| Error creating thumbnail: File missing Join our Discord! |
| If you have been locked out of your account you can request a password reset here. |
Talk:M1 Garand
Additional Images
Screen-Used
M1C Garand and M1D Garand
Ok, I made a youtube video last year and it was a montage of all the weapons in Call of Duty: World at War (It had real-world pictures, and the only ingame pictures were "fictional" guns, or weapons that I couldn't find a real-world look-a-like of. Anyways, I got a comment 5 months ago. The comment was "Is it a M1C or D Garand? And the Kabar (Not Ka-Bar)wasn't exactly used in this game. I did correct the commentor on his knife mistake, but I am still confused by his first question. Is there three different models of an M1 Garand, or only two? And I thought the M1C and M1D were sniper variants? - User:1morey August 7, 2011 5:42 PM (EST)
BM59
we should add the BM59 to the article. The BM59 is an Italian licensed copy of the M1 Garand.--Gunner5
- We have a separate Beretta BM59 page because it is a significant modification of the M1 Garand that goes beyond being a mere copy. --Markit 20:48, 7 September 2011 (CDT)
Oh, ok, sorry, didnt notice that. Gunner5
M1's in Brazil and Argentina
So I heard that in the 60's Argentina received about 30,000 M1s from the U.S and were converted to accept magazines that were for the Beretta BM59 while Brazil got them in the 50s from the U.S. government and were converted to 7.62x51mm NATO and modified to accept mags from the FN FAL. Is any of this true? -Mr.Ice
Doesn't sound so legit to me. Argentina's armed force had enough budget to even develop a jet during its 50s. There's no reason for them to receive surplus weapon from the United State. And also, modifying seem to take much time and money to modify M1 Garand since barrel probably should be changed to receive NATO 7.62mm. And other thing is that Angentine force was seen using FN FAL during the Falklands war. -Mamaya94
- I agree with Mamaya94sounds like more internet misinformation. Why would Argentina want 30,000 M1's when they make a licensed copy of the Best Battle Rifle in the Free World? It would take a tremendous amount of work to convert a Garand to use 7.62x51 NATO and FAL mags. Why? I think someone saw Beretta BM59's an thought up that info not realizing the differance between the two. The Internet good and bad info rolled into one.--phoenixent 19:11, 11 May 2012 (CDT)
Yeah I kinda knew it but wasn't sure. Im just wondering how exactly an M1 would look with a FAL mag. But what about Brazil did they resive any M1s? Mr.Ice
- I think it's the same story as the Argentine Garands just changed to add to the story. It seems to me by searching the net it all the same story so it came from one source. Brazil adopted the FAL in 1964 as there rifle with FN setting up a factory in a trade for coffee production so when did there Garands arrive in Brazil.Why would they convert them if they are already building the FAL? Also there has been no photos that have surfaced of this Brazilian conversion but. Since that kind of work would be done at a Government armory the rifles would have come out with a government crest as did the Colt 1927 pistols made down there and the one rebuilt. My father was involved in the manufacture of BM59's out of demilled M1 and there was a ton of work that was done to the receiver alone not to mention the trigger housing. That is why Beretta who made M1 Garands built all new tooling and made new BM59 and not convert the old M1. I am sure the Italian government looked into that to save some money.--phoenixent 12:36, 12 May 2012 (CDT)
Ironically the BM59 is called "FAL" by Italian Military and Ex-Army Members. It stands for "Fucile d'Assalto Leggero". This is when they dont misID them for Garands.--Dannyguns (talk) 12:13, 31 January 2018 (EST)
The "rifle that won WWII"?
I've heard of people gushing about this battle rifle in that manner (which, if you think a little about it, is manifestly false--soldiers with M1 Garands alone would not have been sufficient to win the day even on D-Day), but I'd like to know just why it's called this way. Is it because it was a mass-produced and standard-issue semiautomatic battle rifle, while virtually every other faction in WWII used bolt-action battle rifles? I suppose the faster rate of fire would have been a tactical advantage, but other WWII armies (such as the Russians or the British) did fairly well against the WWII Germans without standard-issue semiautomatic battle rifles. It'd be interesting to see how the WWII American forces would have done without the M1 Garand/Carbine, especially if they had to use their older M1903 Springfield Rifles and Carbines instead (they'd still have their SMGs in that scenario) to match the standard-issue rifles of the other major WWII players. --Mazryonh (talk) 00:29, 15 January 2013 (EST)
- Patton himself called it "the greatest single battle implement ever devised by man." Considering his belief that he was the reincarnation of several warriors throughout thousands of years of human history, that's quite a compliment. --Funkychinaman (talk) 01:45, 15 January 2013 (EST)
Well, Patton was also someone who didn't believe in the existence of PTSD--if WWI attitudes about PTSD were more widespread at the time, I wonder if he would have had a few of the "malingerers" under his command tied to posts and shot to dissuade the rest of them from "shirking their duty." And to misquote Star Trek: First Contact, the M1 Garand is an imperfect implement made by imperfect beings. Besides, it wasn't the weapon that won WWII, it was the American factories, the bombers, the Sherman tanks, the whole of the Red/British/other allied Armies and their associated infrastructure that helped to win WWII in favour of the Allies. Placing the cause of the victory on one weapon is just hype in my view, unless it's applied purely to the fact that amongst small arms used in WWII, it was a standard-issue battle rifle that happened to be semiautomatic--something that the enemy forces didn't have in such numbers. M1 Garands certainly didn't win the subsequent Korean War despite still being standard-issue at the time. --Mazryonh (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2013 (EST)
- I think you're talking the phrase a little too literally. I don't think anyone truly believes that the Winchester repeating rifle was the "gun that won the West" either. --Funkychinaman (talk) 00:29, 16 January 2013 (EST)
- And you did say the "rifle that won WWII." No, the M1 Garand wasn't as effective as say, the atomic bomb, but I can't think of a better rifle. --Funkychinaman (talk) 03:00, 16 January 2013 (EST)
I see, still, it's riflemen that win rifle fights, not rifles. I might think that the SVT-40 may have been a strong contender for "best WWII rifle" if its Soviet manufacturers had exercised a little more quality control (to make the gun more accurate) and beefed up their industrial capabilities to increase its prevalence. The SVT-40 could be quickly loaded with stripper clips, or individual rounds, or the entire detachable box magazine (rather than solely through an en-bloc clip or somewhat clumsily with loose rounds as with the M1 Garand), had 10 rounds to the Garand's 8, and was semiautomatic with a comparable round. About the only thing it couldn't do was launch rifle grenades, but I'm sure the Soviets would have gotten around to that if they hadn't decided to produce more Mosin Nagant Rifles instead.--Mazryonh (talk) 01:19, 17 January 2013 (EST)
It seems that the subject of whether the M1 Garand's reputation as "the greatest weapon ever made" by General Patton was justified has been discussed by the Firearm Blog. --Mazryonh (talk) 17:28, 20 December 2016 (EST)
M1C and M1D Pictures
The M1C and M1D pictured were both actually M1Ds. I've uploaded a picture of an M1C. It appears to be working correctly on all the linked pages but the thumbnail on the M1 Garand Page is still showing the older picture of an M1D. I'm working on getting it right, but if anyone else beats me to it, that would be fine.
EDIT: Fixed.
- Thank you for bringing it to our attention. (And please sign your posts.) --Funkychinaman (talk) 22:04, 25 April 2013 (EDT)
Type 5 photo
Is it ok to upload the Type 5 photo on the Battlefield wikia?--KuronoX (talk) 20:30, 28 December 2014 (EST)