M1 Garand "Tanker"???
Mike Teague
"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
these before...
--
Mike Teague
yng...@teleport.com
http://www.teleport.com/~yngwie
Mark G. Havener
yng...@teleport.com (Mike Teague) writes:
# While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
# "Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
# quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun???
The M1 Tanker is a short barreled version of the M1 used by tank crews
who had lost their tank and had to slog it on foot like the other
dogfaces. It was shorter because of the crowded interiors of the tanks.
They run 25-50% more than the regular M1 because they are in fact "a
rare bird." Not too many were made, although I have no idea on the
exact numbers. If I can find that info I more post it..
+----------------------------------------------------------------------+
Mark G. Havener | "The greatest Lover does not make love to
(Just so you know | a thousand women, rather he makes love
it's not my wife) | to one woman a thousand times."
*E-Mail Address:* | "He's dead, Jim. You take his phaser
MHav...@eworld.com | and I'll grab his wallet."
PGP Key fingerprint = | "Do Mimes use voice mail?"
94 DA 8A 16 E4 8F 4F 6A |
4B 94 EA 0F 9F 8E 39 3B |
Gerald Boyd
30-06, and not 308. They are light and handy 'carbine' versions of the
M1.
Bartbob
to the regular M1. Although the US Army though about making
some in the 1940s, they never did.
NN
rgibson
WORLD WAR II_....all facts are his, some of the conclusions my own, in
any case here's my 2-cents on the subject. You can believe whatever
you wish, but anyone telling you the stubby little Garand they're try-
to sell you was made for use by treadheads is full of it....trust me.
Sorry fellas, there were many interesting variations of the M1 Garand
experimented with during World War II....MOST never saw active duty.
The T26 <so-called "Tanker Garand"> is a very good example, along with
others like the U.S. Carbine, Cal. .30, M1E5 - a short barreled Garand
with a metal pantagraph-type folding stock that some thought might see
paratrooper service....it didn't. Another good example was the U.S.
Rifle, Caliber .30, T20E2 - an M1 modified to take the 20-round BAR
magazine and capable of firing either semi- or full-automatic. Some
100,000 were ordered from Springfield Armory in 1945, however the two
A-Bombs made the point moot and program was cancelled after only 19
pre-production rifles were made...most of these remain at the Spring-
field Armory National Historic Site to this day.
SA's efforts to make 18" barreled T26 Garand version had nothing at
all to do with tanks or any other tracked vehicle...the name "Tanker
Garand" came about many years after the end of WWII when commercial
concerns discovered it was an excellent gimmick to use when selling
their own made-up Dwarf Garand version....it's still working today.
Per Duff....
"The fighting in the Pacific Theater of Operations demonstrated the
inability of the .30 caliber carbine ammunition to penetrate dense
jungle foliage. Similarly the length and weight of the M1 <Garand>
rifle also fell under criticism. The obvious solution seemed to be
a short barreled M1 rifle.
In the fall of 1944 the Pacific Warfare Board ordered an ordnance unit
of the 6th Army in the Philippines to make up 150 shortened M1 rifles
for testing. Colonel William Alexander, head of the Pacific Warfare
Board, requested that the Ordnance Department manufacture 15,000 short-
ened rifles for the arming of airborne troops. He dispatched a special
courier to deliver at least two of these shortened rifles to the Ordn-
ance Department in Washington, D.C."
Scott goes on detailing how these two rifles made their way to Spring-
field Armory for testing. There it was recognized as almost the same
M1E5 variant SA developed in early 1944, 'cept it retained the wooden
USGI stock instead of using a folding metal stock.
The end of the war in the Pacific also ended the project, but not be-
fore an military evaluation of the T26 Garand variant was made....in
part is concluded..."We all loved the little gun, but it had a defect
which we all felt made it totally unsuitable for a combat weapon with
standard M1 ammunition. The muzzle blast was terrific, in the darker
forest it was like a flash-bulb going off. Even in the sunlight is
was obvious." The recommendation was to cancel the project...it was.
What happened to the original 150 rifles (more or less) built by the
6th Army for testing? They were *supposed* to be converted back to
the original M1 Garand configuration....were all re-converted? This
is one of those little mysteries that no one will ever know for sure,
however it is well known that none of the T26 Garand variants were
ever accepted into the government's inventory for combat usage.
Bottom line....any T26 "Tanker" Garand you see for sale in the commer-
cial market is as good as any other, regardless of the caliber it may
come in - .30-'06 or .308Win/7.62NATO. It has no historical value of
its own and has been modified from an original M1 Garand by a private
civilian gunsmith or a commercial firearms company. I own one myself,
a SA USGI M1 Garand built in April, 1943 that I had converted to T26
specs by gunsmith Bruce Dow of A & B Dow, Inc. located in Florida. It
has a .308Win barrel and is a hoot to shoot; a real fun gun....muzzle
blast and all.
Hope this helps shed some light and corrects some of the sales hype.
Robert Gibson
Col. Douglas Mortimer
writes:
#
#In article <4c553t$l...@xring.cs.umd.edu>
#yng...@teleport.com (Mike Teague) writes:
#
## While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1
Garand
## "Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but
was
## quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun???
#
# The M1 Tanker is a short barreled version of the M1 used by tank
crews
#who had lost their tank and had to slog it on foot like the other
#dogfaces. It was shorter because of the crowded interiors of the
tanks.
#They run 25-50% more than the regular M1 because they are in fact "a
#rare bird." Not too many were made, although I have no idea on the
#exact numbers. If I can find that info I more post it..
#
#Mark G. Havener
This response is just dead *wrong*.
In July 1945, Col. William Alexander of the Pacific Warfare Board
requested 15,000 short M1 rifles for jungle warfare. About 150
prototypes were subsequently converted in the ordnance workshots of the
6th Army in the Phillipines, one being sent to Springfield Armory for
review. Springfield then developed the T26 Wood Stock Garand from this
sample. However the project was cancelled when fighting in the Pacific
ended.
As far as any of the noted experts on M1's are aware, there are no
authentic survivors of this experiment outside of a few in museums.
Accordingly, any "Tanker" Garand you see on the secondary market should
absolutely be considered a commerical rework. Any gun dealer who tells
you otherwise is, in my view, perpetrating a fraud.
I hate to say it, but some gun dealers are no better than politicians.
Mortalis
--
******************************************************************************
1995 FLHR, 1993 XLH 1200 Anniv. Mod., 1976 Bronco
"Long haired young girl, here beside me, fit my body, wore my mind.
Sleeping quiet, never knowing, by tomorrow she'll be one more thing
I'm a-gonna leave behind."
-Billy Joe Shaver
******************************************************************************
Mark Smith
#
#While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
#"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
#quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
#equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
#these before...
What is available under the name "tanker Garand" is actually a ommercial
conversion of the Garand and NOT a true military arm. There ARE a few TRUE
tanker type Garands but they seem to be museam pieces. BTW, they were
intended as a weapon for paratroopers, not tank crews. Read the letter in
American Rifleman, July 1993 p. 63-64.
You're not a louse are you? <G>
Mark
Ken Ogawa
#While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
#"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
#quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
#equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
#these before..
#
I believe the concept of the short Garand was intended for Paratroopers.
Only very few short Garands ("Tankers") were made in WWII. I think
people call them Tankers cause some say it was made to give Tank crews a
rifle that had more punch than the carbine but was short and easy to
handle when used from a tank crews prospective. However the correct
designation had a "T" number (experimental?). There are a few companies
that offer "Tanker" conversions for your Garand today.
There was also a small "Dope Bag" article in "American Rifleman" a few
years ago by a former engineer at SA who was involved w/ its development
during WWII.
--
_________________________________________________________________________
Just an insignificant bump on the log of the universe.
Mike Orwan
commercial market. Originally an experimental version
called the T26 was built for use by troops in the Pacific
Theater during WW2. It was not successful and was never put
into production.
Years later several companies started to shorten M1's and
call them tankers as part of the marketing. There have
always been function problems inherent to the tankers, most
of which stem from either poorly done conversions and/or
the acute bends put into the op-rod to make it fit. I
personally recommend staying away from the tankers myself.
I have had to fix just too many of them over the years that
do not work right. Many also have welded receivers or 2
piece sleeved barrels that are totally unsafe no matter who
did the work.
Mike Orwan
Mike's Shooters' Supplies
Full Service M1/M1A Shop
Free info on services/reloading/care of M1-M1A on request
Robert Gibson
------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mike,
Your recommendation is worth repeating to anyone thinking about
buying a T26 conversion....if it's not done exactly right then
what you end up with is a BOAT ANCHOR. T26 <so-called "Tanker">
Garands are essentially hand-built and hand-fitted conversions,
you destroy one of the very things that made the M1 Garand such
a great success....the interchangability of parts. When your
"Tanker" gets sick YOU DO NOT just order replacement parts from
Fulton Armory or other source....there aren't any.
The rifle must be taken (or shipped) to a qualified gunsmith who
must fabricate and hand-fit some of the parts used....op rod, op
rod spring, follower rod, barrel (naturally) and so forth.
When this puppy is converted in the first place it MUST be fitted,
tweaked and tuned for correct operation....this involves a fair
amount of gunsmithing skill and expertise. Many very excellent
service rifle 'smiths won't touch a Tanker with a 10 foot pole; my
favorite gunsmith, who is "Mr. Garand" in our area, is a case in
point. When I first started sniffing around to see if he'd build
me a Garand to T26 specs he quite bluntly said...."Gip, why do you
want to f*** up a perfectly good Garand?"....among other remarks.
He wouldn't do it....the money I offered made no impression at all,
he just doesn't want to mess around with 'em at all, subject closed.
I did finally get another gunsmith I'm accquainted with to convert a
1943 SA USGI Garand over to T26 specs with a 7.62NATO barrel. It is
a very nice example of the type and is fun to shoot....but if ever
anything goes sour with it I'll have a devil of a time with repairs.
They're nice in their own way, but may easily turn into one of those
items that revert from a silk purse back to a sow's ear in the over-
all scheme of things.
*MUCH* depends upon the care and attention to detail taken by whomever
does the M1-to-T26 conversion in the first place.
Just my 2-cents worth.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
O.___. Mr. Robert C. Gibson
)V O.___. NRA Life Member, elected 12-20-71
/% ( V ,____ O.___. NRA High Power Rifle Expert
/ % o/L ,___--- V Member, Sociedad Largo
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Become a Largoista, shoot 9mm LARGO....the 9mm cartridge of choice!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Dave....@jupiter.planet.net
This is an absolute gem, and is a true Garand derivitive.
(Garand, not M-14 gas system)
They are also seemingly undervalued, compared to the
"Black" 7.62MM Assault Rifles.
I love mine!!
David Sutton
Bruce Markowitz
(manufactured new, of course, with some GI parts). It works perfectly, and
is a lot of fun to shoot. I agree with your comments in general. Mine was
made up by a professional company that knew what they were doing. The only
way to go!
Earl Battey
#
#While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
#"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
#quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
#equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
#
#
As Ken had stated, the "Tanker" Garand was the T26 designed for use by
paratroopers during the intended invasion of Japan. The use of the atomic
bombs negated the need for the invasion before Springfield Armory could
undertake production of ANY of the T26 rifles. The only known rifles ever
"produced" were a handfull of re-worked standard M1s by an Army Ordinance
unit in the Pacific theatre in late WW2. Of these experimental rifles, at
least one was destroyed during testing (probably more) - the only known
existing specimen resides in the Springfield Armory National Historical
Society Museum.
Earl
EDevinney
Museum in Aberdeen, MD...
Ed Devinney
edev...@aol.com(w),Devin...@mediasoft.net(h)
"California is a Garden of Eden, a paradise to live in or see, but believe
it or not, you won't find it so hot, if you ain't got that Dough-re-mi"
W.G.
John E. Bard
# While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
# "Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
# equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
# these before...
How about a Beretta BM-62?? It's a "Tanker" with a 20 rnd. magazine.
I read an article a few years back by Chuck Taylor (Mr. Garand) and he
had an M1 Garand G.I. flash hider cut down to 1 inch prongs and he said
that the muzzle blast was equivalent to the standard M1 Garand while
barely increasing the rifles length.
James Beaman
#In article <4c553t$l...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, yng...@teleport.com says...
##
##While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
##"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
##quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
##equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
##these before...
##
##
#As Ken had stated, the "Tanker" Garand was the T26 designed for use by
#paratroopers during the intended invasion of Japan. The use of the atomic
#bombs negated the need for the invasion before Springfield Armory could
#undertake production of ANY of the T26 rifles. The only known rifles ever
#"produced" were a handfull of re-worked standard M1s by an Army Ordinance
#unit in the Pacific theatre in late WW2. Of these experimental rifles, at
#least one was destroyed during testing (probably more) - the only known
#existing specimen resides in the Springfield Armory National Historical
#Society Museum.
#
#Earl
Actually, there are two. The other one is in the National Ordnance Museum
at the Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Aberdeen, Maryland - I saw it last
Tuesday. This museum is a must see if you are in the Baltimore/Washington
area. They have all manner of small arms on display and a large field
full of armored vehicles from WWI to present day.
James Beaman
ja...@cheers.jsc.nasa.gov
Houston, TX
John M. Kelly
#In article <4c553t$l...@xring.cs.umd.edu>, yng...@teleport.com says...
##
##While browsing at my local gun shop, I came across a rifle, an M1 Garand
##"Tanker" or some such thing for about $550. It looked like a M1, but was
##quite short and stubby.. What was the purpose of this gun??? Is it the M1
##equivalent of a SKS "Paratrooper"??? I've never heard of or seen one of
##these before...
##
##
#As Ken had stated, the "Tanker" Garand was the T26 designed for use by
#paratroopers during the intended invasion of Japan. The use of the atomic
#bombs negated the need for the invasion before Springfield Armory could
#undertake production of ANY of the T26 rifles. The only known rifles ever
#"produced" were a handfull of re-worked standard M1s by an Army Ordinance
#unit in the Pacific theatre in late WW2. Of these experimental rifles, at
#least one was destroyed during testing (probably more) - the only known
#existing specimen resides in the Springfield Armory National Historical
#Society Museum.
#
#Earl
#
#
It should perhaps be mentioned that a well-known gunsmith in the
Worcester MA area told me that there is apparently some inherent problem
in the design of the M1 Tanker. He has an example of a rifle with the
rear of the receiver blown off or broken off. He thinks it may be a
problem with the recoil of a .30-06 and the shortened operating rod
mechanism. He counselled me to forego a restoration job on my Tanker.
Regards,
dolmen
Just curious about the broken off receiver. Do the M1 conversions to
"Tanker" Models and any Garand conversion to .308 require a shortening
of the receiver by cutting and re-welding? Or, does the original length
function OK with the .308?
Clint McKee
writes:
#It should perhaps be mentioned that a well-known gunsmith in the
#Worcester MA area told me that there is apparently some inherent
#problem
#in the design of the M1 Tanker. He has an example of a rifle with the
#rear of the receiver blown off or broken off. He thinks it may be a
#problem with the recoil of a .30-06 and the shortened operating rod
#mechanism. He counselled me to forego a restoration job on my Tanker.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Group!
Properly done, the "Tanker" is safe & functions fine. Unfortunately,
many of the commercial conversions were done on welded receivers &
welded barrels. Also, many of the conversions were improperly done.
To do a "Tanker" well, it's a real pain in the butt! Hope this helps.
Clint
Fulton Armory
We specialize in the M1 Garand, M14/M1A & M1 Carbine rifles. We offer
rifles, parts, accessories, services, tools, gauges, books, etc. Send
your street address & I'll send out some stuff. Thanks for the
interest.
Ken Marsh
<Dave....@jupiter.planet.net> wrote:
#The best solution to a "Tanker" is to find a Beretta BM-59.
#This is an absolute gem, and is a true Garand derivitive.
#(Garand, not M-14 gas system)
#
#They are also seemingly undervalued, compared to the
#"Black" 7.62MM Assault Rifles.
#
#I love mine!!
Is this the same one that the Italian Army uses (used?), a .308 version
of the Garand? I saw one, with a folding stock, no less. Are/were they
commercially available in the US? I'd love to get one!
Ken.
[MODERATOR: Possibly you are thinking of the Beretta BM59/BM62.]
--
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
- e-mail: kma...@charm.net | Newsflash: AOL introduces the
- WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | one-click "me too" icon.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Coble
#
#Just curious about the broken off receiver. Do the M1 conversions to
#"Tanker" Models and any Garand conversion to .308 require a shortening
#of the receiver by cutting and re-welding? Or, does the original length
#function OK with the .308?
I have two Garands that have been converted to .308cal. Both function
flawlessly and had nothing more done to them than barrel changes as
far as I know. The Marine armorer that did the work is well versed in
Garands and M1As and he may have tweeked a few other items as well but
nothing that he made mention of at any rate. You will here tales of
people having nothing but bad experiences with converted Garands but I
suspect the conversion process was flawed. Oh yeah, you'll also here
stories of slam fires with converted Garands. Read the file I have on
my homepage regarding this if it is a concern. Personally I never had
had a slamfire with either of mine but then that may be because of my
method of handling or the primers I use.
Frugal Squirrel
Visit me at: http://www.netside.com/~lcoble/welcome.html
en...@execpc.com
Questions on DCM M1 Garand
I'm patiently awaiting the arrival of my DCM Garand which I ordered back in July. Several
questions occurred to me recently:
1. With various agencies of the government presently shut-down, will my M1 be delayed?
2. I recently read a message which I think was regarding a DCM gun that didn't function
correctly. It made me think: What are my options if the gun I get doesn't work right?
Is this sale considered "as-is" or what? Although after waiting 8 or 9 months I probably
wouldn't want to ship it back to the DCM even if I could! Any ideas?
Thanks (in advance) for any info.
D. Duckert
Clint McKee
#Just curious about the broken off receiver. Do the M1 conversions to
#"Tanker" Models and any Garand conversion to .308 require a shortening
#of the receiver by cutting and re-welding? Or, does the original
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Group!
The M1 Garand *should not/is not* shortened for "Tanker" conversions or
for .308 conversions. The broken/craked receiver tail has nothing to do
with either conversion. Out of battery, or, slam fire failure is almost
certainly the cause, or a rewelded receiver.
Clint
Fulton Armory
Bartbob
receiver. The US Navy did make a magazine filler that was installed
to prevent .30-06 clipped rounds from being loaded, but that was many
years after the 7.62mm M1s were first made in 1965.
BB
rcm...@idir.net
#In <4crr4p$1...@xring.cs.umd.edu> dolmen <dol...@tiac.net> writes:
##Just curious about the broken off receiver. Do the M1 conversions to
##"Tanker" Models and any Garand conversion to .308 require a shortening
##of the receiver by cutting and re-welding? Or, does the original
##length function OK with the .308?
#----------------------------------------------------------------------
#Hi Group!
#The M1 Garand *should not/is not* shortened for "Tanker" conversions or
#for .308 conversions. The broken/craked receiver tail has nothing to do
#with either conversion. Out of battery, or, slam fire failure is almost
#certainly the cause, or a rewelded receiver.
#Clint
#Fulton Armory
#-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
RE: Right on Clint! I clearly remember seeing a lot of so called Tanker Garands being built on
rewelded demiled receivers back in the early 60's. I think there were folks buying scrap iron from
some of the arsinals and putting together anything they could find two pieces of. Not necessarly the
pieces from the same receiver, just a front and a back piece. Usually you could see the weld because
the parkerizing would be a slightly different color over the weld. I wouldn't trust any tanker
Garand quite as far as I could throw it left handed with the sling around my neck!
EDevinney
broken off. "
Was this a re-welded demil receiver?
Michael W. McDowell
Some time last year, or possibly the year before, there was some
discussion in this group about a garand conversion being performed
by Jim Bland, a gunsmith on the east coast. Apparently he was doing
a .308 conversion and adapting the weapon to take M-14 mags.
Did anyone persue this beyond the phone call I made to Mr. Bland
to check price info? Clint is this something that you've heard about?
Just curious.
Mike McDowell
Clint McKee
McDowell) writes:
#Some time last year, or possibly the year before, there was some
#discussion in this group about a garand conversion being performed
#by Jim Bland, a gunsmith on the east coast. Apparently he was doing
#a .308 conversion and adapting the weapon to take M-14 mags.
#Did anyone persue this beyond the phone call I made to Mr. Bland
#to check price info? Clint is this something that you've heard about?
#Just curious.
#Mike McDowell
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Mike & Group!
I have not seen the work of Jim Bland, so I obviously cannot comment on
his degree of excellence. I am however, well aware of such a conversion
& can only give a *personal* opinion on the matter. Over the many years
since the Garand went out of production (50's), all manner of things
have been done to this fine rifle. Mag conversions, sporterizing,
full-auto conversion, receiver shortening, rewelding, etc. The vast
majority of all these "conversions" have ruined the integrity of the
rifle. Integrity in an engineering sense, not a collectible sense.
I.e., the rifle is ruined. There are rare exceptions (Bland may be
one), but they are just that: rare. The essence of all this is, for the
few who do a remarkably good mod, the price is more than almost all of
you guys would pay. So, they are generally a labor of love, & few
produced. To mod the Garand into a mag fed rifle, & do it right, it
costs more than a finely built M14/M1A, which is already mag fed, has a
superior gas system & an improved bolt roller/op rod interface. The M14
is the final, perfect expression of John C. Garand's masterpiece.
Again, IMHO, the only reason to have such a conversion is to possess
it, & appreciate it. There is one guy I know (who will remain nameless
since he has made only one, & I'm trying to get him to make just a few
more) that I would like to make such a creation for me. But it will be
*far* more expensive than even Fulton Armory's world class Peerless
M14/M1A, so the cost/benefit calculation comes creeping back in. Hope
this helps.
Clint McKee
Owner
Fulton Armory
Al Neves
believe it is either the M1C or M1D. Considering the gun shows seem to
want about $485 for a decent rebuilt, new stock Garand (Arlington Ord),
I think the $1000.00, or so, the guy wants isnt totally unreasonable.
What things should I look for? How much is it worth? The rifle is
in good shape, original wood stock, the rifling looked perfect with
a nice bright shiney surface, and the chamber looked in good shape.
The scope has some minor mold, and I think it needs to be taken apart
and
rebuilt, and cleaned. But externally its in near perfect shape.
One more point, there is a flash suppressor. The suppressor looks a lot
like Enfield Jungle carbine type of suppressor. It is removable.
Thanks in advance for the info. Regards, Al.
Col. Douglas Mortimer
scope mount attached to a clunky looking metal block located at the
chamber end of the barrel. Original M1C's are much more valuable than
original M1D's.
#
#What things should I look for? How much is it worth? The rifle is
#in good shape, original wood stock, the rifling looked perfect with
#a nice bright shiney surface, and the chamber looked in good shape.
#
#The scope has some minor mold, and I think it needs to be taken apart
#and
#rebuilt, and cleaned. But externally its in near perfect shape.
#
#One more point, there is a flash suppressor. The suppressor looks a
lot
#
#like Enfield Jungle carbine type of suppressor. It is removable.
#
#Thanks in advance for the info. Regards, Al.
The first thing you need to determine is the provenance of the rifle -
i.e. is it a U.S. military built M1D or was it put together by a
private gunsmith with either U.S. surplus or new Chinese made M1D
parts. The DCM has recently sold M1D parts and several parts places in
the Shotgun advertize M1D parts - in many cases without saying where
they were made.
I am aware of two ways that U.S. military built M1D's have legitimately
been released to the public: 1) DCM sales and 2) what are called (I
*think*) Title 10 exchanges (I have been advised that Title 10
exchanges *rarely* if ever occur these days). There should be
supporting paperwork available for your inspection if the gun was
released by way of either of these two methods. If this paperwork is
not available *for any reason*, I'd pass on the gun myself.
It is possible, indeed likely, that there are authentic U.S. M1D's out
there that were stolen from the military and therefore are not
documented. I know its hard to believe that anyone would steal from
their government (<g>) but it happens. Personally, I would not be
interested in the gun without the papers.
I am not aware of any way to definitively determine whether the gun is
authentic without the papers. At any rate, here are some things to
look for:
The scope should be a "Telescope M84" and would be so marked - this is
a 7/8" 2.5X scope. Its possible that it would be a Weaver K4 (I think
thats right) which is a 1" scope. The DCM was selling 1" M1D mounts
for the Weaver K4 without the scope for $350. I believe they've sold
out. It follows then that the Weaver and the 1" mounts are pretty
valuable themselves so you might consider buying the gun just to get
them - if the rifle has them. I am not aware of the 1" mount being
commercially reproduced. I think that the 7/8" mounts have been and
maybe are still being commercially reproduced.
The gun should have a leather cheek piece that wraps around the
buttstock. It should be marked "MRT" and should have a date on it:
"2 52" for February of 1952 or some date relatively close to that. All
M1D's are around Korean Conflict era or newer. If the dealer or anyone
else tells you an M1D is an "authentic Dub-ya Dub-ya Eye Eye M1D sniper
rifle" - its bullshit.
The sling should be canvas. The cone-shaped flash suppressor should be
marked "HIDER FLASH M2" above "THE HART MFG. CO." and should also be
marked with a stylized "H" inside a diamond shape. I believe this is
the least common of the two flash suppressors that were put on M1D's.
If its a DCM gun, it also came with a scope case and a complete
cleaning kit.
There are firsthand reports of DCM M1D's being released in Excellent
Condition and also firsthand reports of them being pretty beat-up.
Accordingly, it does not appear that the condition of the gun will be
much help.
There was a verified DCM M1D (recently released by the lottery) listed
for sale in the Shotgun News an issue or three back for "best offer
over $1250." I saw an M1D at a recent show for $1500 and the dealer
was very evasive when I started questioning the gun's provenance - he
had no paperwork to back up his claims that it was a U.S.
military-built M1D. Verified M1D's are occasionally offered for sale
in the Shotgun News and Gun List for $1500-$2000.
The DCM M1D lottery is still going on and they get $650 for the
complete M1D and accessories. Myself and others on rec.guns have
posted and answered so many e-mails about how to apply for this that
I'm not posting it here. If you really want an M1D, my advice is to
take your chances with the lottery first. But hey, you're an American
- the choice is up to you!
Hope this helps and sorry it was so long.
Eric Jimerson
Al-
From what I've heard, M1-D or M1Cs are fairly rare. This means
expensive. If its for less than $1K, its probably not authentic.
My .02
JagdPanther
#
Clint McKee
<alt...@aa.wl.com> writes:
#I have built a Garand in .308 Win with a Fulton mid-weight match
barrel.It does not feed Hirtenberger 7.62 ball ammunition at all. The
casings hang up on the receiver a half an inch or so in front of the
cartridges in the clip, where the receiver narrows slightly to deflect
them into the chamber. I've been told by others that it is necessary to
stone the receiver because .308 casings are more straight walled than
30-06, causing them to hang up. The receiver does not appear to be a
re-weld. It has very slight pitting(none inside the receiver), better
than most I've seen and was reparkerized when I bought it. Do I need to
stone the area where the cartidges bind, as suggested? Any other
suggsetions would be
#appreciated.
#Doug
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Hi Doug & Group!
First & foremost, since you state that you bought the Barrel from
Fulton Armory #%^), Fulton Armory is the *very* first you should ask
for help/suggestions if you're having problems, for 2 reasons: 1. Since
it's our barrel, we know more about it than anyone; 2. Since Fulton
Armory specializes exclusively in the M1 Garand (& M14/M1A & M1
Carbine), we are a great place to ask for help. That said:
I can honestly say that for nearly 8 years we have sold these medium
weight Garand .308 barrels and have *never* had/heard/seen a feeding
problem. (Even the Krieger barrel we sell had a short lived feed
problem years ago due to a missed chamfer at the barrel mouth, but
*never* our Medium weight) *DO NOT* grind or in anyway try to modify
the receiver. You mention that you built the Garand that is feeding
poorly. Are you an expert on the Garand, &, have you properly gauged
all your parts for serviceability? Have you checked several different
clips to isolate this possibility? Have you replaced the op rod spring?
Is the barrel properly installed? Have you tried another serviceable
bolt? Does this failure occur *only* with the Hirtenberger, or others
as well. Call me at the shop to discuss (free except for the phone Co.
charge), or, send the rifle in for a complete technical inspection
($59.95 + $20.00 H.I.S.), & I'll call you to discuss. If it *is* our
barrel, the T.I. will be free. Also, we have a 30 day money back
guarentee on *everything* we sell.
I await your call. Thanks for the business! #%^)
Clint McKee
Owner
Fulton Armory
Doug Altrogge
It does not feed Hirtenberger 7.62 ball ammunition at all. The casings
hang up on the receiver a half an inch or so in front of the cartridges
in the clip, where the receiver narrows slightly to deflect them into the
chamber. I've been told by others that it is necessary to stone the
has very slight pitting(none inside the receiver), better than most I've
seen and was reparkerized when I bought it. Do I need to stone the area
where the cartidges bind, as suggested? Any other suggsetions would be
Doug