Despite early shortages, by the summer of '42, the M-1 "Garand" was the weapon given to all frontline riflemen.
In the field, the M-1 gave American infantry a tremendous firepower advantage over Axis forces, who still carried bolt-action rifles (Mauser 98), the same weapon used by the Kaiser's troops who slogged through the trenches during the First World War.
With its 8-shot, rapid-fire semi-automatic operation, the M-1 allowed U.S. forces to maintain substantially higher rates of suppressive fire, and caused the enemy to keep their heads down; thus the GI's could then maneuver against them.
This not only gave the Americans confidence they could not be defeated, but also enabled each member of a rifle squad the ability to be a "commander," and take the initiative against static Japanese and German soldiers, who stood in their emplacements.
The M1's heavy 30.06 bullet also offered superior penetrating power.
Powerful and rugged, the Garand was capable of sustaining incredible abuse (mud, dirt, snow, ice, sand, tropical heat, moisture), yet would still function perfectly- knocking down an enemy at 600 meters.
The rifle proved so effective that General Dwight D. Eisenhower praised it as "the greatest implement of battle ever devised." Following the war, M-1s in U.S. arsenals were refurbished, even seeing action in the Korean War.
An American 8-man rifle squad could lay down such crippling, accurate waves of fire that it led to many Germans thinking the G.I's were fully-equipped with personal machine-guns. The M-1's sheer stopping power and kill ratio made it a precise tool in the hands of a skilled rifleman.
In short-range jungle fighting - where opposing forces often met each other in column formation -the penetration of the powerful M-1 enabled a single U.S. infantryman to kill up to three Japanese soldiers with ONE shot.
Recall the realistic opening action on Omaha Beach, in Steven Spielberg's World War II masterpiece, "Saving Private Ryan."
The American troops are hopelessly pinned down, below a concrete-enclosed German machine gun nest- a seemingly impregnable obstacle.
But as the GI's poke their heads around the rocks, delivering a series of deadly-accurate 8-shot fusillades, they eventual pick off enough German machine-gunners that they have time to maneuver and plant explosives, blasting their way through the barrier; literally saving Omaha Beach - and the entire Normandy invasion - from disaster; all thanks to the incredible Garand rifle!
General Patton once said the M1 Garand was the best weapon of war in modern history: (quote)..."It is without a doubt the major reason for the U.S. infantry's success against German forces in Europe."
The M1 Garand remained the principal service rifle of the US Army until the introduction of the M-14 in 1957. It was not until 1965, that the changeover from the M1 was completed.
Though retired from combat use, the M1 remains ever-popular with drill teams and civilian collectors.
Korean War historians have ALL noted the phenomenal love of the American infantryman for the M-1, who, without reservation, all candidly stated they could not possibly think of replacing it with anything else.
No matter the war, the fact the the M-1 always fired in ANY condition- it's incredibly reliability, and its power to suppress the enemy- gave it its incredible reputation as the best all-around rifle in military history.
But when the 1960's rolled around, those who forced the adoption of the toy-like M-16 had forgotten this critical fact. Had we not switched-over to the unreliable M-16, could the U.S. have triumphed in Vietnam? Would we have lost even half as many men?
In the teeming Vietnamese tropics, the M-16 often FAILED. The concept of saturation fire (and abandonment of individual rifle skills) became the new tactical paradigm. The American military - for the first time in its proud history - sensed defeat.
The M-16 is fragile, lacks power and range, and is but moderately accurate - designed with the idea that the soldier substitutes a high volume of automatic fire, instead of precision marksmanship.
Of all the 20th century's military rifles tested (by experts), the early M-16s proved the worst – absolutely unreliably and mostly unusable. America has lost men by the thousands because of this horrid, so-called "weapon."
Anecdotal stories relate that the M-16 was such junk that the North Vietnamese actually told their troops not to pick up "the little black rifles," because they could not do their cause any good.
In a remarkable quote from an old American sargeant of three previous wars..."Many of us would have been glad to have the old M-1s, or even the M-14s back. At one point I carried a Chinese SKS for several weeks, just to have something I could count on."
In 1947, a Russian named Kalashnikov - not an engineer (strictly self-taught) - produced one of the great gun designs of history...the AK-47. Despite being in its fourth generation of warfare, there still remains no better all around automatic assault rifle anywhere in the world.
So is it time we resurrect the old M-1; is it truly obsolete?
Is the AK-47 the reason we lost in Vietnam? The fact that ALL Taliban and al-Qaeda terrorists use it...is that why they keep coming back, and have now taken the upper hand?
To tens of thousands of U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan, no weapon is more important than their standard-issue rifle, the M-4, a so-called "advanced version" of the junk-proven M-16.
The M4 - firing at a rate of 700 to 950 bullets a minute- is a shorter and lighter version of its predecessor M16 rifle, used 40 years ago during the Vietnam War. It normally carries a 30-round magazine.
At about $1,500 apiece, the M4 is overpriced, jams too often, and requires far more maintenance than a basic, more durable carbine.
Senator Tom Coburn (R- OK) recently testified before the Senate Armed Services Committee: (quote)..."If you tend to have a problem at the wrong time, you're putting your life on the line," said Mr. Coburn, who began examining the M4's performance last year after receiving complaints from soldiers: "The fact is, the American GI today doesn't have the best weapon..."
That's the overriding question that should concern all of America:
Are we sending our young men out there in the most desolate, god-forsaken of conditions, with weapons better designed for sportsmen and firing ranges? Are our soldiers being defeated for some foolish reasons of Pentagon procurement contracts? Is the M-4 why theTaliban is winning the Afghani war?
During an early-morning assault last year- on a remote U.S. outpost in Afghanistan - Staff Sgt. Erich Phillips' M-4 had quit firing, just as militants surrounded the base. The machine gun he grabbed after tossing the rifle aside didn't work either.
When the battle ended, nine U.S. soldiers lay dead and 27 more were wounded. A detailed study of the attack by a military analyst found that weapons failed repeatedly at a ''critical moment'' during the firefight at Wanat on July 13, 2008, putting the outnumbered American troops at risk of being overrun by nearly 200 insurgents.
Which raises the question: Eight years into the war against the Taliban - do U.S. armed forces have the best guns money can buy?
Despite the military's insistence that they do, a small but vocal number of troops in Afghanistan and Iraq have complained that the standard-issue M4 rifles..."need too much maintenance; frequently jam...often overheating at the worst times."
Not surprisingly, Army officials say that when properly MAINTAINED, the M-4 is a quality weapon that can pump out more than 3,000 rounds before any failures occur.
But the soldiers surviving Wanat contradicted Army officials; saying their weapons were meticulously cared for and routinely inspected by commanders, but STILL had breakdowns, especially when the rifles were on "full-automatic," which allows bullets to be fired at 900/minute.
''My weapon was overheating,'' said one surviving soldier...''I had shot about 12 magazines and it had only been about a half hour or so into the fight. I couldn't change my weapon or put another clip in because it was too hot, so I got mad and threw my weapon down.''
The soldier threw down his weapon?
Is this "police action" not eerily reminiscent of the Vietnam war, where our soldiers were fighting on political, rather than military grounds? And are we not losing this bizarre Afghani conflict for the same reasons; that our world's best soldiers are being issued decidedly inferior weapons, against the tried and true AK 47's, and rifle-rocket launchers of the Taliban?
Are these NOT the exact same weapons the Viet Cong and the North Vietnam used to defeat us 40 years ago? Have we learned nothing of the Vietnam experience? Or that of World War II and Korea?
Apparently not!
In 1968, after our soldiers repelled the surprising success of the Tet Offensive, could we not have easily gathered together a strike force of 100,000 well-armed troops carrying M-1 and M-14 rifles, and launched a decisive ground assault - strait up the narrow, north Vietnam terrain, and captured Hanoi (ala World War 2 style) where you win the war by capturing the enemies' capitol?
And could we not have recommissioned (out of mothballs) the three "Iowa" class 16-inch-gun battleships (9 main guns each)...the Missouri, Wisconsin, and New Jersey; then sailed the old World War II behemoths up to within 20 miles of Haiphong, then blasted North Vietnam's main port of entry into the twilight zone - never to be functional again?
Such a move would have immediately effected two things:
1) it would have caused Ho Chi Min to scream, "ENOUGH! You win!"
2) it would have convinced our enemies (the Russians, the Red Chinese, and even a young Osama bin Laden) that the U.S. will only tolerate so much politics; that we never intend to leave any unfinished business.
But now, after 9 wasted years in Afghanistan we have learned NOTHING; we are still playing politics versus fighting to win; and we're still playing around with that god-awful M-16 derivative that can barely stop a squirrel at 75 feet, and will jam and overheat if you even look at it wrong.
We must all write our congresspeople and DEMAND our troops either be given the best weapons - and a viable plan of victory - or be willing to withdraw and risk another 9-11; as newly-emboldened terrorists no longer see a once-mighty USA, but a meek, weak ex-superpower, who "plays" at war, rather than wins by demanding unconditional surrender of the enemy, as we once did in WW 2 - the last "good war."