Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Posted: 5/28/2003 6:56:16 AM EDT
I have been looking at getting a MBR in the .30 caliber range for general merryment as well as SHTF. I like the M1A but hate the price on its magazines.

The Garand, however, holds almost as much ammo as a post ban M1A mag and is a bit cheaper to get than a new M1A.

I was thinking of getting the new production Garand in .308. Are the garand clips for this caliber hard to find, or do they use the same clips as the standard M1G? Do they hold more ammo in .308?

Any help is appreciated...
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 7:01:29 AM EDT
The clips are the same and hold the same number of rounds - 8.

M1 Garands are great rifles.

But let me say this, if you join an NRA affiliated club and shoot in a match then you can buy a US govt. issued M1 Garand directly from the US govt. for about ½ the price you would pay for one of Springfield's new commercial rifles.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 8:05:30 AM EDT
Run away from the "new" Springfields. All of them (except the first run of about 900) have a cast Lithgow receiver. Several guys who work on Garands for a living (Dean's, Orion 7, Fulton) have had lots of troubles with 'em. Yeah, they use USGI parts but if the receiver's bad what difference does it make? What you could do is get a rack grade (or heck just a receiver) from the CMP, send it to Dean (of DGR) and have him build you what you want for about the same money. That would be the best of both worlds, USGI and NEW.

Just my $.02

Rich
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 12:52:23 PM EDT

Run away from the "new" Springfields. All of them (except the first run of about 900) have a cast Lithgow receiver. Several guys who work on Garands for a living (Dean's, Orion 7, Fulton) have had lots of troubles with 'em. Yeah, they use USGI parts but if the receiver's bad what difference does it make? What you could do is get a rack grade (or heck just a receiver) from the CMP, send it to Dean (of DGR) and have him build you what you want for about the same money. That would be the best of both worlds, USGI and NEW.

Exactly. This is the same crappy receiver as used in the Century M1s fitted with refinished USGI and European M1 parts and a new Boyd stock. If this is what you want, then save yourself about $400 and get a Century.

Otherwise, for the same money or less than a Springfield, INC., you can get a CMP M1 and have it completely refinished/rebuilt by DGR, Orion 7, etc., and have a historical USGI rifle.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 2:34:30 PM EDT
Ditto on the DCM/CMP Garands. If you want a shooter, this is it. If you want to make a 30-cal match rifle, this is it. Can't go wrong with genuine GI equipment. If you want to re-barrel, you can have the smiths do it in 7.62NATO, but for me, being a purist, i'd go for the 30-06.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 3:51:46 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2003 4:10:03 PM EDT by Sparsky]
So what is the exact problem with the new recievers? They crack, split, break, bend??? As much as I hear everyone saying they're bad I haven't seen photos all over the board like the one's for the bad glocks or the SA SS1911 slides breaking. As many threads I've seen about the "new" garands, and people saying they're bad I just haven't seen a photo of one that was damaged.

I have one of the new production garands. I haven't noticed any unusual wear, cracks or bends about 1k rounds down range. And if something does happen.. oh well, that's what the life time warrenty is for right?


Edited to add: CMP route is still a good thing. I just hate the fact I can't physically see and feel what I'm buying. That and I'm not wanting the rifle for it's history, I want the rifle for it's appeal to me.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 4:10:12 PM EDT

So what is the exact problem with the new recievers?

Spotty quality control, as in occasionally out of dimension, inconsistent heat treating. It's a crap shoot, literally.



As much as I hear everyone saying they're bad I haven't seen photos all over the board like the one's for the bad glocks or the SA SS1911 slides breaking. As many threads I've seen about the "new" garands, and people saying they're bad I just haven't seen a photo of one that was damaged.

There just aren't that many out there as compared to USGI Garands and out of those, I don't think they're shot that heavily.


I have one of the new production garands. I haven't noticed any unusual wear, cracks or bends. And if something does happens.. oh well, that's what the life time warrenty is for right?

At the price of CMP Garands versus the stuff churned out by Springfield, INC., why bother with buying a new one? Just a waste of money.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 5:08:02 PM EDT
Well personally I prefer my new garand over the CMP. I figure the amount of time and materials I'd have to put into a "used" CMP rifle to get it looking like a "brand new" rifle would just about equal out. And the CMP wouldn't have had the warranty. I'm not favoring CMP or SA, It just gets on me how everyone talks bad about them, yet I haven't seen any proof or stats on how "Spotty quality control, as in occasionally out of dimension, inconsistent heat treating. It's a crap shoot, literally." And if stats are brought up, is it just from one manufacture, well known person, or many big name people?

Personally, I just like to have my rifles "brand new" and with warranties. I haven't had a problem with mine and I can't vouch for the rest of SA's Garands.


Link Posted: 5/28/2003 6:16:59 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2003 6:20:27 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

I figure the amount of time and materials I'd have to put into a "used" CMP rifle to get it looking like a "brand new" rifle would just about equal out.

Well, having a CMP Garand refurbished to YOUR specifications is about like getting a semi-custom rifle made up for you. Will Springfield, INC. do that for you? Didn't think so.


And the CMP wouldn't have had the warranty.
<snip>
Personally, I just like to have my rifles "brand new" and with warranties.


That's incorrect. The CMP most certainly does warranty the rifles they sell and are more than willing to offer refunds and exchanges. Then again, the USGI Garand's reputation speaks for itself, having been used in WWII, Korea, and on and on. With Springfield, INC.'s past quality issues, I can see the necessity of a warranty on their rifles.

USGI Garands also fall into the C&R category. Kind of handy when you find an interesting example in the hands of an out of state seller.


It just gets on me how everyone talks bad about them, yet I haven't seen any proof or stats on how "Spotty quality control, as in occasionally out of dimension, inconsistent heat treating. It's a crap shoot, literally." And if stats are brought up, is it just from one manufacture, well known person, or many big name people?

Well, I seem to remember Fulton Armory's website having a write-up and inspection on these rifles and it wasn't pretty. If you doubt us, contact any one of the M1 gunsmiths mentioned, or float that question over on CSP.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 6:20:19 PM EDT
Ohhh you couldn't be more wrong there.

The CMP Garands are good to go, off the rack (excluding cleaning). They have ALL USGI parts (the new Springfield's don't), and they are GUARANTEED TO FUNCTION. Hell, they're guaranteed to go into battle tomorrow and come out the next day as good as before.

What's "new"? A fresh-built reciever?

If you search here, you'll find a post about a new SA garand that literally split itself in half. Almost took the owner's sight with it. That's not a glowing endorsement.

I'd rather carry something my Grandfather carried during his government-paid tour of Western Europe in the 40's, than something made today in it's image.

Cars, I'll buy new.

Guns, I'll buy ones that I know work and won't kill me in the process.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 6:52:23 PM EDT
Sparsky,
If you want pics go to fulton armory's site. I believe they have some links etc under FAQ's that show how the cast receivers compare to the real deal. When you see 'em side by side it's pretty scary.

Like I said, talk to Dean about 'em. Before I ordered my first CMP rifle (I now have two), I talked to Dean on the phone (Helluva nice guy). Now this was last summer so the "new" Garands hadn't been out that long. When I asked him about 'em he replied that he'd already had about 10 in his shop. In every one, the problem was in the receiver, which means the owner just bought a REALLY expensive paperweight.

As suggested earlier, buy a receiver from the CMP, send it to Dean or Orion and have' 'em build it into exactly what you want. It'll still cost you less, AND since it will have the magic words "US Rifle" on the receiver, it will increase in value as it ages. As far as cost, yeah it would probably "equal out" BUT the CMP receivered one would be hand assembled by the best, exactly how you want it and would SHOOT CIRCLES around the "factory" rifle (with an inferior receiver)and would continue to appreciate in value. Take a look at Dean's website....cover your keyboard though to protect it from drool.

Even though on paper the CMP has a "as is" policy, they really stand by their products and have WONDERFUL service.


Rich
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 7:20:28 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2003 7:24:43 PM EDT by Sparsky]
Well I just searched through 147 "garand" topics and couldn't find the story. You happen to know the name of the thread?

Springfield does have a custom shop btw. All I was basically saying is that it came with a new barrel, stock and new/used parts. Yes the receiver is a new cast one, that has had some issues and SA it's self has had some QC issues. But they also have the life time warranty.

My garand was fit and function to shoot as soon as I got it and I still haven't had an issue with it. But when I do I'll post on the board to let ya'll know.

www.fulton-armory.com
I checked out the Fulton armory page. They have two write ups. One for the Lithglow receivers. Funny thing is that looks nothing like my receiver nor is marked in any way like mine. Mine is actually stamped US rifle Cal 30 M1 Springfield armory. They one they had has Lithgow on it. Maybe the one they have is an earlier production receiver before they worked out most of the kinks.

I tore down my rifle, the bolt fits in there like it should, there's enough cut out in the rear of the receiver for the firing pin,the groves for the bolt are smooth and not all beat up like the one in the pictures.

I'm not saying CMP is a bad way to get it and I'm not saying SA is a good way to go. I'm not trying to start a flame war, I'm just looking for information. So far I have Fulton saying Lithgow is bad, yet that receiver looks piss poor compared to mine. I've only heard of one bad story from a fella here on the board with a new garand. It was something he was missing a handguard lining and his front site was damaged. Haven't heard anything else bad.


eddited to add: If I had a digital camera I'd take pictures of my reciever for yall.
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 7:37:00 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/28/2003 7:38:29 PM EDT by Sparsky]

Now this was last summer so the "new" Garands hadn't been out that long. When I asked him about 'em he replied that he'd already had about 10 in his shop. In every one, the problem was in the receiver, which means the owner just bought a REALLY expensive paperweight.


What I don't get about this is, did SA send him the rifles? If not why would people send it to him when they could've used the warranty? Just a question that popped into my head.

edited.. spelling error.. doh!
Link Posted: 5/28/2003 7:56:35 PM EDT
Sparsky,
No flames meant or taken on this side. As far as the rifles being sent to Dean's. They were sent to him "out of desperation". The owners had sent them to Springfield (some more than once) to "fix" it. When returned, they still had the same problems. I'm pretty sure all the new Springfields are using Lithgow's and have just changed the markings. The ONLY Springfields that have forged receivers were the first 900 or so of the production run that used Breda and/or Beretta receivers. They were excellent. Either way, I'm glad you're enjoying yours. I think you got lucky. Post some quesitons on jouster.com about yours. You might have an "earlier" one with a forged receiver.

Rich
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:07:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 12:07:46 AM EDT by desertmoon]
I, too, got lucky with mine. Despite the fact it came with a really screwed up front sight and no handguard liner I got it prettied up fairly quickly. It has been an excellent shooter and I can't wait to sell it at a loss once I get the last section of the stock bedded ( been puttin' it off )so I can finance a couple real projects. Wish I had NEVER bought it.

Edited to say that I really hate Springfield Armory.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 4:12:30 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 4:12:55 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

Springfield does have a custom shop btw.

In that case, getting a CMP Garand and having it refurbished is a BARGAIN compared to what Springfield, INC. will charge.



All I was basically saying is that it came with a new barrel, stock and new/used parts.

No, it comes with refinished and NOS USGI, Beretta, and Breda parts. Just like a CMP Garand!! And the advantage is????



Yes the receiver is a new cast one, that has had some issues and SA it's self has had some QC issues. But they also have the life time warranty.

And based on Springfield, INC.'s past QC problems, the warranty is a good idea.



I checked out the Fulton armory page. They have two write ups. One for the Lithglow receivers. Funny thing is that looks nothing like my receiver nor is marked in any way like mine. Mine is actually stamped US rifle Cal 30 M1 Springfield armory. They one they had has Lithgow on it. Maybe the one they have is an earlier production receiver before they worked out most of the kinks.

Commercial foundries will apply whatever marking or stamping to the receiver that the customer requests.



What I don't get about this is, did SA send him the rifles? If not why would people send it to him when they could've used the warranty? Just a question that popped into my head.

What you're not "getting" is that these customers HAD sent their rifles back to Springfield, INC. and weren't happy with the service they received. Just an answer that popped into my head.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 12:08:38 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 12:12:19 PM EDT by philipk]
Here is the link to the broken Springfield M1 Garand. Go down 1/3 of the page for the photo.

www.gunandgame.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=5563s--

I think it is a fake. Notice that there doesn't appear to be any damage to the receiver. I have never seen a Garand Ka-boom but have seen other gun damage. There has always been twisted metal.

The story of Dean's 10 bad SA from last summer is also hearsay. The guns were not out long enough to have been bought, returned to SA, returned to owner, and then sent to Dean. If I had a bad gun I would keep returning it to SA or demand a refund. One trip to SA is not disperation. Multiple trips would have taken months and the gun was a new release last summer.

Also if this were true, we should have heard about hundreds being sent to Dean in the last year. SA sold out of their first 10,000 Garands. It is now a regular catalogue item and is also available in .308.

If there were a lot of problems we would hear about OWNERS complaining. They only complaints I read about is hearsay from non owners.

The new receiver is cast and it is made by ADI in Australia. Forget about the markings and only look at the receiver posted at Fulton-Armory. That receiver looks nothing like the new Garand.

Finally, there is the post from desertmoon. He said he got lucky with his but had a problem with the sight. He said it was an excellent shooter but wishes he never bought it.

My first Bushmaster bought in 1999 had a front sight problem. I had to return it twice. Are new Bushmasters junk?

I think desertmoon's regrets are webbed based. He said it is an excellent shooter. Then why would you regret buying it except for the negative publicity.

Where is the beef? Plenty of complaints from non owners but few from owners.

A web rumor is all it is.

Philip

BTW

My CMP Garand shoots 5 inch groups from a benchrest. My new SA Garand shoots 1.5 inch groups.

PK
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:09:41 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 4:20:04 PM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

The story of Dean's 10 bad SA from last summer is also hearsay. The guns were not out long enough to have been bought, returned to SA, returned to owner, and then sent to Dean. If I had a bad gun I would keep returning it to SA or demand a refund. One trip to SA is not disperation. Multiple trips would have taken months and the gun was a new release last summer.

What proof do you have that these claims are "hearsay?" Have you spoken to Dean or any of the other M1 gunsmiths mentioned? Asked this question over at CSP? I'd say YOUR claims border on hearsay and downright bullshit.



Also if this were true, we should have heard about hundreds being sent to Dean in the last year. SA sold out of their first 10,000 Garands. It is now a regular catalogue item and is also available in .308.

And why would "hundreds" be sent to Dean alone? Last I knew, he was one of many M1 gunsmiths.



there were a lot of problems we would hear about OWNERS complaining. They only complaints I read about is hearsay from non owners.

Actually, you've made the choice not to seek out and verify any of the complaints. We've offered the sources, you've chosen not to look.



Where is the beef? Plenty of complaints from non owners but few from owners.

You've already received your answer. The ball's in your court, pal.


A web rumor is all it is.

Except it's not. Already been over this with you.


My CMP Garand shoots 5 inch groups from a benchrest. My new SA Garand shoots 1.5 inch groups.

And so what?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:23:23 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 1:24:05 PM EDT by Gloftoe]

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
...snip...

I checked out the Fulton armory page. They have two write ups. One for the Lithglow receivers. Funny thing is that looks nothing like my receiver nor is marked in any way like mine. Mine is actually stamped US rifle Cal 30 M1 Springfield armory. They one they had has Lithgow on it. Maybe the one they have is an earlier production receiver before they worked out most of the kinks.

Commercial foundries will apply whatever marking or stamping to the receiver that the customer requests.


You conveniently left out his next statement:

I tore down my rifle, the bolt fits in there like it should, there's enough cut out in the rear of the receiver for the firing pin,the groves for the bolt are smooth and not all beat up like the one in the pictures.


Sparsky's statement was twofold.
1) his receiver is not marked like the ones in the Fulton Armory pictures (which you answered)
2) his receiver (the cut out for the firing pin, the grooves for the bolt) looks JUST FINE, and NOT like the pictures on Fulton Armory's website. Hence HIS receiver looks completely different from the pics on FA's site.

FWIW, I saw Sparsky's M1. I handled it, and I (believe that I) shot it. It looked/felt solid as a rock, and I didn't notice that his receiver looked sub-par. I DO recall seeing him shoot it, and it functioned 100% with NO FTF, FTE or anything like that.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 1:40:40 PM EDT
Phil,
I really don't appreciate you calling me (and Dean)a liar. Did YOU talk to Dean?! I DID.

What you're link to pics doesn't show (it's not the original forum) are the pics of the shooter's hand. The original thread from jouster.com did. It wasn't pretty. And it sure as hell wasn't faked.

As far as unhappy owners, I know of two at my club. In fact they're the only two people I know that own a "new" Springfield INC. Garand and they both are unhappy.

As far as "webbed based" regrets, Come on. If I paid almost 1k for a "semi-custom shop" rifle, I'd expect it to not have ANYissues let alone come with all the required parts. You can't compare a relatively mass produced rifle (Bushmaster) with a custom "limited" offering (Springfield). It's common knowledge that Springfield INC (and most other companies right now), is having major QC troubles.

Web rumor my ass.



Rich
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:06:56 PM EDT

You conveniently left out his next statement:

No, I didn't "conveniently" leave anything out. His observation is without merit. Has he measured his receiver and compared it with measurements taken from Fulton's example or a USGI Garand? Probably not. Has he run a Rockwell hardness test on it? Checked the heat treating? The only thing he can be sure of is that his rifle carries different markings than the one in Fulton's pictures.

Your move.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:14:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 2:16:41 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:34:00 PM EDT

The gun still was functional because the receiver was not damaged.
I won't say KBing a USGI Garand receiver is impossible, but close enough.


Somthing similar happened at a local gun club. A guy was shooting in a Garand match and chambered an 8x57mm round and fired it. Tore the stock all to hell, caused the trigger group to come unlatched, and blew the bolt out. The receiver remained intact. He had it re-headspaced, installed a new stock, and used it in the next match.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:35:03 PM EDT
Tell ya what.. you pay for the tests and I'd gladly send in my rifle to get it checked out.

I think ya'll are really taking this out of context. As far as that picture and thread goes, the first thing said was "Last Saturday, a fellow at the range had an unpleasant experience with a brand new Springfield Armory M1 Garand. Seems he was trying out the new rifle, and had brought along some hand loads. When they wouldn't chamber properly, he went up to the range house and got some Federal ammo. It wouldn't chamber either, so he used his hand to beat on the op rod handle while standing over the piece. It slam fired out of battery. His injuries were minor, cuts to his right forearm. No one else was hurt. But he could now take his new M1 home in a bag. No one knows if he had a dirty chamber, had not lubed the piece, or what. I guess the moral of the story is please read the manual first. This was at American Shooting Centers in Hou, TX."

Now who's to say if he cleaned it or not. Everyone should know if a round doesn't fit don't try to bang it in there. So that could have been his own fault.


And in actuality I've done web searches and visited a few boards looking for info on the new m1 garands. I have not found any recalls. Maybe 1-4 cases of KB's, but usually no pictures. And the only real bad things I hear about them are from non-owners. There was 10,000 of these made and they sold fast. I remember the waiting list was 6 months long. I know I personally waited 3 months.

It just seems to me if the recievers were so bad and 10,000 of these things were bought shouldn't there be about 10,000 bad reports about now? Shouldn't a well known Shooting magazine, or SA its self issue a warning or recall? Wouldn't there be law suits out the ass for these recievers blowing up? So far I've only heard a few cases. I'm just looking for hard proof.

Have yall even picked up an looked at one of the new garands? Just curious.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 2:47:43 PM EDT
www.shootingtimes.com/longgun_reviews/st_0302_springfield/

There's a good article also in GUNS Magazine October 2002
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:27:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 3:32:18 PM EDT by philipk]

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
What proof do you have that these claims are "hearsay?" Have you spoken to Dean or any of the other M1 gunsmiths mentioned? Asked this question over at CSP? I'd say YOUR claims border on hearsay and downright bullshit.



The American Heritage Dictionary

heary-say 1. Information heard from another. 2. Law Evidence based on the reports of others rather than a witness' own knowledge, and therefore generally not admisible testimony.

The only way this information wouldn't be hearsay is if Dean would post the information himself.

The reason hearsay information isn't admitted in court is that it is usually unreliable.

As in this case, most of the people complaining are non owners who are repeating hearsay information.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:40:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 3:46:25 PM EDT by philipk]

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:


Also if this were true, we should have heard about hundreds being sent to Dean in the last year. SA sold out of their first 10,000 Garands. It is now a regular catalogue item and is also available in .308.

And whay would "hundreds" be sent to Dean alone? Last I knew, he was one of many M1 gunsmiths.



If Dean got 10 guns last summer well before SA sold out of there first 10,000, reason has it he would have gotten several times that number since then.

Also, rumor has it that the first 670 (or 1000 depending on sources) Garands had a forged receiver. So where did these 10 early guns come from with cast receivers?




there were a lot of problems we would hear about OWNERS complaining. They only complaints I read about is hearsay from non owners.

Actually, you've made the choice not to seek out and verify any of the complaints. We've offered the sources, you've chosen not to look.



What sources?




My CMP Garand shoots 5 inch groups from a benchrest. My new SA Garand shoots 1.5 inch groups.

And so what?



That is they whole point.

I bought the new SA Garand to shoot. I didn't buy it as a collector's piece. That is the purpose of my CMP Original US Military.

Philip
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 3:49:33 PM EDT
Your dictionary sure spells funny. I know what Dean told me. I know what two guys at my club told me. I know what Gun Tests magazine published. To me it's not hearsay. Instead of acting like you're Matlock quoting the dictionary, why don't you call Dean, Tony at Orion, and/or Fulton yourself and see what they have to say? These guys forget more in an hour than you or I will ever know about the Garand. They have nothing to gain or lose by giving you the straight dope. You can quote the dictionary as much as you like, but that won't change the fact that this is not a court room. This is a casual community forum and when you start referring to one's FIRST HAND experiences as "hearsay" that's tantamount to calling someone a liar. No wonder people hate lawyers.

As far as what the gunrags wrote, when was the last time you saw a bad review of anything in one? Do you really think Guns and Blammo are going to give Springfield, Smith and Wesson, Remington etc. a bad review when they pay for all that advertising? The closest thing to honesty in gun publications is Gun Tests magazine. Think of "Consumer Reports" for guns (they don't accept advertisements). You may find this link intersting

http://www.gun-tests.com/pub/14_6/features/5013-1.html


Rich

BTW,
Sparsky, no flames meant towards you.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 4:04:47 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 4:06:15 PM EDT by Sparsky]
well it only gives me a partial clipping. And I don't subscribe so I can't read the whole thing.


The true intentions of my point was to find out why people talk so bad about them from a few cases. Take Glock for example, how many of their pistols KBed, yet people still love them and recommend them. Yet with the new garand everyone's judging the whole stock pile off a few cases. If that's the case then we may as well start stereotyping everything. Like someone said Bushy has canted sites, they're all crap. Colt has a few issues with QC also they're all crap. I've heard a few stories about the New DSA FAL's not working, guess they're crap too. Glocks have KBed they're crap too. The list can go on and on.

Ya'll sort of know what I'm getting at?
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 4:28:12 PM EDT

The only way this information wouldn't be hearsay is if Dean would post the information himself.

And you've been offered the opportunity to call or email Dean and hear it firsthand, straight from him. You have made the decision not to do so.



The reason hearsay information isn't admitted in court is that it is usually unreliable.

HINT: AR15.com is an INTERNET MESSAGE BOARD, NOT A COURT. Do you know the difference? I hope no one needs to explain it for you.



If Dean got 10 guns last summer well before SA sold out of there first 10,000, reason has it he would have gotten several times that number since then

You're only speculating.



What sources?

Okay, at this point I'm thinking you're not reading any of the posts in this thread, or maybe you're not comprehending them. I don't know. Maybe you're dyslexic. CALL (do you have a telephone?) Dean of DGR, Orion 7, Fulton Armory, etc., or email them. These guys are established M1 gunsmiths and will gladly offer up all of the facts, figures, etc., FREE. Otherwise SHOVE OFF.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:04:33 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
Don't believe everything you read on the 'net, Tom. Quite a few Chicken Littles/Doubting Thomases (not you) post their stories of woe and scare everyone else into a frenzy.

The Model 700 has enjoyed an excellent out-of-the-box accuracy reputation throughout its manufacturing history. If there's a problem, Remington will back their product. Can't ask for much more than that.

My Model 700 VS LH shot sub-MOA from the get-go. No modifications, no nothing.

Worry about the important things, like getting some ammo!!!



You own a 700 so all the negative stuff about it is wrong. You don't own a new SA Garand so all the negative stuff is right.

Follow your own advice!

Philip
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:11:23 PM EDT

You own a 700 so all the negative stuff about it is wrong. You don't own a new SA Garand so all the negative stuff is right.

Follow your own advice!


I can't help it if you and everyone else who bought one of these boat anchors is having buyer's remorse. Don't worry, things will look up for you (someday).
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:20:50 PM EDT
Sparsky,
I know exactly what you mean. Like I said earlier, I meant no flames. I hope none were taken.

I used to have a subscription to GT, but I let it slide (why, I can't remember). I think alot of the "issues" are to a certain extent quite justified. The issues with the other weapons, save for the Glock, are relatively minor or at least easily remedied. Not so with the new Garands (provided the one you got is a lemon).

As far as numbers go, judging the whole stock off a few cases isn't really that out of line when you consider how many are being produced. How many millions of Glocks are out there vs. how many have KB'ed? And compare those numbers to the Springfield and how many are out there vs. many have had problems. The problems aren't just in the Garands either. I know of a couple guys who've had problems with M1A's as well.

I've handled a few of the new Garands at shows etc and was impressed. Everything seemed "in order", BUT I'm no smith and don't know what exactly to look for (other than the obvious things). That's why I go by what professional smiths say. Also when the price is factored in, I just personally think it's better to get a rack grade (or just a receiver) and have Dean build it up. 'Course that doesn't really help cure the "gotta have it NOW" factor.

It seems as if you got a "good one" and glad that it's working great for you.

As far as guns with "issues" being crap, I totally see your point, but when a company makes as big a deal of "re-introducing" something like the Garand (talk about shoes to fill) they better make damn straight they got all their sh*t together (especially for what they charge). They bit off more than they could chew, tried to cut corners (which doesn't work on a weapon whose receiver requires as many machining operations as the Garand). Now people are calling them on it.

Now that doesn't mean you should fall prey to "webbed based" regrets etc. Be happy with what you have and shoot the snot out of it.

Later,
Rich
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 6:31:57 PM EDT
Hey Trumpet I know you ment no flame and I never took your posts as a flame. I understand your post quite well. I hope SA has enough common sence to figure out and fix all their bugs.

Don't worry I'll shoot the crap out of it and let yall know how it preforms. OH, BTW mine is an ADI, Australia reciever.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:01:26 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 7:03:30 PM EDT by philipk]

Originally Posted By Trumpet:
And compare those numbers to the Springfield and how many are out there vs. many have had problems.



Where can I find this info about the number of Springfields with problems? I avoid repeating hearsay, but I called Springfield yesterday and they denied having problems. Sure they can lie but so could a gunsmith who makes a living rebuilding Garands. (Just statement to make a point. I never have talked to Dean nor seen anything written by him. Thus I am NOT refering to Dean.)


That's why I go by what professional smiths say.


I have done a web search and haven't found ANY gunsmith who has condemned the SA. Can you give be a link to first hand info?


Also when the price is factored in, I just personally think it's better to get a rack grade (or just a receiver) and have Dean build it up.


Finally, a statement I can partly agree with. At $1299.00 plus FFL fee and shipping you will have a great gun. Or you can send a CMP Danish rack grade receiver which cost $395.95 plus Dean's $695.00 plus shipping both ways. You are at about $1130. Still it is more than the $850 that I payed plus the lifetime warranty. There is no clear choice

I didn't want to spend over a thousand for a Garand. I would rather spend that much on a new AR15!

Philip
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:11:22 PM EDT
damn.. I only paid 975 out the door for mine.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:40:40 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/29/2003 7:41:41 PM EDT by Trumpet]
If you want to know about Springfields with problems go to jouster.com. That's pretty much the definitive source for all things Garand on the internet.

When you called Springfield, who exactly did you talk to? Also, do you really think they would 'fess up to any problems that aren't "user related"?

You've done a web search, but have you actually SPOKEN to any of these 'smiths? I suggest you do so. I can't give you a "link" as these were actual phone calls. I was considering a "new" one myself, but before I commited to anything I spoke to Dean and Tony at Orion 7. They steered me towards the CMP. Yes, these guys make a living building Garands. But when they make their living in such a small, specialized shooting "sub-community" why would they lie? If they did so, they wouldn't be around very long. Word spreads very fast in these circles.

As far as
"Finally, a statement I can partly agree with...",

dude, that was my FIRST POST IN THIS THREAD!!!!!!!

You can get "new" Springfield Garand for $850 OR you could get a Orion 7 "Battle grade" for $799, a DGR built on a Danish Rack grade for $1070, a DGR built on a SA receiver for $1120 or a Orion select grade for $1149. The "new" ones are factory guns built by "average joe" workers. For not much more ($299 for the more expensive one), you could get a truly custom rifle built by the best in the business that I guanan-damn-tee, is put together waaaay better, and will shoot better than anything from a factory. Seems like a pretty clear choice to me.


Rich

BTW, all Dean's guns come with the appropriately proportioned Wenig stocks NOT the bulky Boyd's abominations.
Link Posted: 5/29/2003 7:44:50 PM EDT

Sure they can lie but so could a gunsmith who makes a living rebuilding Garands. (Just statement to make a point. I never have talked to Dean nor seen anything written by him. Thus I am NOT refering to Dean.)

Well, gee. I don't recall DGR or any of the other M1 gunsmiths mentioned as ever manufacturing Garands or receivers. Do you? What would be their motivation in advising a potential customer to avoid a substandard Springfield, INC. rifle which should give them BEAUCOUP hours of work?

Again, sorry you're having buyer's remorse at this point. That's part of being an adult (making choices and living with them).
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 5:38:17 AM EDT

Originally Posted By Jim_Dandy:
That's part of being an adult (making choices and living with them).



Being an adult means that you can accept that others can make a decision different than yours. I am HAPPY with my choices and I assume that you are happy with yours.

Many of you are being childish by condemning my choices.


What would be their motivation in advising a potential customer to avoid a substandard Springfield, INC. rifle which should give them BEAUCOUP hours of work?

Various gunsmiths have a vested interest in selling their products. They may not manufacture it but they are in business to sell them. "Smithfields are junk so buy by rebuid" or "The new Jeep Wanglers are junk so buy my rebuilt WWII Willies."

Lastly, BEAUCOUP hours of work? If what has been written were true, then there is no way to fix the gun. A bad cast receiver is a boat anchor. So how are the gunsmiths spending hours of work fixing a product that has a lifetime warranty from another company?

Not logical.

Enough said. Good day.

Philip
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 8:56:39 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 8:58:22 AM EDT by Jim_Dandy]

Being an adult means that you can accept that others can make a decision different than yours. I am HAPPY with my choices and I assume that you are happy with yours.

Many of you are being childish by condemning my choices.


Actually, I don't really care what kind of garbage you spend your money on, slick. The original poster inquired about the Springfield, INC. rifles. You can't seem to stand the fact that someone might think ill of them. Too bad, too sad.



Various gunsmiths have a vested interest in selling their products. They may not manufacture it but they are in business to sell them. "Smithfields are junk so buy by rebuid" or "The new Jeep Wanglers are junk so buy my rebuilt WWII Willies."

All of the gunsmiths we've listed make their money off of repairing and rebuilding M1s, not selling them. You missed that part.



Lastly, BEAUCOUP hours of work? If what has been written were true, then there is no way to fix the gun. A bad cast receiver is a boat anchor. So how are the gunsmiths spending hours of work fixing a product that has a lifetime warranty from another company?

Not logical.


No, is logical. When the "manufacturer," and Springfield, INC. isn't much of a manufacturer since they mostly repackage and market everyone else's products, doesn't do much to stand by their products, you're left with getting the problems corrected by an outside source. I'd say you missed out on the logic there.


Enough said. Good day.

So I'm guessing that you're not going to make the effort to call any one of the gunsmtihs listed and ask about your mighty Springfield, INC.? Don't worry, they're nicer guys than me. They'll let you down easy. There are worse things than buyer's remorse.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:10:08 AM EDT
First off Phil,
You wanted actual proof of someone dissatisfied. Remember this little thread off battlerifles.com


http://www.battlerifles.com/viewtopic.php?t=13168&highlight=&sid=6af326845cd32dd55aaa11eeeaedb366

This is the one where falfree has trouble with his new Garand. You posted replies to it, so I would think you should remember it.

Secondly,
How nice of you to go over there and start quoting your Matlock "hearsay" bullshit and directly calling me a liar. Real standup thing to do, going to a board where you didn't think I'd go and start slinging mud.

Thirdly,
I read most of your other posts there. Seems you sure do like to stir the pot alot everywhere you go.

To quote several on battlerifles.com
"take a nap"



"Good day"

Rich



<­BR>
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 11:21:39 AM EDT
Me stirring the pot? All my posts were in two threads. One I started and one started my falfree. I am the bad guy because I am willing to fight the good fight and say that there is nothing wrong with the new SA Garand. That opinion is very unpopular for no valid reason.

I indirectly called you a liar over on BattleRifle before finding this thread. The reason is someone quoted this thread and your story is so illogical.

I still stand by my comment that your story is illogical.

Reasons

1. The events were reported to have happenned in the summer of 2002.
That was soon after it hit the market. There wasn't enough time for people to have bought the gun; send it to Springfield twice; and then send it to Dean.

2. Where are the stories about people sending guns to Dean after the summer of 02? If 1o people sent it to him to fix that early in the production there should have been many more after that time. Where are their stories on the web?

3. Rumor has it that the first 670-1000 sold had forged receivers. So how come Dean got bad cast receivers so early in the production run? There wasn't enough time for the cast receivers to hit the market.

4. You claim that Dean said all ten had bad receivers. So what is there to fix? A bad cast receiver is junk and unrepairable.

5. You claim that Dean or others have nothing to gain about knocking SA because all the do are repairs. Yet , when I go to their websites, I see that they do sell COMPLETE guns.

6. SA sold out their first 10,000 before the end of last year. They then continued to make it and add a .308. If they were having major problems, they could have easily cut there loses but not extending the run. No one would have questioned it as they first said it was a limited production item. No company would keep making a product that had a high rate of warranty returns.

ILLOGICAL

Philip
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 11:45:33 AM EDT
Phil,
You directly called me a liar on the battlerifle board. How is "I called the person at AR15.com a liar." indirect?!

I'm not going to cut and paste my whole response to you (as you did here). If anyone wants to see my response they can go there.

Your opinion is unpopular because it is misinformed and you preach it as Gospel.

I'm done with you
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 12:00:58 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 12:02:31 PM EDT by philipk]

Originally Posted By Trumpet:
Your opinion is unpopular because it is misinformed and you preach it as Gospel.



One more time, if you and others who write that the new SA Garand is junk and I am misinformed, where are the stories from owners?

I can only find three owners with complaints.

One blow-up his gun. It probably was his fault.

One had a bad front sight. Common problem regardless of make.

And one had a misfire with Korean surplus ammo. He blamed it on the gun. I tossed out half a can of that ammo after two misfires. One in the CMP and one in the SA. In the SA the primer fired but not the powder. The bullet got stuck one inch into the barrel.

Three stories out of 10,000 plus guns sold.

I know that not all gun owners use the internet but I am sure a large percentage do. If I felt screwed by SA you bet I would go to every forum to complain. So where are they?

SO WHERE ARE ALL THESE OWNERS WITH BOAT ANCHORS!

Philip

Link Posted: 5/30/2003 12:38:32 PM EDT
Jesus, Mary, and Joseph people. Its a RIFLE not a way of life.

He asked about .308 Garnands made by SA INC. I dunno about everyone else but if you want a .308 Garand the SA ones seem OK not great but OK. I wouldnt get one though.

Being a purist I would reccomend buying a .30-06 one from the CMP.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 3:19:16 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 3:22:00 PM EDT by raf]
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 4:45:36 PM EDT
but a usgi cmp garand and u will always be happy!
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 9:12:25 PM EDT

Ten years from now, nobody will remember any of this.

Ten years from now, when the CMP is sold out of rifles, those that bought the Springfield, INC. "Garands" will instead wish they'd spent their money on a genuine USGI Garand when they had the chance.
Link Posted: 5/30/2003 10:06:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/30/2003 10:07:08 PM EDT by Sukebe]
Why buy a replica when you can have the real thing? How many more chances are we going to get to buy genuine U.S. military firearms at prices just about anyone can afford? Each CMP M-1 purchased is another part of our history saved from the gun crushers. Why do people allow S.A. Inc. to run a pole up their asses? $800.00-$900.00 for a replica M-1? Smoke more crack?
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 6:56:15 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/31/2003 6:59:51 AM EDT by desertmoon]
Well, I have some catching up to do. I should answer the question of why I did not ( do not ) like my new production Garand. When S.A. issued the first 10,000 they came with a card that talked about how "lovingly handbuilt" they were. If this was true then why did mine come without a handguard liner and a front sight that looked like it had been smacked with a framing hammer? I definitely can't call that "lovingly". In truth I felt very decieved...it was near this same point in time that I was having MANY issues with one of their Armor Kote 45 autos. At the time I thought the 1911 was the only issue and I thought I had just gotten a lemon ( I could write a book on my experiences with this 45 and the company that made it )...things like this do happen every so often...even to good firms. In both of these instances Springfeild was very willing to try to rectify my issues with these weapons. I sent the 45 to them for repair and it came back working no better ( or even worse ) than when I sent it in. So when I unboxed my "lovingly handbuilt" Garand a couple of months later and saw that the 45 was NOT an isolated quality issue I opted to purchase replacement components for the Garand from Clint McKee at Fulton Armory so that I wouldn't have to deal with what I considered to be ineffective ( but very polite ) customer service. In essence I cannot blame the rifle for this, it wasn't the rifle's fault it wasn't nicely made...I must take this up with the source....however my confidence in the source ( S.A., Inc ) has been very shaken by the issues that I and others have had with S.A.'s products and service. This is my source of dislike for the weapon. Call it "bad mojo".

As far as the receiver goes the Australian Defense Industries receiver seems to be VERY well made and is a casting of the highest quality at least as the fit and finish are concerned. Now as far as things like heat treat issues? I don't know. I have about 300 rounds through the weapon and it has shot admirably and reliably. I have the weapon disassembled now whilst I am working on the stock and I have, so far, zero complaints about any type of adverse wear or any malfunctions.

As far as I know I am the only person with a new production Garand on this site that has complained about one. My beef was purely asthetic in nature and I sincerely believe I have a right to be angry. I ordered what I was led by Springfield to believe was a very nice semi custom hand built rifle...what I got was a rifle with missing and/or low quality components when I know for a fact there are still plenty of good, neat arsenal refinished or new in the bag components out there. The fact that when I read an original write up on the weapon I was also led to believe ALL of the recievers were going to be forged doesn't make me much happier either. ahhhhhh well.....we live...we learn.

I believe in the Mike Dillion school of business where you turn out a great product EVERY TIME and if the customer has an issue ( any issue ) you absolutely break your back trying to set things straight. This is what I expect when I do business with a company that charges what Springfield charges for a rifle. I have no issue with how much I pay, hell I have spent a LOT more that 980 bucks on a gun before...however, I DO have an issue when I don't get what I paid for. In the instance of my Garand, my 1911 and even my Scout Rifle I ended up at one time or another needing service for each one of these guns. Only the Scout was fixed properly. I had to fix the 1911 myself and I also did the Garand myself...based on my experiences with the 1911 reliability issue. By the way, each of these incidents took place some time apart from each other. For instance the Scout problem didn't show up for over a year after I bought it. ( poor quality chamber causing extractor breakage )Hence the very bizzare fact that I got 3 out of 4 Springfield products that were very below par in quality....and THAT is my luck.
Link Posted: 5/31/2003 7:54:27 AM EDT
Thank you for your update!

I hope you don't think I was critical of your earlier posts. A bad front sight shouldn't happen. I had the same with a Bushmaster AR and two trips back. Then it was fixed.

I was critical of others who used your post to condemn the new SA.

Again thanks for your update.

Philip
Arrow Left Previous Page
Page / 2
Top Top