Talk:M1 Garand

I think it is better if you put in Call of Duty pictures instead.

--Son of the Witch-King 13:59, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Well atleast there was an image. The images look very similar. [[Image:Garand.jpg|150px]] [[Image:M1 Garand.jpg|150px]] 22:47, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

"And even with Stopping Power + Sniper Scope, you will still need 2 shots unless it is a head shot" - this statement is false. I've both killed and been killed with a single shot from the scoped Garand without a headshot. Changed. --86.132.174.74 19:10, 5 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I can confirm this, a chestshot/necshot will oneshot the opponent (with stopping power ofc). Limbs and stomach however will need 2 shots

Where it is used?
The M1 Garand is used in almost every single Call of Duty game that I have played. I can see why the U.S. used the M1 Garand in W.W.II, because the M1 Garand is a very powerful weapon and is very accurate.

...And? Akyoyo 05:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Camo?
If you equip a sniper scope to the M1 Garand, does your character get physical camouflage (a gillie suit) or does that only apply to bolt-action rifles? Ryo626 11:25, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
 * He does. Darkman 4 18:20, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

No He does not get a ghillie suit. --Wtfwikier 14:25, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm no rocket surgeon, but those don't seem like answers you can settle on. Anyone else going to cast their vote? Akyoyo 05:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Telescopic sight in trivia?
I don't want to just remove something that might be important without mutual consent. I mean, if we should leave it, then we should add to it more and say it's "accurately portrayed as" such and such. If anyone knows M1's inside and out, you should do SOMETHING about the mentioning of the scope. We might end up having to do that to the rest of the rifles in the game, though... Akyoyo 05:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Rate of fire is not 444 RPM
On Xbox 360 at least. I was in a private match, trying to test it to see if I could fire at or near the max.

I used a beat generator to generate pings at 444 RPM, then tried to fire with the M1 Garand to keep pace. And I couldn't, not by a longshot.

I didn't do any extensive tests (I'm not that bored), but the firing rate is significantly lower than 444 RPM. 71.178.189.162 02:17, November 3, 2009 (UTC)

"History" Section
It's a bit long, is most of it neccessary? - 21:25, April 20, 2010 (UTC)

Yes it is nescessary, its just as important to know the real history of the M1 as it is to know the game version of the M1, It also eliminates any misconceptions between the real M1 and the game versions. For example, the recoil on the WAW M1 isnt even close to half that of a real M1's recoil, if anyone fired an M1 as fast as some people do in WAW, they would dislocate their shoulder and wouldnt hit anything, and not to mention by the 3rd shot, the rifle would be at nearly a 90 degree angle. Also how in the older CODs, being unable to reload at anytime isnt true, as in reality, its YOUR rifle, and in combat, theres no drill instructor looking over your shoulder, in combat, nobody cares or pays attention to what you do with your rifle, its YOUR job to stay alive and defeat the enemy by any means, and if taking 5 seconds to reload while behind good cover and make sure you have all 8 shots and save as much ammo as you can is what keeps you alive, then that's your job, you or anybody else couldnt care less what some lousy manual-of-arms "recommends", when its your life that is at stake.
 * Who gives a shit that the video game version of a gun isn't exactly like the rl one? Darkman 4 19:31, May 30, 2010 (UTC)