Garand? Springfield? Johnson?

[Char-Gar]

I have owned and shot all three, but never could get hooked on the Johnson. Of them all, I still favor the 03/03A3. Before I moved up to a Garand, a NM 03 was my match rifle.

Today, I have a cherry Remington 03A3 that is an Ogden rebuilt. I also built up a SC action with a new SC barrel into a feaux NRA Sporter.

My current (and last Garand) is a 1943 SA, that was rebuilt at Red River in 1957. It was canned and is at least 98%. I keep 200 rounds of ammo in clips and this Garand is my "go to" rifle for serious problems down here on the Border.

My 03A3 is a wonderfully accurate rifle. It was minty when it came into my hands as a gift. I did give in an install a milled 03 trigger guard and floor plate. With good cast bullets (311284, 311467, RSBS 165 Sil) it will place ten shots in 2 MOA or less out to three hundred yards. My load is 49/WC872/Rem. 9.5 primer. With the lighter bullets I use 1 cc of shot buffer to get a tight slightly compress load. With the heavier 200 and above grains bullets I drop that to 1/2 cc.

The feax NRA sporter will do just as well with the same loads. The things is so darn pretty with it's full fiddleback claro stock I have, to force myself to take it out and shoot. I am working on that mental block, as it was built to shoot. I did compromise my values and install a Timmey trigger. The rear sight is a long slide Lyman 48 and the front is an old Redfield Sourdough Patridge that fits into the 03 band. I changed out the 03A3 band in favor of an 03 band in the build up. It took me two years of searching to come up with an original butt plate and barrel band, but patience paid off. I also removed that gawd awful rear side dovetail from the rear receiver ring. Took many hours of hand polishing but all of the machine hickes came off the action and barrel.

[Mike Venturino]

Yep, Hickory, sights are the very reason I use the 03A3s more nowadays. I can still use the peep sights. I did put one of those 3X Leatherwood scopes on an 03 "parts rifle" and it made a dandy rig. At least I can still see peep sights.....

MLV

[madsenshooter]

I want a Garand! I want one, I want one, I want one.

There, I feel better. Still haven't got one and they are like rocking horse manure here.

Did I mention I would rather like to own a M1 Garand................

Jeff,

You'll have to talk to Bob, the former primer minister's son, he has at least one. I sold him some rings that I thought would work to mount an M84 scope using a Griffin and Howe mount, turns out not, they would work for an Alaskan though. You mentioned he's a member of your club, maybe he has a spare you could play with.

[missionary5155]

Greetings
Well I have Two.. a Springfield of the later 43 era and a H&R from 1952. The H&R was all routed out at the bore so I found another H&R barrel which was much nicer. Very tight chamber. That rifle will shoot honest 1.2 inch 100 yard groups all day IF I can hold it steady. The Springfield just chugs along on most any 06 ammo and is a delight to fire but does at best 2.5 inches at 100... 3 " is more to be expected. But for an old battle rifle I cannot be unhappy.

[bob208]

i have 4 one from each manufacture. the winchester i got from d.c.m. now c.m.p. the international and springfield i got from navy arms when they had the warehouse in va. they let me strip down 3 tables of garands and put together 8 good matching ones. which we bought all 8 plus a few that did not match but were real nice. my h&r i have had forever got it in 72. it has its fourth barrel on it now the h&r barrel was gone before i got it. when i got it it had a used springfeild barrel. i shot that out then got a used lmr. shot that out. now it has a cidadel .308 barrel.

o3's i have a few of them. i learned to shoot the peep sight on the o3. i do like the a3 sight better. i could always shoot the 17 better then the 03 or the a3.

[leadman]

I have a Springfield Garand I bought from the CMP. It is a Danish return that had a brand new VAR barrel on it. Love shooting it and it is very accurate.
Was planning on going to the CMP when we went to Michigan to buy another but problems with the rv prevented that from happening.

[StarMetal]

If I landed on the beach of Iwo Jima back during the fighting I too would have gladly ditched my M1 carbine for a M1 Garand. Heck I might have dumped it for an 03 Springfield too. I do feel I would have wanted a little more cartridge/rifle then the Carbine.

Joe

[C1PNR]

Thanks waksupi, that was an interesting read. Whenever I see something come from Time, I get a little nervous about taking it at face value, but I did enjoy this one.

In 1988 I bought my first M1, a SA X prefix National Match rifle used by the parents of the seller in many matches in Idaho. It's a beaut, with blued metal and a well finished, very smooth stock. The gas cylinder, lock, and locking screw are chromed! It's hard to take it to the field.

I got my second M1, a '43 SA, from CMP back in the days when you had to participate in a certain number of "matches" to qualify. We went over to Ft. Ord on several weekends and really enjoyed the experience. It is, of course, a rebuild, but I love it just the same.

[oksmle]

I think this is kinda' neat: In '82 or '83, Mrs. oksmle wanted to surprise me with a Garand for Christmas. She fired in a qualifying match at our local range, sent the paper work in & about three months later a very nice Springfield arrived. Of course the rifle was registered in her name. My teenage son grew attached to the rifle & wanted one of his own, so I fired in a qualifying match, sent in the paper work & a couple of months later he had a very nice Springfield. Of course it was registered in my name. Then, when he became of age he fired in a match, sent the paper work in & a few months later, once again, a very nice Springfield arrived. This was in his name but he gave it to his mom. So now I have mom's, son has mine & mom has son's. Sorta' neat, huh...

[bob208]

not all disliked the carbine if you read col. jhon george book shots fired in anger. he gave it a good rating said it was very good in the jungal.

[waksupi]

Thanks waksupi, that was an interesting read. Whenever I see something come from Time, I get a little nervous about taking it at face value, but I did enjoy this one.

I agree that Time is not always the best source!
This one looked good enough to drop in here, to see where it goes. I am a shooter that likes military firearms, but truthfully don't know that much about them. SO, this was just priming, to get you guys who DO know about them to talk, and let others pickup some experiences and knowledge.

[Mike Venturino]

There's also a photo of a Marine going ashore at Iwo with a Garand in his hand and a carbine over his shoulder. I'd imagine that small carbine would be a bit handier in a foxhole at night. Also I have a book here that clearly shows a Marine kneeling on the beach at Iwo with an '03 (not '03A3) in his hands.

MLV

[BarryinIN]

Thanks for posting that.

I'm a Garand nut, and have a few. I also bought an M1941 Johnson last February. While I had read some on the Johnson before, I've tried to read all I could about the Johnson after buying one. What I've found is that there is an awful more to the story than what you usually see in the gun magazine articles where they say the Garand beat out the Johnson and leave it at that.
This sounds like the two rifles batttled it out through all the same tests before the dust cleared and the Garand stood alone.
It didn't quite happen that way.
Not the smallest of facts is that the Garand was adopted at least three years before Johnson had so much as a prototype rifle, and had been in development for at least ten years prior. The Garand was pretty well in place before the Johnson appeared, so it isn't like there was a big contest between the two as some people think.

I don't really have a preference, so the following is not me arguing just to support the Johnson. I love Garands, but after using the Johnson a while now, there are things I like better about it. There are also things I like better about the Garand.
I think we would have been fine with either rifle. I doubt the war would have been shortened or prolonged by a day if we had one instead of the other. I do think we were very lucky to have the option of either one at a time when most nations were struggling to field one decent semiauto battle rifle.

When that Time magazine article appeared, the Garand had been in service for almost five years. The Army was committed to it, and it wasn't going anywhere.

So why did the Johnson rifle even come about if the Army already had the Garand?
One of the most important parts to the Garand/Johnson story, and one many people don't know is that the Garand was having a little trouble at that time. This is one of the biggest reasons Melvin Johnson went ahead with his rifle design. He thought the army would work it out, but didn't know if we would be at war before they did.
Johnson was also a Marine officer who tinkered around with small arms, so he knew people in the Marines were suspicious of the Garand (and semiautos in general) due to the army's troubles with it. He thought there was a good chance they might consider another design, if only as a temporary measure. So from everything I've read, it sounds like he didn't so much plan on getting the Garand replaced with his rifle, but to have something ready as a substitute standard if the army couldn't fix it in time or the USMC decided they wanted semiautos urgently.

That test referred to in that Time Magazine article actually happened over a year before it was written, in December 1939. It was the only Army test done where the two rifles were compared side-by-side. This was not some long, drawn-out test procedure since it lasted only two days (Dec 29-30, 1939). You can't learn much in two days, so it was probably done to shut people up about this new rifle that appeared about the same time word got out the Garand had a little trouble.

The article talks about the number of broken parts in the Johnson. In the letter Melvin Johnson got back from the army (Feb 1940), it only talks about broken extractors. Two extractors broke during the sand/mud tests, which were determined to be made from faulty steel. Most of the letter talks about how the Johnson rifle had a single stage trigger (which caused some problems for the testers who were used to two-stage triggers), and the fact it was lacking in bayonet requirements (no wooden handguards for bayonet fighting, malfunctions with bayonet attached).
They basically said they wouldn't need to hear from Johnson again.

That may not sound good, but Melvin Johnson's view was that they were comparing a fully-developed rifle (the Garand) with a prototype in his. And that is pretty much the case.

Johnson never planned to build the rifles himself, and wanted to sell the design to an arms maker or the government. He didn't even build the rifle used in those tests. It was made by Taft-Pierce, an engineering firm hired by Johnson to do feaseability tests on manufacture of the design and was one of two or three Johnson rifles in existence at the time. It probably wasn't the best choice to take that rifle to the test, but I doubt he wanted to pass up what might be the only chance to go up against the Garand either.
In contrast, the Garand had been in development since the 1920's and in production for three years. Melvin Johnson pointed to the 1931 tests of the early prototype .276 caliber Garand, showing that it did worse than the Johnson did in the 1939 test. But while John Garand got commitment to further develop the rifle, Johnson got "thanks, but no thanks". Melvin Johnson took that as being odd with a war looming and a need for rifles.

So that ended it for the Army, but how did the Marines get involved?
Johnson had hoped that with Springfield Armory making and fixing Garands for the army, that the Marines might go elsewhere for rifles for a change. The USMC had always been "a customer of the Ordnance Dept" but maybe they would do things differently this time.

Johnson demonstrated his rifle and submitted it for testing to places that he had to know weren't in a position to buy them- like the US Army, England, and others. I am only guessing, but I wonder if he did that to build up some sales material to push the Marines on the fact that the rifle had been tested by so many sources that they wouldn't have to depend on the Ordnance Dept this time???

What he really wanted was for the army so approve it as a Substitute Standard for the Garand, much like the M1917 rifle in WWI. This would get it OK'd for production if the army needed (it could be produced in machine shops and factories all over the country if need quickly) but mostly- would make it acceptable to the USMC. And he thought that if the Marines tested both rifles, they would lean toward his.

I should probably say here that I don't think Melvin Johnson was like a vulture sitting on a limb hoping for the Garand to flop so he could swoop in with his design and ask for a pile of money for it. I think he really thought he could give the troops a better rifle. He was also sure that war was coming and didn't think there was time to waste, andw as afraid that if they couldn't have the Garand ready, and in sufficient numbers, in time, we would have a major problem. He had people in high places whispering in his ear that they weren't convinced the Garand would make it. Whether these people really knew anything is up to question, but apparently Johnson believed they did.
I think he felt he had a better rifle that could be made faster and wanted to have it ready if needed.

While the Marines never officially apopted the M1941 Johnson semiauto rifle (JSAR), they did get some.

Johnson sold an order of over 20,000 to the Dutch government that was in exile, as they hoped to get them to the Dutch East Indies in time to fight off the Japanese. The Japanese got there faster than expected and the approx 750 Johnson rifles that were ready at that point had no place to go.
In the meantime, the USMC was forming parachute regiments. They looked around at weapons and chose to arm them with the Johnson Light Machinegun and the Reising SMG. The Johnson LMG was to be isssued to half the ParaMarines and the Reising to the other half. They would jump in pairs, with the Reising gunner covering the LMG gunner as he assembled his LMG. A couple of things were learned about these weapons as they prepared for war: 1) the Reising was not going to be up to the task, and 2) the Johnson LMG was quicker into action than expected. Rather than arm half the men with SMGs that didn't work and weren't really needed either, they looked at semiauto rifles. Col Merritt Edson was CO of the ParaMarines, and was present at the test the Time magazine article covers. When he found the Dutch Johson rifles had no home, they were "diverted" to the ParaMarines.

The ParaMarines were then armed with Johnson semiauto rifles, and Johnson LMGs. They made some test jumps and all was working well.
Then the ParaMarine program was cancelled.
The rifles and LMGs were ordered destroyed by burying or tossed in the drink, but some were squirreled away. Supposedly, they weren't too happy to give them up (unlike the Reisings). I've heard there are pictures of Johnson LMGs in use on Iwo Jima, so someone held onto theirs for a long time.
There is some evidence that the Johnson semiauto saw combat use before the Garand. Some Marines landed with them at Gavatu (Guadalcanal campaign) and at Bouganville. Since the USMC had not started using the Garand yet (they had adopted it by Bougainville), the Johnson may have beaten the Garand into battle. I don't know that that means anything, but I found it interesting anyway.

Col Edson and others pushed for the USMC to adopt the Johnson instead of the Garand, but they stayed with the usual process of following Army Ordnance and went with the Garand. Since the Garand was pretty well sorted out by then, it's probably for the best.

Like I said earlier, I think either would have been fine and don't think choosing one over the other made any difference. Having played around with the Garand quite a bit and the Johnson for a little while, I like some things about both. I like the Garand's trigger, but think the Johnson's magazine is a better way to go. That magazine body is not as thin and weak as it looks, by the way. I much prefer the Garand's sights, but think the Johnson is much easier to maintain. I can make a list that could go back and forth like this for a while.
I've heard people talk about the recoil difference. Some days I think the Johnson has a little less recoil, and other days I think the Garand does. I just don't think there is enough difference to be able to tell.

One thing I have to wonder about is IF we had adopted the Johnson, even as a Subsitiute Standard to the Garand, how would post-war rifle development have gone?
The M14 came about as a need for a lighter rifle that held more ammo and was quicker to load than the Garand. They also wanted full auto fire, which didn't work so well.
The box magazine need was partly because the Garand's magazine was hard to top-off. But had the Johnson been in the system, I wonder how much importance they would have placed on that since it could be topped-off anytime and easily. They wouldn't get more rounds in the rifle, but would that have been as important if they could keep it full eaier than the Garand??? The Johnson LMG had both the rotary mag and a side-feed box, so that is another possibilty.
If they really wanted a shorter cartridge, a barrel swap would do it. And that's quick (maybe a in-the-field job) and relatively cheap.
A shorter barrel and lighter stock would knock some weight off.
I don't know. Just thinking if development would have gone differently, and what we would have had along the way.

[Ken O]

Lots of good info there Barry, I learned a some things and re-remembered some more.

I have a couple Garands, they look nice, but don't shoot where I aim them. For Garand matches I shoot the '03A3 which does shoot where I aim it.

The last Garand I bought from the CMP was an H&R return from somewhere. It looks like it was never fired, the blueing/park was still on the moveing parts. It had a rattle and I couldn't figure out what it was until I opened the door in the buttplate. A new clean kit was in there.

I don't shoot it much, its probably something simple that someone could fix if I had the ambition to have it fixed. So it is a closet queen with the Springfield Garand.

I would much rather shoot the '03 and K31s, along with the mouseguns. I never owned a Johnson, but would sure like to have one. The prices have been a little to rich for my blood.

[Chunky Monkey]

I'm up to three Garands now. Two are SAs, one of which is in the 16,000 serial number range. How I wish that it were all original. The latest one is a Winchester from '44 but its not all Winchester either. I think its the best shooting one of the bunch, though but its still too new to me to be sure.

On my trip to Iwo Jima last year several of the battle veterans on the trip said they dropped their M1 Carbines as soon as they landed and picked up some fallen marine's Garand.

Personally when I take one of my WW2 rifles down to shoot for fun its usually one of the 03A3s but I'm not fighting with it and that's just me.

MLV

Mike, Like you I am simply in love with WWII era guns. I just got my Nov 43 Springfield Garand (my first WWII gun) as it was what my grandfather who was with the 26th Infantry Regiment, 1st Infantry Division carried, at least from what I understand. He is buried in the American Cemetery Colleville-sur-Mer, France. I now want to get an M1 carbine. Maybe and old Garand to hav made into a tanker? So many choices and so little money.

That trip to Iwo with those American heros must have been like a dream. I really liked that article. Wish you could have put in some more pics. Do you have any you can share with us? Was that the first time some of those vets stepped foot back on that island?

Keep up the good work I really like those articles about the WWII guns!

[Mike Venturino]

Chunky: I do have more Iwo photos than were shown in the magazine articles. However, I don't have nearly as many as I wanted to get because it rained so hard that day I was there.

Sounds like you're heading down a fun path in getting some WW2 firearms. I don't normally offer unsolicited advice but after that M1 Carbine think about an 03A3. There never were such a thing as a "tanker" Garand in WW2 so that one wouldn't excite me much. Then after the 03A3 think about a .45 Auto?

Today I took some time "for me" and shot my German K43 and my Soviet SVT40. Both were impressive contemporaries of the Garand.

Anyway, my respects to your Grandfather. I've visited that cemetary on the bluffs over Omaha Beach and it certainly is a sobering experience.

MLV

[Chunky Monkey]

Chunky: I do have more Iwo photos than were shown in the magazine articles. However, I don't have nearly as many as I wanted to get because it rained so hard that day I was there.

Sounds like you're heading down a fun path in getting some WW2 firearms. I don't normally offer unsolicited advice but after that M1 Carbine think about an 03A3. There never were such a thing as a "tanker" Garand in WW2 so that one wouldn't excite me much. Then after the 03A3 think about a .45 Auto?

Today I took some time "for me" and shot my German K43 and my Soviet SVT40. Both were impressive contemporaries of the Garand.

Anyway, my respects to your Grandfather. I've visited that cemetary on the bluffs over Omaha Beach and it certainly is a sobering experience.

MLV

Thanks for the advice! I'm definately liking the idea of the 03A3!

[DanM]

I have a customer that says he carried a Johnson LMG in Korea. He says that his was way more accurate than a BAR, and could shoot with a M1 for accuracy. He actually claims that he sometimes used the Johnson LMG for a sniper rifle. I have to wonder about that, but he really 'talks up' the JLMG. I know that the FSSF used them with great results, and the last ones that saw combat were used in our shameful Bay of Pigs invasion. I am thinking that the JLMG was surperior to the outdated BAR, and would have been well accepted and would have given good service if the army had wanted them....

[StarMetal]

I have a customer that says he carried a Johnson LMG in Korea. He says that his was way more accurate than a BAR, and could shoot with a M1 for accuracy. He actually claims that he sometimes used the Johnson LMG for a sniper rifle. I have to wonder about that, but he really 'talks up' the JLMG. I know that the FSSF used them with great results, and the last ones that saw combat were used in our shameful Bay of Pigs invasion. I am thinking that the JLMG was surperior to the outdated BAR, and would have been well accepted and would have given good service if the army had wanted them....

Here's a couple pictures of the Johnson's bolt, does it kind of remind you of the M16 bolt? Thus the accuracy?



I have read where it was the better rifle, but politics won out.

Joe

[BarryinIN]

Here's a couple pictures of the Johnson's bolt, does it kind of remind you of the M16 bolt? Thus the accuracy?

Later in his life, after his company was gone, Melvin Johnson worked for ArmaLite for a short time when they were starting on the AR10.
I haven't read anything about them getting that bolt design from him while he was there, but the bolt heads look so similar you have to wonder. At least I do.

BTW- Do you guys know why he used a multi-lug bolt?
The multi-lug bolt required less rotational movement to unlock/lock, which is obvious, but that meant it used up less of the recoil energy that operated the rifle.
Just one of a few details that I find interesting.

For another little detail/more useless info:
The LMG's magazine had no feed lips. They were milled into the receiver, so they were heavier and stronger than they would be if part of the sheet metal magazine.
The cartridges were held in place when it was out of the gun by a finger-like part that was spring loaded over the opening. When the mag was inserted, this finger was pushed out of the way so the top round moved to meet the feed lips.

The LMG was really interesting. I'd like to mess around with one for a few days.
There are quite a few parts that interchange between the rifle and LMG, and there are some semi-auto copies of the LMG out there that were made up from rifles. If you think a rifle is expensive, look at one of those.

There were two basic LMGs, the M1941 and M1944. The 1941 looks more like the rifle. The 1944 has a stock made of two tubes stacked one over the other which makes it look different.

The Israelis made a close copy of the Johnson LMG called the DROR. I have seen those advertised before, but it's been a while. Usially, there are DROR parts on places like Gunbroker.

The Johnson LMG weighed something like 13 lbs. I like this, even if it means little:
Johnson used to demo the LMG by holding it with one hand, over his head, and dumping a magazine into the target.