M1 Garand converted to use BAR mags

[futureranger]

i have been reading this book about rifles in ww2 and it lists just about every test and conversion done to the garand (tanker model, magnesium stock, folding stock...) anyway i read about the garand being converted to use BAR mags but they couldn't effectively or efficiently do a total conversion to all of the issued garands. i would never hack up my garand but could someone do it with out 1000's of dollars of smithing tools?
also do you think the M1A would have replaced the garand if the conversions had been widely done?

 

[loadedround]

Ever see a BM-59? This is an M1 Garand that the Italian military converted to take removavle 20 round magazines. I don't remember what make of magazines that the rifle useds they used(maybe M-14?) but the system worked. A few of them were imported and sold here some years back.

 

[GRIZ22]

I've seen M1s modified by civilians to take BAR magazines that work well. You can do just about anything if you want to spend the time and money.

It was not the M1A (civilian rifle made by Springfield Armory Inc) but the M14 that replaced the M1. The army was looking for a rifle to replace the M1, BAR, and M1 Carbine. A M1 with BAR mags could not do this. Ergo, the M14 came into being. The M14 didn't do that good of a job replacing the BAR. The big problem was its light weight made it uncontrollable in full auto fire. This made the Army look at the M16.

 

[GRIZ22]

Ever see a BM-59? This is an M1 Garand that the Italian military converted to take removavle 20 round magazines.

The BM59 was not a conversion of the M1. It was a shorter receiver designed for the 7.62 NATO round. It did use many M1 parts though. It was Italy's response to the M14 and the adoption of the 7.62 NATO as the standard NATO round.

 

[HorseSoldier]

i would never hack up my garand but could someone do it with out 1000's of dollars of smithing tools?

I seem to recall somewhere (Fulton Armory website?) that there is an article about the project that goes into the various problems this would present in terms of removing metal/weakening the receiver and possibly messing up the temper on the metal.

also do you think the M1A would have replaced the garand if the conversions had been widely done?

The handwriting had been on the wall that full power cartridges like 30-06 were not ideal and optimized for infantry combat going back to World War One. About the only outcome I think would have been likely had a Garand with a detachable 30-06 magazine been fielded would have been to encourage earlier adoption of the M16/5.56mm or some other weapon firing an intermediate cartridge -- maybe 280 British would have encountered less American resistance had Army Ordnance not been busily trying to play "meet the new boss, same as the old boss" with .308 at the time . . .

 

[61chalk]

The BM 59 had several versions produced, both by Beretta on new recievers an by government arsenals on reworked M1 recievers.

The M14 would of replaced the Garand regardless because they were looking for a rifle that could do 5 different things, including being a machine gun, the M14 was not effective with accuracy in full auto, an as others have said, they looked at the M16.....

 

[armoredman]

Had a guy on my ship keep an M-14 on target on full auto - he was also an ex pro wrestler.

 

[Jim Watson]

According to W.H.B. Smith, the 1944 - 1945 T20 rifles used modified BAR magazines. The magazine for the final T20E2 cold be used in a BAR but the standard BAR magazine would not work in the T20E2. That rifle was not a converted M1, it was built on a new receiver designed for the removable magazine and selective fire. The Army ordered 100,000 of them for the invasion of Japan, (along with the 25,000 T26 "Tankers") but neither was delivered due to the atomic bomb and early VJ Day.

Remington worked on a similar rifle, the T22, of which Smith says: "...used a BAR magazine but were not too successful and it was decided a new magazine should be designed."

The original prototype Garand of 1920 had a box magazine that looks an awful lot like a BAR's, plenty available to work with after WW I; but I have seen nothing to say whether it was modified or used as is.

 

[4v50 Gary]

The problem with the conversion jobs of M-1 Garands to take the BAR magazine was basically related to the military's desire to make the gun selective fire. In the full-automatic mode, the BAR magazine would not feed reliably. Why? Because the bolt moved faster than the magazine spring could push up a fresh cartridge. Springfield's solution was to slow the bolt travel by lengthening the receiver 1/4". This was unacceptable to the military as a new receiver would make the gun non-standard. The better solution, that wasn't adopted, was from Remignton. They put a weight or something in the recoil spring to slow down the return of the bolt, thus giving the BAR magazine enough time to push up a fresh cartridge.

I wish the design was made as a semi-auto only. It would be neat to have a BAR magazine fired Garand.

 

[1KPerDay]

It certainly would...

 

[navajo]

conversion

For some strange ideas go to the Springfield Armory Museum.
Many pics of expermental rifles including full auto Garands.

 

[irishsquid]

The original prototype Garand of 1920 had a box magazine that looks an awful lot like a BAR's, plenty available to work with after WW I; but I have seen nothing to say whether it was modified or used as is.

I've been reading Hatcher's Book of the Garand by MajGen Julian S. Hatcher.

In 1921, the Ordnance Department published requirements for all semi-automatic rifles submitted for testing and possible adoption. It spelled out many requirements including weight and use of the .30-06 service cartridge. Among those requirements, the published specifications included the following:

"The rifle must be so designed that the magazine may be fed from clips or chargers. The magazine may be detachable, but this is not considered desirable. The capacity of the magazine should not be less than five rounds, preferably ten, but not to exceed ten rounds."

Strange as it may now seem, Ordnance Department didn't want detachable, high capacity magazines when they were looking for a replacement for the beloved M1903.

In an age when bolt action rifles and large cartridges were the norm, the M1 Garand with it's eight round en-bloc clip was just the thing (...and still is as far as I'm concerned).

 

[HorseSoldier]

Strange as it may now seem, Ordnance Department didn't want detachable, high capacity magazines when they were looking for a replacement for the beloved M1903.

Seems like I've heard/read both that they thought Joe would promptly lose his detachable magazines, being the stupid simplistic enlisted man he was and that the box mag extending below the rifle would interfere with a good prone shooting position.

 

[Jeff White]

and that the box mag extending below the rifle would interfere with a good prone shooting position.

Funny how some things never change, you hear the same thing about the 30 round M16 magazine these days, in fact I bet you could read a lot of posts saying that right here at THR.

Someday people will figure out that combat and hi power competition are not directly related and what's optimal for one pursuit is not likely to be optimal for the other.

 

[Deckard]

The handwriting had been on the wall that full power cartridges like 30-06 were not ideal and optimized for infantry combat

Could have fooled me. I hear a lot of talk about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56. The only reason why an underpowered cartridge was necessary was because people got it in their heads that every soldier needed a fully automatic rifle. Seeing as the modern military seems to have realized the value of accuracy over volume of fire, with the removal of the full auto option on modern M16s and M4s, I'd say its about time to return to a more powerful cartridge.

 

[RobMoore]

Maybe some day Jeff.

Law Enforcement is also stuck in the same rut. Most police agencies are still using bullseye-style courses of fire to evaluate their officer's handgun proficiency.

The "bullseye" is sometimes printed on a humanoid target to make you think its a combat course, but there is no mistaking the "Stand here, and shoot that target x times in x seconds". They are all PPC courses with slight variations. Rarely is movement involved, and when it is, its just a simple side-step.

 

[irishsquid]

Seems like I've heard/read both that they thought Joe would promptly lose his detachable magazines, being the stupid simplistic enlisted man he was and that the box mag extending below the rifle would interfere with a good prone shooting position.

I've read the same thing. I've also read there was great reluctance (particularly amongst the Marine Corps) to even adopt a semi-automatic rifle in the first place. It was claimed it would lead to troops wasting ammunition.

I wonder what type of reaction Eugene Stoner would've received back then?

 

[Threeband]

T20E1 Garand at Springfield museum.

(click to enlarge)

 

[General Geoff]

The big problem was its light weight made it uncontrollable in full auto fire. This made the Army look at the M16.

Makes you wonder if a modern, effective muzzle brake would have saved the M14 from the chopping block..

 

[RobMoore]

^ combined with modern technique, instead of the bladed-off rifleman stance. Good for one round at a time, not so good for full-auto.

 

[navajo]

photo

In the photo you can clearly see where the M-14 connector arm and selector switch came from.

 

[HorseSoldier]

Someday people will figure out that combat and hi power competition are not directly related and what's optimal for one pursuit is not likely to be optimal for the other.

They've figured it out repeatedly down through the years (at least some folks), but then peace breaks out and people have 10-20 years to lose touch with reality.

Could have fooled me. I hear a lot of talk about the ineffectiveness of the 5.56.

Strangely, I only seem to hear it on the internet. In the SF unit I was a support guy in for years you'd have a hard time finding anybody with a long tab on an ODA who had problems with 5.56mm, and I can't think of anybody I ever served with who actually put rounds into jihadis who had issued with the lethality.

The only reason why an underpowered cartridge was necessary was because people got it in their heads that every soldier needed a fully automatic rifle.

Actually, the logistics of making every guy lug around a rifle chambered for a cartridge optimized for long range shooting was just nonsensical when almost all successful engagements occurred inside 300 meters and most were actually inside 100 meters.

Seeing as the modern military seems to have realized the value of accuracy over volume of fire, with the removal of the full auto option on modern M16s and M4s, I'd say its about time to return to a more powerful cartridge.

I'd be happy to put my issue M4 on a clock against an M1 Garand or M14 for engagement times on a realistic combat marksmanship course. I'd even be happy to keep it fair and limit the course of fire to whatever the bigger bore's magazine held, so the extra mag capacity doesn't count (even if it counts for a lot in the real world) and just go by time on a clock to acquire and score hits on multiple targets per stage.

We could then rerun the same course with both shooters using AKs. Any time the AK time beats the M4 or Garand/M14, the good guy is "dead." Pretty sure we'd see some pretty good evidence that full power cartridges for general issue use are a good way to get a lot of guys killed.

 

[Ron James]

Fact, the M-14 on full auto is almost uncontrollable. I have used both the M-14 and the M-16 while in harms way { also the M2 carbine } and I will take the M-16 any day of the week. I never had any problems with an enemy combatant { that sounds so much more political correct than Gook } who had been shot with the ineffective M-16 get back up. They just lay on the ground blown all to he double L. As with Horse soldier, been there, done that.:banghead:

 

[RobMoore]

I'd be happy to put my issue M4 on a clock against an M1 Garand or M14 for engagement times on a realistic combat marksmanship course. I'd even be happy to keep it fair and limit the course of fire to whatever the bigger bore's magazine held, so the extra mag capacity doesn't count (even if it counts for a lot in the real world) and just go by time on a clock to acquire and score hits on multiple targets per stage.

Sounds like fun, now substitute paper targets for loose wild boars, and the cartridge effectiveness can also be judged. Quickest to put all the piggies down wins.

 

[irishsquid]

It's a little off topic but firearm designer J.D. Pederson (the same Pederson of the "Pederson Device") was a player in the early development of the semi-automatic service rifle. Pederson was highly regarded by the War Department and was a renowned firearms designer.

Pederson was a proponent of a shorter, smaller caliber cartridge to replace the .30-06. He believed 7mm was the optimal choice for a semi-automatic shoulder-fired service rifle and developed a .276 cartridge for use in a weapon of his own design. There was some criticism (justified or not) that Pederson's cartridge was under-powered.

John C. Garand <genuflect here> also had some early models that incorporated a smaller cartridge. The debate over a smaller caliber goes back even further than most folks realize.

As for a selective-fire Garand, if an M-14 is uncontrollable on full-auto, just imagine trying to control a burst of .30-06 from Garand.