The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Semi-automatics

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 4, 2013, 07:42 AM   #1
Budda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 441
M1 garand .308 Tanker

So is the Tanker less sensitive to ammo variations than the full size 30-06? Also is the tanker rare? I have a choice of either in a private collection.
Budda is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 09:20 AM   #2
Addler
Junior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2012
Posts: 6
"tankers" are non military shortened versions of M 1 Garand rifles and each is different from the other......Don't waste your money on this junk!
Addler is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 09:39 AM   #3
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,614
I tend to agree. With most Tankers, you don't really know what you are getting, unless they come from a reputable outfit like Shuff's.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 09:42 AM   #4
Budda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 441
M1 garand .308 Tanker

So they are not factory made? I thought they were just a late model made just as the war war coming to an end. Please enlighten me. I am garand ignorant.
Budda is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 10:19 AM   #5
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,354
I suggest trying Wikipedia for "tanker Garand".
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 10:40 AM   #6
Beretta686
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 715
Didn't Springfield Armory used to make a new production Tanker Garand? I can't find it on their website, but I'm about 99% sure I shot one at a Machine Gun shoot a few years ago.
__________________
"Our contract called for 16 cases of rifles and ammunition for $10,000 dollars, not a machine gun...........That is our present to the General"-Pike Bishop

When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross.”
Beretta686 is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 07:23 PM   #7
rdmallory
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Deltona FL
Posts: 952
There was a .308 Navy model but some had sleeved barrels and I think they were about regular length. CMP had barreled actions at one time.

Doug
rdmallory is offline  
Old October 4, 2013, 08:47 PM   #8
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
So they are not factory made? I thought they were just a late model made just as the war war coming to an end.
That's the story the guys selling Tanker Garands made up to sell Tanker Garands.

The T26 was a shorter-barreled variant that was tested but never adopted. Most likely because it didn't work all that well. The term "Tanker Garand" was invented after the war as a gimmick.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old October 7, 2013, 07:49 PM   #9
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,170
The term "tanker Garand" was pure hype. WWII tankers carried pistols and submachineguns, not rifles, cut down or otherwise.

Springfield Armory did experiment with shortened M1 rifles, but for paratroop use, not tankers.

WARNING: Most of those "tanker Garands" (the Springfield Armory, Inc. models excepted) were put out at a time when M1 rifles were not being released by the Army, so they were made using receivers that had been condemned, cut in half. and sold as scrap.* Entrepreneurs bought the scrap, found parts that were usable, welded two pieces together and made "cut and weld" M1 and "tanker" rifles. Some were pretty well done, but an experienced person can almost always spot the welded together receivers either by the actual welding or by the fact that the marks on the two ends don't match (like wrong serial number for the dash part number).

*No one knew why the receivers had been scrapped - most were just worn out, but some had been burned in a fire and would have been highly dangerous if restored to firing condition.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old October 9, 2013, 10:36 PM   #10
hagar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 20, 2000
Location: Colombia, SC
Posts: 516
The 2 I have seen were both pieces of garbage, stay away! 1 had headspace issues so bad you could see it with the naked eye comparing a fired shell (when you could get it to fire) to a regular. The other one I did not get to inspect up close, but it could not hit the broadside of a barn and was jamming constantly.
__________________
I don't have time for busy people
hagar is offline  
Old October 10, 2013, 12:00 AM   #11
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,274
Springfield Inc

Note that the commercial tankers were made by Springfield Inc and not the US arsenal. I've always wanted one in .308. Now, the sight radius is short enough that I likely would not shoot one well. The pity.
bamaranger is offline  
Old October 10, 2013, 06:28 AM   #12
Revoltella
Junior member
 
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
They were as authentic as the Paratrooper SKS rifles.
Revoltella is offline  
Old October 11, 2013, 09:49 AM   #13
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,020
This is an example of a “Tanker”. It was given to a gun club member to work on. The first and most noticeable issue was that the barrel was loose. You could unscrew it from the receiver by hand! Secondly, it was a reweld. I took pictures so people could recognize a reweld if they ever encounter one. The front of the receiver was Springfield Armory and the back was Winchester.









__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old October 12, 2013, 02:47 PM   #14
Budda
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 441
M1 garand .308 Tanker

Wow. I had no idea. I thought tankers were real. Like a forunner to the socom. Oh well. M1 garand I just might pass on as well. I reload but I don't tinker with my guns. I shoot them.
Budda is offline  
Old October 12, 2013, 03:45 PM   #15
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,614
Quote:
Oh well. M1 garand I just might pass on as well. I reload but I don't tinker with my guns. I shoot them.
A standard USGI Garand won't require any tinkering if is in good shape. Just a steady diet of M2 Ball!

I was just shooting my 1944 Springfield Armory M1 Garand (a Service Grade rifle from the CMP) earlier today. As always, it was 100% reliable. There probably isn't a centerfire rifle out there that is more fun to shoot than a Garand. They run smooth, have soft recoil, and are just a pleasure to shoot. And you gotta love that PING!


.

Last edited by Fishbed77; October 12, 2013 at 03:53 PM.
Fishbed77 is offline  
Old November 3, 2013, 10:54 AM   #16
brinker
Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 38
Great info:

I just ordered a service grade from CMP: I was at a range,2 years ago, memorial day shoot and I was shooting next to a para Garand:/Tanker, as he called it. waxed his 150 grain and all.said you had to do that, to make it work. Never herd of it! and never got to look at it really close, but something wasn't right. I was firing my 1903 Springfield, they were so busy at the range that day I could only get on the 100 yard range. my groups were silver dollar size and that tanker model was all over the target, according to my spotter. I always shoot memorial day, lots of fun.
brinker is offline  
Old November 3, 2013, 07:51 PM   #17
horselips
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 126
I owned a Tanker Garand in .308 about 40 years ago. It was one of the coolest rifles ever, I wish I still owned it. Lots of fun.
horselips is offline  
Old November 3, 2013, 08:37 PM   #18
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,170
It is interesting the ingenuity that went into welding receiver pieces back together, then cutting down and modifying the barrel, re-chambering, drilling a new gas port, cutting and shortening the op rod, modifying the receiver to take an M14 magazine (some remained .30-'06 and used BAR magazines). Part of the problem was that the work was done, not by one company with good quality control, but by a dozen different outfits, some good, some awful. The products of the worst were positively dangerous to fire.

Not all "cut and weld" receivers went into "tankers". Some were used to build full size M1 rifles, which were then re-Parkerized, given new wood, and sold for fancy prices as brand new rifles. I saw a "C&W" "Winchester" at a recent gun show with a $1500 price tag, so they are still around. Buyer beware!

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old November 3, 2013, 09:32 PM   #19
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,354
Not all weld-ups are junk. And, after all, the primary force is on the bolt lugs, which are in front of the weld. In comparison, the forces acting on the rear of the receiver are quite small.

I bought one from a buddy. He'd glass bedded it and had some match parts, including sights. Easily 1.5 MOA.

The weld itself was very well done. Not detectable, this side of magnafluxing.
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old November 4, 2013, 08:53 AM   #20
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,020
Quote:
Not all weld-ups are junk. And, after all, the primary force is on the bolt lugs, which are in front of the weld. In comparison, the forces acting on the rear of the receiver are quite small.

I bought one from a buddy. He'd glass bedded it and had some match parts, including sights. Easily 1.5 MOA.

The weld itself was very well done. Not detectable, this side of magnafluxing.

There are good reasons to avoid a weld up. Even if the lug recesses were not cut through, the structural integrity of the rest of the receiver will be in question. The bolt rebounds off the receiver heel, the sidewalls of the receiver are absorb the energy of this impact. Receiver sidewalls crack on perfectly good receivers, I have seen one on a M1a and on a used M1a I bought, the original receiver had cracked behind the elevation knob, but had been replaced under warranty. No weld is as strong as the original material, it may cause stress concentrations, it is uncertain how many impacts rewelds can take, but I am doubtful it will be more than an intact receiver.

As long as there are perfectly good receivers to buy, I would avoid rewelds.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old November 5, 2013, 03:47 PM   #21
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,170
Not only that, but as has been mentioned, those cut-and-weld rifles were made from scrapped parts, and those rifles were not scrapped without a reason. M1 rifle receivers might be scrapped for several reasons, the most common being that the rear sight elevation serrations were worn down and the sight wouldn't hold elevation. More serious problems were worn bolt or op rod raceways, worn bolt lug seats (which would create excess headspace), cracked receiver heels, and heat damage.

I personally knew of several hundred M1 rifles and M1 carbines that were in an arms room fire and were scrapped. I can't be sure, but would not be very surprised if those receivers and other parts ended up as "Tanker Garands".

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 04:46 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11770 seconds with 9 queries