M1 Barrel Wear

[The Alaskan]

How many rounds, on average (estimated of course) does it require to wear out a barrel in an M1 rifle to the point that the CMP or Army armorers would replace it? How many rounds, on average, might a rifle be fired in a year of battle during the WWII/Korean War era? How many rounds might a rifle be fired during marksmanship training during that same era?

I was discussing historical provenance last week, using my M1 as an example. I can prove, using Springfield's records and the s/n stamped in the receiver, that it was built in Feb. 1945 which makes it a "WWII" gun, but I can't prove it was used by any particular soldier or in any particular battle (i.e. no provenance). However, I can prove the barrel was replaced sometime after 1956 by date stamps on the barrel.

Which brings me back to my original questions. Sometime between Feb. 1945 and May 1956, somebody shot the barrel out of that gun, to the point that someone replaced it. Was that wear and tear more likely from combat use or training use? (My bet is training.)

 

[GRIZ22]

There was a guy who measured throat erosion and muzzle wear on a new M1 barrel on the CMP forum. Throat erosion went about 1 number per 1000 rds and after 10,000 rds it was a 10. His rifle still shot well but guidelines said it shouls be replaced. Now rapid fire on a regular basis will wear the throat faster as will sloppy cleaning. This guy was careful cleaned (snake from the breech or used a muzzle guide) and his muzzle was a 2 or a 3 IIRC.

I'm guessing your rifle was used in a training unit and muzzle wear more than throat erosion called for the barrel replacement. Corrosive primers were still used into the 50s and that may have created the need for a barrel replacement.

Unless you are a serious competitor or abuse your rifle the barrel should be good for a long time.

 

[az_imuth]

It could have been replaced for any number of reasons...damage, rust, faulty barrel, over-zealous cleaning, etc. Or maybe that receiver was held back for a period of time for some reason or another. Who knows, but it could be just about anything one's imagination could dream up.

 

[Onmilo]

Chances are that your M1 had the barrel and numerous small parts replaced several times before receiving that post 1956 barrel and going into storage.

Your February 45 rifle was far more likely to have seen combat usage in the Korean War than in WW2.

 

[lysanderxiii]

You would be amazed (and horrified) at the cleaning methods employed by D.I.s at Parris Island, and I assume San Diego as well, to prepare rifles for the Battalion Commander's inspection....

 

[briansmithwins]

Much more likely the bore was damaged by rust from corrosive primer residue than shot out.

The book 'Ordnance Went Up Front' talks about the problems Garands and BARs had in the Pacific theater. The book is a good read with lots of details and observations.

http://www.amazon.com/Ordnance-Went-Front-Roy-Dunlap/dp/1884849091

BSW

 

[ulflyer]

In basic tng in 1952 we'd scrub the crap outta them with metal rods and wire brushes. That metal rod rubbing hot and heavy against muzzles. Bores had to look like a mirror.
It still shot very accurate, but no idea of wear.

In recent years, being a carbine guy, I've read that barrels were replaced, or muzzle rebored?, when the muzzles measured 3. However, I had a Win carbine that came from Korea with slightly over 3 that was very accurate.

 

[Fishbed77]

I can prove, using Springfield's records and the s/n stamped in the receiver, that it was built in Feb. 1945 which makes it a "WWII" gun, but I can't prove it was used by any particular soldier or in any particular battle (i.e. no provenance).

It is highly unlikely an M1 manufactured in February of 1945 ever made it to a war zone in the European or Pacific theaters.

I own a Springfield M1 (beautiful CMP Service Grade) manufactured in Dec. 1944/ Jan. 1945 (varies based on database I look in). I consider it a "WW2 serial number" but am under no illusions that it was actually used in any combat, or was even issued during the war.

 

[Bart B.]

Garand barrel life for normal service use was based on their throat erosion gauge reading "10". That was typically when about 10,000 rounds had been fired. Accuracy at 100 yards went from about 3 inches when new to 5 or 6 inches at around 10,000 rounds later.

Match barrels for both .30-06 and 7.62 NATO versions had half that barrel life; they were replaced when the gauge read "5" when they would barely test 2 MOA at 600 yards with commercial match ammo. However, if you were a top ranked member of their service teams at Interservice and National matches and shot really good scores and winning some matches, you could get a new barrel when it gauged "3" at about 3000 rounds of barrel life.

 

[Flatbush Harry]

While the incremental wear of "1" on the erosion gauges per 1,000 rounds fired is generally correct, I recently sold one of my Garands with 1,200 rounds of HXP down the pipe that still measured "1" at the muzzle and "1-2" at the throat (It was a 5.4mm correct grade with a 4/54 barrel).

I'm not into rapid fire so I don't heat up my barrels as much as many shooters do. I plan to rebarrel, with Criterion barrels, every 5,000-6,000 rounds.

I built a SA Special Grade at CMP's Advanced Maintenance Class in Jan. '15 that is a wonderful shooter, has a Criterion barrel that I installed and finish-reamed, and carries almost all referred and correct SA parts to go with my 2222xxx SA receiver (uncut op rod, round top gas lock, lock-bar sights). It's got 72 rounds down the barrel and I doubt I'll ever wear it out...or my son when he gets it. At the price point, you can't beat Criterion, IMHO.

Harry

 

[GRIZ22]

Someone who is knowledgeable about such things told me something indicating a M1 has been used in combat. Pitting on the receiver legs. Soldiers in combat will maintain their rifles so they function well but are not much concerned about appearance. This applies more so to rifles carried in amphibious landings where the rifle very likely got doused with salt water.

Makes sense to me.

 

[The Alaskan]

Well thanks for the comments, guys. I knew before I opened the discussion there would be no way to definitively say one way or the other, but I've gained some insight.

In fact, prior to this discussion, I was pretty convinced the gun was probably a training gun, but now I feel it is even less conclusive. And I'm okay with that.

 

[Jim K]

A rifle made in early 1945 was more likely used in Korea than in WWII, but even so, rifles were usually not fired a lot in combat, though one might be fired a couple of hundred rounds in a day in a hot corner.

But the US retained a large draftee army through the 1960's, and basic training rifles were shot a lot. Not by one individual, but by trainees in eight-week cycles, year after year. And those would have been the rifles more likely to be rebuild by post ordnance. So your barrel might well be the second or third one on that rifle. (A 1956 barrel date doesn't mean it was replaced in 1956, only that it was made in 1956. It could have been in storage for years, or even a surplus barrel installed by a civilian gunsmith at about any time before you got the rifle.)

Jim

 

[The Alaskan]

^

I hadn't even thought of that...civilian replacement after government disposal.

 

[Orlando]

Also need to remember that barrel may have been extremely pitted from corrosive ammo so was replaced