As a side note to Thompson's M-1D article, prototypes of the M-1C by Griffin & Howe and John Garand's M-1D were submitted to the Army at the same time. Whereas to make a M-1C, a bare receiver was sent to Griffin & Howe in New York State where it was drilled, tapped and hardened and then had the mount installed and sent back to Springfield to completion, Garand felt his design was superior as it required fewer parts, was much easier to adapt as all it required was to turn down the barrel for the scope mount and shorten the handguard. That's a whopping total of three parts: scope mount, scope mount base and handguard. Everything to make a M-1D could be done less costly (cheaper), with reduced turn-around time (quicker) and in-house at Springfield Armory.
Why the M-1C was chosen over Garand's design in 1944? Not surprisingly, politics! It seemed that Griffin & Howe enlisted the support of its Congress Critters to pressure the Army. It worked and it kept the Griffin & Howe employees busy.
Why the M-1C was chosen over Garand's design in 1944? Not surprisingly, politics! It seemed that Griffin & Howe enlisted the support of its Congress Critters to pressure the Army. It worked and it kept the Griffin & Howe employees busy.