CMP is changing their rule book for the CMP games to allow new CMP reproduction Garands to be released in 2024 to be used in the as-issued matches. Who is making the receivers or rifles?

Also, rumor is PSA was through H&R. That is rumor and I have not seen anything concrete that developed since 2022 when they mentioned something at shot show. CMP released the rule change info on their website.

PSA saw the TDP they inherited, GOT WIDE EYED on the requirements and they are trying to figure it out on doing it efficiently is all I have heard.

25 years ago Century had some crappy M1 they parted together with a cast receiver from somebody. I knew a guy back then bought one. I couldnt believe he bought it.

I remember he had feeding issues.

PSA might as well just shoot a huge hole in their left foot if they want to cheapen their way to making a Garand.

True that.

Do they mean newly assembled from commercial and various governments parts (i.e. Italian) rifles?

Even using modern CNC newly made Garands would be expensive.

Their blurb was , “The new CMP Reproduction M1 Garands that are slated for release in 2024 will be accepted in “as-issued” military rifle events.”. Prior rules did not allow commercial or foreign rifles and required US military source in as issued configuration. Depending on the final rule language, it sounds like they will only allow CMP reproduction rifles.

High power matches are dying off slowly. Vintage matches, like the CMP Garand match are not hugely popular. The market for Garands is mostly limited to collectors/occasional shooters. A costly reproduction can’t compete with the secondary market of USGI M1 rifles collectors mostly desire.

Unless CMP is sitting in a lot of good USGI parts or just planning on selling a rifle made by someone else, I don’t see selling new production Garands through the CMP being much profitable. Their sources of parts is drying up. They are having op rods rebuilt from a couple different sources (one of poor quality work) and now putting on commercial gas cylinders.

I am not seeing it go well if CMP assembled new production rifles. They don’t have a good history of assembling out of the box functional rifles with good finish. Customers will expect a fully functioning rifle of quality parts and finish if the price point is anywhere near a SA M1A.

Springfield Armory made some Garands on cast receivers some years back.  They also made some on Italian receivers.

I don't think PSA will be able to make any money selling Garands as long as CMP is selling USGI ones.

My thoughts -
The M1 receiver is a fairly complex piece to manufacture.
AND - a lot of the traditional manufacturing capability has been shut down or sent off-shore in past decades.

On the upside, more modern CNC manufacturing methods can be used vs. the old-school methods.
Billet M1 Garand receivers anyone?

Another downside -
The M1 Garand is a picky bitch as far as ammunition goes.
An adjustable gas block will help, though fiddling with that every time you switch ammo is a PITA.
Enblock clips; another PITA

No hate - I have a few Garands
Attached File

OP:

Instead of guessing what the CMP means by ".....new CMP reproduction Garands......... "

Since the CMP brought it up and it'll have their name on it................Ask them.

Instead of this endless guessing?

Someone already did. Their response was details pending, no further information at this time. Then they removed the sentence in their rule update webpage.

The CMP holds a lot of information of their business very close. I have talked with their employees face to face and they don’t share much.

It's a picky bitch?  Methinks you've spent too much time watching YouTube videos.

It's not really picky at all.  Luve it correctly and ensure your oprod spring is at least 19.5" long and you have no worries.

There are no gas blocks on garands.... you'd think someone who "has a few garands" would actually know things like this.  Enbloc clips a pain in the ass?   Since when?



I agree a "new production " garand sounds interesting but not economical.

And yes CMP doesn't have a great track record as of late on the assembly or QC of garands they are releasing.

Agreed, picky it is not.

It is pretty amazing how low you can go reducing a load of 4895 and the gun still functions semi automatically with no modification.   Or using 110, 125, or 130 grain bullets in place of the normal 147-179 grain loads.   They just keep going.

The poor condition metal and bug eaten wood of the Philippine returns is a low point for garand enthusiasts.  Yes you can blast and repark the parts, toss the wood in a fire and put on new wood with an aftermarket barrel but the ugly ass pits are still in the metal juxtaposed to the new manufactured wood and barrel.   Not very desirable but yet they raised the prices (it costs more to refurb abused shit condition rifles).  I wish they left the prices of the pitted specials lower and cross there fingers for a better lot from somewhere.  Frankly there aren’t anymore countries that took care of them that have not already repatriated them.  Now you’re getting the 3rd world returns...poor nations,  poor care, poor storage and in some cases tropical humidity like the Phillipine miltary storage in very drafty leaky corrugated tin sheds with open eaves.   Guns are basically worse than battlefield pick ups that got left for a month after a battle in the mud.

Well, you are correct there is no "gas block" on a Garand.
"Gas cylinder" is the correct term.

So all of the warnings about bending op-rods when shooting ammo with heavy bullets are not true?
...or the warnings about using ANY ammo that has a too-high pressure at the gas port are not true?

Sure that stuff will go BANG, just expect the rifle to start malfunctioning due to the damage you are causing.  


And yes, I do think enblock clips are a pain in the ass.
Easy to lose. They were originally meant to be discarded after one use.
If you do keep the clip, they're a bit tricky to load
Ammo is no longer readily available pre-loaded in the clips
And the rifle is mostly unusable without them
Unlike a magazine, unloading the rifle with a partially spent clip is messy
Etc., etc...

I picked up 4 at the South Store early this month and they all look great. They had a lot of nice looking rifles.

Like anywhere else, the people coming online to bitch about their rifles are probably a small percentage of actual buyers.

Maybe Bula could do Garand receivers?

Frankly given that M1A receivers have been cast for decades now and have been functioning just fine, a nicely cast Garand receiver should be fine too.

Oprods bend due to lack of lubrication.
How much pressure at the port is too much?  Do you know what the operating range for port pressure on the garand is?



What damage?


They aren't tricky at all to load...if you lose one so what...they are easy to find.

Noop.  …. John C. Garand himself specified only forged receivers. Why?  

Well, as he put it, “Dat cast shit don’t last.”

You have to say that in an Italian accent.

It’s also not 1935.

The Garand receiver doesn't lend itself well to CNC machining.  There are way too many complex cuts that were done on elaborate and dedicated broaching machines.  Not to mention all of the other tooling and fixturing that would have to be fabricated to make some of the cuts.  Just the safety bridge alone is a nightmare.  Right now you have a simplified M1 in the various M1As and other M14 type and many still don't get them right on an upwards of $1.2k part.  That doesn't even begin to count the other 54-55 parts in the rifle.  Angles, hardnesses and other items are also difficult to get correct on op rods, bolts, etc.

I don't see anyone producing an in spec M1 for less than $1600-2000.

I came across a new Springfield Armory M1 Garand in 2007.  The price then was $2000.   Corrected for inflation that would work out to $2,967.00 today.

I don’t see anyone making it for $1600-$2200 at a sufficient level of quality, nor do I see anyone paying nearly $3,000 for a commercial M1 Garand.

CMP has been a circle jerk from the start compared to the old DCM.  They pretty well single handedly killed off service rifle competition with rules that eliminated accuracy and competition, with the idea everyone could compete with the “as issued” M1 Garands started pushing that were no where near original spec.  

Now they are facing the reality that they are going to have to reinvent themselves and come up with a new product.  History suggests they will screw it up.


But to be fair, politics being what it is, they will never be allowed to issue M16A1 or M16A2 parts kits for installation on civilian AR-15 receivers, which would otherwise have been the natural progression for CMP shooting and the larger concept of a civilian marksmanship program.

He’s in a very small minority when it comes to his beliefs on operating rods, but you will never change his mind as he clearly isn’t capable of changing his mind once he’s taken a position.

And I agree enbloc clips are a pita. Yes, you can load two round with standard clips, and yes you can get 2 round or 5 round clips to meet specific needs. But they are still a pita to use.

They made perfect sense when packaged as disposable items pre-loaded with new ammo.  But note how quickly the US military dropped the concept.  

Agree. Although an old design, it is a different animal than the aluminum receivers PSA can crank out in volumes. No one has done M1 cast or forged receivers in ages. Very limited companies have experience doing semi-auto M14/M1A receivers. All in low volumes and expensive.

More likely PSA (H&R) would start making new small replacement parts see how market react. But based on what H&R doing right now with their retro AR, I am not confident. Most of their parts are outsourced. Only thing looks like they do in-house is the machining of upper and lower, and assembly, which are matured manufacturing process with very minimal risk to go wrong. So I would not want to be a beta tester of their newly made M1 Garand parts if it happens.

A "belief" based on facts and hard data.

The damage from too much pressure at the gas port is typically bent op-rods and possibly a damaged receiver.
Bent op-rod solution for heavy bullets
"M1 Garand Ammo: Everything You Need to Know"
One shooters experience
Etc....
A quick web search returns quite a bit on information on this.
Since I like to keep my Garands in good working order, I follow advice to keep them that way.

Your search came up with several opinion articles.

I like the one from Reddit where he was using an adjustable gas lock screw and the oprod that the CMP sent was already damaged and bent. But yes let's blame the ammo.

Still waiting on someone to actually put down in writing with data what the "too much pressure" at the gas port number actually is.

Considering commercial ammo and milsurp ammo operate at similar pressures....where is this excessive port pressure coming from?

It’s not an issue with maximum average chamber pressure.  The issue is the pressure curve of slower versus faster burning powder and the pressure in the barrel when the bullet passes the gas port.

Slower powders like 4831 that otherwise work really well in the .30-06 cartridge result in a a higher pressure in the barren when the bullet passes the port than a faster powder like 4985.

And unlike the FAL, which has an adjustable gas block that can be adjusted to safely and reliably cycle with almost any .7.62x51 or .308 ammo,  the standard issue Garand has a fixed gas port size optimized for a fairly narrow gas port pressure.


IIRC the gas port pressure range for the M1 Garand is around 12,000-14,000 psi.  Powders slower than about 3031 will have low port pressures and powders slower than 4064 will have higher pressures and start over stressing the op rod.  

Way back in the day (1980) well meaning folks would bring up a late 1940s NRA article claiming all commercial.30-06 ammo was safer to use in a Garand.  It was probably true at the time, as most companies were loading it with dirt cheap and readily available new surplus 4895 powder.  But even back in the 1980s the commercial .30-06 ammo was 50 to 100 fps faster than it was in WWII due to use of more modern powders that produced a much longer pressure curve.  And those loads can damage op rods.


If I get time I’ll look for source documents . There should be one as gas port pressure is important.   The M14 used a short stroke gas tappet design that had more in common with the M1 carbine , but the military had clear specifications for gas port pressure, and still does.

MIL-C-46931F(AR), Cartridge 7.62mm, Ball, M80

3.7.1.1 Chamber pressure measurement at 70°F by copper-crush
cylinder test method. The average chamber pressure of the
sample cartridges conditioned at 70°F shall not exceed 50,000
pounds per square inch (psi). The average chamber pressure plus
three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall not exceed
55,000 psi. The chamber pressure of an individual sample
cartridge shall not exceed 55,000 psi.

3.8 Port pressure. The port pressure measurement can be
performed by either the copper-crush cylinder or EPVAT test method.
The average port pressure of the sample cartridges when
conditioned for not less than 2 hours at 68° to 720F and fired at .
that temperature shall be as noted in the applicable
sub-paragraphs:

3.8.1 Measurement by copper-crush cylinder test method. The
average port pressure of the sample cartridges shall be 12,500 psi
± 2,000 psi.

The gas port is not as far down the barrel in the M14, but the volume of gas created by the smaller capacity and lower powder charge of the 7.62 NATO round was taken into account in the design.

When converting .30-06 Garands to 7.62x51, the gas ports had to be enlarged to accommodate the lower gas port pressure, to ensure the total impulse (pressure times the duration) was sufficient.

You are a little high but close.  Good news is commercial ammo operates in the same range.  Verification can be done via quickload



It's not the curve...it's the lack of lubrication doing the damage.


There isn't one for the garand.

@DakotaFAL:  

There's no point in arguing with 2171................  He's convinced he knows all about the M1.

Several years ago he posted an article in the GCA magazine about all this nonsense.

It was bad and well, worthless.   He has no idea what he's talking about.  

Just smile and wave.        

Odd...the GCA didn't seem to think it was bad or worthless when they published it.


And considering I've done actual testing on this topic...rules out the "he has no idea what he's talking" opinion of yours.


Please elaborate on how much testing you've done and explain how the gas system works.

Oh, I’m well aware of that.  After all he can’t understand the difference between chamber pressure and port pressure or even remotely fathom how powder burn rate might affect the latter.

I just like jerking his chain.

You also have to understand he’s in a bit of a predicament.  An editor at GCA was dumb enough to publish his article, and some readers have been dumb enough to believe, or perhaps just wanted to believe, the mis information he was pushing.   Some of them then start making similar claims based on his claim,  that he then uses to bolster his original claim.  

In other words, if you say it enough and people start to believe it, and then repeat it, and the “proof” becomes circular.

But that’s also a big problem for him as he has a lot of ego invested in that position and he cannot just back off and say, “oh, good point, I hadn’t thought of that”.  It is after all his claim to fame, even if it’s based on utter bullshit, and he is forced to argue, with and discount or ignore all of the actual facts, test data, and internal ballistic knowledge that refutes his soundly disproven theory.

I almost feel bad for him.  But not enough to stop screwing with him every time he opens himself up by saying something stupid.

With the thousands of M1A's produced over the decades, how many have had failures due to the receiver being cast? I would bet zero. Cast/forged is simply not an issue or consideration with regard to reliability or longevity. Forged steel may be stronger, but the strength of a modern cast receiver like the M1A is well proven and extremely reliable. It is plenty strong enough.

That said, the two companies that would have the best chance of producing a successful new M1 have to be SAI and Bula, as they both are already making new M1A/M14 receivers and rifles. Personally I would love to see one, and would be powerless to not buy one.

That is beautiful

I had that one worked on by Dean Dillabaugh of "Dean's Gun Restorations" (DGR)
- Sadly, he passed a few years ago and they are no longer in business.
New stock & barrel
Metal refinished
It was a rough rack grade, now a great shooter & showpiece.

@DakotaFAL -
Thanks.
I have a lot less patience providing info to people who refuse to consider what I have to say.
The few times when I actually say something, I do my best to make it worth something.
Usually I'm in FIDO* mode. Let 'em stew in their own juices.


* - not a dog reference. In polite form:
Forget
It
Drive
On

Why not ask the man himself that has stated on this board he intends for the new H&R to produce new Garands?  He's the President of H&R:

@mike_nds

So forged or cast receivers?  It’s not a MENSA question.

Springfield Armory, Geneseo, IL used to sell M1 Garands that were new production

That was more than a decade or two ago.

That wood is beautiful.

I had one briefly, it ran fine. The thing I remember about it was it had ALL Italian PB marked parts. Looking back I’m guessing that’s where our Canadian member gets all his Italian Garand receivers from..
the process of stripping the parts for import into the USA for parts build on those cast receivers.

And S.A. Inc. ceased production when they found they couldn’t compete price-wise with what the CMP was selling ‘real’ Garands for.

@FluffyTheCat

Not sure where you're going with that statement.  As-issued vintage rifle matches were never about pure accuracy and the rifles used in service rifle competition haven't been "original" spec since the '50s.  When as-issued matches became a thing in the early 2000s the folks I remember advocating it as a purer form of competition were those who weren't seasoned High Power competitors.  Instead they were casual shooters intimidated by leather shooting coats, high dollar spotting scopes, and the like who naively thought one rack grade Garand was the equal to any other.  

I really can't fault the CMP for the vintage rifle games matches. They took a novelty match that was offered as something for those who didn't have anything to do during the NTIT match and found a cash cow that they've milked for over twenty years...

With the CMP teaming up with Tisas to make new 1911's could they have found a company in Turkey to make new receiver forgings or even finished receivers?

Seeing as we appear to be coming to the end of trail on Garands that the CMP will be able to get their hands on I'm really hoping someone will manufacture a decent commercial M1.

I'm sure the price will be high but the CMP's prices have risen quite a bit too and when they finally close the warehouse doors after the last M1 is sold prices are gonna' go bat crap crazy anyway.

Speaking from experience with M1 Carbines and new production Carbines you can look at what Fulton Armory is charging for their new production M1 Carbines and go upward from there.

Outside of the receiver the op rod on a Garand would be very costly to make IMO, even with CNC tooling. Fulton saves money on their Carbines by using surplus USGI trigger groups and slides, and now bolts since it looks like they stopped having USGI spec bolts made for them.

That means there is a finite amount of Carbines they can make.

Those same issues would plague a new production Garand.

Mike was president of Nodak Spud before PSA bought em.  He has plenty of experience with receivers.