Nice video , I shoot an springfield 1943 Garand for the last 25 years now and love it every time I shoot it , it never failed me and it gave me in 12.000 rounds twice the seventh cartridge hickup and nothing else I shoot with old 30-06 from 1962 from the Dutch army and this is premium ammo . The rifle is as accurate as any bolt action rifle at 100 yards after 77 years .
Bloke, remind me to never tick you off. You were fearsome with that Garand, even if you can't figure out how to pronounce it. Love your content, man. Keep it up.
@@28pbtkh23 Sorry, I don't mean to do anybody down, but have you ever thought of what can be done with Editing? More seriously, there used to be something called a Sound Stage where the actors could speak their lines without interference from cameras or passing traffic including the overhead type.
slower in what conditions? bench rested? there's no comparison here. you wont hit shit with that enfield firing as fast as you can with it but I will take someones head off at 100yds with my garand every 2 seconds with ease. bolt actions are accurate for sure but not in rapid fire...that's just the honest truth.
@@jeffreygao3956 - amazing. You have replied to my comment and I have just noticed that I made it three years ago. That’s not a criticism though. I meant that the Garand had some semi auto function (sorry but I don’t know the exact term) and so had a higher rate of fire. Mind you, I have read the memoirs of a few British soldiers and they certainly loved their Enfields. Very accurate and reliable apparently, as I’m sure the Garand was as well.
Actually to me this was the most interesting video so far. Impressive to see how fast you can get follow up shots. Would be intersting to see how much faster it would be with a sling on it.
That was very interesting. It was really impressive how accurate you were on last 3 clips that rhythm would make a huge difference in the heat of battle. I am ordering a CMP special grade. If you are not up on that being from the UK. CMP is the civilian marksmanship program and the special grade is a M1 that is completely rebuilt new stock new barrel and springs plus anything else that needs to be replaced. I'm hearing reports they are very accurate the stocks are very tight. Thanks for sharing
I participated in a historical competition (all guns designed before 1945) where on one stage we had 2 minutes to shoot a target at 150 meters as many times as we could. The M1 Carbine completely outclassed anything else in firepower. No jams like SVTs do... Well a Suomi smg with drum magazine came close.
@@werre2 I am not surprised at all. With its light recoil, good peep sight and high magazine capacity the M1 carbine should beat the crap out of anything shoulder fired from the WWII era at that kind of distance.
@@werre2 Was it in full auto or semi? I ask because I heard that the M1 Carbine in full auto could fire all of its rounds off before the first hit the target.
The 3:30 reload is basically exactly 5seconds, which is the youtube 5 seconds back with the left arrow key, press it right on the first shot and you get constant nice 5 second 1-reload-1-reload-...
Bloke, one of the National Matches here is the National Trophy Infantry Team match, or "Rattle Battle". It's not uncommon for 6-man teams to have expended their 384 rounds well before the ceasefire at 500yds - 100 total seconds of firing. The best accuracy I've heard is 48 hits at 600yds, probably of 48 or 50 fired in 50 sec. Perhaps give your AR a run in the Minute sometime?
I support this proposal! The cat is out of the bag with the M1 anyways, so using an intermediate cartridge rifle for further comparison would be a natural continuation. I didn't know that Bloke has an AR, though.
Great work. The outcome was as expected but good to see and hear. It would be fantastic if all the fanboys would just get over it and accept that "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. 😁
Loving the true geekyness of the graphs. Good to see some primary data used to prove a hypothesis. It might be range data but how else could you make a comparison without too many variables.
Great video, not boring at all. I was always under the impression that rate of fire was just as important as accuracy. If you can lay down concistant fast fire then your better shooters can take advantage of the enemy being pinned down and so press home any advantage.
Had a friend who served in the US Army from 1953 to 1958. He trained on the M1 Garand and even had to do a crash course on the M14 despite his enlistment running out literally days later. What he remembered most about training was his shooting instructor. That ancient sergeant said that the gold standard for training in his day (in the mid-1920s with the M1903) was five shots within five inches at 300 yards in twenty-five seconds. When he upgraded to the M1 Garand in around 1940, the standard was eight shots in five inches at 300 yards in twenty seconds. Mind, these were not necessarily official standards, but it seemed appropo to relate that here.
Thanks, but those figures you're quoting there are way outside the limits of mechanical accuracy of either of those rifles, even fired from a machine rest.
@@BlokeontheRange Aye, I don't disagree about the MOA being far too ambitious, it probably being just hyperbole by the instructor to inspire the recruits, but the timing was intriguing. Roughly five seconds an aimed shot for the boltgun being dropped to around 2.5 for the Garand seemed to fit with your own experience of not having the bolt-action interrupting your firing process.
On a grouped round/minute basis, the M1 outclasses the rest by far. Only a few shots strayed from the bullseye so your shots would be something I'd be ducking as a soldier.
There's another thing that I feel like is rarely accounted for in a lot of these tests, a soldier who is firing below 50 yards is going to have a lot more confidence in his shot because he can fire a quick follow up shot if he misses, that's not the case with a bolt action which leads to a slower shot. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate this in a test but I'm confident that if you could it would be very interesting and show another advantage of semi autos
Challenge accepted sir! However, as the challenged party, I reserve the right to choose the weapon. I propose a bullseye competition at 50 paces with Tacti-Toks. The last person to go mad in sheer frustration at their particular piece of Four Year Plan arms production wins. I still haven't forgiven you for leading me down this obsessive road of Combloc Rubs Goldbergism ;-)
This reminds me of a recent video I watched about why the M4 Sherman was what it was. Pretty much it was about everything you "know" is wrong. Aside from temperature issues pretty much everything the US Army used in WWII worked. Perfectly, no. And the M1 worked pretty damned well. Is the video boring? No it isn't. What it is, is a tour de force.
So, how much is there to the theory that the increased rate of fire of M1 Garand rifles made up for the lack of a really good platoon-level machine gun? Though US forces did start sticking bipods on M1917 machine guns (I meant M1919), and really, they could usually call on a tank or two.
Unless of course you are mistaken in your wording and that what you actually meant was the Squad Automatic Weapon. Well actually in that particular Role i'd argue the B.A.R was better than the MG42, not quite the Bren though but that's a gun that was based off the BAR so its a generation ahead. before I go into anymore we need to learn what the ideal SAW is and it's role, The Squad Automatic Weapon is essentially the Walking fireman, the heavy hitter of the squad (and remember a squad is 10 men), He is the one who suppresses the enemy typically on a bipod or Mows them down if they are caught in the open. He can't sit in 1 spot though and he has to move quickly and sometimes Hip fire on the move or even shoulder fire. BUT that not all that he has to do, he's the walking fireman so he also has to be right up front storming trenches and buildings with the SMG guys typically walking while hip firing a wall of powerful bullets to anyone in the narrow choke point/ corridor. The Ideal criteria of a Squad Automatic weapon is a machine gun that has good enough firepower and good enough ammo compacity BUT is light, controllable, reloadable and ammo carryable enough to be operated by just 1 man. A squad will quite often have a SAW assistant ammo barer who might carry a few clips/belts but ultimately is still 100% capable in his own role and the SAW gunner by himself can manage just fine without him. Now if by that criteria you might see the problem with the MG42 as a SAW, the MG42 is a whopping 11.6kg empty and chews through so much ammo that atleast 1,000 rounds is required as well as atleast 2 spare barrels (because after 300 rounds or so at an incredible 1,500rpm they're finished). Now this is WAY too heavy for 1 man to sufficiently carry along with the rest of his gear and as a result a bare minimum of 2 men are required with a 3rd assisstant ammo barer. This 2nd man who carries a lot of the ammo has now been reduced to Walther pistol as a result so his role as a rifleman is gone to cater for the MG42. the MG42 is also completely useless at storming trenches and buildings, because again it's too heavy and because it has a 1,500rpm Rof they're no way in Hell that an individual can fire it standing up without falling over (except for a special technique where you ram your feet into the ground far apart and ram the stock of the MG42 into your hip/gut and fire a less than 1-second burst and you can't move while doing this nor shoulder fire it and even then you'd slide backwards.) So it can't be shoulder fired or hip fired while walking, but even if it could the MG42 drains a 50 round drum in 2 seconds and it's too heavy for him to carry more than 1 of those. the M1918A2 BAR weighs a fairly heafty 8.8kg's empty and carries say 12x 20 round magazines and well doesn't have a quick change barrel so no spare barrels which is far from light BUT is still manageable operated by just 1 man (so no other man in the squad has to be reduced to a pistol). The M1918A2 Bar is VERY easily hip fired and very controllable and is also very easily shoulder fired, The M1918A2 BAR comes with 2 ROF settings, 800-900rpm or 300-400rpm and under the 300-400rpm the BAR is extremely controllable while shoulder firing and because the BAR has a rear apperature peep sight it could actually be used like an Assualt rifle this way, A really big one that goes tac tac tac tac tac tac tac in full auto which is really accurate or even percision fire with a quick pull like the M1 Garands along side, it is accurate enough and have good enough sights take the role of an M1 Garand if required all be it much heavier ofc. and obviously, this makes it very good at storming buildings and trenches Now back on this issue on men required, you might think "Oh so what if the MG42 takes 2 men compared to the BARs, it still offers far more firepower in a 1v1" and you'd be correct.........except it wasn't always 1v1, the US noticed the fact that the MG42 required 2 men compared to one and noticed that as a result they had far more SAW firepower and at a certian point in 1944 US squads weren't given 1, but *2* Bar gunners, so it's now 2v1 per squad. However even 2 BAR's can't quite match the volume of fire that the MG42 Can BUT if the squads split up into 2 Fire teams of 5 men with 1 bar gunner in each and attack the MG42 from 2 differnet positions and angles that will seriously give an MG42 problems, and obviously 2 BAR's under 2 men are twice as good at storming trenches and Buildings and 2 Bar gunners can still shoulder and hip fire on the move. And Thus i think although the BAR far from the perfect SAW it is better at that role than the MG42 all round. Remember i'm definitely not saying the BAR is better than the MG42 overall, Hell fucking no, just in the SAW role. the BAR gets alot on unwarrented hate thrown at it like the M4 sherman, and to be fair the BAR was getting a bit outdated (awkward magazine reload, no pistol grip, no quick change barrel, awkward bi-pod) and they were better options such as the Bren gun and FM 24/29 (which were heavily inspired by the BAR btw) but it was still a very viable and solid piece of kit in that role. The BAR (like all John browning guns) was a victim of it's own success, it was good at the end of ww1 and blew away things like the Lewis gun and the Chauchat so far that by the time ww2 came around US ordinance said it didn't quite need to be replaced although a replacement would be helpful. In my opinion they should have adopted the FN Model D, which is essentially the BAR improved by the Belgians with a pistol grip, quick change barrel and better bi-pod. (fun fact, the FN Model D was the weapon that the FN FAL was based on, yes thats right, the BAR is the grandfather of the FN FAL.)
Audio sounding great! Super interesting regardless as I recently shot a garand and was quite pleased with its performance. Although the rifle is still far more accurate than I am XD
I like that, the BULLET gets to the TARGET before u shoot, NICE shooting. Yea the timing was just a little off. I like the way the brass BOUNCES out in front of the barrel. hehe
For me this is fascinating to note that basically speaking, though you have to work harder for it, you get the same or of a good bolt action as a mediocre semi... Except at point blank where semi shines and range where the bolt action shines. We knew that but the way we knew it is different and that's interesting in and of itself.
The M1 easily achieves sub minute-of-angle to the point where precision at *typical engagement distances* between say a 1903 Springfield (basically a Mauser) and the M1 Garand is fairly negligible. I've shot both at 100 and 200 yds on a benchrest. Using M2 ball.
The best thing a Mosin-Nagant is good at is turning money into noise.* *I own two. They are surrounded by US Rifle Cal .30 M1s guarding them to keep them in the lockup. The M1s are much easier on the shoulder than the M-Ns are.
You may not agree Bloke, but I thought this was still a very interesting video. We all say it's obvious, but a video demonstrating exactly how much advantage semiautomatic gives the shooter over bolt action in terms of faster, less disrupted follow up was still useful to see. Regarding the official rate of fire reduction for the M1, I think it was probably the result of field observation of GIs shooting rapid suppressive fire (something a semiautomatic rifle excels at) colliding with a conservative military shooting culture still focused on careful, long range target marksmanship. Slowing down the shooter in training was most likely an effort to force soldiers to aim more and not just pump shots at the enemy. Of course, there was a fairly wide gap between doctrine and field practice. On the subject of rates of fire, if you do decide to add the AR15 to the mad minute series, I think it would be interesting to see a short video comparison between the AR15 and the M1. A demonstration of the advantage of reduced recoil with an intermediate cartridge vs a full battle rifle cartridge (maybe with the AR short loaded with 8 rounds to match the M1) would be useful, at least in my opinion. PS You got the pronunciation of Garand just right this time. Please reference this video as a template for future pronunciation ;-)
I can see that the thing you would have to be careful about with your semi auto is burning off all your ammo ten minutes, then having to get resupplied. It would take a lot of effort on behalf of the section commander (squad leader) to control the fire of his section.
When you said the "Italian thing" and I as an Italian-American shouted Fuck Yeah! Because I knew Italy produced Garands. Also because those good-ol' boys probably fell off their chairs.
Stg44. Paradigm shifting weapon that changed how we think and arm ourselves even now, 80 years down the track. And if you were armed with one even now you would NOT feel outgunned or hard done by as it is still an excellent serviceable weapon. M1? Not even the first issued-in-large-numbers self loading rifle. The op rod idea was bad design. The whole upper receiver is open to muck and shit. 'Great' design. The enbloc clip was 19th century thinking (and good then). It mostly worked ok. But they ditched it as SOON as they got a detachable box magazine working with the basic design. Then they ditched the oprod concept as soon as they could too. Better than any bolt gun tho. Even an SMLE. I think they should have gone with the Pederson in .276.
11:01 "I'm a very rhythmic shooter." For his first couple clips, I actually thought he had faint music playing in the background. The bang-echo-clunkity (brass hitting the floor) was indeed rhythmic enough to fool my novice ears. Somebody should write a song to the beat of the M1. :-) After writing the above I went looking for such a song, but the best I could do was a number of songs written ABOUT guns. Try googling "Best Gun Songs".
MAS 36 might actually do pretty well, (go watch Alex C. from TFBTV run and gun with one) but the garbage rod would fail miserable, rimmed ammo, a bolt the you have to slap harder than a mail order bride in order to operate, and non-self ejecting chargers, no chance in hell.
Does it have a Danish crown with FKF on the receiver with Italian parts stamps including the Italian factory that made that particular M1? Real name is US Rifle Caliber .30 M1.
Looked to me like it was more accurate overall than the others also. I assume that's due to not having to break the grip to cycle the bolt every time and recover?
There is no difference in recoil between .30-06 M2 ball (150gn @ 2800 fps) and the ammo I'm shooting there, which is also 150gn @ 2800 fps. 150gn @ 2800 fps is 150gn @ 2800fps..
not quite - the weight of the powder charge figures into the equation too - gas jet effect & all that. I can tell the difference, but it seems you don't notice it.
Having extra time to aim instead of working the bolt frantically to get the same rate of fire looks to be even more valuable than having a high rate of fire. Especially for followup shots to just sit back and think for half a second instead of doing anything else. I feel like I've been deceived all these years by people who trumpet bolt action accuracy in a batte rifle. They are technically correct for sniper shots, but for the average infantry soldier that seems misinformation.
It's actually the 2nd vid we've demonstrated this effect in. If you're interested, it also appears here with an SLR vs an SMLE: ruclips.net/video/Y3YiJDgddWk/видео.html
Your second magazine, for some reason, shot noticeably higher than the rest; if not for that one magazine, it appears the M1 would have also given your best group.
The simplest and clearest demonstration of how big a game changer a semi auto was in WW2.
Not if you can get a bunch of cheap peasants and arm them with cheap rifles.
Eh, it was really more about supplying men better.
This video and discussion proves Ian and Karl’s point on Forgotten Weapons and InRange that bolt action rifles are obsolete
Now all we need is mad minute bren gun and brown bess
@Lilac Tortoise yes yes yes we do
Yes we do
You might get a complete card with the Brown Bess. Either no hole, if not loaded in time, or one large space.
@@myparceltape1169 if you load the brown bess with "buck and ball" does that count as multiple hits?
Boring, everything went right, nothing went wrong, you say.
I'd say that's exactly want you want out of a standard issue battle rifle.
Basically proving the M1 being a no brainer compared to almost every other service rifle during the time
I enjoy the data and charts. It's nice to see more than just after action discussion. Good show!
Nice video , I shoot an springfield 1943 Garand for the last 25 years now and love it every time I shoot it , it never failed me and it gave me in 12.000 rounds twice the seventh cartridge hickup and nothing else I shoot with old 30-06 from 1962 from the Dutch army and this is premium ammo . The rifle is as accurate as any bolt action rifle at 100 yards after 77 years .
Your videos are never dull and boring, you cover topics that many don't even consider, thank you!
Bloke, remind me to never tick you off. You were fearsome with that Garand, even if you can't figure out how to pronounce it.
Love your content, man. Keep it up.
Clint Ambrose at 20m, everyone is fearsome with most any arm
That rapid fire at 9:30 was something to behold.
@@28pbtkh23 Sorry, I don't mean to do anybody down, but have you ever thought of what can be done with Editing?
More seriously, there used to be something called a Sound Stage where the actors could speak their lines without interference from cameras or passing traffic including the overhead type.
"Your mileage may vary."
*Has flashbacks to the dark times when I used to watch Nutnfancy*
Epitoma Rei Militaris Those were darks times for me as well, friend
Would it be easier if I said "your litres per 100 kilometres may vary"? :D :D :D
Bloke on the Range as a matter of fact yes.
same
This series is the best.
Just like the Garand (pronounce as you wish).
Sedan57Chevy "Timothy", as I have stated previously
I like the idea that John Garand was like "Who cares how they say it? They'll remember the name, right?"
Ahh the M1 Garand, my favorite rifle.
the lee enfield only slower by 0.5 secounds -- not bad for a bolt action
slower in what conditions? bench rested? there's no comparison here. you wont hit shit with that enfield firing as fast as you can with it but I will take someones head off at 100yds with my garand every 2 seconds with ease. bolt actions are accurate for sure but not in rapid fire...that's just the honest truth.
geezerp1982 Nothings faster than a semi-automatic, and where is this based from?
Not the least bit boring. Rate of fire AND accuracy. Good job, Bloke!
You left a corner of the bullseye no stuffed prize for you chap.
I'll never get tired of hearing how awesome my country's service rifle was.
Same here! God Bless The Garand!! And God Bless America!!
Me neither, I’m very glad to own an example
That Italian Garand is awesome, one of our last full-sized battle rifles. Thanx!
What a brilliant rifle! Especially when compared to all of its competitors in WWII.
Maybe; I know the MAS-36, Lee-Enfield, and Karabiner 98k(Yes I went there and no I actually hate Nazism) were brilliant too.
@@jeffreygao3956 - amazing. You have replied to my comment and I have just noticed that I made it three years ago. That’s not a criticism though. I meant that the Garand had some semi auto function (sorry but I don’t know the exact term) and so had a higher rate of fire. Mind you, I have read the memoirs of a few British soldiers and they certainly loved their Enfields. Very accurate and reliable apparently, as I’m sure the Garand was as well.
Actually to me this was the most interesting video so far. Impressive to see how fast you can get follow up shots. Would be intersting to see how much faster it would be with a sling on it.
That was very interesting. It was really impressive how accurate you were on last 3 clips that rhythm would make a huge difference in the heat of battle. I am ordering a CMP special grade. If you are not up on that being from the UK. CMP is the civilian marksmanship program and the special grade is a M1 that is completely rebuilt new stock new barrel and springs plus anything else that needs to be replaced. I'm hearing reports they are very accurate the stocks are very tight. Thanks for sharing
Do a Mad Minute with an M1 Carbine
Korean era M2 Carbine 30 round magazines.
I participated in a historical competition (all guns designed before 1945) where on one stage we had 2 minutes to shoot a target at 150 meters as many times as we could.
The M1 Carbine completely outclassed anything else in firepower. No jams like SVTs do...
Well a Suomi smg with drum magazine came close.
@@werre2 I am not surprised at all. With its light recoil, good peep sight and high magazine capacity the M1 carbine should beat the crap out of anything shoulder fired from the WWII era at that kind of distance.
@@werre2 Was it in full auto or semi? I ask because I heard that the M1 Carbine in full auto could fire all of its rounds off before the first hit the target.
@@theminnesotan592 that was the m2 carbine a korean war variant of the m1 carbine.
The 3:30 reload is basically exactly 5seconds, which is the youtube 5 seconds back with the left arrow key, press it right on the first shot and you get constant nice 5 second 1-reload-1-reload-...
Bloke, one of the National Matches here is the National Trophy Infantry Team match, or "Rattle Battle". It's not uncommon for 6-man teams to have expended their 384 rounds well before the ceasefire at 500yds - 100 total seconds of firing. The best accuracy I've heard is 48 hits at 600yds, probably of 48 or 50 fired in 50 sec.
Perhaps give your AR a run in the Minute sometime?
Perhaps I will. That'll be a lot of money turned into noise though! :D
Bloke on the Range I mean 30 rounds of basically zero recoil go by very fast, even aimed.
I support this proposal! The cat is out of the bag with the M1 anyways, so using an intermediate cartridge rifle for further comparison would be a natural continuation. I didn't know that Bloke has an AR, though.
I do have one, but it's an HBAR with a freefloat tube, skeleton butt, extended sight radius, match trigger and other non-mil adaptations :D
Great work. The outcome was as expected but good to see and hear. It would be fantastic if all the fanboys would just get over it and accept that "you go to war with the army you have, not the one you want. 😁
Loving the true geekyness of the graphs. Good to see some primary data used to prove a hypothesis. It might be range data but how else could you make a comparison without too many variables.
Great video, not boring at all. I was always under the impression that rate of fire was just as important as accuracy. If you can lay down concistant fast fire then your better shooters can take advantage of the enemy being pinned down and so press home any advantage.
The only thing left to do now is to get the ultimate mad minute by going full auto.
darkspire91 Any minute chunk of those “can we melt this barrel/flash hider/suppressor” vids will give you that satisfaction. :-)
Give it a twist. Mad Minute: hand cranked Gatling Gun.
I'm sure someone out there will loan you one.
darkspire91 Crank in one hand, cup of tea in the other.
With Hitlers buzz saw!
Ppsh mad minute
Nothing boring about this video, rather the opposite.
Ah, I see you brought the machine that goes "ping!"
Murcia XD
Thank you bloke, hope for more videos on this.
Had a friend who served in the US Army from 1953 to 1958. He trained on the M1 Garand and even had to do a crash course on the M14 despite his enlistment running out literally days later. What he remembered most about training was his shooting instructor. That ancient sergeant said that the gold standard for training in his day (in the mid-1920s with the M1903) was five shots within five inches at 300 yards in twenty-five seconds. When he upgraded to the M1 Garand in around 1940, the standard was eight shots in five inches at 300 yards in twenty seconds. Mind, these were not necessarily official standards, but it seemed appropo to relate that here.
Thanks, but those figures you're quoting there are way outside the limits of mechanical accuracy of either of those rifles, even fired from a machine rest.
@@BlokeontheRange Aye, I don't disagree about the MOA being far too ambitious, it probably being just hyperbole by the instructor to inspire the recruits, but the timing was intriguing. Roughly five seconds an aimed shot for the boltgun being dropped to around 2.5 for the Garand seemed to fit with your own experience of not having the bolt-action interrupting your firing process.
On a grouped round/minute basis, the M1 outclasses the rest by far. Only a few shots strayed from the bullseye so your shots would be something I'd be ducking as a soldier.
There's another thing that I feel like is rarely accounted for in a lot of these tests, a soldier who is firing below 50 yards is going to have a lot more confidence in his shot because he can fire a quick follow up shot if he misses, that's not the case with a bolt action which leads to a slower shot. I'm not sure how you would demonstrate this in a test but I'm confident that if you could it would be very interesting and show another advantage of semi autos
This is how your American grandfathers repelled numerous German counterattacks in Salerno, Anzio, Normandy, Falaise and in Bastogne.
I wasn't surprised about the speed. The vastly increased accuracy wasn't expected, however.
Can I press dislike just because I know no one else will dare dis the holy ‘rand ;-)
Don't do it Chap. My finger is hovering over the dislike button on the No 4 mad minute video as we speak ;-)
simonferrer Threatening me sir? Name your second sir! Handbags at dawn, be there or be square.
Challenge accepted sir! However, as the challenged party, I reserve the right to choose the weapon. I propose a bullseye competition at 50 paces with Tacti-Toks. The last person to go mad in sheer frustration at their particular piece of Four Year Plan arms production wins. I still haven't forgiven you for leading me down this obsessive road of Combloc Rubs Goldbergism ;-)
simonferrer Even more frustrating with my tonne of Sovblock click-bang ammo. You never know if it’s going to go.
This reminds me of a recent video I watched about why the M4 Sherman was what it was. Pretty much it was about everything you "know" is wrong. Aside from temperature issues pretty much everything the US Army used in WWII worked. Perfectly, no. And the M1 worked pretty damned well. Is the video boring? No it isn't. What it is, is a tour de force.
The mad minute is in reference to how fast and effectively a Britsh Empire soldier could fire a bolt action Enfield rifle.
He knows that, he was a competitive mad minute shooter for years.
So, how much is there to the theory that the increased rate of fire of M1 Garand rifles made up for the lack of a really good platoon-level machine gun?
Though US forces did start sticking bipods on M1917 machine guns (I meant M1919), and really, they could usually call on a tank or two.
It probably did partly make up for it, although rifle fire is much less concentrated than LMG fire. BTW it was the M1919's they put bipods on.
Yes, a tank, or a flight of ground attack aircraft, or 155mm Artillery or perhaps even a naval gun barrage. :-)
Steve Whipp Or just a good light mortar. Much faster, too, even by US standards in WW2 or Korea.
Treblaine i
Unless of course you are mistaken in your wording and that what you actually meant was the Squad Automatic Weapon.
Well actually in that particular Role i'd argue the B.A.R was better than the MG42, not quite the Bren though but that's a gun that was based off the BAR so its a generation ahead.
before I go into anymore we need to learn what the ideal SAW is and it's role,
The Squad Automatic Weapon is essentially the Walking fireman, the heavy hitter of the squad (and remember a squad is 10 men),
He is the one who suppresses the enemy typically on a bipod or Mows them down if they are caught in the open. He can't sit in 1 spot though and he has to move quickly and sometimes Hip fire on the move or even shoulder fire.
BUT that not all that he has to do, he's the walking fireman so he also has to be right up front storming trenches and buildings with the SMG guys typically walking while hip firing a wall of powerful bullets to anyone in the narrow choke point/ corridor.
The Ideal criteria of a Squad Automatic weapon is a machine gun that has good enough firepower and good enough ammo compacity BUT is light, controllable, reloadable and ammo carryable enough to be operated by just 1 man.
A squad will quite often have a SAW assistant ammo barer who might carry a few clips/belts but ultimately is still 100% capable in his own role and the SAW gunner by himself can manage just fine without him.
Now if by that criteria you might see the problem with the MG42 as a SAW,
the MG42 is a whopping 11.6kg empty and chews through so much ammo that atleast 1,000 rounds is required as well as atleast 2 spare barrels (because after 300 rounds or so at an incredible 1,500rpm they're finished).
Now this is WAY too heavy for 1 man to sufficiently carry along with the rest of his gear and as a result a bare minimum of 2 men are required with a 3rd assisstant ammo barer.
This 2nd man who carries a lot of the ammo has now been reduced to Walther pistol as a result so his role as a rifleman is gone to cater for the MG42.
the MG42 is also completely useless at storming trenches and buildings, because again it's too heavy and because it has a 1,500rpm Rof they're no way in Hell that an individual can fire it standing up without falling over
(except for a special technique where you ram your feet into the ground far apart and ram the stock of the MG42 into your hip/gut and fire a less than 1-second burst and you can't move while doing this nor shoulder fire it and even then you'd slide backwards.)
So it can't be shoulder fired or hip fired while walking, but even if it could the MG42 drains a 50 round drum in 2 seconds and it's too heavy for him to carry more than 1 of those.
the M1918A2 BAR weighs a fairly heafty 8.8kg's empty and carries say 12x 20 round magazines and well doesn't have a quick change barrel so no spare barrels which is far from light BUT is still manageable operated by just 1 man (so no other man in the squad has to be reduced to a pistol).
The M1918A2 Bar is VERY easily hip fired and very controllable and is also very easily shoulder fired, The M1918A2 BAR comes with 2 ROF settings, 800-900rpm or 300-400rpm and under the 300-400rpm the BAR is extremely controllable while shoulder firing and because the BAR has a rear apperature peep sight it could actually be used like an Assualt rifle this way, A really big one that goes tac tac tac tac tac tac tac in full auto which is really accurate or even percision fire with a quick pull like the M1 Garands along side, it is accurate enough and have good enough sights take the role of an M1 Garand if required all be it much heavier ofc. and obviously, this makes it very good at storming buildings and trenches
Now back on this issue on men required, you might think "Oh so what if the MG42 takes 2 men compared to the BARs, it still offers far more firepower in a 1v1" and you'd be correct.........except it wasn't always 1v1, the US noticed the fact that the MG42 required 2 men compared to one and noticed that as a result they had far more SAW firepower and at a certian point in 1944 US squads weren't given 1, but *2* Bar gunners, so it's now 2v1 per squad.
However even 2 BAR's can't quite match the volume of fire that the MG42 Can BUT if the squads split up into 2 Fire teams of 5 men with 1 bar gunner in each and attack the MG42 from 2 differnet positions and angles that will seriously give an MG42 problems, and obviously 2 BAR's under 2 men are twice as good at storming trenches and Buildings and 2 Bar gunners can still shoulder and hip fire on the move.
And Thus i think although the BAR far from the perfect SAW it is better at that role than the MG42 all round.
Remember i'm definitely not saying the BAR is better than the MG42 overall, Hell fucking no, just in the SAW role.
the BAR gets alot on unwarrented hate thrown at it like the M4 sherman, and to be fair the BAR was getting a bit outdated (awkward magazine reload, no pistol grip, no quick change barrel, awkward bi-pod) and they were better options such as the Bren gun and FM 24/29 (which were heavily inspired by the BAR btw) but it was still a very viable and solid piece of kit in that role.
The BAR (like all John browning guns) was a victim of it's own success, it was good at the end of ww1 and blew away things like the Lewis gun and the Chauchat so far that by the time ww2 came around US ordinance said it didn't quite need to be replaced although a replacement would be helpful.
In my opinion they should have adopted the FN Model D, which is essentially the BAR improved by the Belgians with a pistol grip, quick change barrel and better bi-pod.
(fun fact, the FN Model D was the weapon that the FN FAL was based on, yes thats right, the BAR is the grandfather of the FN FAL.)
Audio sounding great! Super interesting regardless as I recently shot a garand and was quite pleased with its performance. Although the rifle is still far more accurate than I am XD
I like that, the BULLET gets to the TARGET before u shoot, NICE shooting. Yea the timing was just a little off. I like the way the brass BOUNCES out in front of the barrel. hehe
For me this is fascinating to note that basically speaking, though you have to work harder for it, you get the same or of a good bolt action as a mediocre semi... Except at point blank where semi shines and range where the bolt action shines.
We knew that but the way we knew it is different and that's interesting in and of itself.
The M1 easily achieves sub minute-of-angle to the point where precision at *typical engagement distances* between say a 1903 Springfield (basically a Mauser) and the M1 Garand is fairly negligible.
I've shot both at 100 and 200 yds on a benchrest. Using M2 ball.
@@getmeoutofsanfrancisco9917 sub 1 moa...? Theynwere only manufactured to a tolerance of 5 moa so I'm guessing you've done a lot of work to that
It's time for the best rifle in the world
The garbage rod
*mosin nagant
The best thing a Mosin-Nagant is good at is turning money into noise.*
*I own two. They are surrounded by US Rifle Cal .30 M1s guarding them to keep them in the lockup.
The M1s are much easier on the shoulder than the M-Ns are.
gravelydon they also make very good throwing spears
And paddles/oars.
Ahh the good old Moist nugget
M1 next on the list of must haves!
You may not agree Bloke, but I thought this was still a very interesting video. We all say it's obvious, but a video demonstrating exactly how much advantage semiautomatic gives the shooter over bolt action in terms of faster, less disrupted follow up was still useful to see.
Regarding the official rate of fire reduction for the M1, I think it was probably the result of field observation of GIs shooting rapid suppressive fire (something a semiautomatic rifle excels at) colliding with a conservative military shooting culture still focused on careful, long range target marksmanship. Slowing down the shooter in training was most likely an effort to force soldiers to aim more and not just pump shots at the enemy. Of course, there was a fairly wide gap between doctrine and field practice.
On the subject of rates of fire, if you do decide to add the AR15 to the mad minute series, I think it would be interesting to see a short video comparison between the AR15 and the M1. A demonstration of the advantage of reduced recoil with an intermediate cartridge vs a full battle rifle cartridge (maybe with the AR short loaded with 8 rounds to match the M1) would be useful, at least in my opinion.
PS You got the pronunciation of Garand just right this time. Please reference this video as a template for future pronunciation ;-)
Lovely. Battle rifle breakfast. Always refreshing to see prone unsupported.
Rip target
Now it's time to do one with an M95 Steyr Mannlicher! :P
Done, but could only load 4 per clip. Still gets splits data and reload time data though! I guess I can edit it to fake a 5-shot reload.
the virgin "6:15!" vs the chad "ahahhaa I don't think I hit with all of them"
I can see that the thing you would have to be careful about with your semi auto is burning off all your ammo ten minutes, then having to get resupplied. It would take a lot of effort on behalf of the section commander (squad leader) to control the fire of his section.
In British practice, that was pretty much 75% of the section commander's job, directing fire, mouvement etc. Still is.
I once read where military discipline was described as, 'Knowing when to STOP shooting' :p
You should try a ''mad minute'' with a SVT-40. I feel that the reloading could be funny with the 7,62x54R stripper clip.
Excellent technique!
Of course you didn't have any issues. It's a Garand lol. Of course I'm a bit biased.
When you said the "Italian thing" and I as an Italian-American shouted Fuck Yeah! Because I knew Italy produced Garands. Also because those good-ol' boys probably fell off their chairs.
Looking forward to seeing the P14 and MAS 36 videos :)
Had a brit argue with me the enfield could shoot faster than the Garand. NOT. After he saw me shoot he shut up.
I need to find some extra cash in my budget to help add a Maxim or something equally fun to the mix to compare with the bolt actions.
mad minute: MG42
more like mad second haha
Bro, why are you camping? jk how far were you from the target like 10 or 15 meters?
About 20m. With a correspondingly small target :)
It would also be interesting to do SKS. I wonder how +2 capacity, but slower clip would compare.
If you have a polished clip, its pretty quick.
I love how many brass casings are the floor.
There is nothing boring about knowing how to shoot an M1 rifle well.
M1 garand its the best .
That lindybeige cameo
Best WW2 rifle for a reason. Many reasons actually.
Stg44.
Paradigm shifting weapon that changed how we think and arm ourselves even now, 80 years down the track. And if you were armed with one even now you would NOT feel outgunned or hard done by as it is still an excellent serviceable weapon.
M1? Not even the first issued-in-large-numbers self loading rifle. The op rod idea was bad design. The whole upper receiver is open to muck and shit. 'Great' design. The enbloc clip was 19th century thinking (and good then). It mostly worked ok. But they ditched it as SOON as they got a detachable box magazine working with the basic design. Then they ditched the oprod concept as soon as they could too.
Better than any bolt gun tho. Even an SMLE.
I think they should have gone with the Pederson in .276.
Great vids mate. Thanks. Could you do a mad min with a Mosin? Maybe an M39?
Would like to see a Mad Minute of the P14/M1917 Enfield, Bertheir, and Krag(US/Norway). especially the Krag, side loading loose cartridges at once.
11:01 "I'm a very rhythmic shooter."
For his first couple clips, I actually thought he had faint music playing in the background. The bang-echo-clunkity (brass hitting the floor) was indeed rhythmic enough to fool my novice ears. Somebody should write a song to the beat of the M1. :-)
After writing the above I went looking for such a song, but the best I could do was a number of songs written ABOUT guns. Try googling "Best Gun Songs".
I actually paused it because I was confused about the music.
Now a Mad Minute with a modern rifle like a AR15, Steyr Aug, Sig or something else
Odd question. Have you ever thought hmm, I wonder how the fabled Mosin Nagant or MAS 36 would do in a mad minute? I am.
Look in the spreadsheet. You'll find one of them there...
Whaaaaaat you actually did a MAS36? Fantastic!
MAS 36 might actually do pretty well, (go watch Alex C. from TFBTV run and gun with one) but the garbage rod would fail miserable, rimmed ammo, a bolt the you have to slap harder than a mail order bride in order to operate, and non-self ejecting chargers, no chance in hell.
With or without a 2x4 handy for the M-N's bolt? ;^)
With! No doubt definitely with!
when doing a mad minute run with any rifle does the target have to at a certain distance or is it up the shooter to choose?
i always imagined the garand to have huge recoil from watching films and band of brothers but didnt look that bad but ive never fired a real gun lol
In films they're firing blank so there's no recoil ;)
Can someone please explain what that blue/black jacket is for? Certainly the answer isn't fashion
Dakota Miles it’s a competition shooting jacket
Does it have a Danish crown with FKF on the receiver with Italian parts stamps including the Italian factory that made that particular M1? Real name is US Rifle Caliber .30 M1.
It's a Danish one made by Beretta indeed.
Love your vids! Would love to see a m95 mad min. I have one and willing to loan it.
Done it, but with only 4 rounds per clip since 5 wouldn't feed. Vid will come at some point.
Wonder how a gewehr 41 or fn 1949 compares, charger loading versus en-bloc?
MUUUUUUCCCHCHHHHHH slower.
en-bloc clips are vastly faster than chargers
Is is bad for the gun if you slap the bolt forward a lot?
No. It's how it's supposed to function.
Pardon my ignorance, how quickly, including a reload can a Garand get ten shots off compared to the Lee-Enfield?
Why not time this video and the corresponding one with the No.4? Then you'll know :)
Id be interested in a svt mad minute with clips and mags
The Hun Gun.
is that lindy talking at 9:44.
Respectfully suggest adding total energy (common military ball) on target stats.
Looked to me like it was more accurate overall than the others also. I assume that's due to not having to break the grip to cycle the bolt every time and recover?
Indeed
Mad minute with an M134. Go.
Nice video!
What kind of Stock Pouch did U mounted on your Garand ?
One from Brownells
I own an AR-10 and I don't know if I can beat 39 with accuracy. 39 is pretty friggen good with any full power rifle.
have you compared the time differences between 30-06 and 7.62 NATO?
should make no appreciable difference since .308 was made to replicate the performance of .30-06 military ball ammo in a shorter case length.
well, I can tell the difference when shooting a Garand.......
There is no difference in recoil between .30-06 M2 ball (150gn @ 2800 fps) and the ammo I'm shooting there, which is also 150gn @ 2800 fps. 150gn @ 2800 fps is 150gn @ 2800fps..
not quite - the weight of the powder charge figures into the equation too - gas jet effect & all that. I can tell the difference, but it seems you don't notice it.
A couple of grains extra powder to get the same velocity? This is princess-and-the-pea territory. Or you're shooting heavier bullets in .30-06.
Boring...thought it was awesome. Love this series, very informative.
Having extra time to aim instead of working the bolt frantically to get the same rate of fire looks to be even more valuable than having a high rate of fire. Especially for followup shots to just sit back and think for half a second instead of doing anything else. I feel like I've been deceived all these years by people who trumpet bolt action accuracy in a batte rifle. They are technically correct for sniper shots, but for the average infantry soldier that seems misinformation.
It's actually the 2nd vid we've demonstrated this effect in. If you're interested, it also appears here with an SLR vs an SMLE: ruclips.net/video/Y3YiJDgddWk/видео.html
As a test of ww2 rifles the next test should be a full auto Stg44 🙂
What about a 1903A3 springfield mad minute?
He has made one. Google it. Its pretty similar in results to the Mauser
Was frankenrifle using 7.62x39 or .303 ?
Frankenrifle fires 7.62x39
Mad Minute between the Sten gun vs Grease gun?
Cool video, shame i couldn't hear anything over the ping.... ;)
That is a whiskey you leave sitting there untenanted ;)
Semi auto center fire in the UK?
No. Illegal.
@@BlokeontheRange where is this then mate?
Terry Rich I suggest you see our recent festive FAQ for the answer 😊
Your second magazine, for some reason, shot noticeably higher than the rest; if not for that one magazine, it appears the M1 would have also given your best group.
It very much did give the best group though
good old USA, i love this weapon M1
I am very jealous of your Beretta M1 in 7.62x51mm. I wish I had one of my own. :(
EN-BLOC!!!
Bloke lost a lot of weight