M1A and M1 Fail Spectacularly
- Thread starter Goose762
- Start date
While this is true and it helped when shells start landing and sand and whatever is thrown in the air it can land on the gun. At Normandy the Americans wrapped their Garands in plastic bags until they were well ashore as they had known problems with jambing if they got dirty. Much as I love historic firearms if my life depended on it I would prefer a modern design as they can handle poor conditions better than the old semi autos. The new M16 derivatives have been vastly improved when it comes to performing in crappy conditions. Look back at WW1. Canadian soldiers ditched their Ross rifles because they kept jambing in the mud while the SMLE didn't. Snipers loved the Ross as it was very accurate and they were in a better position to keep them clean than the average soldier. Every gun will fail if you abuse it enough but the longer it goes before that happens the better. In combat you can't necessarily clean the rifle after every 50 rounds. This is one of the reasons the AK47 series is so popular they can take incredible abuse and keep working. So yes this particular test is not exactly what happens in combat but it is not necessarily as far out there as you might think.
This was not my experience with the C7 at all. I found it utterly reliable (though the horrifically abused training weapons given to the BMQs and SQs were definitely less so.) If my rifle got sandy during a maneuver, not to worry, all you had to do was shoot it. The more you shoot, the better it shot. The DI system re lubricates the internal mechanism and blasts debris out the ejection port.
If you guys bothered to check out their channel, and you really shoud, it's one of the best gun channels around, you'd see they performed that test on a wide variety of rifles, the vz58, the AK, the RDB, Even a Fench MAS49. They are the first to admit it is a catastrophic worst-case-scenario test that will end nearly any rifle. But the point they were trying to make was that roomy interior designs don't matter as much as the ability to keep gunk out of your rifle's internal action. To make that point, they targetted all the rifles typically touted by the internet forum-goers as legendary wood-and-steel ol' reliables.
Unfortunately for rifles like the M1A, sensitive key components of the rifle's action are located on the outside of the rifle.
M1A's are gorgeous looking firearms that make for great target rifles, but there are legitimate reasons why it was so swiftly replaced by the American Military. Stop taking it so personally.
Also, if you watched their channel, you'd know that they asked the CMP for the most beat up, worst-shape rifle they had.
Last edited:
so you don't agree that a soldier will do what is necessary to keep his gun working during battle? Like trying to keep it out of the mud and water?
Hitting the sauce a bit early are ya today? Or maybe you think JT already legalized that which he said he would and have been celebrating.
And as part of the test, pointed it in a safe direction and attempted immediate actions to clear the malfunction, as a soldier would in the field.
You take all precautions to keep your rifle from getting unnecessarily dirty, of course. But it's not always up to you! You say "Oh if I were conducting an assault through mud, I'd just keep it out of the mud!" as if it were the easiest thing in the world.
This deserves a
I'm not sure what's more spectacular, these attitudes or the number of people who apparently don't watch forgottenweapons or inrange videos. They're the best gun-related channels out there, by far.
They actually first did a test where they literally crawled through natural mud, and got similar results.
https://www.full30.com/video/9eef6b3a4eb6c8846a4c8dc4b8968bc4
They were inundated with comments about how the AR15 somehow got off easy (which is a patently ridiculous notion).
This resulted in the wheelbarrow tests. It's my understanding they were all done on the same day in the same mud to make the testing as consistent and fair as possible.
The fact is these guys are subjecting their own AR15s, M1As, Garands, AKs, etc to horrific abuse for your benefit. How many of you would do something like this just to find out what happens? There's a lot of talk about how the test is "obvious and predictable" but if asked yesterday which rifle would fair better in a test like this, how many of you would say the Garand would beat out the AR15 hands down? Near all of you, I'd bet. I thought the AK would do way better than it did, myself.
BattleRife
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- of No Fixed Address
The M1 Garand was noted to have functioning problems when wet virtually since it entered service. The US Army invested a lot of effort trying to find a grease that would stay in place on the op rod notch and bolt cam when fired in the rain, they were never entirely successful. That critical area is just too exposed. The M14 used a roller that was better, but still not great.
In other words, this is not a new finding.
In other words, this is not a new finding.
Of course, considering the US Army ordnance board deliberately sabotaged the rifle in a desperate attempt to save the M14.
http://anarchangel.########.ca/2007/02/whos-at-fault-for-m16.html
Don't know about you, but I've been there. Individuals often have very little direct control of their immediate situation when in uniform. You do what you can, but it's not always enough. Different if it's done online though.
I guess if you ignore the identical AK, vz58, RDB and AR15 videos they did, sure, you could say that.
DaveMachine
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- That one place with a cowboy complex
Another test
.. In large measure, the US experienced "problems" with the M16 in Vietnam for three basic reasons. The first being that it was touted as being virtually maintenance free, just look at the comic book type of instructions that were issued with the gun. The second reason, and one that was out of the "Grunts" hands and beyond the control of the M16s designer and the manufacturers, was that the powder used in the ammunition was changed without there being proper testing and evaluation. The powder produced much more fouling and fouling that was harder to remove in actual jungle field conditions. To over come in part at least, the problem, the "Forward Assist" feature was added. Until that point, a swift kick was the method used to chamber a round when the chamber was fouled. The third contributing factor was the tight chamber. In later models/versions, the chambers were fractional enlarged, which went a long way to solving the problem. ...... Development and constant evaluation is a logical step, and what better testing program than actual field testing in combat? ..... David K
Last edited:
Lol I find it hard to believe that some people on here have to argue their side about how modern guns handle "tourture test" better than fifty year old designs and get butt hurt when others do not agree with them. Cars of today are much better designed than those in the sixties but what I wouldn't do for a mint 60's muscle car. It's all about what you like.
