Talk:M1 Garand

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the proposal was consensus for move.--Fuhghettaboutit (talk) 12:13, 14 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: In the article about the Garand, the caliber is listed as .30-'06 or 7.62 x 51 mm NATO.  The 7.62 x 51 mm NATO (.308) is used in the M1A.  The metric description for the .30-'06 should be 7.72 x 63 mm.  Further in the text, there is reference to a civilian version of the Garand offered in .30-'06 and .308.  The .308 version would be an M1A offered by Springfield Armory.  BOSF53 (talk) 15:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you're wrong on all counts.  Garand was offered in .308 as well as 30-06. Metric designation is not "7.72mm" anything. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 17:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The M1A is a version of the M14 not the M1. --< Nicht Nein! (talk) 19:34, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The US Navy converted over 30,000 M1 rifles to 7.62mm NATO after 1963 as sufficient numbers of M14 were not available to them for issue.  The US Army also experimented with this prior to the development of the T44/M14, and held out the possbility for performing further conversions as a contingency should a major war break out before enough M14 could be built.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 22:22, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: Not even going to justify the "Military Channel" reference.  I'll just chalk this up to ignorance of the facts.  Read D.E. Watters' post above.  Military Channel... <sigh>. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 22:43, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

text: The 7.62mm M1 rifles were all converted from .30-06.  Actually, it didn't require much reworking.  Some conversions used a chamber insert in the original .30-06 barrel, while others were rebarreled.  The other requirement was a spacing block in the magazine to compensate for the difference in cartridge length.  I can't remember if they had to play with the size of the gas port in the barrels using the chamber inserts.  --D.E. Watters (talk) 17:56, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Excuse my curt posts above.  The only modification required for the .308 (7.62x51mm) in a Garand was a chamber insert.  These were inserted in the chamber and a cartridge fired to seat them.  Later, problems with the inserts coming out and imperfect 'fixes' to keep them in prompted the manufacture of new barrels and rebarreling troubled rifles.  There are other things that can be done to tune a Garand to work better with .308, but they are not necessary.  Primary user was the Navy however it became popular with civilian shooters as well.  Commercial Garands were also produced in .308 as well as the Italian series of Garands and later Garand descendants, many of which were in .308.  These are distinguishable from the M14 which is an entirely new weapon. --Nukes4Tots (talk) 19:49, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: For clarity, the M1 Garand is available in both calibers. The CMP currently issue both I believe but their matches require the weapons to be specifically .30-06 and no .308 re-chambered weapons are allowed.Ref If the CMP re-arsenals such that it is rendered a .308, then they will stamp it as such.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 20:55, 17 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caliber listing for M1 Garand 

message: This has already been discredited as being hearsay. The only thing that you can hear whether you are 75 yards or 15 yards away and downrange is the bolt racking forward after reload.  The person operating the weapon may hear a ping however slight but he/she is the one handling the weapon and not a german, italian or japanese downrange listening for a distinctive ping waiting for the right moment to charge.  By the time they would hear anything,(which would be the bolt racking forward) it would be too late.  Just ask any dead japanese or german soldiers.  So, can we remove this nonsense from the article? These are always the things that are heard by people who have never been on the battlefield or simply put the myth to the test.
71.60.202.180 (talk) 04:19, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: You'll need a reliable source debunking this if the information is to be removed as the statement you question is sourced by two works. I have also wondered about the pings from time to time, seeing has how a soldier is rarely alone (meaning that even if one guy has an empty rifle, you'll probably get shot by his buddy if you charge when one rifle is empty) and how can a ping be heard over the sound of gun fire prevalent on the field of battle etc. What you say makes a lot of sense, but as I said, you'll need a source.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:17, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

text: Agreed.  I also own a match-grade M-1, and served for fifteen years as a Marine, all but 3 of those years in infantry units.  Riflemen in combat typically do not wear hearing protection.  Once the firing starts, you aren't hearing a bloody thing for several hours.  Since this is both common sense and practical experience - neither of which are recognized by Wikipedia, it does not count as a source.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.64.0.252 (talk) 17:02, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

text: *The clip definitely pings as it is released from the rifle. It can make another as it hits a hard surface, but there's always one from the release. You can youtube "garand ping" for real world examples, as well as real-world "proof" (such as a camera's microphone can give) that the ping is indeed hard/impossible to hear when it happens during live-fire. Nothing RS enough to change the article though. CrowCaw 20:45, 12 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  The "distinctive Ping" heard from the clip being ejected? 

message: Canada used the M1 with the 1SSF. Also, post war in Europe some troops were issued them to have compatibility with US troops. These rifles were marked with a W. In addition, the Dominion Arsenal in Quebec made en blocs. 174.5.11.131 (talk) 06:04, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canada 

message: The "Development" section talks about T1E1, T2E3, etc, but doesn't indicate what these terms mean.  What are they?  --Badger151 (talk) 00:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Experimental versions as seen here.⋙–Berean–Hunter—► 01:45, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  What is T1E1? 

message: While Mr. Garand may have been Canadian, does not necessarily mean the country of origin was Canada. In fact, Garand was working for a US company (Springfield Armory)in the US, meaning the country of origin is the United States rather than Canada... I find it odd either way that Canada is listed as an origin country of such a mass produced firearm, yet they do not even use it.
AloDurranium (talk) 00:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian Origin? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20061109091157/http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf to http://www.springfield-armory.com/Manuals/M1GarandManual.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:06, 29 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: We used M1 rifles on rare occasions for target practice in the Greek army (in 2004) in addition to the normally distributed G3A3 rifles we had. I suppose they did that simply to get rid of old ammunition. Should I edit the entry under Users from "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard." to "Still in use for ceremonial duties by the Presidential Guard and for training." or is my first person testimony too vague and too unencyclopaedic? Iago212 12:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Personal recollection is not considered a reliable source, I'm afraid. If you can find a source for this info (e.g. a magazine article), we're in business.--Sus scrofa (talk) 13:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

text: The most recent American Presidential inauguration showed ceremonial guards armed with M1 Garands.Blamazon (talk) 19:57, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  To edit or not to edit 

message: "Demilitarized models have modifications to prevent reversion. The gas cylinder lock screw is welded to the gas lock and gas cylinder and the firing pin hole is welded closed on the bolt face. The barrel is drilled-out, plugged and welded at the chamber mouth and then welded to the receiver". Can somebody please translate this to meaningful civilian language. Demilitarized ? Reversion ? The basic idea being ? Rcbutcher (talk) 12:24, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Demilitarized models ?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915225950/http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com:80/fieldstrip.html to http://www.civilianmarksmanship.com/fieldstrip.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140921011646/http://www.ruger.com:80/products/mini14/index.html to http://ruger.com/products/mini14/index.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:00, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: , , I looked at the AfD for the model 1919, and it looks, frankly, like a POV based decision.  I think it might deserve an article, even though its influence was mostly indirect. Anmccaff (talk) 22:51, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't seeing a particular POV, but it didn't look like strong opposition, either. Problems with who wrote it can be overcome, if the original pagedata is salvageable, & I'd be happy to redo, if it is. The merge &/or notability issue remains...  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 23:53, 9 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Any admin should be able to userfy it for you, if it's not a copyvio. But I don't know if it would need to go though Deletion Review to be restored to mainspace. I've no opinion on notability, as I haven't seen the sources. - BilCat (talk) 02:30, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: IMO, it's safe to guess I can get it back up; I rescued Hiroahata Merc Hirohata Merc after it was taken down off a copyvio, & that only needed rewording; this wouldn't even need that. It would, tho, be right back at the "non-notable" that got it nom'd AfD in the first place...& unless we can get more than just us agreeing it's worth putting back, it's a waste of effort. Much as I want to bluelink it, I'm not doing a futile exercise... So, I'm going to flag it at MilHist & Firearms & see if it gets any interest.  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 11:01, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: It's up on the post-wiki wiki The article would, I think, survive a good-faith AfD, although it is kinda thin; given the subject matter, and the former filer, it'd still be vulnerable. So, yeah, maybe waiting on a few better sources will have to do. Anmccaff (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Better to put material into this article as part of the background and development rather than try and build a separate borderline-AfD article??. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe a section here, but that seems a bit OT, & over-emphasis 1 type to the exclusion of others... (If I had my way, they'd all get a page.)  TREKphiler any time you're ready, Uhura 19:10, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd thought about the mis-labling, also, that really should be named Garand primer-actuated rifles or suchlike.  Anmccaff (talk) 19:32, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Adding sourced information here is a good first step. If someone objects that it's too much information, then it would be easier to make a case for splitting it to its own article. (There's more than one way to work a bureaucracy!) - BilCat (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that's our solution! Well done, M. Poirot. :D Who knows the Admin to ping for release of the relevant pagedata? Will you oblige us?    Agatha Christie I always knew you weren't French 23:17, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

text: That "M0" was a joke...a pun on predating the M1.  The Unknown Comic get the last laugh 00:55, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  1919 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100503023852/http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html to http://www.rifleshootermag.com/featured_rifles/RS_minigrowsup_200804/index.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060509040711/http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf to http://www.gunsmagazine.com/bm59/GCA0283.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160205063717/https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg to http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/tr/a/a4/Newsweek_26_A%C4%9Fustos_1974_kapak.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:33, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The stuff recently added looks quite possibly partly true, but so badly sourced I nuked it awaiting something more authoritative. Anmccaff (talk) 17:37, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Good call, I translated and read the source. No mention of Yugoslavia use of Garands in it. Samf4u (talk)  17:44, 16 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yugoslavia 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20111027203952/http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf to http://www.smallarmsreview.com/pdf/Berettatypee.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140429075927/http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg to http://www.expoyeosu2012turkey.com/assets/Uploads/46658052569aff040907z.jpg
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:10, 27 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on M1 Garand. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081002055115/http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm to http://world.guns.ru/rifle/rfl05-e.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Ljungman was used quite commonly for direct-gas systems, including some that had only a passing resemblance to the AG42. Anmccaff (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Ljungman]] 

message: Foot note 1 is mostly already contained in the lede. Why the redundancy?  --84.132.147.249 (talk) 22:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Those are the official US military designations.--Sus scrofa (talk) 09:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foot Note 1 

message: Could someone help me include the picture from 
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Copenhagen_2014-05-21_(14109673437).jpg 
showing Norwegian Drill soldiers with their M1's?  
Bjs5005 (talk) 22:36, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that picture might be good to illustrate the unit, but as an illustration of the M1? It really only shows the rifles’ slings. Qwirkle (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add picture of M1 used by another nation 

message: I have been digging up information on the Garand since I knew WWII existed. But I still have the same question I had since then.
While inserting a full en bloc clip into the open magazine well with your thumb on the top of the first cartridge case(not the bullet, because this causes Garand thumb) and completely push the clip into the gun(all the way), you can simply lift your thumb up quickly and the bolt will chamber a round. You can do this because if you have your thumb firmly on the top cartridge case, your thumb has enough friction to hold the bolt back long enough to let the gun automatically chamber the first round without having to hold back the bolt or get Garand thumb.
Am I right about this?Blamazon (talk) 19:37, 28 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Garand Reloading 

message: The page to which "Adjutant General John B. Shuman" was linked to did not exist, so I removed it and made it a normal part of the text back on Feb 24 of this year. Chevy217 (talk) 19:14, 3 March 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adjutant General John B. Shuman hyperlink removed 

message: Under the section of Current Users, some of the countries have the M1 Garand as only a ceremonial weapon, such as Belgium, Greece, and Turkey, which makes sense. But then under Former Users, there are countries which still use it as a standard ceremonial weapon, such as Japan, South Korea, Philippines, and the United States, are not under Current Users, which does not make sense. Is there a reason on why there are not all under the same section or should they be moved to be correct? CloneCommanderFordo (talk) 18:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah i know for a fact that it is still used for training conscripts in the Thai army as i have photos of them in use dated 11/2/24 unsure as to why it is considered former. Bawbagimusprime (talk) 00:54, 11 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question on some of the Countries under Users