InRange Gets Down And Dirty With An M1 Garand

The M1 Garand is certainly a great design, but it’s often forgotten that it is fundamentally a piece of late 1920s technology, and it has some serious flaws. Its Achilles’ heel, though, is probably its susceptibility to mud, dirt, sand, and other foreign matter. Ian and Karl at InRange TV took an M1 out to the Arizona desert to give it a mud bath, testing the gun’s resistance to unforgiving conditions, the video of which is embedded below:

This time last year, I wrote an article published on this site called Hindsight is 30/06: A Critique of The M1 Garand, which examined the M1 in a more scrutinizing light than Patton’s “greatest battle implement ever devised” is usually subjected to. In that article, I identified as a critical weakness of the M1 rifle the large, open action designed by John Garand as a way to maximize the efficiency of the rifle’s receiver, especially with regards to overall length. The large ingress point right above the rifle’s firing mechanism, the exposed locking lugs, and the grit-sensitive operating rod recess all come together to make the rifle exceptionally susceptible to debris, especially mud and sand. The InRange test above bears all this out, and neither was it a surprise to either of them, as previously they had tested the very closely related M1A design in similar conditions. Going back even further, U.S. government tests conducted in 1950 and in 1940 both produced exactly the same results.

The M1 just really, really, really hates mud, dirt, dust, and sand.

Nathaniel F

Nathaniel is a history enthusiast and firearms hobbyist whose primary interest lies in military small arms technological developments beginning with the smokeless powder era. In addition to contributing to The Firearm Blog, he runs 196,800 Revolutions Per Minute, a blog devoted to modern small arms design and theory. He is also the author of the original web serial Heartblood, which is being updated and edited regularly. He can be reached via email at


  • Joshua

    But isn’t this the gun we should be issuing everyone today? The gun superior to the M4 in every way with one shot stopping power and the ability to not require maintenance and cleaning…and most importantly made of wood!

    • Tritro29

      Or you can have an AK…(I’ll get my coat).

      • FalconMoose

        Got mine.

  • Ed

    Strange, many WW2 GIs disagree with you about the M-1 durability.

    • kyphe

      I have never read a single claim that the M1 did well with sand or mud by anyone who actually served and had to use it it those environments.

      • adverse

        The people that used the M1 only fought in fair weather environments . We only used our M14s under pristine conditions. We never ever carried more than 20 rounds and our beach supplies (you got to have priorities). We had several designated beer carriers of course. Ice was optional. After a hard day, or night, in the jungle, we went back to the condo and relaxed around the pool. War is such a pain, don’t you know?

      • Georgiaboy61

        Not trying to be contrarian, but I am a military historian of forty years experience and have spoken with dozens upon dozens of infantry combat veterans of WWII and Korea over the years, as well as vets of more-recent conflicts. The guys who loved their M1s and said so far out-numbered the ones with gripes and complaints. Most credited the Garand with helping them get home and back to their loved ones more-or-less in one piece.

        Amongst those men were army infantry veterans of the Battle of the Bulge, Normandy and the Italian campaigns; also Marine and army grunts from the Pacific, including New Guinea, the Philippines, Iwo Jima and Okinawa. Also some army veterans of Korea. An uncle on my wife’s side fought in some of the worst jungle conditions in the world in New Guinea – and he liked his Garand just fine. He said that “If you took care of it, it would take care of you.” Those were his exact words.

        As an aside, a good friend of mine has an uncle who saw a ton of combat in Vietnam with the 101st A/B Division. This particular man, when I asked him at a party a few years back what he thought of his M16, said he hated it – and would have preferred an M14, Garand – or even an M3 or Thompson SMG or M1/M2 carbine. He then used some rough GI language – which I can’t recount here – to emphasize the point.

        Most of gripes I have heard concerning the M1 centered not on reliability, but upon how heavy it was. That was somewhat offset by the light weight of the en-bloc clips – which were far-lighter than the M14 mags which replaced them when that rifle came into use. The much-commented “inability” to top-off a partly-used en-bloc M1 clip is largely a myth; experienced M1 users knew a number of means of handling this problem – just make sure you don’t catch a case of “M1 thumb” in the process.

        • In 1966, the M14 had many critical, overwhelming advantages in reliability vs. the M16, ammunition with rigorous standards, and a chrome-lined bore being chief among them.

          Anyone who says you can’t “top off” an M1 has never handled an M1 thoroughly. That is why the clip release latch exists.

          There’s plenty to complain about the M1, though, such as the kafkaesque field-strip procedure, the forward center of balance, or the open action as demonstrated by Karl and Ian in the video.

          • Miguel Raton

            The only people who complain about the “forward ctr of balance” are used to shooting firearms w/ straight-line stocks [& the offset sights that go with them.] When you have a firearm with stout recoil [as in the Garand M1 rifle], that “forward balance” helps keep the muzzle down for quicker followups. It also steadies the aim in off-hand fire. Sorry if its slower moving from one to the next in multiple-target scenarios, but it’s a worthwhile trade-off… And “Kafka-esque field-strip procedure?” Really? Have you never actually watched _Forest Gump_? “So easy an idiot can do it” comes to mind… 😉

        • kyphe

          I am also a historian though not exclusive to military history and no one here is taking about general reliability or fondness. This is specific to the M1 having large ingress points for sand and mud to foul the action and FCG requiring the gun to be taken down in the field or risk total seizure. What I find when examining certain firearms is you always get people who can not take even the slightest criticism of a given platform as they see it as a sacred cow.

          • Georgiaboy61

            There’s no need to make ad hominem attacks, re: “What I find when examining certain firearms is you always get people who can not take even the slightest criticism of a given platform as they see it as a sacred cow” – however, since you took off the gloves first, here goes…

            You are welcome to think as you like, but the fact remains that your arm-chair warrior perspective isn’t as meaningful as that of the men who used the Garand in battle when the chips were down. They were there; you weren’t – and your perspective is therefore about as meaningful as some guy playing “Call of Duty” in his parent’s basement.

            Thanks, but I’ll continue to trust the views of the guys who were actually there over arrogant types who don’t have the class or maturity to admit that they might not know it all.

            John C. Garand designed something great; they’ll still be talking about him long after the critics – like you – have been consigned to the obscurity they so richly deserve. If you are such hot stuff – and heck, maybe you are – then prove it and design something memorable and great yourself. We’ll await the results of your genius….

          • kyphe

            OH dear! I am convulsing with laughter right now hahahaha! I was not even referring to you! but you go and prove my point with a vengeance. You totally ignore the points being made and instead come out with a bunch of utterly trite, cliche bollocks that any 12 year old internet warrior would be proud of. Slow clap my friend and Merry Christmas!

        • You know, now that you mention it, I’d be much obliged if you emailed me. Since you comment so much, and all. 🙂

    • Vitsaus

      An elderly friend of mine once told me (while I was young and gushing about how cool the M1 Garand is) that the one he carried during the Korean war jammed with sand at a particularly unpleasant moment, and he was lucky enough to survive long enough to trade it for an M2 carbine for the rest of his time there.

      • I would be very interested to have Ian test an M1/M2 Carbine under the same circumstances, as I expect that design would fare even more poorly.

    • Was durability mentioned in the OP?

  • M

    I wonder if the comments complaining that a rack grade and not a service grade rifle was used are coming

  • mosinman

    wow the M1 sucks in mud, although how likely are you to fall and have that much fill the rifle in a real situation? Also i personally don’t think any other WW2 era semi auto battle rifle would do any better

    • Joshua

      Sucks in sand to…and water apparently from their other tests.

      • UnrepentantLib

        Some time ago I read about the war in New Guinea. It mentioned that at the battle for Buna, at one point troops were attacking through a swamp that was chest deep in places. The M1’s usually got off the first clip, but once they reloaded so much gunk came in with the new clip that they jammed up. In fairness, the BAR’s and M1919’s were jamming as well. Maybe the moral is, don’t attack through deep swamps and bogs. Meanwhile, back in Australia, MacArthur was issuing orders and extremely displeased that we weren’t winning.

        • Jon Hendry

          “Maybe the moral is, don’t attack through deep swamps and bogs. ”

          And maybe keep a few clips strapped to your helmet or shoulders, the better to stay out of the muck.

    • abecido

      That shouldn’t be a hard test to put together, at least in a representative rather than exhaustive manner, although these days G-43s and Johnsons are getting too expensive to subject to a mud bath. Still, someone might see how the SVT-40 and Ljungman fare. Something in the MAS family, too – a 49/56 could stand in for the MAS 44.

      • They’ve already done a MAS 49/56 test in the mud — it did fairly well. Two or three malfunctions out of a ten round magazine, IIRC, and they never had it die on them in a way that they couldn’t remedy by just running the action quickly. The DI mechanism of the rifle was literally and visibly blowing mud and crap out of the action, a benefit the M1A they used lacked.

        • UnrepentantLib

          That stands to reason. Not too much room for stuff to get inside. I suspect the SVT-40 would also work reasonably well. The Gew43 might have problems with the external rails. I suspect the recoil operation of the Johnson might have problems with the added resistance from dust, sand and muck.

    • Joshua

      STG 44 should do pretty well, SVT-40 is as closed off as the MAS 46 which they also tested and found to be far superior.

      quite honestly, with the exception of maybe the G41 and G43 all of the WWII semi-autos should do much better.

      • 624A24

        The StG 44 appears to have the camming parts of its bolt carrier and bolt exposed through the ejection port, might affect its reliability when mudded up like in the video.

        I’m curious about the SKS though. Not exactly a battle rifle, but it does have a large exposed bolt carrier sitting on top.

  • I await the people who are so emotionally invested screeching about how they didn’t have a sling on it therefore it’s not exactly as issued and therefore a false test.

  • ostiariusalpha

    I was familiar from your article, Nate, of many of these flaws in the M1 Garand’s reliability. It was a small revelation though from this video that the FCG is also extremely vulnerable to debris ingress without a corresponding way for the debris to easily escape, trapping it inside till failure is assured.

  • adverse

    Don’t do that.

  • USMC03Vet

    That is not mud…..

  • Bill Lester

    Wow, lots of very juvenile comments here. The M1 served in 2+ major wars with great distinction in every possible environment. Steaming jungle, frozen mountain passes and everything in-between. Was it perfect? Certainly not. No weapon is. (Even a certain 5.56mm carbine that is the darling of Millennial gun enthusiasts and many U.S. allies alike.) Should we build new M1’s and issue them to our infantry? Again, certainly not. Would anyone seriously consider going to war in M4 Shermans, P-51 Mustangs or a Fletcher-class destroyer? No, all would be equally insane against anyone more formidable than Luxembourg. So why does everyone get so emotionally invested in defending the Garand on one side and ridiculing it on the other? Why can’t we be adult firearms and history enthusiasts who appreciate the M1 for what it was? It certainly WAS the finest rifle in World War 2. Be proud to own one, shoot one, compete with one and in doing so honor the men who carried it into battle. But don’t act like children arguing over their toys.

    • Bill,

      I don’t see too many comments ridiculing the gun, just the fanboys of it. And as a member of the “Millenial” generation, I can assure there are heaps and heaps of M1/M14 fans in my age group.

      • RenHoek

        We are about the same age, but I don’t consider myself a fanboy of any of the rifles mentioned above.

        As the proud owner of a FAL, M1, M1903, and AR, you have to appreciate the weapons for the time they were created/fielded in.

        That being said, if my life depended on the reliability of my rifle, and faced with the prospect of harsh conditions where performing maintenance would be fe and far between, I would most certainly not trust an M1 getting me through that situation. I would probably go with my AR or FAL. Heck, even the 1903.

        • Georgiaboy61

          If brute reliability is the issue, grab an H&K G3 – roller-delayed blowback operating system has brutal recoil, the sights are substandard, and the charging handle is in a weird spot – but man, do those rifles work! Very tough to break….

          • RenHoek

            The 1903 is pretty brutal as well, I will usually shoot about 50 rounds with it and have to put it away at my range days. Have to try out a G3, have heard horror stories about the accuracy. But I heard the same with the AK and actually like shooting that.

      • Georgiaboy61

        Nathanial, you know I am a fan of your work – but with due respects, aren’t you being a bit hard on fans (“fanboys” as you put it) of the Garand considering your well-known admiration for the AR15 family of weapons? You know, those who live in glass houses ought not to throw stones – and all of that??

        • I’ll own up to being hard on fans of this or that gun, but the AR-15 isn’t my favorite rifle (by a long shot). Heck, there was that one time I pissed off ARFCOM because I said I like the AK more than the AR.

          • Georgiaboy61

            Yeah, I am a stubborn SOB, I admit that….

          • Uh, well, I’d be lying if I tried to say I wasn’t, too. 🙂

    • Joshua

      I don’t hate it. Had we not had the insane love of the M14, we would have the FN FAL to this day…and I really liked my M4A1 I was issued. So thanks to the M14 I was issued one of the finest general issue small arms ever invented.

      It’s still a gun with a lot of problems that should have died after WWII.

      • Robert

        I for one would have liked to have seen where the FAL chambered in .280 British would have ended up. Too bad the acquisition guys didn’t have a competition for the new round first, and then the delivery system.

        • They trialled both rounds, but Ordnance felt .30 Light Rifle had better performance. This is not to say that Ordnance was terribly interested in the .280 British, though.

      • And it almost did, several times. That’s something I explore in the Light Rifle series.

    • Robert

      Well, depending on the enemy threat level, there actually still is a place for P-51 Mustangs (CAS with air superiority assured) and M4 Shermans (with obvious C5I upgrades). Also, I would much rather go to sea in a FLETCHER-class DD than the current LCS (again with the requisite upgrades).

      I may retract the M4 assertion now that I think about RPG’s…

      • Miguel Raton

        P51s make lousy CAS, too susceptible to small arms fire. Why do you think they left that job to the Jug in the ETO? The AD-1 did the job in Viet Nam: that was a pretty impressive plane, a single-engine airframe w/ more payload than a B17. America’s last piston-powered warplane. Had a bigger *OIL* tank than most cars have for FUEL…

  • Esh325

    At least the M1 Garand got its kinks worked out quickly and was reliable under usual operating conditions, unlike one rifle fielded by the USA….

    • Zachary marrs

      Lol. No.

    • nadnerbus

      The M1 did not have network news reporters crawling up its bunghole, looking for a story to hurt the military with while it was introduced to war for the first time.

      • Esh325

        If you read up on the history on the M16, even people in the government said what the military did with the M16 bordered on criminal negligence. Hows that the medias fault?

        • The fact that it left such a scar on the rifle’s reputation is the media’s fault, you can be sure.

          The M16’s introduction was botched, make no mistake, but every slow news day we’re still treated to Gen. Scales or whomever dredging all that old stuff up to help FN or HK or whomever sell guns.

          • Esh325

            Or there were serious flaws with the early M16 that they had Congressional hearings about.

          • …Which we need to keep hearing about in 2015, because why?

          • iHAL

            Because the M1 was upgraded to cope with the changes in tactics and fielded environment and the M16 is still the same machine that was issued 50 years ago.

            …oh wait.

          • Heh, yup. 🙂

            One thing that is a very minor peeve of mine is how the common narrative of the M16’s introduction tries so hard to shoehorn it into the framework of the draft, a narrative of servicemen who felt used and neglected both during their service and upon their return, the ruthlessness of the Cold War, all that stuff. You know, the hippie narrative that the military is just this engine of evil that does nothing but start messes and issues equipment that doesn’t work and only serves to line the pockets of the various merchants of death or whatever.

            Back in reality, the M16’s introduction was botched because the Army’s procurement apparatus was writhing in its death throes, and McNamara expected a COTS solution to an increasingly calcifying development branch of the Army. A considerable amount of hubris can be ascribed to McNamara in this, but his recognition that Ordnance was becoming increasingly detached and ineffective at developing the weapons needed and on schedule was so far as I can tell of rare clarity during that time. Unfortunately, in response to this it seems he bought the promises in Colt’s sales brochures a little too completely, and the M16 – not just “not a bad design”, but far and away the best rifle design in the world at that time – entered Army service with a tremendous amount of trouble that was totally unnecessary. Had the proper development of the ammunition occurred and some details of the rifle (e.g., chrome-lined bore, adding a cleaning kit trap, nothing major in the mechanical department) been improved, I think the M16’s introduction would have been nothing short of triumphant. Consider as evidence to this the 1962 ARPA report I covered in this post.

        • nadnerbus

          The introduction of the M16 was a fluster cluck, no doubt about it. But the problems it had in its roll out were made so immortal by GI legend and those same news reporters that people to this day think the AR15 is a bad rifle.

          The point is, the Garand had problems too. It had the benefit of working through most of those problems in peace time before introduction to war, and without a somewhat adversarial media environment.

          • Esh325

            Yes the Garand had problems, but they fixed them rather quickly early on unlike the M16 which was fielded in mass.

    • displacer

      Yeah, as proven by forgottenweapon’s other tests the M14 certainly didn’t live up to its reliability hype at all 🙁 You’d think they’d have those kinks worked out in 2015 but here we still are

  • Esh325

    The M1 Garand is an old rifle and was fielded when semi autos were still catching on so it’s no surprise it would have limitations in more extreme conditions compared to newer rifles designs. Even with that said, it was probably the most reliable autoloading rifle of WW2 and was highly regarded.

    • Joshua

      not really, the Czechs had an excellent understanding of semi-autos, the Russians were adopting a semi-auto at the same time and the French were in a lot of ways well ahead, they just didn’t want to jump the gun on adoption and ended up waiting too long.

      • I’ll have to check with my Russian archive-diving buddies, but I would be surprised if the Russians regarded the SVT-40 as more reliable than the M1.

        • Joshua

          as I understand it, the Russians did not like the SVT-40 because they did not do enough training on how to clean them, and I will cede, on my SVT if the gas regulator is not cleaned thoroughly between range sessions the rifle will not cycle reliably. That however has nothing to do with environmental detritus such as mud, and the Russian Marines, the best trained of the Russian armed forces, loved their SVTs. It’s mud performance is speculative on my part, however it is a short stroke piston, which will be less susceptible to the mud than the M1s long stroke, though more susceptible than a direct impingement like the Ljungman or the MAS, you don’t have the dog leg for grit to get under like the M1 does, and the receiver is much better sealed when the gun is in battery, on the M1 you can see behind the bolt into the fire control group when it is in battery, and you can see the locking recesses. on the SVT-40 the rear of the action is sealed by the dust cover, and the locking shoulder is covered by the bolt and bolt carrier behind the opening, the Extractor is protected by the carrier which butts up tight to the receiver ring. When in Battery the SVT-40 is quite well sealed, especially compared to the M1 Garand. The SKS is also incredibly similar mechanically to the SVT-40, the only real difference is in the Gas System, Simonov disposed of Tokerov’s gas cup and replaced it with a piston head riding in a gas tube, otherwise the rifles are mechanically identical.

          I also made no statement that the Czechs had fielded a Semi-auto, I said they understood it, it was after all the development of the Czech ZH-29 that prompted the development of the M1 in .30 caliber, when the US trialed a foreign made rifle in a full power rifle round that weighed less the ten pounds, a feat that Garand had himself told them was not possible with the technology of the day.

      • Esh325

        What semi auto rifles did the Czechs field during WW2?. And the SVT-40 I fired wasn’t very reliable. And the Russians themselves weren’t completely satisfied with the SVT-40. They decide to go with the SKS instead after the war which was a very reliable rifle.

    • iksnilol

      Not really ,everybody else had closed receivers.

  • Georgiaboy61

    Re: “The M1 Garand is certainly a great design, but it’s often forgotten that it is fundamentally a piece of late 1920s technology, and it has some serious flaws. Its Achilles’ heel, though, is probably its susceptibility to mud, dirt, sand, and other foreign matter.”

    It bears repeating that there are very few mechanical devices which function optimally or even reliably in conditions of mud, dust, dirt and sand. The M1 wasn’t the only mechanical device plagued by dirt during the Second World War; the USAAF and RAF struggled throughout the war to keep their piston-engine aircraft running in the dirt and dust of the campaigns in North Africa, Sicily and Italy. Despite the fitment of special air filters, engines in RAF Spitfires and Hurricanes had to be redlined for overhaul much sooner than their counterparts in the ETO, and keeping them running was a challenge for the mechanics.
    Similar problems plagued the Royal Tank Corps, the U.S. Army and the Deutsches Afrikakorps in keeping their tanks and vehicles running in these harsh climates.
    In other words, faulting the M1 for not performing perfectly when dirty is to hold it to a higher standard than is realistic – especially by the technological standards of that time.
    In judging the M1, it is important that we use not only the standards of our time, but those of the time in which this revolutionary new weapon was designed, manufactured and fielded. It is no exaggeration to say that John C. Garand was a genius, not only as a designer, but as a manufacturing engineer and machinist. Garand not only designed the weapon, he also designed and built many of the machines, fixtures and gauges needed to manufacture it. All of this from a man who had no formal education as an engineer. Talk about “can-do” spirit!
    Is the Garand flawed by today’s standards? Of course it is – but by the standards of its time, it was a game-changer. And getting such a complex-to-manufacture design into the hands of the GIs in such numbers under the pressure of wartime production schedules is a stupendous feat the likes of which this nation may never see again.

    • nadnerbus

      I don’t think anyone would deny any of that, and Nathaniel has written pretty much exactly that before. Tests like this are more to dispel some of the nostalgia laden, legend boosted gun counter talk of the gun. Some machines become so revered, especially in retrospect, that they take on a whole new reputation level that they don’t otherwise deserve.

      There are still people out there that seriously, with a straight face, suggest that the M14, basically a box fed Garand, would be a better service rifle than the M4. So the topic is not out of the blue.

      • Georgiaboy61

        Your point is well-taken – there is certainly a rose-colored glasses aspect to all of it sometimes…. it is good to get a reality check, for sure.

  • DetroitMan

    Sorry, I just don’t see the point of these mud tests. All they are proving is that if you scoop a large amount of mud into the working parts of a rifle, it will fail. The only rifle that legitimately passed the test was the MAS-49. They softballed the AR-15’s test by closing the dust cover. If they were truly testing “combat conditions” as claimed, the dust cover would be open.

    But back to the pointlessness of the test, what soldier would treat his rifle this way if he could avoid it? No GI is going to repeatedly push the weapon his life depends on into the mud until it is completely caked. The DI’s slapped any such thoughts out of him in basic. At bare minimum he would keep the ejection port facing up while low crawling in the muck. Furthermore, what soldier would not attempt a rudimentary cleaning before he tried firing? Unless an enemy were right on top of him, he could at least scoop away some of the filth. For that matter, not many soldiers run around with tape on their weapon’s muzzle either. I get it that Carl and Ian wanted to be safe, but the GI wouldn’t have that luxury. If the GI took a belly flop in the mud like that, chances are he would have some in the bore, and his training should tell him he needs to clear the weapon.

    Lastly, the historical records don’t bear out that this was a major problem for the M1 or the M14. Yes, there are reports of them failing when they got muddy. There are far more reports of them functioning in the worst of conditions when they were needed. It’s far harder to find one veteran who will speak ill of either weapon’s reliability than it is to find ten who will praise them. If this were really a problem, we would have heard an outcry from the ranks, just like the Ross, the Chauchat, or the M16. Carl and Ian’s laboratory conditions apparently don’t happen much in actual combat.

    • CommonSense23

      They left the dust cover open on the mud test for the AR15. And it performed the best out of the test. And plenty of military guys run tape on their muzzles. I always did.

      • DetroitMan

        But the tape goes bye-bye with the first shot. Again, if we are talking about actual combat, the tape won’t be there. If it’s still there, there is no immediate threat and you have time to clean the weapon.

        • Joshua

          Tape is there to prevent a bore obstruction causing the rifle to explode.

          That’s all and in this video he wasn’t crawling through mud, he purposely put it where he wanted it.

          Your fanboism is laughable, enough that you actually made up the whole dust cover being closed like its some conspiracy…you must be from m14forum huh?

          • CommonSense23

            And even without the tape. Short of jamming the barrel a foot into the mud, a small amount of mud obstrunction in the barrel isnt going to cause a catastrophic failure in the barrel. It’s not a shotgun. The old rebar cutter muzzle device should have put that to rest years ago.

          • DetroitMan

            Would you personally do the test in the video, on multiple firearms, without tape? I wouldn’t.

          • CommonSense23

            With my MK18, yeah I would.

          • DetroitMan

            Oh, I’ll admit my fanboyism, but that doesn’t invalidate my point. If you squash a rifle in the mud like this, you have to worry about bore obstruction, unless you have tape. If you’re in the middle of a fire fight, the tape won’t be there. If you’re not, then training and common sense dictate cleaning the weapon before firing. Therefore, this is not a realistic test of what happens in the field.

  • l2a3

    I would like to know what lubrication regiment he used.

    There is a different Military lubrication requirement for the M1 in “wet” environment verses “dry” environments; and they are NOT the same as what civilians would think. (Grease and oil vs. oil.)

    Having use the M1, M14 and M16 in the “mud” My only real complaint was the spraying of oil and mud on my glasses causing them to become blurry after being wiped off with a wet rag (there was no dry/clean rag in the rain). Other than that I enjoyed them all, especially the rifle with covered receivers. (No more oil/mud on my glasses)

  • jeff

    This gun was tested in the most punishing conditions available, WWII. Say what you like about this rifle but it still was the greatest gun of WWII.

  • Erik Davis

    I love my M1’s, but I’m not deluded. I know they’re susceptible to mud and dirt. The GI’s knew it, too; that’s why every photo of GI’s preparing for Normandy have them in plastic bags.

  • @nathaniel_f:disqus I see that the bolt is wide open like a Vz. 58. Does that mean that the Vz. has the same issue(potentially)?