Earlier this week, we posted the photo below on our Facebook page — that’s me holding a heavily modified Korean War-era M1 Garand. The reception was a bit more dramatic that we had expected, with dozens of comments ranging from “I want one” to those accusing me of sacrilege. These reactions reflect the wider debate over the M1 “Tanker” style Garands; a classic rifle variant with a history that’s often misunderstood.
What is a Tanker Garand?
To get you up to speed if you’re not in a mood to slog through the Facebook comments, the rifle in the photo is an original Springfield Armory M1 Garand that’s been worked over by Tim Shufflin of Shuff’s Parkerizing. The original 24-inch .30-06 barrel has been replaced with a 16-inch .308 Win barrel, eliminating the need for a front handguard and dropping the overall weight from 9.5 pounds to a much handier 7.7 pounds. The end result is what Tim has dubbed the “Mini-G”, but depending on who you ask, it may or may not be accurate to also label it as a “Tanker” Garand.
Traditionally, M1s dubbed as Tankers have an 18-inch barrel, and leave two inches of the front handguard intact like the top rifle in the photo above. But labeling the slightly shorter Mini-G a as a Tanker wouldn’t necessarily be wrong since there never was a “real” or official M1 Tanker, and the term was invented purely for marketing purposes. However, the idea of a shortened version of the M1 was certainly being batted around in the latter days of WWII, and that’s where we have to look for the origins of the carbine-Garand variant we know today.
A Day Late and Six Inches Short
The original M1 Garand was technologically more advanced than its battlefield competitors in WWII, but it was still long, heavy, and cumbersome. This was particularly detrimental to both paratroopers as well as soldiers fighting in the jungles of the South Pacific.
The shorter, lighter, and significantly less powerful M1 Carbine was never intended for front-line assault troops, but was often pressed into that role because of its superior handling characteristics. There was a clear need for a rifle that would combine the firepower of the M1 Garand with the maneuverability of the M1 Carbine, but tanks had nothing to do with it.
In 1944, engineers at Springfield Armory set to work on the M1E5 — a Garand with a shortened barrel and a folding metal stock like the one found on the paratrooper version of the M1 Carbine. The results were disappointing. Due in part to the slow burning powders used in the standard .30-06 ball ammo of the time, the noise and muzzle flash generated was considered excessive, and accuracy was greatly reduced.
Oblivious of the M1E5 experiments, a general in the Pacific Warfare Board put in a request for 15,000 carbine-length Garands. He had the Phillipine-based Ordnance division of the 6th Army hack together 150 shortened Garands as proof of concept. A couple of these field-improvised M1s were sent back to Springfield Armory to be used as a starting point for the larger order.
There was a clear need for a rifle that would combine the firepower of the M1 Garand with the maneuverability of the M1 Carbine, but tanks had nothing to do with it.
Right away, the guys at Springfield recognized the sample rifles as nearly identical to the M1E5 they had tested the year before. They worked up a fresh prototype, this time with a standard wood stock, and dubbed it the T26. The subsequent tests with the T26 didn’t go any better than those conducted with the earlier metal-stock M1E5. In addition to the loud and flashy muzzle blast, the shorter action caused premature wear on parts, unreliable function, and excessive fouling in the gas system.
By this time, Germany had surrendered, ending the war in Europe, and victory in the Pacific was near. The effort required to address the problems with the T26 was considered too great and the project was scrapped.
Birth of the Tanker
The only T26 test rifle ever built at Springfield was damaged during testing and was either discarded or salvaged for parts. A similar fate likely befell the 150 experimental Garands that were field-modified in the Pacific. The sole remaining sample of the original modified Garands is one of the prototypes that was sent to Springfield in 1955, which made its way to the Springfield Armory Museum where it remains today.
In the early 1960s, this museum piece was spotted by Robert E. Penney, Jr., who thought the shortened Garand would be a handy weapon for tank crews. Through his company National Ordnance (and later Alpine), Penney was in the business of selling remanufactured M1 Garands made from the re-welded receivers of surplus rifles that had been cut and sold as scrap. Penney took his new idea and had some of his sketchy Garands cut down to be sold as “tanker” models. Soon after, the Tanker Garand was being advertised in gun magazines alongside the more authentic military surplus rifles.
Other companies later followed the trend, and none of them added their own markings to the receivers. Since only the original wartime serial numbers and manufacturers appear on these commercially modified rifles, many gun enthusiasts over the years have mistakenly assumed that the Tanker Garand was an authentic military variant of the M1.
Modern Tanker Options
Considering the somewhat questionable origins of the commercial Tanker Garand, it’s understandable that some M1 fans would consider the modification to be “sacrilegious”. I look at it a little differently, though. Remember, the concept of a Garand carbine was born out of battlefield necessity. If WWII had lasted an extra couple of years, it’s at least a possibility that a shorter M1 rifle would have made its way into the hands of American GIs. I like to think of a well-done Tanker modification as the realization of what many soldiers of the era actually wanted their M1s to be.
Fortunately, Tanker modifications are not limited to those made from crudely re-welded (and dangerous) surplus receivers. Many gunsmiths over the years have offered to perform the Tanker conversion on intact, good condition M1 rifles. In the past, a few companies have even made Tankers from their own newly-manufactured receivers, including Springfield Armory, Inc (not to be confused with the now-defunct military plant of the same name).
Today, some of the best Tanker style Garands come from Fulton Armory, who builds their “T26” rifles from original USGI receivers. And of course, there’s also the aforementioned Mini-G from Shuff’s Parkerizing, which I would personally recommend if you already own a Garand and want to have it modified. With quality parts and a knowledgeable gunsmith, the Tanker Garand is a handy rifle with excellent balance that’s fun to shoot and is, in many ways, far more practical than its full size counterpart.
Holy inflation! Man, can you imagine paying $80 for an AR or other carbine today?
No kidding. According to a couple of online inflation calculators, an $80 rifle in 1965 would be about $600 in 2014 dollars. That's not too far off from what a surplus M1 Carbine costs today (but you're looking at closer to $800 for one in decent condition).
I'm gonna ask again. How much are they, where do I get one and lastly, who's gonna take my money???!!!
then Italy took the Garands and converted them to .308 select-fire with 20 round magazines for their Army's issue rifle – short with good flash suppressors and called them the BM59 – they imported them in the 1980's as the BM62 and they are a great tanker length M14 like rifle with great handling – still have one in my safe with all the extras that go with it. A prized possession
Google shuffs parkerizing or mini g.tims website will give all the options and costs.he makes the best from your rifle or within limits imposed on him sells a set number of ready to go.his guns function to perfection.I recommend the mini g in the m14 configuration takes m14mags in 308 it is sweet.and he doesnt keep you waiting for months you will have your rifle back to your door in 10 days
Shuff's Mini-G conversions start at $525 with customer-provided rifles. Fulton Armory's tankers start at $1889. Can't speak for Fulton, but as Mike said, Tim Shufflin does great work with a super quick turnaround time.
Would love to own a"T26
Holy inflation! Man, can you imagine paying $80 for an AR or other carbine today?
No kidding. According to a couple of online inflation calculators, an $80 rifle in 1965 would be about $600 in 2014 dollars. That’s not too far off from what a surplus M1 Carbine costs today (but you’re looking at closer to $800 for one in decent condition).
I’m gonna ask again. How much are they, where do I get one and lastly, who’s gonna take my money???!!!
Google shuffs parkerizing or mini g.tims website will give all the options and costs.he makes the best from your rifle or within limits imposed on him sells a set number of ready to go.his guns function to perfection.I recommend the mini g in the m14 configuration takes m14mags in 308 it is sweet.and he doesnt keep you waiting for months you will have your rifle back to your door in 10 days
Shuff’s Mini-G conversions start at $525 with customer-provided rifles. Fulton Armory’s tankers start at $1889. Can’t speak for Fulton, but as Mike said, Tim Shufflin does great work with a super quick turnaround time.
then Italy took the Garands and converted them to .308 select-fire with 20 round magazines for their Army’s issue rifle – short with good flash suppressors and called them the BM59 – they imported them in the 1980’s as the BM62 and they are a great tanker length M14 like rifle with great handling – still have one in my safe with all the extras that go with it. A prized possession
Would love to own a”T26
I JUST GOT A NEW M1A1 AND IT COST ME 1600
As a handy hunting rifle, Tactically, a shorty FAL is wiser for graver work.
I JUST GOT A NEW M1A1 AND IT COST ME 1600
I have, Blue Sky repro Tanker I bought years ago. Love it, paid a whole lot less than 1800.
Tankers still have excess muzzle blast and poor accuracy.
As a handy hunting rifle, Tactically, a shorty FAL is wiser for graver work.
Rather carry and shoot a M-14. No en-bloc loading, magazine fed, roller on bolt, and straight shooting.
Muzzle blast is better with modern ammo than when they tested them in the 40s, especially with .308. Accuracy depends entirely on the barrel and the ammo — some of them are every bit as accurate as a full size M1.
FWIW: The muzzle brake wasn't most the important feature of Remington T27 design. Rather, note the button directly above the trigger. It is a push-through selector switch to allow for full-auto fire. The full-auto feature required the addition of the muzzle brake. The T27 design was offered as alternative for modifying existing M1 rifles to selective fire when it became clear that the goal of adding both selective-fire and BAR-compatible magazines to the M1 design could not be achieved reliably within standard length receivers.
LG Chris, I'm reporting what I've seen in our local matches. We've got two excellent shots, both NRA high power expert ranked that showed up with a Tanker and a Socom. Both blew a big fireball with modern ammo and had horrible scores on the standard 200 yard target, the SR. We also noted sigh adjustments are off because the rear sight is calibrated for the full lenghth barrel. We all agreed they looked cool though.
I have, Blue Sky repro Tanker I bought years ago. Love it, paid a whole lot less than 1800.
Tankers still have excess muzzle blast and poor accuracy.
Muzzle blast is better with modern ammo than when they tested them in the 40s, especially with .308. Accuracy depends entirely on the barrel and the ammo — some of them are every bit as accurate as a full size M1.
LG Chris, I’m reporting what I’ve seen in our local matches. We’ve got two excellent shots, both NRA high power expert ranked that showed up with a Tanker and a Socom. Both blew a big fireball with modern ammo and had horrible scores on the standard 200 yard target, the SR. We also noted sigh adjustments are off because the rear sight is calibrated for the full lenghth barrel. We all agreed they looked cool though.
Rather carry and shoot a M-14. No en-bloc loading, magazine fed, roller on bolt, and straight shooting.
Ever handle one Jerry? I just happened to be in a gun shop and saw one on the wall. I asked for it and was SHOCKED at how well balanced and compact it was. It has the comfort of a real wood stock yet the handling of an AR. Shoots pretty darn sweet and the weight really isn’t bad because the balance is so good. If the thing had a box magazine, it would be my favorite. What I really like about it is that it isn’t as long as your standard M1A and its balance is WAY better then the chopped down Socoms.
FWIW: The muzzle brake wasn’t most the important feature of Remington T27 design. Rather, note the button directly above the trigger. It is a push-through selector switch to allow for full-auto fire. The full-auto feature required the addition of the muzzle brake. The T27 design was offered as alternative for modifying existing M1 rifles to selective fire when it became clear that the goal of adding both selective-fire and BAR-compatible magazines to the M1 design could not be achieved reliably within standard length receivers.
Love my Mini-G. About to send another Franken – Garand off for the Shuff trearment. Don't forget he also can caliber convert it to 35 Whelen. A 9.1mm battle carbine is just the ticket for bad guys and bears.
Love my Mini-G. About to send another Franken – Garand off for the Shuff trearment. Don’t forget he also can caliber convert it to 35 Whelen. A 9.1mm battle carbine is just the ticket for bad guys and bears.
I don't have the Tanker but I bought my Garand from Shuff's Parkerising. He does excellent work and uses the best parts available. It's so pretty I hate to shoot it. If you are in the market buy it from him. I do have the 303 Enfield "tanker" and that sucker kicks harder than Ole' Haley's mule! The blast and noise would scare away half the county. Brush gun my a$$!
I don’t have the Tanker but I bought my Garand from Shuff’s Parkerising. He does excellent work and uses the best parts available. It’s so pretty I hate to shoot it. If you are in the market buy it from him. I do have the 303 Enfield “tanker” and that sucker kicks harder than Ole’ Haley’s mule! The blast and noise would scare away half the county. Brush gun my a$$!
I may be missing something Chris, but why not just get a Springfield M1A 16"? 308, 16" barrel and absurdly similar action with a similar price as well.
I may be missing something Chris, but why not just get a Springfield M1A 16″? 308, 16″ barrel and absurdly similar action with a similar price as well.
I thought so too, till I handled one. The balance is way better.
Don’t destroy any more historical Garands. Hillary and Barack are doing their best o make them disappear. Buy an AR-10 instead. Keep your Garand as God intended it to be.
Nothing was destroyed. A new barrel, hand guard, and op rod will return it to its original configuration.
It may be the original configuration but it will no longer be the original rifle.
Oh phooey! There were nearly five and a half million Garand’s produced! While there were a small number of un-issued and rifles with all the factory original parts still intact that left the CMP I’d be willing to bet at least 98% of the Garand’s in private hands at one time went through maintenance where parts were replaced and/or swapped out if they hadn’t already been swapped out during cleaning parties out in the field. Your fear of destroying an “original” rifle is your’s and your’s alone. The CMP would never put an “original” Garand in the mix for the luck of the draw sales, they would have been auctioned of sold at near market value and only collectors would buy them. So who would take a $3K plus collectible Garand and turn it into a Mini-G? That’s the same whinning that plastered the CMP forum after Tim announced the Mini-G, that’s a load of &8%$#
My Mini-G’s were built from some of the bare receivers the CMP sold from the rifles they stripped down and parted out. The barrels were used, they had good throat readings but badly worn muzzles from the steel cleaning rods issued. The Op Rods used where worn beyound usable service and needed repair. So the receivers, Op Rods and barrels were saved and given a new life. I now have two great Mini-G’s, no “original” Garand’s were harmed 😉 When I go to the range it’s the Mini-G’s I garb, since I’ve gotten them the Garand’s don’t get much use anymore. Cheers
I believe I own a National Ordnance or other company modified Garand. After reading the above article I can fairly confidently state that. There are no markings on it to determine, though, who actually did the cut down. It functions properly, shoots accurately and well and has been in my family since the 60’s.