By John Brylor
An iconic infantry weapon of World War II, the M-1 Garand rifle developed a reputation for placing substantial firepower in the hands of a single soldier. Its eight-round magazine meant a robust capability for sustained operation in combat and provided a rate of fire that enhanced survivability while giving the American infantryman a decided edge in most situations.
However, in addition to the praise this worthy weapon received in wartime, one issue seems to have emerged during the combat experience. When the M-1 emptied, the spent clip ejected with a characteristically audible “ping.” It was a telltale signature of the rifle’s operation—but was it also a tipoff to the enemy that the weapon was empty for a few seconds? The debate continues as to whether the opponent was actually able to capitalize on the M-1 ping and kill or wound the G.I. as he tried to reload. An examination of the phenomenon provides some context and evaluation of what is otherwise arguably the finest standard-issue infantry firearm of the great conflict.
Designed by Canadian-American engineer Jean “John” C. Garand, an employee at the Springfield Armory, the M-1 Garand was the first practical and successful semiautomatic service rifle to be adopted by a major armed force. Introduced in 1936, some 5.5 million were produced between 1934 and 1957, with the rifle remaining standard issue in the U.S. military until 1958. Even then, it was found in reserve stocks well into the 1970s and remains in use in a ceremonial role today, famously with the U.S. Marine Corps’ Silent Drill Platoon.
Moreover, the Garand was adopted by more than 30 nation states, including Canada, Denmark, France, Iran, Israel, Italy, the Netherlands, Norway, and West Germany. Through Lend-Lease, some 38,000 saw service with the United Kingdom, where the rifle was used by Commando units. The rifle also saw incredible longevity extending well beyond its service issue with the U.S. military, and it is noteworthy that photographic evidence exists showing Soviet troops capturing a Garand in Afghanistan in 1986, as well as Afghan police recovering one during a 2013 operation.
Chambered in .30-06-calibre rounds and weighing approximately 9.5 pounds, the Garand was a reliable, accurate and hard-hitting rifle that furnished its operator with greater firepower than many of his contemporaries, especially during World War II when most Allied and Axis soldiers were still issued bolt-action rifles. It was far from the only semiautomatic rifle used in that conflict, but the Garand’s production more than doubled the combined numbers of its two main wartime rivals, the German Gewehr 43 and the Soviet SVT-40.
John Garand, who had already been involved in semiautomatic rifle projects, began design work on his new rifle in 1928. Progress was slow and there was substantial competition, but after some initial production and design difficulties the rifle went into mass production in September 1937. It was a powerful, simple, affordable and easy to produce and maintain repeating firearm adored by the end user, which gave U.S. Army and Marine Corps platoons far greater firepower than their Allied, German, and Japanese counterparts.
The secret to the Garand’s success was its action and feed, pairing a gas-operated, closed rotating bolt system with a top-loading en-bloc clip, inserted through the retracted bolt into a magazine well. Eight rounds were double-stacked in simple metal clips, whereas other rifles —such as the G43—featured detachable box magazines that, although holding more rounds, were generally reloaded using five-round stripper clips as few magazines were issued to each user. The en-bloc clip, therefore, gave the U.S. rifleman an advantage in that he had no magazine to damage or lose and could reload his rifle to capacity in one action.
However, so the myth states, the primary disadvantage was that after firing the last round this clip self-ejected, sprung through the open bolt and out the top of the firearm producing an audible “ping.” That distinctive noise is indeed genuine, but it has long been believed that it betrayed to a potential adversary the fact that a rifleman was out of ammunition and needed to reload.
Perhaps, if a Garand user was operating alone in the quiet of a night shattered by the firing of eight .30-06 rounds, the ping could have presented a problem, but the myth ignores multiple realities of modern battle.
First, and most practically, the Garand was very quick to reload thanks to the very en-bloc clips that ostensibly caused the trouble. While the rifle’s “ping” is somewhat characteristic and identifiable, it is not so loud that it would drown out the noisy din of a wider engagement. Moreover, the fact that the clip is automatically jettisoned itself facilitates quicker reloading—Garand users simply do not have to worry about removing and stowing, or disposing of, an empty magazine. If the ping was indeed a problem, the design of the action resolved the issue itself.
Further, rarely would soldiers be operating alone. It is unlikely their entire squad or platoon would need to reload at the same time, not to mention the squad automatics, submachine guns and light machine guns that all added to the sustainable firepower of the infantry unit—in many cases issued specifically to cover and support the rifleman in an action by suppressing an enemy and hopefully facilitating movement and maneuver.
However, while it seems unlikely that in most combat scenarios the Garand’s noisy automatic ejection would have endangered its operator—indeed, in 1953 it was ascertained that some soldiers instead found the “ping” to be a useful and clear indicator of their need to reload. Still, some veterans were nevertheless convinced the sound would alert their opponents.
Even so, it seems soldiers were more concerned by the rather loud sound caused by releasing the Garand’s safety, as highlighted in the 1952 technical memorandum ORO-T-18 (FEC) Use of Infantry Weapons and Equipment in Korea, which states: “Half the men had a nagging fear that some day the noise made in releasing the safety would reveal their positions to the enemy, yet only one-fourth objected to the distinctive noise the empty clip made when ejected. They were quite willing to retain the noise of the clip even though the enemy might be able to use it to advantage, because they found it a very useful signal to reload.” Of 315 respondents, twice as many favored retaining the “ping” than believed it helpful to the enemy.
It is also frequently said that some even developed a ruse where they would jettison an empty clip or bang one against their helmet to deliberately create the noise in the hope that the enemy would expose themselves. Whether this was a well exploited tactic or indeed successful will probably never be fully ascertained, but given the general acoustic characteristics of a firefight, such a tactic was unlikely to have been effective or common.
Admittedly, it is conjecture and perhaps something that would be worth testing, but the sound of spent cartridges landing onto a hard surface would likely yield a similarly audible note to a falling en-bloc clip—and no soldier appears to have claimed that falling casings have ever gotten either them or their opponent into trouble.
The origins of several Garand myths appear to be found in the 1948 book, Ordnance Went Up Front, by Roy Dunlap, who was a civilian gunsmith who during World War II served as an armorer and marine. A noted expert, some of his views on the Garand are nevertheless suspect.
His comments on the “ping” itself are anecdotal and derived from secondhand information, where it is claimed the sound of a jettisoned en-bloc clip on Guadalcanal informed the Japanese that a Garand was momentarily empty, and they rushed forward and killed the rifleman. Dunlap also wrote of the rifle: “The Garand has two faults, to my mind. It is too heavy and it must be loaded with the eight-round charger clip. The latter means you either load it with a full eight-round clip or you have one of the clumsiest single shot arms since muzzle-loading days…If, say five cartridges in a clip are fired, three remain in the gun, and the five expended ones are well-nigh impossible to replace in the rifle. Perhaps only one cartridge remains to fire; the rifle is a single shot until the cartridge is fired and a full clip loaded to replace it. In action, soldiers simply released and ejected partially-emptied clips and reloaded with full ones in an attempt to keep full effectiveness as long as they could.
“In some outfits it was customary to empty the rifle, blazing away the remaining cartridges. It is of course easier and faster to empty the rifle by firing than by stopping to use two hands to hold the bolt back and press the clip release.”
He is right in that the Garand was heavy, but references to completely expending a clip before reloading when in a combat situation might simply be more about laying down fire instead of wasting a number of viable rounds by reloading. Nevertheless, it is commonly believed that the rifle must be fired until empty before it may be reloaded, yet the clips may be ejected and replaced regardless of how many rounds remain, and it is possible with practice to top up a clip. Moreover, it was possible, quicker and simpler to eject and replace the existing clip.
This myth likely originates from a misinterpretation of the manual of arms, which called for the rifle to be fired until empty. Instead, the reality was that so long as a soldier watched the placement of his thumb, thus avoiding a nasty pinch, he could reload his rifle at leisure and without constraint.
In a December 1940 article in Popular Science, “He Invented the World’s Deadliest Rifle,” by Edwin Teale, the author wrote of the U.S. government’s “$15,000,000 bet that the new Garand semi-automatic rifle is the deadliest firearm ever invented.” To what extent that view is correct is speculative, but, unburdened by its supposed fatal flaw, the M-1 Garand did rise as a long-serving icon—one still popular with civilian shooters today —and became one of World War II’s most effective infantry weapons.
Author John Brylor is also a firearms expert who has had extensive experience with the M-1 Garand rifle. A first-time contributor, he resides in the United Kingdom.
Join The Conversation
Comments
View All Comments