Pelican Parts Forums - M1 Garands at Big 5....

Pelican Parts Forums (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/)

- Off Topic Discussions (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/)

- - M1 Garands at Big 5.... (http://forums.pelicanparts.com/off-topic-discussions/526872-m1-garands-big-5-a.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danimal16 (Post 5191887)

Yes. Probably a lot easier that a black rifle. Good parts have gotten very expensive.

I can build an AR for less than any complete rifle retails for. I can build a better rifle for about what a retail rifle starts at.

Sounds like building an M1 is always more expensive than buying one, for similar quality...

when i did my CMP M-1 garand qualification, the ones you shoot and the ones ya get are polar opposites unless ya pay up front.

you get what ya pay for and that really holds true here.

buddy bought a century arms and that damn thing could not hit the broad side of a fat chick let alone a barn door. after spending big bucks at smith ent. to get sorted out..................the classic line.........." i should have bought the top grade available and i would have been way ahead."

as with all parts you have crap and ya have good. staying with USGI parts is always good, but even they have some tolerance issues.

mixing matching parts is always an invitation to more fun than you or your smithy can stand.

read the M-1 forums and M-14 forums and you will see that getting one to become a shooter 1"MOA is a lot of work and money.

they are cool rifles and for their size they are amazingly balanced.

and ya never have to worry about reaching out and touching somethang with a .30-06!

one of the most versatile rounds out there

I plan to "upgrade" my M1A receiver. I have an M1 conversion. How, who, why, all is unknown. If I knew it was done by the group in the Phillipines, I'd be happy.

So, basically at this point, I have a good parts kit plus an unknown receiver. I want an LRB receiver, when I can afford one. Then I plan to replace the wood stock with something black, and have it properly assembled and test by a good gunsmith. I do know what this will cost, and I can't afford it right now.

redbeard: look at smith enterprises web site and arrington accuracy's website. lots of goodies and services avail.

one good upgrade is chrome silicone springs from TUBBS and others. all my M-14's where them and they are STYLISH /FASHIONABLE/and what every HAPPY M-14 wears.

a usual malfunction with these is weak op rod springs.

What is M2 Spec spec ammo and where do you get it?

It's just US GI .30cal.

there have bean some interesting articles(NRA RIFLEMAN) about the "tanker" versions of these. if my fragile memory serves there WERE some short barreled versions made for JUNGLE DUTY. it was a very short run and they are extremely rare. dont even remember if they were IH/WIN or who mfgd them.

basically if ya buy a "tanker" version now its a rebarreled .308.

what i used to enjoy all the fun of "M-1 thumb" was an CMP aresenal refurbished to the NINth degree.

it performed FLAWLESS with or without M2 ammo. it was UNNERVING ACCURATE!

i would spend top dollar for one as they will be collectible. if you dont believe that then look at what a brand new M-1 carbine goes for and they used be $30 bucks surplus when i was a kid.

Interesting info on the "Tanker" M1 from the Parks Service site:
Springfield Armory National Historic Site - SA weapons questions (U.S. National Park Service)
(copy/pasted from a MS Word document)

Quote:

Fact Sheet #5
THE M1 "TANKER" MODIFICATION

http://forums.pelicanparts.com/uploa...1266519264.jpg

The so-called "Tanker" owes its existence to the long-standing dissatisfaction with the range, lethality and foliage penetration ("brush cutting") capabilities of the M1 carbine. A few statistics explain why this is true: the bullet used in the .30-06 M1 (Garand) rifle weighs 150 grains; fired with a velocity of 2,740 feet per second (fps), it develops 2,170 foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards. By comparison, the bullet fired by the M1 carbine weighs 110 grains; at a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, it produces only 600 foot-pounds of energy at the same distance--not much more than a quarter of the Garand. Thus, the temptation to substitute the greater fire-power of the M1 rifle is understandable, although reducing the barrel to carbine length would sacrifice some of the gain in power.

The Ordnance Department was basically unsympathetic to these field complaints, maintaining that the carbine and rifle were intended to serve separate and distinct purposes. In 1945, with fighting raging in the dense jungles of the western Pacific, where "brush-cutting" ability was important, the Pacific Warfare Board took matters into its own hands. It ordered an ordnance unit of the 6th Army in the Philippines to make up 150 shortened M1 rifles for testing. These rifles were cut to carbine length, making them short enough to carry comfortably in the jungle or to fit into a tank. This, apparently, is the origin of the term "tanker" Garand, which was never officially adopted and is somewhat puzzling in that tank warfare did not figure prominently in the Pacific Theater.

Col. William Alexander, head of the Pacific Warfare Board, obviously thought the "short Ml" was the answer, for he requested the Ordnance Dept. to make up 15,000 short rifles. To facilitate design of the new weapon, he sent one of their rifles by special courier to the Ordnance Dept.

When the "short rifle" arrived at Springfield Armory, engineers recognized immediately that they had done the same thing a year before when they had developed the M1E5. The only difference was that the E5 had a folding wire stock and was intended primarily for paratroops. All they had to do was to pop off the trigger housing, remove the folding stock, and install the action on a standard M1 stock. However, since the receiver of the earlier experiment was marked M1E5, the model shop took a new M1 receiver and built

it from ground up with modified parts. This rifle, along with the rifle from the Pacific Warfare Board, was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for tests. By now the "short rifles" had been designated T26.

The results of the testing showed that the weapon suffered from lack of reliable function, excessive recoil and excessive muzzle blast. Function problems were traced to: (1) the rework needed to produce a shorter operating rod changed force angles, causing the rod

to bind occasionally; (2) the shorter spring length caused premature spring failure rates; (3) the pressure port was closer to the chamber and permitted increased volumes of unburned powder residue to foul the gas system. Increased recoil was expected, but muzzle blast was, to say the least, spectacular. When fired with standard military ball ammunition, the muzzle flash and dust signature was unacceptable. (Flash hiders and muzzle brakes weren't being used then.)

Because Germany had already surrendered and victory in the Pacific was close at hand, and because test results were unsatisfactory, it was decided to cancel all orders before any T26 rifles were actually produced. The only T26 made at Springfield Armory was damaged during testing and possibly salvaged for parts. The Pacific War Board prototype was returned to Springfield and placed in the museum. This is the weapon that appears in standard published photos. In reality, there were only 151 "Tanker" Garands made. Few of these probably survive. Some may have gone home in soldiers' duffel bags, but most would have been stripped and rebuilt to normal configuration in the years following World War II.

Identification of a legitimate "Tanker" is difficult. All specimens would have been built from rifles in used condition; therefore, the serial number range would reflect that. Numbers would probably be lower than 3,500,000 and could not be above 3,800,000. The barrel date, of course, would be no later than early 1945.
Also, the receiver is marked as a normal M1 and would be of either Springfield Armory or Winchester manufacture. Judging by the specimen in the Springfield Armory Museum, workmanship was marginal. The barrel splines look like they were hand filed and much freehand saw and file work shows up.

Despite the insignificant numbers of "Tanker" Garands actually made by the Army and their complete lack of success, their popularity grew. By the 1960s, when Garands became readily available through government surplus channels, a number of enterprising individuals began providing customizing services for M1 owners. One of the more popular services was, predictably, making "Tanker" versions. In those days a nice M1 could be obtained for $79.95, so a $40 "chop job" was not considered to be an offense against a collector's piece.

Quote:

Originally Posted by legion (Post 5191929)

Chris,

You are probably more versed in the black rifle and my ability to compare parts costs between the AR and the M1 may not be current. Point is that in the day M1 parts were so abundant and cheap that it was easy to assemble one.

Also, I think that for the cost of M1 parts the CMP field, rack or service grade is a fantastic bargin over constructing one from parts on a USGI receiver. I would make sense with the wide spread use of the AR that a parts gun would be less expensive than an off the shelve gun. I wouldn't dare to argue on that one. And I do have some nice Colt ARs. I think they are a fantastic rifle, especially in 7.62 x 39. I would love to get an AR 10 but I live in CA.

To order from the CMP site you have to send in several things - one of which can be evidence through a firing range that you know how to safely handle a firearm and that you went through 50 rounds at the range. Are there any good ones in the Seattle area (eastside preferred)? I'm here through mid-April at the earliest and would otherwise have to wait until I got back to San Antonio.

I just joind up with the CMP and ordered a Service Grade H&R to go along with my Winchester and Springfield.

The wait time on most of what they have in stock is 30 to 60 days.

Sadly the wait for this one will be 120-160 days.

Once this one comes in it's time to look for a International Harvester made one and I will have the 4 U.S makers.

Garands where also made in Italy by Breda as well as Beretta.

I think that I will need a bigger safe.

Quote:

Originally Posted by on2wheels52 (Post 5191448)

"Raven Arms .25 inherited from my grandma"
I remember in the mid-80's when I took over the pawnshop they wholesaled for $33 or 3 @ $30.
I hate the term "saturday nite special" but if such a thing exists, RG made one. A classic in a wierd way, I haven't seen one in years. Probably not many listed on Gunbroker.
Jim

I had a couple of those Raven Arms .25's in my yute. The range i used to have a membership at would give them away whenever a new member joined or an existing member renewed.

I gave one to my mom and one to my sister. (I've long since upgraded both of them to Ruger .357 Magnums)

.25 ACP is about the weakest caliber on earth, but the little Ravens actually do work quite well as long as you hold them really tight (limp wrist at all and they jam).