as many guns. Is this REALLY a "use?" I'm saying no. You can list the United States as a "user" of virtually EVERY firearm out there by this standard. I say this because it's happening. Every wikipedia editor out there is adding their pet country as a user for EVERY firearm. I'll note two: the "Filipino Bandit" as I call him or her. They add the Philipines as a user on EVERY firearms article they find. Then there's the guy who saw a web site about Palestine police agencies (?) and added them as users to the dozens of guns they listed. Heck, at least this was referenced... poorly.
Here's what I want to avoid. I want to avoid a 'list of users' section in these articles that lists anecdotal, trivial, or minor uses. When you list Canada as a user of the StG44, you aren't doing the reader any justice. In fact, it's misleading and tedious to look at a list of users for the M16 and see Pakistan, Poland, and India. WTF help is that. If I go to Pakistan, what chance will I have of seeing any M16s, first, and if I do, what chance is it that this is notable? C'mon. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 13:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
So I understand what definitely isn't notable in your mind, but what is notable then? And it does appear to be arbitrary when you revert one, and then in the subsequent discussion don't "clean up" the rest of the section to your tastes, even when you've openly challenged other entries. The US entry also is in there with more text devoted to its continued honor guard usage than its historical front line usage. This is what the ROC entry was, just without the dates. I just think there needs to be a standard, and maybe you can go to Wiki:Firearms and look for some concensus so that these sections can all be cleaned up and then every revert is a quick revert against entries that don't really show notability as defined by the guidelines. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] All in the family?

I deleted the AK ref. Honestly, using a modified trigger group makes it a descendant? That's a bit like saying lever action makes the 99 a descendant of the Spencer. And the resemblance of the Mini-14 to the M1 doesn't make it descendant, either, unless you've got a reliable source... One that is, IIRC, is a full-auto M2 variant, predating the M14. No? Trekphiler (talk) 12:37, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually, Kalashnikov himself cited the Garand as the source. You might think it is dubious, however this has all been hashed out again and again. From an engineering point of view, Kalashnikov almost directly copied the bolt and trigger mechanisms to include many of the geometries. The US had already done the dirty work and found what worked... why not copy it? Kalashnikov greatly simplified them, but they were still copies. In actuality, the Garand trigger was a copy of a Browning design. Denying the direct lineage, though, is something even Kalashnikov doesn't do. Now, he will deny the StG 44 lineage to his impending grave. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 16:00, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Free World"

There seems to be a controversy betweemn myself and at least "Nukes4Tots" and possibly other members about the term "free world". My personal impression is that this term is anything but objective and should be replaced, if it's not required by the topic. So far, a factual discussion has not been possible, and I'd like to get more opinions on thus subject. ps. I am a member of the swiss military and anything but against guns Snakemike (talk) 00:04, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

"The free world" is, or was, a commonly used term, but it's not very neutral. In my opinion it would be better to avoid using it. — Mudwater (Talk) 00:15, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Still a common term and, though "X'ers" might not understand it, the majority of English-speakers today consider its use to be normal and not the least bit pejorative. Who says it's anti-gun? This is about semantics. I understand that you are not a native English speaker, therefore you should not really be dueling about semantics. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:19, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
While I am definetly not a native english speaker, this discussion is not about semantics either, and thus I believe I am perfectly able to pitch in my opinion at this point. The "free world" is a term used by certain U.S. administrations in the past, but anything but a term used by other parties on this topic. I would strongly suggest using a term more objective. Snakemike (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Really not sure you're qualified to say that. You presume that the whole world is either free or not free? Who is offended by the term? The people of Cuba? It's an article about a historic weapon and that term is what term was used. The free world included non-fascist, non-communist countries. Simple. It's not just a term used by politicians, it was and is a commonly used and accepted neutral term. Again, who are you trying NOT to offend? Who is the injured party? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Although the phrase "the free world" is actually pretty accurate in my personal opinion, I think it would be better to use a different term for the same thing. The point is not to avoid injuring anyone or to avoid offending people who live in Cuba, it's to give the article more neutral wording, and to achieve a more encyclopedic tone. How about "Western countries", or "non-Communist-bloc countries"? — Mudwater (Talk) 01:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd really like an answer to the question I asked before... Who is the injured party? The only people who could POSSIBLY be offended would be, maybe, dictators. This is political-correctness at its worst. You're trying not to offend dictators? If not, who is the injured party? Who is offended? Please, answer that question. It's a common, accepted term. That greatly offensive song Rockin' in the Free World should be banned also, right? Neil Young is suddenly a bigot? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:14, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps my previous comment was not worded clearly, so let me paraphrase it. Using the term "the free world" would not injure anyone, nor should we be afraid of offending anyone by its use. Rather, the phrase has political connotations and associations that are somewhat non-neutral, and could be avoided by the use of a different phrase such as "Western countries", thus achieving a more encyclopedic tone. The phrase should not be banned or censored, and is in fact accurate, it's just not the best one to use in this context. — Mudwater (Talk) 02:29, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Wow, totally disagree. You and I just disagree on what "encyclopedic" means. If it doesn't injure anybody and is a common term, then we use it. It's about as encyclopedic as it gets. It's the clearest, most concice term to use as it is used in this article. Don't know why you disagree. Those alternatives you list are cumbersome and PC to the point of degrading the point that is being made, small as it is. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 02:40, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
There is defiantly a better wording then "free world". Besides isn't "Free World" subjective anyway. RoyalOrleans 05:53, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Nukes4Tots, in my opinion it is quite irrelevant whether there's an injured party. The term "free world" isn't objective and does not cover all countries being discussed here, as you've noticed yourself by reading Free World, no doubt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snakemike (talk • contribs) 09:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
So far we have Snakemike, RoyalOrleans, and myself saying it would be better to replace the phrase "free world" with something else, and Nukes4Tots saying it should be left the way it is. Does anyone else have an opinion on what phrase should be used in the article, and why? — Mudwater (Talk) 12:22, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to know why it's offensive and who is offended? Used the phrase all my life. Political Correctness means an absurd adherance to standards without anybody stating what the standards are or why. What is this, a witch hunt? What's wrong with the phrase? I've heard three editors, one of which is not even an English speaker, say they don't like it, but nobody is saying why they don't like it. Bullcrap to be offended by the word "Free" and try to justify that position. --'''I am Asamuel''' (talk) 15:28, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Offensive to those countries not aligned with the U.S. who still managage to consider themselves free, for a start. Also a bit Cold War-ish, now it's over. (Who's not "free", now? Is W planning a "liberation" of Iran? When will the nuclear weapons be found?) Trekphiler (talk) 16:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
As it has been stated multiple times, whether or not the term is offensive is irrelevant to the current discussion. The term is simply not encyclopedic except in it's very narrow definition. Snakemike (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I personnally don't feel the phrase is offensive, though perhaps I can see how it might be. I just think its a bit anachronistic. The "Free World" is very much a Cold War term, and the lines have been almost completely redrawn since 1991. The "Free World" as we knew it no longer exists, and it was an imperfect term even at the time (the Cold War "Free World" contained a number of dictatorships, etc). I'm not sure there's a good substitute, but it has the potential to be confusing and unnecessarily controversial. If there's a good substitute, I'd say use it. -- Thatguy96 (talk) 17:15, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
There seems to be a majority in favor of replacing the phrase. I suggest substituting it with "Western countries". Are there any other suggestions? Snakemike (talk) 11:30, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes, you're making assertions that are not true. You state that it's not encyclopedic but you fail to back that up with anything but your understanding that there's some sort of vote going on here. This is revisionist, politically correct dribble. You replace terms that have offensive words like "FREE!" with words like "WESTERN". Oh, I'm offended by the term Western. Are you going to remove western and insert "United States' Allies". Well, I'm offended by the term United. Now what do we use? American? I'm a native of these lands and the term "America" offends me because it is not the name I had for the land. Where does this stuff stop? Really, people, this is about the word "Free" being offinsive. What the fuck? --Nukes4Tots (talk) 15:17, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Its not about it being PC for me. I don't care. The term "Free World" was always inaccurate and always will be. I agree, people need to get over that. However, as of 1991 it became an anachronism, a truly dated term, that is confusing to the upcoming generation of people born after the general "fall of Communism." I said clearly that I'm not sure a good substitute exists, but if one does it should be inserted for clarity not some attempt to make the entry PC. Why don't we just link to the Free world article and be done with it? -- Thatguy96 (talk) 15:21, 23 May 2008 (UTC)