Lost the link to a essay on the Garand

[Hutch]

I can't find an essay I remember reading.  The premise was "Why a Garand", and it went on to document the exploits and deeds of US forces equipped with the M1.  I recall a comment about liberating concentration camps.  Does anyone else remember this, and where I can find it?

TIA...

Hutch

[Hutch]

A night's sleep has honed my Google-fu.

"Why I like Garands

It satisfies the eyes. It looks warm, robust, serious, and capable. It looks like victory, freedom and liberation. It looks friendly. It does not look evil. It does not look delicate. It does not look cheap.

It satisfies the ears. The clock like schnick when you pull the bolt back. The warning click as you shove home another 8 round clip. The massive solid slam as the bolt rams another round into the chamber. The deep throated bark of the muzzle as you fire away. The final Ka-Ting as the empty clip is ejected. The horrifying scream of agony as the guy four benches down learns never to hesitate when removing his thumb from a freshly loaded clip.

It satisfies the touch. The warm sculpted wood. The curve of the stock. The curl of the bolt lug. The take-up of the trigger. The robust, solid, yet unsharp push of the kick.

It satisfies the soul. It is the defender of liberty. It is the champion of victory. It is the guarantor of freedom. It will not be used to rob banks. No terrorist will unleash it on a crowd of unarmed victims. No gangster will use it to shoot little girls while missing his imagined gangster enemies.

It is the good guy's weapon. It is just the ticket to liberate a country. It opens the doors of concentration camps. It saves people from tyranny. It topples dictators. It squashes fascists. It pushes communists behind their walls. It defends the homeland. It provides for the common defense. It is necessary for the security of a free state.

It brings joy to women and children as they fire it. It strikes fear in the hearts of those that oppose freedom. It makes friends at the shooting range. It reminds us of the cost of freedom. Its lavish expense is appropriately justified.

It is your duty as an American to own one. Get one now. Buy ammo. Use it. Never mind the price, find the best one you can. You have no excuse. The time is now!!!!!! "

[AmbulanceDriver]

The horrifying scream of agony as the guy four benches down learns never to hesitate when removing his thumb from a freshly loaded clip.

   

[AZRedhawk44]

Sounds like a Cruffler Fetishist essay, to me.

It satisfies the soul. It is the defender of liberty. It is the champion of victory. It is the guarantor of freedom. It will not be used to rob banks. No terrorist will unleash it on a crowd of unarmed victims. No gangster will use it to shoot little girls while missing his imagined gangster enemies.

 

What a crock.

Garand owner here.  I shoot it in several matches a year.

Garands are a step up from your typical 5 round bolt action, to be sure... but this fetish for them is obnoxious.  They leave a LOT to be desired when compared to an M14 or an AR-10.  In particular, the lack of robustness in the design of the rear sight.  The AR-10 wins, hands-down.  The Stoner-designed elevation control is about a hundredfold improved over the Garand/M14 design.

They're an esoteric and kitschy design that gave a tactical advantage 70 years ago.  Clips, sights, reloading... all deficient when compared to a design that emerged 20 years after the Garand and is merely 60 years old rather than 80 years old.

The Geriatric Liberty Association (and Sioux Falls Cruffler's Group, aka GLASFCG) will not prevail against the hordes of liberty-stompers, with their CMP Garands and lovingly restored stocks that have been given a fresh treatment of boiled linseed oil.

[brimic]

What a crock.

Garand owner here.  I shoot it in several matches a year.

Garands are a step up from your typical 5 round bolt action, to be sure... but this fetish for them is obnoxious.  They leave a LOT to be desired when compared to an M14 or an AR-10.  In particular, the lack of robustness in the design of the rear sight.  The AR-10 wins, hands-down.  The Stoner-designed elevation control is about a hundredfold improved over the Garand/M14 design.

They're an esoteric and kitschy design that gave a tactical advantage 70 years ago.  Clips, sights, reloading... all deficient when compared to a design that emerged 20 years after the Garand and is merely 60 years old rather than 80 years old.

The Geriatric Liberty Association (and Sioux Falls Cruffler's Group, aka GLASFCG) will not prevail against the hordes of liberty-stompers, with their CMP Garands and lovingly restored stocks that have been given a fresh treatment of boiled linseed oil.

Get off my lawn!

[Ben]

Get off my lawn!

LOL.

While if the S were to HTF, I would reach for my M1A before I reached for my M1, the Garand is a great weapon and was a game changer when it hit the theater(s). If a Garand isn't good enough to stop the liberty stompers, what does that say for the Mosin freedom fighter rifles?

[AZRedhawk44]

LOL.

While if the S were to HTF, I would reach for my M1A before I reached for my M1, the Garand is a great weapon and was a game changer when it hit the theater(s). If a Garand isn't good enough to stop the liberty stompers, what does that say for the Mosin freedom fighter rifles?

The Garand wouldn't be any more useful than the Mosin when it comes to the liberty-stompers... and given the high replacement cost of a Garand versus a Mosin... the Mosin might be more useful.

Take a single covert pot-shot with a $100 Mosin that was purchased private-party somewhere and then ditch the gun or destroy it.

Or, do the same thing with a $1000 Garand.

The Garand is going to be rapidly out-gunned by suppressive fire and higher magazine capacity from liberty-stompers, about 1.5 seconds after the Mosin would be in the same fire fight.

[AmbulanceDriver]

Oh, I don't think any of us have any delusions of defeating the hordes of zombies with M1 Garands.   

That doesn't mean though that the M1 Garand is not a sexy sexy rifle.

[Jocassee]

Oh, I don't think any of us have any delusions of defeating the hordes of zombies with M1 Garands.   

That doesn't mean though that the M1 Garand is not a sexy sexy rifle.

Exactly this. The Garand's aesthetics are hard to beat.

[Ben]

The Garand is going to be rapidly out-gunned by suppressive fire and higher magazine capacity from liberty-stompers, about 1.5 seconds after the Mosin would be in the same fire fight.

Isn't that similar to the anti's argument that you can't fight a government coming at you with thousands of machine guns and bazookas with your AR15 "assault weapon"? If twenty guys are sending suppressive fire my way with MP5s, I'm ducking whether I have an AR or a muzzleloader.

[Devonai]

A squad of well-trained soldiers with M1 rifles are going to tear apart a squad of poorly-trained goons with AR-15s.  Reverse the example, same results.  Given a perfectly even match, regardless of numbers, the man or men armed with the ARs have an advantage, barring any unusual circumstances such as a one-on-one duel at 600+ meters.

My M1 would not be my first choice in any fight, especially if I needed to provide my own covering fire.  However, it is perfectly functional, reloads reasonably fast, and hits hard.  If stuck with one, I would hardly feel helpless.

[BryanP]

Here's another essay on the Garand.  Always guaranteed to start an argument.

www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-garand--almost-as-good-as-a-real-rifle

[Gewehr98]

AZRH44 must've had a really bad childhood experience with an M1 Garand. 

[AZRedhawk44]

Here's another essay on the Garand.  Always guaranteed to start an argument.

www.michaelzwilliamson.com/blog/item/the-garand--almost-as-good-as-a-real-rifle

Yes.  I've read that before.  100% agree.

Garand:  Better than a Springfield.  Inferior to what followed, in every way.


Look, I've got a lot of emotional bullscat baggage wrapped up in my M14.  It's inferior in every way to my AR-15... excepting possibly caliber though that's arguably not true (more rounds = more dead enemies, 77gr OTM shoots to 800 meters just fine and on par with M118LR).

I "should" sell it and build an AR-10 to satisfy my mid-range rifle marksmanship goals (300 to 600 yards, the range or arguable dominance where the .30 caliber takes supremacy over the .223). 

But, I haven't.  Largely due to too much emotional bullscat baggage that I've soaked up regarding 50-75 year old rifle designs that have no bearing in a world that constantly evolves and researches something better.


Crap like the OP article are why the CMP and NRA High Power Programs are stuck on the notion of a "service rifle" being a 50+ year old antique rather than a legitimate service rifle.

[Gewehr98]

Re: Michael Z. Williamson...

He's a transplanted Limey.  Has he even been in a DCM/CMP Garand shoot?

Like AZRH44, he has no place in his heart for the millions of America's Greatest Generation who ate, breathed, and lived the M1 Garand through WWII and Korea.  

They're not relevant, of course, because they're ancient.  To be honest, it's not a 30-round poodle-shooter.  It probably won't be the first choice to send those U.N. Blue Helmets back down the driveway.

But I have nothing but respect for the 80-something gentleman who fluidly loads an M1 Garand without even thinking about slamming his thumb, and places 8 well-aimed shots into his target down range.  (My dad and father-in-law, for example...)  

Unbelievable, really - no optics, no lasers, phasers, wind speed indicators, just a big heavy wood and metal rifle and a bunch of goofy 8-round en-bloc clips in a chambering that's supposedly obsolete, unless you're a whitetail deer or elk.

I have, or have had, darned near one of everything.  Were the S to H the F, I wouldn't feel unarmed with any of my M1 Garands, but my game plan isn't exactly shooting it out with units of superior firepower, regardless.  

If I could afford to, I'd give EVERY rifle aficionado an M1 Garand and a bunch of clipped .30-06.  They're a part of who we are.   I'd rewrite the "Baseball, Hot Dogs, Apple Pie & Chevrolet" jingle just a smidgen for the M1 Garand, too.  

[Perd Hapley]

I don't get it. The essay is about the appeal of a particular weapon. Nobody said it was better than an M4. Nobody said it provides more firepower than a FAL. Nobody said it is more operator than an AK. So why all the whinging?

[Jamisjockey]

Sounds like a Cruffler Fetishist essay, to me.

 

What a crock.

Garand owner here.  I shoot it in several matches a year.

Garands are a step up from your typical 5 round bolt action, to be sure... but this fetish for them is obnoxious.  They leave a LOT to be desired when compared to an M14 or an AR-10.  In particular, the lack of robustness in the design of the rear sight.  The AR-10 wins, hands-down.  The Stoner-designed elevation control is about a hundredfold improved over the Garand/M14 design.

They're an esoteric and kitschy design that gave a tactical advantage 70 years ago.  Clips, sights, reloading... all deficient when compared to a design that emerged 20 years after the Garand and is merely 60 years old rather than 80 years old.

The Geriatric Liberty Association (and Sioux Falls Cruffler's Group, aka GLASFCG) will not prevail against the hordes of liberty-stompers, with their CMP Garands and lovingly restored stocks that have been given a fresh treatment of boiled linseed oil.

Un-knot your panties.  Sheesh.

[Gewehr98]

Fistful, because it ain't the latest and greatest, that's why.

Nobody needs a '57 Chevy, because Toyota Prius.  

See what I did there?

[AmbulanceDriver]

My Garand is a baby.   She's only about 60 years old according to the serial number.  Now, she's not real pretty.  She's got some wear on the steel, some dings and scratches in the wood.   She's definitely not gonna be the first one asked to the dance.   Nor is she gonna win homecoming queen.  

But by damn, she'll put rounds where they're needed.   She may not be the fastest to reload.   She may not be the latest ubertactical toy of the week.  She may not have optics, or a bipod, or a telescoping stock.  But with good ammo, she'll shoot to 2 MOA or better all day long, so long as I do my part.   With 168gr SMK's, she'll do that easily out to 600 yards.

Now, don't get me wrong.   I've got other rifles.  If the zombie invasion is coming, the Garand is not gonna be my first choice.  

But it wouldn't be my last choice, either.



None of that, however, is why I own her....

I own a United States Rifle, Caliber .30, M1, because it is a piece of history.  My rifle is too young to have seen service in WWII.   But she may have been carried by a soldier in Korea.   Or she may have been a rifle that allowed Marines to become Riflemen at Camp Lejeune.



Well that, plus it's a helluvalot of fun to shoot.   :D

[AZRedhawk44]

I don't get it. The essay is about the appeal of a particular weapon. Nobody said it was better than an M4. Nobody said it provides more firepower than a FAL. Nobody said it is more operator than an AK. So why all the whinging?

Fistful, because it ain't the latest and greatest, that's why.

Nobody needs a '57 Chevy, because Toyota Prius. 

See what I did there?

    Teh stoopidz... did they hurt?

Fistful, it's because of this:

It satisfies the soul. It is the defender of liberty. It is the champion of victory. It is the guarantor of freedom. It will not be used to rob banks. No terrorist will unleash it on a crowd of unarmed victims. No gangster will use it to shoot little girls while missing his imagined gangster enemies.

This is effing stoopid.

It's borderline anthropomorphization of the rifle.



Garands get used in crimes. 

Ghetto trash shoot mama's babydaddies with them.

Child molesters shoot cops with them. 

Crazy 15 year old Adam Lanza wannabes shoot cops with them. 

Crazy drop-out law students shoot up schools with them.


They do not ooze virtue, any more than a Japanese katana oozes skill.  There is no osmotic transfer of these supposed characteristics from the weapon to the holder.



You want anti's to knock off the whole EBR thing?  The door swings both ways.  The Garand ain't sacred.  It's just a rifle.

[Jamisjockey]

  Teh stoopidz... did they hurt?

Fistful, it's because of this:

This is effing stoopid.

It's borderline anthropomorphization of the rifle.



Garands get used in crimes. 

Ghetto trash shoot mama's babydaddies with them.

Child molesters shoot cops with them. 

Crazy 15 year old Adam Lanza wannabes shoot cops with them. 

Crazy drop-out law students shoot up schools with them.


They do not ooze virtue, any more than a Japanese katana oozes skill.  There is no osmotic transfer of these supposed characteristics from the weapon to the holder.



You want anti's to knock off the whole EBR thing?  The door swings both ways.  The Garand ain't sacred.  It's just a rifle.

You just have a burning desire to be a prick, huh?