[Nightcrawler]

Anybody here have a shortened or "carbinized" Garand? Who did the work? How's it shoot? How's it point and handle? Can you still mount the bayonet?

Not something I'd ever do to an original, but it seems like a neat project for one of those new production M1 Rifles from Springfield Armory.

[AZ Jeff]

I looked into doing this to one of my Garands a few years ago, and found this:

There are lots of rewelds out there that were made in the '50's and '60's that were converted to "tankers". Some are very reliable, others are boatanchors. If they are rewelds, the receiver is suspect at the very least.

There are a few gunsmiths who make reliable (KEY WORD) tanker conversions. Ron Smith of Smith Enterprises in Arizona, Roland Beaver in Arkansas, and Fulton Armory all advertise as being able to do so. They are all probably first rate 'smiths, and their work will cost you accordingly.

Finding a "kit" to do it yourself seems to be problematic, assuming you know how to work on US gas operated military rifles. That leaves you with paying for some skilled services, or buying junk for the parts, and hoping you can get it to run.

It's kinda tough.....

[Nightcrawler]

Oh, *I* sure as heck wouldn't do the work. I have zilch gunsmithing skills.

[QuarterBoreGunner]

I have a Fulton Armory converted Winnie G-rand; I'm the second owner. For whatever reason the original owner that had the conversion done also had them convert it over to .308 via a barrel change (that's ok with me- one less caliber to stock up on.)

I put a T-37 type flash suppressor on it just for giggles, plus after seeing Oleg's I thought it looked cool (yeah yeah I know- great reason :rolleyes: )
http://www.a-human-right.com/RKBA/grab-enblock.jpg

It's a little ammo sensitive it that it really needs full power NATO spec stuff; doesn't like CAVIM at all.

With the flash suppressor on the bayo won't mount.
Handles like a dream; something about those lost few inches, for me anyway, make it a much handier rifle, without a sacrifice in accuracy (at least at 100 yrds, which is all my range has.)

[Chipperman]

QBG,
Looks good!
But, is YOURS signed by Patton like MINE? :neener:

[QuarterBoreGunner]

Chipperman- that actually is a picture of Oleg from his site.

I only wish I could take pictures like he does.

You have a Garand signed by Patton? Now how cool is that?

[Chipperman]

I was making a joke, referring to the Myth that Patton designed the Tanker variation. Guess it wasn't that funny...

I wonder what a Garand actually signed by him would be worth? :confused:

[4v50 Gary]

For true reliability, the op-rod must be re-engineered such that it won't beat against the receiver. Besides some straightening (so it won't beat up the gas cylinder), the helix cutout for the bolt must be cut to slow down the unlocking. Remember, shorter barrel, faster the gas starts to operate on the op-rod. Dunno if the conversion jobs ever did this.

The one I trust is the shortened BM-59. The Italians did it right with the op-rod. Bravo for them. Good music, good food (&wine) & good guns.

[DMK]

The one I trust is the shortened BM-59. The Italians did it right with the op-rod. Is a BM-59 op-rod compatible with the Garand?

[OH25shooter]

Nightcrawler,

I hope you know that the so-called "tanker" garand was never used during WWII. My range buddy bought one at the range for $600. Pretty accurate and fun to shoot. I thought it handled very well. However, I have since found out that particular named rifle was made up. It's only 6" shorter and even that is too long and awkward to carry inside a tank. I was told tank crews actually carried a folding stock carbine, simular to the paratrooper model. Along with a .45 sidearm. FYI.

[M2HMGHB]

From what I've heard tankers also carried the M3 SMG "Greasegun"

Scott

[anapex]

From what I remember reading about the "tanker" is that it saw some use in prototype form in the pacific. The main reason they wanted it there was because of penetration issues with the M1 Carbine. So they wanted something smaller then a garand but with the same punch. Oh forgot to add that the reason it didn't catch on was that the flash was supposedly too much for darker jungle situations and the troops using them didn't like the recoil.

[Oleg Volk]

Mine has actually been reliable. I'll take some more pictures of it soon. Got an invitation to go a Garand "clinic", will have it fired for accuracy then. Not my first choice for defense but certainly a useable carbine with fairly mild recoil. Much better balance for my taste than the full-length rifle. Wish mine was .308 but it is 30-06.

[AZ Jeff]

Quick history of the "tanker":

The first tankers were created by armorers in the field in 1944, in the South Pacific. Exactly two are documented as to having been created. Based on glowing field reports, Springfield Armory (the govt armory) received the two samples about the end of 1944, and began testing and evaluating them, with the possibility of creating a new production variant of the M1.

The war ended before the final evaluations were complete, and then, with a bazillion M1's on hand, there became little need for a new version, and the evaluation project was terminated.

I believe one rifle was destroyed during testing, and the sole remaining example resides in the Springfield Armory National Historic Site in Springfield, Mass.

After the war, when some rewelds started showing up, it was somewhat popular to create copies of these "tankers", and then claim them to be a rare variant.

The fact is, the tanker was never formally adopted nor produced by the Ordnance Corps. None the less, there is a steady demand by civilians for a compact version of the Garand, and hence the tanker you see are all civilian reproductions of those created by armorers in the field back in 1944.

[Nightcrawler]

I know the shorty Garand was never an issue item.

Hence my desire to chop a new production Springfield instead of a classic WWII manufactured gun.

Just wondering, though.

[AZ Jeff]

For the dollars spent, buying a rifle from the CMP, and paying someone to put a .308 barrel on it, would be the best return on investment.

The CMP is charging $400 for a 'rack grade' M1, which will have a fairly used barrel. As others have pointed out, you can get your M1 rebarreled for about $225.

That makes an investment of about $625. If you want new furniture, add about $100-150. Then the total bill is around $750.

You cannot buy a new rifle (or one rebuilt by Orion 7 or Fulton) for that kind of money. Of course, the new rifle will be just that: ALL NEW. But, it will NOT be full of all GI parts, so it's a tradeoff.

Just my $0.02............

By the way, I LOVE my Garand in .308!!!:D

[MuzzleBlast]

Is a BM-59 op-rod compatible with the Garand?My understanding is that it is not exactly compatible, and neither are the gas cylinders. If you have both, they will work on a Garand. Actually FINDING both could be a problem.

[Nightcrawler]

What makes you think I'd put a .308 barrel on it?

And Orion 7 guns are GI guns. Their RACK GRADE is an excellent condition GI Garand; their higher grades having increasing numbers of new parts and such.

[AZ Jeff]

Sorry, this thread has been wandering a bit, and I thought you were thinking of a tanker in .308. My mistake.

Just another sign of growing old............:D

And yeah, Orion 7 makes great guns, and Tony's a great guy to deal with!

[Nightcrawler]

The Garand Rifle I want is an Orion 7. I don't care how long it takes me to save up for it, it's the one I will have.

(Select Grade)

True heirloom should I ever (God forbid) have kids.

[4v50 Gary]

Reese Surplus (same family that owns Springfield Inc.) may have them. I bought the bayonet lug/grenade launcher for the Beretta but it'll have to be cut down to fit a Garand. The op rod is lower on the BM-59 which is good because it's straighter (less likely to be bent). I'd like to see how the Italians cut the helix on the op-rod and compare it with the M-1 Garand. I wonder if then cut it slightly inwards a bit more to allow for longer unlocking time.

[AZ Jeff]

So the next question would be: if the BM-59 op rod will work, where does one get the shorter barrel to create a tanker?

I know I can modify the follower rod to work with the shorter op rod, so that means only the barrel is left as a challenge.

[Tamara]

Wish mine was .308 but it is 30-06.

There's just no accounting for taste... (Next time I'm gonna go 'head and let you eat ribs with a knife and fork in front of God and everybody... ;) :neener: )

[MuzzleBlast]

So the next question would be: if the BM-59 op rod will work, where does one get the shorter barrel to create a tanker? The op rod will work ONLY if you have the gas cylinder to go with it. The gas cylinder for the short-barrelled BM59 has the bore for the op rod further apart from the bore to fit on the barrel. You have to have both the op rod and the cylinder.
Numrich might have the barrels. Saw a message somewhere that they were expecting to get new Tanker op rods and barrels. Haven't followed up on it.
http://www.gunpartscorp.com

[RustyHammer]

I have one in my collection of Garands ... it's a fun shoot, and, since mine came in the .308 flavor, it add even more variety.

/Rusty

[eclancy]

Hi all,
It started with a field Ordnance unit putting one together in 1943. This one was sent back to SA. SA built only (2) two T26's. One was destroyed in testing at SA. Ordnance ordered 15,000 to be built. We dropped the bomb and that order was canx. The field one is at SA and the real T26 is on display at APG, Md. In the 50, and 60's civilian gunsmiths made quite a number of these. However, as far as Ordnance states on two were built.
I hope this data helps.
Thanks again
Clancy

[DMK]

Ordnance ordered 15,000 to be built. We dropped the bomb and that order was canx. Man, that would have been cool if that order never got canceled.