Misc. Garand Information

This material is independent of the official LPRGC CMP site

Last Updated May 21, 2003

Garand Sight Specifications:

Std. aperture: .069+.005" (.074" max)

NM aperture: .0595 or .0520" nominal (choice of two)

NM w/hood: .0595 or .0520", +/-.0025"

Std. blade width: .084 -.010"

Supposedly for Springfield and H&R 5/8"

Supposedly for Winchester 13/16"

Supposedly for IHC 7/8"

NM aperture: .065 -.005"

NM w/hood: .0595 or .0520", +/-.0025"

The front sight set screw is adjusted with a 3/32nd hex. .

Garand Gas Cylinder Diameter Specifications:

Maximum New
(or National Match) 0.526"

Minimum New 0.5253"

No Go 0.525"

Main Body 0.528" +0.002

At Entry 0.5303" +0.0007

Taper between
the two 0.008" per inch

Remembering Boxer vs Berdan Primers:

RELOADABLE short word

NONLOADABLE long word

BOXER short word

BERDAN long word

ONE FLASH HOLE short words

TWO FLASH HOLES long words

How tight should the Gas plug on an M1 be?

Reports have varied from 120 inch/pounts (10 foot/pounds) to 15 foot/pounds (which is 202 inch/pounds).

Unless you have a wrench, the best way to handle it (according to the field manual), is stand up and place the butt of the rifle between your feet with the trigger guard facing out, grasp the rifle with one hand over the gas cylinder, in front of the handguard, place the combo tool on the nut and then just put your arm into it. Unless you are a powerlifter, you probably won't strip the threads or break anything.

Of course, the best way, according to the 1967 National Match bulletin, is to get the gas cylinder wrench and a torque wrench and tighten it to 15 foot/pounds.

Garand Frontguard Hint:

According to some sources, the front handguard on the Garand is best machined out to the minimum thickness that will keep its shape. The primary purpose is to take the wood away from the barrel helping to keep the aim truer.

Quotes:

"Dry-cleaning solvent and mineral spirits paint thinner are flammable and should not be used near an open name."
--TM 9-1005-223-12, JAN 63 Par 33c(1)

Other Information:

Photos of Michael Lopez's
LC-44 AP Test Michael Lopez (also known as LoboMike) conducted some tests on 30-06 Armor Piercing ammunition. He had some Lake City 1944 (probably corrosive) around. Once you read his report, you'll understand why no one wants you to use AP ammo at their range! He posted his results on 19 Feb 2000, reproduced here with permission:

A while back there was discussion about the penetration power of .30-06 AP. This was especially interested in motor vehicle engine stoppage. I conducted a backyard experiment.

I fired two rounds into a Chevrolet 350 intake manifold and an aluminum lawn mower engine block. Forget the lawn mower, it went cleanly through it.

The cast intake was definitely penetrated to the point of stopping the engine. Now these rounds did not have to penetrate any body sheet metal. Firing was at 50 meters, single round lock & load in an M1. In fact it's the M1 with the lighter stock in the photos on PhotoPoint.

I also had a round go through a 8" diameter tulip poplar tree. It's not something to take lightly.

Another Garand Ammo data point It has been reported that at 50 yards LC 69 M2 Ball 30-06 will pentrate 1/2" steel plate just like AP!

Reloading: Powder Selection The list of the "perfect" powder is a short one: IMR 4895. In bulk form, not canister, is what you find in US military ammunition.
The NRA booklet on the Garand suggests IMR 3031, IMR 4895, or IMR 4064 for 147/150 grain bullets and IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 for 165-168 and 173-175 grain bullets.

How big are the targets? The NRA SR-1 (a reduced version of SR, for use at 100 yards simulating 200 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 1.35 inches, 10 ring = 3.35 inches, 9 ring = 6.35; in the white: 8 ring = 9.35 inches, 7 ring = 12.35, 6 ring = 15.35, and finally, the 5 ring = 18.35 inches.

How big are the targets? The NRA SR-21 (a reduced version of SR-3, for use at 100 yards simulating 300 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 0.79 inches, 10 ring = 2.12 inches, 9 ring = 4.12, 8 ring = 6.12 inches; in the white: 7 ring = 8.12, 6 ring = 10.12, and finally, the 5 ring = 12.12 inches.

How big are the targets? The NRA MR-31 (a reduced version of MR-1 for use at 100 yards simulating 600 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 0.75 inches, 10 ring = 1.75 inches, 9 ring = 2.75, 8 ring = 3.75 inches, 7 ring = 5.75; in the white: 6 ring = 7.75, and finally, the 5 ring = 9.75 inches.

eBay sale of M1 Garand Clip Loading Machine The auction talks about the machine and has a number of images. When I last checked, the price was around $2,500. I'm never going to load enough rounds to make it worthwhile getting this little machine. I'll have to live with the knowledge that I did save two images of it though... You can view the first or second of these images.
From the auction itself:

These machines are virtually impossible to find anywhere! Scarce Garand Clip Loading Machines were only built between 1937 and 1939, a total of only 498 are believed to have been built.

Springfield Armory Museum has two machines and less than a handful exist in private hands! Most were destroyed upon adoption of the M-14 Rifle by the US Army. Garand Experts estimate there are perhaps less than a Dozen left.

Loads 30-06 into Garand Clips of course and will also load 308 caliber rounds as well. The machine holds 18 Cartridges and with each pull of the handle, will load a Clip with 8 Fresh Rounds, then pop it out. Really Saves on the fingers. Measures 15" tall and about 7 pounds.

Other than the Earliest Gas Trap Garand Rifles, This is the rarest M1 Garand Accessory Item There Is!

How far will it go? M2 ball (.30-06) is rated for to go through about 36" of oak at 200 yards

Garand Poem Posted to tgo-l@egroups.com in Digest Number 315 by schuetzen - RKBA! on Mon, 22 May 2000 19:22:16 -0500, forwarding a posting he saw from bullseye-l by ShooterTom@aol.com:

Do you wonder why that rifle
Is hanging in my den?
You know I rarely take it down
But I touch it now and then.

It's rather slow and heavy
By standards of today
But not too many years ago
It swept the rest away.

It's held its own in battles
Through snow, or rain, or sun
And I had one just like it,
This treasured old M-1.

It went ashore at Bougainville
In Nineteen Forty-Three.
It stormed the beach at Tarawa
Through a bullet-riddled sea.

Saipan knew its strident bark,
Kwajelein, its sting.
The rocky caves of Peleliu
Resounded with its ring.

It climbed the hill on Iwo
With men who wouldn't stop
And left our nation's banner
Flying on the top.

It poked its nose in Pusan,
Screamed an angry roar
And took the First Division
From Chosin Reservoir.

Well, time moves on
And things improve
With rifles and with men,
And that is why the two of us
Are sitting in my den.

But sometimes on a winter night,
While thinking of my Corps,
I know that if the bugle blew
We'd be a team once more.

author unknown ,
a gift to me ,a gift to you
and that is all we can say,
I hope you enjoy it.

Why Aftermarket M1 Receivers are Junk!
Well folks, the header kinda sets the stage...and this is why I have tended to get a bit exasperated over the last week or so when folks act surprised that a $410 knock-off Garand turns out to be a dangerous hunk of junk. It simply points out that even on a list dedicated to these rifles, how few folks actually realize what was involved in making the Garand, and where the true genius of John C. Garand and his rifle lay. Many engineers and designers have created military semi-auto rifles....but only one, the M1 ever saw wide production. Those that followed and were produced in quantity did so because they recapitulated Garand's unique holistic approach to the rifle and the production methodology.

I have even seen it suggested that because the Garand was built in the US 50+ years ago, and in war-time, it just HAS to be made less well than a "modern" copy....with a heavy implication that if it was built in America by Americans, it just has to be inferior! It has also been asked why the aftermarket receivers are so universally bad, and if this condition is just a case of "teething problems", and will they get better.

Well folks, they answer to all of these questions, real and implied is a resounding NO! No, the aftermarket receivers have no possible chance of being anywhere close to the quality of the original. No, modern production methods cannot economically produce anything approaching the original. No, they aren't going to get any better.

Some background that may help explain these assertions.

John C. Garand grew up not as a firearms designer, but as a machine tool designer at the firm of Brown & Sharpe. As fortune would have it, this was in the middle of a revolution in machine-tool design. The American automobile industry was demanding precision machined components at a cost and level of production that was simply unprecedented. The machine-tool industry complied with this demand by, in essence, re-inventing itself...by taking what they themselves considered impossible, and doing it anyway! John Garand was a young apprentice/engineer smack in the thick of this dynamic period.

The one caveat in the revolution in precision machining that firms like Brown & Sharpe created was a symbiosis between the tool designer and the part designer....the design of the high-production, precision component had to be compatible with the tool design. If there was a problem with a component, it was usually traceable to a lack of integration between the design of the part, and the suite of machine-tools required to build it. This "culture" of design integration with the production machinery was a lesson that Garand learn early and well.

When John Garand was asked to design a new infantry rifle for the Army, his Brown & Sharpe experience was NEVER far from his mind. The design of the rifle would require massive precision in machining and assembly, and this would require a design with two major design criteria....functionality and predictability.

The second major "cultural" issue that Garand learned was at Springfield Armory, and it's failure to equip the National Army in a time of crisis. Springfield Armory failed to build even a small fraction of the rifles needed by US forces in WW I, and large portions of what it did produce turned out to be scrap. This was a blow to the prestige of SA that it never fully recovered from. (That the circumstances that precipitated the crisis were totally out of Springfield's control got lost in the shuffle....they had been warning the Army for years that the production facility was obsolescent and inadequate for modern firearms, and in desperate need of expansion and modernization, only to be blamed when what they had been saying was impossible for them to do became manifest....they were castigated for being right!). John Garand was hired by Springfield in the aftermath of WW I, to help correct the deficiencies in the production facilities. Garand recognized at least one aspect of the problems at SA immediately.....they were making the wrong rifle!

While the M1903 was a marvelous infantry rifle, it's design was difficult to produce using "state-of-the-art" machine tools. It was a rifle designed to be built by skilled armorers in leisurely days of peace, with abundant labor resources and the luxury of time to hand fit parts to get the rifle "just right".....both time and skilled manpower are the first things that are in short supply when the shooting starts. This design incompatibility with high-volume production methods was the 03's true failing. With his Brown & Sharpe experience, Garand knew that the only way to "fix" the M1903, was to abandon it, and start fresh! (The major advantage that the M1917 had over the M1903 was that it was designed to built with machine tools and unskilled labor.)

The rifle that eventually became the M1 began as a series of design sketches in 1919. When the Army released the actual criteria for a new infantry rifle in 1926, Garand was not only ready with some ideas for a rifle, but for the changes that would have to be made at Springfield to build it! This is the key point folks....the rifle AND the production methodology were integrated! The rifle, particularly the receiver, were designed to be produced BY SPECIFIC METHODS AND MACHINERY! Try and shoe-horn the design to different machines than it was designed to be built on, and there are immediate problems!

John Garland's rifle is a masterpiece.....so was the production facility at both the Water and Hill Shops at Springfield Armory. John Cantius Garand is responsible for both! Truer words have never been uttered than when John Garand explained his lack of interest in talking to a newspaper reporter with the simple sentence, "My rifle speaks for me!".

Garand designed the M1 around multi-head broaching rather than horizontal and vertical milling. In fact the amount of milling done on ANY part of the Garand was minimal. Milling requires constant tool-gauging and reconditioning to hold precision tolerances.....Journeyman T&D Makers are the first things to disappear in war! Multi-head broaching was used extensively in the auto industry, and is far less tool-intensive then milling. It can also be more automated than a mill or turret lathe, requiring far fewer skilled tradesmen to set-up and operate. It is also a VERY precise production method, IF the component is designed with broaching in mind. While John C. was working his magic in the Experimental Shop at Springfield in metal, he was drawing the plans for the new buildings and new machinery required to build it!

The next issue was weight. The knock on the Garand and it's cousin, the M14 has always been weight. What is often lost is that the Garand receiver is exquisitely light! The only way to get a lighter package is to abandon ferrous materials and build out of light, non-ferrous alloys (it was tried experimentally with the M14 and proved to be impractical). The light-weight, high-strength of the M1 receiver was possible by the use of high-strength alloy steels, state-of-the-art forge techniques, and an advanced, state-of-the-art heat-treating facility. During WW II, the Springfield Armory Water Shops were the most advanced metal-working facility on the planet! The result was the lightest, strongest receiver possible. It weighed a bit over 2 lbs, yet had a minimum 500% strength safety factor over the proof load pressure. The web-thicknesses in various portions of the receiver are thin, and yet incredibly strong.....yet another hallmark of John Garand. Designing a part that is light yet still strong is the height of materials science, and reflects art as much as it does science. However, it is a design that is based in the tremendous strength conferred by the use of advanced alloys and multi-hit drop-forging. Any attempt at using any other production method (read that as casting), creates a part that has only a fraction of the strength of the original. NO cast copy of a Garand or M14 receiver that retains the forge dimensions and web-thicknesses, has more than 60% of the original's strength. Only that massive strength over-build in John Garand's original makes ANY aftermarket casting feasible.

The last factor in this equation were the people making the rifles. Like most manufacturing during the war, Springfield Armory and the rifles we all have such an interest in, were overwhelming build by women. That's right folks, up to 70% of the labor-force at Springfield Armory were females....mothers, wives, sweethearts of the men the rifles were being built for. Just as in ancient Sparta, the women were lovingly forging the swords their men were going into battle with. The WOW's (Women Ordnance Workers) never forgot that the rifle they were making at any given time was going to be used by there own loved-ones. These rifles were NOT being made by some cynically disinterested party just making a paycheck....these rifles were crafted with love and patriotism by women protecting their men in battle!

Don't think so? Read! Go to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. Springfield Armory routinely exceeded quality and production goals. NO Third World goober trying to make enough money to stay alive will EVER bring the level of intensity to his/her work that our Mothers and Grandmothers did, and the final product will reflect that!

So, to summarize. Without a wholesale duplication of the methods and machines used to build the Garand receiver, the resulting receiver quality will NEVER be anything but a pale reflection of the original (the Chinese came closest with their M14 receivers, but then, they were building them with largely the same methods as Springfield...proving the theory!).

John Kepler (mailto:bigjohnohio@worldnet.att.net)

Who is Arlington Ordnance?
Blue Sky? Arlington Ordnance is the former Blue Sky (importer). They are/were repatriating Garands (from Korea and other places), refinishing, and then reselling them.

Cheap Muzzle Guide One thing I forgot to mention is that for you M1 shooters, don't feel left out. You can do the same with the Winchester hull, but use a 28 ga hull and cut it down to about an 1" to 1-1/2" a guide. It wedges on the Bbl tight. -- "Kens"

Your info here

Your info here

Meatloaf, Ketsup, and Curry sauce recipies:

Subject: Re: Chez Warwick (long) minimal D content
From: Henry Warwick 
Date: Tue, 04 Jan 2000 11:57:24 -0800
X-Message-Number: 6

...

> After a few minutes, Henry went to the kitchen to finalize preparations.
> Ben and I followed.  We chatted about list activities, listmembers, and
> members of the listmembers.  The menu consisted of Warwick's specialty
> meatloaf, green beans with a curry sauce, rice, and a roll.

Meatloaf:

A few pounds of burger (get the good stuff- 90% lean)
3 Tablespoons of chopped garlic
1 tblsp paprika
2 Teaspoons of Basil
1 Tsp Tarragon
1 tsp  salt
1 tsp black pepper
2 onions finely chopped
8 mushrooms thinly sliced and diced
2 cups Milk
3 eggs
NO BREAD

completely mash the shit out of it all in a big bowl, make sure everything
is mixed well. Put into rectangular casserole baking dish. Put home made
ketchup on top.

KETCHUP:
one small can of organic tomato paste
one small can of organic tomato sauce
1 tblsp balsamic vinegar
1 tsp of white wine vinegar
1 tsp garlic powder
1/2 tsp paprika
1/2 tsp basil
a few shakes of salt and pepper

mix the above completely in a bowl. Add more garlic/vinegar/tomato sauce to
taste. Pour out onto top of meatloaf.

Bake the mess for 1.5 hours at 350 degrees F.

Curry Sauce:

1 short stick of butter
1 tsp of Arrowroot
1 cup of half and half
2 tsp mild curry powder
1/2 tsp cumin
~1/4 tsp tarragon
1 tsp chopped garlic
cayenne pepper powder
salt and pepper

melt butter over medium heat, mix in arrowroot, stirring vigourously. Pull
off heat, if it begins to burn. Do Not Burn the Butter. Once arrowroot is
mixed in, add in half and half in splashes until it is also mixed in. Take
of flame as necessary. Stir constantly. Once half and half is in, add garlic
and curry powder and tarragon. stir constantly. turn down flame to low. Add
other ingredients (gradually- don't want lumps!). with flame on low, leave
top off and let it simmer down for about a half hour. Stir it frequently.
during this time, check it for flavour. If it is not hot enough, *sparingly*
and carefully add cayenne pepper powder, mixing it in completely, and then
letting it simmer in for a minute or so before adding more.

That's the hard stuff. Chopping veggies and nuking buns is easy.

...

There have been hits on this page, hits on lprgc pages, and hits on all pages.

Send the maintainer mail!

Back to the LPRGC Official Home Page
Back to the Home Page

Std. aperture:	.069+.005" (.074" max)
NM aperture:	.0595 or .0520" nominal (choice of two)
NM w/hood:	.0595 or .0520", +/-.0025"

Std. blade width:	.084 -.010"
Supposedly for Springfield and H&R 5/8"
Supposedly for Winchester 13/16"
Supposedly for IHC 7/8"
NM aperture:	.065 -.005"
NM w/hood:	.0595 or .0520", +/-.0025"
The front sight set screw is adjusted with a 3/32nd hex.	.

Maximum New (or National Match)	0.526"
Minimum New	0.5253"
No Go	0.525"

Main Body	0.528" +0.002
At Entry	0.5303" +0.0007
Taper between the two	0.008" per inch

RELOADABLE	short word
NONLOADABLE	long word
BOXER	short word
BERDAN	long word
ONE FLASH HOLE	short words
TWO FLASH HOLES	long words

Photos of Michael Lopez's LC-44 AP Test	Michael Lopez (also known as LoboMike) conducted some tests on 30-06 Armor Piercing ammunition. He had some Lake City 1944 (probably corrosive) around. Once you read his report, you'll understand why no one wants you to use AP ammo at their range! He posted his results on 19 Feb 2000, reproduced here with permission: A while back there was discussion about the penetration power of .30-06 AP. This was especially interested in motor vehicle engine stoppage. I conducted a backyard experiment. I fired two rounds into a Chevrolet 350 intake manifold and an aluminum lawn mower engine block. Forget the lawn mower, it went cleanly through it. The cast intake was definitely penetrated to the point of stopping the engine. Now these rounds did not have to penetrate any body sheet metal. Firing was at 50 meters, single round lock & load in an M1. In fact it's the M1 with the lighter stock in the photos on PhotoPoint. I also had a round go through a 8" diameter tulip poplar tree. It's not something to take lightly.
Another Garand Ammo data point	It has been reported that at 50 yards LC 69 M2 Ball 30-06 will pentrate 1/2" steel plate just like AP!
Reloading: Powder Selection	The list of the "perfect" powder is a short one: IMR 4895. In bulk form, not canister, is what you find in US military ammunition. The NRA booklet on the Garand suggests IMR 3031, IMR 4895, or IMR 4064 for 147/150 grain bullets and IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 for 165-168 and 173-175 grain bullets.
How big are the targets?	The NRA SR-1 (a reduced version of SR, for use at 100 yards simulating 200 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 1.35 inches, 10 ring = 3.35 inches, 9 ring = 6.35; in the white: 8 ring = 9.35 inches, 7 ring = 12.35, 6 ring = 15.35, and finally, the 5 ring = 18.35 inches.
How big are the targets?	The NRA SR-21 (a reduced version of SR-3, for use at 100 yards simulating 300 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 0.79 inches, 10 ring = 2.12 inches, 9 ring = 4.12, 8 ring = 6.12 inches; in the white: 7 ring = 8.12, 6 ring = 10.12, and finally, the 5 ring = 12.12 inches.
How big are the targets?	The NRA MR-31 (a reduced version of MR-1 for use at 100 yards simulating 600 yards), consists of 7 rings, each with the following diameter, in the black: X = 0.75 inches, 10 ring = 1.75 inches, 9 ring = 2.75, 8 ring = 3.75 inches, 7 ring = 5.75; in the white: 6 ring = 7.75, and finally, the 5 ring = 9.75 inches.
eBay sale of M1 Garand Clip Loading Machine	The auction talks about the machine and has a number of images. When I last checked, the price was around $2,500. I'm never going to load enough rounds to make it worthwhile getting this little machine. I'll have to live with the knowledge that I did save two images of it though... You can view the first or second of these images. From the auction itself: These machines are virtually impossible to find anywhere! Scarce Garand Clip Loading Machines were only built between 1937 and 1939, a total of only 498 are believed to have been built. Springfield Armory Museum has two machines and less than a handful exist in private hands! Most were destroyed upon adoption of the M-14 Rifle by the US Army. Garand Experts estimate there are perhaps less than a Dozen left. Loads 30-06 into Garand Clips of course and will also load 308 caliber rounds as well. The machine holds 18 Cartridges and with each pull of the handle, will load a Clip with 8 Fresh Rounds, then pop it out. Really Saves on the fingers. Measures 15" tall and about 7 pounds. Other than the Earliest Gas Trap Garand Rifles, This is the rarest M1 Garand Accessory Item There Is!
How far will it go?	M2 ball (.30-06) is rated for to go through about 36" of oak at 200 yards
Garand Poem	Posted to tgo-l@egroups.com in Digest Number 315 by schuetzen - RKBA! on Mon, 22 May 2000 19:22:16 -0500, forwarding a posting he saw from bullseye-l by ShooterTom@aol.com: Do you wonder why that rifle Is hanging in my den? You know I rarely take it down But I touch it now and then. It's rather slow and heavy By standards of today But not too many years ago It swept the rest away. It's held its own in battles Through snow, or rain, or sun And I had one just like it, This treasured old M-1. It went ashore at Bougainville In Nineteen Forty-Three. It stormed the beach at Tarawa Through a bullet-riddled sea. Saipan knew its strident bark, Kwajelein, its sting. The rocky caves of Peleliu Resounded with its ring. It climbed the hill on Iwo With men who wouldn't stop And left our nation's banner Flying on the top. It poked its nose in Pusan, Screamed an angry roar And took the First Division From Chosin Reservoir. Well, time moves on And things improve With rifles and with men, And that is why the two of us Are sitting in my den. But sometimes on a winter night, While thinking of my Corps, I know that if the bugle blew We'd be a team once more. author unknown , a gift to me ,a gift to you and that is all we can say, I hope you enjoy it.
Why Aftermarket M1 Receivers are Junk!	Well folks, the header kinda sets the stage...and this is why I have tended to get a bit exasperated over the last week or so when folks act surprised that a $410 knock-off Garand turns out to be a dangerous hunk of junk. It simply points out that even on a list dedicated to these rifles, how few folks actually realize what was involved in making the Garand, and where the true genius of John C. Garand and his rifle lay. Many engineers and designers have created military semi-auto rifles....but only one, the M1 ever saw wide production. Those that followed and were produced in quantity did so because they recapitulated Garand's unique holistic approach to the rifle and the production methodology. I have even seen it suggested that because the Garand was built in the US 50+ years ago, and in war-time, it just HAS to be made less well than a "modern" copy....with a heavy implication that if it was built in America by Americans, it just has to be inferior! It has also been asked why the aftermarket receivers are so universally bad, and if this condition is just a case of "teething problems", and will they get better. Well folks, they answer to all of these questions, real and implied is a resounding NO! No, the aftermarket receivers have no possible chance of being anywhere close to the quality of the original. No, modern production methods cannot economically produce anything approaching the original. No, they aren't going to get any better. Some background that may help explain these assertions. John C. Garand grew up not as a firearms designer, but as a machine tool designer at the firm of Brown & Sharpe. As fortune would have it, this was in the middle of a revolution in machine-tool design. The American automobile industry was demanding precision machined components at a cost and level of production that was simply unprecedented. The machine-tool industry complied with this demand by, in essence, re-inventing itself...by taking what they themselves considered impossible, and doing it anyway! John Garand was a young apprentice/engineer smack in the thick of this dynamic period. The one caveat in the revolution in precision machining that firms like Brown & Sharpe created was a symbiosis between the tool designer and the part designer....the design of the high-production, precision component had to be compatible with the tool design. If there was a problem with a component, it was usually traceable to a lack of integration between the design of the part, and the suite of machine-tools required to build it. This "culture" of design integration with the production machinery was a lesson that Garand learn early and well. When John Garand was asked to design a new infantry rifle for the Army, his Brown & Sharpe experience was NEVER far from his mind. The design of the rifle would require massive precision in machining and assembly, and this would require a design with two major design criteria....functionality and predictability. The second major "cultural" issue that Garand learned was at Springfield Armory, and it's failure to equip the National Army in a time of crisis. Springfield Armory failed to build even a small fraction of the rifles needed by US forces in WW I, and large portions of what it did produce turned out to be scrap. This was a blow to the prestige of SA that it never fully recovered from. (That the circumstances that precipitated the crisis were totally out of Springfield's control got lost in the shuffle....they had been warning the Army for years that the production facility was obsolescent and inadequate for modern firearms, and in desperate need of expansion and modernization, only to be blamed when what they had been saying was impossible for them to do became manifest....they were castigated for being right!). John Garand was hired by Springfield in the aftermath of WW I, to help correct the deficiencies in the production facilities. Garand recognized at least one aspect of the problems at SA immediately.....they were making the wrong rifle! While the M1903 was a marvelous infantry rifle, it's design was difficult to produce using "state-of-the-art" machine tools. It was a rifle designed to be built by skilled armorers in leisurely days of peace, with abundant labor resources and the luxury of time to hand fit parts to get the rifle "just right".....both time and skilled manpower are the first things that are in short supply when the shooting starts. This design incompatibility with high-volume production methods was the 03's true failing. With his Brown & Sharpe experience, Garand knew that the only way to "fix" the M1903, was to abandon it, and start fresh! (The major advantage that the M1917 had over the M1903 was that it was designed to built with machine tools and unskilled labor.) The rifle that eventually became the M1 began as a series of design sketches in 1919. When the Army released the actual criteria for a new infantry rifle in 1926, Garand was not only ready with some ideas for a rifle, but for the changes that would have to be made at Springfield to build it! This is the key point folks....the rifle AND the production methodology were integrated! The rifle, particularly the receiver, were designed to be produced BY SPECIFIC METHODS AND MACHINERY! Try and shoe-horn the design to different machines than it was designed to be built on, and there are immediate problems! John Garland's rifle is a masterpiece.....so was the production facility at both the Water and Hill Shops at Springfield Armory. John Cantius Garand is responsible for both! Truer words have never been uttered than when John Garand explained his lack of interest in talking to a newspaper reporter with the simple sentence, "My rifle speaks for me!". Garand designed the M1 around multi-head broaching rather than horizontal and vertical milling. In fact the amount of milling done on ANY part of the Garand was minimal. Milling requires constant tool-gauging and reconditioning to hold precision tolerances.....Journeyman T&D Makers are the first things to disappear in war! Multi-head broaching was used extensively in the auto industry, and is far less tool-intensive then milling. It can also be more automated than a mill or turret lathe, requiring far fewer skilled tradesmen to set-up and operate. It is also a VERY precise production method, IF the component is designed with broaching in mind. While John C. was working his magic in the Experimental Shop at Springfield in metal, he was drawing the plans for the new buildings and new machinery required to build it! The next issue was weight. The knock on the Garand and it's cousin, the M14 has always been weight. What is often lost is that the Garand receiver is exquisitely light! The only way to get a lighter package is to abandon ferrous materials and build out of light, non-ferrous alloys (it was tried experimentally with the M14 and proved to be impractical). The light-weight, high-strength of the M1 receiver was possible by the use of high-strength alloy steels, state-of-the-art forge techniques, and an advanced, state-of-the-art heat-treating facility. During WW II, the Springfield Armory Water Shops were the most advanced metal-working facility on the planet! The result was the lightest, strongest receiver possible. It weighed a bit over 2 lbs, yet had a minimum 500% strength safety factor over the proof load pressure. The web-thicknesses in various portions of the receiver are thin, and yet incredibly strong.....yet another hallmark of John Garand. Designing a part that is light yet still strong is the height of materials science, and reflects art as much as it does science. However, it is a design that is based in the tremendous strength conferred by the use of advanced alloys and multi-hit drop-forging. Any attempt at using any other production method (read that as casting), creates a part that has only a fraction of the strength of the original. NO cast copy of a Garand or M14 receiver that retains the forge dimensions and web-thicknesses, has more than 60% of the original's strength. Only that massive strength over-build in John Garand's original makes ANY aftermarket casting feasible. The last factor in this equation were the people making the rifles. Like most manufacturing during the war, Springfield Armory and the rifles we all have such an interest in, were overwhelming build by women. That's right folks, up to 70% of the labor-force at Springfield Armory were females....mothers, wives, sweethearts of the men the rifles were being built for. Just as in ancient Sparta, the women were lovingly forging the swords their men were going into battle with. The WOW's (Women Ordnance Workers) never forgot that the rifle they were making at any given time was going to be used by there own loved-ones. These rifles were NOT being made by some cynically disinterested party just making a paycheck....these rifles were crafted with love and patriotism by women protecting their men in battle! Don't think so? Read! Go to the Springfield Armory National Historic Site. Springfield Armory routinely exceeded quality and production goals. NO Third World goober trying to make enough money to stay alive will EVER bring the level of intensity to his/her work that our Mothers and Grandmothers did, and the final product will reflect that! So, to summarize. Without a wholesale duplication of the methods and machines used to build the Garand receiver, the resulting receiver quality will NEVER be anything but a pale reflection of the original (the Chinese came closest with their M14 receivers, but then, they were building them with largely the same methods as Springfield...proving the theory!). John Kepler (mailto:bigjohnohio@worldnet.att.net)
Who is Arlington Ordnance? Blue Sky?	Arlington Ordnance is the former Blue Sky (importer). They are/were repatriating Garands (from Korea and other places), refinishing, and then reselling them.
Cheap Muzzle Guide	One thing I forgot to mention is that for you M1 shooters, don't feel left out. You can do the same with the Winchester hull, but use a 28 ga hull and cut it down to about an 1" to 1-1/2" a guide. It wedges on the Bbl tight. -- "Kens"
Your	info here
Your	info here