Also, the Garand was American (designed by a Canadian) and the Enfield was British. Most countries want to have control over ALL aspects of the manufacturing of their weapons, from raw materials to the finished weapon. We HATE having to buy foreign computer chips for our weapons systems. Britian would have been unwilling to purchase foreign made weapons and put British workers out of work, or to pay a license to manufacture Garands in Britian. Also, remember Britain had a global empire that was held together by a LOT of Enfield rifles chambered in .303 British, and billions of rounds of ammo for that weapon There were arsenals around the world that manufactured both arms and ammunition for the Empire, and changing all that would have taken a lot of money and time. All this for a rifle that had less than a 20-year service life?! Generals have always hated anything new, different, more expensive and rapid fire. During the Civil War the Henry and Spencer repeating rifles were repeatedly rejected by the Union Army, until President Lincoln intervened and ordered that they be purchased and issued.
Hell yea! Also, from the 1970s, so it's about 50-years-old. I was also able to score a couple of the keys for opening the spam cans, so I won't have to use a hammer and chisel to open them. Haven't seen them in years, hope I can find them.
@Wildbilly "Most countries want to have control over ALL aspects of the manufacturing of their weapons..." "During the Civil War the Henry and Spencer repeating rifles were repeatedly rejected by the Union Army..." Extremely good points and very true!
I was lucky enough prior to Obammy to get 3 Garands and a 1903 A1 from CMP back when they were reasonable priced and had plenty of them. Reloaded a bunch of 30-06 ammo --well stocked
The American thinking was very similar around the time of the lever action rifles coming into common use and up into around the 1903 being produced. Much of our leadership resisted the thought of these new carbines (Lever action) and later the auto loading versions. Lessons were certainly learned but ignored after the Little Bighorn where the Indians simply overwhelmed the cavalry with superior firepower. The leadership's thinking was if the soldiers had the ammo they might just spray and pray. To a large extent that is true especially as evidenced from Vietnam up to modern times. The German armies had a similar thought around WWI but they made up for it by WWII by having a squad machine gun (Mg 34 later the 42 chambered in 7.92mm) with each squad and a designated rifleman with a automatic weapon typically a 9mm Schmeisser MP40 or later the Sturmgewehr chambered in the intermediate 7.92x33mm cartridge. The Russians also to a smaller extent bought into this and began issuing the PPSh and a Degtaryev light squad machine gun. Americans I believe went a little different by issuing the Garands, M1 Carbines, BAR's and the Thompsons being commonly issued to a light infantry squad. These of course are not complete lists but I believe it was answered to lessons learned in previous wars and applied doctrines as these nations saw fit. Gesh, I suppose I went way off the reservation there when we were supposed to be speaking of the Moisin Nagant.....
I read the other day that the USMC started the second World War with many units equipped with Springfields. They said that the USMC didn’t actually want the Garand, so they issued it first to non-combat units, which is why the Marines on Wake Island had Springfields.
It is true that many of them at the beginning of the war used the 1903's. From what I understand it wasn't so much a decision based upon what they did or did not have it was based upon their budget.
Ask yourself a few questions; #1-Where did most German soldiers die? #2-Which soldiers did the Germans fear most? #3-Where did no German soldier want to be sent? #4-Who did the German soldiers not want to surrender to? Answers: Eastern Front, Russians. Eastern Front and Russians.
