Welcome to the WWII Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the community.

Gewehr 43 vs M1 garand

Discussion in 'Small Arms and Edged Weapons' started by SSDasReich, Jan 24, 2010.

  1. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    301
    Let's also remember that the Garand was developed over several years, and peacetime years at that. The K43 was developed in wartime under extreme stress. When it was fielded it was not a mature design-almost in prototype form. Somewhat analogous to the roll-out of the M-16 20 years later.
     
  2. Jack B

    Jack B Active Member

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2019
    Messages:
    656
    Likes Received:
    214
    Location:
    Deep in the armchair
    Fair point.

    Although, they did have the SVT to build from .
     
  3. harolds

    harolds Member

    Joined:
    Aug 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,761
    Likes Received:
    301
    Not entirely. The SVT had a tipping-bolt action while the G43 was locked by two retracting flaps that sprang out and locked the action as the bolt went in to battery. The G43's gas system was borrowed from the SVT 40 however.
     
  4. Riter

    Riter Active Member

    Joined:
    Feb 12, 2020
    Messages:
    298
    Likes Received:
    58
    G43 is a better design poorly made. M-1 Garand is well made but inferior in concept. Clip fed and you can't top it off. Off set scope mount when scoped. G-43 scope sat centerline with the bore. Can't do that with the Garand and reload it, hence the offset scope mount. Weight. M-1 Garand is heavier.
     
  5. R Leonard

    R Leonard Member

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    930
    Likes Received:
    586
    Location:
    The Old Dominion
    Oh no, I'm sorry, you can top off an M-1 clip. Granted, you have to know what you're doing, but it can be done and without much effort. Statements to the contrary are repetitious internet nonsense, right up there with the "ping betrayal". It's in the manual, don't you know, not a secret and not rocket science.

    And if the scope was to be mounted on the off side, and it was, don't you think somebody using, say, the M-1C sniper configuration might just take that into account . . . you'd have to think said sniper had more than just a vague idea of what he was doing.
     
    George Patton likes this.
  6. George Patton

    George Patton Canadian Refugee

    Joined:
    Aug 22, 2010
    Messages:
    3,166
    Likes Received:
    1,112
    Location:
    Ontario, Canada
    The G43 design was inferior to that of the M1 Garand in concept, and was executed poorly in almost every regard. A few thoughts in no particular order:
    • The largest weak point in the M1 Garand design was the op-rod. The op-rod was overly complex but was neccessitated by the details of the gas operating system (this was later -- successfully -- addressed and manifested itself with the system used on the M14). Every other sub-level system was superior to the G43. This includes (critically) the action and trigger.
    • The G43 got the basic concept of the gas system right (by ripping off the piston/gas cup design from the Soviet SVT-40) but omitted a gas regulator (which the SVT-40 had), and as a result ended up with a rifle which had very aggressive gas system pressures which introduced excessive wear.
    • The G43 was lighter, yes, but also has quite a bit more felt recoil than the M1 Garand. The M1 Garand is a far more pleasant rifle to shoot than the G43. Lesser weight is generally good until it reaches the point where the firearm is too light for its cartridge. Case-in-point? In the 1950s Armalite introduced the AR10 (a select-fire battle rifle in 7.62x51 which weighed ~8lbs). While I enjoy the original AR10 it is far too light for its cartridge.
    • That said, the G43 is an interesting case study in streamlining of manufacturing processes. The bolt body is interesting as it is made from sheet metal. The use of castings was unique in this era for a full-power rifle.
    • An offset scope is not an issue in practice. While a centerline scope is superior for precision shooting, the M1C and M1D Garands were never tack drivers and a scope offset of 2" will not be the limiting factor in the precision of the rifle. In the modern context, the M1C and M1D were not "sniper" rifles but rather "designated marksmen" rifles. The Garand platform is simply not capable of the accuracy of a modern precision (or "sniper") rifle, where the difference between a centerline and side mount scope would actually have an impact. This is not so much to do with the design but rather the manufacturing tolerances of the time and resultant limits on precision.
    • Whether the 8 shot en-bloc clip or 10 round detachable box magazine is best ultimately comes down to personal preference but I do not see the G43 as having an advantage when considering the tactics of the era. The extra time to switch the box magazine compared to inserting a new en-bloc clip (for a gain of 2 additional cartridges) does not seem like a particularly good trade-off to me. Keep in mind that with a detachable box magazine you will eventually need to reload the individual magazines. IIRC, standard issue for the G43 was either 3 or 4 magazines. That means at most 3 magazine changes could occur before having to reload your 4 (now-empty) magazines and start fresh. With the M1 Garand you can keep inserting fresh en-blocs from your bandoleers until you run out of ammo. And yes, as R Leonard states, the M1 Garand's en-bloc can be topped off if desired.
     

Share This Page