I want one

Notice he has a nice recoil pad on it.

I still want one

Talk to this guy.

http://forum.shuffsparkerizing.com/search.php?searchid=143529

kwg

I'm thinkin' you'd need a plentiful supply of operating rods.

Not if the porting is done correctly and the proper burn rate of powder is used.

It would have to be properly engineered. It appears some attention was paid to that, the ejection doesn't seem to be overly violent.

Then there are those adjustable plugs.

Maybe so.

Yep, you can do about anything with a gas operated gun if its worked up correctly.

You just have to understand how they work and what they need on a burning curve and how much port presssure you'll end up with.

In fact its a guess of mine with proper porting you could run M1 06 with powders you are not supposed to, if the calcs and porting were changed.

Its how we came up with running the 90s in 223 AR15 with no issues. Without smaller ports the 90s and their powder were not a great thing, lots of rim lifts from the first go round when we knew we had no pressure to speak of yet.

You are correct. Adjustable plugs are available in two designs, called the Schuster and McCann plugs, that feature adjustable orifices for bleeding off excess gas pressure.

A third and interesting design is by Eric Claypool, called the Ported Plug, and uses the principle of volume of area to lessen the peak pressure but provides a larger volume to continue to operate the action. A lower peak but more time under the curve. This allows for slower powders and heavier bullets to be used.

You can read his write-up and view well-presented data on his webpage, GarandGear.

No maybe. It's a fact.

Isn't the whole idea of a semi-auto to get multiple shots on target?

+1

Yup,......Forget 'maybe", chitcan the skepticism. That system defines adaptability, .....and in this country, properly engineering something is not about pipe dreams.

Neat stuff !

GTC

It's a balance of mass (bolt), spring rates, velocity of the bullet in the barrel (this affects time under the curve), and how much ooomph, in both volume and pressure, is needed at the piston. There are other factors, but this is a simple version so I can understand it.

The shape of the Op-rod will lend itself to bending, and even ol' John C. said it could use improvement, but the Government took it as it was.

The version we know and love so well is an adaptation of his original design for a smaller caliber, but Gen. MacArthur (SP?) was adamant about it being in .30-gov.

MacArthur was right too. We had 30-06 rounds, and logistics won the war.

Absolutely

They are the real McCoy and were built here in WA (not sure if they are still around) . A few buddies had them in .458WM and .338WM. IIRC they run like $2200.

Google McCann Industries for more info.

That's because in it's standard configuration it is not set up for a steady diet of 190 grain bullets. There are ways to work around that. Schuster and McCann plugs are one way, easily obtained and not expensive at about $35. I know guys who are running 208 AMAXs and IMR4350 with the right mods. Which is those 35 dollar plugs.

A Garand's gas system is designed around the M1 and M2 loads, more specifically the M2. If you get away from those loads in powder burn rate or bullet weight (150 to 175 grain), you will bend the op-rod.

Tune the system to the load and you'll be good to go.

Heavy bullets play havoc with a standard Garand gas system due to the time under the pressure curve as much as total pressure due to the lower velocity, giving the system time to take on more volume of gas and continue to accelerate even if the burn rate of the powder is correct. This can lead to battering and bending from continued use due to the reciprocating parts moving too fast. The heel of the receiver can become another area that fails, too.

Increasing the volumetric capacity of your system(GarandGear), or bleeding the excess off(McCann or Shuster), will allow you to eliminate or significantly reduce any problems you may have. Keep the reciprocating speed near design parameters and your parts will last.

I use the GarandGear plug in mine.

I haven't built a whole lot of Garands, and the ones I have only have been in .30-06 and .308. But looking at the ejection pattern, I'd say that particular gas system is pretty well engineered correctly.

The .458 Win ought to be a great cartridge in the M1 gas-wise. It uses relatively fast powders which should give fairly low port pressure.

The only real problem I see is bedding. M1s don't have great bedding surfaces and soft stocks (like beech) shoot loose quite rapidly just from the recoil of 30/06. I'd have the receiver lugged and use a laminate stock.

as i posted on another thread: Interesting enough saturday i went to look at a mint asaki landing rifle that a 90 year old vet had. he was considering selling, and i told him i was interested.
he was on McArthur's staff in 1946 in japan. He showed me a loaded round he had confused with going with the asaki. It was a 1935 F.A. (frankfurt arsonel) 30.06 round that he had brought home with him. Interesting in that it was made 10years prior to the conclusion of the war. While the m1 Garand was to be basically a .270, all that ammo is what influenced the decision for 30.06. I have some spam cans of ammo dating back to WWII in the pacific. Almost tempting, to open it to see the headstamps, but not going to do it.
The japanese rife by the way was pristine, with the mum on it, leather sling, mint bayonet/scabbard. only hope he sells it to me.

Lots of dumbazzes in the shooting world! This is proof!!

Thanks. And Barry, double lugs make a lot of sense. I believe the stock in the OP's vid was laminate.

A 35 Whelen Garand with a Medesha scout scope mount would be too cool.

Tim LeGendre of LeMag in Fenton MI was making these back in the '90's. He was fired up about the prospect of South Korea cutting loose all of those Garands and Carbine. Clinton made sure they never came here. Tim went on to the AR platform and designed the .45 Professional which is the .450 Bushmaster.

No practical use for this except to be able to tell your bubbas you've got one. 'Seems about as useful as a solar powered ash tray.

hell of a pig gun.....was watching Boddington hunt water buff and feral cattle in the Philippines with a M14 a couple weeks ago on TV and while the 308 wasnt ideal the semi-auto rifle in the close quarters of the dense vegitation they were hunting made it work good....a M1 in 458 would be even better.....

Rattler, sadly the professional hunter that Boddington was with was gored very badly after that hunt with Craig. I believe he is alive and recovering back here stateside.

oh that sucks......given the conditions they were hunting in i can see it happening....they were dealing with those bulls at damn near powder burn ranges at times....

Rifle Magazine had an article years ago by a S. African game warden who had stopped several Cape Buff's. About half with a 375 and the other half with an FAL. Don't recall the ammo.

Why does practicality have to have anything to do with it?

If someone wants one for the sake of havingnone. That should be practical enough to build it. Unless I missed where it said your opinion matters to anyone but you!

Just like we need guys to go to strip clubs so the "soiled doves" can work their way through college, we need guys to commission rifles like this to keep gunsmiths from becoming windmill mechanics.

I have seen one of these, though w/o the scope, and you are right, it is cool.

Another poster mentioned the practicality of a laminated stock. There are some nice ones available and it would certainly be beneficial in something like this. It would hold up better and would increase the Garand's already considerable weight.

I don't recall saying it ever did matter to anyone but me-but apparently it matters to you or you wouldn't have gotten your little g-string in a bunch!

No but you stated that there was NO practical use for it. I asked whybthete had to be a practical use. And if someone wanted on just to have one. Wasnt that practical enough

By the phrasing of your statement you leave interpretation of your statement to be the end all be all as if your opinion should carry weight

A 35 Whelen Garand with a laminate stock would do nicely for Christmas. Double down with a 338 Fed in M1A and I'd be a happy man.

I almost picked up an M1A SOCOM the other day. But i couldnt figure out a way to itemize in in my uniform allowance

Should still get the tax write off...

Not that I'm interested in one, but if I were going to own one it would be in either a laminated or a carbon fiber thumbhole stock with a magna ported barrel to handle the recoil and yes it would be like comparing apples to oranges but the thumbhole walnut stock and magna porting sure did go a long way in taming the felt recoil on my 300 Weatherby.

McCann Industries in Wa who makes this also makes a wicked carbon fiber stock for the Garland.

Pedersen measured it at the lands, it's a 7x51 more like a lightly loaded 7mm-08. Too bad Garand didn't chamber it in 6.5 Sweed, THAT would have made a great combo and might have been worth issuing as is.

Edit: Hey I just learned something. Went reading about the Pedersen rifle and he also had a 6.5mm version. The mil tested both his cartridges against the 30-06 and the 6.5 was the most lethal of the three, on pigs anyway. Bet it had less recoil and the best trajectory too. But the mil preferred the 7mm version, then dropped that one too.

I'd also like to know how they got a .458" hole in an M1 barrel.

Even in .30", those things are thin at the muzzle!

I think that it would be a custom proposition. With a lot of re-engineering.

What has me thinking is the sights, gas cylinder, GC lock, all that would have to be custom made to the larger diameter barrel, and the op-rod offset would be lower, more than likely causing contact issues with the lower band, necessitating a custom one

The center-to-center distance would increase quite a bit with that much increase in the barrel O.D..

Then, what kind of issues would you have with the change in relationship of the op-rod to the receiver tracks. You'd more than likely have to re-think the op-rod bends.

It could be done, but not cheaply. A BAR (Browning sporting rifle) would be much easier. Start with a .300 or .338 mag....

Yeah, simple, right?

Man,

....you could give Gary Kuhnhausen a run for his money, speaking "gas-gun tech".



Kudos.

GTC

Thanks.

I've never modified a gas-gun. Built plenty of bolts.

I am trained as an Engineer, though. Sometimes, I wished I could just look at something, and take it for what it is....

Yup,....can relate to that, myself.

GTC

i use to have the link to the company that makes them, they also offer it in 338.if i remember right they run about 5 grand.

I'd like to find that link and check 'em out.

I'll have to admit, though, that I like the Garand just as it is or maybe in .35 Whelen.

Google McCann Industries in Spanaway Washington. They made these a few years ago, not sure of they still do.

Was that the outfit that was fitting M60 gas systems to M1s and M1As ?

GTC

I checked their web site and it doesn't look like they do.

I'm surprised that somebody has come up with something like this from scratch. I would imagine any patents on the M-1 have expired by now. I can see a M-1 type action with a detachable 8-round magazine as a dangerous game rifle.

Springfield Armory (TM) made some M1s, but not completely from scratch. It is a very expensive design to produce.

ETA: They used a lot of original production parts.

I'm not an engineer so I don't know but is the M-14 that much different from the M-1? I used both in the service extensively and broke them down and I didn't notice any real difference but as I said I'm no engineer.

The M14's use of detachable magazines, rather then the mechanisms used with the enbloc clip of the M1 simplifies it by a measurable amount.

And there's no more Garand thumb...

springfield as apposed to the original springfield armory was making m1garands for a while, but they weren't the same as the original. Those i believe were cast recievers used on the newer production

i have heard the m14 often refered to as the son of the garand, which is correct, but it is different. It uses a magazine the garand a clip. Gas system is different too.
the production garand was 30.06, the m14 7.62x51

As a dedicated NATO military arm, the Beretta variant was the hands down winner.

7.62 X 51,......

No fragile 'Roller',semi auto only, 20 round detachable mag, and short enough to be a "Scout", before that became chic( that said with all due respect for the departed Col. Cooper).

I've shot several, and they're pretty squared away units.

GTC

The Italian BM-59 is in 7.62 and features a 20 round detachable mag.

There are various conversions around that fed the Garand with a BAR mag(Military rifle).

One of these used as a basis and with sound engineering would be just that, though I can't think of too many bear that would shrug off 8 well-placed 220 grainers. .35 Whelen would be even more formidable.

Thanks for all the input.

Well breaking both the M-14 and the M-1 down for cleaning etc. of course I would never notice any engineering difficulties as I'm not an engineer but I can see where the enbloc mechanism of the M-1 would require more engineering than a straight magazine. Also the gas port on the M-14 is moved half way down the barrel whereas the gas port on the M-1 is only a few inches from the muzzle. I would imagine that would change how the operating rod functions.