The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > NFA Guns and Gear

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 29, 2001, 01:41 AM   #1
4V50 Gary
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 19,603
The following is quoted from a "fact sheet" I picked up on my last visit to Springfield Armory National Historic Site:

The so-called "Tanker" owes its existence to the long-standing dissatisfaction with the range, lethality and foliage penetration ("brush cutting") capabilities of the M1 carbine. A few statistics explain why this is true: the bullet used in the .30-06 M1 (Garand) rifle weighs 150 grains; fired with a velocity of 2740 feet per second (fps), it develops 2170 foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards. By comparison, the bullet fired by the M1 carbine weighs 110 grains; at a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, it produces only 600 foot-pounds of energy at the same distance -- not much more than a quarter of the Garand. Thus, the temptation to substitute the greater fire-power of the M1 rifle is understandable, although reducing the barrel to carbine length would sacrifice some of the gain in power.

The Ordnance Department was basically unsympathetic to these field complaints, maintaining that the carbine and rifle were intended to serve separate and distinct purposes. In 1945, with fighting raging in the dense jungles of the Western Pacific, where "brush-cutting' ability was important, the Pacific Warfare Board took matters into its own hands. It ordered an ordnance unit of the 6th Army in the Phillipines to make up 150 shortened M1 rifles for testing. These rifles were cut to carbine length, making them short enough to carry comfortably in the jungle or to fit into a tank. This, apparently, is the origin of the term "tanker" Garand, which was never officially adopted and is somewhat puzzling in that tank warfare did not figure prominently in the Pacific Theater.

Col. William Alexander, head of the Pacific Warfare Board, obviously thought the "short M1" was the answer, for he requested the Ordnance Dept. to make up 15,000 short rifles. To facilitate design of the new weapon, he sent one of their rifles by special courier to the Ordnance Dept.

When the "short rifle" arrived at Springfield Armory, engineers recognized immediately that they had done the same thing a year before when they had developed the M1E5. The only difference was that the E5 had a folding wire stock and was intended primarily for paratroops. All they had to do was to pop off the trigger housing, remove the folding stock, and install the action on a standard M1 stock. However, since the receiver of the earlier experiment was marked M1E5, the model shop took a new M1 receiver and built it from ground up with modified parts. This rifle, along with the rifle from the Pacific Warfare Board, was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for tests. By now the "short rifles" had been designated T26.

The results of the testing showed that the weapon suffered from lack of reliable function, excessive recoil and excessive muzzle blast. Functional problems were traced to: (1) the rework needed to produce a shorter operating rod changed force angles, causing the rod to bind occasionally; (2) the shorter spring length caused premature spring failure rates; (3) the pressure port was closer to the chamber and permitted increased volumes of unburned powder resideue to foul the gas system. Increased recoil was expected, but muzzle blast was, to say the least, spectacular. When fired with standard military ball ammuntion, the muzzle flash and dust signature was unacceptable. (Flash hiders and muzzle brakes weren't being used then.)

Because Germany had already surrendered and victory in the Pacific was close at hand, and because test results were unsatisfactory, it was decided to cancel all orders before any T26 rifles were actually produced. The only T26 made at Springfield Armory was damaged during testing and possibly salvaged for parts. The Pacific War Board prototype was returned to Springfield and placed in the museum. This is the weapon that appears in standard published photos. In reality, there were only 151 "Tanker" Garands made. Few of these probably survived. some may have gone home in soldiers' duffel bags, but most would have been stripped and rebuilt to normal configuration in the years following World War II.

Identification of a legitimate "Tanker" is difficult. All specimens would have been built from rifles in used condition; therefore, the serial number range would reflect that. Numbers would probably be lower than 3,500,000 and could not be above 3,800,000. The barrel date, of course, would be no later than early 1945. Also, the reciever is marked as a normal M1 and would be of either Springfield Armory or Winchester manufacture. Judging by the specimen in the Springfield Armory Museum, workmanship was marginal. The barrel splines look like they were hand filed and much freehand saw and file work shows up.

Despite the insigificant numbers of "Tanker" Garand actually made by the Army and their complete lack of success, their popularity grew. By the 1960s, when Garands became readily available through government surplus channels, a number of enterprising individuals began providing customizing services for M1 owners. One of the more popular services was, predictably, making "Tanker" versions. In those days a nice M1 could be obtained for $79.95, so a $40 "chop job" was not considered to be an offense against a collector's piece.
4V50 Gary is online now  
Old January 29, 2001, 11:00 PM   #2
James K
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,356
Good post, Gary.

Permit me to add one more note. In the 60's, only a few M1 rifles were available, mainly those military aid rifles brought back from England, and some from DCM sales. The Army scrapped a bunch of receivers by cutting them in half with diamond saws and selling the pieces. Several enterprising companies bought the pieces and welded them together. No attempt was made to match pieces, so an SA rear could be welded to a Winchester front. (See for more info.)

Many regular rifles were made up this way, but the so-called "rewelds" were a favorite with builders of "tanker Garands". The real hooker is that the M1 was still in war reserve and those receivers were scrapped for a reason - they were worn out or defective in some way. This, to me, provides another good reason to avoid "tanker Garands".

James K is offline  
Old February 21, 2001, 05:44 PM   #3
Oleg Volk
Staff Alumnus
Join Date: December 6, 1999
Location: Nashville, TN
Posts: 7,022
Maybe I ought to get a full-length one instead. However, I have lucked out into a very nice functional Shortie in 30-06 and it has become my fav fighting gun lately, ahead of the AR, AK and FAL. Wanted to duplicate it in a more common caliber.
Oleg Volk is offline  
Old February 21, 2001, 07:49 PM   #4
dick w. holliday
Senior Member
Join Date: January 13, 2001
Location: NC
Posts: 589
tanker garands

i emailed fulton or one of the garand manufacturers once and asked about a 308 tanker and got a real short note said "We don't manufacture unsafe rifles"...Dick PS-i still want however
dick w. holliday is offline  

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 04:10 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent:
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.05213 seconds with 9 queries