M1 garand cracked receiver

The proper and correct military terminology is Rifle, M1, and Carbine, M1 (or M2, M3), and all the FM's, TM's, TOE's, training documents, etc. call the former the Rifle, M1 or the M1 Rifle. None refer to it as the Garand. Soldiers commonly called it the "M1" with "rifle" assumed; the M1 carbine was simply "the carbine". But some folks insist that all soldiers, all the time, always called it the "Garand" and never called it the "M1". I am sure a few soldiers did call it the "Garand", but that name was very uncommon. I note that those folks who hold out for "Garand" never served in the Army when the M1 rifle was in use, but have gained their expertise in other ways.

Jim
 
The proper and correct military terminology is Rifle, M1, and Carbine, M1 (or M2, M3), and all the FM's, TM's, TOE's, training documents, etc. call the former the Rifle, M1 or the M1 Rifle. None refer to it as the Garand. Soldiers commonly called it the "M1" with "rifle" assumed; the M1 carbine was simply "the carbine". But some folks insist that all soldiers, all the time, always called it the "Garand" and never called it the "M1". I am sure a few soldiers did call it the "Garand", but that name was very uncommon. I note that those folks who hold out for "Garand" never served in the Army when the M1 rifle was in use, but have gained their expertise in other ways.

Jim
Click to expand...
My experience says differently. Especially when there were two different M1's in use at the same time.
They were both called "M1 Rifle 30 Caliber" or "Rifle 30 Caliber M1". But the M1 Garand was clip fed where the M1 Carbine was magazine fed. The only way to differentiate between the two M1's was M1 Garand or M1 Carbine.
 
Last edited:
Maybe there were different terms used at different times, Don, when were you in service?

With your experience, you should know that they were not both called "rifles". The rifle was the rifle, the carbine was the carbine. Not the same any more than the Helmet, M1 was the same as the Tank, M1 or the Field Jacket, M1.

Jim
 
Maybe there were different terms used at different times, Don, when were you in service?

With your experience, you should know that they were not both called "rifles". The rifle was the rifle, the carbine was the carbine. Not the same any more than the Helmet, M1 was the same as the Tank, M1 or the Field Jacket, M1.

Jim
Click to expand...

I grew up as a Military brat being drug on and around many bases as long as I can remember, then I joined and served till my own retirement from the Army in 1994. I remember looking at some of the old Manuals calling them, "Rifle, 30 Caliber M1" but the M1 Garand had the distinction of being called a Battle Rifle where the M1 carbine never could achieve that, with it only being accurate to around 150 yards. I will see if I can find some on-line versions of the old tech/operator manuals I recall seeing during my years.

For now the links that I provided to CMP are the best available.
http://odcmp.com/Sales/carbine.htm
http://odcmp.com/Sales/m1garand.htm

EDIT: Found a site that shows photos (scans) of the TM9-1005-222-12 that should provide you with what I am saying.
http://www.kmike.com/M1/TM9-1005-222-12Frame.htm Please note how the given nomenclature is Rifle, Caliber 30 M1 then it talks about the sniper versions and finally in Large bold print Say's M1 - Garand

Also in the FM 23-5 you will find it called: "U.S. Rifle, CALIBER .30, M1"
http://www.kmike.com/M1/m1.htm and if you click on the introduction chapter it gives the correct operational description.
The U.S. rifle caliber .30, M1, (fig. 1), is an air-cooled, gas-operated, clip-fed, and semiautomatic shoulder weapon.
Click to expand...

I did find the TM9-1276 for as you are calling them, Carbines, Cal 30, M1, M1A1, M2 and M3 at
http://www.scribd.com/haraoi_conal/d/23347955-Tm-9-1276-Carbines-Cal-30-M1-M1A1-M2-and-M3-1947
but as you can clearly see it is still an M1.. But likewise, you are right in that they are not calling it a rifle. Note the book claims it was accurate to 300 yards. Few of those who I have spoken with that ever had to carry and fire it had that impression.
 
Last edited:
Hey all, sorry for not getting back here in a day or two.

Great discussion, lots of things I haven't heard before. Learning plenty of new things as well.

I have to check my Granpda's house for the case.. I dont know if he saved it or not. I hope so, cause I wanted to keep it as a souvenir of a possible near death experience, or simply because its neat. How often do you get a 30-06 blown into a straight tube?

Childish wishes aside, my grandfather and everyone else down at the sportsmans rifle range in town HIGHLY reccomended against welding it. Several are veterans who have carried the rifle WWII/Korea and even they reccomend against it. Not to talk down to any of you, who stand by welding and put out very good points. The way I look at it, if I would spend a few hundred for parts, I might as well just buy a new rifle if I can find one for a cheap price. As for testing the cracks, my grandfather, and everyone at the range in town also will not let me shoot it in the current state. I've asked already, wanting to see if it worsens with lighter loaded rounds. Safety issues I guess, however I have been known to take some not needed risks. This one I might have to give in on though.

@Slamfire, I think the primers we use are Remmington.. I know the rounds started out as Federal loads made specificly for the M1, I can't remember off the top of my head what the brand/type of powder we used were. The bullets were 150 grain, remmington I believe, that we picked up at Cabelas.

The rifle was purchased from a small gun show in PA about 3 years ago, and the seller never mentioned anything about it being welded. It has worked great from then up until the receiver cracked. I only ever had 3 jams out of maybe 1200 rounds we put through it.
I have looked into the CMP, but its a bit of a drive to either store from where we are, not that I'm not up for a road trip to get a new rifle. I would first need to sign up and make sure I meet all the criteria, mainly finding a club/organization associated with them.

If I can find the case, I will have some pictures up ASAP, and while I'm at it, does anyone want to see anything else? different views of the receiver.. the whole rifle.. anything?

Thanks for all the input everyone.
 
Reported slamfire events are rather rare, so pictures of a rifle involved in an out of battery incident would be interesting.

What about pictures of the stock and receiver area showing damage.

Any damage around receiver lug recesses? Depending on the amount of lug engagement, burrs occur from the bolt skipping its way back.
 
As far as I know the area around lugs didn't get damaged, and the rest of the receiver looks alright as well save for the cracks. I haven't done any testing to determine whether or not there is more damage though. I'm at work on my phone right now, so when I get home I'll have a few more pictures up, showing a few other areas. I'll see if I can get one of rhe op rod showing the bend, its hard to tell it from the factory bend in it already. No word on the case from my grabdpa yet, I'll check with him again later on.
 
Okay, here are several images of the different parts of the receiver, stock, and op rod. They might be a little large or hard to see clearly.. camera issues, sorry. This first one is a comparison of a normal case, and the case that killed the rifle.

181112_421881324498925_1969027002_n.jpg


253298_421879044499153_708199046_n.jpg


179522_421878891165835_1739454375_n.jpg


182163_421878851165839_1719846219_n.jpg


576580_421878957832495_465326531_n.jpg


532853_421879101165814_100000311839608_1352181_1424694129_n.jpg
 
part #2 of images, these are the last ones.

in this one you can see where the bent op rod has been rubbing against the barrel.
537757_421879171165807_1083231833_n.jpg


Here you can see the end of the spring has been tweaked a little
317975_421879207832470_1540904576_n.jpg


Its hard to see, but the op rod is bent outward from the rifle barrel. If you look at it a certain way it is easier to see.
525003_421879321165792_1745878333_n.jpg


You can see that the action does not close all the way unless it is given a hard whack forward.
182776_421879417832449_1949893452_n.jpg


any questions about any of them just ask me and I'll see if I can explain it.
 
Thanks for the pictures.

Very interesting.

Grandpa's ammunition was not that hot, which is good, because the 30-06 slamfire rounds I have seen were blown much lower in the case, indicating higher pressure.

As a case comes back, at some point the sidewall is unable to contain the pressure. The ones I handled looked almost cut, very precise on the location, no ragged, irregular edges.

Looks your case just blew out full diameter with no evidence of case rupture. That would indicate very low pressures.

A gunsmith can bend the operating rod to track properly.

I would get a CMP receiver and have the rifle built around that receiver. I would get a new stock.
http://www.thecmp.org/Sales/m1garand.htm

The receiver heel fits tighter to the stock heel section and it provides a gas barrier. If you notice there should be an air gap under the receiver ahead of the stock heel. This is a gas vent and protects the shooter in case of gas release in the action. Since your stock has a chip in that area, you really should just get a new tight fitting stock. Though someone could possibly fix the old, if there is no other damage. I would replace based on what I see.
 
I have finally decided to point out why that was not a slamfire and to describe what actually happened. All I ask is that those with other ideas read what I write before sneering at my "stupidity", calling me names and questioning my ancestry.

First, the cartridge was heavily overloaded. (Even experienced reloaders can - and do - make mistakes.) Probably what was intended to be a light load was double charged, but in any event it was a serious overload.

The rifle fired normally, but pressure went sky high and only the strong M1 action prevented a blow up. The bullet went down the barrel at a high velocity, and as it passed the gas port, the gas, at a very high pressure port pressure, impinged on the operating rod, trying to push it back.

But the residual chamber pressure was still so high that the locking lugs were pressed tightly against the lug seats and did not move immediately. The op rod, under pressure at the front, and unable to move at the rear, bent.

Then, the bolt began to open and unlock. But the residual pressure was still high. Not enough to burst the case, but high enough to force the thinner case neck and shoulder out against the chamber wall as the case moved back, accounting for what appears to be almost a straight case. I think if you look, you will find that the primer is smeared and that the case head is flattened, almost obliterating the head stamp.

That residual pressure drove the bolt back hard, so it struck the rear of the receiver and broke it.

That is what happened, not a slamfire; a true slamfire (firing out of battery) would have blown the case apart, released high pressure gas into the magazine well and action, blown apart the receiver sides and splintered the stock. Yes, there have been slamfires with the M1 rifle, but this was not one.

Jim
 
Cracked

I think Mr. K's description is spot on. I was on hand for a true out of battery/slam fire with an M1 several years ago. It was pretty ugly. The shooter was injured, but he got lucky.
 
Good that you are writing that Jim; I was looking at the pictures and couldn't figure out how the op rod got bent in an out-of-battery situation where the barrel pressure would be low.
 
the case on the left is a normal one, the right is the one from the incident.
the primer has a much deeper indent in it, it is also slightly narrower than the normal one. sorry for the poor quality, cell phone cameras aren't all that great. Other than the deeper indent, nothing else appears to be abnormal.
 

Attachments

  • 0610021357.jpg
    0610021357.jpg
    216.1 KB · Views: 46
Thanks for the pictures.

Given the OP says:

Other than the deeper indent, nothing else appears to be abnormal.
Click to expand...

I doubt there will ever be enough resolution to resurrect the idea that this was an over pressure event.

These normal looking primers are what you see in out of battery slamfires. I don’t know why the primers have normal firing pin indentations, but they do. I have seen two, the second blew the back end of the receiver off the rifle.

When the physical evidence is different from the theory, the theory must be wrong.

The slamfire cases I picked up, they were ruptured/cut about half to 2/3 rds of the way, this case is not ruptured so I am of the opinion that the loads were light.

GarandSlamfireCasewithRemingtonPrimer.jpg


Slamfireprimeronright.jpg
 
Last edited:
As to the question of weld or don't weld,
One of the very best machinists and welders that I ever ran across had a saying,
"You can fix anything but a broken heart."
And he could.
Unfortunately the guy doing the welding might not be one of the best.
So, two questions should be asked.
Is the reward of saving an old shooter worth the risk?
And, do you feel lucky?
(Had to get that one in).
Personally, unless it was the last gun of its type on the planet, I'd park it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top