Printable View
I know that the so-called "Tanker Garand" can be problematic.
Apparently many are simply made up from kits or miscellanous parts, with varying degrees of success.
I recently ran accross one that is based on a WWII Springfield receiver that was stamped TANKER on the side of the receiver.
Anyone have any information about these?
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...8e39c6eb-1.jpg
https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...5d544632-1.jpg
You might want to try our Google CSE custom search engine located in the top right corner below the words "Advanced Search". It only searches our site using Google techniques and can be quite efficient. For example, in your case, type in the words tanker garand and see what happens ..
There's a lot of old discussion threads and pics on the subject.
Regards,
Doug
US Ordnance would not stamp the name TANKER on an experimental design being tested back in the 1944-45 period. Furthermore the original concept of a short barreled M1 rifle would not have anything to do with issue or testing by US tank crews. The name TANKER came from private venders that were selling these weapons
Thanks, RCS...I know that.
I'm trying to figure out which private vendor put these out and whether that vendor did a decent job on the conversion.
check jouster for the name
The screw on the elevation cap is sooo wrong.Looks like a machine screw.
Cast receiver?
Then it will probably only last so long before detonating...maybe that's why they're not more common...Quote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
No, a 2,xxx,xxx SpringfieldQuote:
Originally Posted by bob seijas
I stand corrected.
This is a Federal Ordnance rifle built on WWII rifles. I also have the same marking on the side of a 2 million M1. These were later 70's or early 80's built rifles if my memory serves me correct.
These might have been earlier in South El Monte, California. There is no need to worry, it is NOT anything to do with US arsenal manufacture other than who made the receiver and attendant parts. Mine came with a beautiful California claro walnut stock, lockbars and a new barrel. I bought this thing long before I knew better, but it shoots well although not famously tight groups.
Mine was apparently in salt water for some time as the metal below the woodline is severely pitted. I found a 2 mil receiver one day at the South Store and bought it for a transplant of the usable parts.
Good luck with yours. I would term it shootable (with knowledgeable inspection) but of little worth in collectors' circles.[/I]
IIRC, Fed Ord built most "tankers" on welded receiver halves. You might want to look up the drawing number & see if it is correct for the serial number.
Neal
I was watching this on an on-line auction, and did not bid on it based on the questions about its origin and quality.
It went for $920
Seems someone was anxious for a tanker. They seem to work OK most of the time, but nothing supernatural. I'd rather have a regular rifle. Which I have...
I've got several Garands and love them. There is something about a short Garand that interests me, however.
Frankly, though, Shuff's magazine conversion Garand interests me more.
My Tanker (or whatever you want to call a shortened M1) is light and I have since replaced the walnut stock with a very lightweight stock from Midway (I forget the manufacturer) and it is easy on these old arms when I carry it afield.
Only two were ever build by US military. There are no military Tankers although the museum at Springfield has a wide variety of modified Garand designs which makes for interesting viewing. Warbird downin Texas used to build some of the finest tankers as do several other smiths. I can tell you the muzzle flash is somewhat excessive as you would expect from a short barrelled rifle. Proceed at your own risk with this forewarning.
I can find no evidence of a weld on my receiver but I will check the serial against the drawing number. I already have a replacement receiver, but that purchase was based on the severe pitting under woodline. Probably will just go ahead and junk out the receiver in the end.