just how much of a problem is the top open gap'd action of Garand and M14?
mud, grit, and shit can get into the trigger mechanism or obstruct the op rod channel, causing a failure to go into battery which may result in a KB. it's even worse on the garand because it has no magwell so debris gets built up and shit.
>>30206574
but how prevalent is it if it's maintained regularly and you're not crawling in mud or sand all the time?
In other words, is it really that fragile?
>>30206590
even if regularly maintained it will still explode and kill all babies in a 5 mile radius. you seriously can't look at them the wrong way
>>30206627
so the opposite of what you posted?
>>30206627
Definitely worked in it's time, but at this point in history they're ticking time bombs, detonating at a moments notice.
>>30206547
It could be an issue, but they were still widely issued with few complaints
So you can probably say it's not much of a real world problem
>>30206547
depends on what youre using it for. as long as youre not being shot at and arent intentionally trying to jam the gun, its not a big problem.
keep in mind, nothing developed during ww2 is going to work extremely well in comparison to technology of today.
>>30206547
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v6J5m4_Is_s
4 u OP
>>30206574
99% of guns cannot go off out of battery
Any gun that can is bad
>inb4 broken parts
>>30206547
literally not a problem, the M4 is far more dirt sensitive
>>30206547
Given that the Garand served successfully in two wars, apparently not that much.
This is likely because the average soldier in WWII and Korea didn't toss their rifles into a mud hole on a regular basis.
>but I saw these guys on YouTube
Yup. They created a specific scenario that even draftees with a second grade education were able to avoid. If it had been a real problem, there would be books full of "the M1 was an unreliable piece of shit". There aren't, and the M14 remains in service with U.S. Special Forces.
>td;lr the Garand action is perfectly reliable is you don't intentionally submerge it in a wheelbarrow full of mud
>>30206590
>Fragile
No
>Fail when thrown in mud
Yes
>Need semi special care
Yes and No. Your only special instructions are that it needs to be lubed with grease a fair amount of it, like the red Valvoline grease.
The receivers are tough shit, but any round going off out of battery nothing to fuck with. These rifles were made in America, one of, if not the best countries for manufacturing metal products at the time.
If your daily life involves wading through muddy thick water it isn't the gun for you. In-fact, no gun is the gun for you.
>>30208628
I thought the M14 got phased out years ago? I haven't seen a recent pic of one in use in literally half a decade now.
>>30208628
basically this, outside of youtube videos that were designed to fail the problems spouted of by /k/ and others are non existent.
>>30206547
>>30208628
>>30208864
the m1 garand's action has outlived its prime by about 60~70 years. considering that its a rifle that "won" its trials against a toggle-delayed blow-back action by default it should come as no surprise that its been showing its age since the mid 1940's. consider that the technology behind the garands action is, at its heart, just a refined iteration of the countless bolt action to semi-auto conversions that had come out around the time of world war 1 (pic related). the only reason why it still gets used is because retards wont let it die.
>b-but muh ww2 glory!
the m1 garand was being left in the dust by mid and late ww2 era rifles and yet people still think that the m1 garand v.2 detachable magazine edition is still a viable weapons platform in a world of ars, aks, scars, etc... are delusional. the m14 suffers from reliability issues because it used the garands action and the m1 suffers from reliability issues because every critical surface that you normally dont want to get dirt on is completely exposed to the elements. i mean you can see the fucking locking shoulders from the top of the gun for christs sake not to mention that the cam track on the op rod is also completely exposed.
>>30211005
Guns aren't cell phones or computers. Is the Grand outdated? Sure. Is the M14? Arguably.
You're being a hyperbolic douche, though.
>>30211120
Call him a douche all you want. He's still right.
>>30211120
>technological advancements dont apply to my favorite gun!
I like the m1, i think its a neat rifle but that dosent mean its a timeless machine born from the womb of god. the m1 is inferior to the ag42 on a technical level and was completely outclassed by the sks, fg42, and the stg 44 to name a few.
>>30206547
It's not that big of a problem, but it's a problem that's easily and effectively solved by modern designs, making it seem like a glaring flaw by comparison.
>>30206590
Soldiers carrying m1's managed to take a beach pretty well with them. They're objectively inferior to modern designs, as most 70-odd year old rifles are, but they're no prissy bench queens.
