THE CONVERSION

Tim Shufflin converted my M1 Garand into his mini-G configuration. The original rifle was handed down to me. It had seen a lot of use and it was not a very good shooter. So, I wasn't surprised when Tim informed me the original barrel was shot out. Since a new barrel was needed I thought it would be nice to convert to .308. The new barrel finish should match the rest of the rifle so I ordered a complete parkerizing job. And, with everything new or being made like-new, I felt compelled to order a new stock.

I shipped the original rifle and a brand new Holbrook Device to Tim. I ordered a "finger groove" stock from Stock Emporium and had that shipped directly to TIm. I'm glad I went the the finger groove option. Tim added a new barrel and an adjustable gas plug. He installed the barrel, parkerized all the metal, and put everything together in the new stock. You can see the results below. I photographed it next to a Thai Border Police M1 Carbine for comparison. I was, and remain, very pleased.




AMMUNITION

Tim informed me that the rifle was adjusted to shoot M80 147gr ball ammunition. I had no interest in shooting that. Anyway, I didn't have any on hand. However, I did have a few boxes of M118 and M118 LR, 173gr military Match ammo. So, with great hopes I took that out to give the rifle a go.

The results were dismal. It quickly became apparent that the ammunition, both versions, wasn't getting enough velocity in the 16" barrel of the mini-G to rotate quickly enough to stabilize. I was seeing big groups and lots of key holing. To make matters worse, no matter how I adjusted the gas plug I couldn't get the rifle to function reliably. I think the bullet weight and resulting pressure were too high and beyond the adjustment capability of the gas system. M118 /M118 LR earned a big NO-GO in my rifle.

I decided to purchase some Fiocchi ammunition topped with 165gr Sierra Gameking bullets. The bullets are shorter than the 173gr M118 bullets. That, I guessed, coupled with the additional velocity gained by shooting the lighter bullet might generate enough spin to stabilize the bullets. The 165gr load is also closer to the M80 load and I expected it to improve feeding and functioning.

I tried the ammo at the range and things couldn't have worked out better. It took some rounds to dial in the gas plug but it now performs reliably. One big plus to the Fiocchi load is the Gameking bullet.

Here is Sierra's description of the bullets:

quote:

For rifles in 30 caliber, this 165 grain #2140 Hollow Point Boat Tail bullet, which is patterned after the world-famous 168 grain MatchKing bullet, was designed for shooters who desire a hunting version of that famous MatchKing. It is slightly "harder" than its 165 grain Spitzer Boat Tail counterpart and will give superior penetration and good expansion on medium game with excellent accuracy.

I'm getting 2560fps from my mini-G. That works out to:

• Optimum sight-in range = 193 Yds.
  
• Maximum ordinate above LOS is 2" at range of 117 Yds.
  
• Maximum point blank range (+/- 2" from LOS) = 223 Yds.
  

However, it just so happens to work out that a 50 yard zero will also result in a 150 yard zero. The first distance is where the bullet crosses the line of sight on the way up and the second distance is where the bullet crosses the line of sight on the way down. I can zero for 150 yards on my 50 yard range. That was just too convenient to ignore. It also has a very flat trajectory. The bullet never rises more than .8" above the line of sight all the way to the zero distance of 150 yards, then is only 1.1" low at 175 yards, 2" low at 190 yards, and 2.7" low at 200 yards. That's great for most of the hunting I do.

Once I settled on the Fiocchi 165gr Sierra ammunition I decided to focus on zeroing and accuracy.


SIGHTS

I am more than a little accustomed to military iron sights. I had no trouble getting a zero with the issue sights (shown above) but groups were not as tight as I expected. I was averaging about 3-1/2" at 50 yards. That would be twice that at 100 yards and four times that at 200 yards. That's not good enough even for deer hunting. There were two issues holding me back from getting tighter groups. First, I developed a vitreous separation in my right eye last year. It has left me with a large, permanently attached floater that makes it difficult to focus on the front sight. There is no way I can compensate for this with iron sights. Second, the back of the Garand receiver beats me in the upper lip. I've always experienced that with Garands. Every time I fired a Garand in a match my upper lip would be swollen and bloody by the 20th round or so. I could add a pad to the buttstock to get more length of pull but I don't like doing that on military rifles. So, for me, the issue sights were not the best option.

I decided to add a Burris Fastfire 3. I received one as a rebate promotion after I purchased a Burris AR sight. All I needed was a mount. I located a company that makes those and soon had everything together without difficulty.

Here is the setup:






The Fastfire 3 unit worked great at 25 yards but it was difficult to use at 50 yards. At the longer range I was having problems with parallax. I was looking for hunting accuracy but Fastfire was giving me fast target acquisition with only CQB accuracy. I could align the dot with the front sight and vertical line on the back of the Fastfire to reduce side-to-side parallax but I still had problems with vertical parallax.

Here you can see how the Fastfire suffers from parallax. When the dot, front sight, and rear white line are lined up it shoots true. When you move your head a little bit one way or the other the dot moves from side to side.



The target below is typical of what was happening. This 50 yard group measures 0.5" x 1.6". That would be 1" X 3-1/4" at 100 yards, 2" X 6-1/2" at 200. That's much better than I got with the iron sights but I knew the rifle would shoot better if I could address the vertical stringing.



That grouping is okay for close, tree stand, and blind hunting but it isn't good for stalking or hunting in open terrain.

Reluctantly, I decided I needed to scope the mini-G to eek out the best accuracy. I say reluctantly because I like being able to shove a clip of eight rounds into the magazine. As mentioned in the start of this post, I had a Holbrook device installed. That keeps the clip in place until you manually press the clip release button. It prevents the automatic ejection of the clip after all rounds are fired. It also allows individual rounds to be loaded directly into the clip while it is still in the magazine. This last feature means a scope can be mounted directly over the center of the action and rounds can be individually loaded just like is done with a typical bolt action rifle.

I purchased a CASM mount from a Canadian firm. It replaces the rear sight and requires no drilling or tapping. I installed the mount and secured a Leupold 1-4X Hog scope to it. I really like the Pig-Plex reticles in the HOG line.



I went back to the range, zeroed the rifle, and proceeded to shoot a couple of groups like this one. It's 8-shots and measures 1/4" X 7/8":



If I can stop the vertical stringing I will be shooting better than 1 MOA!

I have come to the conclusion that the problem is my inability to maintain a consistent cheek weld. Shooting either the Fastfire or a scope requires raising the head from the stock. The parallax of the Fastfire exacerbated the problem but it still exists when shooting with a scope.

I verified the fix by shoving some foam under the butt pouch (as can be seen in the photo above). Raising the comb will do the trick but I need to get the comb raised with something more permanent and I need more ammunition to see what the rifle is really capable of. Once I get that done I'll post an update. Then there's the cow elk tag I drew for Colorado this year........

NICE!
(green guy is meant to convey jealousy)

I'm hoping some day soon I can get him to make me a 21" in 9.3 x 62.

quote:

Originally posted by aephilli:

I'm hoping some day soon I can get him to make me a 21" in 9.3 x 62.

I, too, was interested in a 9.3x62 Garand. I even found a couple of Garand 9.3 barrels. But that's when the fun started. I went over all the dimensions, again and again, with Tim Shufflin. He has been making .35 Whelen Garand conversions for several years. It was decided the barrel wall thickness would become too thin forward of the gas port. He said he would only do it if I signed a legal document releasing him from liability. I took a good look at the what the remaining barrel wall thickness would be in a couple of critical areas and double checked the calculations. There is just no way I would want to be shooting something that fragile. Yes, a special barrel with a custom diameter at the gas port, thicker muzzle with special threading, and a custom gas cylinder and cylinder lock could be manufactured so the bore could go to 9.3mm. But it would be a custom machined one-off, very expensive, couldn't use GI replacement parts for those areas, and you'd have to find someone willing and knowledgeable enough to do the work.

The maximum reasonable bore size for a Garand is .358". Tim already offers Garand barreling and Mini-G conversions to .35 Whelen. I may just go that route someday for a medium bore Garand. It's in the same class as 9.3x62 and .35 Whelen ammo is more readily available, at least in the states.

An easy alternative I've considered is having a Garand rebored and rechambered to .338-06. There are plenty of Garands out there with shot out barrels that would be perfect candidates for that. It goes without saying that an adjustable gas plug would be a must.

Hmmm; this is a very easy thing to do; here are the numbers; the barrel is .515 forward of the gas port; with a .366 groove, that gives you .0745 wall thickness. I have double rifles with .080 muzzle walls, so that is not bad for a start. Muzzle pressure is easily contained with modern chrome moly barrel steel. I could easily open the threads in the gas cylinder lock to get another ten thousandths (per side) of barrel wall thickness, which would put you at .085 wall. OR, making a new cylinder lock could allow the barrel to be the full .600 OD that it is at the gas port. Giving a full .117 barrel wall; enough for anything.
Anyone who can make a Garand barrel can make a blank suitable for custom front end machining.
Child's play.

Scopes on Garands and M14's are a problem regarding cheek weld and might check out Bradley adjustable ones for your rifle. The product is of quality and is secure on the rifle once "strapped on" so to speak. Also comes in various camo colors, etc., etc.
Just a suggestion.

dpcd, you are forgetting about the splines.



It would involve more than just shallower threads. The barrel thickness at the splines would need to be changed but that is already a point that easily wears/loosens up - thus the occasional need to peen for a tight fit.






It would require a thicker barrel for the last few inches. The gas port area would need to be of greater diameter so splines of reasonable depth could be cut. Then the gas cylinder would need to be opened and altered to fit the splines. The projecting ribs need to be cut back AND the areas between them would also need to be cut deeper to accommodate the larger gas port portion of the barrel. That would ensure a good, solid, deep fit of the splines. Finally, the gas cylinder lock would need to be opened and re-threaded to fit the muzzle threads. One might be tempted to keep the diameter at the gas port to original spec and live with shallower splines but, as mentioned, that is already an area of tenable fit. A proper purchase and tight gas seal would be essential and that would require increasing the diameter at the gas port.

If I was going to go through the trouble of having that done I would want to have the resultant barrel at least 0.10" thick at the thinnest part. Rifle barrels can and have been made thinner, especially double rifle barrels where barrel weight is an important consideration, but I believe a good solid tenth of an inch is a more reasonable minimum thickness at the muzzle.

I spent quite a bit of time going through all the dimensions and tolerances a while back. Yes, it can be done. But to do it right would require more than a re-threading job.

quote:

Originally posted by Instructor:
Scopes on Garands and M14's are a problem regarding cheek weld and might check out Bradley adjustable ones for your rifle. The product is of quality and is secure on the rifle once "strapped on" so to speak. Also comes in various camo colors, etc., etc.
Just a suggestion.

I considered those but I'm not a fan of Kydex. I've ordered a Voodoo Tactical adjustable cheek rest. I'll give that a try.

Gas port pressure is about 6000 PSI. Again, I have double rifles with .080 muzzle wall thicknesses. I know you don't want to do it, but that would work.

Well, I received the Voodoo Tactical Adjustable Cheek Rest. I'm not impressed. It's made very well but the design is dismal and it's not very "adjustable" at all. I've got it mounted on the rifle - wrinkles, lumps, excessive straps and all. I'll give it a go when the weather clears but it is a temporary fix at best.

Instructor - I will be checking out the Bradley as you suggested.

A lot of work and thought in that rifle what does it weigh.

It has a 16.1" barrel and weights 7-1/2 pounds with issue sights.

That thing is awesome! I love the Garands.

I purchased a June 1942 Winchester Garand this year and have been enjoying it. Never owned one before and surprisingly lots of people want to see it when at the shooting range. Not near as accurate as your Mini-G

quote:

Not near as accurate as your Mini-G

Garands were spec. out at 4 inches.

I agree with p-dog. I have seen some pretty accurate Garands. I think the Mini-G benefits from a shorter, stiffer barrel and by not having any front handguard as one more thing to move around and contact the barrel. My particular rifle has a brand new barrel, one without any wear. It's also been converted to .308. Some think that alone will make a Garand more accurate. I don't think the .308 cartridge is noticeably more accurate than the .30-06 cartridge but it does reduce recoil and that makes it easier to get hits on the target.

On the other hand, the distance between the front and rear sight of a Mini-G is 8" shorter than that of the Garand. I noticed that right off the bat. In that regard the Garand has an advantage. The Garand also has the advantages of more weight, all of it at the muzzle end, and the ability to fire bullets at higher velocities because of the longer barrel.

You have to also consider that I'm shooting the Mini-G with optics. When was the last time you saw a Garand being shot with optics?

If you were to take a Garand with a brand new .308 barrel, accurize it by clearing the handguards from the barrel, install a scope, and shoot it from a bench rest (like I've been shooting the Mini-G) I bet you'd be surprised at how accurate it would be.

The Garand I was issued shot expert. roger

I am not criticizing your gunsmith, but I just want to be sure I understand correctly. He will barrel a 35 whelen, at .358 as safe, but will NOT barrel a 9.3 at .366? That .008, or .004 per side, is just too much and makes the gun unsafe necessitating a liability waiver?

Everything has it's limits. One could say going to a .338 bore is as far as they want to go. Alternatively, if one is willing to go to .366 then why not .375? Again, a line has to be drawn somewhere.

If I told you I wanted an ultralight rifle with the thinnest barrel possible and I asked you what the absolute thinnest barrel you would be willing to install for me was and then, after you told me your limit, if I asked you to go another .008" thinner, what would you say? If you were to say yes then then you hadn't originally told me your limit. To which I would say, well then what about a second extra .008" thinner on top of that! Obviously, you too will have a limit.

The .35 Whelen is as far as the gunsmith wants to go. I cannot fault him for what he thinks is a sound and safe decision. Rather, I respect him for it. He did agree to install a 9.3x62 Garand barrel that I located but only if I signed a document releasing him from liability. Alternatively, he suggested I could have a regular Garand barrel installed and get it bored out and rechambered to 9.3x62. He even suggested a firm to do the work. So, I ran the numbers myself. I did not keep my calculations, but I remember well that I was surprised at the minimal wall thickness of even going to a .358 bore and, after reviewing what would be left from a .366 bore, I had no desire to get one made in 9.3 mm.

As mentioned in a post above, it could be done and done in such a way as to leave a good wall thickness. But it would involve a lot more than just installing a standard Garand barrel with a 9.3 mm bore. If I was dead set on it I would go to the expense of having someone do all the customization work I think it requires. But I am not dead set on it.

If I decide to get a Garand or Mini-G with a bore larger than .308" I will either have a .30-06 or .308 barrel bored out to .338" for .338-06 or .338 Federal, or I will get one of Shuff's .35 Whelen jobs.

As for now, I couldn't be more pleased than I am with the Mini-G in .308 Win. The man knows his Garands and he does excellent parkerizing.