Gewehr 43 vs M1 garand

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.

 

Fair point.

Although, they did have the SVT to build from .

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

Hello, new guy here...

I'm going to say the G43 was the better rifle on paper, and the Garand was the better rifle in the flesh.

The G43’s design is MUCH easier to manufacture than the Garand. The receiver, and operating rod on the Garand were just plain nightmares to machine, and then properly heat treat. The reason the Garand was so much better in actual performance is US manufacturing quality, and proper development. Our ability to precisely machine parts to precise specifications was second to none in the world (the Brits were pretty close). Germany was a good deal behind us in holding spec on small arms and several of their small arms didn’t even come close.


Since the G43 was so rushed, they got several things wrong and due to how deep into the war they were, they never really went back and fixed those issues. If you recall, the Garand when adopted had a number of issues that still needed to be worked out…small arms need that development time to work out the materials and manufacturing techniques to optimize performance of the weapon, and facilitate efficient manufacturing.


So G3 is the better design, but the Garand was clearly the better rifle.

 

..do you have documentation on ''holding specs'' per country for most manufacturing?? I thought the Germans were good at that? they are now, for sure
...was it the Germans or the forced labor?

 

No sir I don't, but I have personally experienced it, and have come across it in several other areas of study. As a gunsmith, I can tell you German arms experience much less parts interchangeability than US military arms. If you get a chance to inspect any WW2 or earlier German small arms, take note that each part has a number stamped on it. That's typically the last few digits of the serial number on the receiver. That is done so the parts all stay together at the armorer or to prevent soldiers in the field to not mix parts. I'm not saying there is NO parts interchangeability, I'm saying you'll find they "drop in" far less than US parts.

So conversely, take a look at US small arms of WW2 or earlier and you'll notice there are no serial numbers on any parts except the receiver. That's because you can take 100 of pretty much ANY US small arm of WW2, put all the parts in a bucket, shake it around, and then you can assemble 100 working firearms from that bucket of parts.

If you study things like tanks and aircraft you'll eventually come up to this issue again. As an example, I recall reading a comparison of changing a transmission on a Panzer IV tank...It is not done in the field at all; it has to go back to the factory, and it's a two day job. Whereas changing a transmission on a US M4 is about a 3 hour job in the field. This is due to parts interchangeability.

Simply put, the Germans felt they really didn't need it. They didn't expect rifles to last long during war, and they always had the luxury of not fighting too far (in comparison to others) from their borders. And they were totally cool with putting a tank on a train because they could generally have it back at the factory within a day or two. For the US, we had to go 5,000 miles just to show up to the fight; we can't send thins back to the factory. So parts interchangeability was paramount to US success, where the Germans just didn't feel like they needed it.

It should be known, parts interchangeability wasn't all that common across ALL of Europe. Some felt the need, some didn't.

 

Here's a great example for aircraft engines. And keep in mind, the Brit's were better at it than the German's were at this time...but even they were well behind the US.

Rolls-Royce Vs. Packard: Who Built a Better Merlin? (autoweek.com)

The article shows how the US was WELL ahead of pretty much everyone for precision manufacturing.

I can recall reading a book about Enfield rifles made in the US (Eddystone, Savage, etc.) and the British inspectors were shocked at the lack of files to be found pretty much everywhere. A normal manufacturing facility pretty much anywhere in Europe, you'll find files at every step. In the us, typically you only find files at the assembly bench, and even then, weren't used much at all.

 

thanks for the replies/etc ....is this reply to my post?
..yes, I've researched the German Waffenamt/etc......as a matter of fact, I have a war time CZ 27-with waffenamt and proof eagle...and I have a Knight's Cross....[had 2 ] ....etc
..yes, the Germans used waffenamts on a lot of stuff = they were very orderly/disciplined/etc
...I would think if you could put the parts in a bucket, shake them, and put them together, that would mean there is not a high level of holding specs

 

Yeah that's not how manufacturing works. As someone who has spent 30+ years in the firearms industry, I can tell you the more you rely on hand fitting of parts, the less and less you will have parts interchangeability, and the more problems you will have when it leaves the factory. The US was well ahead of the rest of the world in manufacturing quality when it came to things made of metal.

The proof is in the fact that post WWII the American System was the model followed by the entire world, and remains so to this day. It's been standard for so long that no one ever refers to it as "The American System", it's now just the way to do things.

American system of manufacturing - Wikipedia

"The American system of manufacturing was a set of manufacturing methods that evolved in the 19th century. The two notable features were the extensive use of interchangeable parts and mechanization for production, which resulted in more efficient use of labor compared to hand methods."

The reason why the Germans never got there is because in the era of manual machining, the American System is exceptionally difficult to setup. It took the US a good 60+ years to finally get it right.

 

...so, the Germans were not as precise in making weapons? the American system was good at pumping out lots and fast --....your quote says ''more efficient....'''.....I don't see anything about precision parts ...now I can see how an efficient method will make more of the parts the same specs......but I still don't see where it says the Germans were not better at precision ..is there documentation on that? unless I missed it

 

I guess you just need to learn some basics on manufacturing...
I'm a gunsmith, and I work in manufacturing. I'm also a machinist; this isn't conceptual for me, this is what I do.

I have worked on pretty much ALL of the small arms used in WWII (with the exception of some Japanese and Italian stuff). You clearly don't understand the interplay of each part in a firearm, and how precision is needed...and you're drawing all the wrong conclusions. I'm not the world's best communicator, so it's no mystery you're not getting it when you read what I post...that's my bad.

I think perhaps you have a different concept of what qualities are needed in a military arm. The absolute perfection of fitting a part to the .00001in is great for that ONE rifle. But what happens when that rifle stops working, and you're 8,000 miles from a gunsmith? If all parts are hand fit, how can you possibly have parts interchangeability...hand fitting is done with a file.

Yo you create jigs, fixtures, and systems that makes a part that is fully finished at the milling machine, rather than finishing with a file. If the final fitting is with a file, parts dimensions will be all over the place. If you study the American System you'll see in every industry that switched to the American System saw increases in quality, reliability, parts interchangeability, and drastic decreases in factory returns.

I guess since I do this for a living, I take it for granted that everyone is familiar with manufacturing.

 

..I worked in a machine shop for 14 years--in the engineering department .....fabricating parts from start to finish--from blueprints to finish ....with that, I worked close with the manufacturing..I programmed, sent it to the punch press, then formed on a brake press....working closely with the machinist who welded/used the lathe/mill/etc
...and engineering/research/development has a lot to do with it also....the part has to be designed correctly by an engineer that knows what he is doing....and I'd say 20% of the engineers I worked with were idiots...maybe higher than that, since I started at a new place.....they get a lot of easy stuff wrong ...

...how was the German's manufacturing different regarding specs? and/or with forced labor vs German labor?