When did the M1 Garand become available to civilians?

[Rangerrich99]

Got into a discussion with someone concerning military arms and whether they were originally military or were they converted from hunting weapons, and specifically, at what point was the M1 Garand made available to the public? i tried a couple searches here and Google and haven't found anything so I hoped one of the wise old elves here could help me out.

Thanks in advance for your help.

 

[eastbank]

made for the military in the late 30,s I think. the first ones into the cilvian market were from stickly fingered returning GI,s and then I think from the DCM program in the 50,s, and then I think the new springfield co. made them and now the CMP program has been selling them.

 

[Bart B.]

Garand history... https://www.thoughtco.com/world-war-ii-m1-garand-2361245

From a 1978 American rifleman magazine

"When M14 rifles were issued, in the late 1950s, the DCM released excess quanitites of the arms it was to replace.". Between 1958 and 1967, when all sales were terminated, Americans purchased 12,000 M1903 rifles, 279,000 M1903A3 rifles, 3600 National Match rifles, 1600 service grade M1 rifles, 3200 NM and 145,600 service grade M1911 and 1911A1 pistols, 8,800 12-ga. shotguns and 207,000 M1 carbines. Sales between 1958 and 1967 netted $12.3 million dollars for return to the Treasury." It was in 1978 that the sales program was reopened when the DCM announced that " a limited number of service grade M1 rifles would be released for sale to eligible individuals. The price would be $94.30 plus administrative, packing, handling and transportation charges, for a total of approximately $ 112.00 per rifle. Prior purchase of either a NM M1 rifle or a service grade M1 disqualifies a person from purchasing a rifle of either type under this sales program." Requests were to be sent to Director of Civilian Marksmanship, Room 1E053, W. Forrestal Bldg., Wash., D.C. 20314.

 

[veprdude]

In my research, just after WW2 they were considered too new for the civilian market. However in the re-arsenal process M1 receivers and parts out of spec were sold as scrap with the receivers cut. "Savvy" people rebuilt some of them for general sale and were the first "Rewelds". There may have been a few on the civilian market from GI bringbacks (if that was allowed for M1s at the time-don't know). But I don't think they were offered to the public until well after Korea and M14s were plentiful. Most issuable Garands were sent to satellite conflicts in Asia etc.

They definitely weren't deemed as "civilian" weapons at the time of development.

 

[T. O'Heir]

Just after W.W. II, the M1 Rifle was still the official Service Rifle.
"...the first "Rewelds"..." Were junk then and they are now too. It's very difficult to get two unmatched parts to work properly.
"...from GI bring backs..." No such thing. The troopies were not allowed to keep their issue kit. Any rifle that was brought back in a duffle bag is stolen.
The Korean War ended in 1953. No such thing as an issued M-14 until 1957 when it was officially adopted. Rumour has it that some troopies could buy an M1 Rifle or Carbine as early as the late 50's after 1958.

 

[kraigwy]

Bart is correct (per normal). In the late 70s I got my first M1 delivered to my door for $112.70, never forget that day.

I was shooting for the AK NG at the time and I was packing for a match in Hawaii on Friday. The M1 was delivered on Thursday. I openned the package, looked at the M1, then over to the gun case holding my M14. Looked at the M1 again, then the M1, and says what the heck. I replaced the M14 with the Garand. We had an Air Guard guy on our team who was using the Air Guards M1. Barrowed some ammo and a couple clips.

The first shots I fired out of my Garand was the two sighters for the 200 yard Off Hand stage of the 800 AG match. The sights of the M1 are the same as that on the M14 so it is on the M14, A couple quick adjustments and I was on. Didnt do that bad in that match if I remember right.

I got a couple other M1s from the CMP, but that first M1 is my primary for shooting CMP Garand Matches.

 

[HiBC]

In the early/mid 60's,prior to the aftermath of JFK's death,I recall the ads for outfits such as Klein's being common in various magazines and newspapers.
It would be like a page out of Shotgun News in Popular Mechanics.

These are the ads infamous for the $12 Carcano. I might be fuzzy on exact prices,but Garands were advertised for + or - $79. M1-Carbines were + or -$45.
send them a money order and they would mail you the gun.

There was also the wonderful Service Armament catalogue.

It sold .55 Boyes anti tank rifles,20 mm Lahtis and Solothurns,etc...operational,and ammo. IIRC,20 mm was about $1.50 a round. No doubt the source of the Solothurn in the book "Unintended Consequences"

They sold 60 and 81 mm mortars,inert practice ammo,Japanese knee mortars,flame throwers......You want a Ferret Armored Car? No problem.

They even sold tanks.

For the Stalwart Fellow who may need to repel the terrorist.

Somehow,we got along. We were a more Polite Society then.

 

[4V50 Gary]

It's my understanding that they were being sold in the '60s, then it was cut off and all that was left was re-welds of dubious quality. Supply didn't ease up again until the '70s.

 

[Double Naught Spy]

Bart is correct (per normal). In the late 70s I got my first M1 delivered to my door for $112.70, never forget that day.

But if you would have purchased one in 1963, you could have paid less than $80.
https://gundigest.com/more/classic-guns/popular-collectable-m1-garand

Here is the Klein's ad from 1963 where Oswald ordered his Carcano rifle, but listed in the ad are M1 Garands for $90.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy_assassination_rifle

 

[2damnold4this]

Looking at the add DNS linked, it seems crazy to me that a High Standard .22 derringer was the same price as a Colt 1917 in 45 ACP.

 

[HiBC]

Back to the original post,if you are wondering if the Garand was ever intended to be a civilian sporting rifle...No.
It was purpose built to submit to the military.

An interesting recoil operated ,rotating bolt semi-auto that was intended for commercial rather than military purposes was the model 08 (1908) Remington.

Not an ideal military rifle,bt a decent sporting rifle.

 

[LRDGCO]

As per HiBC, Remington and Winchester both began offering semi automatic rifles to the general public as commercial production during the second half of the first decade of the 20th century. Some of both were used, rather unsuccessfully by the French in WWI, and rather more successfully by law enforcement (notably F Hamer v. C. Barrow) but they were civilian firearms.

Interestingly, the M1 Garand, was I be!ieve officially adopted by the Army in 1936. In 1939, a case that Democrats had cooked up with Roosevelt to judicially ratify the 1934 National Firearms Act made its way to his packed SCOTUS. In " Miller", the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction, and; 2) the short barreled shotgun was not in common use.

The Left rues the day. Miller is judicial precedent which the Court must take into account in any further rulings. Ironically, since the AR15 is the obvious civilian counterpart to the main battle rifle of the U.S. military and since the MSR has been the most popular selling model of rifle for more than a decade, it is most definitely in common use. Further, since there were plenty of semi auto rifles in common use for decades when Miller was decided, and the M1 Garand had been adopted as the main military infantry rifle, there can be no question that Miller clearly protects semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. The irony is so very delicious.

 

[agtman]

As per HiBC, Remington and Winchester both began offering semi automatic rifles to the general public as commercial production during the second half of the first decade of the 20th century. Some of both were used, rather unsuccessfully by the French in WWI, and rather more successfully by law enforcement (notably F Hamer v. C. Barrow) but they were civilian firearms.

Interestingly, the M1 Garand, was I be!ieve officially adopted by the Army in 1936. In 1939, a case that Democrats had cooked up with Roosevelt to judicially ratify the 1934 National Firearms Act made its way to his packed SCOTUS. In " Miller", the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction, and; 2) the short barreled shotgun was not in common use.

The Left rues the day. Miller is judicial precedent which the Court must take into account in any further rulings. Ironically, since the AR15 is the obvious civilian counterpart to the main battle rifle of the U.S. military and since the MSR has been the most popular selling model of rifle for more than a decade, it is most definitely in common use. Further, since there were plenty of semi auto rifles in common use for decades when Miller was decided, and the M1 Garand had been adopted as the main military infantry rifle, there can be no question that Miller clearly protects semi automatic rifles under the Second Amendment. The irony is so very delicious.

Huh?

And then there's the Heller decision which articulated a new framework of analysis for 2A claims. It effectively, albeit sub silencio, overruled Miller or at least limited it to its facts.

 

[LRDGCO]

It should be fairly clear, just in case it wasn't, that fora on the internet are a bad place to get legal advice. It would appear that you are suggesting Heller somehow negates and erases the ruling in Miller. It does not.

 

[44 AMP]

No such thing. The troopies were not allowed to keep their issue kit. Any rifle that was brought back in a duffle bag is stolen.

There is the "official" policy and then there is what often happened. Some guns were definitely stolen. Others were not. I have heard from a number of US WWII vets how, when they were discharged from service they were offered the chance to buy their service rifle/handgun. And if they chose to, they got a bill of sale, so that the guns weren't "stolen".

I also understand that to keep the brass happy, at least some of the guns which were sold, were listed in the records as "lost in combat". It appears that the official policy was troops didn't get to keep them, but the unofficial policy was that troops could buy them if they so desired, and if the guns were "lost in combat" the brass looked the other way...

the majority opinion held that the NFA ban on short barreled shotguns was constitutional on two main grounds: 1) the military allegedly had no need for such firearms and, relying to the militia clause in the Second Amendment, the Court deemed firearms for which there was no military need subject to restriction...

what I have heard about this is that the High Court used "court speak" in its ruling, and didn't actually say the shotgun in the case wasn't a suitable militia weapon, but rather said "this court has been presented no evidence..." (because the defense didn't show up) and therefore, ruled in the government's favor.

Either way, the result was the same, the Gov won which gave the appearance of the Court's blessing to what they claimed, and did.

 

[agtman]

It would appear that you are suggesting Heller somehow negates and erases the ruling in Miller. It does not.

Still wrong, chief.

McReynold's Miller opinion was a convoluted piece of crap. The only few points it got right Scalia picked up on in Heller, which is now the controlling framework for all 2A claims anyway, despite significant resistance by anti-2A judges on the lower federal district and appellate courts.

Hence the need for Trump to get appointed & confirmed as many Scalia-type 'originalists' as possible to vacancies on the federal benches.

 

[LRDGCO]

You made a claim that is false, and now you are trying to weasel back out of it. Heller does not erase Miller. You do not understand jurisprudence.

 

[Frank Ettin]

You made a claim that is false, and now you are trying to weasel back out of it. Heller does not erase Miller. You do not understand jurisprudence. ....

One of your problems is that you don't bother to actually read cases.Of course you also lack sufficient foundational legal knowledge to really understand what's going on. If Heller did not erase Miller, it pretty much relegated it to the status of an historical oddity.

In any case, in United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174, 59 S.Ct. 816, 83 L.Ed. 1206 (1939) the Court described the core issue as (at 178):

...In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State of Tennessee, 2 Humph., Tenn., 154, 158.

          The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power—'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, § 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view....

On the other hand, in Dist. of Columbia v. Heller, 128 S.Ct. 2783, 171 L.Ed.2d 637, 554 U.S. 570 (2008) the Court notes (at 628-629, footnotes omitted):

....As the quotations earlier in this opinion demonstrate, the inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right. The handgun ban amounts to a prohibition of an entire class of “arms” that is overwhelmingly chosen by American society for that lawful purpose. The prohibition extends, moreover, to the home, where the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute. Under any of the standards of scrutiny that we have applied to enumerated constitutional rights, banning from the home “the most preferred firearm in the nation to ‘keep’ and use for protection of one's home and family,” 478 F.3d, at 400, would fail constitutional muster.

        Few laws in the history of our Nation have come close to the severe restriction of the District's handgun ban. And some of those few have been struck down. ...

        It is no answer to say, as petitioners do, that it is permissible to ban the possession of handguns so long as the possession of other firearms ( i.e., long guns) is allowed. It is enough to note, as we have observed, that the American people have considered the handgun to be the quintessential self-defense weapon. There are many reasons that a citizen may prefer a handgun for home defense: It is easier to store in a location that is readily accessible in an emergency; it cannot easily be redirected or wrestled away by an attacker; it is easier to use for those without the upper-body strength to lift and aim a long gun; it can be pointed at a burglar with one hand while the other hand dials the police. Whatever the reason, handguns are the most popular weapon chosen by Americans for self-defense in the home, and a complete prohibition of their use is invalid....

The Court in Miller saw the protection afforded by the Second Amendment to be limited to the keeping of arms suitable military use. In contrast, the Court in Heller makes no such connection. And in Heller the Court noted (at 623):

...Miller stands only for the proposition that the Second Amendment right, whatever its nature, extends only to certain types of weapons.

        It is particularly wrongheaded to read Miller for more than what it said, because the case did not even purport to be a thorough examination of the Second Amendment. Justice STEVENS claims, post, at 2845, that the opinion reached its conclusion “[a]fter reviewing many of the same sources that are discussed at greater length by the Court today.” Not many, which was not entirely the Court's fault. The defendants made no appearance in the case, neither filing a brief nor appearing at oral argument; the Court heard from no one but the Government (reason enough, one would think, not to make that case the beginning and the end of this Court's consideration of the Second Amendment)...

So as the Court in Heller, attempting to salvage something of Miller, interprets Miller (at 624-625):

....We think that Miller 's “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” State v. Kessler, 289 Ore. 359, 368, 614 P.2d 94, ..

 

[Pathfinder45]

Seems like this thread has drifted off topic by quite a bit......

 

[agtman]

Seems like this thread has drifted off topic by quite a bit.

Maybe a bit, but Frank nailed it.

LRDGCO is still trying hard to figure it out.

End of discussion.