View Single Post
Old May 31, 2002, 01:27 PM   #10
Unkel Gilbey
Senior Member
Join Date: February 26, 1999
Location: Danby, Vermont
Posts: 349
Funny thing about these old threads...

Funny in that there is always a question that needs to be answered, but sometimes it takes a while for that question to formulate.

Anyway, please correct me if I am wrong, but weren't some of the first 'Tanker' Garands to be offered made up of parts and pieces cobbed together from demilled and/or worn out parts?

I seem to remember that for this reason, it was prudent to avoid these rifles at all costs, as they could fail at any time. All the other comments made here are also legit - as far as tolerances and so forth. I personally don't think that one could really 'improve' the Garand by shortening it.

If you have access to Julian Hatchers Handbook, you can read a fascinating history of the development of this battle rifle. You'll begin to see that the Garand that we know today represented the culmination of years of effort and material development. I quite honestly believe that any 'changes' made to this final design can only be to the worse.

This isn't to say that the development of the M-14 is a step down from the Garand. But when we consider the 'Tanker', we see just modifications of the design, and not entirely new developments as we saw in the M-14, and these can only be a step down from what John Garand intended in the first place.

Oleg, have you ever fired your shorty at dusk? I would be interested to see what your reaction would be with Ball ammo at dusk even with the T37 flash suppressor...


Unkel Gilbey
Unkel Gilbey is offline  
Page generated in 0.05312 seconds with 7 queries