The Firing Line Forums

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

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old October 16, 2011, 12:00 PM   #26
mkk41
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 4, 2004
Posts: 283
I would have bet someone would have claimed to have been issued a Tanker Garand. A Singer made tanker Garand.

mkk41 is offline  
Old October 16, 2011, 03:58 PM   #27
Tim R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Location: God's side of Washington State
Posts: 1,601
As I understand Springfield built a total of four (4) Tanker Garands. The project did not move foreward. So this would mean there were none issued.
__________________
God Bless our Troops especially our Snipers.
Tim R is offline  
Old October 16, 2011, 07:01 PM   #28
Eghad
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 28, 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 6,231
In the late 70s early 80s I was in a Army Ordinance GS level company where we had M88 Recovery Vehicles and the M3s were authorized to the crews and they qualified with them.
__________________
Have a nice day at the range

NRA Life Member
Eghad is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 09:23 AM   #29
Wireman134
Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Posts: 19
Hand loaded M118 Ball

Multi stage NM pressure bedded and accurized. Sub MOA is common if I do my part. Hand load is once fired Hornady Match brass, LC M118 FMJBT, 44gr. RL15, WLR primer at 2.820" OAL. Upper right called pulled on shot. 4-12X Barska scope. Almost as accurate with subsonic's also.

Wireman134 is offline  
Old July 11, 2012, 07:17 PM   #30
James K
Staff
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 19,304
"In the late 1950's the owner of a California surplus gun company had a stock of M1 rifles that weren't selling ... he converted a number of rifles. He coined the name "Tanker Garand" as a sales gimmick."

True but the stock he had was not of functional M1 rifles, which were much in demand but in very short supply and almost unobtainable, being sold only through DCM to bona fide competitors. The "stock" was de-milled parts of condemned receivers that had been cut in half with a diamond saw. Those parts were matched up so they overlapped, faced off, then welded together. (I can't say "back together" since it was impossible for the two parts of the same rifle to be welded together even if they could somehow have been found.)

Most of those "cut and weld" rifles stayed together OK, though a few cracked at the weld. An often-overlooked problem is that the receivers were condemned in the first place, but with luck a good front might be mated to a good rear. Of course someone got the bad front and the bad rear, but that was the luck of the draw.

Some "tanker Garands" were converted to 7.62 NATO, using M14 magazines; a more complex conversion and one that gave a lot of trouble.

Since those "tankers" were built by dozens of small shops, some of which were, to put it mildly, less than skilled, I would recommend that no one purchase a "tanker Garand" unless it is one made by Springfield Inc. who will stand behind the product.

Jim
__________________
Jim K
James K is offline  
Old July 12, 2012, 12:09 PM   #31
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,319
yearning

I have for a long, long time, wanted a "tanker", but never made the jump. The article that lit the fire was in "Guns and Ammo" in the late 70's early 80's and was written by Ross Sefreid (?) describing the model produced by the commercial firm Sprngfield Armory and was chambered in .308. Come to think of it, I bought more than one gun reviewed by Sefreid.

The .308 should be more efficient. A T-37 flash hider could help but defeats the purpose of shortening the rifle for me.

The latest itch has been "Shuff's Mini-G" which I guess is still in procuction. I have a Garand to spare, but the increasing value of the M1 overall has stopped me from sending one off to be cut. That and 50+ eyes that are not managing iron sights os well anymore.
bamaranger is offline  
Old July 12, 2012, 09:56 PM   #32
CWO4USCGRET
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 29, 2005
Posts: 180
I have a .30-06 Tanker

shown here with my CMP Rack Grade M1.



It was built on a CMP M1 receiver that I bought at CMP's Camp Perry store. I had Tim Shufflin build it with a Numrich Tanker Kit; Shuf also parkerized the whole gun.

Altough regarded as a "fantasy" gun, in addition to the few "officially" built tankers, in the Pacific Theater some M1 Garands were built in theater but like the others, they didn't make it either.

For the record, using CMP .30 M2 Ball it is a good shooter and recoil/muzzle blast isn't an issue.
CWO4USCGRET is offline  
Old July 12, 2012, 10:23 PM   #33
hps1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 396
Quote:
Originally Posted by bamaranger
I have a Garand to spare, but the increasing value of the M1 overall has stopped me from sending one off to be cut. That and 50+ eyes that are not managing iron sights os well anymore.
I had same issue w/eyesight and came up with the following solution which requires no alterations to the rifle other than removal of rear sight and allows mounting a Burris FastfireII.





After taking my idea to a local gunsmith and having one made, I became aware of a very similar commercial product that became available about the same time mine was completed. http://m14forum.com/modern-m14...1a-m14-platform.html

Any rate, lets me get the old girl out of the safe and on the range again in spite of ageing eyes.

Regards,
hps
__________________
Gun Owners note: The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Join NRA @: http://membership.nrahq.org/
hps1 is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 02:09 AM   #34
ronz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2012
Location: milwaukee wi
Posts: 220
I was told a long time ago that the tanker models were chambered for 308 and just a few inches shorter and the standard m-1 was 30-06
And was planning on one day getting a cmp special so I could get it in 308 thinking that it would probably be a tanker model
So what’s the real story behind the m-1 in 308?
ronz is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 03:15 PM   #35
hps1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 396
The navy tried a 7.62 conversions but didn't work out too well. Doubt you'll find any .308 garands @ CMP.

http://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1-g...nd-conversion/

I had a 7.62 nato match grade rifle custom built on a commercial springfield armory action which worked quite well until the op-rod spring weakened after a couple thousand rounds were fired. This caused reduced follower pressure on the bottom round in clip and allowed the top round to slide forward due to rifle recoil. This occured somewhere around the fourth or fifth round IIRC. When the bolt hit the base of the round which had slipped forward, bolt had gained sufficient speed to shove the round forward hard enough for bullet point to strike butt of barrel @ 12 o'clock, causing jams. Couldn't figure what was occuring until condition worsened to the point that a round was "batted" completely out of the rifle and I saw it bounce across the hand guard. A magazine block installed to shorten magazine and a new op-rod spring resolved the problem.

Regards,
hm
__________________
Gun Owners note: The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Join NRA @: http://membership.nrahq.org/
hps1 is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 05:59 PM   #36
Wireman134
Member
 
Join Date: October 27, 2009
Posts: 19
Go figure a new spring. A very important part of any M1. Every owner should have several.
Wireman134 is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 07:35 PM   #37
ronz
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 12, 2012
Location: milwaukee wi
Posts: 220
They offer the CMP special in both 30-06 and 308
For no rhyme reason or research when I do get a garand I want a Springfield
Either they were out or I over looked the cheaper service grade Springfield
And for $45 bucks more than the service grade Springfield with new wood could have got the special with a new barrel in 308 but after reading this thread think it’s better to sick with the 30-06
ronz is offline  
Old July 13, 2012, 09:54 PM   #38
hps1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 396
Quote:
They offer the CMP special in both 30-06 and 308
Really! That's interesting.

Quote:
could have got the special with a new barrel in 308 but after reading this thread think it’s better to sick with the 30-06
If you want a 308, I wouldn't hesitate to get one in a garand. I had both calibers in match grade M1's and would rate them equal for competition. The 308 performed flawlessly until the op-rod spring weakened and that was after a couple thousand rounds. The 308 will do almost anything the 30-06 will do.

As Wireman said, good idea to keep a couple of op-rod springs on hand. I maintained our club's 8 M1 garands for a number of years and they got a lot of hard use. In fact, we completely shot out two of them and CMP exchanged them for us. About the only parts I ever replaced were extractors, ejectors & spring, firing pin, op-rod springs and most common follower arm and FA pin.

A common "failure" of the garand is ejecting the clip on the 7th round and the usual fix for this situation is replace follower arm & maybe the pin. The hole in follower wears and this "tells" the rifle the clip is empty so clip is released w/one round left;a very badly worn follower can eject w/two rounds remaining. Replacing the arm/pin fixes the problem,

I later found out the old follower can be easily restored using either a vise or a portable jig I made for the job. The arm is not clamped tightly in either the vise or the jig so as to allow arm to move when struck by hammer. First mark old follower near center as shown in this picture and measure from face of jig to top of arm for future reference.

Next, using a brass punch (larger than one pictured), strike punch w/a medium weight ball pein hammer and re-measure to see if arm bent. If at the range, you can assemble rifle and test fire. If not, I usually try to bend the arm about 1/32" and try it out later.



This changes the angle of the arm to compensate for the worn hole.

All in all the garand is an extremely reliable rifle requiring little care other than cleaning/lubrication.

Regards,
hps
__________________
Gun Owners note: The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Join NRA @: http://membership.nrahq.org/

Last edited by hps1; July 13, 2012 at 11:45 PM.
hps1 is offline  
Old July 14, 2012, 05:50 PM   #39
bamaranger
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 9, 2009
Location: North Alabama
Posts: 4,319
neat

hps1

Now that is an interesting arrangement. I betcha John Garand didn't see that one coming!

My eye issue is depth of focus. I can still run aperature sights well enough on the full length Garand, M1A, and my CMP .22. But an M4 is now a challenge, and my much loved Marlin .357 (with peep) nealry so. So to my 4" handguns. A set of perscription shooting glasses is likely in the future.

But....back to your mount, ....what make is the base? Plus, I can get a buy on a Fastfire.
bamaranger is offline  
Old July 14, 2012, 06:22 PM   #40
hps1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 396
Quote:
But....back to your mount, ....what make is the base? Plus, I can get a buy on a Fastfire.
I designed and had a gunsmith build the base, then put a piece of picatinny rail on it to mount the Fastfire, but these guys http://m14forum.com/modern-m14...1a-m14-platform.html came up with basically the same idea and were just about ready to put them on the market or had just put them on the market while my smith was building mine. You can purchase theirs for a bit less than it cost to have mine fabricated and I like their idea of mounting the FF II directly to the base block better than mine since without the Picatinny rail and the FFII Picatinny mount, sight would sit about .420" lower.

Here's a link to a thread I posted complete w/range report if you're interested. http://forums.accuratereloading.com/...3/m/4781009961

If you plan on giving one a try, I'd recommend contacting Hopco and save a few bucks.

Regards,
hps
__________________
Gun Owners note: The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Join NRA @: http://membership.nrahq.org/
hps1 is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 08:41 AM   #41
TNT
Senior Member
 
Join Date: June 4, 2006
Location: Back in glorious Nebraska
Posts: 606
My dad had a Tanker he bought in the early 1990's the only problem he had with his is that it emptied the clip with one pull of the trigger (which wasnt supposed to happen factory screw up) Dad having working with the Armorers while in the Marines 60-64 knew what the problem was he talked with he armorers from Springfield they were skeptical about sending him the parts and once dad talked to them they felt confident that he knew what the problem was. And they sent him the parts to replace the worn out parts. The hammer was barely catching the sear,and the recoil alone was releasing the hammer.

Along with that the op rod spring had a slight kink in it so he was sent another one. In all dad has had the gun for a number of years and has never malfunctioned The muzzle blast makes a AK sound like a .22 though. It functions just as reliable as the originals. When she did empty the clip I got to say that was impressive. we have never taken her out past 300 yrds but she seems just as accurate as the original A gimmick yes but they are eye catchers. If I had the chance I would buy one they just look mean
__________________
"In the beginning of a change, the patriot is a scarce man and brave, hated and scorned. When his cause succeeds, however, the timid join him, for then it costs nothing to be a patriot."
TNT is offline  
Old July 17, 2012, 08:39 PM   #42
Tim R
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2004
Location: God's side of Washington State
Posts: 1,601
Quote:
Springfield manufactured a Tanker Garand until 1990, and Arlington Ordnance offered them 1994-96.

I had one of the AO rifles, and my experience was just as johnwill described: increased muzzle blast and inferior reliability. It would often eject a partially-fired clip.

I recently inherited a full-size M1, so I traded the Tanker away.
This was Springfield Inc, not the same Springfield which was owned by the goverment and where the M1 was developed. Springfield Inc bought the name and are not even related.

Quote:
The navy tried a 7.62 conversions but didn't work out too well. Doubt you'll find any .308 garands @ CMP.
The Navy's first attemmpt at making 308 m1's was a bust using the incerts in '06 barrel chambers. The Navy then asked Springfield (the real one) to build some 7.62 Nato barrels and some M1's were converted. These were good shooting rifles. In the past I have seen Navy 308 M1's at the CMP auction. Too rich for my blood.
__________________
God Bless our Troops especially our Snipers.
Tim R is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 09:41 AM   #43
Jeff #111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2001
Location: Idaho
Posts: 906
Well there always has to be one in every crowd. My dad purchased one of the 30-06 "tanker" Garands that were sold in the 80's. It started out as a genuine full sized M1 Garand manufactured at the Springfield armory in 1942. Sorry guys but at least in my father's case the rifle is very reliable and fairly accurate. In the past twenty-five years of shooting it it hasn't given him any trouble. I guess it goes to show that there are exceptions in everything.
__________________
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. Ben Franklin
Jeff #111 is offline  
Old August 29, 2012, 08:52 PM   #44
Art Eatman
Staff Lead
 
Join Date: November 13, 1998
Location: Terlingua, TX, USA
Posts: 22,443
"The thread that would not die."

Eleven years old and still going? Sheesh!
__________________
You're from BATFE? Come right in! I use all your fine products!
Art Eatman is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 12:19 AM   #45
hps1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 26, 2002
Location: Texas
Posts: 396
This thread will probably still be going when you and I are long gone, Art. 1911's & garands have a life of their own, ya know, and rightly so!

Regards,
hps
__________________
Gun Owners note: The Second Amendment is not about hunting! Join NRA @: http://membership.nrahq.org/
hps1 is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 09:23 AM   #46
Jeff #111
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 25, 2001
Location: Idaho
Posts: 906
Yep. When World War III ends all that will be left will be cockroaches, twinkies and M1 Garands.
__________________
Those who beat their swords into plowshares usually end up plowing for those who didn't. Ben Franklin
Jeff #111 is offline  
Old August 30, 2012, 02:52 PM   #47
Fishbed77
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 23, 2010
Posts: 2,660
Quote:
Yep. When World War III ends all that will be left will be cockroaches, twinkies and M1 Garands.
...and this thread.
Fishbed77 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 07:12 AM.


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 0.13089 seconds with 8 queries