I'm a little curious as to why the M1 Garand was designed to use the en bloc clip design and not either an internal magazine or detachable box? Both technologies were available (heck, the BAR had detachable box magazines in WWI, and the Soviets had a few albeit unsuccessful designs before the SVT40). It seems like it was an overly complicated system with little return benefit.

Heya Eso, hows it going?...I have a M-1 Garand as well as a fair bit of literature but I dont know if any of it answers your question.

But I'll throw in my guesses...Much cheaper (and simpler) than a box mag and automatically ejected, Much (much) faster than a reload with strippers
or singles stuffed into an internal mag.
However the system limitations were addressed with the later M-1A which carried a box mag.

Lastly the system is pretty nifty, you can really crank off the rounds with little practice...and it was MILES ahead of the competition at the time.

Oh yeah, I'm aware that the Garand was lightyears ahead of the competition. Whiel faster reloading would be an advantage, I'm really wondering if this is the reason Garand selected the system, or if there is some other. After all, if it is such a great system, why didn't the G43 and SVT40 use it?

[edit on 11-22-2004 by Esoterica]

I'm going to take a guess and say that in the day that the M-1 was being developed most experts worshipped at the alter of shot placement. Marine Chesty Puller did not favor the M-1 because he thought it would lead to less well-aimed fire and wasted ammunition.

So, I would say that the rifle was designed according to the tactical norms of the day and I would say that the clip was probably considered to be an efficient and less complex means to carry and load ammo. A box magazine is one more thing to clean and keep mechanically sound.



[edit on 04/11/22 by GradyPhilpott]

Yes...I agree with Grady...remember, the previous way was the five round stripper(M1903) so the 8 round en-bloc was a major step forward plus it was easy to produce millions of them.

Well, the M1 was originally chambered with a lighter round that allwoed a 10-shot clip, but the brass wanted the 30-06, so it went back and was redesigned to accomodate.

What funny is that the M1A1 Carbine had a detachable 15-round box, so obviously the military wasn't totally opposed to a box-fed rifle. Then again, it was to be issued to second line troops, so maybe they didn't value it as highly (although more of them were produced than the Garand, but that's likely because for every front line soldier, there were 5 soldiers supporting him).

[edit on 11-22-2004 by Esoterica]

Negative, the M-1 Garand was originally chambered for the .30 '06

the M-1903 springfield was originally chambered for the .30 '03 round but was quickly rechambered for the new and improved spitzer cartridge
which was simply a scaled down version of the .50 bmg when the Ord dept found out what good results the germans were having with the spitzer rounds. That was in 1906 hence the .30 '06 nomenclature

some M-1 garands were later fitted with a "sleeve" to rechamber them to the .308 (7.62X51) cartridge and some were rebarreled in .308 .
still however 8 rounds.

I think it is often forgotten that the M-1 Carbine was designed for those who would normally carry a pistol. I've heard many who cursed the carbine for it's lack of power, but when it is compared to the .45, it is an attractive alternative, I think.

Another thing to consider is that pistolcraft took a giant leap forward in the fifties, when the likes of Jeff Cooper and Jack Weaver developed efficient and efffective combat and marksmanship techniques. So, when it was introduced, the carbine raised the level of survivabilty of those in command and support positions.

[edit on 04/11/22 by GradyPhilpott]

Originally posted by Esoterica
On a side not, I really wish the US would have pursued the M2 into a true assault rifle, instead of going with the M-14 and realizing it was wholly inadequate for the role.

Not that the M-14 is not an excellent weapon, because it is an awesome rifle, but I have always wondered why the military chose to improve the M-1, when the tactical handwriting was on the wall, regarding short medium caliber rifles. I'm guessing that the M-14 was built for a NATO war, not a SEATO war.

Originally posted by GradyPhilpott
Not that the M-14 is not an excellent weapon, because it is an awesome rifle,

True, but you shouldn't bring a rifle to an assault rifle fight.

but I have always wondered why the military chose to improve the M-1, when the tactical handwriting was on the wall, regarding short medium caliber rifles. I'm guessing that the M-14 was built for a NATO war, not a SEATO war.

Every explanation I've heard is that the brass just didn't want an assault rifle. They were still a little romanticized with the "One shot, one kill" battles at hundreds of yards, and not what war had actually become.

Ah, thanks for the clarification.

Just a correction, I should have said the M1 Carbine. The M1A1 was simply paratrooper version.