My Daily Kona

Due to its impressive combat performance during the Second World War, Gen. George S. Patton dubbed the M1 Garand "the greatest battle implement ever devised." That said, the Garand did suffer some setbacks over the course of its design, trial and ultimate adoption by the U.S. military. One of the most commonly held misconceptions of the entire process is the claim that the United States Marine Corps was entirely uninterested in a semi-automatic service rifle but finally came to adopt and love the M1 Garand and, with that, replace the time-honored M1903 Springfield.

One frequently repeated notion is that the Marines fought the adoption of the Garand because of a belief that it would waste ammunition and degrade their foundational “every Marine is a rifleman” ethos. The story goes: The "Old Guard," who were more conservative and resisting change, delayed the adoption as long as they could. It wasn't until after the Guadalcanal campaign in 1942, when Marines fought the Japanese alongside U.S. Army troops carrying the M1 Garand service rifle, that they saw the errors of their ways and left their M1903 bolt-action rifles in the past to adopt the new semi-automatic rifle.

While it’s a plausible theory, especially given the historical conservative nature of military decisions makers, in truth, it is mostly apocryphal and certainly does not tell the story contained in primary source documentation at the National Archives. These documents show a more nuanced relationship between the Marines and the M1 Garand. The chief of ordnance saw the value of an infantryman wielding a semi-automatic rifle against an enemy that would likely field a bolt-action rifle. One of the earliest accounts of this is suggested at Springfield Armory in 1902. However, at that time, they could never get it to work correctly. Even during the First World War, the U.S. Army continually looked for the technological edge on the battlefield in the hands of the rifleman, even investing heavily into the ultimately unnecessary 1903 Mark I and M1918 Pistol (Pedersen Device). 

Although that project will go down in U.S. military history as a colossal failure, it didn't stop the U.S. military. In the early 1920s, two prominent designers were the front-runners in designing the next U.S. infantry rifle on a semi-automatic platform. Those were John D. Pedersen and John C. Garand. Ultimately, John Garand would win the competition, but his story with the Marine Corps is complex.

Initial Interest and Orders
Through the Department of the Navy, the Marines’ interest in the M1 Garand predates the jungles of Guadalcanal by a decade. In 1932, Secretary of the Navy Charles Francis Adams III suggested field trials of John Garand’s experimental semi-automatic rifle (T3E2) chambered in .276 Pedersen. He mentioned that the final test of any tool is its performance in combat. Owing to that fact, he suggested that Nicaraguan National Guard Detachment, which is composed of personnel of the Marine Corps and is frequently engaged in combat in that area, would perform a suitable combat trial. He requested 10 of these rifles with 30,000 rounds of ammunition to conduct a test. General Douglas MacArthur issued a reply in March 1932 that such a test could not be authorized. It should be noted that this predates the adoption of the Garand in .30-06 Sprg., and this suggestion was made while the Garand was still chambered for its original .276 cartridge.

General Douglas MacArthur denies the Marine Corps field test of the Garand semi-automatic rifle (T3E2) in .276-cal. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

Although the request was denied, the Marines' interest in the Garand persisted. On Oct. 3, 1935, Victor H. Czegka wrote to Maj. Julian Hatcher of the Ordnance Department that he intended to visit Springfield Armory with Melvin Johnson, a reserve officer of the U.S.M.C. at the time. Specifically, they mentioned they would greatly appreciate the privilege of viewing the new "Garand gun." It should be pointed out to the readers that Johnson and Czegka were both active in the firearms industry at that time, with Johnson later developing the Johnson Automatic Rifle (itself being eventually evaluated and fielded by the Marine Corps), and Czegka winning the prestigious Wimbledon Cup, a celebrated long-range shooting event. They were well-known personalities, yet on Oct. 10, Lieut. Col. S. H. MacGregor denied their request with a simple “permission can not [sic] be granted to you to examine this weapon.”

The Marine Corps' persistent interest would continue into early 1936 when the commandant of the Marine Corps placed an order with the chief of ordnance for:

"400 rifles, U.S., semiautomatic, caliber .30, M1, complete with spare parts, equipment common to the caliber .30 M1903 rifle, and except that only four clip-loading machines should be supplied." 

This order amounted to $44,400 plus $100 shipping and handling. This price was later amended by the Paymaster General of the Navy Department to $54,100.00 (with the $100 shipping charge). To add context, this would reflect a price tag of $1,180,714.99 ($2,182.47 shipping and handling) adjusted for inflation to the year 2023.

The first 100 M1 Garand rifles were received at the Philadelphia Depot on March 12, 1938, and retained, awaiting further instructions by the quartermaster of that depot. The following month, on April 8, 1938, Lt. Col. S. P. Spalding wrote the quartermaster of the depot, noting his verbal request that all 400 rifles be provided at approximately the same time. Because of this, and because the Army urgently needed the rifles, it was agreed upon that the U.S.M.C. would return those first 100 rifles to the Army, with 400 rifles earmarked for the Marines after June 30, 1938. On April 22, a memorandum was drafted indicating that the 100 M1 Garand rifles were shipped to the ordnance officer at Fort Benning, Ga., by the Merchant's Mining Company on April 11th. The Marines' opportunity to test a semi-automatic rifle would have to wait.

Victor H. Czegka with Melvin Maynard Johnson eagerly requesting permission to see John Garand’s new rifle semi-automatic rifle. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

The Ordnance Department finally sent some much-awaited news that they would ship 398 rifles to the U.S.M.C. Depot of Supplies on Sept. 15, 1938, and that two rifles had been sent to Marine Corps schools in Quantico, Va., earlier that month. Army Ordnance also wanted to make the U.S.M.C. aware of the long list of difficulties accompanying the rifles and their testing. One of the primary issues was that the standard cleaning rod used was too long. Because the rifle had to be cleaned from the muzzle instead of the breech, it caused damage to the rear wall of the receiver and the head of the bolt, something that was being addressed with the production of a shorter cleaning rod.

Finally, on Nov. 19, 1938, the director of the Division of Operations and Training wrote to the commandant of the U.S.M.C. that a marksmanship and field test should be conducted to determine whether the new rifle, U.S., caliber .30, M1, should replace the M1903 Springfield rifle. He further noted that the current strength of rifle units in an infantry battalion of the Fleet Marine Force (FMF) is approximately 255 enlisted men (armed with the rifle). Owing to the fact the number of rifles ordered (400) provided a sufficient number to equip the rifle units of one battalion, an additional platoon, and furnish several Marine Corps Schools and Basic Schools that, a distribution of the following should be made:

On Jan. 3, 1939, the commandant of the U.S.M.C. notified the commandant of the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico that they would receive 10 rifles from the Depot of Supplies, which includes two that had already been accepted. He further notified him that the school would be receiving the following:

• Essential parts and accessories.
• Basic Field Manuals for the U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30 M1
• Charts for Instruction
• 1,056 cartridges, ball caliber .30 M1, loaded on clips of (8) cartridges each (1 box containing 132 loaded clips).

The Basic School at Philadelphia would receive the same components above, except getting 35 rifles instead of 10 and 13,728 cartridges instead of 1,056. It was requested that reports be made and returned to the U.S.M.C. Commandant by June 30, 1940, and the reports should contain the following:

• Total ammunition fired.
• Rounds were fired from each rifle.
• Classes of stoppages, causes, and corrective measures for each rifle.
• Malfunctions or broken parts for each rifle.
• Injuries caused by rifles, if any, to personnel.
• A tabulation of firing results for experts, sharpshoots, marksmen, and unqualified personnel.
• Results of musketry and combat firing were tabulated and compared with similar firings done with the M1903 rifle and Browning Automatic Rifle.
• Accuracy of the M1 rifle as compared with M1903 and Browning Automatic Rifle
• Suitability or use in bayonet use.
• Simplicity of mechanical construction.
• Each and Simplicity of assembling and disassembling.
• The suitability of the sights.
• Fatigue from firing the M1 rifle as compared with firing the M1903 and Browning Automatic Rifle.
• Recommendations, if any, for correcting mechanical deficiencies of the rifle.
• Recommendations as to spare parts that should be furnished with each rifle.
• Does the M1 rifle perform satisfactorily in the capacity in which intended, namely as a replacement for the M1903 bolt action rifle?
• Any other information of pertinent nature is not covered above.

Lieutenant-Colonel MacGregor of the Ordnance Department very concisely gave Czegka and Johnson a curt “no” in their request. Photo courtesy of Archival Research Group.

By February 1939, reports came in from the 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade and Fleet Marine Force in San Diego that many new rifles received had rusted (pitted) barrels when they were received. Reports of any defects were to be reported to the U.S.M.C. commandant at the earliest practicable date. On Feb. 17, 1939, the commanding officer of 1st Btn., 6th Marines, notified the U.S.M.C. commandant of the news. Specifically, he reported that 300 rifles had been received in new arms chests and were packed with heavy oil but not cosmoline. He described the following:

"In general, the rifles were found to be dirty and rusty. Large carbon deposits and powder fowling [sic] were found in the bores and also in the gas cylinders, and rust was noted on some working parts as well. The bores of the rifles were found to be badly pitted to the extent of about 1 in 12 rifles, slightly pitted in about 1 out of 2 rifles, and very slightly pitted in 1 out of about 6. Precisely of the 263 rifles issued and covered by the enclosures, the following conditions were found:

                 Badly pitted bore…………………….22

                 Slightly pitted bore…………………...152

                 Very slightly pitted bore………………45."

Later that month, the Marine Corps Schools at Quantico reported that the 10 rifles it received had no defects upon inspection. The Marine Basic School in Philadelphia noted that its 35 rifles had received prior inspection for defects; each rifle was disassembled and thoroughly cleaned. The barrels and chambers of all rifles were found to be free from defects. However, upon cleaning the grease from the bores, it was noted that the cleaning patches from several rifles came out very black, indicating these rifles had not been cleaned as prescribed and were lucky to escape damage.

The commanding officer of the 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade FMF followed up with a previous report denoting that 13 of the 14 rifles sent to Philadelphia as being pitted and were found mechanically defective from "cuts, flaws and tool marks." Eight of them were so defective as to be unserviceable. He further noted that a large percentage of the new rifles were not of the type of workmanship that his officers were accustomed to handling.

This parallels a previous report from the commandant, who had noted that Springfield Armory had experienced some issues in the quality of the steel stock purchased for the manufacture of the M1 rifle. The flaws encountered by the Marines in the finished product support this. He further noted that Springfield Armory informed him that it will take some time to adjust the new machines to the type of steel they are using. This accounts for some barrels with tool marks and occasional cuts in the bore. The M1 Garand was going through some significant growing pains before turning into the finished product that served admirably throughout World War II.

The modification (arrow) on the inside of the receiver showing the modification to fix the “7th round stoppage.” The discoloration on the “rib” showing where extra metal was welded to fix that problem

The situation would get even more complicated when the commanding officer of Co. B, 1st Batn., 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade, stated that the rifles were carefully inspected upon receipt. He noted:

"All rifles were received with bores in a very dirty condition. They have the appearance of having been fired, then greased and packed without previously completing a course of cleaning suitable for prolonged storing. The bores were coated with a medium but sufficiently heavy coat of grease. The mechanical parts were dry, and in some cases, and on a few rifles, rust had begun to appear." He further noted that, in nearly all cases, the gas cylinders were found to be pitted after cleaning, and the gas cylinder plug was covered with a heavy coat of carbon. 

It's clear that the Marine Corps’ desire to test a semi-automatic rifle was off to a rocky start, and it wasn't until May 1940 that a full report could be written on how the rifles performed. It should be emphasized that the rifles were first ordered in 1936, and the test wasn't concluded with a final report until the middle of 1940.

The report indicated that they fired a total of 244,845 rounds in testing during the 1939 targeting year. The report also recorded 131 stoppages, malfunctions or broken parts (this includes disregarding gas cylinder plugs out of line, cracked stocks, etc.). It also reported that 22.1 percent of the present rifles had some stoppage or malfunction that would have put the rifles permanently out of action in the field. Other notable comments were as follows:

• In every instance except one, the M-1 proved superior to the M-1903 in musketry and combat exercises when reduced to the everyday basis of the number of hits scored per round per minute.
• All reports indicated that the M-1 rifle was more accurate than the Browning Automatic Rifle but less accurate than the M-1903.
• M-1 was suitable for bayonet combat.
• The M-1 is easier to assemble and disassemble than the Browning Automatic Rifle.
• There is considerably less fatigue from firing the M-1 rifle than is experienced with the M-1903 or Browning Automatic Rifle.
• The effective rate of fire is 16-20 shots per minute.
• Clips must be handled carefully to prevent rust, denting, or other damage which will cause malfunction.
• It is believed that salvaged clips can be used for a limited time and that most of the ammunition for the M-1 rifle should be purchased already loaded on clips to obtain the best results. Reloading the clips is a slow process.
• The rifle must be fieldstripped for cleaning, which improves the protection of several working parts from loss and dirt during the process. 
• The bolt and receiver assembly becomes loose due to wear on the locking lugs.

The M1 debut with the Marine Corps proved rocky but favorable. But the U.S.M.C. understood the M1 was in its infancy and would have improvements made on later models. Some of those recommended improvements included:

• Change the front sight blade to .05 or .06 inch width.
• Reduce the size of the rear sight aperture slightly.
• Improve the design of the rear sight
• Provide a better quality of metal and the fit of the trigger pin.
• Change the design and material in the front hand guards to prevent cracking.
• Modify the method of holding the receiver group in stock to eliminate play which develops due to wear on the locking lugs
• Improve the type of chamber cleaning tool.

And lastly, the most critical question: "Does the M1 rifle perform satisfactorily in the capacity intended, namely a replacement for the M1903 bolt-action rifle?” The report answers this question in this way:

"There is serious doubt as to the suitability of the M1 rifle in its present state of development as a replacement for the M1903 rifle because of: the number of malfunctions experienced, even under satisfactory conditions under which the majority of those tests have been confirmed; the fact that the rifle requires extreme care and lubrication to ensure that it will function properly; and the defects reported by the 1st Marine Brigade FMF, as a result of the limited field test conducted at Culebra. This is especially true when one considers the type of service the Marine Corps as a whole in small wars and landing operations."

Between the wood is a March 1966 barrel stamp, which was likely due to the Department of Defense overhaul of M1 Garands beginning in 1963.

The Marines saw value in the new M1 rifle, but it also noted that it was going through some "growing pains." It also pointed out that the Ordnance Department recently changed the design of the barrel, gas cylinder and gas plug assemblies, and these improvements will go into mass production at Springfield Armory in mid-May 1940. This is when the design evolved from the "gas-trap" Garand to the "gas-port" Garand. These improvements were significant, as they would correct several problems encountered with the earlier designs.

In November 1940, the U.S.M.C. conducted yet another test. This was a competitive test between the M1903 Springfield Rifle, M1 Garand, Johnson Automatic Rifle and a Winchester semi-automatic Rifle. This test concluded that the M1 was superior to the M1903 under favorable conditions and that the M1 was considered suitable for arming components of the Marine Corps, which generally would not be called upon to operate under conditions approaching those of more severe tests. The most interesting comment was, "Judging by the experience with other rifles in the past, and the improvements which have been made and contemplated in the U.S. Rifle Caliber .30 M1, it may be expected that the operation of this rifle will be improved still further." While the Marine Corps certainly saw the merit in the M1, it just concluded that, in the gun’s present state, it wouldn't be suitable for front-line combat. The Marine Corps formally adopted the rifle on Feb. 18, 1941, a mere five years after the first purchase order.

Relics From The Tests
One rifle actually used in the early U.S.M.C. trials has been secured for photographs. Its serial number is 3706, and it first appeared on the inspection report from the commanding officer of Co. B," 1st Btn., 6th Marines, 2nd Marine Brigade, on Feb. 10, 1939. It was noted that, upon inspection, the barrel had pits on lands at a point 5" from the muzzle, and the gas cylinder was slightly pitted. It appears later in the report from May 1940 where it is recorded it had 260 rounds fired through it during the tests.  

Technical Specifications:
Serial Number: 3706
Receiver Drawing Number: D 28291
Barrel Date: 3-66
Stock: Letterkenny Replacement
Trigger Housing: D28290-18-SA
Bolt: D28287-12SA

It's unclear how long this rifle stayed in Marine Corps custody, because it appears to have returned to the Army at some point in its service life. In April 1941, the Ordnance Department acknowledges an inquiry from the Marine Corps quartermaster concerning the conversion of (gas trap to gas port) 400 rifles on hand at the Philadelphia Navy yard. The Ordnance Department suggests shipping those rifles to Springfield Armory to be converted. It is unclear if these rifles were in fact shipped to Springfield Armory, if they were exchanged for new rifles or if they were converted and shipped back to the quartermaster.

Receiver leg electro-penciling “LEAD” indicating overhaul at Letterkenny Army Depot in September 1966.

The toe of the receiver is marked "LEAD 9-66," which stands for Letterkenny Army Depot with the month and year of its overhaul. Beginning in early 1963, the Department of Defense began a plan of overhauling M1 Garands starting at Springfield Armory. Still, it would carry over into other arsenals around the country. The stock also possesses the "red triangle,” which is the mark of a Letterkenny replacement stock.

Red triangle marked stock which is a Letterkenny replacement stock.

It has been long believed that the U.S.M.C. fought tooth and nail against adopting the M1 Garand, that the corps wanted to maintain its treasured M1903 Springfield rifle until the Guadalcanal campaign changed their mind. However, looking through primary source documentation, it is clear that this was actually not the case. It's now known that the Marines took a very early interest in a semi-automatic rifle, dating all the way back to 1932. They would make their first orders in 1936 but would not be able to complete testing and file reports until 1939, due to a series of obstacles. The Marines would then conduct a second test against other possible semi-automatic platforms in late 1940.

The Marines also understood that there was significant value in the M1 Garand specifically. Still, they also understood that, as it stood in its early stages, it needed substantial improvements to reach the level of combat reliability they required. Accordingly, they took a more pragmatic approach to the problem: adopt it as an auxiliary firearm that would be issued to the troops away from the front lines. As the design improvements were adopted, the rifle became more reliable and expanded outwards. Once the supply was sufficient, the front-line combat troops would switch from the M1903 to the M1 Garand. Evidence of this was documented in February 1943 when the U.S.M..C stated it was receiving the M1 in sufficient supply and would transfer excess M1903s to the U.S. Navy. The rest is history.

 I saw this in one of my early "American Rifleman" Issues...Now if I got hold of a mid 50's Garand, I would consider something like this...but to my kayak sunk*sniff*Sniff*  departed WWII Era Garand.....NEVER

Caution: The following contains images of a modified M1 Garand rifle. While no M1s were permanently altered during the making of this project, collectors with a strong affinity for original-issue military arms may find it offensive. Reader discretion is advised.

Seriously, if the thought of modernizing the M1 Garand is anathema to you, please avoid unnecessary stress by not reading further. The goal here is not to suggest that a historically significant rifle be denigrated, rather it is to propose that John C. Garand’s classic old warhorse can become, with a few judiciously chosen updates, a modern general-purpose rifle.

The M1 was made in such great quantities, nearly 5.5 million, and for such a timespan, 1934 to 1957, that re-routing a few post-Korean War examples with no particular martial history should not pose a conflict for anyone. The late-1953 Harrington & Richardson M1 featured here is a perfect example. After acquiring it, I set about to modify it using off-the-shelf components that would increase its utility while keeping its overall weight to a reasonable limit. All were “bolt-on” and did not require gunsmithing or permanent changes to the rifle. Additionally, they were accomplished using only modest skills along with a few screwdriver bits and Allen wrenches.

As is, the M1 Garand is a highly capable rifle—rugged, hard-hitting, possessed of fine sights and an excellent trigger, and traditional in appearance and format—but with a few carefully considered modifications it can be an even more effective tool for all sorts of applications. In the past, it has been knocked for being (in no particular order): difficult to scope; ammunition-sensitive; finicky to load; heavy; and burdensome to fire unsupported. With the goal of correcting those deficiencies and reconfiguring it into a more useful tool, my first change involved scoping it.

The solution was a relatively recently devised one, and it is offered by more than one maker. Best of all, it gets the shooter on target more precisely without resorting to such tricks as the offset optical axis employed in the U.S. military’s M1C and M1D sniper variants. The model I chose, the M12 Forward Optic Mount ($185) by UltiMAK, replaces the rear handguard with a 15-slot section of Picatinny rail. The U.S.-made unit is machined of 6061-T6 aluminum and matt black anodized. It bolts directly to a standard G.I.-profile barrel with two machined 4140 steel clamps and comes with thorough installation instructions and the Allen wrenches necessary to attach it.

Once mounted, its minimalist profile positions the optical axis of a riflescope or red-dot sight low to, and directly over, the bore—in fact, co-witnessing of the iron sights is possible with the latter. I decided to go with a tried-and-true model of the former from Burris, the 2-7X 32 mm Scout ($429). With the company’s Ballistic Plex compensating reticle, the lower half of the scope’s vertical stadia line offers three short horizontal holdover references that can be calibrated to specific ranges depending on power setting and ammunition choice.

At low power, the optic serves in the both-eyes-open, snap-shooting role popularized by the scout rifle concept, and at higher power it offers excellent longer-range precision aiming nearly twice as powerful as that afforded the average World War II sniper. A set of 1” Low QRW detachable rings ($60) from Leupold preclude the need for an add-on cheek riser and make for quick, tool-less access to the iron sights should it be damaged.

Many modern factory loads exist for the .30-’06 Sprg. that exceed the specifications set for military ammunition originally intended for the Garand. To take advantage of some of them, and to avoid damage to the rifle, a change to the gas system is necessary. A few different concepts have been devised, usually involving modification of the gas plug. I chose the Ported Gas Plug ($40) by Garand Gear, an install-it-and-forget-it solution.

In essence, its hollowed-out base increases the gas cylinder’s overall volume, thereby effectively flattening the pressure curve of propellant gases acting on the piston at the end of the operating rod. Think of it as insurance against a bent operating rod and limited license to explore a wider range of ammunition offerings. Installation simply involves turning out the original gas plug and turning in the new one, which accepts 1/4”-square socket drive bit.

As is often the case with firearm projects, scouring gunshows and online sites is sometimes the only way to acquire all of the pieces of the puzzle. Two of the items detailed here fell into that category. The first was popularized as the “Holbrook device” after the veteran who formalized its manufacture and sale—although homemade versions have existed for many years and instructions on making one can be found online.

This modified operating rod catch simply swaps out with the original but significantly changes the M1’s method of operation in the following ways: A full or empty eight-round en bloc clip can be inserted into the rifle and will “click” into place, but the bolt will not close even on a slowly withdrawn thumb—thus the commercial version’s “thumbsaver” moniker. Then, the first round is loaded into the chamber by pulling back the operating rod handle and letting it fly forward. Also, an empty clip locked into the rifle can be loaded with from one to seven rounds singly. Finally, the device remains in the gun, with the bolt locked back, after the last round is fired and ejects from the rifle only after the clip latch has been manually depressed.

In short, the Holbrook device makes the M1 operate more like an M1A. The second item of uncertain availability is a synthetic stock—something that, at various times, mainstream manufacturers such as Bell & Carlson and Ramline, along with a few boutique makers, have produced for the M1 Garand. But demand has apparently receded to the point that no major maker currently offers a model. Still, I was fortunate enough to find a Bell & Carlson, and its black, pebble-finished lightweight fiberglass construction has transformed my M1 into a stronger, lighter, more weather-resistant and modern-looking rifle than could ever be achieved with walnut or laminates.

While a variety of slings are available for the Garand, most were intended either as simple carry straps or as full-on competition rigs for highpower shooting. One that strikes a balance between those roles, and that stands alone for its combination of simplicity and utilitarian elegance, is the 1¼” Rhodesian Sling ($76) by Andy’s Leather. Made of bridle leather and featuring solid brass hardware, it is available in all-black with a Cerakoted buckle. Once adjusted, its front loop section is easily engaged by the user’s support arm triceps, helping to get the rifle on target reasonably quickly and keep it there with amazing stability. It also serves well to carry the somewhat heavy M1 at the shoulder or diagonally across the back without additional adjustment.

Once all the parts were assembled, the modernized M1 Garand detailed here came in at 11 lbs. overall unloaded, which will likely shock those whose primary frame of reference is small-caliber aluminum-and-polymer modern sporting rifles. But it bears repeating that we’re looking at a 24”-barreled rifle chambered in .30-’06 Sprg. that is capable of delivering a 200-gr. bullet with nearly 1,000 ft.-lbs. of energy remaining at 500 yds.

But because the rifle’s mass is so well-distributed along its slender profile, and because of its smooth underbelly, carrying it, even with one hand at the side, it convenient. Indeed, the modernized M1 seems little more burdensome than the original appears to have been for millions of G.I.s. And, if anything, despite its increased capabilities, it still tends more toward “sporting” than “military” in appearance.

When it came to shooting the one profiled here off a bench using bags or from the standing position, recoil was reasonably mild—especially considering the power being sent downrange. After sighting in at 50 yds., at least one five-shot group using 175-gr. SIG Sauer V-Crown Elite Match Grade ammunition could be covered by a nickel.

With no worries about damaging the gun or getting “Garand thumb” while loading it, I was able to concentrate on shooting. And while replicating the exact configuration described here may be, admittedly, nigh impossible, it nonetheless serves to illustrate that the a modernized M1 Garand leverages classic strengths with updated ideas to provide the modern shooter with a rugged, capable general-purpose rifle.

I  Shamelessly "Nicked" this off "American Rifleman", It was another Garand article and of course I liked it immensely.  I did wonder if any Garands captured by any GI could come home as a "War Trophy".  I remember when I got a draganov rifle from some Iraqi's, and I tried to bring it home as a war trophy, and it was confiscated by the MP's...What the hell?   Now the AK's I got, Full Auto...Yeah, Yeah...but the Draganov was semi auto only, with a scope.  I betcha they took it home instead....rat bastards....

 I remember seeing my first "Tanker" Garand when I got out of the service and a friend of mine bought one from an "Ace Hardware" in Morrow that sold firearms and I thought it was unique, but I didn't think anything of it.  I wasn't into Garands back then, they had a couple more and I wish I had bought one for the novelty if nothing else.  I have heard that they are more difficult to shoot than a regular Garand because they are "stubbier" than a regular Garand, basically the full power out of compact package. but I really don't know.  I will have to ask someone that has one for their opinion that has one.  I saw this article on "American Rifleman and shamelessly "clipped it because it was very good and I found it very informative.

For several decades prior to the adoption of the Model 1903 Springfield rifle, the U.S. Army issued its U.S. Cavalry a carbine version of the standard U.S. Infantry rifle. The last official U.S. military carbine based on the standard infantry rifle was the Model 1899 .30-40 Krag, which had a 22" barrel as compared to the Model 1898 Krag rifle’s 30" barrel.

When the Model 1903 Springfield was in development, it was decided to equip the new rifle with a 24" barrel that was intended to be a compromise between the shorter cavalry carbine and the longer infantry rifle. Both the infantry and cavalry were generally pleased with the new rifle, and the concept of separate arms for the two branches of the Army was over. 

Nonetheless, there was still a fondness for the carbine in the minds of some of the former cavalrymen, who appreciated its light weight and handiness. There were two prototype carbine versions of the Model 1903 Springfield rifle fabricated in 1921 by Springfield Armory for testing and evaluation, but the concept never went beyond the prototype stage. 

“Tanker” Garands had nothing to do with tanks, and the vast majority were fabricated as commercial guns by companies such as Golden State Arms. NRA Archives

When the M1 Garand rifle was adopted in 1936, it had approximately the same overall length as the M1903, which made it suitable for issue to both infantry and cavalry units. Such was the case until America’s entry into World War II, when the concept of a shorter M1 rifle was considered.

Although the .30-cal. M1 carbine had been adopted in 1941, it was an entirely different category of arm, and it was not designed, nor intended, to fulfill the same role as the M1 rifle. The light and compact semi-automatic M1 carbine lacked range, accuracy and “stopping power” compared to the M1 Garand. As World War II progressed, it was envisioned that a shorter version of the M1 rifle would combine the Garand’s power and accuracy with the compactness of the M1 carbine.

The Jan. 20, 1944, Springfield Armory “Monthly Report of Progress on R&D Projects” stated that a modified short-barrel Garand rifle, weighing about 1 lb., 3 ozs., less than a standard M1, was fabricated by the 93rd Infantry Division and tested by the Infantry Board.

It was recognized that such an arm might be particularly valuable for paratroopers, as it was more powerful than the carbines and submachine guns currently in use. Preliminary testing revealed it had excessive recoil and muzzle blast, but it was recommended that it be developed further. The Infantry Board directed Col. Rene Studler to proceed with the project.

The task was assigned to Springfield Armory, and John C. Garand began work in January 1944. The resultant experimental arm, designated as the “U.S. Carbine, Cal. 30, M1E5,” was fitted with a specially made 18" barrel (not a shortened standard M1 rifle barrel) marked “1 SA 2-44” and a pantograph metal stock that folded neatly underneath the rifle. The receiver was marked “U.S. CARBINE/CAL. .30 M1E5/SPRINGFIELD/ARMORY/1.” It is interesting to note that it was designated as a carbine and not a rifle. 

Other than the folding stock, the basic M1 rifle was essentially unchanged with the exception of the short barrel, a correspondingly shortened operating rod (and spring) and the lack of a front handguard. The overall length was 37½" and it weighed approximately 8 lbs., 6 ozs. 

The M1E5 “Garand Carbine” was tested at Aberdeen Proving Ground in May 1944. It was determined that while accuracy at 300 yds. was on a par with the standard M1 rifle, recoil, muzzle blast and flash were excessive. It was recommended that a pistol grip be installed, which was done for subsequent testing.

Photos of the M1E5 in stocks with and without the pistol grip exist, which might suggest there were two different models, but this was not the case. The folding stock had been repaired several times and it proved to be rather uncomfortable when firing. Work began on a modified folding stock, designated as the “T6E3,” to improve the deficiencies found in the original pattern, but it was not fully developed. 

This Springfield Armory archival photo depicts an M1E5 rifle without a pistol grip below a standard M1 rifle.

The M1E5 suffered from the “compromise syndrome,” as it required a trade-off between compactness and performance. It was indeed more compact than the standard Garand rifle, but the short barrel made it an unpleasant gun to fire—and the advantages were not judged to be sufficient to offset the disadvantages. Further development of the M1E5 was suspended as other projects at Springfield, such as the selective-fire T20 series, were deemed to have a higher priority. Only one example of the M1E5 was fabricated for testing, and the gun resides today in the Springfield Armory National Historic Site Museum.

Despite the concept being shelved at Springfield Armory, the idea of a shortened M1 rifle was still viewed as potentially valuable for airborne and jungle combat use. Particularly in the Pacific Theater, there was widespread dissatisfaction with the M1 carbine’s range, power and foliage-penetration (“brush-cutting”) capability. The Ordnance Dept. was not responsive to these complaints coming in from the Pacific and maintained that the M1 rifle and M1 carbine each filled a specific niche.

Nonetheless, by late 1944 the Pacific Warfare Board (PWB) decided to move forward with the development of a shortened M1 rifle. Colonel William Alexander, chief of the PWB, directed an Army ordnance unit of the 6th Army in the Philippines to fabricate 150 rifles in this configuration for testing. Since the previous M1E5 project was not widely disseminated, it is entirely possible that the PWB may not have been aware of Springfield Armory’s development of a similar rifle, and conceived the idea independently. 

Some of the shortened M1 rifles were field-tested in October 1944 on Noemfoor Island, New Guinea, by an ad hoc “test committee,” which included three platoon leaders of the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment (PIR) Combat Team. While the members of the test committee liked the concept of the short M1 rifle, it was determined that the muzzle blast was excessive and was compared to a flash bulb going off in the darkened jungle. The conclusion of the test report stated that the shortened rifle was “totally unsuitable for a combat weapon.”

Even while the shortened M1 rifles were being evaluated by the 503rd PIR, two of them, Serial Nos. 2291873 and 2437139, were sent to the Ordnance Dept. in Washington, D.C., by special courier for evaluation. One of these rifles was then forwarded to Springfield Armory. The guys at Springfield must have felt a touch of déjà vu, as the rifle was very similar to the M1E5 built by the armory and tested at Aberdeen several months earlier.

The major difference was that the PWB rifle retained the standard M1 rifle wooden stock rather than the M1E5’s folding stock. The M1s shortened in the Philippines under the auspices of the PWB had been well-used prior to modification, and the conversion exhibited rather crude craftsmanship, including hand-cut splines on the barrel.

Upon receipt of the PWB rifle, Springfield Armory’s Model Shop fabricated a very similar shortened M1 that was designated as the “T26.” One of the more noticeable differences was that the shortened PWB rifle had a cut-down front handguard (secured by an M1903 rifle barrel band), while the T26 rifle was not fitted with a front handguard. It had been determined that the full-length stock was superior to the M1E5’s folding stock, so the T26 used a standard M1 rifle stock. 

Shown above is a T26 prototype rifle manufactured in Springfield Armory’s Model Shop in early 1945 above an M1 rifle modified under the auspices of the Pacific Warfare Board in the Philippines during late 1944 and sent to the Ordnance Department for evaluation and testing. Note the near-pristine condition of the former compared to the well-used condition of the latter.

It is sometimes claimed that Springfield Armory simply put the existing M1E5 action into an M1 stock and dubbed it the T26. This was not the case, as the T26 did not use the M1E5’s purpose-made (and marked) receiver, but was made with a standard M1 rifle receiver and newly made, specially modified parts.

Regardless, it is a bit curious that the Ordnance Dept. decided to go to the trouble of having Springfield Armory make up another shortened Garand for additional testing when the M1E5, which differed primarily in the type of stock, had been thoroughly tested several months previously with less than spectacular results.

The PWB rifle, Serial No. 2437139, and Springfield Armory’s T26 were sent to Aberdeen Proving Ground (APG) on July 26, 1945, for testing. The APG report related that a standard M1 rifle, Serial No. 1,032,921, was the “control” rifle to which the shorter rifle was compared during the testing. The results mirrored those of the M1E5’s previous testing. As related in the test report:

“The rifle tested was a standard cal. .30 M1 with barrel shortened approximately six inches. This alteration was accomplished in the Philippine Islands by an Ordnance Maintenance Company and the rifle was delivered to the Chief of Ordnance by a USAFFE Board representative for the test.

“The object of the test was to compare, by observation, the muzzle flash, smoke and blast of the shortened M1 rifle, with and without the flash hider, to that of the standard rifle.

“Conclusions:

“The muzzle flash of the modified rifle, with and without flash hider, was approximately eighty (80) percent greater than the flash of the standard rifle.

“The muzzle smoke of the modified rifle, with and without the flash hider was equivalent to that of the standard rifle.

“The muzzle blast of the modified rifle, with and without flash hider, was approximately fifty (50) percent greater than that of the standard rifle.

“The recoil of the modified rifle was noticeably heavier than that of the standard rifle.”

In addition to the increased recoil and muzzle flash/blast, functioning problems related to the shortened operating rod and the location of the gas port in the shortened barrel were noted during the testing. The fact that the gas port was positioned closer to the chamber as compared to the standard M1 rifle resulted in increased port pressure, which was detrimental to proper functioning.

It should be noted that only the shortened PWB rifle, and not the T26, was discussed in the Aberdeen test report. It is reported that the T26 rifle was damaged during the testing, which is presumably why it was left out of the final report. The ultimate disposition or whereabouts of the T26 rifle are not known, although it has been speculated that it was salvaged for parts.

Somewhat inexplicably, despite the less-than-stellar results of the previous testing, including the 503rd PIR test committee’s conclusion that the modified rifle was “totally unsuitable as a combat weapon,” the concept was still of interest inasmuch as approval was forthcoming for procurement of 15,000 shortened M1 rifles. As related in the “Record of Army Ordnance Research and Development, Vol. 2”:

“In July of 1945, the Pacific Theater requested that they be supplied with 15,000 short M1 Rifles for Airborne use. A design of a short M1 Rifle was delivered by a courier from the Pacific Warfare Board. A comparative study of the sample short M1 Rifle and the M1E5 (a 1944 program to develop a short-barreled, folding stock M1, that was dropped as being of low priority) indicated a definite preference for the M1E5 action equipped with the standard stock; the rifle so equipped was designated as T26. A study by Springfield Armory resulted in a tentative completion schedule of five months for the limited procurement of 15,000 T26 Rifles; however, with the occurrence of V-J day on 14 August 1945 this requirement was dropped.”

One of the PWB rifles, Serial No. 2291873, currently resides in the Springfield Armory Museum. The other PWB rifle, which was tested at Aberdeen in July 1945, Serial No. 2437139, has been in the West Point Museum (Catalog No. 19657) since it was transferred there by the Ordnance Dept. shortly after World War II.

According to West Point Museum officials, the only modification to the rifle since its testing by Ordnance was the substitution of the later T105E1 rear sight assembly in place of the original “locking bar” rear sight. The PWB rifle in the Springfield Armory collection appears to remain in its original configuration. It is interesting to note that at least one Springfield Armory archival photo (1964 vintage) exists that erroneously identifies the PWB Rifle in the museum’s collection as a “T26.”

There are still a number of unanswered questions regarding these rifles beyond the fate of the original T26. For example, it has not been confirmed beyond the shadow of a doubt how many of the rifles were actually fabricated in the Philippines as ordered by the PWB beyond the two known examples. While not stated one way or the other, it may be possible that the PWB waited to get word from Washington whether or not the concept met with Ordnance’s approval before proceeding with modification of the entire batch of 150 rifles.

The above-referenced report of the field testing of the short rifles by the 503rd PIR indicates that at least some additional rifles, beyond the two sent stateside, were produced. In any event, the number of shortened M1 rifles actually made during World War II as directed by the PWB almost certainly would have been no more than 150. The fact that no convincingly documented examples of the PWB-shortened M1 rifles are known to exist (other than the two mentioned above) seems to lend credence to the contention that few were actually fabricated.

It has been postulated, however, that the dearth of existing specimens can be explained because the shortened rifles were destroyed or re-converted to standard M1 rifle configuration after the “Garand Carbine” program was dropped. Unless further documentation is forthcoming, this will probably remain the subject of conjecture and debate. 

Note the “Carbine” designation within the receiver markings on the M1E5.

Some claim to have run across, or own, one of these fascinating arms, but since converting a standard M1 to PWB/T26 configuration is not an overwhelmingly difficult gunsmithing task, and since there is no known roster of PWB rifle serial numbers, confirming the provenance of such a rifle is virtually impossible. There are a number of known fakes around including one with impressive, but totally bogus, “Pacific Warfare Board” markings on the receiver. The odds of one of the PWB rifles surviving and being smuggled home are all but nil.

Nevertheless, hope springs eternal and a number of individuals are certain they have a genuine example. Without some sort of convincing documentation, which almost certainly will not exist because any PWB rifle “on the loose” would be stolen government property, such a claim must be approached with much skepticism. A good rule of thumb to remember is: If it’s not in the Springfield Armory or West Point museums, it’s not a genuine Pacific Warfare Board rifle. 

The shortened M1 rifle was one of those things that looked good in theory but didn’t work out so well in actual practice. With the conclusion of World War II, the U.S. military closed the chapter on the concept of a “Garand Carbine.”

The “Tanker Garand” Emerges

Despite its rejection by the American military, the idea of a Garand rifle shorter than the standard M1 was later resurrected in the civilian sector. The genesis of these rifles began in the early 1960s when some enterprising individuals acquired large quantities of surplus military firearm parts, including a significant number of M1 rifle receivers that had been “demilled” by torch-cutting.

Among the most notable of these was Robert E. Penney, Jr. Penney and his associates began to produce rifles, primarily standard-length M1 Garands, for the civilian market using these surplus parts, including some of the welded and re-machined torch-cut receivers. Examples were made in both .30-’06 Sprg. and .308 Win.

Penney was apparently aware of the World War II-era experimental shortened M1 rifles and decided a rifle in such a configuration would be a good addition to his company’s product line. The imaginative term “Tanker Garand” was coined for these rifles, presumably to give the impression (totally erroneous) they were military arms made for use in tanks. Despite being a fantasy appellation lacking any basis in reality, the name stuck.

Since genuine military M1 rifles were not readily available to civilians during this period, the ersatz Garand rifles, including the novel “Tankers,” sold relatively well. When the supply of the surplus components began to be depleted, Penney was faced with the prospect of manufacturing new parts. Such items as receivers, bolts and operating rods would have been prohibitively expensive to produce. Faced with this daunting prospect and declining health, Penney stopped manufacturing and sold the company.

While he was one of the pioneers in the field, it should not be inferred that Penney’s firm was the only one to make the so-called Tanker Garands. Several commercial firms, and even some individual gunsmiths, have continued to turn out similar arms to this day, either using existing G.I. M1 receivers, “demilled” receivers welded back together or newly made cast receivers. The workmanship can vary from extremely professional to downright shoddy.

Some people are enamored with the neat-looking little rifles, but this ardor often cools a bit when a few rounds are fired and the muzzle blast and recoil are experienced. Many owners of “Tanker Garands” found out what the Ordnance Dept. and the 503rd PIR test committee discovered in 1944-1945, and decided to become former owners when firing their pet guns proved to be less fun than originally imagined.

Nonetheless, some civilian shooters are not particularly bothered by the increased muzzle blast and recoil, and they continue to enjoy the neat little guns. In any event, these commercially shortened Tanker Garand rifles are not, and never were, military arms but are an interesting part of the fascinating story of the Garand.

While the concept of a “Garand Carbine” never went beyond the testing stage by the American military, it nevertheless illustrates how our armed forces continued to seek ways to improve the arms issued to our fighting men during the greatest conflict known to mankind