"Updating" the M1 Garand for modern combat?

M

MatthewVanitas

New member
Greetings all,
Has anyone ever put any thought into what can be done with the M1 Garand system using modern technology? I'm interested in getting a fighting-type rifle, but my main complaints with most semi-auto fighting rifles on the market are:

-Unreliable (my personal experiences with an issued M16 have erased any desire to ever have to depend on an AR-15)
-Small Caliber (all the 5.56 rifles)
-Inaccurate (AKs and SKS)
-Extended magazines (easily lost, banned or damaged) and pistol grips which prevent a true prone position (FAL, HK91, which otherwise seem like great rifles)

The Garand seems great because it's 30cal, no reliance on protruding exterior magazines, capable of competitive accuracy (are there "match grade" AKs?), and has a traditional stock.
On the downside: it's heavy, and it's long. That's about the only negatives I'm aware of.

Could you take an M1 receiver, add a lightweight stock, carbon-fiber or fluted .308 barrel, shorten the bbl. a bit, put on a flash-suppressor/compensator, and end up with a streamlined, internal mag, powerful, reliable, and accurate fighting machine?

Just tossing the idea out. My other pondering as of late was whether one can take an SKS (box magazine type) action and put a good barrel in some 6mm or 6.5mm caliber on it, and have a good combat carbine. Or is the SKS receiver itself inconducive to accuracy?
I read somewhere that a .243 M1 carbine was one put on trial for possible issue, but lost out to the Stoner design. I would _love_ a .243 M1 Carbine...

It's a rambling topic, but I'm not forcing anyone to read it (smile). Take care all,
-LCpl Matthew Boris

"Because it's easier to say the Rifleman's Creed with a straight face when you've not holding a .22 carbine"
 
I would love to do that with my Garand but by the time I made all the changes I could by a New M1A scout, which is what I did. If you are worried about the mag extending below the rifle just stick to the 10 rnd mags. You also have the benefit of using the forward scout mount or the standard Springfield receiver mount.

By the way is there anyone out there who makes and installs a scout scope mount for the Garand? Thanks
 
Matthew - As much as I love the Garand, one of the biggest drawbacks to the design is the inability to easily replenish a partially loaded clip.

Hatcher's Book of the Garand describes how it was not uncommon for a soldier, after firing 3 or 4 rounds, to want to have a full clip. To accomplish this, he'd either rapidly fire the remaining rounds, or eject the clip causing the remaining rounds to scatter hither and yon. Obviously, both wasted ammo.

The detachable magazine on the M14 addressed this problem, but now you've lost the internal magazine feature. The Johnson rifle featured an easily replenished internal magazine, but was never adopted.

Cliff
 
First off, "combat" and "match grade" shouldn't be used to describe the same rifle. A match chamber is too tight to take much combat use and abuse.

Next, try a well built FAL and then decide. For that matter, try a decent AK.

Wildcatted or one-off rifles probably aren't the best picks as a combat piece either. Something that takes a common caliber and has a large supply of parts available, for the rifle as configured, is the usual formula. That's another reason why AR and AK rifles are so appealing.

Otherwise, it sounds as though you want a "Tanker" Garand or a Beretta BM-59.



[This message has been edited by Destructo6 (edited November 05, 2000).]
 
Hi, Cliff,

I don't know whether you have a Johnson or not, but believe me, the magazine sounds better than it is. It is pretty flimsy and while it can be loaded with single rounds, it is really meant to be loaded with 5 round clips. It is also much more clumsy IMHO) than the M1 and more sensitive to ammo variation.

Also single rounds are harder to handle than clips and were never commonly used even in bolt rifle days except when the cutoff was employed. The Germans, with no cutoff, always loaded from clips.

True, a lot of ammo was wasted just as Hatcher says. But the speed of reloading the M1 was such that being a few rounds down was really not a problem. (The "enemy heard the clip eject and attacked the helpless GI" story is absolute nonsense, of course; no combat vet ever believed it.)

Jim
 
There's already an upgrade on the M1 Garand. It's called the M14. I believe that any of the commercial semi auto variants will do what you want.

Yr. Obt. Svnt.

------------------
Fred J. Drumheller
NRA Life
NRA Golden Eagle
 
LCpl Matt,

What you have described is basically an M-14....

for us civvies, available as the M1-A.

Not cheap, but definitely a rifle worth owning.

Swampy
 
Stick to 7.62NATO.
Ditch match-grade.
Reconsider detachable magazines.
Have another look at the M1A.

But also consider that rapid firing and reloading don't apear to be great concerns for you. Have a look at some bolt action 7.62s.

Ditto on the '16. I also had it jam at tacticaly embarrasing moments. I will never trust one.
 
You are describing a M1A with a ten round magazine that you leave in place and reload the rifle with 7.62mm stripper clips.
 
You can have your M1 re-built into a Scout style rifle. Roland Beaver at OLD CORP WEAPONY does the conversion. He replaces the standard barrel with a shorter barrel (I can't remember how long the new barrel is) Removes the forward handguard, and installs a long eye relief scope forward of the receiver. I saw one at the last Tulsa Gun Show. Looked pretty good. You can have it chambered in any caliber that is based on .308 or .30-06. One of his favorites is the .22-250.

I had him install a Douglas Premium Match barrel and National Match sights on my M1. I am very pleased with its outcome.
 
Sounds like a serious candidate for a Jeff Cooper scout rifle. :rolleyes:

------------------
o I raised my hand to eye level, like pointing a finger, and fired. Wild Bill Hickok
 
gk,

do you have alink for him or do you have an idea of his costs?,.......I know a gunsmith in naples doing the same thing....but the cost is the higher than a new m1a.....fubsy.
 
I may be wrong, but IIRC, some years back there was a conversion on the grand old lady, that consisted of doing some work on the receiver, and altering it to where it took a Magazine instead of the 8 Rd. enblock clip. course this still puts you back to a magazine that may get in the way from prone. One thing in favor of this alteration is the elimination of all the reciever parts that become unnecessary once she is feeding from a magazine instead of the clip. I can't remember if any other changes were made to the rifle or not such as shortning the barrel.

------------------
Carlyle Hebert
 
Fubsy...
As far as I know he doesn't have a website. But here is his phone number (501)724-6388.
He charges 225 for the "tanker" converstion, shorten barrel do the op-rod mods etc. then on top of that if you want the scout scope he charges 450 for the bases, rings, scope and the labor to install all of it.
FYI.. he charges 250 for Douglas Premium match barrels + 50 bucks if you want a caliber other than .308 or .30-06.

hope this helps
 
southla1,
The magazine conversion that I remember for the garand was by "tanks rifle shop, cant remember address...middle of the country I believe." he was using bar magazines.........never saw conversion, but that was some time ago, if the memory totally shot it was quite expensive then....fubsy.
 
I'd go for conversion to a new military upper mid-range caliber similar in power to 6.5x55 Swede, using a head/body diameter larger than the 5.56mm but smaller than the .30-06. Seems like a 90 to 100-gr bullet going 2800 fps would do all we needed the .30s to do, but with some increase in rounds per pound and enabling 10 or 12 rounds in the same vertical space as the M1's enblock clip. Ditch the enbloc clip for an SKS-style internal magazine, and have an M16-style bolt catch to enable "topping off" with only one round at risk of being lost. This requires installing a strip clip guide.

This would allow a few ounces saved in the shorter (front-to-back) receiver.

I'd shave a few more ounces by moving a similarly-designed gas cylinder back to mid-barrel. Chop only two inches off of the barrel and install a flash hider/muzzle brake. Flute the barrel between receiver and gas cylinder, or maybe even go composite. Choose a reasonable means of adjusting the gas system, maybe like the FAL.

Use a lightweight fiberglass or kevlar stock, perhaps with an integral bipod like the Steyr Scout.

Build forward scope mounts on the thing. Keep a forward front sight. Make the rear handguard fiberglass and eliminate the front handguard. Cast the receiver so it can be judiciously "swiss cheesed" to save a few more ounces.

The barrel contour for a 6.0 to 6.5 mm bore (I haven't decided which bore size would be better, but either would beat even the new M852 5.56mm ammo!) could probably be made slimmer without any loss in strength.

So, in the end, I'd be happy if the rifle could be made a 10- or 12-shot item which weighs as much fully loaded (maybe with sling?) with a lightweight Scout scope, as an EMPTY M1 weighs today.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top