M14 Forum banner
Cancel

THE M1C AND M1D GARAND SNIPER RIFLES

4127 Views 22 Replies 18 Participants Last post by  nf1e, 
POLACK
www.thearmorylife.com

The M1C and M1D Garand Sniper Rifles - The Armory Life

It’s difficult to imagine now, but as America entered WWII, the U.S. military had no appreciable sniper program and no designated sniper rifle.
www.thearmorylife.com www.thearmorylife.com
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 5
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
nf1e
Nice write up except for the last photo that is reversed making the M1D appear to be left handed. We all know Bula was the first to make a left handed variant of the Garand action in their left hand M14.
Reply
Save
Like
ColdWarGrunt
Nice read and history that I was unaware of!
Reply
Save
Like
nf1e
They do a nice job and only 8000 made. My M1C at the ready for home defense.

See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 5
Random Guy
2
The article was decent in that it discussed the original M1C and M1D, from late WWII and Korean war era, but unfortunately it left out the later version of the M1C used by the USMC, called the "MC1952" model with 4X Kollmorgen MC-1 scope, and it left out the mid-1960s M1Ds that used a 1" mount and 4x Weaver scope. Those two later models are shown at the top and 3rd from the top in this picture:
444969

Attachments

See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 5
lysander
Random Guy said:
The article was decent in that it discussed the original M1C and M1D, from late WWII and Korean war era, but unfortunately it left out the later version of the M1C used by the USMC, called the "MC1952" model with 4X Kollmorgen MC-1 scope, and it left out the mid-1960s M1Ds that used a 1" mount and 4x Weaver scope. Those two later models are shown at the top and 3rd from the top in this picture:
View attachment 444969
Click to expand...
It does briefly mention the USMC 1952 variant. The paragraph just before "The End of the Line."
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
L
Great write-up!
Reply
Save
Like
Random Guy
It does briefly mention the USMC 1952 variant. The paragraph just before "The End of the Line."
Click to expand...
Opps, I saw it when I re-read that section.
Reply
Save
Like
SPEEDGUNNER
I think that at the beginning of WWII sniping was generally still considered to be a defensive action and therefore our military was not aligned with that way of thinking when it came to warfare and tactics.

Obviously those thought patterns have changed over the past 70 years.
Reply
Save
Like
nf1e
M1d on top then M1C with MC-1 usmc mount then M14 with M1C mount. Scopes and mounts are interchangeable between M1C and M14.

See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Cowtownscout
Sorry I was thinking of the 1903A4. Nevermind. ;)
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
Random Guy
The article lists the scopes for the M1C as being Alaskan but in actuality those were not available in quanities to go with the M1C rifles so they instead used Weaver scopes with the M1C rifles.
Click to expand...
Hmm, I had not read that Weaver scopes were issued on M1Cs in WWII. One of the only known all original WWII era M1Cs, serial number 3251840 in the GCA article "Benchmark M1C" in the Spring 2010 GCA issue (pages 19-24), is reported as being at the "very beginning of the first block of 500 M1Cs" that were produced. It is one of the earliest production M1Cs made. Its barrel is dated 12-44 (with no throat erosion), and it has an M81 scope marked "ALASKAN", serial # 4942. Even the 1944 dated web sling appears to be original. (Earliest M81 Alaskan serial number observed is 4928 attached to an M1C mount, s/n stamped 3251826).

It's origins are muddy, but the family that sold it claimed to have owned it since 1948. Probably sent to Aberdeen or some similar testing facility in 1945 and somehow got liberated shortly thereafter. It is the most pristine, original WWII M1C in existence. The M1C experts like Dave McClain, from the GCA organization had perma-grins and/or dropped jaws when they inspected it...so M81 scopes marked 'Alaskan' were on the earliest M1Cs in late WWII...just say'n.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 4
Frank Black
SPEEDGUNNER said:
I think that at the beginning of WWII sniping was generally still considered to be a defensive action and therefore our military was not aligned with that way of thinking when it came to warfare and tactics.
Click to expand...
Had someone of high military rank at the War Dept. in the late 1930s actually read Herbert McBride's post-WW1 book, A Rifleman Went to War, which detailed the effectiveness of his (and other soldiers) sniping activities on the Western Front with the Canadian Forces, we might have well had some rudimentary snipers teams trained and embedded with Army and Marine units when WW2 started up.

McBride, literally, 'wrote the book' on the subject, giving an accounting of just how effective trained marksmen can be under combat conditions.

A young Marine named Jeff Cooper read the book and recognized its virtue right away, as an invaluable roadmap or 'how-to' manual that should've been required reading for everyone wearing a uniform.

Obviously those thought patterns have changed over the past 70 years.
Click to expand...
Yes, thankfully.
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
T
I picked up a nice M1C this spring. Super cool gun and really fun to shoot.
Reply
Save
Like
Jim Horton
Years ago I paid too much for a DCM D version with all the components still in wrappers. Although I'll never part with it until I'm unable to function, I found it to be a disappointment. The M84 is anaemic and the offset mount makes for a windage nightmare. I believe the user would have been better served with a match accurized rifle with good iron sights, sniper training, and a lot of range time.
Reply
Save
Like
RENCORP
I think Art got owned by the Random Guy for rifle porn in the photos posted in this thread - well near unpossible ! But - it happened..............
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
  • Haha
Reactions: 3
R
Jim Horton said:
The M84 is anaemic and the offset mount makes for a windage nightmare.
Click to expand...
For sure the M84 was lacking in magnification but so was the M73B1, M81 and M82. If you are going to go with a small objective lens, magnification certainly needs to be limited since the light gathering capability of a scope is the objective lens diameter squared divided by the magnification. Light gathering capability is extremely important in the tactical world. The Army's desire to use a light weight, compact scope created a limitation on magnification that was certainly not well thought out, in hindsight.

Compared to the M73B1, M81 and M82, the M84 was significantly more rugged and the windage and elevation adjustments were superior.

As for the scope offset creating issues with windage adjustment, that is not as significant as some would have you believe. I have done a reasonable amount of shooting with M1D's and I made sure I obtained my zero windage adjustment at the maximum range. That way I never had any more induced azimuth deflection than the scope offset from the bore. That means that the POA to POI offset was less than two inches at any range from the maximum range to close in.
See less See more
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
Harleystoo
I wrote a position paper on this many years ago. We always go into a war without a sniper system in place and a generation (or two) behind in technology. Military hierarchy abhors snipers, because "they" command such firepower. And, since officers are a sniper's primary target, that hatred for them probably has something to do with it. During the Vietnam War and after, the Army had an AMU (Advanced Marksmanship Unit) on every Post. Those were all disbanded (except the primary unit at Benning) in the 80s. It takes a shooting war to bring us back up to speed.

PS. As a side bar to the Weaver 60-B4 being used, I have a USGI box (so marked) of 1" rings (split-top) for mounting a Weaver on an A4. I would suspect Korean era.
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 2
nicholst55
Harleystoo said:
I wrote a position paper on this many years ago. We always go into a war without a sniper system in place and a generation (or two) behind in technology. Military hierarchy abhors snipers, because "they" command such firepower. And, since officers are a sniper's primary target, that hatred for them probably has something to do with it. During the Vietnam War and after, the Army had an AMU (Advanced Marksmanship Unit) on every Post. Those were all disbanded (except the primary unit at Benning) in the 80s. It takes a shooting war to bring us back up to speed.

PS. As a side bar to the Weaver 60-B4 being used, I have a USGI box (so marked) of 1" rings (split-top) for mounting a Weaver on an A4. I would suspect Korean era.
Click to expand...
I had the privilege to serve in one of those post-level AMUs (Fort Hood, TX) not long before it was disbanded. We had two M1Ds in the Arms Room, of which I was in charge. We didn't have any M72 .30 Match ammo (or any .30 ammo at all), but I was an enterprising young Staff Sergeant and I acquired some ammo - mostly M2 Ball but also some appropriate handloads, and gave those M1Ds a limited workout. It was enlightening, and I came away with a respect for those soldiers and Marines who could actually hit anything with an M1D beyond 1-200 yards. As stated above, they are a nightmare regarding windage!
Reply
Save
Like
  • Like
Reactions: 1
M
I had a want for an M1D a few years back. after looking for a while and having sticker shock for a rifle i wanted to shoot i settled for a new criterion m1d barrel and built it up with repo scope and cheek pad but the repo mount is junk at best so i found a USGI mount. its fun to take to the range and shoot and i have no worries of damaging a rare(ish) rifle.
Reply
Save
Like
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
M14 Forum
A forum community dedicated to M14 and M1A Rifle owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about optics, ammunition, gunsmithing, styles, reviews, accessories, Modern, Devine, SOCOM, EBR, classifieds, and more!
Full Forum Listing
Explore Our Forums
The M14 Ammunition Modern M14 Gun Rights New Member Introductions
Top