FAL M1-Garand swap

[Bummer]

Well, after reading your advise last spring re: swapping one of my FAL's for a .308 M1 (chamber insert) I decided to put the project on hold. Last week I traded one of my Coonan/Imbel's for a really nice M1 in .30-06. I had a total of under $400.00 in the FAL - $295 for receiver inc. registration and $99.00 for the Imbel kit -- yeah, I bought a dozen kits about 12 years ago. The M1 Springfield receiver was mfg in April of '43, one year after I was built, and underwent an arsenal rebuild with new barrel in '58. All metal is beautiful and the bore is factory fresh. Wood is a really nice vertical grained walnut. The trigger is as smooth as silk with a crisp let off. I am a very happy camper. I've waited 70 years to get my M1, I just never seemed to get around to it -- I think it was worth the wait!

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by Bummer

Well, after reading your advise last spring re: swapping one of my FAL's for a .308 M1 (chamber insert) I decided to put the project on hold. Last week I traded one of my Coonan/Imbel's for a really nice M1 in .30-06. I had a total of under $400.00 in the FAL - $295 for receiver inc. registration and $99.00 for the Imbel kit -- yeah, I bought a dozen kits about 12 years ago. The M1 Springfield receiver was mfg in April of '43, one year after I was built, and underwent an arsenal rebuild with new barrel in '58. All metal is beautiful and the bore is factory fresh. Wood is a really nice vertical grained walnut. The trigger is as smooth as silk with a crisp let off. I am a very happy camper. I've waited 70 years to get my M1, I just never seemed to get around to it -- I think it was worth the wait!

Ya did good, as far as I'm concerned. Especially going .30-06. There ain't anything you can do with a 308 that you can't do better with an '06. Plus, it's what the gun was designed for.

Here's hopin' it shoots like it looks!

[MAINER]

I likes Garands, or at least the one that I have. Got it as a Blue Sky re-import, but for $275 or thereabout, it served to let me know if I wanted to buy a fancy one.

Mine is also from Springfield Armory and dates to Oct. '42. `I liked it well enough to put a new walnut stock on 7 yrs ago and just had a new Criterion installed to replace what turned out to be a Marlin barrel.

Sounds like you got a nice one. Enjoy!

[Tuscan Raider]

You will not regret getting the Garand. I said I wouldn't spend
money on another .30, but the Garand changed my mind.

Where are the pics?

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by shlomo

There ain't anything you can do with a 308 that you can't do better with an '06.

Not necessary true !


Accuracy Facts
.308 Winchester versus .30-06 Springfield

By Bart Bobbitt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"All that aside, lets go back to when the .30-06 and .308 were the only cartridges allowed in NRA match rifle matches. Both cartridges were used in barrels of equal quality as well as the same action and stocks by several top shooters in the USA. Both cartridges were used in matches at ranges from 100 through 1000 yards. Many thousands of rounds were fired in both types. Bullets from 168 through 200 grains were used with several powder, case and primer combinations.

In comparing accuracy between the .308 and .30-06, folks who used each quickly agreed on one thing: .308s were two to three times more accurate than the .30-06. In the early 1960s, it was also observed that competitors with lower classifications using .308s were getting higher scores than higher classified folks using .30-06s; at all ranges. By the middle to late 1960s, all the top highpower shooters and virtually all the rest had switched to the .308. The Highpower Committee had received so many complaints of ties not being able to be broke between shooters using the .308 and shooting all their shots in the tie-breaking V-ring, something had to be done to resolve this issue. In 1966, the NRA cut in half the target scoring ring dimensions.

At the peak of the .30-06's use as a competition cartridge, the most accurate rifles using it would shoot groups at 200 yards of about 2 inches, at 300 of about 3 inches. The 600-yard groups were 6 to 7 inches and at 1000 yards about 16 inches. As the high-scoring ring in targets was 3 inches at 200 and 300 yards, 12 inches at 600 and 20 inches at 1000, the top scores fired would have 90+ percent of the shots inside this V-ring.

Along came the 7.62mm NATO and its commercial version; the .308 Winchester. In the best rifles, 200 yard groups were about 3/4ths inch, at 300 about 1-1/2 inch. At 600 yards, groups were about 2-1/2 inch and at 1000 about 7 to 8 inches. It was not very long before the .30-06 round no longer won matches nor set any records; all it's records were broken by the .308 by a considerable margin. Some accuracy tests at 600 yards with the .308 produced test groups in the 1 to 2 inch range. These were 20 to 40 shot groups. No .30-06 has ever come close to shooting that well.

At 1000 yards, where both the .30-06 and .308 were allowed in Palma matches, the .308 was the clear-cut most accurate of the two. If top shooters felt the .30-06 was a more accurate round, they would have used it - they didn't. In fact by the early 1970s, the scoring ring dimensions on the 800 - 1000 yard target were also cut in about half due to the accuracy of both the .308 Win. over the .30-06 and the .30-.338 over the .300 H&H when used in long range matches.

Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge.

Military arsenals who produced match and service ammo in both 7.62mm and 30 caliber have fired thousands of test rounds/groups with both. They also found out that with both ammo types, the smallest groups were with the 7.62 by about 50 to 60 percent. M1 rifles in 7.62 shot about twice as small of groups as .30 M1s at all ranges. When the M14 was first used, there were some .30-06 M1 rifles that would shoot more accurately. It took the service teams several years to perfect the methods of making M14s shoot well, but when they did, they shot as good as M1s in 7.62.

There will always be folks who claim the .30-06 is a more accurate cartridge. All I have to say to them is to properly test .308 vs. .30-06 and find out. Theory is nice to think about; facts determine the truth."

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

Not necessary true !


Accuracy Facts
.308 Winchester versus .30-06 Springfield

By Bart Bobbitt
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


"All that aside, lets go back to when the .30-06 and .308 were the only cartridges allowed in NRA match rifle matches. Both cartridges were used in barrels of equal quality as well as the same action and stocks by several top shooters in the USA. Both cartridges were used in matches at ranges from 100 through 1000 yards. Many thousands of rounds were fired in both types. Bullets from 168 through 200 grains were used with several powder, case and primer combinations.

In comparing accuracy between the .308 and .30-06, folks who used each quickly agreed on one thing: .308s were two to three times more accurate than the .30-06. In the early 1960s, it was also observed that competitors with lower classifications using .308s were getting higher scores than higher classified folks using .30-06s; at all ranges. By the middle to late 1960s, all the top highpower shooters and virtually all the rest had switched to the .308. The Highpower Committee had received so many complaints of ties not being able to be broke between shooters using the .308 and shooting all their shots in the tie-breaking V-ring, something had to be done to resolve this issue. In 1966, the NRA cut in half the target scoring ring dimensions.

At the peak of the .30-06's use as a competition cartridge, the most accurate rifles using it would shoot groups at 200 yards of about 2 inches, at 300 of about 3 inches. The 600-yard groups were 6 to 7 inches and at 1000 yards about 16 inches. As the high-scoring ring in targets was 3 inches at 200 and 300 yards, 12 inches at 600 and 20 inches at 1000, the top scores fired would have 90+ percent of the shots inside this V-ring.

Along came the 7.62mm NATO and its commercial version; the .308 Winchester. In the best rifles, 200 yard groups were about 3/4ths inch, at 300 about 1-1/2 inch. At 600 yards, groups were about 2-1/2 inch and at 1000 about 7 to 8 inches. It was not very long before the .30-06 round no longer won matches nor set any records; all it's records were broken by the .308 by a considerable margin. Some accuracy tests at 600 yards with the .308 produced test groups in the 1 to 2 inch range. These were 20 to 40 shot groups. No .30-06 has ever come close to shooting that well.

At 1000 yards, where both the .30-06 and .308 were allowed in Palma matches, the .308 was the clear-cut most accurate of the two. If top shooters felt the .30-06 was a more accurate round, they would have used it - they didn't. In fact by the early 1970s, the scoring ring dimensions on the 800 - 1000 yard target were also cut in about half due to the accuracy of both the .308 Win. over the .30-06 and the .30-.338 over the .300 H&H when used in long range matches.

Most top highpower shooters feel the main reason the .308 is much more accurate than the .30-06 is its shorter, fatter case promotes more uniform and gentle push on the bullet due to a higher loading density (less air space) and a more easily uniformly ignitable powder charge.

Military arsenals who produced match and service ammo in both 7.62mm and 30 caliber have fired thousands of test rounds/groups with both. They also found out that with both ammo types, the smallest groups were with the 7.62 by about 50 to 60 percent. M1 rifles in 7.62 shot about twice as small of groups as .30 M1s at all ranges. When the M14 was first used, there were some .30-06 M1 rifles that would shoot more accurately. It took the service teams several years to perfect the methods of making M14s shoot well, but when they did, they shot as good as M1s in 7.62.

There will always be folks who claim the .30-06 is a more accurate cartridge. All I have to say to them is to properly test .308 vs. .30-06 and find out. Theory is nice to think about; facts determine the truth."

I did a little reading around about this guy, and find that while he has a ream of admirers, he also has some folks who think he's 3/4 FOS. http://www.sniperforums.com/forum/ca...t-bobbitt.html I tend to fall into the latter category for the moment, based on several factual errors in the above piece, and several theoretical statements that are absolute horsepuckey.

I have been to the rodeo at Camp Perry a few times myself, and though not in the 1950's, a lot of my shooting was done with the M1 rifle, and I currently hold a piece of a national team record using that rifle. His scoring ring sizes are out of whack, and his accuracy claims for that period (50's and 60's) would surpass what the moderns are doing with the best equipment available today. A simple look at the records for the era will show that they did not come close.

I also happen to personally know and shoot with four guys who shot on the US Palma Teams in the mid 2000's. The accuracy Bobbit claims of printing 1" to 2" groups at 600 yds (for up to 40 shots, no less!) is absolute bullshit, and casts a pall over every other statement that falls from his lips.

[VanHahner]

SHLOMO said: The accuracy Bobbit claims of printing 1" to 2" groups at 600 yds (for up to 40 shots, no less!) is absolute bullshit

Really ? Then you will really have a hard time believing he fired a 20-shot, 3.325" group at 800 yards! And that's a fact !


Taken from www.snipercountry.com

Note

Mr. Bobbitt did not submit this article to Sniper Country, but rather to the rec.guns newsgroup on February 7, 1997. He has authored many postings to rec.guns, and is highly qualified to comment on a variety of shooting-related topics. Among his many distinctions within the shooting community, he once fired a 20-shot, 3.325" group at 800 yards! (Refer to the advertisement for Krieger Barrels in the May, 1997, issue of Precision Shooting magazine.) Mr. Bobbitt's other postings to rec.guns can be found by doing an author's profile on his name via the Deja News service. This rec.guns posting was acquired via Deja News (see the Deja News policy on materials posted to newsgroups).

Taken from: http://www.gunandgame.com/forums/

"Leafing through my copy of the May 1997 issue of Precision Shooting, I encountered an ad for Krieger Barrels, Inc. that showed an actual-size copy of a 20-shot group shot at 800 yards by "Bert Bobbit [sic] with his Krieger Barrelled PALMA rifle." Now this group has a .942" mean radius, with an extreme spread of 3.325. If it were a 5-shot group, you'd say, "Somebody else has shot that well at 1,000 yards." But a 20-shot group? God!!
At first I wondered if this was rec.guns's own BartB because of the spelling in the ad. Then I realized the odds against having two superb riflemen with such similar names were almost as great as having obtained a 20-shot group that small through chance and chance alone.
All I can say is, if BartB and any other poster ever disagree about anything having to do with shooting, I'll know whom to believe."

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

Really ? Then you will really have a hard time believing he fired a 20-shot, 3.325" group at 800 yards! And that's a fact !

I saw that reference when I was looking into Mr. Bobbit. It's a third-hand apocryphal tale.

I have spent a fair amount of time on the 600 yard line over the last sixteen years. A fair chunk of that has been at major matches that are attended by the USAMU, who are arguably the best shooters in the country, year in and year out, along with several top-50 civilian shooters. In recent years, the 600yd matches have included what is called "F Class", which is basically benchrest shot from prone. They cannot do 40 shots in 1-2 inches. Not with 22-lb bull guns, front rests, rear bags, 3" fore ends, and telescopic sights.

Think about what a 2" group at 600 subtends. It's the equivalent of a .333" group at 100. While there are rifles around that will do that for three or five shots, think about what it takes to put 40 consecutive shots in a group that size. Then add wind drift, glare, mirage, light change, dust and humidity in the air across 600 yards, and the fact that you are shooting on the back side of the trajectory curve, where a 50 fps variation in starting velocity will string over an inch vertically.

The level of shooting claimed by this guy is way, way beyond what anybody is doing in open competition in highpower rifle currently, and the modern shooters hold virtually all the record scores.

Show me where this guy and his amazing talent actually won a well-contested registered match somewhere, and it might make his claims a bit more believable.

ETA: This might take some of the shine off of Bobbit's veracity:

http://www.6mmbr.com/gunweek088.html

[akajun]

Agreed Shlomo, besides ask anyone on the Military teams or national match armorers in the 60's when they began shifting from the garands to the 14's it took a while for the 14's to shoot as well as the nm garands did, so that blows a hole in that guys little tale. However once they figured it out the 14 ( especially double lug guns) shot circles around the garand, mostly due to the shrter gas system and lack of an op rod which goes the length of the barrel and nothing to do with the caliber.
As far as his claim of shooting a 1-2inch group at 600 for 40 shots, or even 10 shots, bs. There is so much at play in 600yd shooting such as wind, light direction, mirage, position, etc thats pretty much impossible. If he is that good, how come I dont see his name on any of the F class/ Palma/ Benchrest championships or record boards? Hell I dont even see his name on match results.
The only advantage a 308 has is that you can put it in a short action, which on most commercial repeater actions ( which are somewhat flimsy) you get a stiffer reciever than a long action, and a shorter bolt throw for rapid fire stages. However on custom target actions or single shots like a bat/ tubb/ etc, there really is no advantage.

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by shlomo

... much truth deleted for brevity ...

I also happen to personally know and shoot with four guys who shot on the US Palma Teams in the mid 2000's. The accuracy Bobbit claims of printing 1" to 2" groups at 600 yds (for up to 40 shots, no less!) is absolute bullshit, and casts a pall over every other statement that falls from his lips.

Yes, there's so much more, where to start. Guess we'll start with the obvious. First, a bullet in stable flight cares not about its launcher or powder charge, so the differences which are important to mechanical accuracy are limited to type of bullet, twist rate and muzzle velocity. In terms of these a .30-06 can go anywhere a .308 can, but the reverse is not true. Whenever we explore these claims about the superiority of .308 vs the '06 we invariably find that the bullets were different and they were loaded to different velocities. I have yet to run across a single peer-reviewed study that indicates that when these three factors were controlled there was any reproduceable difference in mechanical accuracy between these two cartridges. And given that .30-06 cartridges can be loaded where the .308 dare not tread, one might be forgiven for supposing that there are accuracy loads for the '06 which simply cannot be replicated in a .308.

But backing up to the larger picture, 2" groups at 600 yards on command is horsepucky unless you're shooting laser beams, a 20 fps variation in muzzle velocity alone will result in a 1.5" vertical spread at 600 yards at typical .308 velocities. Then there's wind, lighting, variation in bullets, air density, barrel heating, release and lock time, etc etc, and we have yet to mention what the shooter himself is capable of. A 6" group is much more believable, even so there are probably only a handful of Palma shooters around who can manage an honest 6" 40 shot group on command at 600 yards on any given day, and I do know for a fact that I am not among them.

It's worth noting that back when this data was allegedly taken (late 50s/early 60s) there was a substantial amount of political pressure to qualify the smaller .308 round as equivalent to the existing and much-proven .30-06 round. In standard military loadings they eventually got there, albeit with substantially higher pressures. At the time many wild-a$$ed claims were made as to how wonderful the .308 round was going to be, etc etc, and given how much money was on the table and how many careers were at stake it should be no surprise that some of these persist to this day. It is worth noting that within 5 years of adopting the .308 the US changed again and ultimately went with the 5.56 round.

In any case, a real examination of the relative strengths of one cartridge with respect to another has to start with a set of requirements and go from there. Yes, there are advantages to the .308 cartridge, the main one being is that it fits more easily in rifles which are chambered for .308. The second one being that the .308 is somewhat lighter. From there the differences are either negligible (i.e., it's potential for mechanical accuracy) or favor the older .30-06 cartridge.

But of course, you already knew all this ...

[tdb59]

Originally Posted by akajun

......If he is that good, how come I dont see his name on any of the F class/ Palma/ Benchrest championships or record boards? Hell I dont even see his name on match results.

He is probably too busy with the Bulwer-Lytton contest.

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by bubbagump

But backing up to the larger picture, 2" groups at 600 yards on command is horsepucky unless you're shooting laser beams

These are actually targets shot with a Camp Perry approved 308. They are only 5 shot groups but it gives you a idea of what the 308 is capable of with standard Hornady Match ammunition.

"The groups that you see here in the pictures were shot in front of several witnesses Manatee Gun & Archery Club in Myakka City FL. Just about everyone who went there to shoot that day ended up watching Ben to see just how he was going to do with that $3,500 rifle,"

This rifle was built on a Remington 700 action


This 3 inch group at 1000 yards



1.5 inches at 500 yards with regular Hornady Superformance.

http://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ulti...ctical-rifles/


BTW:

"In 1921 no less a rifleman than OUTDOOR LIFE ShootingEditor Col. Townsend Whelen, a major in the Ordnance Department, used the.30/06 to set a new world accuracy record at 600 yards with a 7-shot group—the standard in England—measuring only 2.24 inches."

[tdb59]

In 1921 no less a rifleman than OUTDOOR LIFE ShootingEditor Col. Townsend Whelen, a major in the Ordnance Department, used the.30/06 to set a new world accuracy record at 600 yards with a 7-shot group—thestandard in England—measuring only 2.24 inches. Firing was done from a machinerest. Whelen later said he regretted not putting three more shots into thegroup for a 10-shot score.


Versus a $3,500 rifle on a sled.

[shlomo]

As soon as that guy shoots a 3-incher at 1,000 or a 2-incher at 800 for forty shots, let me know.

In small samples, it's not unusual to have remarkable things happen from time to time. I have had a few such myself, as has anyone who has done a lot of shooting, but I do not delude myself that such a performance can be expected every time.

Note that most of the targets we have been discussing are world or national records--that means by definition that it is a highly unusual performance. The fact that one guy did it one time with a .308 does not lead to the conclusion that any guy with any gun and any ammo in .308 can do the same. There is a lot more in play than merely the cartridge being shot.

Also note your own example of Whelen shooting a group that this Bobbit character rates as beyond the capability of the lowly and obsolete 30-06. And in 1921, no less.

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by tdb59

Versus a $3,500 rifle on a sled.

A world record is still a world record !

[VanHahner]

shlomo my friend:

Obviously you have come to the conclusion that the ad Krieger Barrels, Inc produced was a fake , so I think we are done here as we seem to be kicking a dead horse, but I'll leave you with this. See how many tactical weapons you can find chambered in 30-06 .

[tdb59]

My apologies, Sir.
I was attempting to shed light on commonality of the two incidents, not the vagaries or dissonance.
My attempt was obviously feeble in its lack of results for a singular individual perspective.
Please accept my humble request, and allow me to retire from the current intercourse of topic.

[tdb59]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

shlomo my friend:

...See how many tactical weapons you can find chambered in 30-06 .

Sorry, could not resist..

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

shlomo my friend:

Obviously you have come to the conclusion that the ad Krieger Barrels, Inc produced was a fake , so I think we are done here as we seem to be kicking a dead horse, but I'll leave you with this. See how many tactical weapons you can find chambered in 30-06.

No such. I don't know whether it is a fake or not, nor whether the target allegedly sent to Krieger was faked or fluke, nor whether "Bert" Bobbit is the same guy as "Bart" Bobbit. As I understand it, the story comes from some third party, not Bart or "Bert" himself.

What I do know, as a result of many years being on the line with, shooting with, scoring for, and pulling targets for some of the best highpower shooters in the country, is that the accuracy claims by this Bobbit guy are (ahem!) highly unusual in my experience.

I think our discussion has been without rancor, as it should be, and I look forward to more of the same with you. Pursuit of excellence is a virtue in itself, as is the love of truth.

As to your last point, I'll bet I can find more "tactical" rifles in 30-06 than in the .284 per your example above. That must make the '06 better, right?

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by tdb59

Sorry, could not resist..

Love it !

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Pursuit of excellence is a virtue in itself, as is the love of truth.

Well said !

[Bummer]

Ok, guys, remember this thread started out about how happy I am with my M1, not a debate about which cartridge is best. Had my M1 been re-barreled in .308 I would be just as pleased with it. Anyway, that sure is a beautiful FN49 you have pictured there. I remember when we could by them mailorder (remember that, before the gun control act of 1967?) for $69.00 in either '06 or 7x57. Ah, yesterday...

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by Bummer

Had my M1 been re-barreled in .308 I would be just as pleased with it.

No you wouldn't. You'd always feel like ya weenied out.

Do get that thing to the range, and give us a report.

[gunplumber]

I love .308 Garands. The 7.62 GI (boat tail) outperforms the .30-06 GI (spitzer) And I get to standardize my ammo.

Now I know Shlomo loves his obsolete .30-06. Nothing wrong with it. I understand nostalgia. But the Garand is very finicky about ammo maintaining a specific pressure curve, so much of the argument about how one can reload .30-06 to better performance than 7.62 is irrelevant. Yes, you can load modern bullets into the .30-06 where it will perform as well or maybe slightly better at extreme ranges. But compare USGI .30-06 to USGI 7.62 NATO . . . .

I like the Garand, but I don't want another caliber. .308 is the solution.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

I love .308 Garands. The 7.62 GI (boat tail) outperforms the .30-06 GI (spitzer) And I get to standardize my ammo.

Now I know Shlomo loves his obsolete .30-06. Nothing wrong with it. I understand nostalgia. But the Garand is very finicky about ammo maintaining a specific pressure curve, so much of the argument about how one can reload .30-06 to better performance than 7.62 is irrelevant.

I like the Garand, but I don't want another caliber. .308 is the solution.

Gimme a minute to dust off my knuckles. I ain't done with A-lant yet.

Ya purple-paintin' pervert.

[gunplumber]

I did this silver Garand for my friend, neighbor, and mentor Phil Arrington. The Red, white, and blue stock was his choice.

[shlomo]

Okay, he's over there furiously Googling supreme court cases, so I got time.

I don't shoot crap milsurp, because I don't wanna shoot anything I can out-hold. I can handload for the same money or less as milsurp, and shoot match grade stuff. I got a Schuster plug, so I ain't limited to anemic .308 performance.

Plus, I'm a recoil pig.

Win, win, win, and win.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

I did this silver Garand for my friend, neighbor, and mentor Phil Arrington. The Red, white, and blue stock was his choice.

At least ya had the sense to leave the sights black.

Yer still a pre-vert, though.

[gunplumber]

I made my 1919s in .308 too. Wasn't going to limit myself to .30-06 just 'cause that was the "original" chambering.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

I made my 1919s in .308 too. Wasn't going to limit myself to .30-06 just 'cause that was the "original" chambering.

I guess if ya got milsurp stacked deep, and all you're doing is shooting up old vans at 75 yards, that makes good sense.

[shlomo]

THIS is what M1 rifles should look like. In more ways than one.

[shlomo]

A heartening sight on Game Day.

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by shlomo

THIS is what M1 rifles should look like. In more ways than one.

Need to teach that guy in the foreground how to use a sling.

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by shlomo

I guess if ya got milsurp stacked deep, and all you're doing is shooting up old vans at 75 yards, that makes good sense.

yes, that was fun.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf_oY...vRTy4w&index=9

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J0PIC...RTy4w&index=12

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

Need to teach that guy in the foreground how to use a sling.

Maybe, maybe not--he won the Garand Unlimited Match that year at Perry, using the rifle, sling, and position you see in the pic.

He's also ARNG, and shoots for the All Guard team.

[VanHahner]

What sling ?

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Maybe, maybe not--he won the Garand Unlimited Match that year at Perry, using the rifle, sling, and position you see in the pic.

He's also ARNG, and shoots for the All Guard team.

I see the fancy glove, the fancy shooting jacket, and the slack in the sling.

Maybe they are for decoration?

(enlarge the photo and the spent casing looks photoshopped . . .. )

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

I see the fancy glove, the fancy shooting jacket, and the slack in the sling.

Maybe they are for decoration?

(enlarge the photo and the spent casing looks photoshopped . . .. )

Ain't no slack in that sling. Trust me. You're lookin' at the curvature around his arm.

I guess the CMP photog musta photoshopped the clip that came out with the fired case, too.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

What sling ?

Dood! Purty lady. Your'n?

[gunplumber]

clip looks fine

But I did find the haze around the cartridge case to be interesting, particularly when enlarged.

I do not pretend to be one of those guys who can shoot the ass off a fly at 1000 yards, but I do notice what appears to be a partially open loop on the front of the sling - it seems to simple ole' me that when one puts tension on a bight, the bight collapses. I'd expect the sling to be flatter at the swivel if there were tension upon it.

[gunplumber]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

What sling ?

sling won't help on that one. But a front pistol grip might help a little bit (didn't think we noticed the selector lever?) Hoorah!

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

clip looks fine

But I did find the haze around the cartridge case to be interesting, particularly when enlarged.

I do not pretend to be one of those guys who can shoot the ass off a fly at 1000 yards, but I do notice what [appears to be a partially open loop on the front of the sling - it seems to simple ole' me that when one puts tension on a bight, the bight collapses. I'd expect the sling to be flatter at the swivel if there were tension upon it.

Probably would be flat if it were a well worn MRT sling. This un's a Turner. Very heavy gauge leather, and quite stiff. They are actually quite a pain to manipulate when new, and that one looks like it is in season # one.

[L Haney]

Originally Posted by shlomo

THIS is what M1 rifles should look like. In more ways than one.

You ever did that shit at me an' I'd just dig my own grave. You a fearful shot with that rifel.

Hey! Washington is beautiful in March! Let's go!

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by L Haney

You ever did that shit at me an' I'd just dig my own grave. You a fearful shot with that rifel.

Hey! Washington is beautiful in March! Let's go!

Dig fast!

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Probably would be flat if it were a well worn MRT sling. This un's a Turner. Very heavy gauge leather, and quite stiff. They are actually quite a pain to manipulate when new, and that one looks like it is in season # one.

Haha, yeah man. That rifle is sitting in my gun room on the ready rack as we speak. Trust me, that sling is still harder than woodpecker lips and Panzer had that thing as tight as I've ever seen one. You don't win the Garand match at perry with a loosey goosey prone position.

b.

[VanHahner]

Originally Posted by shlomo

Dood! Purty lady. Your'n?

That would be nice, unfortunately I have another.

[shlomo]

Originally Posted by VanHahner

That would be nice, unfortunately I have another.

Your real name is Harcourt Fenton Mudd, ain't it?

[VanHahner]

Now don't jump to conclusions, I'm still the boss, It's just that she makes all the decisions!

[ALL FAL]

Why Dat's Momma V.,, Howdy Mr Mudd.

[bubbagump]

Originally Posted by gunplumber

clip looks fine

But I did find the haze around the cartridge case to be interesting, particularly when enlarged.

I do not pretend to be one of those guys who can shoot the ass off a fly at 1000 yards, but I do notice what appears to be a partially open loop on the front of the sling - it seems to simple ole' me that when one puts tension on a bight, the bight collapses. I'd expect the sling to be flatter at the swivel if there were tension upon it.

The case looks photoshopped to me too. As to the sling, well that how stiff those thing are, which is of course why we use 'em. Not your typical M1907 sling.

b.