October 4, 2013, 07:42 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 446
|
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.
|
October 4, 2013, 09:20 AM | #2 |
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!
|
October 4, 2013, 09:39 AM | #3 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,862
|
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.
|
October 4, 2013, 09:42 AM | #4 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 446
|
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.
|
October 4, 2013, 10:19 AM | #5 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
I suggest trying Wikipedia for "tanker Garand".
|
October 4, 2013, 10:40 AM | #6 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 11, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 761
|
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.” |
October 4, 2013, 07:23 PM | #7 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 10, 2009
Location: Deltona FL
Posts: 953
|
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 |
October 4, 2013, 08:47 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,862
|
Quote:
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. |
|
October 7, 2013, 07:49 PM | #9 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
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 |
October 9, 2013, 10:36 PM | #10 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 20, 2000
Location: Colombia, SC
Posts: 745
|
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 |
October 10, 2013, 12:00 AM | #11 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 8,273
|
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.
|
October 10, 2013, 06:28 AM | #12 |
Junior member
Join Date: August 7, 2013
Posts: 198
|
They were as authentic as the Paratrooper SKS rifles.
|
October 11, 2013, 09:49 AM | #13 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
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. |
October 12, 2013, 02:47 PM | #14 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 7, 2011
Location: Earth
Posts: 446
|
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.
|
October 12, 2013, 03:45 PM | #15 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 4,862
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 3, 2013, 10:54 AM | #16 |
Member
Join Date: January 12, 2013
Location: Texas
Posts: 40
|
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.
|
November 3, 2013, 07:51 PM | #17 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 2013
Posts: 159
|
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.
|
November 3, 2013, 08:37 PM | #18 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
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 |
November 3, 2013, 09:32 PM | #19 |
Staff in Memoriam
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX; Thomasville, GA
Posts: 24,798
|
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. |
November 4, 2013, 08:53 AM | #20 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
|
Quote:
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. |
|
November 5, 2013, 03:47 PM | #21 |
Member In Memoriam
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
|
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 |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|