H&R getting ready to make M1s again

[44 AMP]

They pulled it because the cast receivers couldn’t take 308s.

and did RUGER tell you that? because if THEY didn't, I'm calling it BS...

The story I've heard (and believe) is that Ruger abandoned the XGI project because they couldn't get the prototypes to shoot as accurately as they required.

Remember Bill Ruger Sr was still running HIS company in those days and Bill Ruger was an opinionated fellow about a great many things.

According to the story that was circulated at the time, Bill Ruger killed the gun, because he wasn't going to have his company put out what he felt was an inferior product with his name on it.

The very first (and only time) I ever heard anyone state Ruger's "cast receivers can't take .308s" is your post.

That being said, there have been cast recievers that "couldn't take it" but not because they were cast, but because the maker didn't make their casting "good enough" for the job.

Casting has been around as long as we've been melting metal, and its just a process that covers a huge range of possible results. Very easy to cast low quality stuff, not so easy to cast high quality steel, but Ruger knows how, and does it.

They don't need a short action to make a .308 Garand, nor for any other chambering where the cartridge is a derivative of either the .30-06 or .308. All you need is the barrel.

If you want to convert an M1 Garand to 7.62mm NATO you don't even need a new barrel, all you need is a chamber insert. IIRC the US Navy did that, and used those rifles in competition for some time.
'

 

[HiBC]

While the discussion of cast vs forged is all good fun, if you actually listen to the video interview the OP provided,
It was clearly stated the receivers would be FORGED. Not cast.

Its kind of funny how some wet blanket negative Nellie can dig up a fear from the dark shadows of their mind ,put it out there, and it transforms into fake news of the day. They'll be forged,not cast.

So,does anybody really think a Ruger 77 won't take a 308? They are cast,too.

The original Garands and M-14's I believe were made of 8620 steel. Forged.

But 8620 steel is also good for investment casting. I forget the fine details,but its a high strength alloy steel like 4140 and 4340. It will heat treat,for strength,but it does not get real hard. Maybe low 40's Rockwell C ? Don't quote me. It may be less.
It will,however, nitride or case harden. There is something in the mix that helps prevent it from getting brittle.
Now,a disclaimer, I wrote all that about 8620 from memory. I have not refreshed that memory for some years. Take it with a grain of salt,and look it up yourself.

And a PS. I think the chamber insert conversion to 7.62 came about with the Italian BM 59 project.

 

[zaitcev]

Spud Nodak was acquired by PSA in order to take over and revitalize the H&R brand. And Spud Nodak is primarily known as a forging company.

 

[jetinteriorguy]

This is the way I remember it with the project that eventually became the Mini 30. I followed this pretty closely at the time and wanted one real bad, so I wound up getting one of the first production Mini 30’s for deer hunting. At first accuracy was dismal, this and owning a .41 Mag are what got me started in hand loading. With a little sear polishing and removing 1 1/2 coils from the disconnect spring plus a good load my rifle shot pretty reliably at 1.75 MOA out to 200 yds.

(This was in response to post #21)

 

[JustJake]

They don't need a short action to make a .308 Garand, nor for any other chambering where the cartridge is a derivative of either the .30-06 or .308. All you need is the barrel.

If you want to convert an M1 Garand to 7.62mm NATO you don't even need a new barrel, all you need is a chamber insert. IIRC the US Navy did that, and used those rifles in competition for some time.

You recall wrongly ...

The Navy did try a "7.62 chamber insert" to accomplish the conversion but only for a brief time and abandoned the use of this device when problems developed. The chamber insert was never viewed as a permanent solution over simply re-barreling M1s to 7.62/.308.

Lots of info available thru Google-fu on this topic ... Here's one:

https://www.forgottenweapons.com/m1-garand-development/navy-7-62mm-garand-conversion/

Also, accuracy with the insert wasn't nearly as good as with a dedicated barrel. The fame that Navy Garands garnered in Match competition was due to using high-quality barrels chambered for an inherently more accurate cartridge (7.62/.308).

 

[44 AMP]

You recall wrongly ...

Sometimes, I do.
Which is why I included the qualifier. Thought I was right, but apparently not as right as I thought. Thanks for the correction.

 

[Bart B.]

and did RUGER tell you that? because if THEY didn't, I'm calling it BS...

The story I've heard (and believe) is that Ruger abandoned the XGI project because they couldn't get the prototypes to shoot as accurately as they required.

Remember Bill Ruger Sr was still running HIS company in those days and Bill Ruger was an opinionated fellow about a great many things.

According to the story that was circulated at the time, Bill Ruger killed the gun, because he wasn't going to have his company put out what he felt was an inferior product with his name on it.

The very first (and only time) I ever heard anyone state Ruger's "cast receivers can't take .308s" is your post.

That being said, there have been cast recievers that "couldn't take it" but not because they were cast, but because the maker didn't make their casting "good enough" for the job.

Casting has been around as long as we've been melting metal, and its just a process that covers a huge range of possible results. Very easy to cast low quality stuff, not so easy to cast high quality steel, but Ruger knows how, and does it.



If you want to convert an M1 Garand to 7.62mm NATO you don't even need a new barrel, all you need is a chamber insert. IIRC the US Navy did that, and used those rifles in competition for some time.
'

None of the Navy 7.62 Garands with chamber inserts were used in top level competition. Not accurate nor reliable enough.

 

[Skans]

Nearly all of the Garands have had their parts swapped out, refurbished, new barrels, stocks, etc. The receivers have all been refinished. I don't consider most Garands to be collectors pieces, so I don't see any difference between them and a well made new one.

 

[BCR1]

Spud Nodak was acquired by PSA in order to take over and revitalize the H&R brand. And Spud Nodak is primarily known as a forging company.

They're called No Dak Spud,ie, meaning N. Dakota taters..................They made fantastic AKM and 74 receivers way before PSA bought them. I hope Harlan & Mike made a killing selling to them.

Bill

 

[stuckinthe60s]

they may be wanting to do it to flood America with rifles that can be used with a pretty common round already in a lot of peoples go bags....for the big day......that isn't so far off.
?

 

[stuckinthe60s]

im with scans on this one.

 

[Ignition Override]

tangolima:

A friend bought a nib S.A. M1A-1 in nice walnut, a few weeks ago. His first.

With six horses he has no time to go shoot it (club is an hour from him) until March Spring Vacation.


I'm looking forward to trying it, and this guy - who moved from Essen, Germany in 1983 - will get his first chance with a somewhat clone of his country's Bundeswehr G3; my new PTR-91.

Back to the M-1 Garand. A former coworker friend who retired many years ago on the Navy Rifle Team (years after flying P3 Orions, then 'flew civilian') confirmed that a very limited number of M-1s have original matching numbers.

But you folks know/knew about the "Parts Truck" at Camp Perry matches? IIRC, Mike stated that some competitors had access to the truck and could swap parts in order to have all-Winchester, all-HR components.

 

[JustJake]

Nearly all of the Garands have had their parts swapped out, refurbished, new barrels, stocks, etc.

If you mean, "nearly all of the [DCM/CMP-sold] Garands" are mixmasters, that's probably true at this late date, compared to the small number of genuinely original M1s.

The receivers have all been refinished.

Nope. Only on the more recent ones brought back from the Philippines (or maybe Turkey) if there was a lot or wear and pitting.

CMP used those receivers to build a line of "Special" M1s with new Criterion '06 barrels and new Dupage 3-pc stocks. These were priced in the $650-$750 range and were explicitly marketed by the CMP as "shooters." They had zero "collector value."

In 2010-11, back when CMP was still selling the stripped Grade B receivers, I bought several. None had any pitting, and only one had been re-parked.

I don't consider most Garands to be collectors pieces, so I don't see any difference between them and a well made new one.

Well, it's clear you don't know Garands.

The degree or percentage of USGI parts is what pumps up collectibility (and therefore perceived value $$$) ... Even a total mixmaster M1, if it's otherwise 100% composed of USGI parts (i.e., barrel, op rod, stock) will have more collectibility than the recent ones CMP rebuilt with commercial barrels, metal, and new stock sets. Even then, however, the receivers on all those "shooter" M1s are still forged USGI receivers.

There are also sub-markets of collectibility, such as the 1960s re-builds of M1s at the various U.S. arsenals and depots (e.g. Anniston, Letterkenney, etc), where the Arsenal/Depot armorers would etched the unit's abbreviation on the lower receiver to denote the rebuild work. These rebuilds were literally creating mixmasters, but they were still 100% USGI rifles.

 

[Skans]

Well, it's clear you don't know Garands.

The degree or percentage of USGI parts is what pumps up collectibility (and therefore perceived value $$$) ... Even a total mixmaster M1, if it's otherwise 100% composed of USGI parts (i.e., barrel, op rod, stock) will have more collectibility than the recent ones CMP rebuilt with commercial barrels, metal, and new stock sets. Even then, however, the receivers on all those "shooter" M1s are still forged USGI receivers.

There are also sub-markets of collectibility, such as the 1960s re-builds of M1s at the various U.S. arsenals and depots (e.g. Anniston, Letterkenney, etc), where the Arsenal/Depot armorers would etched the unit's abbreviation on the lower receiver to denote the rebuild work. These rebuilds were literally creating mixmasters, but they were still 100% USGI rifles.

I know Garands, but I do not collect them. I understand everything you are saying. The Garand is a unique rifle, and there is a lot of nuance to know in determining value - I agree. However, for me personally, unless I ever had a chance to get my hands on an all 100% original Garand (no rebuild, mix-match parts or new barrel, etc.), it has no interest for me as a collectable rifle.

For others, those who love Garands and want to dive deep into the different rebulds - I get it, that's their thing. There are groups of Garand collectors out there that are all into this.

 

[44 AMP]

US military guns come in roughtly 3 different "flavors", and collectors pay based on what they want, and condition.

1) Original, "as accepted" or "as initially issued" guns complete, intact with all the parts they had when delivered to the military. (this often means all parts from the same maker, but some models of guns never were all made by the same maker)

2) Guns as maintained in service. This is where you get parts from different makers and its perfectly historically correct, its the way the guns were used in the service. This also includes GI arsenal rebuilds.

3) Guns with non-GI "civilian parts".

Each type has a differing level of collector interest, and prices vary accordingly.

A 1944 M1 Garand with some H&R and some Winchester parts is historically correct, and a valid milsurp "collectable". Not worth as much to a collector as an all Winchester gun, but worth more than one with civilian parts.

Same thing for a 1918 made 1911 pistol with WWII era plastic grips. Not worth quite as much to a collector as the same gun wearing its original grips, but worth more than a 1911 frame gun with "racegun" civilian parts on it.

Collectors want what they want, and pay to get it. If that's not your thing, thats fine, too. Most of us are in that group,

 

[Bart B.]

For all the Garand gurus:....

Is the chamber in the USN 7.62 NATO versions the only difference from the 30-06 ones used?

Did any other service use the 7.62 version?

 

[HiBC]

I make no claim to being a Garand guru.

The Italians did a "retro-mod" conversion to a bunch of Garands. It was an attempt to make a "sorta" M-14 type rifle. That may have been a path to becoming NATO country.

It was called the BM59. I'm not a BM-59 Guru,either.

It included a chamber insert conversion to 7.62 NATO. I don't now of that was done to all M-59 s or of it was tried and abandoned in favor of a rebarrel.

One other mod was abandoning the 8 round clip in favor of a 20 round box mag.

 

[JustJake]

One other mod was abandoning the 8 round clip in favor of a 20 round box mag.

Actually, the "20-round box mag" was initially featured on John Garand's prototype rifle which he submitted to the Ordinance Board, and the original chambering was in .276 Pedersen.

The Board pretty quickly rejected the box-mag feature, fearing troops under fire in the field would waste ammo. Instead they requested the rifle be clip-fed with a lesser number of rounds. Garand responded with a modified rifle featuring a en bloc clip that held 10-rds of .276P cartridges. This clip was more elongated and curved than the later 8-rd clip for .30-06 cartridges.

After the Board approved the 10-rd clip-fed .276 rifle, the matter went up stream to Gen. Douglas McArthur for final approval. He rejected the .276 chambering and ordered the new semi-automatic rifle to be chambered in .30-06 - "if feasible."

Allegedly - and many Garand Gurus argue the point both ways - McArthur did so with one eye on the military's tight Depression-era budget (a gazillion rounds of .276 Pedersen would need to be purchased to feed the new rifles), and the other eye on the gazillion rounds of .30-06 from WW1 that were already-paid-for and sitting idle in armories around the country.

Garand eventually submitted an early gas-trap version of the M1 we know today, but as an 8-rd clip-fed rifle in .30-06. This was the rifle adopted in 1936 and designated the "M1."

See Hatcher's "Book of The Garand" for all the details.

The attached pic shows JCG's clip-fed prototype rifle in .276 Pedersen being field-tested.

 

[44 AMP]

The Board pretty quickly rejected the box-mag feature, fearing troops under fire in the field would waste ammo. Instead they requested the rifle be clip-fed with a lesser number of rounds.

Its interesting how, over time one learns more, and sometimes different things about history. Story I had always heard about the Garand was that the 20 rnd box was rejected by the board due to the fact that it stuck out, and "troops couldn't perform the proper manual of arms" because of that. Never heard a word about concerns of wasting ammo, those concerns were voiced, and addressed, a rifle generation before, and the one before that with the magazine cut off feature of the Krag and Springfield.

As to the "unable to do the proper manual of arms" reason, I find it believable, its the kind of thing sometimes the brass does, ignore reality when it doesn't fit their personal beliefs. Like ignoring the fact that there already was a .30-06 "rifle" with a 20 rnd detachable box in service, the BAR.

Oh, right, its not a rifle, its a light machinegun, and the standard manual of arms doesn't apply....

Another point, one about the "gazillion rounds of .30-06", yes, we had a bunch, left over from WWI and produced after, but it wasn't "sitting idle" anymore than ammo ever is when there's no war on.

Not only was the .30-06 our standard rifle round but it was ALSO our standard machinegun round. Infantry machine guns, tank machine guns, and aircraft machine guns. The Browning .30 cal gun was in every place in the service that a machine gun was used. And, as you noted, it was already paid for! And don't forget the money the govt had spent to MAKE the ammo, as well.

Changing to a new and different round, when we aren't at war, in the middle of a depression, when we have the 06 and know it works???

You ain't gonna get Congress to pay for that. I'm no fan of MacArthur, but he made the right call, that time. If the Army wanted the Garand rifle (and they did) the only way they were going to get it was if it was in .30-06.

the 8 round en bloc clip was a solution to the demands, not the intended design. A "better mousetrap" only succeeds if it is not only better, but enough better, at an affordable cost to be attractive to the buyers. The .276 Garand wasn't. The .30-06 Garand was,,just enough.

 

[Bart B.]

Had the M1 barrels used a 1:12 twist, accuracy would have been better.

7.62 NATO and .308 Win ammo shooting the same bullets about 100 fps slower through a 1:12 twist barrel soon broke all the 30-06 match records. The increase in unbreakable ties resulted in new targets with smaller scoring rings.