Not only was the future of the M1 rifle dependent on continued funding, its success in the hands of troops when issued in meaningful numbers would be evaluated to make sure it performed up to expectations. A January 1938 memo from the chief of ordnance to Springfield Armory’s commanding officer commented on the initial positive reports on the Garand starting to come in from the field, along with a challenge to increase the manufacturing rate: “[I]t is most gratifying to note that the semi-automatic rifle is now in production. Reports being received from the using troops to whom the production rifles have been issued are most enthusiastic as to its performance…The demand from troops to be equipped with this important weapon is very urgent and every effort should be made to fill current orders promptly. Manufacturing methods should be restudied so as to get increased production and to cut costs in every way possible.”

Despite the “most enthusiastic” reception of the rifle by the troops, a number of problems surfaced as its use increased. One was the so-called “Seventh Round Stoppage.” It was eventually discovered that this vexing condition was caused by a small portion of the inside of the receiver being inadvertently sheared during production. A slight recalibration of the tooling eliminated the problem. It was also discovered that the M1 rifle’s action could “freeze” when exposed to excessive amounts of water, such as a driving rain. It was determined that a graphite-based grease applied to the camming areas would help alleviate the problem.

The most significant shortcoming of the original M1 rifle proved to be the design of the gas system. The original mechanism trapped some of the gas in an open space between the muzzle and a cap over the muzzle, forcing it back through a cylinder to operate the action. These early M1s have unofficially been dubbed “gas trap” rifles in recognition of its gas system. As these rifles entered service, several deficiencies of the original gas system became apparent, including a propensity for the gas cylinder to become loose, difficulty in cleaning and insufficient strength for attachment of a bayonet. To address the issue, John Garand and the Springfield Armory Engineering Dept. designed a new gas system. First tested in early 1939, it featured a gas port drilled into the barrel to channel the escaping gas that impinged on the operating rod’s piston to force it backward to operate the action. The revised design required a 24-inch barrel as compared to the original (gas trap) M1 rifle’s 22-inch barrel. Springfield Armory began production of these new “gas port” rifles in June 1940. With this change, the basic mechanism of the M1 rifle remained unchanged for the next 16 years.

The American Rifleman was one of the first publications to profile the M1 rifle in any appreciable detail in an August 1938 article written by Ordnance Maj. G.H. Drewry entitled “Our New Service Rifle.” The piece contained little more than a cursory recitation of the events leading up to the adoption of the M1 rifle and a brief synopsis of the current state of production.

Initially, most of the media coverage of the Garand was slightly favorable to somewhat neutral, but it didn’t take long for the rifle to receive an inordinate amount of scrutiny and criticism. One such example was a letter submitted by an NRA member and printed in the October 1940 The American Rifleman. The letter contained a number of detailed complaints and cited numerous perceived deficiencies of the M1.

“Garand Critique—Hope you can wade through this, and that it may secure some result—Lord knows something MUST be done. I spent an afternoon on the range with some choice copies of Mr. Garand’s great mistake recently. And with some 25 years’ experience with military firearms, two years as a sniper and some combat experience, plus a great deal of observation and training as an enlisted man and officer, it is my prophecy that unless this rifle is altered in [some] very important respects, that any unit armed with it will be defeated if faced by any trained and determined foe that has ordinary bolt-action rifles, either in offensive or defensive operations … .

“I have been writing, and encouraging others to write, to their Congressmen and Senators to require the Infantry Board to make a real miss-and-out test of this rifle, against the other available types of semiautomatics, or to recommend the manufacture of the Model 1917 which is, at the present time, our best war rifle. (Absolutely fool proof and reliable!! I threw away a scope-sighted Springfield as a sniper, for [the M1917’s] superior reliability for all military purposes. Please do not give up the fight for a reliable autoloading rifle (or the Model 1917!!). Arthur Shivell, Los Angeles, Calif.” Such opinions were by no means uncommon during this period, and the Garand rifle was being routinely and relentlessly pilloried in the press, including a number of pointedly unfavorable articles in The American Rifleman.

But not every NRA member agreed with the NRA’s treatment of the M1 rifle during this period. Respected firearm writer Capt. Charles Askins, Jr., Guns and Ammunition Editor for “Outdoors” magazine, felt so strongly about the inappropriateness of the NRA’s stance that he fired off the following letter, dated June 6, 1940, to NRA headquarters in Washington, D.C.:

“Immediately upon receipt of this letter you will cancel my life membership in the National Rifle Association. I want you to know that I very heartily disapprove of the campaign of criticism being carried on by the National Rifle Association toward our Service arm the Garand rifle. In times like these the editorials published by the National Rifle Association aimed at discrediting this arm and reflecting on the people instrumental in adopting it, are, to say the least, ill-advised and untimely. When certain NRA officials in high places within the organization set themselves up as virtual one-man ordnance testing boards and without the authority of the Ordnance Dept. and without the invitation of it find fault with our military rifle, I for one have no desire to condone such action by continuing membership in the Nat’l Rifle Association.”

Another challenge to the M1 rifle was the development of a competing semi-automatic rifle in the late 1930s by Melvin M. Johnson, Jr., a Boston attorney with an interest in, and talent for, firearm design. Johnson was a fervent detractor of the Garand and, unsurprisingly, felt his recoil-operated rifle was far superior. After several preliminary tests, the Ordnance Dept. turned its nose up and its thumbs down at the Johnson rifle and remained firmly committed to the Garand. Not easily dissuaded, Johnson, literally, made a “federal case” out of the situation by persuading friendly U.S. congressmen and senators that the nation was making a huge mistake by adopting a rifle as badly flawed as the M1. This resulted in several high-profile and well-publicized House and Senate hearings in 1940 that, ultimately, resulted in the M1 remaining the standardized U.S. service rifle.

Despite the doubts, criticisms and invectives hurled at the M1 rifle from circa 1938 to 1940, the Garand’s subsequent success on battlefields around the globe in World War II and Korea silenced the critics and made many of them look foolish. The trials and tribulations experienced with the early Garand rifles are often unknown or overlooked today. Indeed, some may be surprised that such a famed and venerated rifle was not universally welcomed with open arms when it first came on the scene in 1936. What a difference 75 years makes!