|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
January 28, 2022, 01:41 PM | #26 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,796
|
Quote:
Which is why I included the qualifier. Thought I was right, but apparently not as right as I thought. Thanks for the correction.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 2, 2022, 07:25 PM | #27 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Quote:
|
|
February 3, 2022, 01:02 PM | #28 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Nearly all of the Garands have had their parts swapped out, refurbished, new barrels, stocks, etc. The receivers have all been refinished. I don't consider most Garands to be collectors pieces, so I don't see any difference between them and a well made new one.
|
February 3, 2022, 04:17 PM | #29 | |
member
Join Date: January 25, 2021
Location: Chattanooga
Posts: 108
|
Quote:
Bill |
|
February 3, 2022, 08:08 PM | #30 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 31, 2017
Location: Va., Ct., Mo..
Posts: 876
|
they may be wanting to do it to flood America with rifles that can be used with a pretty common round already in a lot of peoples go bags....for the big day......that isn't so far off.
?
__________________
Retired Military Aviation Former Member Navy Shooting Team Distinguished Pistol Shot,NRA Shotgun/Pistol Instructor NSSA All American, Skeet/Trap Range Owner |
February 3, 2022, 08:09 PM | #31 |
Senior Member
Join Date: January 31, 2017
Location: Va., Ct., Mo..
Posts: 876
|
im with scans on this one.
__________________
Retired Military Aviation Former Member Navy Shooting Team Distinguished Pistol Shot,NRA Shotgun/Pistol Instructor NSSA All American, Skeet/Trap Range Owner |
February 4, 2022, 01:15 AM | #32 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 18, 2008
Location: About 20 nm from the Big Muddy
Posts: 2,884
|
tangolima:
A friend bought a nib S.A. M1A-1 in nice walnut, a few weeks ago. His first. With six horses he has no time to go shoot it (club is an hour from him) until March Spring Vacation. I'm looking forward to trying it, and this guy - who moved from Essen, Germany in 1983 - will get his first chance with a somewhat clone of his country's Bundeswehr G3; my new PTR-91. Back to the M-1 Garand. A former coworker friend who retired many years ago on the Navy Rifle Team (years after flying P3 Orions, then 'flew civilian') confirmed that a very limited number of M-1s have original matching numbers. But you folks know/knew about the "Parts Truck" at Camp Perry matches? IIRC, Mike stated that some competitors had access to the truck and could swap parts in order to have all-Winchester, all-HR components. Last edited by Ignition Override; February 6, 2022 at 02:38 AM. |
February 4, 2022, 08:16 AM | #33 | |||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2020
Posts: 497
|
Quote:
Quote:
CMP used those receivers to build a line of "Special" M1s with new Criterion '06 barrels and new Dupage 3-pc stocks. These were priced in the $650-$750 range and were explicitly marketed by the CMP as "shooters." They had zero "collector value." In 2010-11, back when CMP was still selling the stripped Grade B receivers, I bought several. None had any pitting, and only one had been re-parked. Quote:
The degree or percentage of USGI parts is what pumps up collectibility (and therefore perceived value $$$) ... Even a total mixmaster M1, if it's otherwise 100% composed of USGI parts (i.e., barrel, op rod, stock) will have more collectibility than the recent ones CMP rebuilt with commercial barrels, metal, and new stock sets. Even then, however, the receivers on all those "shooter" M1s are still forged USGI receivers. There are also sub-markets of collectibility, such as the 1960s re-builds of M1s at the various U.S. arsenals and depots (e.g. Anniston, Letterkenney, etc), where the Arsenal/Depot armorers would etched the unit's abbreviation on the lower receiver to denote the rebuild work. These rebuilds were literally creating mixmasters, but they were still 100% USGI rifles.
__________________
I use the Jake Brake every chance I get. Don't care if it annoys you. Hear me now?! |
|||
February 4, 2022, 10:20 AM | #34 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 20, 2008
Posts: 11,132
|
Quote:
For others, those who love Garands and want to dive deep into the different rebulds - I get it, that's their thing. There are groups of Garand collectors out there that are all into this. |
|
February 4, 2022, 03:56 PM | #35 |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,796
|
US military guns come in roughtly 3 different "flavors", and collectors pay based on what they want, and condition.
1) Original, "as accepted" or "as initially issued" guns complete, intact with all the parts they had when delivered to the military. (this often means all parts from the same maker, but some models of guns never were all made by the same maker) 2) Guns as maintained in service. This is where you get parts from different makers and its perfectly historically correct, its the way the guns were used in the service. This also includes GI arsenal rebuilds. 3) Guns with non-GI "civilian parts". Each type has a differing level of collector interest, and prices vary accordingly. A 1944 M1 Garand with some H&R and some Winchester parts is historically correct, and a valid milsurp "collectable". Not worth as much to a collector as an all Winchester gun, but worth more than one with civilian parts. Same thing for a 1918 made 1911 pistol with WWII era plastic grips. Not worth quite as much to a collector as the same gun wearing its original grips, but worth more than a 1911 frame gun with "racegun" civilian parts on it. Collectors want what they want, and pay to get it. If that's not your thing, thats fine, too. Most of us are in that group,
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
February 4, 2022, 05:02 PM | #36 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
For all the Garand gurus:....
Is the chamber in the USN 7.62 NATO versions the only difference from the 30-06 ones used? Did any other service use the 7.62 version? |
February 4, 2022, 06:57 PM | #37 |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,283
|
I make no claim to being a Garand guru.
The Italians did a "retro-mod" conversion to a bunch of Garands. It was an attempt to make a "sorta" M-14 type rifle. That may have been a path to becoming NATO country. It was called the BM59. I'm not a BM-59 Guru,either. It included a chamber insert conversion to 7.62 NATO. I don't now of that was done to all M-59 s or of it was tried and abandoned in favor of a rebarrel. One other mod was abandoning the 8 round clip in favor of a 20 round box mag. |
February 5, 2022, 08:43 AM | #38 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2020
Posts: 497
|
Quote:
The Board pretty quickly rejected the box-mag feature, fearing troops under fire in the field would waste ammo. Instead they requested the rifle be clip-fed with a lesser number of rounds. Garand responded with a modified rifle featuring a en bloc clip that held 10-rds of .276P cartridges. This clip was more elongated and curved than the later 8-rd clip for .30-06 cartridges. After the Board approved the 10-rd clip-fed .276 rifle, the matter went up stream to Gen. Douglas McArthur for final approval. He rejected the .276 chambering and ordered the new semi-automatic rifle to be chambered in .30-06 - "if feasible." Allegedly - and many Garand Gurus argue the point both ways - McArthur did so with one eye on the military's tight Depression-era budget (a gazillion rounds of .276 Pedersen would need to be purchased to feed the new rifles), and the other eye on the gazillion rounds of .30-06 from WW1 that were already-paid-for and sitting idle in armories around the country. Garand eventually submitted an early gas-trap version of the M1 we know today, but as an 8-rd clip-fed rifle in .30-06. This was the rifle adopted in 1936 and designated the "M1." See Hatcher's "Book of The Garand" for all the details. The attached pic shows JCG's clip-fed prototype rifle in .276 Pedersen being field-tested.
__________________
I use the Jake Brake every chance I get. Don't care if it annoys you. Hear me now?! Last edited by JustJake; February 5, 2022 at 08:52 AM. |
|
February 5, 2022, 02:22 PM | #39 | |
Staff
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,796
|
Quote:
As to the "unable to do the proper manual of arms" reason, I find it believable, its the kind of thing sometimes the brass does, ignore reality when it doesn't fit their personal beliefs. Like ignoring the fact that there already was a .30-06 "rifle" with a 20 rnd detachable box in service, the BAR. Oh, right, its not a rifle, its a light machinegun, and the standard manual of arms doesn't apply.... Another point, one about the "gazillion rounds of .30-06", yes, we had a bunch, left over from WWI and produced after, but it wasn't "sitting idle" anymore than ammo ever is when there's no war on. Not only was the .30-06 our standard rifle round but it was ALSO our standard machinegun round. Infantry machine guns, tank machine guns, and aircraft machine guns. The Browning .30 cal gun was in every place in the service that a machine gun was used. And, as you noted, it was already paid for! And don't forget the money the govt had spent to MAKE the ammo, as well. Changing to a new and different round, when we aren't at war, in the middle of a depression, when we have the 06 and know it works??? You ain't gonna get Congress to pay for that. I'm no fan of MacArthur, but he made the right call, that time. If the Army wanted the Garand rifle (and they did) the only way they were going to get it was if it was in .30-06. the 8 round en bloc clip was a solution to the demands, not the intended design. A "better mousetrap" only succeeds if it is not only better, but enough better, at an affordable cost to be attractive to the buyers. The .276 Garand wasn't. The .30-06 Garand was,,just enough.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better. |
|
February 5, 2022, 02:46 PM | #40 |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Had the M1 barrels used a 1:12 twist, accuracy would have been better.
7.62 NATO and .308 Win ammo shooting the same bullets about 100 fps slower through a 1:12 twist barrel soon broke all the 30-06 match records. The increase in unbreakable ties resulted in new targets with smaller scoring rings. Last edited by Bart B.; February 5, 2022 at 02:55 PM. |
February 6, 2022, 12:27 AM | #41 |
Senior Member
Join Date: June 11, 2007
Posts: 2,155
|
When I enlisted USMC 1960 my service rifle was M1. 1962 I got station with 2/4 Hawaii and still had M1. Around 1963 we got M-14. Back then when I enlisted most senior NCO served in WWll and Korean Sgt Korean so lot had combat experience.
I never had chance to use M1 in combat. We lost the BAR and gave out few full auto M14 before we landed use them up to when I left Vietnam 1965.
__________________
Semper Fi Vietnam 1965 VFW Life member NRA Life Member |
February 6, 2022, 04:27 AM | #42 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 13, 2006
Posts: 8,283
|
Quote:
The lesson on the development of the Garand is interesting, but decades off from being relevant. I'll try to bring you up to speed. Remember,I make no claim to being a guru, but AFTER WW2, the Soviet Union was making Europe and the US nervous. They formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The plan was he NATO nations would fight together if the USSR pushed expansion. Logistics and supply are a key element of battle. Its a good thing if all the NATO countries use the same ammo. This was long after the 276 Pederson. Italy had Her post WW2 economic issues. Klein's Sporting Goods had pretty much cornered the Carcano Market. As a NATO nation, Italy needed a cheap modern battle rifle in 7.62 NATO. The USA was developing the M-14. There were a lot of post WW2 Garands to be had. A project emerged to convert M-1 Garands to something resembling an M-14 in 7.62 to provide the Italians with a NATO battle rifle. The BM-59 rifle was the result. Among the mods was replacing the Trigger Housing Group with a unit to take a 20 round box magazine Also the chamber insert. Douglas MacArthur "Faded Away" after Korea. He wasn't in on it. And the M-14 had a 20 round mag. The BM-59 came and went. Fortunately,it never had to prove itself against the USSR. The Italians had a rifle to drill with. IIRC,when NATO went 5.56, the Italians bought SOME Mini-14's |
|
February 6, 2022, 08:57 AM | #43 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: August 12, 2020
Posts: 497
|
Quote:
Quote:
Actually that brief history was completely relevant, as it demonstrates the genius of JCG and how from pre-1936 to circa 1958, the U.S. military went full circle on the feeding mechanism of its issued battle rifle. JCG initially offered the military a gas-operated, semi-auto rifle fed by a 20-rd box magazine in .276P (the chambering originally specified by the Ord. Bd). The mag feature was rejected. In the late '50s, the military settled on an "improved Garand," that being a gas-operated, select-fire rifle of similar configuration fed by a 20-rd box magazine in 7.62 - a shorter 30-cal cartridge only slightly less blasty than its WW2 parent, the '06. Up to speed now?
__________________
I use the Jake Brake every chance I get. Don't care if it annoys you. Hear me now?! |
||
February 6, 2022, 05:34 PM | #44 | |
Member
Join Date: May 13, 2011
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
No other services converted M1 rifles. |
|
February 6, 2022, 09:52 PM | #45 |
Staff
Join Date: November 2, 1998
Location: Colorado
Posts: 21,829
|
I wish them luck. It would be nice if they did three lug receivers.
__________________
Vigilantibus et non dormientibus jura subveniunt. Molon Labe! |
February 6, 2022, 10:45 PM | #46 |
Senior Member
Join Date: December 30, 2015
Location: My back yard
Posts: 971
|
I have a H&R M1 Garand, 1955. Few of the serial number match but the gun is in great shape and fun to shoot. I also have a Springfield Armory M1A, guess I have the best of both worlds.
|
February 7, 2022, 08:17 AM | #47 |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 16, 2012
Location: ME
Posts: 771
|
I see it as a good thing to look towards… but I wouldn’t hold my breath on them making hundreds of thousands of them.
Cast verses forged, it depends on the people doing the casting and the specifics. M1As have been cast, and you really don’t see major complaints about them (my early 1990s NM is good to go). I have one of those Lithgow Garand receivers that Fulton said my face should melt off each time I shoulder it… it was a CAI build that I got for cheap (cost of the parts, to include a brand new VAR barrel). Send it to Shuff, he redid it, and gave me the blessing that it is good to go. It’s a great shooting rifle, which I don’t worry about it being historic. I think more of that, to include more rare variations (snipers), would get more people into shooting Garands. That being said, I hope PSA is going to keep H&R separate. While they fixed it quick, I still remember zeroing my 11.5” kit, and having the windage set all the way to the left. Sent it back, did their work, got it back… and it zeroed centerish (pretty close). Having stuff off in a Garand is going to make the guns not work… plain and simple. And while there is CNC, people who understand the design are going to be needed to build the rifles in a working order. This is a similar argument to doing S&W 3rd Gen pistols… you really don’t want current S&W doing it because it is different than piecing a M&P or an AR together. Hell, look at Springfield and the SA-35. Gun is what everyone wanted out of a Hi Power, but how much crap has been shown about reliability (or lack thereof)? I wanted one from Jump St, but will definitely hold off until they get it fully squared away. For some reason, I’m having a feeling that will be echoed with H&R. |
February 7, 2022, 11:38 AM | #48 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: February 15, 2009
Posts: 8,927
|
Quote:
Last edited by Bart B.; February 7, 2022 at 11:47 AM. |
|
February 7, 2022, 03:37 PM | #49 | |
Member
Join Date: May 13, 2011
Posts: 21
|
Quote:
I'm not sure the service teams match rifles were ever general issue arms regardless of caliber, but you are indeed right about the Navy not being the only 7.62 M1 conversion operators. Navy wisdom was correct that they make nice award rifles if not good enough for a grade A or B team rifle. The barrel gauging determined the rifle's ultimate future; grade A, B, or "other'. Last edited by LavaTech; February 7, 2022 at 06:10 PM. Reason: Oops+ |
|
February 20, 2022, 08:05 PM | #50 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 14, 2012
Location: Bowling Green, Ky
Posts: 706
|
Bart B,
Why are the newer 30-06 barrels still in a 1/10 twist and not 1/12s like in the M1A? or can you get a 1/12 from Criterion chambered for 30/06 in the M1. It would be interesting too see how the M72 ammo would fair from a 1/12. Also I thought the reason .308 started to shrink groups was due to better case fill vs 30-06. I didnt know it was from the twist rate. I learned something Last edited by akinswi; February 20, 2022 at 08:14 PM. |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|