Why convert a Garand?

[Father Knows Best]

I know that guys convert M1 Garands from .30-'06 to 7.62 NATO (or .308 Winchester). I know that it's a fairly simply conversion. My question is -- why? What do they accomplish by doing so? My understanding is that the cartridges are ballistically almost identical. Is there a belief that the 7.62 offers some performance or accuracy advantage? Is it ammo cost? What am I missing?

 

[Amy]

I think ammo cost might be part of it. I handload all my own and that's not a factor for me. Personally though, I feel that a Garand ought to be chambered in .30-06 and that's the end of it. Anything else is an adulteration of a great battle rifle.

Amy

 

[yesterdaysyouth]

Is it ammo cost?

probally, but availability of surplus ammo is an even bigger issue...

if i wanted a .308 garand i would just buy a new one... or buy an m1a, or both...

 

[rbernie]

Let's presume that someone has a Garand with a worn-out barrel that needs to be replaced anyway. Which should they do - rebarrel to 30-06 or rebarrel to 308? It would seem to be a tradeoff at that point between historical accuracy on one hand and cost of ownership (ammo) on the other.

 

[Freedomv]

My first M-1 Garand was a 7.62mm Mational Match built by Rock Island Arsenal. I bought it in 1972 for $200.00 shortly after I got out of the army.

It was a fantastic shooter and I got my first Leg points with it.

I also shot many M-1's in 30/06 but the inhearent accuracy just wasn't there.

I would always build one in 7.62 for accuracy and readily available good quality ammo of recent manufacture.

Vern

 

[DMK]

Beter selection of surplus ammo was the deciding factor for me

I had mine converted to 308 because it needed a new barrel anyway. I figured I'd just go with a 7.62x51 barrel so I could have a wider variety of surplus ammo to choose from. I'm glad I did. The quality and accuracy of the Portugese, South African and Australian surplus I bought is excellent.

The cheaper cost allowed be to stock up much more ammo than I had with 30.06. Because of this, I really like the fact that the 7.62x51 surplus comes in sealed battlepacks (ammo cans for the Australian). The Danish M2 ball that I stocked before came in unsealed wooden crates. Although Korean M2 comes in ammo cans, I don't think it's anywhere near the quality of the 7.62x51 surplus available.

 

[1911user]

Except for historical accuraccy, 308 is superior to 30-06 in a Garand. There is more surplus ammo available in 308. 308 is capable of better accuraccy than 30-06 in match rifles. 308 case length is half an inch shorter for similar performance. 308 casewalls are straighter so the cases don't strech as much so they require trimming less often. 308 is a little cheaper to reload since it uses less powder for similar performance. They use the same bullets.

30-06 can have the advantage of more case capacity which helps shooting heavy bullets at higher velocity, but you can't shoot those in a stock garand or it'll destroy the op-rod.

So why should I choose 30-06 in a Garand when it comes time to rebarrel a shooter rifle? I can't think of a good reason especially when you consider the available ammo situation that's only going to get worse as more and more new Garand owners want ammo for their "new" rifle.

 

[jefnvk]

The only reason I'd see is ammo convenience. Either the .308 is cheaper, or they already have an M1A or another battle rifle that shoots .308, or they already have a killer handload figured out for .308.

If you replace the barrel with a commercial manufacture, you've lost the historical aspect anyways.

 

[LiquidTension]

.308 is cheaper and more available. Also, it'd give me ammo compatibility with my FAL If I can ever afford a CMP Garand, I'll rebarrel it in .308 if it needs a new one, otherwise I'll leave it alone until it does.

 

[Swampy]

On top of the valid issues regarding cost of ammo, I'll throw one more reason into the mix.....

As the owner of two Match Grade M1 rifles, I can tell you that I had to think a long time about the difference between 30-06 and .308 before choosing the chambering for the new barrels.

Since I reload everything that I shoot in matches, ammo costs were not an issue here. In the end it all came down to one thing.... throat length.

With standard 30-06 chamber reamers the throat is cut so far "out there" that you can't seat the bullets to reach the lands and still fit in the mag well..... and finding a 'smith that would modify a reamer to suit my needs was not only difficult, but pricey in the amount of HUNDREDS of additional dollers over what I could afford.

By chambering in .308 you get all that added mag well space due to the shorter brass to use for "long seating" the bullets. With this cartridge all my loads have the bullet seated just off the lands, both the short line and long line loads.

As far as any real difference in inherent accuracy between '06 and .308, I'm not sure how I fall on the issue. I will say that the one bit of datum that makes the most sense to me is the fact that when many Highpower competition shooters were switching their comp M1's from 30-06 to .308 was during a time when the Army was changing the specs for the Match ammo being made at Lake City.

The only Match ammo ever made by Lake City for the 30-06 was the M72 load, using the LC 173 grain fmjbt match bullet. A fine load and a fine bullet. This same bullet was also used in 7.62 nato Match ammo (M118 load ???... can't remember for sure.)... also a fine bullet and fine load. Both the M72 and M118 served well for years.

Then sometime along in the 70's (I think, could have the history wrong) Lake City came out with the M852 load in 7.62 Nato, using the Sierra 168 grain Match King bullet. The 168 SMK is a MUCH better bullet than the old LC 173 grain. All of a sudden, scores started going up at the 600 yd line in the M14's, and the M1 shooters, stuck with the M72 load, were left sucking hind tit. Those M1 shooters that were taking advantage of the readily available (then, not now) LC Match ammo for all their comp shooting made the intelligent decision to switch over. The next time their rifle came due for a barrel swap, it was a no brainer to go with the 7.62 Nato chambering.

As far as any real difference in inherent accuracy between .308 and 30-06, I tend to think that MOST of the historical competition difference lies in this ammo issue at Lake City. Of course, there are other factors too, but I'm thinking most of it lies here.....

Just my thoughts,
Swampy

Garands forever

 

[Roadkill]

I've got a FAL. When/if I rebarrel my Garand it will be in .308. For me .308 is a little easier to reload and uses less powder for same or better results. But then I also have an 03,03A3,and a P17. Maybe I need to either get rid of the FAL or have it rechambered. Don't think that is going to happen. Think of what would be involved in that. Or maybe I need a Bushmaster in .308 so I can justify all the .308 ammo and make use of the FAL magazines. You could actually justify buying the AR in .308 by the amount you would save in FAL magazines over a MIA. Then it would be more cost effective having more than one gun in the same caliber. That would save money too. Think you can tell where this is going?


rk

 

[Gewehr98]

Better surplus mil-spec ammo availability for one...

And then there's the BM-59, Italy's answer to the M-14:

Image from Guns.Ru

 

[gaven]

I have a M1 that is a miss match of parts but they are all new parts . The receiver was made in 1943 but looks like it was made this week, I put it in a new laminated stock and rebarreled it in .308.
This gun shoots really good and will out shoot my original 1945 springfield M1
with matching barrel , reciever , stock and this gun also shoots good.
I like haveing a piece of history and a fulllsize 30.06 weapon if i ever need one,
their is no factory or handloaded hunting round that i cant shoot out of this rifle. I have a spare gas plug that i removed the valve from it and i just screw it in and have a straight pull bolt action 30.06 that will shoot any weight bullet.
I shoot my .308 most of the time though because its so much more accurate
and more fun to shoot ,less recoil ,non corrosive ammo and less wear on my baby who is 60 years old now.

 

[mainmech48]

I bought mine primarily because it was converted to 7.62x51. The more frequent availability and lower cost of surplus ammo in that caliber, plus the fact that I already was buying it for a couple of other rifles, made the rationalization process relatively painless

While it may be pretty much apples-to-oranges, firing mine with Aussie surplus ball side-by-side with a very nice .30-06 example owned by another club member using surplus M-2 ball makes me even happier with the choice. Groups avarage more than an inch and a half better (for both of us) at 100 yds, and perceived recoil is noticably lighter. Can't begin to guess 'why', as ballistics, weight, etc. are so close between the two as to be virtually identical.

Can't see how doing a conversion on a "shooter" grade M-1 negates it's "artifact" value. There were still a lot of 7.62x51 Garands in the small arms lockers aboard Navy vessels when I served from '65-'69. One could make a good argument for those conversions being the last true GI issue specimens.