Well I've been playing some DoD:S for the past week or so, and I went looking for some skins to replace the weapons in the game because I like changing the appearance of the original guns. Now, I love the M1 Garand, it's one of the most beautiful guns ever designed (if you're the type of person who can see an instrument of war being beautiful that is).

The only problem is that the only place I could find skins for it was FPSBanana, and all of the skins there were simply that; skins. There were no original models outside of some stupid EoTech aimpoint mod that was sloppily slapped on where the original sight goes. Not only is it off center, but I hardly ever use the zoom feature on it because the Garand is such a great run & gun weapon.

So I went looking around for inspiration, and lo-and behold I found the Fulton Armory/Troy SOPMOD M14 chassis. It's only made for the M14, but since the M14 is so similar to the M1 I figured it would only take some minor design changes to make it work.

So what I've done so far is simply take the M14 pictures they had, and a couple of M1's and I've looked at the minor differences in each, and incorporated those into the SOPMOD chassis they had. The chassis is basically a mod that brings the buttstock in-line with the barrel to make recoil go straight back into the shoulder instead of causing the muzzle to raise, and a pistol grip. Additionally, it raises the sights to compensate for the change in positioning, and adds rails for modern equipment like aimpoints, scopes, lasers, flashlights, forward grips etc etc.

The differences needed to accommodate the Garand would be to put a separation in the top rail so the en-bloc clips could be inserted and ejected, and the magazine feed would need to be changed to show the fixed magazine of the Garand.

Anyway, enough with me jibba-jabbering. Here are some pics and descriptions:


M1 Garand WWII Service Rifle

M14

Fulton Armory/Troy MCS Chassis with Aimpoint and folded iron sights.

Side by side of the M1, and two modified pictures of the FA/T MCS chassis M14's. Notice the Chunk of rail taken out of the top of the two Chassis and where the Magazine Feed once was. Also, the middle gun has a representation of how the iron sights would fold up while the bottom has them folded down with the aimpoint in the middle of the gun.

Vanity shot of the FA/T MCS M14.

Action/Vanity shot of the FA/T MCS M14.


Tell me what you think, and if you think I'm blazing mad for even thinking about doing this!

I think I'm confused.

So...

What do you want?

I think he wants the Garand re-skinned into an M14? IMO, its a stupid idea because the garand in the game behaves badly enough, it doesn't need any shame tacked on because of a skin

I don't know much about guns...but isn't the M14 an automatic or single shot?
That wouldn't seem appropriate for the Garand since it has the 5-round clip thingy. Talking out of my ass? Maybe.

Nah, you guys misunderstand. The M1 garand has basically the same bits in it as an M14 save for the fact that the M14 has a different firing group which allows it to fire automatically and is magazine fed. Since the M14 has these chassis mods for it that make it look basically bad ass, I was thinking I could apply the same ideas toward the M1 with some minor differences to accommodate the gun, and it would still look bad ass.

Like I said, the most effort put into a Garand on any modeling community I've seen is taking the original model, and tacking on an aimpoint and chopping off the front sights, this would be a completely new model from the ground up.

Think of it like this: TapCo has a chassis modification for the Russian SKS that gives it a pistol grip, a folding stock, a detachable magazine, and picatinny rail system for the mounting of modern optics. It's still essentially an SKS since nothing in the way of how it fires is different, it just handles differently because of the modernized furniture.


Turn this

Into this


I'm sorry if my providing a vanity/action shot confused you, but I didn't see how it would be possible to photo shop those pictures to look exactly like what I'd photo shopped with the profile pictures. My providing an M14 picture was only to showcase the minor differences in design between the M1 and M14.

Long story short: Modern looking M1 Garand.

It's cool. I don't see why you'd want to do that in a WWII game but hey... it's up to you. Chances are people around here wouldn't be up for doing it though.

I figured as much, I just wanted to test the waters and see what opinions of it might be. Of course different strokes for different folks, there were a couple of Thompson skins that people made that are on FPSBanana that are basically the same idea as what I'm doing, and they've got top ratings with a few people who've said it's stupid.

Personally I like the idea mostly because nobody I know of or seen of has ever thought of it before and with some effort the concept might even work really well.

wutchu talkin' 'bout willis?

(Also, if you were referring to the Thompson I talked about, then here ya go. Rating of 9.3/10.)

Wait, so this is a request?

Nope, just thinking of

On my part? No, not at all; unless you mean a request of opinion that is. It would be a bit silly to request somebody else do this for me considering they'd get just about nothing in return except for the credit of making it.

(Besides, why would you think I'd be begging around for somebody to do this anyway when I can do it myself? )

*EDIT*
Also Downloaded... you're weird.

Single shot. Well most of them, i'm pretty sure there are some automatic ones, but it isn't wise cause it would be VERY hard to control.

Think of trying to fire a DE .50 on full auto.

It's a piece of shit on full auto. Also, I have a deep resentment for the M14 and 7.62 NATO.

Ask me why if you dare.

Seriously, someone give me an excuse to commence my lecture. I mean it.

oke here we go then, Why elanzer?

Long version or the short version?

Umh I'll settle down for a moment so give me your long version.

Call me weird but I'm actually kind of interested to hear why El hates a particular type of ammunition and the weapon that uses it.

Also, If you hate 7.62mm NATO then that's okay because that's not what the Garand uses. It uses .30-06 .

*EDIT*
Forgot to mention, in terms of the M14, the chassis mod that Fulton Armory/Troy made is actually made to help control quite a bit of that recoil. Since the barrel is inline with the buttstock, it has a pistol grip, and raised sights, the gun goes straight back into your shoulder instead of cause muzzle raise. It still has more recoil than anything with 5.56mmNATO but it's much better than it used to be.

Sigh. Pretty sure I've posted this before a while back but I'll do it again.

As you should know after WW2 and the arrival of assault rifles everyone went about creating their own versions. Obviously because they blurred the lines between full rifles and sub-machine guns, it needed an intermediate round. The British eventually came up with the .280 cartridge, somewhat less powerful than their previous .303, but with half the recoil, better range, and better accuracy. Ideal for an assault rifle. They introduced the round to the rest of NATO and everyone loved it, it was just what they needed. Before long the round had been perfected and the Belgians at FN were pumping it out, and even planning to adopt it for their work-in-progress FAL. The British also developed a prototype rifle to go along with it in that time, the EM-2, ugly but with the potential to be developed into something brilliant considering its revolutionary new cartridge and bullpup layout.

Then it turns bad.

When it came to submitting the cartridge to the US, they weren't having any of it. They said that the .280 was underpowered and that they would not accept anything less powerful than their own .308 prototype. Despite everyone bending over backwards trying to appease their biases and making a few variations, all of which they rejected, they made it clear they would not budge and that as it stands they will only be using their .308 round along with their prototype rifle, which would later become 7.62 NATO and the M14.

After a while of bickering with the UK, Canada, and Belgium over their refusal, the Americans slyly proposed that should FN adopt their .308 round instead of the intended British .280, that they would consider adopting the FN FAL as their primary rifle, and allow them to produce it there at a reduced cost. Obviously it was too good a deal to pass up, and they took it. The FAL was redesigned to take the new 7.62 round, and the many nations who had their hope pinned on it had their fates sealed. The 7.62mm became the new standard.

The British raged considering how much time and effort they had put into developing their cartridge and made it clear one last time that they had tested all 3 major rifles and both cartridges, and that the .308 is far, far, too powerful to be used in an automatic assault rifle, and that the .280 along with their EM-2 was the superior choice in almost every aspect. But by then though it was futile, and all concerns and evidence was ignored. So they decided to adopt the .280 and EM-2 for themselves anyway, but before it could enter full scale production that prick Churchill came to power again and overruled the decision in order to brown nose the US some more 'keep standardisation with the rest of NATO', as being one of the only ones not to submit to their standards would have been incredibly difficult. Subsequently, the EM-2 and the .280 round were ditched, and a licensed FAL was adopted instead, just like everyone else.

Before long, several things came to light. All concerns raised by the British and former .280 proponents were proven true. The 7.62 round was useless on full auto, mediocre on semi, and completely invalidated the concept of an assault rifle. Secondly, after everyone had adopted the FAL, the US decided not to go along with it afterall, and adopted their M14 instead, claiming that it was cheaper. Whether there was alternate reasons however is debatable. Either way, the second largest supporter of .280 and the last hope of it being adopted had essentially been deceived into dropping their support, for nothing. And most importantly to me, several wars were fought, including one by my own country, that could've benefited greatly from the .280 had it not been needlessly thrown away.

The icing on the cake though? Recently the US military developed a new 6.8mm round that falls between the 7.62 and 5.56 NATO that is near identical to the old .280. That's how ahead of its time it was.



TLDR: Massive facepalm directed at the US Army for wasting everyone's time and potentially delaying NATO's firearm development by nearly 30 years because they were stupid, militarily xenophobic, and cheap. The M14 and 7.62 NATO are byproducts of that mistake.

G G

... Okay.

Take most of the emotion out of the post and it still has some meritable grievances, but eh, what're you gonna do? It was 5.56mm that won out in the end, and only because it out-performed both 7mm and 7.62mm in the US Army rifle test (piercing a helmet on full auto at some range that I can't recall atm). But to give the M14 at least SOME credit, when fine tuned it's a pretty decent semi-auto sniper rifle. But... that's about it. (EDIT: Actually with the chassis mod it's a pretty decent assault rifle even on full auto because of how differently it handles from what I understand)

But that's getting away from the reason I made the thread... so... Modern M1 Garand?

(P.S. The AK-47 uses 7.62mm still and it's the most popular assault rifle in the world)


Also: This is that test I was talking about, it also explains why the M14 wasn't a great weapon on full auto and the principles behind the idea of a buttstock inline with the barrel and a pistol grip.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4weIh3Mc6kU

I'm impressed that you guys read all that. When El gives me a "short or long" option, I just say long so he has to type more.

That was nearly 20 years later... And if the 7.62 wasn't adopted the 5.56 may not have even needed to be developed.


Another reason why it was a poor choice I guess?

More of a case of it being cheap, widely available, and reliable than an effective weapon.

Anyway, what's with all the Garand love?

bcuz itz liek uzed in al teh cod gaemz n savin pryvit ryan dude ogm

Perhaps, but we'll never know I guess :\


Nah, just showcases the M14's weaknesses were mostly due to the stock being so out-dated. If it were manufactured today with modern technology like the FA/T stock utilizes it would actually be a pretty decent weapon. The deal breaker though is that the 5.56mm is still better because of less recoil and the fact that you can carry much more of it. The 7mm ammo would probably still be pretty decent too for the same reasons, but even the Russians have replaced their 7.62mm AK47's for 5.45mm AK74's... so you never know, the 5.56mm may have been adopted despite the 7mm.


This is also true, but hey it's still the most widely used gun on the face of the planet. That's got to give it at least some merit.


Call me weird, but I've always been a fan of the M1 Garand. Don't know why, after all it's heavy, kicks like a mule, uses ammo fit to kill a moose, and has one of the most costly design flaws in the history of modern battle rifles (namely, the loud "PING" noise it makes when it's empty... which actually was used in some cases to lure Germans to their deaths). But simultaneously it was for it's time the best battle rifle in the war because it was semi-automatic, and to me it's just a good looking gun aesthetically. I wanted to model a more modernized version simply because I was tired of looking at the default model in DoD:S all the time, and it seems nobody out there has made anything other than a regular Garand with minor variations (Bayonet, cherry wood stock, tighter iron sights, etc etc). I actually like many of the oldschool wooden battle rifles, the only thing is that most of them are bolt action, so it wouldn't make much sense to make modernized versions of them.

Also, what XuCHiLbaRa said... minus the poor grammar.

Wrong, ever heard of the SVT-40? Just because the Americans and the Germans are the only ones in the game, does not mean that they only carry the only infantry weapons in the war. If all you wanted was something different then just a re-skinned Garand, then there is a skin for you on FPSB. Next time you go there, just look around a bit more and take your time scanning through the weapons, most of the time there are guns released that fit what your looking for that just dont make the front page. Here is the LiNK to the gun on FPSB, and this is the wiki page for the SVT. If you want to continue on with your quest to make a modern Garand, go ahead.

Heh, never noticed that one before... but I think I'll try to do the modern Garand anyway... (quietly downloads the SVT-40) :shifty:

Thanks for the tip Minotaur. (I'll just have to resist hitting the reload button all the time since it's a mag-fed model lol)
(P.S. That gun might be fun to try after the Garand... it looks just like the SKS so it'd be pretty easy to make a modernized version of that as well... so it'd kind of be a modification of a modification)

The Garand was not the best rifle of the war. No, no, no.

If you want to give it 'best rifle' status based purely on the fact it was semi-automatic then what about the SVT40 Minotaur mentioned? Or the G43? They were semi-auto and superior to the Garand in the process.

It still amazes me how this site can go off topic ,and with such passion to it too!!!!

although I can't deny that I actually enjoy it.

I'm still none the wiser as to what the original topic was anyway. So let's just talk about guns.

Ugh, I must be having a brain fart to have forgotten the G43 and the SVT 40. In my own defense though the Garand was the one of the three that was considered to be the main service rifle of it's respective country during the war. The Germans had the k98 and the Soviets had the Mosin-Nagant while the British had the Lee Enfield Mk V. Although the Mosin-Nagant was discontinued during the war and the SVT 40 did take it's place. So at least by technicality the Garand was the only true Main Service Rifle that was Semi-Auto aside from the SVT 40 which was still in the process of being phased into service by the Soviets.

But anyway, what do you think makes those guns superior to the Garand other than the fact that they're not American made? The only major advantage I can think of off the top of my head is that they can be reloaded mid-clip and don't make a hideously loud ping when they go empty. Otherwise all three have powerful rounds, are well designed and aren't hard to maintain.

Their advantage is mainly like you said, the larger, reloadable magazine, and no pinging.

Its rating as a main battle rifle is better, but I still wouldn't say it's the best.

That huge statement was really interesting. Makes real sense, it is awful that they would throw away such a great round.

Well I wouldn't say it's a complete waste, after all that round and the guns that still use them still do exist, and they are still produced. It's not as if they'd all been tossed into a giant furnace and destroyed just because something else was adopted.

But actually I just remembered yet another semi-auto Rifle of WWII. It was the other rifle in competition with the M1 Garand for adoption as the US Main Battle Rifle. It's called the M1941 Johnson Rifle, (<--- that's a link BTW) holds the same ammunition as the M1 Garand (.30/06), was fitted to use German Ammo (7x57mm Mauser) and is fed via stripper clip into a 10 round rotary magazine located under the receiver.

To sort of add on to Elanzer's grievances with the US Army, even the US Marines wanted the M1941, but the Army didn't so the M1 Garand was the rifle picked for service. Although it did see some limited service. The reason the Army picked the M1 was partially because they had invested so much into its development... so it was just a tad biased. The Johnson DID have some issues, but most of them apparently were attributed to lack of development that the M1 had enjoyed.

G43 = <3

I have to say, in all the WWII games I have played I would take even a Mosin-Nagant over a M1 anyday because of the reloading factor. Even though it is single shot it is a very effective mid to long range weapon. A SMG is used for Close Quarters. Then again not knowing much about guns this is the idiot gamer approach to this topic.

If I had to chose a bolt action rifle over one of the semi-auto rifles I would easily choose the SMLE (Short Magazine Lee-Enfield) over any rifle any day of the week. Nothin' beats a Smelly.

Got that right. Though technically if it was WW2 it'd be a No.4 rather than an SMLE, not that there's a massive difference.

Hey, I call em like I see em.

The SMLE (and No. 4 for that matter as well) both have the cock on close mechanism which makes them quicker to cycle than the Mauser k98 which has a cock on open mechanism making it more difficult to cycle. It's got literally twice as many rounds, and has a longer barrel and thus better accuracy at range.

Discovery Channel on the SMLE <--- Link

and a hilarious quote from the 10 manliest firearms website (SMLE is #10 but it's still hilarious)
10 Manliest Firearms <--- Link

Indeed. I personally rate it as the best all-round standard issue rifle of WW2. This gentleman says it all I think:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HV5pSUlBz18