M1 Garand Vs. Gewehr 43

[Thomas2]

M1 Garand

Service 1936-1957 (Used past this in the Vietnam War but not a whole bunch)

Caliber .30-06 Springfield

Effective Range 440 Yards

Feed System 8 round "En Bloc" Clip

Number Manufactured Aprox 6.25 million

Gewehr 43

Service 1943-1945

Caliber 8x57mm IS

Effective Range 500m

Feed System 10-round detachable box magazine

Number Manufactured 402,713

So what we got ourselves here is America's M1 Garand vs Hitlers Garand

Which is BETTER (In your OWN opinion) and WHY

Rules:

1. Talk only about THESE 2 WEAPONS

2. NEVER refer to any other model/varient.

My Ruling: I would have to go for the Good ole' M1 Garand, why? Because simply (IMO) it is much eaiser to clean and the En Bloc clip is easier to load instead of the 10 round detachable box magazine of the G43, Though the G43 has a bigger round, i will always go for the M1 Garand because 30-06 has never failed me at the firing range, Unlike the Gewehr 43, beautiful weapon but if not taken care properly you will have more issues with the operating rod cracking more than the M1 Garand (Though anyone who owns a gun should KNOW to clean it maybe a hour after useing it NEVER the next day or couple of days that just shows your not taking care of your gun properly)

Edited January 20, 2012 by D. Thomas 1st MRB

[Cevasco]

As much as i hate to against the garand i think the gewehr was better. It was made of better quality materials and not mass produced like the garand.

[Pangilinan 1st MRB]

As much as i hate to against the garand i think the gewehr was better. It was made of better quality materials and not mass produced like the garand.

1) Mass Production doesn't mean it is cheap or unworthy.

An AK is mass produced and everyone from the ChiComs to Israel (in the form of the Galil) has used it.

This isn't some dollar store toy. This is an exquisite weapon of an era that expected scrawny boys to be able to lug around a 10 pound weapon, chambered in .30 cal, and not bitch about it. As the Japanese knew and the Nazis didn't, we had the industrial capacity to churn out the stuff. Segwaying, an historian described the allies as such. The Sovs gave the blood. The British the time. American gave the materiel and money. For every G41 and G43 that was produced, a rifle with an industry already supporting its creation churned out hundreds more.

2) Define better materials. Was the stock made of walnut? Oak? Was the wooden furniture comprised of heavy grained wood? Lightly grained wood? Were the recievers milled or stamped? Were they using higher quality steel? You got to give me specifics.

I go for the M1 Garand. If you'll go to wiki's page on it, and see the ammounts of vairants produced, it had a longer service life that allowed problems that had arisen to be removed, unlike the G43. The Garand, since it's introduction as the military's service rifle in 1936, had to fulfill a myriad amount of qualifications from the US Army Ordinance Office. Many of these claims were ridiculous to our eyes but if you look for conservatism in procedures in the military, you will find it at Ordinance.

The common faults cited is often 'heavy, 8 rounds, ping'. If the military back then deemed it heavy, they could've asked to design it with less wood furniture. As for the rounds, military back then didn't like protuding box mags, and to be fair, 8 beats 5. Which is what the Mauser held. In 1936, that was the M1's main rival. The Enfield held 10 but it was a friendly allied nation. So far, back then, such features were not as 'old' as we think they are and were innovated for their time.

Frankly, the German rifle seemed like a catch-up. Semi-automatic weapons are not new. The Mexican Mondragon rifle, I believe was patented in the late 1800s or early 1900s. And even in the M1's era, the SVT-40 to me was the more recognizable in my mind. The issue with the en-blocks not being able to be partially loaded seems to stem primarily from Hollywood, media, and the fact we had the logistics train that made an expenditure of ammunition possible.

And frankly, the M1 was carried by US Army soldiers under General MacArthur's command that liberated my grandfather from a Japanese POW camp, while the G43 were used to shoot at Patton's men.

M1, hands down.

Disregard. I lost the debate due to breaking the rules.

Edited January 20, 2012 by Pangilinan 1st MRB

[Luna 1st MRB]

An AK is mass produced and everyone from the ChiComs to Israel (in the form of the Galil) has used it.

And you lose.

Rules:

1. Talk only about THESE 2 WEAPONS

2. NEVER refer to any other model/varient.

Guns go boom.

[Thomas2]

You're right Luna. I want you people to know when you do post something that is against those 2 simple rules your argument on whatever rifle you think is better is gone everyone should ignore it and not rebuttle that persons arguement or final say to it.

[Englebretson 1st MRB]

Garand only b/c of the service life and the combat proven efficiency during ww2.

[Logsdon]

M1, because it's 'murican and if we won the war then it was doing something right

[Griswold]

I would have to go with the M1 only reason being because i have never heard of this other rifle which strikes me as that it was either wasn't very good or wasn't very reliable to get mentioned. I usually watch Military Channel's Weaponology and History Channel stuff and never heard of this other rifle.

[Thomas2]

the G43 is actually a great rifle i use to own it along with my father but we sold it a year ago for some extra cash to get our SVT-40. I have to say it's an excellent weapon besides it's 10 round detachable box magazine. that toke a bit longer than the M1 Garands en bloc clip to reload. but the 8mm IS when it hits. you are going to be seriously injured or dead instantly. this round has always pleased me along with the M1 Garand.