Hello all, here is today's article posted on TheArmoryLife.com. It is titled “M1 Garand vs. M1941 Johnson Rifle Debate” and can be found at https://www.thearmorylife.com/m1941-johnson-rifle/.
M1 Garand vs. M1941 Johnson Rifle Debate
- Thread starter Mike H.
- Start date
Gunz
Alpha
I've never seen a Johnson outside of pictures. The Johnson kind of went the way of the Reising submachine gun. Got combat time but never was able to compete with the legendary M-1, the M-1 Carbine, or in the Reising's case, the Thompson or the M3 Grease Gun.
10 rounds are better than 8 but I still like my M1 and my M1 Carbine.
10 rounds are better than 8 but I still like my M1 and my M1 Carbine.
HayesGreener
Ronin
Nice icons of American greatness there Gunz
USMC6094
Professional
The Johnson rifle, and LMG were near equals to the M1, the Garand just had the advantage of being developed by a government arsenal. And by the time the M1941 came along, the Garand was already standardized.
That being said, Melvin Johnsons weapons worked, and worked well.
They were used by the Para-Marines early on, and the Devils Brigade.
I missed the chance years ago to get a Mil Tech M1941 restoration, as well as MANY other missed, bucket list guns.......
That being said, Melvin Johnsons weapons worked, and worked well.
They were used by the Para-Marines early on, and the Devils Brigade.
I missed the chance years ago to get a Mil Tech M1941 restoration, as well as MANY other missed, bucket list guns.......
That pretty much sums it up.
I bought an M1941 Johnson several years ago. I did some reading to educate myself quickly.
By the time the Johnson rifle came along, the Garand rifle was solidly in place. John Garand had been employed by Springfield Armory for the purpose of designing a semi auto rifle. By the time Johnson had a prototype, Garand rifle had been adopted for almost five years and had been working on it for over twenty. When designing the rifle, Garand also designed the tooling to build them, and production lines were already cranking them out.
The only way Johnson's rifle would replace the Garand was if the Garand had problems that couldn't be solved.
But that was a possibility at the time. The Garand had its share of problems early on.
Johnson seemed to have envisioned his rifle as a Substitute Standard, like the M1917 Enfield ended up in WWI. He was designing a backup plan, and there was plenty of evidence it might be needed. If not needed as a replacement, then it might be necessary as a supplement to the Garand to meet the numbers, again like the M1917 rifle or the Colt and S&W .45 ACP M1917 revolvers from the same war.
The Johnson usually tested well against the Garand aside from one or two early tests. The thing to keep in mind with those tests is the Johnson was basically a prototype with only a few guns even made at the time, while the Garand had 20+ years of development behind it.
But the Johnson was never going to outright replace the Garand unless it simply blew the Garand away at every turn, if then. It wasn't going to happen.
As things turned out, the changes made to the Garand rifle in 1940 worked to solve most of the questions.
But it really could've gone either way for a while, and had the Garand not been refined, the entire semiautomatic changeover might not have happened without a backup plan.
Having said all that, I love the Garand. It's my favorite rifle. I have a few.
So when I had a chance to buy a 1941 Johnson so I could compare them myself, I jumped all over it.
The short version of that comparison is they both have advantages and negatives compared to each other. The Garand magazine system is what the army wanted, but the Johnson's is better in every way. But then, the Johnson trigger sucks. However, if having to deal with the corrosive primed ammo of the period, I'd rather clean 10 M1941s than one M-1.
And that's how it seems with the two. I'd decide one had the edge in one place, then find an advantage to the other.
FWIW, most of I had read before was simply wrong.
My honest opinion is the war would not have been shortened or lengthened by a day had we used M1941s instead. We had two pretty good designs as options when nobody else had just one.
I never owned one, but a customer brought one in the shop - back in the 1970s. It was from his deceased father and when he took it to the wood it jammed often, according to him. Having been Army Infantry, I was very familiar with the M1, M14, M1 Carbine, etc. My assistant and I took it to the club and spent a fun afternoon with it and various samples of ammo. All I can say is it's a friendly rifle, points naturally, accurate and sort of reliable. It did jam on me 2 times in 100-150 rounds (guessing). It was G.I. ammo plus smatterings of other brands and loads. I tried oiling, drying, empty cycling, etc. Back at the shop I got to study the guts. Well made machined parts, nice fitting and apparently not too complex with the fire control design/layout. I couldn't find anything suspicious but remember thinking that the way the top cartridge was presented to the chamber seemed a bit iffy. To me the top cartridge should sit as high in the magazine as possible for the bolt to strip it off, but at the same time as close to the chamber as possible to eliminate 'free flight' going into battery (think controlled feed Mauser 98 vs. Springfield '03). That's just my opinion. I'd love to have it back and study more. That's all I recall from almost 60-years ago
Here's my hindsight engineering:
Garand with box magazine, a la M14. Otherwise a super reliable, accurate weapon.
Johnson; Investigate feed geometry, maybe employ some kind of ramping element at the breach??? dunno.
Johnson; I've read that during military evaluations they had some parts breakage in the fire control mechanisms, That may be true or just the Ordnance Dept. trying to sell their own product. They did that with Stoner, but got caught.
And that's it. I loved the M1, good old American iron and walnut. Solid, reliable and durable. The Garand was pretty much soldier-proof. I know that from experience. Give a G.I. something and he'll figure out how to abuse it. I'd love to have one hanging in the vault, but I don't want to sell my house.
Here's my hindsight engineering:
Garand with box magazine, a la M14. Otherwise a super reliable, accurate weapon.
Johnson; Investigate feed geometry, maybe employ some kind of ramping element at the breach??? dunno.
Johnson; I've read that during military evaluations they had some parts breakage in the fire control mechanisms, That may be true or just the Ordnance Dept. trying to sell their own product. They did that with Stoner, but got caught.
And that's it. I loved the M1, good old American iron and walnut. Solid, reliable and durable. The Garand was pretty much soldier-proof. I know that from experience. Give a G.I. something and he'll figure out how to abuse it. I'd love to have one hanging in the vault, but I don't want to sell my house.
Last edited:
welequipt1
Alpha
BTW, a fine article on the Johnson!
I should add that maybe it was just something with the mag's feed lips and the stripping angle as off a bit. HA! I don't remember even thinking of that. Geeesch.
PieterCoetzee
Master Class
Ive handled and shot a Johnson (rifle). It always looked and felt more like a sporting rifle than a combat weapon to me. It just looks fragile with the long naked barrel compared to the Garand. Even the bipod on the LMG doenst look combat suitable
CannedHeat
Alpha
Never have seen one in the wild, but have always been fascinated by the history and stories behind every US combat weapon. Would snap one up of either, if given the chance. Of the various firearms I own, my great-grandfather's M1917 Eddystone Enfield that was sporterized prior to me being given it (all of 42 years ago) still owns a special place in my heart, and my safe, for obvious reasons. I still hunt with that gun (even taking a Black Bear last year), bearing a stamp date on it of June 1919 of production in PA. Crazy.
This article is VERY well put together and brings with it some very valid points and things that will always come into question historically. The responses here by many of you are equal to the article itself, and is a testament to this group/page as well as good ol' American spirit and ingenuity every American should be proud of.
This article is VERY well put together and brings with it some very valid points and things that will always come into question historically. The responses here by many of you are equal to the article itself, and is a testament to this group/page as well as good ol' American spirit and ingenuity every American should be proud of.
I enjoyed the article. If the M-1 Garrand would have been designed to use a 20 to 30 round magazine, it would have been one of the finest weapons ever made. It would have also killed more enemy. I fired an M-1 Garrand in Specia Forces school. However, it is still a great weapon. I have a Springfield M-1A and I think it is a fine weapon.
PieterCoetzee
Master Class
The Johnson is one of the could have been guns. Think of it like the FG42. If it had come sooner, If it had been semi only, if they had decided on one type, if they both used the same magazines, and if wishes were clowns wed all have balloons at our birthday party
OldGrunt
Professional
Only one day and you're already cheating on me!I have held a johnson but never fired one and i know i'm bout to catch hell for the holding a johnson remark.
OldGrunt
Professional
I thought we were meant to be!