A gun to respect--a lot

[getitdone1]

Been watching Hickok45 talk about and shoot the M1 Garand. Occurred to me that out of all guns this is one of the very few deserving the highest respect. I had forgotten but it's neat that this gun does not have a magazine coming out of the bottom. Hey, you can carry this one like a regular hunting rifle! And, those 8 round clips load real fast. What's not to like?

Maybe this will be my first military gun. When you think about this gun, how well it's made and what it accomplished you could say it belongs in every rifleman's collection. It's a personal choice of course but it would be a truly meaningful addition to any one's rifle collection.

Here's a video about loading the M1 Garand. Maybe some of you have other tips about how to use this great gun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GdTKm4eBAs

Don

[Streetstar]

I agree --- everyone should own one at some point -- kind of like a '63 Vette split window -- a true classic that not many will dispute

[TedH]

There aren't many rifles that are more fun to shoot, or carry as much history as the Garand. My Springfield M1 is one of those rifles that I just won't part with, ever.

[Malamute]

If you mean carry it in hand at the balance point, well, not really. They are very thick chunky guns. I don't think they really carry well at all unless you like to carry it slung or in both hands. When I got one years ago they were cheap(ish), so I whittled on the stock and removed about 1/4" of wood from the bottom, and a fair amount all around the action and fore end, making it feel vastly sleeker and easier handling. But to me, its still a chunky clumsy gun for one handed carry.

I like the guns, just don't like carrying them. Just a plinker to me, not something I'd ever want to carry.

[getitdone1]

What the things to look for when buying an M1 Garand?

Is there a manufacturer that's as good as any but costs less?

Was walnut wood used only on the earlier ones?

I'm guessing a good one will cost about a thousand dollars.

The gizmo that'll allow you to adjust the gas pressure for varying loads ??

Don

[Malamute]

I think Birch is one of the most common woods they were stocked with.

I fooled with them back in the 80's when Blue Sky was bringing them in and they were retailing in the $300-ish range. Many were pretty thrashed, some were very good. I owned one that looked literally brand new. I believe the guy that sold it for me said it was a US (maybe Nat Guard?) arsenal refurbished gun, then put away. Not sure how the Koreans ended up with it, but it was beautiful. Had a Birch stock, but had amazing flame grain figure in it.

[Griff]

There aren't many rifles that are more fun to shoot, or carry as much history as the Garand. My Springfield M1 is one of those rifles that I just won't part with, ever.

+1! And for some of us it includes personal history & experience. The Navy was still using them when I went thru boot camp in '70. I had trouble adjusting to the M16 in VN and felt lucky to swap mine for a 1928A1. My ship didn't turn ours in til '73.

[Mescalero]

Why I never bought one, did not want to carry it.

[FWiedner]

I'm not a midget, but I'm not a guy with a big frame.

Almost all guns are big, chunky, clunky, thick and heavy, to me.

I'd still like to have an M-1 Garand.

They helped save the world once, and I think they'll get another chance.

[TedH]

What the things to look for when buying an M1 Garand?

Is there a manufacturer that's as good as any but costs less?

Was walnut wood used only on the earlier ones?

I'm guessing a good one will cost about a thousand dollars.

The gizmo that'll allow you to adjust the gas pressure for varying loads ??

Don

Look no further than the CMP. The requirements to buy from them are minimal, and frankly it's something that you may already qualify for. That's where I got my Service Grade Garand, at that time they were $595, and frankly it was in much better condidtion than their description of a Service Grade rifle. You can get nicer, or not so nice rifles, depending on your wants and your wallet. You will know what you are buying, and they do the Fed background check themselves and will ship it straight to your door with only a signature required.

[hfcable]

If you mean carry it in hand at the balance point, well, not really. They are very thick chunky guns. I don't think they really carry well at all unless you like to carry it slung or in both hands. When I got one years ago they were cheap(ish), so I whittled on the stock and removed about 1/4" of wood from the bottom, and a fair amount all around the action and fore end, making it feel vastly sleeker and easier handling. But to me, its still a chunky clumsy gun for one handed carry.

I like the guns, just don't like carrying them. Just a plinker to me, not something I'd ever want to carry.

yes, for me more like a gun for firing prone or in a foxhole.......not quick in the hands or well balanced......mine was traded off, and I don't miss it. it was fun to try out. kinda like the HK91A3 I had, poorly balanced and clunky to walk around with, though both of them are superb in many other ways.

the little M4 carbines, and for that matter the M1 carbine, handle fast, carry easily, point naturally for me.

[Mescalero]

Yep,
and with your recent addition, you have the best of both worlds.

[MrMurphy]

The postwar guns, made in the mid/late 50s will cost you less as there's typically less collector desire, but any 'service grade' will do fine.

It's not a light rifle, but it balances better by itself than an M4 with an M203 strapped on.......

[Griff]

Look no further than the CMP. The requirements to buy from them are minimal, and frankly it's something that you may already qualify for. That's where I got my Service Grade Garand, at that time they were $595, and frankly it was in much better condidtion than their description of a Service Grade rifle. You can get nicer, or not so nice rifles, depending on your wants and your wallet. You will know what you are buying, and they do the Fed background check themselves and will ship it straight to your door with only a signature required.

I paid $167.75 for mine back in '78. They lost my paperwork for about 6 months, so when they shipped mine, it'd been upgraded in '53 to a National Matchm but never re-issued. The barrel, sights & trigger group are the oly parts that don't match the oiginal '43 build date.]

What the things to look for when buying an M1 Garand?

What Ted said!

Is there a manufacturer that's as good as any but costs less?

Of course the Springfield is more desired from a collector standpoint, almost as much as those made by Singer. But any is worth having.

Was walnut wood used only on the earlier ones?

Yes.

I'm guessing a good one will cost about a thousand dollars.

Yep.

The gizmo that'll allow you to adjust the gas pressure for varying loads ??

I don't have one, I just tune my .30-06 loads for the M-1... but, it is the only .30-06 I own.

[hfcable]

Yep,
and with your recent addition, you have the best of both worlds.

i got my dies and form dies, and got some more once fired brass........what i havent had yet is a free evening of weekend to load some rounds !

i will though, soon, and will get your brass back to you

[Mescalero]

Make that low on your priority list, get that gun shooting first.

[AJMD429]

As far as 'balance' point - I have a shortened 'tanker' model that I really like. It is a modification I'd only trust to an established Garand gunsmith, and of course destroys the 'collectability', but I had a totally-shot-out one that shot 12 minute of angle groups on a good day, and had it fitted with a short 308 Winchester barrel (almost did 243 Winchester), and 'tankerized'. It now shoots 2-3" groups if I do my part.

The other thing to consider is a Shuster's adjustable gas port, which can limit the potential damage from over-powered (or wrong powder-speed, bullet-weight, etc.) commercial loads.

[Larkbill]

Griff and I must be about the same age. I shot a Garand for the first time at Navy boot camp in fall of '69.

Funny story. I attended a Jr. ROTC high school my sophomore year of high school. It was run by a couple of very cool retired Army types who had us stripping Garands to the last part, including the trigger housing group. Didn't have a range to shoot though, .22's only. Before we went to the range in boot camp we spent a day learning how to field strip the Garand and 1911. I had mine apart pretty quickly so just as the instructor was saying "we won't be disassembling the trigger housing group, just lay it on it's picture on the mat" I was laying the last part from said group on it's picture. The adjutant working my row got pale as a ghost when he saw that, but before he could react the instructor also saw it and told me if I didn't want to do pushups for the rest of the day I'd better be able to put that back together in the next couple minutes. Think it took me less than a minute. When they had us pick up the 1911's the instructor looked at me and asked if he was going to have trouble with me again. I told him no, I had only stripped the 1911 a couple times and wanted to learn it better. He just shook his head.

I guess I was surprised at how poorly many of my shipmates shot. I grew up with guns and just assumed everyone did. The Marines on the range were amazingly helpful to anyone who wasn't just closing their eyes and pulling the trigger. I even got to fire two extra magazines from the 1911. Probably the best day, besides the day we left, of boot camp.

[getitdone1]

Just read that Springfield, back in 2002, made some Garands chambered for Winchester .308 cartridge.

Any of you seen and shot this chambering in this gun? I assume it's as reliable as the standard 30-06 chambering.

The "Tanker version." Was that in existence during WWII or did people make this shorter version after the war?

Ideally I'd like this shorter version chambered in .308---well maybe-- I'm not sure since that destroys some of the history of the gun.

Don

[MrMurphy]

The tanker never existed except as a few prototypes, and it wouldn't have been for tankers, if anything, it would have been for paratroopers.

Tankers carried submachine guns and carbines from 1940-1990ish, there were units in the Gulf War still carrying M3 submachine guns.

[AJMD429]

Just read that Springfield, back in 2002, made some Garands chambered for Winchester .308 cartridge.

Any of you seen and shot this chambering in this gun? I assume it's as reliable as the standard 30-06 chambering.

The "Tanker version." Was that in existence during WWII or did people make this shorter version after the war?

Ideally I'd like this shorter version chambered in .308---well maybe-- I'm not sure since that destroys some of the history of the gun.

Don

You'll see lots of Garands in 308 Winchester, and a few in 243 Winchester (a friend of mine had one and his wife killed her first deer with it). Presumably any 30-06-based or 308-based case would be workable. He said the 243 was super-low recoil, and very accurate in the Garand.

There are 'inserts' you can slip onto a 308 case and fire in a 30-06 that reduce the chamber so you can fire 308's in them, but I think that must have just been an emergency field-expedient thing; I could imagine lots of problems relying on such a device chronically.

I read somewhere the 'Tanker' was more of a concept than a reality, but that many have been made in the past few decades just because folks wanted a handier-length firearm.

These guys make LOTS of Garand variants (these aren't just 'surplus' guns, but new-production). Top-dollar, but well-made...

• http://www.fulton-armory.com/M1-Garand-Rifles.aspx

[6pt-sika]

I have a pair of M1 Carbines which I like a good bit .

But as to a Garand or an AR for that matter I've never owned either . And if I never did I don't think I'd loose any sleep . I doubt if I ever get a Garand unless one comes thru the shop I can get for a song . As to the AR thing I may one day get one in a 6.8 SPC or 6.5 Grendel . But thats more of just wanting to use the thing in one or both of those cartridges to kill a deer or two and add it to my list of actual used guns/cartridges .

[M. M. Wright]

I was introduced to Garand in '61 during basic training in the Army. Really liked it then and still do. I've owned several over the years. Even had a Winchester for a while but it's bore was dark so I traded it off to someone who needed it for their collection. Don't have one right now and really have that area covered by a 308. Putting new walnut wood on one is only about $100 and really makes one look good to my eyes but they've gotten so collectible you're probably better off leaving one as is unless it's made from mismatched parts.

[7.62 Precision]

the little M4 carbines, and for that matter the M1 carbine, handle fast, carry easily, point naturally for me.

When Germans captured Garands, they did not use them. When they captured M1 Carbines, they used them if they had a source of captured ammo. They liked the M1 Carbines a lot, as they fit their methods of fighting. Their WWII methods are closer to how we fight today than our method in WWII were.

If the Carbines could have been easily converted to 9mm, I expect there might have been a Nazi conversion kit. As it was, they saw limited use due to being totally dependent on captured ammo.

By the end of the war far more M1 Carbines had been built and were in use than Garands. It was not until after WWII that the M1 Carbines really got their undeserved poor reputation.

I still love Garands and their history.

[mikld]

When I decided to get an M1 Garand, I wanted one to shoot and shoot well, not really interested in collector's value, so I ordered a "Special Grade" from CMP. This grade has a new Criterion barrel, and new stock. Mine came with a Springfield receiver and most internals seem to be Springfield (but I wouldn't know for sure). I also bought 200 rounds of surplus ammo (Greek HXP) and the first time out, I went through nearly 100 rounds. 100 rounds through a 30-06 in an afternoon? No problem and it was more fun than my 10-22! Best firearm I own. After 2 clips, I was thinking "Manly". Sure it's heavy, and some think it's "clunky", but it's a battle rifle, not a lightweight hunter for semi-outta shape hunters.

I'm thinking about another M1, of lesser grade, for "customizing", but my first is staying stock and prolly keeping it forever. I think everyone should at least shoot on, if not own one...

[madman4570]

Tough finding a S.A. one looking like this for $895 anymore.

http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewIt ... =393647693

[AJMD429]

If the Carbines could have been easily converted to 9mm, I expect there might have been a Nazi conversion kit.

Think how cool it would be to have one in 32-20 (...yeah, I know, it has a 'rim', but still...it would be cool...).

[hfcable]

If the Carbines could have been easily converted to 9mm, I expect there might have been a Nazi conversion kit.

Think how cool it would be to have one in 32-20 (...yeah, I know, it has a 'rim', but still...it would be cool...).

there was a company some years ago, offering conversion of the carbine in a number of calibers, including 45 win mag. supposedly , there were barrel failures with the 45 win mag.

someone offered 357s though i looked for one, but never found it. i

10mm might be interesting, though i dont know that it would work.

[OldWin]

I always wanted an M1 "just because". I've had M1A's and carbines for years but strangely never got an M1. Knowing that they are getting to the point where they are going to take a "cash commitment" for the little I would probably use it, I figured I probably wouldn't get one.
I stopped into my buddy's shop one day and low and behold he had a beautiful 53' H&R with 400rnds of ammo for a good price. I don't care about collectability. I'd rather have one in good condition I can shoot and it looks like it's barely been shot. As I expected, I'm not exactly wearing it out.
As someone mentioned above, I think a Schuster gas plug is money well spent and will lead to me shooting it more.