M14 Forum banner
1 - 20 of 27 Posts

· Premium Member
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
I've been told repeatedly it cannot be done, but then I stumbled upon this mystery YouTube video from a decade ago:


I have no idea what modifications were made to the receiver. The trigger housing/bottom metal appears to be cut to allow for the magazine to pass through, and the magazines appear to be (modified?) .30-06 BAR magazines.

I know there are conversations to allow the Garand to accept .308 M14 magazines, but something to me just seems more faithful about keeping it the original .30-06 Springfield. I've heard Army Ordnance experimented with this conversion back in the 1950s, but ultimately abandoned it due to problems when fired full auto. Since I'd obviously only be running things in semi auto, I have to wonder if it isn't a viable option.

Anyone here in-the-know care to take a stab at how this gentleman accomplished the conversion?
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,963 Posts
I did one back in 2008 so did Tim, no problem on the receiver or to make it function.But the BAR mags have to be reworked on the feed lips and once done are super flimsy .

What little bit I fired mine with two mags I made the bullet nose was already starting to dent mag fronts .

BAR mags are thinner and rely on the closed top for strength and rigidity.
Someday I plan to make T44 style mags for mine .

My tutorial is on WeaponsGuild
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,963 Posts
Tommo ,would remember Gary Bland used to advertise to do them way back but I don't know anyone that had one .He stated mag problems too was an issue.

I remember reading a post by Mitch M where he did one and was in Marine Corps museum.
At some point In going to route the stock for the T44 dummy selector and add one of the special muzzle devices .
 

Attachments

· Forum Jester
Joined
·
9,441 Posts
you can do 308 with a bm59 trigger group much easier
 

· Registered
Joined
·
270 Posts
There was a guy in the Shotgun News waaaaay back in the late 90’s early 2000’s who would do this conversion.

If I remember correctly the business name was Bland Firearms.

I called him once and spoke to him about how he did his work but all that info is lost to my memory.

Supposedly he/they would do both BAR magazine and M14 magazine conversions for Garands.

Never saw any of his work (nor any M1 Garands converted to use a BAR magazine) but I clearly remember that ads in the SG News.
 

· Forum Jester
Joined
·
9,441 Posts
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,963 Posts
There was a guy in the Shotgun News waaaaay back in the late 90’s early 2000’s who would do this conversion.

If I remember correctly the business name was Bland Firearms.

I called him once and spoke to him about how he did his work but all that info is lost to my memory.

Supposedly he/they would do both BAR magazine and M14 magazine conversions for Garands.

Never saw any of his work (nor any M1 Garands converted to use a BAR magazine) but I clearly remember that ads in the SG News.
As mentioned in post #4 ,that was Gary Bland . TOMMO knows the history on his conversions . I remember seeing his adds,and probably still have some .
I have Gunlist and shotgun news back to the 90's.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,963 Posts
This was my version, and the heavily modified BAR mag that worked best . M1 trigger group modified to M14 type .
Sometime I plan to do the authentic style muzzle device and a dummy T44 selector.

The mag was cut ,weld added to feed lip cut outs formed Similier to M14.
 

Attachments

· Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts
I have seen Tim Shufflin's attempt at the conversion. It just isn't viable for the reasons that Ironworker stated. Tim was intent on not modifying the BAR mag but that was pretty futile. There was a guy also in Michigan I believe that was doing a 30-06 conversion using custom made 10 round inline mags. I can't remember who that was but the project never seemed to get off the ground.
 

· Registered
Joined
·
3,963 Posts
Way more study time than chip making.
The receiver has more metal removed than M14 conversion but less detail.
I had to make the trigger group housing as BM59 were expensive then .
Now they are cheap.

Sometime Ill refinish everything as all of the parts were grade C quality . CMP barreled action $95 with deep rust pits on receiver face and bottom.And barrel o.d.

Perfect for this I would not waste a good M1 receiver on any of these conversions.
I was going for representation and will eventually add the muzzle device and dummy T44 selector .
 

· Registered
Joined
·
5,397 Posts
John Garand designed this basic rifle in 1945 and it was select-fire too, but WWII ended, and the T20E2 was not put into mass production. I think the biggest problem was persistent muzzle rise in select-fire, and a bunch of different (large) muzzle brakes were designed. FYI on its history:


"At Ft. Benning, both the U.S Army Infantry Board and the U.S. Marine Corps Equipment Board tested the eight T20E1 rifles sent to them by the Model Shop. According to Studler’s Record cited above, testers found the weapons to be simple and gave them overall favorable marks. The Benning tests did, however, outline some changes that would be made to the next iteration of the design:

  • Magazine to be usable in the B.A.R.
  • Magazine catch to be altered in shape to eliminate the possible hazard of being accidentally depressed or damaged during rough handling.
  • Provision for means of retaining the operating slide in the rear position in order that the rifle might be cleaned in the prescribed manner.
With these changes incorporated, the order for production of 100 new rifles was given to Springfield Armory in late April/early May of 1945, and on May 17, 1945, nine days after the capitulation of Germany, the Ordnance Technical committee recommended limited production and procurement of 100,000 of the finalized T20 variant, now designated T20E2, to be used against the Empire of Japan. While there is no known evidence of this being formalized, it is very likely that had the war continued, the T20E2 would have been procured (and standardized) as the U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M2."

Air gun Trigger Gun barrel Shotgun Gun accessory
 

· Premium Member
Joined
·
52 Posts
Discussion Starter · #17 · (Edited)
John Garand designed this basic rifle in 1945 and it was select-fire too, but WWII ended, and the T20E2 was not put into mass production. I think the biggest problem was persistent muzzle rise in select-fire, and a bunch of different (large) muzzle brakes were designed. FYI on its history:


"At Ft. Benning, both the U.S Army Infantry Board and the U.S. Marine Corps Equipment Board tested the eight T20E1 rifles sent to them by the Model Shop. According to Studler’s Record cited above, testers found the weapons to be simple and gave them overall favorable marks. The Benning tests did, however, outline some changes that would be made to the next iteration of the design:


With these changes incorporated, the order for production of 100 new rifles was given to Springfield Armory in late April/early May of 1945, and
on May 17, 1945, nine days after the capitulation of Germany, the Ordnance Technical committee recommended limited production and procurement of 100,000 of the finalized T20 variant, now designated T20E2, to be used against the Empire of Japan. While there is no known evidence of this being formalized, it is very likely that had the war continued, the T20E2 would have been procured (and standardized) as the U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M2."

View attachment 505147

Holy moley, that's just beautiful.

Soo... if I'm reading that correctly... an unmodified BAR mag would work, it would just require some mods to the receiver and the bolt?

EDIT: Never mind. I see the T20 receiver was lengthened .3125 inches. Bummer...
 

· Registered
Joined
·
831 Posts

· Registered
Joined
·
6,370 Posts
They actually lengthen it by cutting off the heel and welding it on another receiver, This was done very early in the machining process so it's very clean looking, but in the pictures you can just make out the discoloration from the weld filler.

The interesting thing about the T20 (and the Remington and Winchester parallel designs) was they were "designed for habitual semi-automatic fire, with the capability of automatic fire for emergency use."

They were not initially intended as BAR replacements.
 
1 - 20 of 27 Posts
Top