(2 of 3)
• The board assumed "that troops have landed through light surf [as Marines must often do] and that rifles were dropped or dragged over wet sand in reaching cover on the beach." The rifles were exposed to saltwater spray (but not actually soaked in water), dropped in wet sand. Results: the Springfields fired "in the normal manner." But "the bolts on the two [Garands] could not be opened by hand after the first and second shots respectively. The firer had to stand up and use his foot against the operating handle in order to open the actions. Both [Garand] rifles ... failed this test."
• The board assumed that "troops have landed through heavy surf sufficient to break completely over men and equipment, and immediately engage in combat on a sandy beach." Results: both Garands failed to operate as semi-automatic rifles (i.e., reload automatically after each round). One failed completely and the firer had to hammer the bolt with a mallet; "the other operated by hand with extreme difficulty." The Springfields continued to work, with slight difficulty. On these salt water tests, the Garand was rated last, the Springfield first.
• All the rifles got a thorough dousing in fresh water (assumption: heavy rain). Results: the Garands failed again.
• One of the toughest tests was for endurance in prolonged firing (9,000-10,000 rounds). On overall efficiency and ruggedness, the Springfield was rated ahead of the Garand, which was second. On comparative accuracy at the end of 9,000 rounds, the Garand rated last of the four rifles, the Springfield first. But up to 3,000 rounds, the Garand was very accurate, earned the board's hearty praise at this stage.
• The Johnson hand-fired "with ease" through most of the mud, salt water and fresh water tests when the Garand failed, but had so much trouble (broken parts) in other phases that the board rated it well below the Garand.
Said the board: "In those tests which simulated adverse field conditions, such as exposure to dust, rain, mud, salt water, sand, etc., the [Springfield] could always be operated with some degree of proficiency. Whereas the semi-automatic weapons generally failed to function mechanically and, in most cases, the gas-operated rifles [Garand, Winchester] could not even be manually operated after a few shots had been fired ... The tests ... were undoubtedly severe as it was believed that they had to approach the extreme in order to be all inclusive ... The board realizes that only a certain proportion of the rifles in any one operation ... will be subjected to the severest conditions, and that the remainder will function normally." This proportion might work out all right for a large force carrying semiautomatics. But "it is ... doubtful if this is true for the Marine Corps, where small units are usually employed and thereby place a correspondingly greater value on reliability and efficiency of each individual rifle."
The Army's Side
A fair question was: Why, then, did the Marine Corps
adopt the Garand? In an explanation last week, Marine Corps
headquarters in Washington put more emphasis on the Garand's high fire
power, less on the Springfield's dependability, than the testing board
did.