Categories
Some Scary thoughts The Green Machine You have to be kidding, right!?!

A Green Beret Went on a Shooting Rampage. Is the Army at Fault? by Dave Philipps

High-tempo Special Operations training can cause brain injuries that accumulate unnoticed. One soldier says that is why he snapped and killed three people.

Sgt. First Class Duke Webb was an active-duty Green Beret with seven deployments and a flawless record when he entered a bowling alley in Rockford, Ill., one night and started shooting people.

No one had done anything to provoke him. He just seemed to snap. He shot a 14-year-old boy in the face by the front door, and a 16-year-old girl in the shoulder when she tried to hide. Then he walked into the snack bar and continued to fire.

By the time the police tackled him that evening in 2020, three people were wounded and three were dead. He has been awaiting trial for first-degree murder ever since.

He has admitted that he pulled the trigger. The question is why.

PTSD is the obvious guess. But there is little in Sergeant Webb’s record to support it. He was only in one real firefight, and no one on his team was hit by enemy fire that day.

The real cause, Sergeant Webb and people close to him say, had nothing to do with combat — but everything to do with his Army service.

Special Operations troops train relentlessly, jumping from planes, firing shoulder-fired rockets and setting off explosives. The years of training exposes them to so many weapons blasts and knocks to the head that it can erode their ability to do the job, or even to function normally. Many end up with significant brain injuries — injuries that are often missed by the Army.

That is what Sergeant Webb says happened to him. After 12 years in uniform, he was having splitting headaches and developed a facial tic. He often lost his train of thought and became so consumed by strange, conspiratorial anxiety that he began insisting that his girlfriend use a code name.

The Army never diagnosed a brain injury, but medical officers grew so concerned that they prescribed for the sergeant a drug used to treat advanced Alzheimer’s disease. He was 37 years old.

When he walked into the bowling alley 16 days later, he told the police afterward, he didn’t understand where he was or what he was doing.

ImageA large neon sign advertising a bowling alley is seen among city lights with the last hint of a sunset in the distance.
Duke Webb shot six people at a bowling alley in Rockford, Ill., in 2020, killing three. He has admitted to the shooting but has pleaded not guilty.Credit…Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times

His lawyers have argued in court filings that the Alzheimer’s drug, called memantine, pushed his already injured brain past its limits, and that when he opened fire, he was in the grip of psychosis caused by the medication. He has pleaded not guilty.

“I know what I did was wrong, and I deserve to be in here suffering,” Sergeant Webb said in a telephone interview in the fall, in which he sometimes lost his train of thought and rambled. “But the military used me up, then abandoned me,” he said. “I feel left behind.”

Instead of trying to understand whether off-label medication and years of blast exposure had contributed to the killings, the Army quickly cut ties with Sergeant Webb.

Shortly after the bowling alley shooting, it sent a psychologist to assess Sergeant Webb in jail. The military wanted to force him out of the Army, but federal law required it to first determine whether he was medically fit to be discharged, or had a service-related injury that required Army care. The psychologist wrote that Sergeant Webb probably had experienced a “brief psychotic disorder,” and showed signs of PTSD and a brain injury. The Green Beret was not fit to be discharged, he wrote.

The Army discharged him anyway. The paperwork rated his service as “other than honorable,” cutting him off from veterans’ medical care and benefits.

There are now three possible outcomes for Sergeant Webb’s criminal case. A jury could find him guilty and send him to prison for life. It could find him not guilty by reason of insanity, and send him to be confined in a state hospital where he would be treated and perhaps eventually released. Or it could decide that the drug prescribed by the Army temporarily made him insane through no fault of his own, and let him walk free.

In none of those scenarios, though, would the Army learn whether blast exposure in training played a role in what happened, or how that training may be hurting other soldiers.

Sergeant Webb has been in jail for five years, much of it in solitary confinement. In part because of his rattled mental state, he has replaced his legal team several times, delaying his trial and exhausting his savings — about $400,000. He has grown hopeless and at times suicidal.

“I just get tired of living with myself,” Sergeant Webb said. “The people I served with, most of them seem to have forgotten about me. What I did was so horrible, no one wants to take the time to try to understand why it happened.”

Sergeant Webb joined the Green Berets in 2010 after two years in the regular Army. He was assigned to 7th Special Forces Group at Eglin Air Force Base in Florida and began a grueling decade of training and deployment.

The Army sent him to explosives school, sniper school, jump school and dive school. He learned to fire mortars and other heavy weapons that can cause brain injuries. He deployed three times to Latin America and four times to Afghanistan. Though combat exposure was minimal, blast exposure was constant.

In Latin America, he taught partner armies how to create landing zones in the forest using explosives. In Afghanistan, he trained local troops to detonate mines, and blew up abandoned American military equipment to keep it out of Taliban hands.

“None of those blasts completely rocked you — they didn’t hurt,” Sergeant Webb said in the interview. “But you could feel them in every part of your body.”

In interviews, Sergeant Webb and several other Green Berets estimated that only 10 to 20 percent of their overall blast exposure had come in combat. The vast majority was from training, not war.

Image

A woman’s hands hold a framed photo of a group of soldiers in camouflage posed in front of a flag.
Sgt. First Class Duke Webb, pictured with colleagues, is one of a number of career troops with blast exposure who developed a pattern of cognitive and other symptoms sometimes called Operator Syndrome. Credit…Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times

The brain is an exceptionally delicate network of some 100 trillion neural connections. Blast waves surging through repeatedly can fray its tiny fibers or break them. When damage piles up, the brain’s reactions can become hard to predict.

Early in his career, Sergeant Webb had a reputation in Special Forces for being meticulous, calm and motivated. “He was a go-getter, very smart, well spoken, squared away, never in trouble,” said his former team leader, retired Master Sgt. Duane Flores.

But over time, Sergeant Webb started to unravel. It began with restless sleep and disturbing dreams, then headaches so severe that he worried he might have a brain tumor. His thoughts grew scattered, and he struggled to retain information.

The Army treated the symptoms without diagnosing a larger cause. He got medicine for his headaches, and the stimulant Adderall for concentration.

His girlfriend at the time, Monica Gonzales, watched him gradually grow so fearful and suspicious that he started to refer to her outside the house only by the code name Matilda.

“It got worse over time, to the point that it was really making me nervous,” she said.

Sergeant Webb is an extreme case of a much larger problem in Special Operations that the military is largely blind to.

Years of intense training and exposure to weapons blast waves can cause profound scarring in the brain that makes top-performing soldiers fall apart. But in case after case, the military has missed the onset of these kinds of brain injuries, in part because there is usually no obvious single accident or attack to point to as a cause, and in part because the symptoms can resemble those of PTSD.

In career Special Operations troops, insomnia, anxiety, confusion and other problems are so common that the pattern has been given a name: Operator Syndrome.

Murder and other violent crimes are a rare outcome, but when they occur, the military does little to understand whether brain injuries played a role. If troops are arrested in the civilian world, the military simply discharges them and moves on.

In response to questions from The New York Times, Special Operations Command, which oversees all Green Berets and Navy SEALs, acknowledged that “years of routine training and weapons use, particularly exposure to blast overpressure, can pose risks for brain injuries in career operators.”

A spokeswoman for the command, Col. Allie Weiskopf, said it was changing some training to reduce exposure, and increasing screening for injuries. The changes, she said, exemplify Special Operations Command’s “commitment to supporting the well-being of its personnel throughout their entire careers.”

When blast-exposed troops have turned violent, though, the military has repeatedly dismissed the possible role of cumulative brain injury, in favor of explanations that don’t implicate its training or equipment.

In 2002, four soldiers at Fort Bragg murdered their wives in a six-week span. Three were senior enlisted Special Forces soldiers just back from Afghanistan. The fourth was a combat engineer in a unit that had done extensive explosive disposal work in Kosovo.

An Army investigation initially focused on whether a malaria drug could be at fault, and eventually concluded that pre-existing marital problems were largely to blame. It never considered blast exposure.

In 2023, an Army National Guard staff sergeant who had spent years as a grenade instructor killed 18 people in Maine, and then died by suicide. A civilian laboratory that examined tissue from his brain found damage that it said was consistent with repeated blast exposure. The Army said it saw no connection.

Image

A boy walks on a grassy lawn among blue crosses, signs and pumpkins set up in memory of victims of a mass shooting in Lewiston, Maine, in 2023.
Brain injuries can accumulate in troops frequently exposed to blast waves in training. A laboratory found signs of such injuries in brain tissue from a Maine gunman who worked as a grenade instructor. Credit…Hilary Swift for The New York Times

Sergeant Webb wasn’t the only member of his Special Forces team who was struggling. His communications sergeant, Aaron Tugmon, started to have crippling panic attacks and insomnia. Reading became a struggle, and remembering nearly impossible. The Army prescribed drugs for sleep, anxiety, depression, and headaches, plus Adderall for concentration.

“Before I knew it, I was on, like, eight pills, and the Army never really looked at the cause,” said Mr. Tugmon, who retired as a chief warrant officer in 2024.

Their former team leader, Sergeant Flores, had many of the same problems, and the Army put him on many of the same drugs. He fought to control his emotions, and one morning, he chased a man who had been tailgating him and got into a physical confrontation.

“It was clear something ain’t right,” he recalled in an interview. “That’s when I went for help.”

He was medically retired from the Army in 2020. Afterward, he worked as a civilian for a Special Operations program that encourages soldiers to seek health care. The job revealed to him how widespread the problems were.

“I would say, 90 percent of our operators are driving with the engine light on, trying to ignore their problems until they can’t anymore,” he said. “Very little of it rises to the level of murder, but there are assaults, suicides, drugs, domestic problems. A lot of people are hurting.”

The problems also show up in career Navy SEALs, said Chris Frueh, a psychology professor at the University of Hawaii who encountered the pattern when working with SEALs transitioning to civilian life. Unsure how to properly categorize what he was seeing, in 2020 he proposed the “Operator Syndrome” designation.

There are probably many contributing causes, including chronic stress, sleep disturbance and exposure to combat, Mr. Frueh said, “but maybe the biggest factor is brain injury.”

By his seventh deployment in 2020, Sergeant Webb was a wreck. He was in an intelligence job at a secure base in Afghanistan, working largely at a desk, but his headaches grew so intense that he often had to stop and lie down in a dark room.

“I felt like I could feel the synapses misfiring, like my brain was just scrambled eggs,” he recalled.

When he got home in August 2020, he seemed different in ways that friends found hard to explain. He had always been meticulously neat, but now his house was cluttered with unfinished projects. Commuting to work one morning, he saw a cardboard box on the roadside and was so sure the logo on it was a sign of communist activity that he filed a report with Special Forces.

“He would cry over all sorts of things,” said Ms. Gonzales, who remained friends with him after they separated in 2019. “He was sure people were out to get him.”

In December 2020, the pain and confusion grew so bad that he sought help from a Special Forces psychiatrist. The doctor scheduled him to come back in a month for a brain injury assessment, and prescribed memantine.

The drug is approved to treat late-stage Alzheimer’s, and is sometimes prescribed off-label for other forms of dementia and for headaches. But patients must be monitored carefully, because in rare cases, it can cause serious side effects, including psychotic delusions.

Sergeant Webb never made it to his follow-up appointment.

Image

A framed photo of a soldier in dress uniform is seen over a seated woman’s shoulder.
Early in his career, Duke Webb was known as a meticulous, squared-away soldier. His mother, Janice Webb, held a portrait of him as she waited in November for a video call with him from jail. Credit…Jamie Kelter Davis for The New York Times

A few days after starting to take memantine, he traveled to Rockford, where his father was in a coma after an auto accident. He stayed with his half brother, Anthony Gonzales, who immediately noticed that something was off. The Green Beret had developed a stutter, blinked hard while speaking and peered constantly out windows.

“I figured it was PTSD or something, and just tried to let him know it was all OK,” Mr. Gonzales said in an interview.

Sergeant Webb stayed in Illinois through Christmas. During that time, he said in an interview, he became convinced that the federal government had been replaced by a shadowy conspiracy of Communists, Russian operatives and violent street gangs, and that ordinary people he encountered — hospital workers, waitresses, delivery drivers — were in on the plot.

On Christmas night, he told the police, he sat awake with a gun, afraid that someone was going to attack.

The day before Sergeant Webb was scheduled to return to Florida, Mr. Gonzales had to go to work at a bowling alley called Don Carter Lanes, where he was the cook and night manager. He asked Sergeant Webb to come along.

At the alley, Mr. Gonzales took his half brother to the snack bar, gave him a menu and told him to pick something out. Mr. Gonzales went to the kitchen to cook. Sergeant Webb quietly scanned the room, his thoughts reeling.

“It was like the most extraordinarily vivid combat dream I’ve ever had, and I felt everyone was trying to kill me,” he said later.

He became so agitated that he vomited in the snack bar, and then went to find his half brother in the kitchen. As he did, he pulled out a concealed handgun.

“I tried to calm him down,” Mr. Gonzales recalled. “I said, ‘You’re surrounded by good people. Ain’t nobody gonna hurt you.’”

Sergeant Webb put his gun away, took a few deep breaths and appeared to relax. He left the kitchen.

A minute later, Mr. Gonzales heard a loud bang, as if someone had dropped a bowling ball. Then several more.

From the kitchen, he saw his brother pointing a gun. “I yelled, ‘Duke, no!’” Mr. Gonzales said. “He snapped his head and looked at me. But you could tell by his look that it wasn’t really him. I saw that look, and I took off running.”

A correction was made on

An earlier version of this article misspelled the surname of a University of Hawaii psychology professor. He is Chris Frueh, not Freuh.

Categories
Hard Nosed Folks Both Good & Bad HUH! Manly Stuff Real men The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

Larry Alan Thorne (The man had a real hard-on for killing Commies!)

Lauri Allan Törni (28 May 1919 – 18 October 1965), later known as Larry Alan Thorne, was a Finnish-born soldier who fought under three flags: as a Finnish Army officer in the Winter War and the Continuation War ultimately gaining a rank of captain; as a Waffen-SS captain (under the alias Larry Lane) of the Finnish Volunteer Battalion of the Waffen-SS.

When he fought the Red Army on the Eastern Front in World War II; and as a United States Army Major (under the alias “Larry Thorne”) when he served in the U.S. Army Special Forces in the Vietnam War.

Törni died in a helicopter crash during the Vietnam War and he was promoted to the rank of major posthumously. His remains were located three decades later and then buried in Arlington National Cemetery; he is the only former member of the Waffen-SS known to be interred there.

Categories
Manly Stuff Soldiering The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

The Rangers of WWII: Leading the way for future generations By Suzanne S. Harrison,

Officers from the U.S. Rangers Training Battalion pose in front of their quarters in Britain in July 1942. Lt. Col. William O. Darby, sits in front middle.
1 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Soldiers from the 1st Ranger Battalion conduct a road march in Arzew, Algeria, Dec. 5, 1942.
2 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
The 1st Ranger Battalion practices a beach landing in Algeria, on Dec. 20, 1942.
3 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Rangers conduct amphibious training in the United Kingdom in August 1942.
4 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Under cover of smoke, a Ranger officer coordinates maneuvers via radio on the beach in Algeria on Dec. 20, 1942.
5 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
A rifle squad from 3rd Ranger Battalion passes a shelled-out dwelling in the Santa Maria sector of Italy on the route to the front line on Nov. 10, 1943.
6 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Brig. Gen. Theodore Roosevelt pins the silver Star on a captain from the 1st Ranger Battalion on January 4, 1944.
7 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Soldiers from the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional), popularly known as Merrill’s Maurauders, cross a bridge over the Chindwin River in Northern Burma on March 17, 1944.
8 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
Lt. Col. Charles N. Hunter, acting commander, addressses troops during the activation of the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) on Jan. 1, 1944.
9 / 10SHOW CAPTION +
The 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional) was nicked-named Merrill’s Maurauders for Brig. Gen. Frank D. Merrill, pictured here in the Burma Theater in 1944.
10 / 10SHOW CAPTION +

FORT BRAGG, N.C. – From Europe to North Africa to the Pacific, U.S. Army Rangers played a crucial role in many of World War II’s most pivotal moments, laying down roots for today’s 75th Ranger Regiment. At the onset of the war, the Army had no units capable of performing specialized commando missions. By the end of the war, the Army had fielded seven Ranger battalions, beginning with the activation of the 1st Ranger Battalion in Northern Ireland on June 19, 1942.  

Major William O. Darby, an artillery officer, was hand-picked to recruit volunteers for the battalion, designed to replicate the capability of British commandos. The volunteers underwent a strenuous selection program to identify and train the best candidates. On Aug. 19, 1942, 50 of these specially selected soldiers participated in Operation Jubilee, a Canadian-led amphibious assault on the English Channel port of Dieppe, France. The Rangers helped destroy one of the enemy batteries, at the cost of three of their own. Following the raid, the 1st Ranger Battalion participated in the U.S.-led invasion of North Africa.

In the early morning hours of Nov. 8, 1942, Operation Torch commenced with attacks on the Algerian port in Arzew. As two Ranger companies led by Maj. Herman Dammer assaulted the port, three others led by Darby assaulted enemy cannons overlooking the harbor, capturing them within 15 minutes. Two Rangers died and eight were wounded during the action, but the Rangers’ success helped the Allies secure a foothold on the continent.

The 29th Ranger Battalion (Provisional) was formed on Dec. 20, 1942 in England. The volunteers came from the 29th Infantry Division. Attached to British commandos for additional training, several of the Rangers from the 29th participated in combat raids and reconnaissance missions into Norway before being disbanded on Oct. 15, 1943.

The 1st Ranger Battalion’s encouraging performance in Africa led the Army in 1943 to activate four more Ranger Battalions – the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th. Attached to the 1st Infantry Division of Lt. Gen. George S. Patton’s U.S. Seventh Army, Darby led a Ranger Force consisting of the 1st, 3rd, and 4th Ranger battalions that spearheaded Operation Husky, the American landings in Sicily on July 10, 1943.

With Sicily secured, the Rangers turned their attention to mainland Italy and Operation Avalanche. Before daylight on Sept. 9, 1943, the Ranger Force hit the beach west of Salerno on the far-left flank of the Allied landing. The 4th Battalion, led by Maj. Roy Murray, quickly secured the beach, and cleared the way for the 1st and 3rd battalions to move inland. The Rangers rapidly gained their objectives by midmorning of the first day. The Ranger Force later participated in the Anzio operation, where they conducted a daring but ill-fated raid into the Italian town of Cisterna on January 30, 1944.

The 2nd and 5th entered the war on June 6, 1944, on the beaches of Normandy, France, during Operation Overlord. Three companies of 2nd Battalion Rangers, led by Lt. Col. James E. Rudder, daringly scaled the cliffs of Pointe du Hoc, overlooking Omaha Beach, to destroy German gun emplacements targeting troops landing on the beachhead. Meanwhile, the remainder of 2nd Battalion and the entirety of 5th Ranger Battalion fought their way ashore Omaha Beach alongside the 1st and 29th Infantry Division. The D-Day missions earned the Rangers their motto, “Rangers, lead the way!” The 2nd and 5th Rangers fought in the Allied campaign in western Europe until the end of the war.

In the China-Burma-India Theater of Operations, another legendary Ranger lineage unit was organized on Oct. 3, 1943: the 5307th Composite Unit (Provisional). Better known as “Merrill’s Marauders” after its commander, Brig. Gen. Frank D. Merrill, the 5307th, a Long-Range Penetration Group, fought a grueling campaign in the mountainous jungles of Burma that lasted until mid-1944. Following the capture of Myitkyina, Burma, the remnants of the 5307th were consolidated with the 475th Infantry Regiment on Aug. 10, 1944. The 475th was part the second Long Range Penetration Group formed for service in Burma, the 5332nd Brigade (Provisional). Better known as the MARS Task Force, the 5332nd helped secure the last stretches of the Burma Road remaining in Japanese hands, before moving on to service in China.

In mid-1944, one more Ranger Battalion was activated, with the mission of supporting U.S. Sixth Army operations in the Southwest Pacific. Lieutenant Colonel Henry A. Mucci was selected to organize, train, and command the 6th Ranger Battalion, which was formed out of the 98th Field Artillery Battalion, the 6th Rangers played a prominent role in the recapture of the Philippines, starting with the amphibious assault on Leyte in October 1944. On neighboring Luzon, in January 1945, Company A, 6th Rangers, supported by the Sixth Army Special Reconnaissance Unit, also known as the “Alamo Scouts,” and Philippine guerrillas, executed its most famous action when it raided a Japanese Prisoner-of-War camp near Cabanatuan, Philippines. Against overwhelming odds, the operation freed more than five hundred Allied prisoners.

It’s for these and many other actions that the Ranger units of World War II would go on to earn multiple unit citations prior to being disbanded in 1945. Their legacy endured long beyond the war, with their courage and audacity setting the example for future generations of U.S. Army Rangers.

To learn more about the U.S. Army Rangers of World War II, go to arsof-history.org.

Categories
All About Guns Soldiering The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

The Battle of New Orleans 8 January 1815

This painting depicts the attack of the and the 93rd Sutherland Highlanders against the Levee Redoubt defended by the US 7th Infantry.
Categories
The Green Machine War Well I thought it was funny! Well I thought it was neat!

Booby Traps

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine

Evolution of the AR Family Tree explained

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine

The P226: The “Silent Winner” of the Military Trials

Categories
A Victory! COOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I am so grateful!! Leadership of the highest kind Manly Stuff One Hell of a Good Fight Our Great Kids Real men Soldiering Stand & Deliver The Green Machine This great Nation & Its People War

82nd All The Way – Alvin York

Categories
A Victory! Our Great Kids Soldiering The Green Machine

The Fall of Maduro: Inside the U.S. Operation That Toppled Venezuela’s Dictator

Now I don’t know on how this ends for us. But at this part of this war this is some Brilliant Soldering on the part of the MEN of Delta Force! Grumpy

Categories
All About Guns The Green Machine

The Marines and the M1 Garand. By The NRA

, Serial No. 3706. The rifle has been upgraded and overhauled multiple times during its service life. All that remains that was present during the test is the receiver.
Photos courtesy of authors.

Due to its impressive combat performance during the Second World War, Gen. George S. Patton dubbed the M1 Garand “the greatest battle implement ever devised.” That said, the Garand did suffer some setbacks over the course of its design, trial and ultimate adoption by the U.S. military. One of the most commonly held misconceptions of the entire process is the claim that the United States Marine Corps was entirely uninterested in a semi-automatic service rifle but finally came to adopt and love the M1 Garand and, with that, replace the time-honored M1903 Springfield.

One frequently repeated notion is that the Marines fought the adoption of the Garand because of a belief that it would waste ammunition and degrade their foundational “every Marine is a rifleman” ethos. The story goes: The “Old Guard,” who were more conservative and resisting change, delayed the adoption as long as they could. It wasn’t until after the Guadalcanal campaign in 1942, when Marines fought the Japanese alongside U.S. Army troops carrying the M1 Garand service rifle, that they saw the errors of their ways and left their M1903 bolt-action rifles in the past to adopt the new semi-automatic rifle.

m1 garand shown with gear jacket helmet bandolier bayonet gun rifle angled across clothing magazine en bloc clip ammunition

While it’s a plausible theory, especially given the historical conservative nature of military decisions makers, in truth, it is mostly apocryphal and certainly does not tell the story contained in primary source documentation at the National Archives. These documents show a more nuanced relationship between the Marines and the M1 Garand. The chief of ordnance saw the value of an infantryman wielding a semi-automatic rifle against an enemy that would likely field a bolt-action rifle. One of the earliest accounts of this is suggested at Springfield Armory in 1902. However, at that time, they could never get it to work correctly. Even during the First World War, the U.S. Army continually looked for the technological edge on the battlefield in the hands of the rifleman, even investing heavily into the ultimately unnecessary 1903 Mark I and M1918 Pistol (Pedersen Device).

Although that project will go down in U.S. military history as a colossal failure, it didn’t stop the U.S. military. In the early 1920s, two prominent designers were the front-runners in designing the next U.S. infantry rifle on a semi-automatic platform. Those were John D. Pedersen and John C. Garand. Ultimately, John Garand would win the competition, but his story with the Marine Corps is complex.

Initial Interest and Orders
Through the Department of the Navy, the Marines’ interest in the M1 Garand predates the jungles of Guadalcanal by a decade. In 1932, Secretary of the Navy Charles Francis Adams III suggested field trials of John Garand’s experimental semi-automatic rifle (T3E2) chambered in .276 Pedersen. He mentioned that the final test of any tool is its performance in combat. Owing to that fact, he suggested that Nicaraguan National Guard Detachment, which is composed of personnel of the Marine Corps and is frequently engaged in combat in that area, would perform a suitable combat trial. He requested 10 of these rifles with 30,000 rounds of ammunition to conduct a test. General Douglas MacArthur issued a reply in March 1932 that such a test could not be authorized. It should be noted that this predates the adoption of the Garand in .30-06 Sprg., and this suggestion was made while the Garand was still chambered for its original .276 cartridge.

General Douglas MacArthur denies the Marine Corps field test of the Garand semi-automatic rifle (T3E2) in .276-cal. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.General Douglas MacArthur denies the Marine Corps field test of the Garand semi-automatic rifle (T3E2) in .276-cal. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

Although the request was denied, the Marines’ interest in the Garand persisted. On Oct. 3, 1935, Victor H. Czegka wrote to Maj. Julian Hatcher of the Ordnance Department that he intended to visit Springfield Armory with Melvin Johnson, a reserve officer of the U.S.M.C. at the time. Specifically, they mentioned they would greatly appreciate the privilege of viewing the new “Garand gun.” It should be pointed out to the readers that Johnson and Czegka were both active in the firearms industry at that time, with Johnson later developing the Johnson Automatic Rifle (itself being eventually evaluated and fielded by the Marine Corps), and Czegka winning the prestigious Wimbledon Cup, a celebrated long-range shooting event. They were well-known personalities, yet on Oct. 10, Lieut. Col. S. H. MacGregor denied their request with a simple “permission can not [sic] be granted to you to examine this weapon.”

The Marine Corps’ persistent interest would continue into early 1936 when the commandant of the Marine Corps placed an order with the chief of ordnance for:

“400 rifles, U.S., semiautomatic, caliber .30, M1, complete with spare parts, equipment common to the caliber .30 M1903 rifle, and except that only four clip-loading machines should be supplied.”

This order amounted to $44,400 plus $100 shipping and handling. This price was later amended by the Paymaster General of the Navy Department to $54,100.00 (with the $100 shipping charge). To add context, this would reflect a price tag of $1,180,714.99 ($2,182.47 shipping and handling) adjusted for inflation to the year 2023.

The first 100 M1 Garand rifles were received at the Philadelphia Depot on March 12, 1938, and retained, awaiting further instructions by the quartermaster of that depot. The following month, on April 8, 1938, Lt. Col. S. P. Spalding wrote the quartermaster of the depot, noting his verbal request that all 400 rifles be provided at approximately the same time. Because of this, and because the Army urgently needed the rifles, it was agreed upon that the U.S.M.C. would return those first 100 rifles to the Army, with 400 rifles earmarked for the Marines after June 30, 1938. On April 22, a memorandum was drafted indicating that the 100 M1 Garand rifles were shipped to the ordnance officer at Fort Benning, Ga., by the Merchant’s Mining Company on April 11th. The Marines’ opportunity to test a semi-automatic rifle would have to wait.

Victor H. Czegka with Melvin Maynard Johnson eagerly requesting permission to see John Garand’s new rifle semi-automatic rifle. Photo courtesy of Archival Research GroupVictor H. Czegka with Melvin Maynard Johnson eagerly requesting permission to see John Garand’s new rifle semi-automatic rifle. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

The Ordnance Department finally sent some much-awaited news that they would ship 398 rifles to the U.S.M.C. Depot of Supplies on Sept. 15, 1938, and that two rifles had been sent to Marine Corps schools in Quantico, Va., earlier that month. Army Ordnance also wanted to make the U.S.M.C. aware of the long list of difficulties accompanying the rifles and their testing. One of the primary issues was that the standard cleaning rod used was too long. Because the rifle had to be cleaned from the muzzle instead of the breech, it caused damage to the rear wall of the receiver and the head of the bolt, something that was being addressed with the production of a shorter cleaning rod.

Finally, on Nov. 19, 1938, the director of the Division of Operations and Training wrote to the commandant of the U.S.M.C. that a marksmanship and field test should be conducted to determine whether the new rifle, U.S., caliber .30, M1, should replace the M1903 Springfield rifle. He further noted that the current strength of rifle units in an infantry battalion of the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) is approximately 255 enlisted men (armed with the rifle). Owing to the fact the number of rifles ordered (400) provided a sufficient number to equip the rifle units of one battalion, an additional platoon, and furnish several Marine Corps Schools and Basic Schools that, a distribution of the following should be made:

6th Marines 300
5th Marines 35
Basic School 35
Marine Corps Schools 10
Depot of Supplies (for spares) 20
Total 400

On Jan. 3, 1939, the commandant of the U.S.M.C. notified the commandant of the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico that they would receive 10 rifles from the Depot of Supplies, which includes two that had already been accepted. He further notified him that the school would be receiving the following:

  • Essential parts and accessories.
  • Basic Field Manuals for the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1
  • Charts for Instruction
  • 1,056 cartridges, ball caliber .30 M1, loaded on clips of (8) cartridges each (1 box containing 132 loaded clips).

The Basic School at Philadelphia would receive the same components above, except getting 35 rifles instead of 10 and 13,728 cartridges instead of 1,056. It was requested that reports be made and returned to the U.S.M.C. Commandant by June 30, 1940, and the reports should contain the following:

  • Total ammunition fired.
  • Rounds were fired from each rifle.
  • Classes of stoppages, causes, and corrective measures for each rifle.
  • Malfunctions or broken parts for each rifle.
  • Injuries caused by rifles, if any, to personnel.
  • A tabulation of firing results for experts, sharpshoots, marksmen, and unqualified personnel.
  • Results of musketry and combat firing were tabulated and compared with similar firings done with the M1903 rifle and Browning Automatic Rifle.
  • Accuracy of the M1 rifle as compared with M1903 and Browning Automatic Rifle
  • Suitability or use in bayonet use.
  • Simplicity of mechanical construction.
  • Each and Simplicity of assembling and disassembling.
  • The suitability of the sights.
  • Fatigue from firing the M1 rifle as compared with firing the M1903 and Browning Automatic Rifle.
  • Recommendations, if any, for correcting mechanical deficiencies of the rifle.
  • Recommendations as to spare parts that should be furnished with each rifle.
  • Does the M1 rifle perform satisfactorily in the capacity in which intended, namely as a replacement for the M1903 bolt action rifle?
  • Any other information of pertinent nature is not covered above.

Lieutenant-Colonel MacGregor of the Ordnance Department very concisely gave Czegka and Johnson a curt “no” in their request. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.Lieutenant-Colonel MacGregor of the Ordnance Department very concisely gave Czegka and Johnson a curt “no” in their request. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

By February 1939, reports came in from the 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade and Fleet Marine Force in San Diego that many new rifles received had rusted (pitted) barrels when they were received. Reports of any defects were to be reported to the U.S.M.C. commandant at the earliest practicable date. On Feb. 17, 1939, the commanding officer of 1st Btn., 6th Marines, notified the U.S.M.C. commandant of the news. Specifically, he reported that 300 rifles had been received in new arms chests and were packed with heavy oil but not cosmoline. He described the following:

“In general, the rifles were found to be dirty and rusty. Large carbon deposits and powder fowling [sic] were found in the bores and also in the gas cylinders, and rust was noted on some working parts as well. The bores of the rifles were found to be badly pitted to the extent of about 1 in 12 rifles, slightly pitted in about 1 out of 2 rifles, and very slightly pitted in 1 out of about 6. Precisely of the 263 rifles issued and covered by the enclosures, the following conditions were found:

                 Badly pitted bore…………………….22

                 Slightly pitted bore……………………152

                 Very slightly pitted bore………………45.”

Later that month, the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico reported that the 10 rifles it received had no defects upon inspection. The Marine Basic School in Philadelphia noted that its 35 rifles had received prior inspection for defects; each rifle was disassembled and thoroughly cleaned. The barrels and chambers of all rifles were found to be free from defects. However, upon cleaning the grease from the bores, it was noted that the cleaning patches from several rifles came out very black, indicating these rifles had not been cleaned as prescribed and were lucky to escape damage.

The commanding officer of the 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade FMF followed up with a previous report denoting that 13 of the 14 rifles sent to Philadelphia as being pitted and were found mechanically defective from “cuts, flaws and tool marks.” Eight of them were so defective as to be unserviceable. He further noted that a large percentage of the new rifles were not of the type of workmanship that his officers were accustomed to handling.

This parallels a previous report from the commandant, who had noted that Springfield Armory had experienced some issues in the quality of the steel stock purchased for the manufacture of the M1 rifle. The flaws encountered by the Marines in the finished product support this. He further noted that Springfield Armory informed him that it will take some time to adjust the new machines to the type of steel they are using. This accounts for some barrels with tool marks and occasional cuts in the bore. The M1 Garand was going through some significant growing pains before turning into the finished product that served admirably throughout World War II.

The modification (arrow) on the inside of the receiver showing the modification to fix the “7th round stoppage.” The discoloration on the “rib” showing where extra metal was welded to fix that problemThe modification (arrow) on the inside of the receiver showing the modification to fix the “7th round stoppage.” The discoloration on the “rib” showing where extra metal was welded to fix that problem

The situation would get even more complicated when the commanding officer of Co. B, 1st Batn., 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade, stated that the rifles were carefully inspected upon receipt. He noted:

“All rifles were received with bores in a very dirty condition. They have the appearance of having been fired, then greased and packed without previously completing a course of cleaning suitable for prolonged storing. The bores were coated with a medium but sufficiently heavy coat of grease. The mechanical parts were dry, and in some cases, and on a few rifles, rust had begun to appear.” He further noted that, in nearly all cases, the gas cylinders were found to be pitted after cleaning, and the gas cylinder plug was covered with a heavy coat of carbon.

It’s clear that the Marine Corps’ desire to test a semi-automatic rifle was off to a rocky start, and it wasn’t until May 1940 that a full report could be written on how the rifles performed. It should be emphasized that the rifles were first ordered in 1936, and the test wasn’t concluded with a final report until the middle of 1940.

The report indicated that they fired a total of 244,845 rounds in testing during the 1939 targeting year. The report also recorded 131 stoppages, malfunctions or broken parts (this includes disregarding gas cylinder plugs out of line, cracked stocks, etc.). It also reported that 22.1 percent of the present rifles had some stoppage or malfunction that would have put the rifles permanently out of action in the field. Other notable comments were as follows:

  • In every instance except one, the M-1 proved superior to the M-1903 in musketry and combat exercises when reduced to the everyday basis of the number of hits scored per round per minute.
  • All reports indicated that the M-1 rifle was more accurate than the Browning Automatic Rifle but less accurate than the M-1903.
  • M-1 was suitable for bayonet combat.
  • The M-1 is easier to assemble and disassemble than the Browning Automatic Rifle.
  • There is considerably less fatigue from firing the M-1 rifle than is experienced with the M-1903 or Browning Automatic Rifle.
  • The effective rate of fire is 16-20 shots per minute.
  • Clips must be handled carefully to prevent rust, denting, or other damage which will cause malfunction.
  • It is believed that salvaged clips can be used for a limited time and that most of the ammunition for the M-1 rifle should be purchased already loaded on clips to obtain the best results. Reloading the clips is a slow process.
  • The rifle must be fieldstripped for cleaning, which improves the protection of several working parts from loss and dirt during the process. 
  • The bolt and receiver assembly becomes loose due to wear on the locking lugs.

The M1 debut with the Marine Corps proved rocky but favorable. But the U.S.M.C. understood the M1 was in its infancy and would have improvements made on later models. Some of those recommended improvements included:

  • Change the front sight blade to .05 or .06 inch width.
  • Reduce the size of the rear sight aperture slightly.
  • Improve the design of the rear sight
  • Provide a better quality of metal and the fit of the trigger pin.
  • Change the design and material in the front hand guards to prevent cracking.
  • Modify the method of holding the receiver group in stock to eliminate play which develops due to wear on the locking lugs
  • Improve the type of chamber cleaning tool.

And lastly, the most critical question: “Does the M1 rifle perform satisfactorily in the capacity intended, namely a replacement for the M1903 bolt-action rifle?” The report answers this question in this way:

“There is serious doubt as to the suitability of the M1 rifle in its present state of development as a replacement for the M1903 rifle because of: the number of malfunctions experienced, even under satisfactory conditions under which the majority of those tests have been confirmed; the fact that the rifle requires extreme care and lubrication to ensure that it will function properly; and the defects reported by the 1st Marine Brigade FMF, as a result of the limited field test conducted at Culebra. This is especially true when one considers the type of service the Marine Corps as a whole in small wars and landing operations.”

Between the wood is a March 1966 barrel stamp, which was likely due to the Department of Defense overhaul of M1 Garands beginning in 1963.Between the wood is a March 1966 barrel stamp, which was likely due to the Department of Defense overhaul of M1 Garands beginning in 1963.

The Marines saw value in the new M1 rifle, but it also noted that it was going through some “growing pains.” It also pointed out that the Ordnance Department recently changed the design of the barrel, gas cylinder and gas plug assemblies, and these improvements will go into mass production at Springfield Armory in mid-May 1940. This is when the design evolved from the “gas-trap” Garand to the “gas-port” Garand. These improvements were significant, as they would correct several problems encountered with the earlier designs.

In November 1940, the U.S.M.C. conducted yet another test. This was a competitive test between the M1903 Springfield Rifle, M1 Garand, Johnson Automatic Rifle and a Winchester semi-automatic Rifle. This test concluded that the M1 was superior to the M1903 under favorable conditions and that the M1 was considered suitable for arming components of the Marine Corps, which generally would not be called upon to operate under conditions approaching those of more severe tests. The most interesting comment was, “Judging by the experience with other rifles in the past, and the improvements which have been made and contemplated in the U.S. Rifle Caliber .30 M1, it may be expected that the operation of this rifle will be improved still further.” While the Marine Corps certainly saw the merit in the M1, it just concluded that, in the gun’s present state, it wouldn’t be suitable for front-line combat. The Marine Corps formally adopted the rifle on Feb. 18, 1941, a mere five years after the first purchase order.

Relics From The Tests
One rifle actually used in the early U.S.M.C. trials has been secured for photographs. Its serial number is 3706, and it first appeared on the inspection report from the commanding officer of Co. B,” 1st Btn., 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade, on Feb. 10, 1939. It was noted that, upon inspection, the barrel had pits on lands at a point 5″ from the muzzle, and the gas cylinder was slightly pitted. It appears later in the report from May 1940 where it is recorded it had 260 rounds fired through it during the tests.

Technical Specifications:
Serial Number: 3706
Receiver Drawing Number: D 28291
Barrel Date: 3-66
Stock: Letterkenny Replacement
Trigger Housing: D28290-18-SA
Bolt: D28287-12SA

It’s unclear how long this rifle stayed in Marine Corps custody, because it appears to have returned to the Army at some point in its service life. In April 1941, the Ordnance Department acknowledges an inquiry from the Marine Corps quartermaster concerning the conversion of (gas trap to gas port) 400 rifles on hand at the Philadelphia Navy yard. The Ordnance Department suggests shipping those rifles to Springfield Armory to be converted. It is unclear if these rifles were in fact shipped to Springfield Armory, if they were exchanged for new rifles or if they were converted and shipped back to the quartermaster.

Receiver leg electro-penciling “LEAD” indicating overhaul at Letterkenny Army Depot in September 1966Receiver leg electro-penciling “LEAD” indicating overhaul at Letterkenny Army Depot in September 1966.

The toe of the receiver is marked “LEAD 9-66,” which stands for Letterkenny Army Depot with the month and year of its overhaul. Beginning in early 1963, the Department of Defense began a plan of overhauling M1 Garands starting at Springfield Armory. Still, it would carry over into other arsenals around the country. The stock also possesses the “red triangle,” which is the mark of a Letterkenny replacement stock.

Red triangle marked stock which is a Letterkenny replacement stock.Red triangle marked stock which is a Letterkenny replacement stock.

It has been long believed that the U.S.M.C. fought tooth and nail against adopting the M1 Garand, that the corps wanted to maintain its treasured M1903 Springfield rifle until the Guadalcanal campaign changed their mind. However, looking through primary source documentation, it is clear that this was actually not the case. It’s now known that the Marines took a very early interest in a semi-automatic rifle, dating all the way back to 1932. They would make their first orders in 1936 but would not be able to complete testing and file reports until 1939, due to a series of obstacles. The Marines would then conduct a second test against other possible semi-automatic platforms in late 1940.

The Marines also understood that there was significant value in the M1 Garand specifically. Still, they also understood that, as it stood in its early stages, it needed substantial improvements to reach the level of combat reliability they required. Accordingly, they took a more pragmatic approach to the problem: adopt it as an auxiliary firearm that would be issued to the troops away from the front lines. As the design improvements were adopted, the rifle became more reliable and expanded outwards. Once the supply was sufficient, the front-line combat troops would switch from the M1903 to the M1 Garand. Evidence of this was documented in February 1943 when the U.S.M..C stated it was receiving the M1 in sufficient supply and would transfer excess M1903s to the U.S. Navy. The rest is history.