M1 Garand vs 1903 Springfield Reliability
- Thread starter Mr. Mosin
- Start date
1948CJ2A
Member
I'm not an expert on either but I do own both in different configurations. I know the operating rod on the Garand can be a weak point if you are using loads that are too hot or if you're not doing the regular maintenance (ie: grease, inspection, cleaning).
Aside from the low serial number 1903s with the weaker metal, they're all pretty solid, strong and simple. To me the 1903 is a simpler design with less parts prone to fail... but others may not agree with this. I think both rifles are wonderful and fun to shoot so long as you know what you're doing.
Aside from the low serial number 1903s with the weaker metal, they're all pretty solid, strong and simple. To me the 1903 is a simpler design with less parts prone to fail... but others may not agree with this. I think both rifles are wonderful and fun to shoot so long as you know what you're doing.
Dave DeLaurant
Member
Parts can break on either one. The Garand has more parts.
That's pretty dismissive so let me start over.
First, if you mean reliable function as intended, the Springfield '03 is manually operated and therefore can function with much a wider variety of ammo loadings. The Garand's gas system is designed around ammunition with a specific pressure profile. There's wiggle room plus there are aftermarket gas adjustment devices available to widen this further, but you can't go too light and expect the action to cycle. Assuming that's your thing. Use M2 Ball, both rifles work great.
BTW, you can see me using a Garand as a manually-operated straight-pull with ultra, ultra-light ammo (.32 H&R in a chamber adapter) in this video. It ain't pretty, but it can be done.
www.youtube.com
The basic mechanism of the '03 Springfield is Mauser-derived. I've seen more broken extractors on Mauser-type one-piece claw extractors than the Garand's coil-spring powered extractor. That doesn't make the Mauser claw a bad design, but it was designed for controlled feed and you can abuse one by overflexing it chambering single round placed directly in the chamber. The '03's magazine cutoff was a really bad idea IMHO!
The Garand's enbloc clip system is more complicated than the '03 Springfield's simple Mauser box magazine. There's more potential to go wrong, though it usually doesn't on a well-cared for rifle.
I understand the multi-piece striker design of the '03 is considered a weak point, but I've yet to break one.
The Garand fire-control mechanism is considerably more complex than the simple trigger on a Springfield, since it has to include provision for a disconnector. All the same, it's pretty bomb-proof when kept clean and maintained.
Rather surprisingly, I encounter more jams running a bolt action rifle than with a properly-functioning semi-auto. Watch videos of a two-gun match and you'll see even very practiced operators bobble and fumble.
Both rifles are truly great -- get one of each and decide for yourself.
That's pretty dismissive so let me start over.
First, if you mean reliable function as intended, the Springfield '03 is manually operated and therefore can function with much a wider variety of ammo loadings. The Garand's gas system is designed around ammunition with a specific pressure profile. There's wiggle room plus there are aftermarket gas adjustment devices available to widen this further, but you can't go too light and expect the action to cycle. Assuming that's your thing. Use M2 Ball, both rifles work great.
BTW, you can see me using a Garand as a manually-operated straight-pull with ultra, ultra-light ammo (.32 H&R in a chamber adapter) in this video. It ain't pretty, but it can be done.
3 Classic American Military Arms of WWII
Three favorite smallarms from my collection. The first is a M1903 Springfield rifle. The receiver was manufactured in 1918, shortly after the double heat t...
www.youtube.com
The basic mechanism of the '03 Springfield is Mauser-derived. I've seen more broken extractors on Mauser-type one-piece claw extractors than the Garand's coil-spring powered extractor. That doesn't make the Mauser claw a bad design, but it was designed for controlled feed and you can abuse one by overflexing it chambering single round placed directly in the chamber. The '03's magazine cutoff was a really bad idea IMHO!
The Garand's enbloc clip system is more complicated than the '03 Springfield's simple Mauser box magazine. There's more potential to go wrong, though it usually doesn't on a well-cared for rifle.
I understand the multi-piece striker design of the '03 is considered a weak point, but I've yet to break one.
The Garand fire-control mechanism is considerably more complex than the simple trigger on a Springfield, since it has to include provision for a disconnector. All the same, it's pretty bomb-proof when kept clean and maintained.
Rather surprisingly, I encounter more jams running a bolt action rifle than with a properly-functioning semi-auto. Watch videos of a two-gun match and you'll see even very practiced operators bobble and fumble.
Both rifles are truly great -- get one of each and decide for yourself.
Last edited:
Miami_JBT
Member
Aftermarket adjustable gas plugs for Garands let you fine tune them to run different loads so you don't bend op-rods and crack receiver heels.
I have a batch of M1 Garands and M1903s. All if my '03s are WWII built Remingtons. One is a “Remington modified” M1903 and the other is a Remington 1903A3. The “Remington modified” guns were built off WWI tooling, with some production cuts to make them quicker and cheaper to make. Like no grasping grooves in the stock, etc...
I have a batch of M1 Garands and M1903s. All if my '03s are WWII built Remingtons. One is a “Remington modified” M1903 and the other is a Remington 1903A3. The “Remington modified” guns were built off WWI tooling, with some production cuts to make them quicker and cheaper to make. Like no grasping grooves in the stock, etc...
Great explanation Dave, I have both and have nothing of value to add.Parts can break on either one. The Garand has more parts.
That's pretty dismissive so let me start over.
First, if you mean reliable function as intended, the Springfield '03 is manually operated and therefore can function with much a wider variety of ammo loadings. The Garand's gas system is designed around ammunition with a specific pressure profile. There's wiggle room plus there are aftermarket gas adjustment devices available to widen this further, but you can't go too light and expect the action to cycle. Assuming that's your thing. Use M2 Ball, both rifles work great.
BTW, you can see me using a Garand as a manually-operated straight-pull with ultra, ultra-light ammo (.32 H&R in a chamber adapter) in this video. It ain't pretty, but it can be done.
3 Classic American Military Arms of WWII
Three favorite smallarms from my collection. The first is a M1903 Springfield rifle. The receiver was manufactured in 1918, shortly after the double heat t...
The basic mechanism of the '03 Springfield is Mauser-derived. I've seen more broken extractors on Mauser-type one-piece claw extractors than the Garand's coil-spring powered extractor. That doesn't make the Mauser claw a bad design, but it was designed for controlled feed and you can abuse one by overflexing it chambering single round placed directly in the chamber. The '03's magazine cutoff was a really bad idea IMHO!
The Garand's enbloc clip system is more complicated than the '03 Springfield's simple Mauser box magazine. There's more potential to go wrong, though it usually doesn't on a well-cared for rifle.
I understand the multi-piece striker design of the '03 is considered a weak point, but I've yet to break one.
The Garand fire-control mechanism is considerably more complex than the simple trigger on a Springfield, since it has to include provision for a disconnector. All the same, it's pretty bomb-proof when kept clean and maintained.
Rather surprisingly, I encounter more jams running a bolt action rifle than with a properly-functioning semi-auto. Watch videos of a two-gun match and you'll see even very practiced operators bobble and fumble.
Both rifles are truly great -- get one of each and decide for yourself.
.455_Hunter
Member
Though its necessity may be debated, the magazine cut-off design on the Krag and 1903 Springfield seemed to me to be far superior and less cumbersome than the flipping "shelf" on similar vintage Lee-Enfields.
1KPerDay
Member
Have both. Have shot both in 3gun matches. Garands are very reliable and easier to load. Both are reliable. Garand sights are 104394728% better than the 03 and 67% better than the 03A3 
Great point. The Garand sights are superior and I perform better at the longer ranges with the Garand over the 03A3. Both rifles are about 1.5 MOA with me shooting them.Have both. Have shot both in 3gun matches. Garands are very reliable and easier to load. Both are reliable. Garand sights are 104394728% better than the 03 and 67% better than the 03A3
CapnMac
Member
Well, there's 1.2# difference between the two. Which makes the '03 a touch easier to hump all over the countryside. Which is negated if put in a vehicle rack or issued to Mechanized troops. The 1.2# difference will give you a sharp smack in the shoulder if you neglect to get that '03 butt plate snugged all the way in before sending M2 Ball downrange.
No real difference in overall lenght, bayonets mounted, slings used, so, that's a wash.
The Model of 1903 ladder sight has five separate aiming points, and all of them are on the small size, and best suited a known distance range, having a book with a full set of dope tables, and a micrometer sight adjusting tool. The 03A3 and M-1 aperture sights are near identical, with a slight nod to the Garand for the elevation setting being a bit more "fixed" when applied. Aperture-to-eye distance is near identical, too.
Garand gets the nod for having three more rounds aboard. Also for how rapidly it can be shot. Reloads are about the same speed, if five versus eight.
Service life span very similar for both. The 1903 was in front-line service from 1905 to 1953, the Garand from 1937 to 1963 (internationally to the late 70s).
The War Department invested heavily in replacing 1903 with M-1 Garands in the 30s, having learned a lesson in 1917-18 for having had to send the AEF to France with M-1917 rifles for a lack of 1903 to ship out. Navy Department did not start to acquire Garands until 1942, and prioritized sending them to the Marines in Regimental lots. Ship's Arms Lockers did not get Garands as a rule until the late 40s.
No real difference in overall lenght, bayonets mounted, slings used, so, that's a wash.
The Model of 1903 ladder sight has five separate aiming points, and all of them are on the small size, and best suited a known distance range, having a book with a full set of dope tables, and a micrometer sight adjusting tool. The 03A3 and M-1 aperture sights are near identical, with a slight nod to the Garand for the elevation setting being a bit more "fixed" when applied. Aperture-to-eye distance is near identical, too.
Garand gets the nod for having three more rounds aboard. Also for how rapidly it can be shot. Reloads are about the same speed, if five versus eight.
Service life span very similar for both. The 1903 was in front-line service from 1905 to 1953, the Garand from 1937 to 1963 (internationally to the late 70s).
The War Department invested heavily in replacing 1903 with M-1 Garands in the 30s, having learned a lesson in 1917-18 for having had to send the AEF to France with M-1917 rifles for a lack of 1903 to ship out. Navy Department did not start to acquire Garands until 1942, and prioritized sending them to the Marines in Regimental lots. Ship's Arms Lockers did not get Garands as a rule until the late 40s.
Jim Watson
Member
I need to go back through ‘Ordnance Went Up Front’.
Roy Dunlap saw some of the early work with the Garand and did not think it a smooth process.
Roy Dunlap saw some of the early work with the Garand and did not think it a smooth process.
I own a couple of examples of both, and have done a lot of shooting them in CMP matches and practicing. For many years that was my thing, and I still try and shoot them at every opportunity. Here's my comparisons on shooting them:
The M1 has great sights, very tactile clicks on the rear both windage and elevation. The front sight is nice and wide, which you come to appreciate as you get older. The two stage triggers can be tuned to break very crisply at the required 4 1/2 lbs. Accuracy wise, depending on ammo, mine shoot about 3 to 5 MOA. I have shot them from a bench, but my main metric are my 10 shot slow-fire prone scores that always seem to be in the mid-90's. The weight distribution does make for comfortable holding standing.
I have shot both 1903 and 03-A3's. The sights are nothing like the Garand. The 1903 has a ladder rear that is placed in front of the action, which is too far forward. Elevation adjustments are made by sliding the sight along a graduated vernier. I'd hate to try and make a fine adjustment while on the clock. The -03-A3 rear is way better, a peep situated on the rear of the receiver much like the Garand. Windage is adjusted by clicks that are close to 1 MOA. Elevation adjustments are made by sliding the aperture along a ramp with yardage markings in 50 to 100 yd. increments. The aperture is tightened to the ramp with a screw. Elevation adjustments are therefore crude. My zero never matched the yardage mark anyway, and if the screw wasn't tight the aperture could get bumped. The front sight blade is very thin on both and some shooters complain that they are hard to focus on. There are even wide front replacement blades that I've heard referred to as "Marine Corps. blades". For some reason, I can still see them pretty clearly if I have my shooting glasses on.
I think that my 03-A3's are more accurate than my Garands. I can't recall shooting them from a bench unless maybe sighting one in. Despite the rear sights, I can shoot an 03-A3 better at 200 yds., and my slow-fire scores are more often in the high 90's. I'm guessing 2 MOA? I've tried the 1903 a few times and didn't do very well comparatively because of the sights. I will say that the 1903 feels more substantial with milled vs. stamped parts as on the 03-A3's.
Some statistical proof in the accuracy potential between the two rifles can be found in the CMP award scores for medals, gold, silver, and bronze, awarded based on scores fired in sanctioned matches across the country. Springfield cut-offs are from 1 to 3 points higher than Garand in every category. Pg. 101:
Scores are adjusted every year based on last years results, and are intended to give the medals to fixed percentages of the top shooters,
The M1 has great sights, very tactile clicks on the rear both windage and elevation. The front sight is nice and wide, which you come to appreciate as you get older. The two stage triggers can be tuned to break very crisply at the required 4 1/2 lbs. Accuracy wise, depending on ammo, mine shoot about 3 to 5 MOA. I have shot them from a bench, but my main metric are my 10 shot slow-fire prone scores that always seem to be in the mid-90's. The weight distribution does make for comfortable holding standing.
I have shot both 1903 and 03-A3's. The sights are nothing like the Garand. The 1903 has a ladder rear that is placed in front of the action, which is too far forward. Elevation adjustments are made by sliding the sight along a graduated vernier. I'd hate to try and make a fine adjustment while on the clock. The -03-A3 rear is way better, a peep situated on the rear of the receiver much like the Garand. Windage is adjusted by clicks that are close to 1 MOA. Elevation adjustments are made by sliding the aperture along a ramp with yardage markings in 50 to 100 yd. increments. The aperture is tightened to the ramp with a screw. Elevation adjustments are therefore crude. My zero never matched the yardage mark anyway, and if the screw wasn't tight the aperture could get bumped. The front sight blade is very thin on both and some shooters complain that they are hard to focus on. There are even wide front replacement blades that I've heard referred to as "Marine Corps. blades". For some reason, I can still see them pretty clearly if I have my shooting glasses on.
I think that my 03-A3's are more accurate than my Garands. I can't recall shooting them from a bench unless maybe sighting one in. Despite the rear sights, I can shoot an 03-A3 better at 200 yds., and my slow-fire scores are more often in the high 90's. I'm guessing 2 MOA? I've tried the 1903 a few times and didn't do very well comparatively because of the sights. I will say that the 1903 feels more substantial with milled vs. stamped parts as on the 03-A3's.
Some statistical proof in the accuracy potential between the two rifles can be found in the CMP award scores for medals, gold, silver, and bronze, awarded based on scores fired in sanctioned matches across the country. Springfield cut-offs are from 1 to 3 points higher than Garand in every category. Pg. 101:
Scores are adjusted every year based on last years results, and are intended to give the medals to fixed percentages of the top shooters,
Last edited:
The Garand had a several years start up curve that fortunately was pretty much resolved by Dec. 1941.
The Marine Corp was slow to convert to the Garand but I understand that after the Army units were deployed to Guadalcanal, the Marines would pick up any Garand dropped by an Army soldier and ditch his ‘03 Springfield. The individual Marine saw the benefits if the Garand.
The Garand is more complicated than the Springfield but had greater advantages on the battlefield.
The Marine Corp was slow to convert to the Garand but I understand that after the Army units were deployed to Guadalcanal, the Marines would pick up any Garand dropped by an Army soldier and ditch his ‘03 Springfield. The individual Marine saw the benefits if the Garand.
The Garand is more complicated than the Springfield but had greater advantages on the battlefield.
Last edited:
Carl N. Brown
Member
My Lee Enfield No1 Mark III* originally had a magazine cutoff too. Its magazine cutoff was removed post WWI. Others shared your opinion of the magazine cutoff feature too.
CapnMac
Member
Such things are both common and apocryphal. Probably the number of people remembering it exceeds the number of troops deployed.
The overlap of Army & Marine personnel was only about nine weeks, as the Marines were being rotated out with the arrival of Americal and the 25th ID.
Also, to really spoil such stories, you were issued your rifle by its Serial Number, and you returned it, too (or had supporting statements that it was lost in battle, which had to be endorsed by several officer in one's command). 1MarDiv returned all rifles not lost in battle. So, you would be in a bad way turning in a Garand having drawn a 1903.
- Joined
- Dec 19, 2002
- Messages
- 22,510
Piss on it!
During the blackpowder era, when a musket fouled from blackpowder residue, some soldiers urinated down the barrel to rinse out the fouling. Here's a WW II equivalent.
Water was scarce in combat and urine was not. I'm certain the sergeant after the patrol had the soldier dissassemble the rifle for thorough cleaning. Survival depended on clean firearms.
From page 150-1 of The Last of the 357th Infantry.
Quite a number of WW II snipers abandoned their M1903A4 sniper rifles for the M-1. They wanted to put out more bullets faster. If I had to fight a Japanese Banzai charge, I'd want the Garand.
During the blackpowder era, when a musket fouled from blackpowder residue, some soldiers urinated down the barrel to rinse out the fouling. Here's a WW II equivalent.
Water was scarce in combat and urine was not. I'm certain the sergeant after the patrol had the soldier dissassemble the rifle for thorough cleaning. Survival depended on clean firearms.
From page 150-1 of The Last of the 357th Infantry.
Quite a number of WW II snipers abandoned their M1903A4 sniper rifles for the M-1. They wanted to put out more bullets faster. If I had to fight a Japanese Banzai charge, I'd want the Garand.
Last edited:
If we're talking battlefield reliability then the Garands firepower overcomes whatever small increase in reliability the 1903 provides. Ammo wasn't a factor as soldiers used what was issued and not hot handloads and with basic maintenance either one would function very well.
