Selective Fire magazine fed M-1 Garand

Is called an M-14. Mind you, the innovative types during W.W. II were reputed to have made a regular M1 Rifle FA.
JC's first design had a 20 round box mag. Ordnance Board and the Army didn't want it.
 
Springfield and Remington developed box magazine full auto Garands, too, T20 and T22 series. The Winchester seems to have been an in house project, not type classified. (T21 was a tank.)
All in anticipation of the invasion of the Japanese home islands, along with the T26 "Tanker."
 
You can find mention (and a couple pictures) of some of the prototype rifles that developed into the M14 in Small Arms of the World (Smith&Smith)
Some.

Good to see a couple of them made it to the Cody Museum.
 
the idea was sold to beretta and they made the famous BM59 with it.

photo credit, history of Winchester, barnes, pg 124

 
Last edited:
The difference between an M-14 and an M1 from an NFA collectors perspective is about $30,000, assuming it's not a reweld. Speaking of rewelds, I have tried buying an uncut M-14 three times and failed all three times. They were all rewelds.

I've given up on buying an M-14.

For those not familiar with the situation, most existing transferable M-14s and M1s are rewelds. Here is an article on the issue.

https://www.fulton-armory.com/faqs/M1G-FAQs/Weld.htm

For those who don't want to read it, the last paragraph is the most relevant:

BEGIN QUOTE

'I have tried to tell dozens of "proud" owners that they have junk - the result usually is the same as calling the guy's wife names.

In two cases, the owners insisted on having receivers magnafluxed to prove me wrong; in both cases, I was right - they were rewelds.

There is one more point on the rewelds other than the ones you mention. If the receiver is shortened in the cut/weld process, the firing pin may be able to reach the primer before the bolt is locked, that is when it is not yet in the safety cutout in the receiver. The result could be nasty.

END QUOTE

It kind of upsets me when I see these guns in a museum. Assuming they're transferable guns, they'll never be shot and enjoyed. They're nothing more than paperweights and wall hangers. They'll never have a range day. They're in black hole, to never come out. Kind of sad.
 
I always thought the M1 should have been designed with a removable mag that could be common with the BAR to speed reloading and keep logistics simple.
Never could see much point to a FA M1.
 
Apparently it was not effective to just bung a BAR magazine into an M1 action. There was a lot of work done on magazines and magazine catches in the late WWII developments.

I don't know what Mr Garand used in his 1920s guns before they selected an enclosed en bloc clip system over a box magazine.
 
Didn’t the early Dev Garands use a 6ishmm cartridge? 6.5 maybe??? Or am I remembering wrong. That in select fire mag fed would have probably made for great package all around (barring the real world logistic issues).
 
The very first Garands were .30.
Pedersen pushed his .276 to the point that there were Garands made for it and looked like a done deal, just choose an action.
But then Chief of Staff Douglas McArthur vetoed the new cartridge in favor of the .30 with all the guns and ammo and production base left over from WWI.
 
When i watched an episode of Ian Mcollums documentary of the inception of the M1 , J. Garand was strongly opposed to 30-06, Garand was asking to use a unique . 270 caliber, ( and actually produced several R&D pieces in this caliber . Anyone have more definitive facts ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top