Jump to content
SASS Wire Forum

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

evil dogooder

us m 1 tanker value

Recommended Posts

My old football coach is moving to a retirement home and is selling off his guns he has what he calls a m-1 rifle tanker t50551 how much should I give him for this to be fair? It has a short barrel better than ave condition

I checked gb but came up empty

Thanks

evil dogooder

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is basically an M1 carbine, correct?

 

If so, it depends on a number of things:

 

1. Manufacturer (some are much more desirable/valuable than others)(if you have a carbine made by Irwin/Pedersen, you have a blank check - they are very rare, but not sure if they made a tanker model

2. Condition (stock [dings, cracks, carved names/initials], metal, [finish - percent of finish remaining, barrel condition], matching serial numbers, proper inspector' cartouches, etc.)

3. Number produced

 

If its not a carbine - never mind! :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not sure if it's a carbine or not I don't know much about american guns just Russian. It shoots 30-06 ammo if that helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The M1 Tankers I have seen have been cut down Garands, and re-calibered to .308. Makes a nice rifle. There are some on Gun Broker, search for Garand Tanker, I can't get the link to post, but there are several there. .308 Tanker Try This one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to wikipedia,there were never any "Tanker" model Garands approved for production:

 

Wiki Link

 

Any Tanker Carbines were inventions of various firearms distributors. You can find them cut down from M1 Garands, Mausers and Lee-Enfields, just to name a few.

 

M1E5 and T26

 

The T20E2 selective fire prototype was designed to feed from 20-round BAR magazines.

Two interesting variants that never saw service were the M1E5 and T26 (popularly known as the Tanker Garand). The M1E5 is equipped with a folding buttstock, while the T26 uses the standard solid stock, and has a shorter, 18-inch barrel. The Tanker name was also used after the war as a marketing gimmick for commercially modified Garands. Another variant that never saw duty was the T20E2. This variant is a Garand modified to accept Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) magazines, and has selective fire capability, with semi- and fully automatic modes.

 

The T26 arose from requests by various Army combat commands for a shortened version of the standard M1 rifle for use in jungle or mobile warfare. In July 1945 Col. William Alexander, former staff officer for Gen. Simon Buckner and a new member of the Pacific Warfare Board,[39] requested urgent production of 15,000 carbine-length M1 rifles for use in the Pacific theater.[40][41][42][43] To emphasize the need for rapid action, he requested the Ordnance arm of the U.S. 6th Army in the Philippines to make up 150 18" barreled M1 rifles for service trials, sending another of the rifles by special courier to U.S. Army Ordnance officials at Aberdeen as a demonstration that the M1 could be easily modified to the new configuration.[40][42][44][45] Although the T26 was never approved for production, at least one 18" barreled M1 rifle was used in action in the Philippines by troopers in the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment (503rd PIR).[45]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

According to wikipedia,there were never any "Tanker" model Garands approved for production:

 

Wiki Link

 

Any Tanker Carbines were inventions of various firearms distributors. You can find them cut down from M1 Garands, Mausers and Lee-Enfields, just to name a few.

 

M1E5 and T26

 

The T20E2 selective fire prototype was designed to feed from 20-round BAR magazines.

Two interesting variants that never saw service were the M1E5 and T26 (popularly known as the Tanker Garand). The M1E5 is equipped with a folding buttstock, while the T26 uses the standard solid stock, and has a shorter, 18-inch barrel. The Tanker name was also used after the war as a marketing gimmick for commercially modified Garands. Another variant that never saw duty was the T20E2. This variant is a Garand modified to accept Browning Automatic Rifle (BAR) magazines, and has selective fire capability, with semi- and fully automatic modes.

 

The T26 arose from requests by various Army combat commands for a shortened version of the standard M1 rifle for use in jungle or mobile warfare. In July 1945 Col. William Alexander, former staff officer for Gen. Simon Buckner and a new member of the Pacific Warfare Board,[39] requested urgent production of 15,000 carbine-length M1 rifles for use in the Pacific theater.[40][41][42][43] To emphasize the need for rapid action, he requested the Ordnance arm of the U.S. 6th Army in the Philippines to make up 150 18" barreled M1 rifles for service trials, sending another of the rifles by special courier to U.S. Army Ordnance officials at Aberdeen as a demonstration that the M1 could be easily modified to the new configuration.[40][42][44][45] Although the T26 was never approved for production, at least one 18" barreled M1 rifle was used in action in the Philippines by troopers in the 503rd Parachute Infantry Regiment (503rd PIR).[45]

 

 

Kinda like the Henry "Big Boy" and Ruger Old Army, ...the gun that never was.;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some floating around at gun stores and shows but, there are no "tanker" Garands other than made up ones. The Italian army made up some short barreled versions back in the '50's and some were imported into the U.S. Can't remember the designation but the barrel had a long compensator/flash guard. Garands are going for around $800 and up so, apart from its unusual look, a "tanker" probably should be below that price.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are some floating around at gun stores and shows but, there are no "tanker" Garands other than made up ones. The Italian army made up some short barreled versions back in the '50's and some were imported into the U.S. Can't remember the designation but the barrel had a long compensator/flash guard. Garands are going for around $800 and up so, apart from its unusual look, a "tanker" probably should be below that price.

 

 

It was the Beretta BM-59: http://www.thefirearmblog.com/blog/2009/04/11/the-italian-garand-beretta-bm59/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't add any wisdom to the thread, but I do recall ads for an M1 Garand Tanker back in the early to middle sixties. Just before they passed the Gun Control Act in 1968 I believe. They appeared to be an M1 Garand with shortened barrel, operating rod and wood. I never thought much of it at the time, but in retrospect, I have never seen or heard of an M1 Garand Tanker connected with the military.

 

My original reaction to it was, "WHY?".

 

The M1 Garand was issued to troops in a .30/06 caliber. The first issue of the .308 (7.62 x 51) that I know of, was the M14 (M1 A) . I did see training film on the M14 but we were never issued them. Our line rife was the Garand and the BAR. Both .30/06 caliber. This was the just after the brown boot army (circa 1958/1960) and we were just learning about the metric system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have an aftermarket Springfield "Tanker". They are subject to higher gas pressures due to the shortened length so I put an adjustable gas valve in mine.

 

This is an article from the "Springfield Armory National Historical Site":

 

THE M1 "TANKER" MODIFICATION

 

The so-called "Tanker" owes its existence to the long-standing dissatisfaction with the range, lethality and foliage penetration ("brush cutting") capabilities of the M1 carbine. A few statistics explain why this is true: the bullet used in the .30-06 M1 (Garand) rifle weighs 150 grains; fired with a velocity of 2,740 feet per second (fps), it develops 2,170 foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards. By comparison, the bullet fired by the M1 carbine weighs 110 grains; at a muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, it produces only 600 foot-pounds of energy at the same distance--not much more than a quarter of the Garand. Thus, the temptation to substitute the greater fire-power of the M1 rifle is understandable, although reducing the barrel to carbine length would sacrifice some of the gain in power.

 

The Ordnance Department was basically unsympathetic to these field complaints, maintaining that the carbine and rifle were intended to serve separate and distinct purposes. In 1945, with fighting raging in the dense jungles of the western Pacific, where "brush-cutting" ability was important, the Pacific Warfare Board took matters into its own hands. It ordered an ordnance unit of the 6th Army in the Philippines to make up 150 shortened M1 rifles for testing. These rifles were cut to carbine length, making them short enough to carry comfortably in the jungle or to fit into a tank. This, apparently, is the origin of the term "tanker" Garand, which was never officially adopted and is somewhat puzzling in that tank warfare did not figure prominently in the Pacific Theater.

 

Col. William Alexander, head of the Pacific Warfare Board, obviously thought the "short Ml" was the answer, for he requested the Ordnance Dept. to make up 15,000 short rifles. To facilitate design of the new weapon, he sent one of their rifles by special courier to the Ordnance Dept.

 

When the "short rifle" arrived at Springfield Armory, engineers recognized immediately that they had done the same thing a year before when they had developed the M1E5. The only difference was that the E5 had a folding wire stock and was intended primarily for paratroops. All they had to do was to pop off the trigger housing, remove the folding stock, and install the action on a standard M1 stock. However, since the receiver of the earlier experiment was marked M1E5, the model shop took a new M1 receiver and built

 

 

it from ground up with modified parts. This rifle, along with the rifle from the Pacific Warfare Board, was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds for tests. By now the "short rifles" had been designated T26.

 

The results of the testing showed that the weapon suffered from lack of reliable function, excessive recoil and excessive muzzle blast. Function problems were traced to: (1) the rework needed to produce a shorter operating rod changed force angles, causing the rod

to bind occasionally; (2) the shorter spring length caused premature spring failure rates; (3) the pressure port was closer to the chamber and permitted increased volumes of unburned powder residue to foul the gas system. Increased recoil was expected, but muzzle blast was, to say the least, spectacular. When fired with standard military ball ammunition, the muzzle flash and dust signature was unacceptable. (Flash hiders and muzzle brakes weren't being used then.)

 

Because Germany had already surrendered and victory in the Pacific was close at hand, and because test results were unsatisfactory, it was decided to cancel all orders before any T26 rifles were actually produced. The only T26 made at Springfield Armory was damaged during testing and possibly salvaged for parts. The Pacific War Board prototype was returned to Springfield and placed in the museum. This is the weapon that appears in standard published photos. In reality, there were only 151 "Tanker" Garands made. Few of these probably survive. Some may have gone home in soldiers' duffel bags, but most would have been stripped and rebuilt to normal configuration in the years following World War II.

 

Identification of a legitimate "Tanker" is difficult. All specimens would have been built from rifles in used condition; therefore, the serial number range would reflect that. Numbers would probably be lower than 3,500,000 and could not be above 3,800,000. The barrel date, of course, would be no later than early 1945.

Also, the receiver is marked as a normal M1 and would be of either Springfield Armory or Winchester manufacture. Judging by the specimen in the Springfield Armory Museum, workmanship was marginal. The barrel splines look like they were hand filed and much freehand saw and file work shows up.

 

Despite the insignificant numbers of "Tanker" Garands actually made by the Army and their complete lack of success, their popularity grew. By the 1960s, when Garands became readily available through government surplus channels, a number of enterprising individuals began providing customizing services for M1 owners. One of the more popular services was, predictably, making "Tanker" versions. In those days a nice M1 could be obtained for $79.95, so a $40 "chop job" was not considered to be an offense against a collector's piece.

 

 

The following is an excerpt from another article I found online when I was researching my purchase:

 

06/27/2004 Archived Entry: "Range Report: M1 "Tanker" Garand"

 

IAN HAS BEEN AT THE RANGE AGAIN and brings back this exclusive full-length report on an unusual (and somewhat controversial) battle rifle.

 

Range Report: M1 "Tanker" Garand

By Ian McCollum

 

The M1 Garand, as many of you no doubt know, was America's primary service rifle through World War II and the Korean War. Like the 1911, it is a very well-designed weapon, one of the first of its type (that being semi-auto battle rifle), and retains a dedicated following to this day. When I started looking around for the best battle rifle to get for myself, the M1 caught my attention. However, they fire .30-06 ammunition (which is neither as plentiful nor as cheap as the 7.62x51 NATO), and are longer and heavier (24" barrel, 9.5 lb) than similar rifles. So I dropped the idea, and looked at other possibilities. I kept coming back to the M1, though, and eventually found just what I had in mind: a "tanker" Garand.

 

Plenty of M1 aficionados will probably cringe at the mere word "tanker." These rifles are shortened M1s (usually with 18" barrels), and many of them are horrible pieces of junk. In the 50s and 60s, they were often made with shot-out barrels and receivers that had been cut in half and welded back together (shudder). They were advertised as being authentic WWII rifles designed by General Patton himself to be issued to tank crews. This was utter baloney, of course. A few M1s were shortened by unit armorers in the Pacific, and the military did experiment with a couple for paratroops, but fewer than 10 ever existed during the war. However, some reputable manufacturers (notably Springfield Armory) did produce "tankers" commercially at times.

 

I found one of these quality rifles, and decided it would make an excellent battle rifle. Mine was made on an intact 1944 Springfield receiver with a brand new .308 barrel and new operating rod (a quality op rod is essential to a "tanker" M1). For anyone else in the market for one of these rifles, a good test is to disassemble one, remove the op rod spring, and tilt the rifle up and down. If the op rod and bolt slide back and forth under their own weight by 30 or 45 degrees, the rifle will likely work fine. If not, it almost certainly will not function well. I would recommend finding a Garand expert to inspect any "tanker" before purchase, as you'll also want to make sure that the throat and muzzle erosion are within acceptable limits, the trigger group is sound, the op rod is good, and so. I found such an expert, and got a stamp of approval on my rifle before finalizing the purchase.

 

Now, on to the range...

 

Clips: One objection modern shooters often have to the M1 is the fact that it uses 8-round en bloc clips instead of big detachable magazines. These clips are inserted completely into the rifle (unlike other rifles, where the ammo is pushed off the clip into the gun). The bolt then closes, chambering the first round. After all 8 have been fired, the clip is automatically ejected, with an unmistakably cool "PING!" sound. The downside of these clips is that they only hold 8 rounds, compared to 20 in a typical .308 magazine - so an M1 shooter has to reload 2.5 times for each time a mag-fed rifle shooter needs to reload. On the other hand, the clips have some advantages: they weight much less than any magazine, they only cost about 75 cents each (though Numrich sells them for as little as 40 cents each if you get a drum of 1,950), and they have no moving parts or springs to wear out. While debating what rifle to get, I weighed the pluses and minuses, and came to the conclusion that the advantages of the clips outweigh their disadvantages.

 

Reliability: Of the roughly 225 rounds thus far put through the rifle, I've had only two malfs (both within the first 75 or so rounds). One was a failure to fire - the firing pin hit the round's primer, but not hard enough to detonate it. The round fired on the second try. The other malf was a clip that didn't eject when it was empty. Unless these problems repeat themselves, I'm going to consider them quirks of rifle break-in, and ignore them. Aside from those malfs, the rifle's functioning has been flawless. One interesting thing I noticed is that ejected brass often hits the oprod as it cycles forward, resulting in the brass being thrown about 5 feet directly in front of the shooter.

 

Sights & Accuracy: M1s have great sights - a blade in front and an aperture on the back of the receiver. My "tanker" has a sight radius (the distance between front and rear sights, an important consideration in how accurately a rifle can be fired) of 22", which is as much as a FAL or HK91, and more than an AR. I particularly like the sight adjustments knobs on M1s - they are easily adjustable by hand (no screwdrivers or other tools needed) and change the point of impact in 1 MOA increments. In addition, the elevation knob is marked in 100s of yards out to 1200 yards for easy range adjustment (I may need to get a replacement knob to compensate for my "tanker's" different caliber and barrel length, though).

 

Most of my firing thus far has been plinking at reactive targets, but when sighting it in from a rest, I got groups of about 2" at 100 yards (using Portuguese surplus ammo). I'm quite happy with that level of accuracy - I can probably get better with better ammo, but it's still better than I can shoot from field positions.

 

Trigger: M1s also have great triggers, as good as any battle rifle and much better than most. They are two-stage deals, and easily perfected by competent gunsmiths.

 

Controls: Because it doesn't use detachable magazines, the M1 has different controls than most battle rifles. It has a manual clip ejection button, which allows a shooter to (as the name implies) eject the clip and all the ammo in the rifle. This button is located on the left side of the receiver, roughly where the bolt hold-open is on an AR-15. The M1's bolt handle is located on the right side of the receiver. This may seem like a disadvantage to right-handers, but there is no magazine to obstruct reaching under the rifle to the bolt handle, and the chamber is visible without moving removing the cheek from the stock. The bolt handle position is much, much less of an issue than with, say, the AK-47. And, of course, it's an uncommonly comfortable setup for left-handers. Lastly, there's the safety. On an M1, this is totally ambidextrous, being a forward-backward lever at the front of the trigger guard. My one complaint is that disengaging the safety requires putting a finger inside the trigger guard, so you have to be especially aware of your muzzle when doing so.

 

Disassembly & Cleaning: Field-stripping an M1 is as simple as any combat rifle. Rather than describe the process, I'll point you to the Civilian Marksmanship Program's step-by-step explanation. Detail stripping isn't quite so simple, as the bolt and gas cylinder both require tools to take apart. Cleaning is about average in complexity. One significant difference between the M1 and other rifles is that the rear of the receiver blocks access to the barrel from the chamber end. As a result, cleaning the barrel must be done from the muzzle, and a special ratcheted brush is needed to clean the chamber. Lastly, the M1 needs to be lubricated with grease, not oil. On the bright side, the storage compartment in the buttstock is large enough to hold everything you need. In my stock right now are a segmented cleaning rod, disassembly tool, chamber brush, container of grease, and some patches.

 

Acquisition: There are not many places to get good "tanker" M1s. I found mine in an online ad from a dealer. Smith Enterprise has an excellent reputation and offers "tanker" conversions, and good gunsmiths who specialize in Garands should have no trouble doing the same. If you can find a Springfield Armory conversion (not just a conversion done on an old Springfield receiver) it should be good. I would be very skeptical of all others, though. If you find a one that appears to be good, get it checked over by a Garand specialist before purchasing it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I talked to coach a little this was his fathers rifle that he brought home. He's digging it out of the closet to look at it more. His father was a tanker so that's all the info I have for now ill let you know more when I see the rifle

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok I talked to coach a little this was his fathers rifle that he brought home. He's digging it out of the closet to look at it more. His father was a tanker so that's all the info I have for now ill let you know more when I see the rifle

 

Interesting comment. If you can post a picture, it would help.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL.....I read the title, "us m 1 tanker value.".....I think to self, "Gee, you're an M-1 Tanker (former)."

 

So, my answer is PRICELESS. :lol:

 

 

 

....this is the Saloon, so I have no requirement to stay on topic, do I? :rolleyes:

 

 

Chick

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.