M1 garand cracked receiver

[Willie Sutton]

Thanks Slamfire... well said and well written.

Attached is a photo of a REAL welding job on a receiver: Splicing together one from two pieces. Welds were then machined to remove excess metal, receivers refinished, and sold by the thousands post WW-II, as it was the only way to procure a Garand at the time. These turn up less frequently these days with all of the DCM and now CMP Garands available.


Willie

.

[Slamfire]

Wille: That is ugly!

I really doubt anyone would recommend repairing a receiver cracked on the sidewalls or receiver heel.

The bolt comes back and rebounds off the receiver heel. The heel and sides have to withstand the impacts without cracking.

The few rewelds I have seen were joined in the middle. Thicker receiver section maybe easier to align.

[Willie Sutton]

Ugly is Ugly.. agreed. But this is how 1000's of them were spliced together in the old days, and how M-14 clones were made (chopping Garand receivers in half, shortening them, and re-welding) before M1's and then later M1A's were available.

Seems like a lot of work to get a rifle, but these things were not nearly as common in the 50's as they are now.

Today folks only weld things like Thompsons & Berettas back together.... (see attached)

Or MG-34's... (see attached as well)


Willie

.

[Willie Sutton]

Can only load 3 images to a post... here's the same MG-34 after welding...

(not my work, BTW... I just stole the images from the net)


Willie

.

[musher]

I'm sure some of the spring-chester rewelds done back in the day cracked, but my understanding is that the biggest complaints were unreliable operation and inability to get predictable results from adjusting the sights.

Both problems related to lack of alignment between the rewelded halves.

If I squint, it looks like Willie's picture is an example of such misalignment.

[the old gringo]

do not weld big no no !!!! that is one of the best made weapons took a good bang to do that hang it on the wall contact the cmp and go again good luck

[LkWd_Don]

You could get the parts you need directly from the CMP program if you are either a Member, Prior Military Service (and able to provide proof) or a member of a Gun Club that is on their list of Member clubs.
Here is a link directly to their M1 Garand Part listings.
http://odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm

Edit: A striped receiver is $195 + shipping, a barreled Receiver with bolt is $350 plus shipping.

[dahermit]

Sir;
NEVER, NEVER, weld on any part of any rifle reciever!
Harry B.

Looking at the cracks and having an understanding of modern welding equipment, methods, techniques of welding including heat-stop paste, heat sinks, post-welding re-heat treat, etc., I would opine that those cracks are indeed repairable. The finished product would be dependent upon the knowledge and skill of the welder. After all, that receiver started out as a red-hot piece of metal and the processes that produced a safe finished product can be reproduced after welding. Let us not run in circles shouting dire warnings of doom and a falling sky.

[Willie Sutton]

Thank You....


There's a bit of a difference between someone who views welding as the result of what their muffler shop does with a stick and a $69 plug into the wall AC "spark box" and the view of someone who understands the science of modern metal fusing.

Jet engine turbine blades are welded... but not by anyone at the muffler shop with an AC spark box...


What is impossible for one man is a lunchtime project for another.


Willie

.

[James K]

Well, with Slamfire claiming that those rifles blow up all over the place, scattering pieces across the landscape, and Willie Sutton wanting to weld the pieces back together, I guess it is time for the ignorant, unwashed like me to get out of here before Amsdorf sends us all to the Gulag for daring to call it an M1 instead of a Garand, the only term ever used by anyone ever, ever.

Jim

[Slamfire]

text deleted

[1911Tuner]

Actually.... that receiver is not probably badly cracked enough to remove it from service. That's not a highly stressed area of the receiver

Willie called it. That's the impact abutment for the bolt, and all the real stress is over by the time the bolt gets there. I think that a weld would hold it, and even if it fails...the rifle won't blow up.

[James K]

One more comment, if I am permitted.

That was NOT a slamfire. Now go figure out what really happened. The key is the cartridge case.

JIm

[dahermit]

Even if that receiver was safe to fire with the existing cracks, from a purely aesthetic point of view, if the gun were mine, I would prefer a very neat MIG weldament bead or a welded and refinished area more than I could live with cracks. It is the compulsive repair person within me.

[LkWd_Don]

I guess it is time for the ignorant, unwashed like me to get out of here before Amsdorf sends us all to the Gulag for daring to call it an M1 instead of a Garand, the only term ever used by anyone ever, ever.

Jim

Interesting, the CMP refers to both the Garand and the Carbine as M1's and when I was growing up, many moons ago.. I remember going onto the various Military bases with my Dad and seeing men carrying the Garands and they were calling it an M1 . My Dad who was a Korean War vet carried an M1 Garand and not an M1 Carbine.

If you don't want to belive me that the proper term for it is really M1 Garand, check out:
http://odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm
http://olive-drab.com/od_other_firea...e_m1garand.php
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1_Garand

[James K]

The proper and correct military terminology is Rifle, M1, and Carbine, M1 (or M2, M3), and all the FM's, TM's, TOE's, training documents, etc. call the former the Rifle, M1 or the M1 Rifle. None refer to it as the Garand. Soldiers commonly called it the "M1" with "rifle" assumed; the M1 carbine was simply "the carbine". But some folks insist that all soldiers, all the time, always called it the "Garand" and never called it the "M1". I am sure a few soldiers did call it the "Garand", but that name was very uncommon. I note that those folks who hold out for "Garand" never served in the Army when the M1 rifle was in use, but have gained their expertise in other ways.

Jim

[LkWd_Don]

The proper and correct military terminology is Rifle, M1, and Carbine, M1 (or M2, M3), and all the FM's, TM's, TOE's, training documents, etc. call the former the Rifle, M1 or the M1 Rifle. None refer to it as the Garand. Soldiers commonly called it the "M1" with "rifle" assumed; the M1 carbine was simply "the carbine". But some folks insist that all soldiers, all the time, always called it the "Garand" and never called it the "M1". I am sure a few soldiers did call it the "Garand", but that name was very uncommon. I note that those folks who hold out for "Garand" never served in the Army when the M1 rifle was in use, but have gained their expertise in other ways.

Jim

My experience says differently. Especially when there were two different M1's in use at the same time.
They were both called "M1 Rifle 30 Caliber" or "Rifle 30 Caliber M1". But the M1 Garand was clip fed where the M1 Carbine was magazine fed. The only way to differentiate between the two M1's was M1 Garand or M1 Carbine.

[James K]

Maybe there were different terms used at different times, Don, when were you in service?

With your experience, you should know that they were not both called "rifles". The rifle was the rifle, the carbine was the carbine. Not the same any more than the Helmet, M1 was the same as the Tank, M1 or the Field Jacket, M1.

Jim

[LkWd_Don]

Maybe there were different terms used at different times, Don, when were you in service?

With your experience, you should know that they were not both called "rifles". The rifle was the rifle, the carbine was the carbine. Not the same any more than the Helmet, M1 was the same as the Tank, M1 or the Field Jacket, M1.

Jim

I grew up as a Military brat being drug on and around many bases as long as I can remember, then I joined and served till my own retirement from the Army in 1994. I remember looking at some of the old Manuals calling them, "Rifle, 30 Caliber M1" but the M1 Garand had the distinction of being called a Battle Rifle where the M1 carbine never could achieve that, with it only being accurate to around 150 yards. I will see if I can find some on-line versions of the old tech/operator manuals I recall seeing during my years.

For now the links that I provided to CMP are the best available.
http://odcmp.com/Sales/carbine.htm
http://odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm

EDIT: Found a site that shows photos (scans) of the TM9-1005-222-12 that should provide you with what I am saying.
http://www.kmike.com/M1/TM9-1005-222-12Frame.htm Please note how the given nomenclature is Rifle, Caliber 30 M1 then it talks about the sniper versions and finally in Large bold print Say's M1 - Garand

Also in the FM 23-5 you will find it called: "U.S. Rifle, CALIBER .30, M1"
http://www.kmike.com/M1/m1.htm and if you click on the introduction chapter it gives the correct operational description.

The U.S. rifle caliber .30, M1, (fig. 1), is an air-cooled, gas-operated, clip-fed, and semiautomatic shoulder weapon.

I did find the TM9-1276 for as you are calling them, Carbines, Cal 30, M1, M1A1, M2 and M3 at
http://www.scribd.com/haraoi_conal/d...M2-and-M3-1947
but as you can clearly see it is still an M1.. But likewise, you are right in that they are not calling it a rifle. Note the book claims it was accurate to 300 yards. Few of those who I have spoken with that ever had to carry and fire it had that impression.

[James K]

I am not going to check all those but your M1 rifle TM is a modern commercial reprint, with the word "Garand" added to enlighten those who don't know what an M1 rifle is.

Take a look here for a picture of the original, which does NOT use the name "Garand".

http://www.ebay.com/itm/TM-9-1005-22...-/190484590891

Jim

[bbman25]

Hey all, sorry for not getting back here in a day or two.

Great discussion, lots of things I haven't heard before. Learning plenty of new things as well.

I have to check my Granpda's house for the case.. I dont know if he saved it or not. I hope so, cause I wanted to keep it as a souvenir of a possible near death experience, or simply because its neat. How often do you get a 30-06 blown into a straight tube?

Childish wishes aside, my grandfather and everyone else down at the sportsmans rifle range in town HIGHLY reccomended against welding it. Several are veterans who have carried the rifle WWII/Korea and even they reccomend against it. Not to talk down to any of you, who stand by welding and put out very good points. The way I look at it, if I would spend a few hundred for parts, I might as well just buy a new rifle if I can find one for a cheap price. As for testing the cracks, my grandfather, and everyone at the range in town also will not let me shoot it in the current state. I've asked already, wanting to see if it worsens with lighter loaded rounds. Safety issues I guess, however I have been known to take some not needed risks. This one I might have to give in on though.

@Slamfire, I think the primers we use are Remmington.. I know the rounds started out as Federal loads made specificly for the M1, I can't remember off the top of my head what the brand/type of powder we used were. The bullets were 150 grain, remmington I believe, that we picked up at Cabelas.

The rifle was purchased from a small gun show in PA about 3 years ago, and the seller never mentioned anything about it being welded. It has worked great from then up until the receiver cracked. I only ever had 3 jams out of maybe 1200 rounds we put through it.
I have looked into the CMP, but its a bit of a drive to either store from where we are, not that I'm not up for a road trip to get a new rifle. I would first need to sign up and make sure I meet all the criteria, mainly finding a club/organization associated with them.

If I can find the case, I will have some pictures up ASAP, and while I'm at it, does anyone want to see anything else? different views of the receiver.. the whole rifle.. anything?

Thanks for all the input everyone.

[Slamfire]

Reported slamfire events are rather rare, so pictures of a rifle involved in an out of battery incident would be interesting.

What about pictures of the stock and receiver area showing damage.

Any damage around receiver lug recesses? Depending on the amount of lug engagement, burrs occur from the bolt skipping its way back.

[bbman25]

As far as I know the area around lugs didn't get damaged, and the rest of the receiver looks alright as well save for the cracks. I haven't done any testing to determine whether or not there is more damage though. I'm at work on my phone right now, so when I get home I'll have a few more pictures up, showing a few other areas. I'll see if I can get one of rhe op rod showing the bend, its hard to tell it from the factory bend in it already. No word on the case from my grabdpa yet, I'll check with him again later on.

[bbman25]

Okay, here are several images of the different parts of the receiver, stock, and op rod. They might be a little large or hard to see clearly.. camera issues, sorry. This first one is a comparison of a normal case, and the case that killed the rifle.

[bbman25]

part #2 of images, these are the last ones.

in this one you can see where the bent op rod has been rubbing against the barrel.


Here you can see the end of the spring has been tweaked a little


Its hard to see, but the op rod is bent outward from the rifle barrel. If you look at it a certain way it is easier to see.


You can see that the action does not close all the way unless it is given a hard whack forward.


any questions about any of them just ask me and I'll see if I can explain it.