Gman send us a photo of his International Harvester M1 Garand, with some of the ammo that was shot later that day. The Garand sure is one handsome gun.

potd-banner



Advertisement

  • Ed

    Looks awesome love seeing all that .30 cal ammo which is WAY WAY WAY too expensive now days.

    PS
    Don’t let Nathaniel F to see it he hates all John Garand designed weapons with a passion.

    • Riot

      He seems to hate everything that isn’t the ar15

      • iksnilol

        I haven’t really got that impression, though he seemingly likes ARs with a passion I will admit. Sure, you guys like the Garand but like everything it has its flaws. You remind me now of the guys who buy AI rifles instead of Sakos. “It is better” – why? “it just is”. Emotional attachment and all.

        Just like I really like AKs, but will I argue that the AK is a precision gun? Or the best gun ever made? No, just no. But at least I am somewhat honest regarding my biases.

        • See my comments above about how I try to keep personal feelings and cold analysis separate.

      • I realize that I spend a lot of time beating back propaganda and marketing intended to discredit the AR-15 as a design, and I also realize that I hold weight as a major criteria where most do not, but it might surprise you to learn that I don’t have any real personal affinity for the AR-15 itself. Besides the “retro” Colt 601, I really think they’re ugly and boring.

        In fact, the AK series is a much more exciting family of rifles to me personally, in part because they’re still somewhat exotic to Americans and in part because I’ve played too many video games from Eastern European developers.

        I don’t let these feelings affect my analysis of their designs, though. I feel it’s important to keep personal feelings and professional analysis separate.

        The designer for whom I really do have an unreasonable liking, though, is James Paris Lee. The guy developed the detachable magazine during the Indian Wars, and pioneered the fast-firing small caliber rifle in the 1890s (admittedly, the small caliber part was the Navy’s idea).

    • John Garand was one of the most competent designers who ever lived. I’m not shy to say that, at all, whatever criticisms I have almost 90 years later.

    • MPWS

      I subscribe it to mental inertia and lack of broader imagination. This is what happens to someone who stepped over certain threshold of knowledge – imaginativeness ceases to exist. It is common phenomenon in other kinds of human endeavour, as far as I can tell.

      At the same time I do have respect and appreciation for man’s level of knowledge and analytical (well, …. within some limits) capability. It is one thing to be enthusiast – follower and quite different to be a creator. You can hardly be both at the same time.

      • So tell me, what should I do to prove to you I have a broader imagination?

        Are creators to just ignore historical evidence and eschew analysis, because they’re “creators”? How is it possible to be a creator of something and not also an enthusiast of it?

        I’m just not following you at all here.

  • henrik

    for a Swede I have tried some pretty cool stuff, from army days to civilian sport shooting ar15s, pistols etc etc. but nothing came close to the aura of the garand, those 30-06 felt like bolts from god, I really felt that it was a rifle built to fight evil

  • FrenchKiss

    It also jams easily in dust and sand.

    • anon

      Does the increased drag coefficient hinder your ability to do drills where 30 bad guys dynamically come at you from all angles, and you have to magdump, then do tac reload after tac reload to maximize your wound vectors all the while maintain the “operator operating operationally: operation look cool” aura?

      Or is it that you need all of your guns to be able to fire with sand, mud, sillystring, and ham sandwiches underwater while limp wristing, upside down, on your head, in a snowstorm?

      Some of us shooters don’t always feel the need to pretend to operate all day every day, and can enjoy shooting a nice, fun, historic rifle without feeling the compulsion to have to be the most annoying and pretentious mallninja at the range.

      • FrenchKiss

        Why don’t you like facts?

        • sultan of swing

          cuz ‘Murica

        • anon

          Why don’t you understand that not every rifle needs to be able to be used with sand, mud, sillystring, and ham sandwiches underwater while limp wristing, upside down, on your head, in a snowstorm and will just be used at the range?

          Why can you not comprehend that some people may have more than one gun, and use one for their tinfoil-tier delusions of FEMA camps, zombies and SHTF, and one (or maybe even more than one) non tinfoil related activities?

          Why don’t you understand that some people buy guns to shoot for fun/or just to collect a piece of history?

          Why don’t you like owning a piece of history that contributed greatly to the efforts on the eastern front and in the pacific?

          Why don’t you like owning a piece of history that was the first widely issued (depending on your definition of “widely issued”) self loading rifle?

          • FrenchKiss

            I own two.

    • M

      Yeah, soldiers didn’t seem to mind though. Probably because it’s reliability was more predictable/consistent than the previous, pre-wwii autoloaders

    • Georgiaboy61

      No mechanical device will function with 100% reliability in the sandy, dusty conditions – not the AR15 and not the Garand, not even the vaunted AK47. Get enough fine, talcum powder-like dust or sand into the action of any rifle, and it will eventually malfunction. That’s why the typical ‘troop in the old days was taught that his very first task was the care, cleaning and maintenance of his personal weapon. Only after he’d cleaned and lubricated his M1 (or M1903 or whatever) could he maybe – maybe – think about getting something to eat and some sack time.

      The Garand functioned well-enough to do its job – and a great many GI’s got home because of it. That includes the North African campaigns and Sicily and Italy, too. I’ve known dozens of WWII and Korean War veterans over the years – including many U.S. Army and Marine infantrymen with combat experience (yeah, I’m that old….) – and I cannot recall even one who spoke badly of the Garand. There may have been some grunts dissatisfied with the M1, but I’d by lying if I said I knew any of them.

      From the vantage point of the early 21st century, the .30-caliber M1 now seems anachronistic and a bit dated to some modern sensibilities, but in its time, John Garand’s rifle was a revolutionary weapon – one which changed the face of infantry warfare. The Germans and the Japanese both wanted a reliable semi-automatic, self-loading battle rifle so badly that both nations reverse-engineered copies of captured Garands and considered mass-producing them. It didn’t happen in either place, but that gives some idea of how respected the design was – even by our enemies.

    • Bill L.

      That’s not what virtually every veteran that’s used the M1 in combat and subsequently written about it has to say. But what do they know, they just defeated Nazi Germany, Imperial Japan and kicked the Communists out of South Korea. Silly old geezers.

      • sultan of swing

        that was too bad about Germany

    • Hey man, I don’t really think that stops people from enjoying their guns. I sincerely hope I haven’t given people the idea that Garand owners should be constantly lambasted for liking their rifles.

      • Georgiaboy61

        Don’t worry, Nathanial… time marches on, and there’s nothing wrong with a critical reconsideration of John Garand’s most-influential design. It is, after all, approaching the century mark. The caveat is that we pay proper homage to his genius and the design itself – which was revolutionary for its time.

        We can do an interesting thought experiment: if John C. Garand was in the prime of his design career now, here in the 21st century, would he have done the same as he did back in the 1920s and 1930s? Probably not – it is safe to say that he would use the best that modern day technology, materials and design have to offer. Rather than make the stock on the M1 from wood, he might have chosen a composite material which is stronger, lighter and more-resistant to warping than wood… and so on.

        I like to think that an inventor like Garand, if he was alive today, would be fascinated by – and approve of – the many (if not all of) advances made in firearms design and manufacturing.

  • Heretical Politik

    Nice Tractor Garand! I know they aren’t perfect, and not necessarily deserving of the superlatives it sometimes receives, but a great rifle for it’s time. I love mine and would have no hesitation trusting my life to it.

  • sultan of swing

    no it ain’t

  • Don Ward

    Walks into the POTD Bar & Grill ready to compliment a reader’s Garand and photo composition. Slowly looks around.

    So THIS is where the kids who got their lunch money stolen by Nathaniel F hang out.

  • RICH

    ALL I CAN SAT IS, ‘SWEEEET’ ! ! ! ! A FINE WEAPON…….

  • MPWS

    It is a beautiful rifle in a sense…. although military hardware is not meant to be that way, since its prime purpose is destruction. Anyway….. I have this mental fix, seeing Garand in hands of allied states around the world after WWII, more than in hands of servicemen in originator’s country. Why is that? Movies, pictures?
    In any case, this is a classic without any doubt.