Always use a clip. Always let the bolt slam closed on its own. Be aware that if something is cattywhumpus, slam fires can occur. Always point in safe direction when loading a clip or chambering a round.
Not buying that one at all. Every since the Garand came out, its has been fired by single loading without a clip in competition. 3/5ths of the rounds fired in High Power is required to be fired via single loading. 2/3rds of the rounds fired in the Course A, CMP Garand Matches are required to be fired via single loading.
I also question the gun related "slam fires" The M1 Garand's are designed to eleminate slam fires. When the bolt goes to the chamber the "L" shaped firing pin is held back until the bolt pivots, and the locking lugs lock into place.
This is covered in Hatcher's book. Its also demistrated in the CMP Advanced Maint. Course on building the Garand.
This is from the pamphlet the CMP sends out with the Garand/
Lets start off with the definition of nonsense:
* Definition of Nonsense:
How to Speak Money, by Lanchester
Pg 86 Bull-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- versus nonsense
Nonsense is different: it’s worse. It consists of things that are actively false, and at its worst, of things that are just not true but can’t possibly be true. It is rarer than Bull-CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED--CENSORED- but much more toxic, and it is the difference between someone exaggerating a bit because he is trying to sell you something and someone who is consciously lying to you, or who is so far out of touch with reality that he does not know he’s lying.
The lore, that these rifles only slamfire due to a high primer or a worn out receiver bridge is total nonsense .
The first thing to understand, this mechanism controls the frequency of slamfires by primer sensitivity. This is assuming there are no mechanical issues such as broken parts or malfunctioning trigger mechanisms. The Garand mechanism does not have a positive firing pin block, but then, I don’t know of any automatic rifle that has a positive firing pin block. For the Garand mechanism, the so called "safety bridge" is not a “safety bridge” at all. That term is a creation from the 1960's. The receiver bridge is a firing pin retraction cam. It is there to pull the firing pin back, on extraction, so the firing pin is positively pulled from the primer and not broken during rotation. The idea that it is some sort of a safety bridge comes around in the early 60's. The receiver bridge, AKA firing pin retraction cam, is not a positive means of preventing the firing pin from touching the primer, as it is encountered by the firing pin tang just at cam down.
The M1 carbine firing pin retraction cam is functionally similar to the Garand, but easier to understand.
Basically the bolt goes back, then it goes forward, and then it cams shut. Looking at the totality of the cycle, you can see the deceptiveness of the explanation that Kraigway was taught, and is repeating. That so called safety bridge is nothing of the kind. There is absolutely nothing restraining the forward movement of that free floating firing pin for at least three inches of travel, until the last thousandths of an inch of cam down. Until them, the firing pin is totally free to rebound off the primer.
Just prior to cam down, if there is bolt bounce, there is nothing to prevent the firing pin from rebounding off the primer. If there is bounce in the system, the firing pin tang totally clears the retraction cam at the pencil mark.
If a slamfire occurs with the rifle partially in battery the effects run the gamut from benign to busted stocks and parts. Typically what happens is nothing but a startled shooter. But, in other cases, the timing is messed up, the action opens when breech pressure is too high, and rims can be ripped off, operating rods dismount, maybe case heads burst, problems that shooters would attribute to an overpressure cartridge.
This system relies principally on primer insensitivity to prevent inbattery and out of battery slamfires. The so called “safety bridge” is not a positive firing pin block and is easily defeated by long, fat, cartridges. The whole concept of a "safety bridge" or that this mechanism positively blocks the firing pin, is a misdirection of an inherent design risk. This design has more out of battery slamfire reports than all other designs combined. The Garand type action also has more inbattery slamfire reports than any other, but this may be due to the number of Garand type actions in use.
It is my considered opinion, after studying this issue for several decades, that the theory that
"only high primers and your worn out receiver bridge" cause slamfires is an Army cover up of an inherent design defect of the M1 Garand mechanism. The originators of this nonsense came from the Army Ordnance Bureau, but in print, it was the gun writers of the American Rifleman. Like all large organizations, the Army cannot admit to fault. I recommend any who want to understand the mind of the Corporation read the book
The Corporation, the Pathological Pursuit of Profit and Power: https://www.amazon.com/Corporation-Pathological-Pursuit-Profit-Power/dp/0743247469 I have concluded that all large organizations have the same personality traits as Corporations, maybe different incentives, but they all act the same: They exhibit a practiced superficial charm, developed to manipulate others, they actually don’t have empathy. They are amoral, use people for their own ends and discard them when they are no longer useful. They are grandiose, self centered, cannot admit wrong and will not accept responsibility for their own failures. They also have an unfortunate history of shooting the messenger of bad news.
Anyone remember this? It was recent.
Both the National Rifle Association and their Gunwriters had lucrative associations with the US Army. In the early 1960’s, the Army was contributing an amount that was equal to about 25% of the NRA operating budget. The NRA was created just after the American Civil War to serve the interests of the US Army, specifically in developing marksmanship skills in the civilian population. Over the years, prominent individuals of the Army Ordnance Bureau retired to the NRA, probably receiving in compensation from the NRA, an amount in five years that exceeded their entire 30 year Army income. These technical experts undoubtedly were drawing an additional income consulting for the Army and therefore, for the NRA and their gun writers, it was financially critical to maintain good relations with the Military Industrial Complex.
I believe the NRA and their gun writer staff made a conscious and financially rationale decision not to jeopardize their relationship with the Army or private industry by exposing the design faults of Garand mechanism. It was in no one’s economic interest to educate the public about the propensity of the mechanism to slamfire, given a sensitive enough primer. Instead, the entire cast of characters told the public that the only causes of slamfires were shooter’s negligence: that is, high primers and your worn out receiver bridge. None of them ever raised the issue of primer sensitivity, probably due to the fact, it was not until 1999 that military primers were offered to civilian reloaders. Until then, the only primers available to reloaders were the more sensitive commercial primers. Educating the public about primer sensitivity and the sensitivity of commercial primers would have the effect of antagonizing the commercial gun industry, not only the gun manufacturers, but also the ammunition manufacturers, both of which provides advertising revenue to the magazine and organization.
Human are so mentally messed up, and it is all individual, and there are 6 billion people on this planet, it is impossible to know exactly their motivation and why they do things. People you assume to be rationale, and yet, do they actually believe the nonsense they are peddling? Take for example the people who work for the Tobacco Institute. This is an additive drug that has no known positive benefits, kills half the people who use it, and yet over the decades, if not centuries, you will find extremely intelligent people who work for the industry absolutely deigning its additive and harmful nature. A more recent example is the National Football League’s denial over concussions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/League_of_Denial I saw the program, I heard the NFL Officials, maybe they actually believe what they are saying.
I think for the Garand mechanism the fan boys practice pathological self deceit and that maybe due to a number of factors. One is
first exposure bias. Advertisers know when an authority figure explains something, you believe them. Even when later confronted with over whelming information that the information/advice it is false, people secretly believe what they heard first. I know this to be true as it took years and angst to figure out that greased cases and greased bullets do not raise pressures dangerously. This one was something that Gen Hatcher claims in
Hatcher's Notebook. Even when I had over whelming evidence by actually shooting thousands of greased rounds and greased bullets, without problems, I know that I still thought there might be the possibility that Hatcher was right. At some point, you have to go beyond the authorities you respect and realize, they are the product of their times and environment. They won't be right in everything.
So, due to first exposure bias, when you have a medical Doctor advising you to smoke, you will believe it is safe up to the point that lung cancer makes you reconsider the practice.
I think another part of the self deceit of fan boys is the romanticism that goes with old service rifles. No one wants to cast stones at their beloved thunderstick. Maybe another is just that some are control freaks who cannot accept that some things are beyond their control. Regardless of what the shooter or reloader does, if there is a sensitive enough primer under the firing pin, the mechanism will slamfire. You can see in many threads, fan boys want to believe the mechanism is perfect and without fault and will say and do anything to get back to perfection. I think some folks are in denial over this.
What we do know, is that the NRA and its gunwriters, put a lot of nonsense in print about the Garand mechanism being perfectly safe and that slamfires are all do to shooter fault. The last American Rifleman technical expert to do this, the
"Prime Davidian" explicitly wrote in a Dope Bag article that it is inherently impossible for the Garand design to slamfire. Instead, slamfires in the Garand are only due to reloader misconduct. That is
"high primers and your worn out receiver bridge". I call this whole religion Davidianism, because, it is a play on the guy’s name, and if you follow it, you will go up in smoke and flame! What is totally amazing about the Prime Davidian, decades, and I mean decades before he wrote that final Dope Bag article, he was the Government Expert at the Ichord hearings in Congress. This guy testified before Congress!. He was also the lead on the investigation about slamfires in the M16. He is the one who wrote the report and set the primer sensitivity specifications to reduce the frequency of slamfires in the M16. But decades later, slamfires have nothing to do with primer sensitivity and the Garand mechanism, By omission, primer sensitivity does not exist as a concept. Nothing the Prime Daviadian wrote for the NRA contains any mention of primer sensitivity. Back when he was writing his nonsense, the internet did not exist, Gun writers and Gun Magazines controlled the discourse and information released to the public. Since the internet and forums though their monopoly has been breached, but no in print magazine will ever publish an analysis about the inherent slamfire design defect that exists in Garands, M1 Carbines, Mini 14's, or M1a's. It might affect some advertisers sales. Prior to the internet, no matter what nonsense the Prime Davidian put in print, he had zero expectations that anything he said would ever be contradicted in public. I don't know his personnel motives, but in the 1960's literature, when I first come across Davidianism in the American Rifleman, the Government designed M14 is in a fight to the death with the Colt M16. It is my considered opinion that at the time, you would expect the Army to deign any inherent defects with the Garand mechanism, because that would have supported the M16 faction. The NRA was firmly in the M14 court, a number of the writers for the American Rifleman had been involved with the adoption of the M14 while they were in the service. The American Rifleman printed articles in support of the M14, the articles are very interesting from an historical perspective, but it is quite certain the NRA had taken sides in the great M16 versus M14 debate. As for slamfires, the NRA in print consensus was that any and all problems were due to shooter misconduct., there was nothing peculiar about the design that would create the condition for a slamfire. The "
high primer" theory places all blame on the shooter, and zero percent on the design of the rifle. As it turned out, by the middle 1960’s the M14 was canceled, with drawn as a service rifle, in 1968 Springfield Armory closed and the Secretary of Defense had the NRA punted out of the Pentagon. But until the middle 1990’s, the M1a continued to be the most popular “service rifle” in NRA highpower competition. I earned my Distinguished and a Regional Gold with my M1a, I have a lot of fondness for the old rifle, but I do everything I can with my reloading practices to reduce the risk of an in battery, or out of battery slamfire. I do this with knowledge, understanding the risks of the mechanism, and understanding that they are real.
We know through examination of physical samples, that the Army lightened the first firing pins for the M1 Garand. This was to reduce the inertial impact energy of the firing pin, which would reduce the potential of a slamfire. The only reason the Army would do this, is because early Garands slamfired. We know this happened for M16’s, and all that information was kept classified until recently. But since the documents were declassified, we know that the early M16’s had slamfire problems. The Army lightened the firing pin, just as they had done with the M1 Garand, and the Army specified a less sensitive primer for the 5.56 mm cartridge, the #41 mil spec primer. We know this, but at no time did the authorities ever tell us this.
We can be sure that the Army Ordnance Department, including the Prime Davidian, knew about why Garands slamfired, and why M14’s slamfired. We can be sure they knew about slamfires in their rifles because some of their own test reports survived:
