Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1 Carbine
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old 03-31-2020, 02:55 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstflabn View Post
They didn't want to know.
After the M1903, I would say that is exactly what their position was on failures.

It seems many times when they started to investigate a problem with a service rifle, and they would find out it was worse than they initially thought, they simply quit investigating.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 03-31-2020, 05:25 PM
vagrant vagrant is offline
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Posts: 745
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstflabn View Post
If I can get out my wet noodle to apply to your hide, it would be that you are a bit too willing to accept conclusions of those who are entirely ignorant of the basics (even in those days) of metallurgy. You can't understand an engineering problem without at least a basic understanding of the engineering principles.

With a decent foundation in the basics (through both work and school), my conclusion is they had very poor (approaching nonexistent) control of the process. They didn't want to know.
And there were/are armies of people to look for the work-arounds; looking for the loopholes. It's common for managers to be ignorant of the dynamics and qualifications of the people they depend on for information.
__________________
People, use adverbs please. CORRECT: Do it quickly. INCORRECT: Do it quick. You don't say, "Go there immediate", do you?
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 04-04-2020, 11:59 AM
milwaukeeshaker milwaukeeshaker is online now
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Colorado
Posts: 846
Default

I call B.S., this statement is a total myth. Has been proven to be a myth.


Quote:
Originally Posted by gunny View Post
Penetration of North Korean and Chinese cold weather clothing was hindering "knockdowns" so head shots were called for. Chesty Puller demanded Garands for his Marines armed with Carbines....
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:21 PM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
Yeah on the safety on service rifles. Actually the carbine was probably the safest I've seen. I've never seen really anything negative on their part. The absolute worst was actually the M1 Garand. Army Ordnance covered up a lot of safety problems with the M1. The main engineer at SA states in letters that he was so worried about their safety that he couldn't sleep at night.
I'm assuming that those problems were addressed. As of now, I haven't heard anything out of the ordinary, other than the occasional out of battery firing that any semi auto rifle can produce.

I know of gas cylinders that were blown off gas trap M1s and cracked receiver heels from various causes. The round firing pin could also be considered a safety issue. The 016 bolt recall could have been too. Are there any other safety issues, not covered in the current Garand knowledge base, that current Garand owners should be made aware of? Perhaps that could be addressed on the Garand forum to avoid more thread drift here.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 04-04-2020, 12:59 PM
condor condor is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Firstflabn View Post
Such sweeping claims need to be supported by sources. General terms like 'almost all', 'very few' and 'most' are characterizations. How many is 'many'?
Those are terms purposely used when numbers are unknown. They tell the reader some information, but make no claim in their exactitude.
Reply With Quote
  #76  
Old 04-04-2020, 01:14 PM
condor condor is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
On the Marines and the Garand. They were ordered to find a 7.62 Cal rifle to align with the Nato cartridge. They were given so many years to find one. I can't remember when the due date was, maybe 1963 or 1965. I think they started about 1958 if I remember right. I didn't go back and read the orders again to make sure. But they were not happy about the change, but they had to do it. So they went about trying to find a rifle.
Why did the Marines fail to convert the M1s when the Italians and the Navy managed?
Reply With Quote
  #77  
Old 04-05-2020, 02:13 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rock View Post
I'm assuming that those problems were addressed. As of now, I haven't heard anything out of the ordinary, other than the occasional out of battery firing that any semi auto rifle can produce.

I know of gas cylinders that were blown off gas trap M1s and cracked receiver heels from various causes. The round firing pin could also be considered a safety issue. The 016 bolt recall could have been too. Are there any other safety issues, not covered in the current Garand knowledge base, that current Garand owners should be made aware of? Perhaps that could be addressed on the Garand forum to avoid more thread drift here.
Yeah there were quite a few safety problems with the Garand in the Ordnance docs that I have never seen published. Some they tried to fix, but some when they investigated them they found were problems with metallurgy and design. It would have scrapped large amounts of parts and cost them a ton of money, so you see them sort of just ignore them and hope for the best.

But I sort of learned my lesson when I posted the problems on the M1917 and some guys had melt downs. If I ever post the problems on the M1 Garand, I would probably try to see if the GCA would want to publish them.
Reply With Quote
  #78  
Old 04-05-2020, 02:18 PM
cplnorton cplnorton is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Van Wert, Ohio
Posts: 2,072
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by condor View Post
Why did the Marines fail to convert the M1s when the Italians and the Navy managed?
I'm not sure how the Italian design works. I really don't study the .308 Garands. But I know one design the Marines tested were the Navy conversions, which they did not like.

There was another version they tested as well, but I don't remember what it was offhand. It's been at least a year since I looked at those trials and I barely skimmed over them.

I just remember the designs they tried were not reliable. They had so many failures in a certain amount of rounds which disqualified them.

From my memory it was always a problem with reliability. But I would have to go back and read them for sure to answer more as I know I'm rusty on them.
Reply With Quote
  #79  
Old 04-05-2020, 02:47 PM
condor condor is offline
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: Houston, Texas
Posts: 361
Default

I wonder how much attention they gave to the M1s with 7.62mm inserts and those with true 7.62 barrels.

Thanks for all your info.
Reply With Quote
  #80  
Old 04-07-2020, 12:16 AM
Rock Rock is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,084
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cplnorton View Post
I sort of learned my lesson when I posted the problems on the M1917 and some guys had melt downs. If I ever post the problems on the M1 Garand, I would probably try to see if the GCA would want to publish them.
I see your point. If I had those documents, I would post photos and I would not post any personal commentary on them. Let the documents speak for themselves. If some members had meltdowns, then so be it. They can complain to the ordnance officials who wrote them.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:23 AM.