M1 Garand 1941 Springfield

[Joe W]

Gents,


I will certainly buy Bob's book for the correct information, as I don't recall this being in the Canfield book that I currently own.

Perhaps the myth continues due to the proximity of the events tied to the statement "around the time the grenade launcher was developed" makes one conjure that they were related... I will mention this to the individual who sold me this receiver....

The book I am referring to is Bruce Canfield's new book, " The M1 Garand Rifle". Bob Seijas wrote the forward and contributed
quite a bit to the book, especially in regards to the National Match M1 Rifle, but it is Bruce N. Canfields book. All 800 plus pages.

[Joe W]

[QUOTE] I have the "correct" bolt sourced for this already... so now onto the expensive and hard to get things to find [QUOTE]

Finding a GHS stock that will match the wear of the completed restoration will be tough. But, I do wish you luck.

[RCS]

With the receiver refinished and annealed, I would restore it as a WW2 mid war or later rebuild, a modified rev 3 op rod could be located, lock bar Type 2 rear sight and perhaps a rebuild SA GHS stock plus a WW2 barrel. It would look nice

[Rick B]

Well I for one have seen many split receivers at the heel and seen quite a few blown off. Many were on Parade rifles but hey Blanks just like those used on the grenades could never cause this right????? Knowledge and hands on is key. Rick B

[emmagee1917]

Well I for one have seen many split receivers at the heel and seen quite a few blown off. Many were on Parade rifles but hey Blanks just like those used on the grenades could never cause this right????? Knowledge and hands on is key. Rick B

Well , a grenade launching cartrige is NOT a blank , but , in a functioning system , you are correct .
Now , an M7 launcher with it's stem missing or shortened so as the valve won't open , yeh , I can see it doing harm .
A M1 with one of those aftermarket solid single sloted plugs with the large center hole that will accept an M7 with no valve to open , yep , them too.
An M1 with a BFA attached and fed a GLC instead of a blank , oh yeah , better believe I could see that .
Otherwise I'd just chalk it up to a lot of M2 ball or a lot of M2 AP .
Chris

[Bob Seijas]

I'm guessing that the decision was made in the early days of the launcher development when they didn't have the venting correct. Add in that some receivers cracked because the bolt recoiled too far as Rick B said -- I think this might have been the result of poor attention to tolerances during heavy pressure to deliver rifles in 1942. When the two were added together, SA made the decision to use a less brittle steel. I'm guessing, of course, but what was the risk in doing so? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to the new steel.

[latigo 1]

I'm guessing that the decision was made in the early days of the launcher development when they didn't have the venting correct. Add in that some receivers cracked because the bolt recoiled too far as Rick B said -- I think this might have been the result of poor attention to tolerances during heavy pressure to deliver rifles in 1942. When the two were added together, SA made the decision to use a less brittle steel. I'm guessing, of course, but what was the risk in doing so? I'm not aware of any drawbacks to the new steel.

I think that is true and part of it may have had to do with the early op rod springs. That spring had to perform several jobs, one of which was to prevent or at least reduce the impact of the bolt hitting the back of the receiver. We know SA used 2 types of springs before finally settling on the one piece round wire spring that came into use in December 1940. The original Keystone spring and the Keystone spring with the compensating spring were experimented with but eventually discarded in favor of the one piece round spring. I don't know exactly what the reasons were, but I think it probably had something to do with the problem of making a spring strong enough to slam the bolt into battery, but not so strong that it kept the bolt from travelling rearward far enough to pick up the next round, but also not so weak that when the bolt reached the end of the rearward travel it would hit the end of the receiver hard enough to break it. Too add to all those requirements, the spring also could not be so strong that it would be difficult for a shooter to push a loaded clip into the rifle. A difficult task to design a spring with the proper seat pressure and spring rate to reliably perform all these tasks. It would be interesting to know the seat pressure and rate of the early springs. The one piece Keystone was obviously too strong somewhere in the range of travel and that lead to the shorter Keystone with the compensating spring, which was an obvious attempt to build a dual rate spring that would be softer at the extended range of travel but would get strong quickly at the very end of the compressed range, probably in an attempt to prevent a hard impact when the bolt hit the rear of the receiver. Obviously neither were satisfactory and that is why the Keystone type were abandoned in favor of the round type.

[Bob Seijas]

Your reasoning seems sound, especially the need to develop a dual rate. Tuttle said Garand always hated the keystone, called it "that screen door spring." The comp spring was added to improve "sluggish" performance until Wallace Barnes was able to develop a round one that worked. No specifics on what sluggish meant exactly, but I think you hit it.

[emmagee1917]

I think both of you hit it on the head . That would explain both being developed at the same time ( launcher & reciever ) .
Chris