M1 Garand in 7.62 NATO?

[XTR]

I've seen the occasional M1 that was cinfigured by the Navy to 7.62 for competition. (Someone had one at the range the other day)

How do you reload for these? I have not loaded for the standard M1 but I know that the 30-06 version of the M1 has pressure limits that if exceeded can result in jammed actions (I've seen that) or bent op rods. Is the 7.62 NATO subject to the same kind of limits?

Why did the Navy shoot the 7.62 version? Did it give advantages over the 30-06 version?

Edit: So I did a little reading, apparently the Navy made the 7.62 NATO version trying to save money and not buy M-14s when the US adopted the 7.62, but it still doesn't explain why there were match versions.

 

[navyrad8r]

XTR,
I still use one for the 1k.. Long story short, the M1As had not take over yet and when they did, so many folks stayed in the M1 because of comfort and less recoil than the .30-06. shoot me a PM and with your phone number and I will give you a call.
Cheers,
Doc

 

[rminut]

reloading for one is easy, duplicate M852, 4895/168SMK/LC brass.
It's kind of funny you say "they wanted to save money" because you can't save what you don't really have. Not many Naval flag officers gave a hoot about marksmanship and so no real effort was made to support it to the fullest. There were still some great Navy shooters but that was in spite of the funding not because of it. There was also a group that thought the M1 shot better than the M1a so navy armourers converted them to 7.62mm for across the course shooters. I've seen several guys use a 7.62 Garand to win EIC medals in big matches against AR shooters.

Robert, also a Double Distinguished retired Chief.

 

[XTR]

From what I read the saving money thing was something that it seems that the Navy was trying to do, not in competitive shooting, but in just putting the liners in the 30-06 chambers to make the M1 chamber the 7.62 for shipboard small arms.

I'm thinking about trying to find one to play with. I'm fully setup to load 308s and I really don't want to get into another bullet right now so getting a 7.62 Garand would be a natural, and if the 7.62 version isn't picky about what you feed it then so much the better for using surplus ammo as 7.62 surplus is way more available than 30-06.

 

[navyrad8r]

Rob, XTR,
speaking of saving money....
there may actually may NOT be any armorer/ Crane support this year at Nationals due to the Sequester. Some of the gas systems on the M1s were modified by Don McCoy and others. the recipe for the 1k will give you a little push, running those 190s. short thin front sights so the rear sight does not have to be up so high...this decreases the "chin weld" and promotes the cheek weld. However over enough time the M118 (175SMK) ammo will hurt the oprod curve. I have a nice pic of my two girls that I shoot but file too large. hit me with a real email and I will send.
Good to hear from another goat!!
cheers,
Doc

 

[tjtjwdad]

- The M1's held there own with the M14 until the McMillan stocks and the single/double lugs came about. After that it was tough for the M1 to keep up. But, a good shooting M1 and a superb marksman make for some topnotch scores.

- Because of the M1's gas system the 7.62 version is prone to the same gas port pressure issues as the 30 cal (30.06), as is too, the M14 but to a lesser degree.

- If you're after a USGI 7.62 barrel, the ones to get a hold of are true 7.62 barrels, not a 30 ca that was converted with an insert. The vast majority of them were made by Springfield Armory {the government arsenal) in the 1965/66 time frame and the are known to shoot very well. RIA also made a few and AFAIK, only the Navy & Air Force actually used them in competition.

- The Navy and Marine Corps still award them as trophy rifles for the big matches (Nationals, Interservice, Fleet, All-Navy, Marine Division).

- As far as reloading, for match work, around 41-42 grains of 4895 (IMR or Hodgdon) or powder of similar burn rate (Varget, Reloader 14, Win 748, AA2520 to mention a few) ,a large rifle primer and a 168 SMK. For 1000 yard work, the 175 SMK is a better pill. Might give the Hornady's a look too.

 

[fastergun]

The CMP has .308 barrelled receivers. Order the one that is not the sleeved version. Sleeved version has too much bullet jump and have been known to have the sleeve come out with the empty.

 

[Laurie]

The CMP has .308 barrelled receivers. Order the one that is not the sleeved version. Sleeved version has too much bullet jump and have been known to have the sleeve come out with the empty.

I was going to say "Didn't the US Navy fit a 7.62mm chamber adaptor to its ordinary issue M1s and so didn't procure M14s?", but the reference to the 'sleeve' confirmed this, or at any rate that the practice existed.

I remember a guy here in England years back shooting an M1917 .30-06 Enfield that had been so-sleeved so he could shoot cheap surplus 7.62mm ammo. He might have saved money OK, but it didn't shoot worth a damn!

 

[tjtjwdad]

The CMP has .308 barrelled receivers. Order the one that is not the sleeved version. Sleeved version has too much bullet jump and have been known to have the sleeve come out with the empty.

I was going to say "Didn't the US Navy fit a 7.62mm chamber adaptor to its ordinary issue M1s and so didn't procure M14s?", but the reference to the 'sleeve' confirmed this, or at any rate that the practice existed.

I remember a guy here in England years back shooting an M1917 .30-06 Enfield that had been so-sleeved so he could shoot cheap surplus 7.62mm ammo. He might have saved money OK, but it didn't shoot worth a damn!

Ultimately, that is exactly why the Navy went to true 7.62 barrels because the sleeve wasn't that reliable nor very safe when it popped out. Firing a 7.62x51 in a 7.62x63 chamber doesn't make for a safe situation. And yes, it was done to save the money from resupplying the fleet with M14's. 7.62 M1's were carried on Navy ships well into the 70's. On my first ship, we initially were outfitted with Thompson machine guns before being resupplied with M16's.

Competitively, the M1's shot right along the M14's and still will do so today, but IMO they are a little harder to keep them going. WRT to the M1 vs M14; with the double lugs and McMillan stocks the M14's just pulled away from the M1's as far as keeping them going. Composite stocks were never issued on Garands and therefore weren't legal for it where as the M14 was. Accuracy wise they still shot very well. A Garand can be triple lugged but then it exceeds the stock dimensions that first showed up in the rule book in the early to mid 90's to counteract the growing stock dimensions, including some of those M14 stocks, which too were starting to get out of hand.

HTH

 

[Laurie]

Thank you for that interesting information HTH. I'm old enough to remember surplus M1s on sale over here in the UK before we lost the right to own semi-auto rifles after the 1987 Hungerford shootings. I was into military / historic rifle shooting at the time and would undoubtedly have bought an M1 sooner or later. They were fairly cheap - about half the price of a surplus M14, FAL and similar - them and very cheap 7.92mm ex Egyptian army FN Model 49s.

And yes, we were actually one up on you guys at that time as there was no 'machine-gun' rule here so we got a lot of your surplus M14s that couldn't be sold in the US. The pre 1988 law situation only stipulated that any formerly fully-auto rifle had to be permanently and 100% reliably converted to semi-auto operation. We had a good few converted .303 BREN light machineguns, even the odd 7.92 German MG34 and MG42 belt fed jobs, Dutch manufactured AR10s and similar.

Actually, we've got nearly all of the semi-auto / assault rifles back now, but only in manual straight-pull operated form. I've seen the very occasional M1 rifle and M1 carbine in this form. They cannot be converted though - has to be a manufacture as manual operation from scratch job, so I assume M1s and similar have been built out of spare parts with a new non-ported barrel.