Welcome to the Home of the 6.8 SPC - 68forums.com.

Advertise Here
Results 1 to 6 of 6
  1. #1
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas,Texas
    Posts
    7,760

    Default Tanker Garand and the mini G

    So how does this fit in the scope of things?
    I just started looking into the history of the tanker Garand and find that they are somewhat not really that great of an investment. Either there weren't many made. The ones around now are off of screwed up DIY parts kits, etc

    So is there a good resource for the tanker G and is the Shuffling one considered a part of the history and an even more technical question does his rifles fall under the C&R guidelines?

    Discuss.
    http://www.ar15techforums.com/BBS/index.php

    train like your life depends on it, Because it does!
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.


    Posted by HTR:
    They're smarter than dogs, warier than turkeys or deer, and more evil than a dungeon full of Mansons

  2. #2
    Administrator
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    OKLA
    Posts
    5,681

    Default

    I don't have access to my book from work but I believe that if the tanker garand was originally issued as the tanker model before 1958 it falls under C&R.
    An aftermarket conversion like the shuffs would not be eligible.
    USAF Ret.
    Pistol,Rifle,Sniper Team



    Combat/Flight medic- 88-94, Flight Nurse 94-08, Chief Nurse / CCATT 05-08, Marksmanship Team 00-08
    Tours -Desert storm 2, Somalia 1, Bosnia 3, Afghan. 2, Iraq 1

  3. #3
    68Forums.com lifer
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Central California
    Posts
    3,253

    Default

    Not sure on the C&R.

    From what I understand, the Mini-G is a modern answer to the Tankers lack of availability and some reliabilty/function issues. Never actuall issued to the military. I read in the artical that he uses surplus barrels and cuts them off then manufactures the push rod himself from his own designs, cant link at the moment but Ill dig them up in a little bit.
    "We have a criminal and a system problem, we don't have a gun problem in this state," he said. "As long as legislators concentrate on gun control, we will continue to have mass shootings and the legislators will have blood on their hands."
    -Sam Paredes

  4. #4
    68Forums.com lifer
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Farmington MO, Viburnum MO
    Posts
    2,544

    Default

    First...any GI issue M1 Garand is C&R eligible. However some commercial M1 Garands made by Springfield Armory Inc. (not Springfield Arsenal) are not.

    Second. There were never any M1 "Tanker" Grands ever issued by the military regardless of the story told by a seller how his grandpa brought one back from the Philippines. There were shortened Garand test rifles made but never approved for issue. The one surviving example is in the Springfield Arsenal Museum.

    There were many so called "Tankers' built from surplus rifles returned from S. Korea by Blue Sky Indust. and Arlington Ordanance. These can be fair to good rifles if not modified. However there were also rifles build using re welded demilled Garand receivers that are unsafe to fire and are the basis of many "bad" stories of Tanker Garands.

    There were also Tanker Parts kits sold by various companies that were left over parts from Arlington Ordinance when they went out of business. Criterion also made new barrels for the Tanker. I currently have several Arlington Ordinance Rifles and parts kits I acquired years ago. They are not bad shooters.

    There have been some excellent Tanker configuration carbines made by Springfield Armory Inc that were built on commercial Garand receivers...and they command a high price because they were new manufacture, very accurate and few were made. But again they are not C&R eligible.

    There were also Tankers made by Roland Beaver, a retired Marine armorer living in Arkansas. His rifles are prime, match grade... accurate, reliable and very expensive... but worth it if your prepared to wait a year for him to build one.

    But Tim Shufflins Min-G is in a class by itself. They are not the same as a tanker configuration, but are 2" shorter with a barrel length of 16 1/2". Tanker parts and Mini-G parts do not interchange. Tim has succeeded in producing a "better" Garand carbine that the masses can afford. Not every one is as accurate as a Roland Beaver rifle, but some come very close for half the cost. Tim's rifles are well made and surprisingly accurate for being a cut down GI grade barrels. But he does not sell them as match rifles. They are accurate hunting rifles. I have never heard of a single complaint from a Mini-G owner other than they wished they could afford another one.
    The nice part is that you can take a C&R surplus M1 Garand with a worn muzzle and send to Tim for conversion to a Min-G for as little as $525...which includes all modifications and a re parkerized finish. It is a bargain for what you get. A rifle muzzle that might have had a gaged reading of over 4 can be restored to 1 or less after shortening the barrel. He removes enough of the original barrel length that the splines for the gas cylinder and new gas port can be added without issue. Plus his quality, workmanship and turn around time are excellent. Highly recommended.

    There is more to share but I would suggest visiting Tim's web site and forum.

    http://shuffsparkerizing.com/services/the-mini-g/

    http://forum.shuffsparkerizing.com/f...Shuff-s-Mini-G

    Also the CMP forum has a lot of feedback. This is a recent thread:

    http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=74608

    Kerry
    Law enforcement officers must understand that armed citizens are there to defend them when they are outnumbered…and to outnumber them, if they enforce unconstitutional law.
    __________________________________________________ ___________________
    300 AAC Blackout Chambering Cancelled:


    Some time ago, Savage announced it would be chambering the Model 10 Precision Carbine in 300 AAC Blackout. Since that time, we have tested many variants of this cartridge in various barrel lengths and rates of twist. This exhaustive testing left us quite unsatisfied with the accuracy we were able to get from the subsonic loads in this chambering. Accuracy with the lighter, faster loads in this caliber was actually quite good. But we believe the real value in this cartridge lies in the use of subsonic loads for suppressed rifles. Therefore we have decided to scrap the project.
    It is our understanding that pushing these heavy, slow bullets presents challenges not found in typical loadings and that our experience is not unique. Subsequently, many in the industry have simply adopted a lower standard for accuracy for these subsonic loads. While this does seem reasonable and we don't criticize any in our industry that have taken this approach, it just won't work for Savage.
    Our brand was built on accuracy and we are too protective of our reputation for building the most accurate factory rifles available. We would rather walk away from this opportunity than sell a product that requires an explanation.




    Retired, Burned Out :
    68forums.com Moderator
    Gatewaycobraclub.com Moderator
    Ex-Mfg. Engineer
    Ex-Tool Room Machinist
    Ex-CNC Programmer
    Ex-Stearman Pilot
    Ex-Racing Engine Builder/Shop Owner
    Ex-Funny Bike Builder/Competitor

    Currently in 10th year as active duty Cranky Old Fart...

    RVN 68-72

  5. #5
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Dallas,Texas
    Posts
    7,760

    Default

    Thanks Owenslee.
    Looks like the mini G is the way to go.
    http://www.ar15techforums.com/BBS/index.php

    train like your life depends on it, Because it does!
    A closed mouth gathers no foot.


    Posted by HTR:
    They're smarter than dogs, warier than turkeys or deer, and more evil than a dungeon full of Mansons

  6. #6
    68Forums.com Team Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    WA
    Posts
    5,283

    Default

    Thanks for all the good information Kerry. I remembered that the Tanker model was never really an issue weapon I didn't recall that it was actually a government sponsored evaluation.
    Steve
    An American
    Supporter of the U.S. Constitution and ENTIRE Bill of Rights as Originally Written
    Retired U.S. Army


 

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •