M1 Garand Questions...

[shibbershabber]

So my father in law just gave me his dads Garand.

Its a 'tanker' that has been sitting unfired since 1976. I could barely get the action to cycle.

Ive got it taken apart and am trying to determine how salvageable it is and what it needs before heading to the range...


First, The recoil spring came out in three sections. This should probably be replaced.

Q. Do tanker models use a different, shorter spring?


Then, as this project gets more expensive... I have this.
There is a bunch of brass bubba'd all over the op rod. This does not look original
Not sure if its there to strengthen it, make it heavier?, who knows.
Any thoughts?


Im thinking maybe it got bent and this was some way to patch it up?
There is some wear on the underside of the barrel from the op rod touching it when the action is fully open...

Q. Assuming this rod should be replaced... did the tankers use a different style of rod?



Final question... What the hell is this?
There is no notch for the op rod to come out. I can see a small spot just below the rear sight that is almost notched, while the track in the area of the notch is opened fully... Im thinking I may have to get out the dremel


Looking also at the rear sight area... on the right side of the receiver near rear sight, the metal loks worn, as if someone had tried to weld, grind, etc... it just looks deformed... possibly part of my op rod removal problem?

While were looking at the receiver... the rear sight was also removed and a Williams peep installed. Can you tell if the receiver has been altered at all in the sight area? Think I could put an original sight back on?

Read More

 

[shibbershabber]

Well I made a little cut and was able to get the op rod out... disassemble, clean and reassemble the rifle.

Here are some more pics...

A few things off that I see, first is that the trigger assembly isnt flush with the stock... in fact there is a weld buildup on the trigger assembly which prevents it from sitting flush... WTF?

also the stock/handguard alignment is off too, not sure where the fault lies here? Though I do plan on replacing the stock.

finally, whats with the polished bolt and gas tube?


Thanks in advance for the help... There isnt a living person who has fired or knows anything about this gun. And, of course, the Garand always being out of my price range, I know nothing about them either.

 

[Andy54Hawken]

It looks more like a "Bubba" job , than a "Tanker Garand" to me.
Somewhere in my library I have a NRA article from the 60's which goes into "sporterizing" a M1.
The M1 in the Article looks a lot like yours.
Your rifle is missing the rear sights , the front sight has been re-modeled and it looks to be drilled for a scope as well as some other odds and ends.

As for the gas tube , during the M1's service life , the finish wore off quickly on the gas tube though field use.
I have read accounts of GI's in the field using various methods of re-blackening the tube without much long term success.
Or maybe someone just thought it looked better shiny ...
Andy

Edit to add the article is in The NRA Gunsmithing Guide -Updated.
Page 267-270

 

[ron]

WOW
The tanker Garand was never a GI rifle. Some were produced by various companies.
I have owned and seen some good examples. It looks like someone shorted your op
rod and brazed it back together. Scary. "Re-welds" are commonly encountered and
are best avoided. Receivers were chopped in half or "De-milled". I have examined
some that are well done and hard to detect. The problem is the heat treating is
affected. The strength of the receiver is questionable. Most consider the re-weld
rifles unsafe to shoot. Perhaps yours is a re-weld? The only way to be certain a
rifle you purchase is not a re-weld is for it to come with CMP or DCM paper work.
As to your rifle I wood closely look at the underside of the receiver to see if it has
been chopped. Have it looked at by an expert? I think I have a Tanker op rod laying
around here somewhere. If interested you can PM me. Good Luck
http://www.thehighroad.org/archive/index.php/t-436352.html
http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=53094

 

[MountainBear]

Without having it in hand to examine, I would heavily suspect that you have a reweld "tanker" that someone or some company put together. I would not feel safe firing the gun, even if the broken parts were replaced with that receiver being used.
If you have a desire to make that gun functional, my recommendation would be to find a stripped M1 receiver and send the whole thing with the new receiver to a gunsmith named Shuff. He will likely have to replace some springs and the op-rod, but his tankers are the only reliable version of a "tanker" that I've encountered. It will not be cheap, but that's the only way I'd likely shoot that rifle if it truly is a reweld. But Shuff might be able to salvage the bolt, barrel, trigger assembly, and stock. That's the best you could probably hope for. I'm a gunsmith, and if I ever want a functional tanker, Shuff is the one I'd go to.

Sorry, I'm sure that's not what you wanted to hear about a family heirloom.

 

[dlurvey]

What they said. Hang it on the wall. Fire it at your own risk.

 

[Mikej]

I would think that if you really wanted a shooter Garand that going to an Oregon Arms Collector show, and finding one, would be a cheaper way to go. I'd done a good amount of info digging on Garands awhile back, and aside from sentimental reasons, that gun looks like a complete loss. Maybe the barrel's good though?

Also, would someone clue me it to what "Tanker" means when referring to a Garand?

 

[dlurvey]

It's a made up term for marketing. See this:
http://www.luckygunner.com/lounge/m1-tanker-garand/

 

[shibbershabber]

The bore looks to be the best part of the gun.

'tanker' was nothing more than a marketing tool.
Springfield kicked around with the idea, the t26 I believe. It was never mass produced or produced for the military.

After the war a few companies cobbled rifles together from surplus parts, some were cut short and called tankers. Suggesting that a tank crew would need a short rifle as the full size garand wouldn't fit in the confined spaces of a tank.

Nothing historical, just a marketing campaign.

 

[Mikej]

After the war a few companies cobbled rifles together from surplus parts, some were cut short and called tankers. Suggesting that a tank crew would need a short rifle as the full size garand wouldn't fit in the confined spaces of a tank.

That makes sense, now. Not so much at the time though. eh? Even a short Garand in a tank doesn't sound all that great!

 

[Sgt Nambu]

I agree with Andy and MountainBear.
It's not a "Tanker" it's been "sporterized" and it really does look like Bubbas idiot nephew/brother did a reweld (brazed) on a demilled M-1. I agree that, if you want to save it, a pro needs to do the work! I'd certainly heed MountainBears advice.

I remember the American Rifleman artical that Andy cited. It looked very cool, very professional, but I'd rather have a nice GI model! Please let us know what you decided to do, and best of luck with your rifle!