M1 Garand Tanker Concerns

Status
Not open for further replies.

gadawg31

Member
Joined
Mar 18, 2009
Messages
47
Location
Georgia
I have been reading past posts and I am now having second thoughts on purchasing a supposed original M1 Garand Tanker. Is there any way to tell if it is a converted or did they really make these rifles and not issue them? What would be a good asking price if it turns out to be original? I am being told that the seller wants $600.00 for the rifler, is this a reasonable price.

v/r
gadawg31
 
Forgot the Picture

Here is the picture, sorry.

v/r
gadawg31

NOTE: It kind of looks like an original M1 Garand, not a tanker.
 

Attachments

  • rifle-pic.jpg
    rifle-pic.jpg
    32.1 KB · Views: 171
First, there are no real ones.
Of the few prototypes made that survived, they are in Museums.

Second, of the ones made up out of surplus parts years ago by Tom, Dick, and Harry, many used re-welded receivers & op rods from government scrap piles.

I would use a great deal of caution, and have to see it work first, before I would buy one at any price.

But, that's just me.

NOTE: It kind of looks like an original M1 Garand, not a tanker.
No it doesn't! The upper & lower handguards are missing from in front of the stock.

rc
 
Cool, thanks for the info. It sounds like a typical gun owner that doesn't really know what he has. It is very unfortunate, because he is in TX and I am in GA, so I can't just hop in the truck and run see it. I have to take his word on it. Apparently this is a rifle that he grew up with, but don't know much more than that. I am trying to get more info on it, because you never know if this might be one of those hidden jewels.

NOTE: You said is DOESN'T look like a garand. Are you referring to it doesn't look like an original M1 Garand (7.62) or it doesn't look like an original M1 Garand Tanker (.308)?

v/r
gadawg31
 
It ain't a hidden jewel. They only made 2 T-26 prototypes IIRC, both are in museums. IF the receiver isn't a reweld (you'll have to compare the receiver drawing number to the serial number and then research if it's in the correct range... this doesn't prove it's not a reweld but makes it less likely) and it actually runs well, $600 is a fair price. I paid $650 for mine (a Federal Ordnance... which ran fine for a while but now the trigger group unlocks and/or the clip ejects prematurely).

BTW the only reason I know this is I researched this topics a couple of years back when I was in the market for an "original tanker" and I thought as you did. Folks here enlightened me and pointed me to reliable sources of info.

Ask him what's stamped on the barrel.

I suggest if you really want a T-26 style garand you get the new M1-S from Dean's
http://www.dgrguns.com/New-M1-Garand-Package-Deal-Extra-Fancy-Bastogne-Details.htm

or the Mini-G from shuff's
http://www.shuffsparkerizing.com/Conversion_Tanker_Sniper.php

Either will cost you quite a bit more than 600 bucks, though. ;)
 
They're all custom gunsmith jobs. If there is a set of government drawings for such a rifle, nobody has been using them...

So if it works, then great. If it doesn't, then I hope you can find the smith who did the job.
 
There were perhaps one hundred "tanker conversions" created by Marine and Army small arms repair shops that were used in the Pacific campaigns of world war two.
A similar number of BAR automatic rifles were also so converted.

If one of these M1 rifles actually survived the war and was sent back home by one of the actual users AND the rifle had undeniable documentation, the asking price would be waaaay over $600.00

We are talking a value of around $15,000 minimum.

An old retail/wholesale shop called Federal Ordnance made up a bunch of Tanker Garands that were some of the best replicas of this type of rifle and even these had some issues concerning reliability.
These will bring $600 to $750 on the retail market and that is probably what you are looking at purchasing.
 
There were perhaps one hundred "tanker conversions" created by Marine and Army small arms repair shops that were used in the Pacific campaigns of world war two.
Have you got a source for that? I'd be interested in reading up on it. Thanks
 
I once read - not Internet Verifiable - that they made up a good number of T26s for the invasion of Japan. When the A-bomb saved us that bloodbath, they were all brought back to M1 spec, so comprehensively that when the Springfield museum wanted one to display, they had to build their own fake.
 
There were some reputable and fairly reputable companies making a lot of tankers; they're not all garage hack jobs. Springfield made runs of them several times, for one. Mine is an Arlington Ord build, and is marked so on the barrel. It runs like a top, and I love it dearly. I paid $650 many years ago for it, and would do so again in a heartbeat.
 
A "Tanker" Garand is a problematic beast.

There are NO "authentic" USGI Tanker Garands available.

Many gusmiths and manufacturers have made "cut down" Garands over the years. The quality varies from company to company and the "host receiver" can either be GI spec or a reweld.

I wouldn't buy a cut down Garand unless I know the history of who made that particular rifle and the researched the quality of their conversions. There are just too many variables to buy one sight unseen.

Don't forget that any conversion will now require unique parts. Standard Op-Rod, handguards, etc. won't work for a Tanker.
 
Jim, rifle # 2291873 is on display, or was, at Springfield Armory Museum. It is one of two rifles that were field modified in the Philipines and sent to SA by special courier for evaluation. The rifle appeared to have had significant use before modification and the work done to it was very crude, apparently done by hand with files with shorter barrels and operating parts. The other rifle, # 2437139, is unknown, meaning that it's fate is unknown but it was probably destroyed as scrap.

Springfield Armory had made one rifle as an experimental for airborne assualt troops in 1944. That rifle, desgnated M1E5, never left the factory but upon receiving the two field modified rifles someone realized that these newer ones had a resemblance to the previous project and so the armory made one more rifle for comparative testing. That rifle was designated T26.

In testing at Aberdeen all of them were found to emit a muzzle blast estimated to be 50% louder and a muzzle flash estimated to be 80% brighter than the standard rifle. In testing all rifles also suffered mechanical failures due to their shortened parts. The whole idea was dropped.

EXCEPT...there was a Lt. Col. Alexander who appeared one day in 1944 at the army installation at Noemfoor, New Guinea with an M1 rifle with 6" cut off of the barrel. Everyone loved the little gun and thought it might be just the ticket for fighting in the pacific island jungles. A test committee was informally formed of six troops from the assorted units based there.

Unfortunately, the rifle had a flaw which all testers agreed made it unsuitable for regular issue. The muzzle blast was reported by all as "terrific" and in the darkened forest/jungle where they performed the test the muzzle flash was reported as "Like a Flash bulb going off". Just imagine the fun those guys had that day - like kids with cherry bombs and flash-bang fireworks!

Considering the flash bulbs of newspaper cameramen in the 1940's that must have seemed like description enough to prove the rifle completely unsuitable for jungle combat use. They said that even in direct sunlight the flash was obvious. Col. Alexander was apparently quite disapointed as he seems to have thought he'd invented the perfect paratrooper's weapon.

This is all paraphrasing the 2nd edition of Scott Duff's World War II volume. You'll find the coverage of the so-called "Tanker Garand" quite well shot through and through by the documentation he so well compiled.

It's a myth that never dies. I was surprised and not pleasantly surprised to see that Clint McKee's Fulton Armory is now offering a "Tanker Garand" model. I used to think that he was too much a purist to succumb to market requests for such a crappy rifle.

If you want to blast your buddies off of the range, kids, you can do it a lot cheaper by getting yourself an old Remington 360 pump in .30-06.
I used to pack up and leave when I saw this jerk with one of those get out of his car.
 
I have never quite understood the complaints about muzzle blast on tankers. A tanker has an 18" barrel - that's really not short at all by today's standards. There are plenty of FALs and HKs and AR-10s with 16-18 inch barrels, and they don't get written off for excessive blast. When the Italians adopted the BM-59, they went with a 19" barrel, and a good compensator, and it certainly doesn't get the castigation that the tankers do. Heck, the much-touted SOCOM M1A has only 16" of barrel.

I've shot my tanker at night, and watch other folks fire it at night. Its muzzle flash is not spectacular by any means; far less impressive than an AK (for the record, I do have a Smith muzzle brake on it). I have no doubt that a Vortex would completely eliminate the flash.

I don't know why the WWII examiners were so taken aback by the flash and blast from the T26. Maybe they were just used to the very tame stand M1, or maybe the1940s ammo they had produced a lot more flash than today's stuff.
 
Is there any way to tell if it is a converted or did they really make these rifles and not issue them?

As said above sounds like someone is jive talking you. Just get a real Garand from the CMP. Unless of course it is cheap, generally the tanker mod will decrease the value of a garand if you need to sell it someday.
 
As said above sounds like someone is jive talking you. Just get a real Garand from the CMP. Unless of course it is cheap, generally the tanker mod will decrease the value of a garand if you need to sell it someday.

Excellent advice, plus one.
 
Ian,

I believe that all of the short barreled models you mention have flash suppression devices of one type or another, no?

There is no mention of such device having been installed onto the rifles tested either at Aberdeen Proving Grounds or in the New Guinea jungle tests, and the evaluators were no doubt mindful of any potential increased danger of loss of life in the immediate situations of the time.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top