H&R getting ready to make M1s again

[old roper]

When I enlisted USMC 1960 my service rifle was M1. 1962 I got station with 2/4 Hawaii and still had M1. Around 1963 we got M-14. Back then when I enlisted most senior NCO served in WWll and Korean Sgt Korean so lot had combat experience.

I never had chance to use M1 in combat. We lost the BAR and gave out few full auto M14 before we landed use them up to when I left Vietnam 1965.

 

[HiBC]

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.

We started with chamber inserts to convert the 30-06 Garand to 7.62 NATO.
The lesson on the development of the Garand is interesting, but decades off from being relevant. I'll try to bring you up to speed.

Remember,I make no claim to being a guru, but AFTER WW2, the Soviet Union was making Europe and the US nervous. They formed the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, NATO. The plan was he NATO nations would fight together if the USSR pushed expansion.
Logistics and supply are a key element of battle. Its a good thing if all the NATO countries use the same ammo. This was long after the 276 Pederson.

Italy had Her post WW2 economic issues. Klein's Sporting Goods had pretty much cornered the Carcano Market. As a NATO nation, Italy needed a cheap modern battle rifle in 7.62 NATO.
The USA was developing the M-14.
There were a lot of post WW2 Garands to be had.

A project emerged to convert M-1 Garands to something resembling an M-14 in 7.62 to provide the Italians with a NATO battle rifle. The BM-59 rifle was the result. Among the mods was replacing the Trigger Housing Group with a unit to take a 20 round box magazine Also the chamber insert.
Douglas MacArthur "Faded Away" after Korea. He wasn't in on it. And the M-14 had a 20 round mag.

The BM-59 came and went. Fortunately,it never had to prove itself against the USSR. The Italians had a rifle to drill with.

IIRC,when NATO went 5.56, the Italians bought SOME Mini-14's

 

[JustJake]

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.

We started with chamber inserts to convert the 30-06 Garand to 7.62 NATO.The lesson on the development of the Garand is interesting, but decades off from being relevant. I'll try to bring you up to speed.

LOL!

Actually that brief history was completely relevant, as it demonstrates the genius of JCG and how from pre-1936 to circa 1958, the U.S. military went full circle on the feeding mechanism of its issued battle rifle.

JCG initially offered the military a gas-operated, semi-auto rifle fed by a 20-rd box magazine in .276P (the chambering originally specified by the Ord. Bd). The mag feature was rejected.

In the late '50s, the military settled on an "improved Garand," that being a gas-operated, select-fire rifle of similar configuration fed by a 20-rd box magazine in 7.62 - a shorter 30-cal cartridge only slightly less blasty than its WW2 parent, the '06.

Up to speed now?

 

[LavaTech]

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?

The conversion also included a white plastic spacer that prevented loading .30-06 clips in the converted rifles. The Italians used a steel spacer designed by JCG for the same purpose on their Tipo 2 rifles which had their op-rods, barrels, and stocks shortened about 1/2 inch and barrels re-chamdered to 7.62x51.

No other services converted M1 rifles.

 

[4V50 Gary]

I wish them luck. It would be nice if they did three lug receivers.

 

[kenny53]

I have a H&R M1 Garand, 1955. Few of the serial number match but the gun is in great shape and fun to shoot. I also have a Springfield Armory M1A, guess I have the best of both worlds.

 

[Screwball]

I see it as a good thing to look towards… but I wouldn’t hold my breath on them making hundreds of thousands of them.

Cast verses forged, it depends on the people doing the casting and the specifics. M1As have been cast, and you really don’t see major complaints about them (my early 1990s NM is good to go). I have one of those Lithgow Garand receivers that Fulton said my face should melt off each time I shoulder it… it was a CAI build that I got for cheap (cost of the parts, to include a brand new VAR barrel). Send it to Shuff, he redid it, and gave me the blessing that it is good to go. It’s a great shooting rifle, which I don’t worry about it being historic. I think more of that, to include more rare variations (snipers), would get more people into shooting Garands.

That being said, I hope PSA is going to keep H&R separate. While they fixed it quick, I still remember zeroing my 11.5” kit, and having the windage set all the way to the left. Sent it back, did their work, got it back… and it zeroed centerish (pretty close). Having stuff off in a Garand is going to make the guns not work… plain and simple. And while there is CNC, people who understand the design are going to be needed to build the rifles in a working order. This is a similar argument to doing S&W 3rd Gen pistols… you really don’t want current S&W doing it because it is different than piecing a M&P or an AR together.

Hell, look at Springfield and the SA-35. Gun is what everyone wanted out of a Hi Power, but how much crap has been shown about reliability (or lack thereof)? I wanted one from Jump St, but will definitely hold off until they get it fully squared away. For some reason, I’m having a feeling that will be echoed with H&R.

 

[Bart B.]

The conversion also included a white plastic spacer that prevented loading .30-06 clips in the converted rifles. The Italians used a steel spacer designed by JCG for the same purpose on their Tipo 2 rifles which had their op-rods, barrels, and stocks shortened about 1/2 inch and barrels re-chamdered to 7.62x51.

No other services converted M1 rifles.

The USAF used 7.62 Garands converted by the USN Match Conditioning Unit in San Diego. A1C Middleton Tompkins was instrumental in developing 7.62 NATO handloads at Lackland AFB in the 1960's. Few, if any, match versions had the spacer because handloads with match bullets were often too long.

 

[LavaTech]

The USAF used 7.62 Garands converted by the USN Match Conditioning Unit in San Diego. A1C Middleton Tompkins was instrumental in developing 7.62 NATO handloads at Lackland AFB in the 1960's. Few, if any, match versions had the spacer because handloads with match bullets were often too long.

I stand corrected but will add the caveat that as I understand it, USN wisdom decided the M1 converted to the new service caliber as a general issue arm was the way to go.... with lackluster results. All the other services decided to go to the M14 platform with little hesitation.

I'm not sure the service teams match rifles were ever general issue arms regardless of caliber, but you are indeed right about the Navy not being the only 7.62 M1 conversion operators. Navy wisdom was correct that they make nice award rifles if not good enough for a grade A or B team rifle.

The barrel gauging determined the rifle's ultimate future; grade A, B, or "other'.

 

[akinswi]

Bart B,

Why are the newer 30-06 barrels still in a 1/10 twist and not 1/12s like in the M1A? or can you get a 1/12 from Criterion chambered for 30/06 in the M1. It would be interesting too see how the M72 ammo would fair from a 1/12.

Also I thought the reason .308 started to shrink groups was due to better case fill vs 30-06. I didnt know it was from the twist rate. I learned something

 

[Bart B.]

Bart B,

Also I thought the reason .308 started to shrink groups was due to better case fill vs 30-06. I didnt know it was from the twist rate. I learned something

The 308 and 7.62 chamber throat leade angle is also different.

 

[RickB]

I have a SA, Inc. Garand, from 2002, and while I agree it has no soul, compared to USGI surplus, it shoots fine.
I certainly would not have paid the $1000+ retail price for one, but a promotional deal meant it cost me $600, and I decided a new gun, with warranty, was worth the "risk", if there actually was any.
Springfield continued to make M1s until about 2008, when they announced at SHOT that they were dropping it.

 

[Mannlicher]

I have two M1 Garands, Winchester and a Springfield. Both made during WWII. The only problem I see is there just isn't much milsurp ammo left.

 

[jcj54]

30-06 has always been 1 in 10

The 30-06 M1 was designed for the 174 grain M1 ammunition which needed thev1 in 10 to stabilize it. The .308 was designed with the 150 grain bullet and thev1 in 12 was adequate to stabilize it.

 

[JustJake]

I have two M1 Garands, Winchester and a Springfield. Both made during WWII. The only problem I see is there just isn't much milsurp ammo left.

Several retail ammo-makers do offer so-called “Garand-safe” 30-06 ammo, if you can find it.

But having an M1 in .308/7.62 makes a heck of a lotta sense today in view of the easier-to-source ammo, whether it’s surplus M80 ball or the commercial equivalent.

 

[zaitcev]

Several retail ammo-makers do offer so-called “Garand-safe” 30-06 ammo, if you can find it.

Federal makes such "M1 Garand" ammunition. That is all I shoot. I have an FN49 and I don't want to screw around with modern 30-06 stuff on a gun that has no spares.

 

[Bart B.]

The 30-06 M1 was designed for the 174 grain M1 ammunition which needed thev1 in 10 to stabilize it. The .308 was designed with the 150 grain bullet and thev1 in 12 was adequate to stabilize it.

That same 174 grain FMJBT bullet was used in the 7.62 NATO match ammo and its 1:12 twist barrel shot it more accurate leaving about 100 fps slower.

1:12 twist barrels in 7.62 NATO Garands tested Sierra's 190 grain HPMK's under 4 inches at 600 yards.

What twist did the 30-06 predecessor (30-03) barrels have for its 220 grain bullets?

When the 30-06 was popular in competition, 1:12 twist barrels produced the best scores. With 150 grain bullets used in max loads leaving 3000 fps, a 1:13 twist produced best accuracy to 1000 yards.

 

[JustJake]

Originally Posted by JustJake View Post
Several retail ammo-makers do offer so-called “Garand-safe” 30-06 ammo, if you can find it.

Federal makes such "M1 Garand" ammunition. That is all I shoot. I have an FN49 and I don't want to screw around with modern 30-06 stuff on a gun that has no spares.

PPU as well, and it's less pricey than the Federal stuff. That's why it's hard to find right now, aside from the Corvid-panic issue affecting ammo availability.

I've shot 1.5 cases of the PPU ammo thru my '06 M1s and it's GTG. Accuracy is decent and the brass is good and reloadable.

 

[Reloadron]

H&R getting ready to make M1s again

Well I wish them the best of luck, especially if they plan to make them to print. Anyone who has taken a M1 Garand down to parade rest knows just how many parts there are. The early M1 Garands had a good number of milled parts and eventually as cost cutting and faster manufacturing transitioned to stamped parts. Regardless there is a whole lotta parts which all need to work well for the rifle to function. I do not see any easy way to reproduce an M1 Garand and market it for a reasonable cost. Even if they can get investment cast receivers to work for them. Pretty sure they will do a marketing analysis before they start building rifles.

I have two M1 Garands. The older is WWII vintage and is absolutely a mix master. A rifle I built as part of a NRA course during '95. I had planned to build the rifle in 7.62 NATO and ordered two short chambered barrels from Brownell's. The day before I am leaving for NC and the course I get two barrels. Unfortunately chambered in 7mm-08 Remington. The upper rifle in the below image is the 7mm-08 and all tricked out. Including the NM2 front and rear sights, glass bedding (Devcon), and all the usual modifications. While it shoots great it can't be fired in a military match but is fine for open class. The lower rifle is a Korean era 30-06 with the birch (orange wood) stock.

I have a 7.62 barrel and eventually when I wear out the 7mm-08 barrel I will rebarrel the rifle in 7.62 NATO.

If I had a few receivers I have enough parts to build a few more. Anyone need a BMB trigger group complete or a BMB Bolt complete?

I pretty much roll my own ammunition but several years ago I hit a good price on some Seller & Bellot 30-06 in cans of 200 150 grain FMJ stuff and it shoots extremely well. Actually anymore I tend to shoot my M1A and AR10 much more than I get the Garands out.

Again, wish H&R the best to make this work.

Ron

 

[Willie Lowman]

Do they still have a copy of the TDP for the M14? I'd much rather have a new M14 with a forged receiver than a M1