The M1C Garand Sniper Rifle
When the U.S. Army sought a sniping rifle based on the M1 Garand at the end of World War II, the M1C, with its offset scope, was delivered in small numbers. Never the best solution, the M1C performed adequately in post-war service and remains one of the most highly prized American military rifles.

At the time of the Pearl Harbor attack, the U.S. Army did not have a standardized sniper rifle. Early in the war, the Army Ground Forces requested that a sniper version of the M1 Garand rifle equipped with a telescopic sight be developed. However, it was immediately apparent that the M1 rifle’s action would require an entirely different approach than most bolt-action sniper rifles—which mounted a telescope directly over the receiver. Since the M1 had to be loaded from the top, a telescope mounted in such a location would not be feasible. The U.S. Army Ordnance Dept. tested several possible solutions—including a prismatic telescope with the eyepiece centered over the M1’s rear sight but with the body of the scope offset to provide the necessary clearance for the action. While it and other M1 rifle-based sniper designs were evaluated, a slightly modified Remington Model 1903A3 bolt-action rifle was adopted in early 1943 as the “U.S. Rifle, Caliber .30, M1903A4, Snipers” as more or less an interim measure. Sizeable numbers of ’03A4 sniper rifles were produced and widely issued during the war until a satisfactory Garand sniper rifle could be developed.

M1C GARAND
Testing of the several proposed designs for M1 sniper rifles concluded that the best solution would be to mount the telescope on the left side of the receiver so normal functioning of the rifle would be unaffected. Such an offset location required a leather cheek pad be attached to the stock to properly position the shooter’s face, but that was not viewed as a serious detriment.

Two prototype Garand sniper rifles designed to mount a scope on the left side of the receiver were eventually selected and differed primarily in the configuration and placement of the scope base and mount. The first design, designated as the “M1E7,” featured a bracket fastened to the left side of the receiver for a telescope mount. Both the bracket and mount were developed by the well-known civilian firm of Griffin & Howe. Five holes were drilled into the side of the M1C receiver for attachment of the mounting bracket. Three of the holes were threaded for screws and two were for taper pins to hold the bracket in alignment while it was assembled. Otherwise, the rifle’s configuration remained unchanged. The rifle was eventually adopted on July 27, 1944, as the “U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1C, Snipers.”

The other design was the “M1E8,” which featured a base permanently attached to the rear of the barrel. The barrel-mounted base was designed to accept a scope mount with a large knurled knob that permitted the scope to be quickly removed. The M1E8 base and mount were designed by John Garand. The design was eventually adopted as the “U.S. Rifle, Cal. .30, M1D, Snipers.”

The M1 Garand rifle (l.) was adapted for sniping with the addition of a Griffin & Howe side mount and the M82 scope as the M1C (second from l.), it lies next to an M1D with an M84 scope attached to a barrel mount. At top right is a USMC 1952 sniper rifle with Kollmorgen USMC scope in a Griffin & Howe mount.

Although both designs were standardized, for several reasons it was decided by Ordnance to put the M1C into production rather than the M1D. As initial production began, the receivers were heat-treated with the mounting bracket installed. But it was eventually discovered that the different composition of metallurgy between the two components could cause the assembled unit to warp. When this defect was discovered, the procedure was changed and the receivers and brackets were heat-treated separately prior to assembly. Other production glitches that negatively affected the accuracy of the new Garand sniper rifles were encountered but most were eventually solved.

Read more at: NRABlog.com

I always enjoy Canfield's articles.

I agree....!  Bruce is very talented and his articles appeal to all.......