Thread 64138944

Why didn't they just use a mag?

>>64138944 (OP)
it has a mag retard

>>64138944 (OP)
God and John C. Garand did not intend for it to use a box magazine.

Probably because they thought soldiers would be too dumb to not lose the magazines.

Also, because it was fairly difficult at that time to mass produce magazines that worked reliably with any given weapon right out of the box.

>>64138944 (OP)
The army didn't want to pay for the cost of detachable box magazines, especially when grunts drop or break them and new ones are needed.

>>64138944 (OP)
They did use a magazine. I think you meant to ask why wasn't the magazine detachable?

>>64138944 (OP)
Cost, weight and logistics.

Theoretically they could have designed the M1 to use BAR magazines, since those did exist already but they would increase the overall weight carried by a rifleman considerably. Having the ammunition loaded on clips meant you have a small disposable bent piece of steel rather than a much larger/heavier box with that needs to be reused. If an M1 clip gets damaged, use another one. If a BAR magazine bends a feed lip, it can be chucked too but that's a bigger thing to replace.

Moreover, unlike magazines they could pre-package sealed ammunition cans already loaded on clips in bandoliers. Storing magazines pre loaded like that invites either springs or feed lips deforming (less of an issue nowadays with better magazine design, but a significant concern at the time). M1 clips can be stored loaded pretty much forever.

The limited capacity and reload wasn't considered a problem. 8 is less than 20, but it's a lot more than 5 which is what almost everyone else was using. The reload was also faster than changing a box magazine since the clip would be ejected automatically, requiring only the insertion of another one. Since the clips are disposable, there was no need to retain them either. This simplifies what the soldier has to keep track of during battle. As long as he has ammo, he has clips. As long as he has ammunition and at least one clip , he has a working rifle.

>>64139046
Garand's original designs included detachable 20 round mag prototypes.

>>64138944 (OP)
so they could use the (fake-) ping sound to lure enemy into ambushed duh

>>64139261
But God did not intend for that, my good anon.
So Garand changed it according to Thou's will.

>>64138944 (OP)
I'd much rather have an M1 with 8 round enblocs than 8 or 10 round detachable magazines. That would be ass.

>>64139685
keg

i now imagine somone like Terry Davis but for Guns

>>64138944 (OP)
Satisfying ping sound

is the M1 Tanker worth a damn?

>>64139701
That would be Browning, he believed all his gun designs were given to him by God. In his dreams, if I remember right. All the ones he wanted to make anyway, I assume the Winchester 1887 doesn't count because he was against making it in the first place and only did so because Winchester demanded it, right before he quit.
Anyway, compare to Terry, who believed that TempleOS was given to him by a vision from God.

>>64139900
In my experience trying to make one work, no. It is theoretically possible, but what I learned in the process is that the M1 is a very kludgy system that was figured out to the point where it runs well in .30-06 in the standard layout, they made millions on that exact template because it worked, and doing anything other than that requires black magic.

During WWII, there was still some uncertainty about the accuracy of any magazine being attached to any gun.

>>64139216
stfu you tripfag retard
>noooo a rifle couldn't possible have a detachable magazine in ww2 what if the feed lips bent. en blocs are superior
explain why the m1 carbine having a detachable mag was fine yet the garand couldn't possibly have a detachable mag. it was a dumb fucking decision from the ground up and a 10 or 20 round detachable magazine would have been infinitely superior in literally every way. funny how the svt40, fg43 and g43 didn't have en bloc clips

you're like a defender of circumcision

>>64138947
It's a clip retard

>>64140171
The garand has a magazine. It holds the clip.

>>64140051
I never said it was impossible. They could easily have designed it to work with a BAR magazine or a modified version of one. I explained why they didn't want to.

In the context of the time it worked out just fine because the M1 was better than either the SVT-40 or G43, arguably the FG-42 as well (though more from the standpoint of the FG-42 being prohibitively expensive).

Was manufacturing garand clips really much cheaper than mags? You avoid the spring, follower, and release notch, but you still use the material to make the magazine body, and you double the need for good feed lips, which is the most finicky part, right?

>>64140171
>>64140197
clip fed
internal clip housing
magazine

a gun without a magazine of some kind is either belt fed or hand fed
>the belt would be housed in a magazine drum/box

>>64140317
It was a fuck load less. Only 1 part vs 4, one of which is welded. I don't have exact figures, but it was enough that the M1 clips were considered disposable whereas the BAR magazines weren't. At least a BAR gunner was expected to retain empty magazines if possible.

>>64138944 (OP)
Mags = lame
Clips = cool

>>64140317
Springs are surprisingly hard. You need to get the right tension for it to feed correctly. A big reason why anyone bothered with top-loading is because it allowed them to utilise weaker springs in the magazines.

>>64138944 (OP)
Too expensive to make right at the time. Grease Gun mags suck. M1 Carbine mags suck. BAR and Thompson mags were overpriced.

>>64140051
M1 Carbine mags were tossed like pop cans by soldiers every time they got a refresh chance at the supply depot. Exactly what ordnance and logistics didn't want to happen.
SVT40 mags basically have to be matched to the gun and in service basically never were detached and the guns were fed with stripper clips - Lee Enfield style. I don't know whether FG42 mags were great in the field, but I do know that every thing about that project was hilariously expensive and over the top

>>64139900
They're fine for duur huntin, which is all you're ever gonna use it for anyways.

>>64140171
a clipazine

>>64140912
>M1 Carbine mags were tossed like pop cans by soldiers every time they got a refresh chance at the supply depot.
maybe they should have taught the soldiers better & punished such behavior

>>64140926
The mags sucked dick so badly that they had to roll with the punches.

I wonder if there was someone at the supply depot on duty to do the tedious job of loading spare magazines.

>>64138944 (OP)
I really like how small enblocs are

>>64140051
M1 carbine mags kind of suck.
They wouldn't be considered reliable enough for military adoption even just some decades later

>>64140051
>svt40 and g43 didn't have en bloc clips
And both take longer to reload, plus were issued with like 2 magazines in total and topped up with stripper clips. At that point, even the SKS is faster and more practical...

>>64138944 (OP)
>>64141195

>>64140933
Why are you gay

>>64138944 (OP)
didn't literally every US made gun during the war that had detachable mags have really shitty detachable mags? plus the garand was what, the most common or second most common produced arm after the m1 carbine? they didn't want to deal with the cost associated with mags

>>64140051
weren't the russian guns issues with only one mag anyway and they just fed them with stripper clips? also if I remember correctly, the M1 carbine has notoriously shitty mags

>>64140317
it's literally a bent piece of metal, clips are way cheaper than mags

>>64140904
didn't the bar and thompson mags also suck? I remember like mail call or something r lee ermy admitted the bong bren was better than the BAR because BAR mags were ass

>>64140051
based

Enfags BTFO

>>64138944 (OP)
>>64139261
Because you cant do this with magazine.
https://youtube.com/watch?v=0xvXMEnwyYM
I kid you not. This was actual and a single reason.

>>64141203
> , plus were issued with like 2 magazines in total
it was 2 spares and one with the rifle, so 3 in total
also I don't think reloading with a magazine takes longer

is it true that with a garand you have to fire or eject the remaining rounds because you can't do partial reloads (like have got 3 left and want to stack up to 8 again) or is this just some fuddlore?

>>64138944 (OP)
It looks wrong with one

>>64141562
You can fiddlefuck with it to put more cartridges in, but you almost always will just eject the clip.

>>64139932
Based Browning

>>64140051
>He WANTS his dick to look like a yam
Third-worlder detected

>>64140577
Explain.

>>64140340
>implying

>>64142402
>PING

>>64138944 (OP)
Clips are cheaper and easier to make while being lighter and smaller to carry. They make a ton of sense in this application.

>>64141562
You can manually pull the bolt back and top off the clip as it sits inside the magazine. As long as there is at least 1 round left it will only eject if the clip release on the side of the receiver is depressed. Doing this is awkward because you'll eject the round in the chamber and you have to hold the bolt back with one hand while loading loose ammunition with the other, but it can be done.

>>64138944 (OP)
Reliable springs for magazines weren't invented until 1956

Because enblocs are based as fuck

>>64139082
It was at one point a court marshall offence in Korea to lose a BAR mag

>>64140926
>>64140912
They tossed the carbine mags because they were supposed to. The carbine mags suck BECAUSE they were made to be somewhat disposable, they were not designed to live as long as the rifle.

>>64138944 (OP)
Because nobody needs a high capacity detachable magazine for self defense!

>>64138944 (OP)
Manufacturing and metallurgy simply weren't at a point that it was truly feasible on a large scale. Not to mention the logistical annoyance of issuing them to ALL riflemen, not just a handful of weapons per squad. Weight and cost sacrifices were notable too; an eight-round en-bloc clip was reliable, lightweight, much easier and cheaper to make, and actually vaguely disposable all the while being head and shoulders above what any army would field as standard until after the war. The Army was aware of this, which is why they didn't want a box mag on the Garand, and they were vindicated in WW2 when the BAR was plagued with stoppage issues because despite being a great weapon, the box mag always fails first. Even the M16 had magazine issues. Even now, magazine issues are the root cause of most stoppages and we can shit them out infinitely more cheaply and they're many times more reliable than what they could manage in the '30s. We were already ahead of the kerb by twenty years, there was no reason to exhaust that by shooting so far ahead we couldn't properly field or fight with America's greatest combat rifle.

>>64140051
M1 carbine mags suck ass. I've owned 3 M1 carbines, all USGI, and they are frustratingly unreliable, the magazines causing the majority of all malfunctions (FTF).

>>64143951
is it just the 30 round mags or 10 and 20 ones as well?

>>64143979
> 10 and 20
oh - meant the one with 15 ofc -.-

>>64143979
The 15 rounders are generally better but they're still hit or miss. 30 rounders can be okay if they're underloaded, but you still have to find good ones. The thing is, is that they're not consistently good, you can have NOS 15 rounders wrapped up in their wax tape, they're chugging along and boom failure to feed. They're also really sensitive to dents, and the followers like to tilt.

>>64144000
Just replace the springs bro. Literally the solution to 95% of your carbine mag problems here.

>>64144591
Even the NOS ones? I doubt it, I think the issue is that they're unreliable when you compare them to good AR mags, G3 mags or AK mags.

It's a bit strange that they struggled with magazines, even though they were able to achieve precision with cartridge cases and mass-produce the complex curved surfaces of aircraft exterior panels through machining.

Just use em all.

>>64140051
>in ww2
It's a 1920s design.

>>64145010
Designing an inexpensive, reliable, reasonably lightweight magazine that can be stored loaded for a long time is inherently difficult.

>>64138944 (OP)
It's actually cheaper and faster. You didn't need a magazine spring for every clip, the spent clip automatically ejects, and the bolt would lock open with the last round. You only had to feed the new clip in and hit the bolt release.

Honestly, I'm surprised we didn't go for 20 round en blocs.

>>64142411
It's a really stiff belt?

>>64145211
It saw some juicy looking krauts and got hard. You can only use it now before it goes flaccid.

>>64145010
>through machining
Stamping precision parts is not as simple as it sounds especially with old technology

Soldiers were considered too incapable of not losing or damaging a box magazine.
Most early detachable box magazines crush or deform rendering them useless if you step on them, lay or fall on them, or were too rough with them. A hollow square made out of thin metal with precise feed lips is rather delicate.
While a stripper clip is just loose ammo connected by a strip. If you ruin it no big deal.

>>64138944 (OP)
Italians did that.