Un-modified rear handguard, what does it mean?

[Bob Seijas]

This bit of foolishness keeps coming back from the dead like a zombie. Uncut rods are NOT dangerous, maybe you could ask the several million vets who fought with them in WWII. Somebody please put a stake in the heart of this nonsense.

[.45s r best]

I read your post about uncut rods not being dangerous with interest. Do you have any hard facts that could back it up? If this was the case, why did they start putting the relief cut in the rod? From my understanding, any sharp corner will be a stress point. From what I have read, you may be able to fire a significant amount of rounds with an uncut rod before it fails. However, maybe the guys before you fired that significant amount and you will be the one to have the misfortune of being on the receiving end of a failed rod. I understand that at some point any material will fatigue and fail, but why would you stack the odds against yourself? In any event the rods do have collectable value. Just my opinion, I am by no means a gunsmith.

[Charlie59]

Where it would become really dangerous, is if it broke during a firefight, and the soldier carrying the rifle would have to use it as a club. Since riflemen shot the M1 righthanded, the handle would fly backward, and to the right of the shooter' face if it let loose. I, however, shoot lefthanded, and wouldn't want to use an early oprod, getting hit in the face with empty cases on rare occasions, is enough of a PITA. I believe Steyr made the only service rifle I know of that was made to be shot from either side.

[latigo 1]

The huge number of uncut op rods that are still in service is pretty good proof that SA did not consider the modification as high priority. If it was really unsafe, I think they would have seen to it that they were pulled from service.

[DaveN]

In Bruce Canfields Complete guide to the M1 Garand and the M1 CarbinePage 33, OP Rod 3rd para something about cracks forming and modifications made.

The Complete M1 Garand by Jim Thompson(and my first book on the subject)Page 26#5 Unwise, dangerous,and financially silly. Words like blinded or killed are used.


Scott Duff who I find my most read and go to author said nothing on this subject at least at a quick glance of his first book. It maybe in his 2nd book but I feel lazy tonight.

If I acquire an un cut it would go on a WWII Garand and certainly not be fired. Just my opinion.

[paul1440]

You can find this on Scott Duff's website under FAQs.

By Walt Kuleck (underline and bold emphasis is mine)

"Actually, no op rod was really "problematic"; the WWII op rods would crack after a great deal of use & abuse, at the right angle where the handle goes to meet the tube; that's why the stress relief cut was ordered & why most WWII op rods have been "cut."

Let's put to rest here and now the alarmist statements which have appeared recently in books and magazine articles. The uncut op rod does not pose a serious safety hazard! Contrary to what you may have read elsewhere, the op rod is not "traveling at over 200 mph." The maximum speed of the Garand op rod, according to Springfield Armory documents, is 26 feet per second! For those of you in Rio Linda, that's just a hair under 18 mph.

Now let's examine the likely failure mode. We must note that while cracks were sometimes found, actual separations at the point were quite rare, and none ever resulted in a reported injury (as best we can tell from surviving documents and the testimony of retired armorers). Why? The crack is the result of tensile stress, i.e., as the rod is moving forward the handle portion is pulling the bolt with it, usually chambering a cartridge. The crack would not be the result of compressive stress, i.e., as the bolt is being "pushed" rearward by the op rod during the recoil stroke. Thus if the rod were to fail, it should fail on the counter-recoil, or return, stroke, when the area in question is under tension, not the recoil stroke, when it is under compression. Failure would thus most likely occur at the beginning of the counter-recoil stroke, as the action began to return to battery from its furthest rearward position. Therefore, we would expect the handle portion and the bolt to remain at rest at the rear of the receiver while the op rod spring pulled the balance of the rod forward. At that point the rifle jams and shooting stops.

We don't recommend shooting uncut op rods, but for a very different reason than certain alarmists have suggested. Uncut rods have collector value that will only increase over time. There will always be someone who wants an uncut rod to complete a restoration. Unless you are accumulating contemporary parts for your own restoration work, you may want to consider selling an uncut rod to a collector for that purpose and using one of the much more common cut or post-WWII op rods for "daily use."

In summary, the op rod issue has been greatly overblown by some. Do not fall prey to their alarmist misinformation. Armed with the knowledge here we believe you can draw your own conclusions."

[DaveN]

Thanks Paul, I was only bringing up some of what I had read on this subject. I have not even seen a un cut op rod in person. My 43 SA came from CMP with a -3 SA that has the modification and is the oldest and coolest rod I have. Don't tell my wife!Any way I still would not shoot with one just on the value of it being in on piece(un cut). I may not shoot my 42 for the same reason.

[jmoore]

I've used uncut op rods on several rifles and have fired then for function and light range use w/o drama. -3 and up. I've an uncut no dash and a -1 waiting for rifles and they too will be at least function tested when the time comes. Hard working rifles will get modded or late op rods, just to maximize reliability.

Sometmes there's a noticable zero shift after changing rods, but generally it's not major, so on range days the old girls will get the "uptown" snazzy high speed low drag rods. For "formal wear", the uncut rods are a must! It's just matching the attire for the occasion.

[Bodyman]

OK, paul1440 is right on - uncut oprods are not deadly. They just aren't. Thank you paul1440 for a great explaination.

I would like to relate a bit of my epxerience on this topic, though. A very long time ago when I was first starting out I tripped over a really cool WRA Garand that was mostly straight, but had been chromed (I actually put it on a table at the OGCA show where I was sitting with the very same Walt Kuleck of whom paul1440 speaks. I brought two display rifles and set it next to a very nice WRA 101,xxx restoration with a flat buttplate and flushnuts and an RS stock and everything. We had a ball watching people walk up and found it very interesting that these two rifles side by side were able to indicate exactly what level of collector we had on our hands - if they noticed the early rifle they were quite advanced and were asking if it still had the keystones inside, while the shiney rifle was almost always attracting the very newest of enthusiasts! We had a ball just talking to folks). Anyway, the chrome rifle had been fired quite a bit after it had been chromed and anyone who knows about chroming knows that the process will cause something called hydrogen embrittlement to the steel which can be, well, ... not good for parts that are under such stresses that occur when a firearm is discharged. All new to me, I looked it over closely as I started learning more and upon very close examination I noticed that the oprod had a crack! But, it was not in the place where you might expect and where some of the more alarmist statements might have us thinking - nope. It was in fact, at the bolt lug groove where the bolt lug travels and travelled around the top of the rod to the front of the oprod at the 'hump'. What initially looked like a bit of discoloration in the chroming was actually a hairline crack in the underlying steel. As for the elbow under the barrel where rods got modified - that was fine ...

Sure this may be but one example, but it is a pretty telling one as far as I am concerned, and it reinforces exactly what paul1440 and others have been having to say for a long time now - firing unmodified oprods just isn't problematic (but now firing chromed ones might be a bad idea, ...). I always found that interesting.

I am going to throw a monkey wrench in this thread a little bit, however - the original post shows a picture of a rear handguard that is suspected to be uncut, but it looks to have been sanded heavily.



From the picture, the wood is substantially lower than the rear handguard clip which is a good indicator (and someone who is a bit ham-handed has removed and chipped the wood around the clip - this is unfortunately very common as they can be a devil to remove after all these years). The handguard behind is much thicker and you can see that the clip is nicely nestled in the groove of the wood as it should be, while on the front handguard that clip is quite a bit above the wood (nice arched clip though). While the name for it is a 'no-clearance cut' it is a bit confusing in that it does not mean the total lack of any mark - no clearance cuts just have a different type of mark.

At this point, if it has been sanded, it is very hard to say whether it may or may not have originally been a no-clearance cut rear handguard or not. Usually, no-clearance cut rear handguards will have the shape of the oprod handle because the wood is actually in the way - this one has no indication whatsoever. While this is possible, the fact that it is also low at the clip is more an indication of sanding than anything. When they have been sanded to either clean up their appearance or to try to duplicate a no-clearance cut they will sometimes not experience the interference any longer, as this one seems to show.

It takes some time to understand the difference, but even more confusing is that some clearance cut handguards will be thick enough that they will actually have the oprod smash mark on them making them look like no clearance cut also, and it is not until you can look at them more closely that the clearance cut is revealed.

Here is a picture of a very early SA no-clearance cut rear handguard that has been lightly sanded - from this view you can see that the stamped clip is a little bit proud of the wood when it should be in a groove and not proud at all. Milled and milled/grooved clips can be a bit taller (especially in the middle where they crown) but the edges of the clip should still not be above the wood.



From this view you can see that the edges have been slightly removed by sanding, though you can still very clearly see the shape of the oprod from impacting the wood upon cycling.



Here are a few more - some sanded and some probably not so. The bottom one is the one I was showing above;



Hope this helps a little bit.

[.45s r best]

Great post paul 1440, very informative! I think a point to be made is this: Yes, possibly the idea of them them being dangerous is overblown. However it is obvious that a problem did exist and it was dealt with. I would like to get the opinion of other members about field stripping Garands, not National Match Garands just plain as issued Garands. I have talked to Garand owners who think that it is not only not needed to field strip and clean them after firing but downright harmful to the rifle in the end due to wear and tear. Only the bore should be cleaned after firing and field stripping should only be done from time to time. I would agree with this if you were going to fire the rifle again within a few days, but if it is going to sit a while, a field stripping and cleaning is appropriate in my opinion. I would be interested to hear what other members have to say on this issue. What is the general consensus on this?