Modern take on M1D and M1C Garand Rifles

The M1 Garand saw modifications involving the addition of a 2.2-power scope in the M1C and M1D models.  These were effectively semi-auto sniper rifles.  However, most sniper rifles of that era were based on the M1903 Springfield bolt action rifle.  Because of the fact that the Garand is loaded by inserting a clip in the top of the rifle, the M1C and M1D models involved a peculiar method of mounting the scope off-axis.  The scope was actually aligned left of center.  In fact, a special cheek pad had to be laced onto the stock so that the firer's eye was kept left of center for proper cheek weld.

In the modern era, I would re-interpret the scoped M1 Garand very differently:

It involves replacing the top handguard with a Scout Rail by Ultimak and mounting a scope on that.  In this case a TruGlo 2x red-dot.  This keeps the scope inline with the bore, but does require a long eye-relief scope (such as would be used on a pistol).   The configuration here actually allows the iron sights to co-witness within the scope image, so if the battery died, the irons would still be visible in the lower quarter of the optic.  One needn't remove the optic in the heat of battle to get the irons in service.

The added advantage of placing a scope out that distance is that the shooter maintains more peripheral vision for situational awareness (hence "scout" rifle).   But for those reasons, it would not be a true sniper rifle.  Probably more along the lines of our modern "Squad Designated Marksman".

And what "sniper rifle" would be complete without a flash hider?  

And finally, here it is pictured with an uscoped M1 Garand with a 10" bayonet.

"Silencers": sinister or neighborly?

In September, I ran across the following writeup, and attempted to contact the author for attribution.  He declined and wishes to remain anonymous.   I have long held that NFA'34 rules are silly, and that exempting noise-suppressors is a first step at repealing/reforming the entire act.  This article lends credence to that, and also explains NFA'34 very well (emphasis in bold added):

In much of Europe they are considered neighborly. In Finland and Norway one can be purchased without paperwork at the local hardware store. Even in the United Kingdom, their use is often encouraged for hunting and acquiring one is relatively easy.
I'm talking about suppressors, "cans," or as long as one understands the name isn't literally true, "silencers." (In Britain, they're known as "moderators.") But while the United States remains the gold standard in preservation of the right to keep and bear arms, these useful accessories have been demonized beyond all reason.
Far from the modern popular and erroneous notion that suppressors were created for organized criminals and assassins, when Hiram P. Maxim (son of Maxim machine gun creator Hiram Stevens Maxim) patented the first suppressor in 1910 his goal was to minimize noise pollution. Ads for the product featured a character called "Dr. Shush" and Maxim himself imploring those at a firing range to "hush," with another noting, "Girls like it when there's no nerve-ripping report." Seemingly obsessed with sound, Maxim's company, Maxim Silencer Co., would go on to make car mufflers and offer consulting services on noise reduction.
While Maxim's marketing may have focused on politeness, his invention's contribution to hearing safety is of greater importance. Most shooters and almost all hunters have firsthand experience with the effects of unsuppressed gunfire and know the results can be dangerous. The average gunshot is well above 140 decibels, the level at which permanent hearing loss can occur. Every responsible shooter uses proper ear protection at the range, but it's not an option in home defense and many hunting situations. And while a suppressed firearm is by no means silent, it does offer protection from dangerous noise levels. In light of this, suppressors should be viewed as safety devices, rather than demonized.
Unfortunately, by the early 1930s some in law enforcement came to fear their possible use by criminals. When the National Firearms Act of 1934 was enacted, "silencers" were included alongside machine guns and short-barreled shotguns. To make sure the average citizen couldn't buy a suppressor, the Congress imposed a $200 tax on the accessory. Considering the average family income at the time was $1,524 per year, it was a highly prohibitive sum.
Today suppressors are legal to own in 39 states, but since they are subject to the National Firearms Act, the would-be owner must fill out a Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives Form 4, acquire the signature of his or her chief local law enforcement officer, and submit a passport-size photo to the BATFE along with a set of fingerprints. This information, along with the $200 transfer tax, is sent to BATFE for a rigorous background check. All of the information is then recorded in the National Firearm Registration and Transfer Record, the BATFE database of NFA firearms.
If this process sounds onerous, that's because it is; but despite these regulations there are also 11 states (California, Delaware, Hawaii, Illinois, Iowa, Minnesota, New Jersey, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island and Vermont) that ban the possession of suppressors outright. Still others allow possession of suppressors, but bar their use for hunting.
Such state laws are pointless, as laws governing suppressors, just as with all other firearm laws, aren't followed by criminals. Rather than purchasing them legally, violent criminals mostly opt for crude homemade suppressors made of materials such as soda bottles and duct tape—not exactly the kind of thing those willing to be registered and pay the $200 NFA transfer tax are interested in.
The strict federal regulations are more than enough, which is why the NRA Institute for Legislative Action has been working to abolish unnecessary and restrictive state laws. In April, Washington enacted a law clearing up a peculiar situation in which suppressors were legal to possess, but illegal to use. That same month, the Kansas and Montana legislatures debated the use of suppressors for hunting, with Kansas adopting legislation allowing for their use.
The most recent blow for freedom was struck in Michigan on September 2, when Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette released a formal opinion declaring the possession, manufacture and sale of suppressors to be legal in the Great Lakes State.
Expressing support for the Attorney General's sound logic were a number of Michigan law enforcement officials. Barry County Sheriff Dar Leaf noted a suppressor's usefulness in helping "keep the peace" between shooters and their neighbors. Others cited federal law as sufficient regulation, with Marquette County Sheriff Michael Lovelace stating, "Noise suppressors are a useful tool for Michigan firearms enthusiasts and the rigorous federal licensing process serves as a safeguard to ensure only law-abiding citizens can be in possession."
An issue like reforming state suppressor laws may not get as much attention as high profile matters like Right-to-Carry laws and UN gun control schemes, but rest assured that the NRA-ILA is working to make sure law abiding citizens can possess and use these useful accessories. By educating our fellow shooters about the benefits and misconceptions of suppressors, we can help bring the remaining holdout states into line with the rest of the country, and the world.

So, let anyone buy a suppressor without regulation.  Then maybe some of these long-established ranges will face less pressure from "imported" residents moving into newly developed subdivisions nearby.   After all, suppressors reduce hearing damage.  And what parent would not want their children's hearing protected?  C'mon!    Its for the children you know.   Or do you hate children?   :)

Stopping Power

"My Pistol is for fighting my way to my Rifle".   I've heard it said many times, and have adopted the same mentality.   Sure, most defensive shoots are over quickly, but it points out something we all intuitively know is true.  If you are planning to attend a gun fight, take a rifle.

The subject of wound ballistics has been studied for well over a century now; the sheer volume of data (and debate surrounding it) is overwhelming.  But earlier this year a new study came out which takes a practical look at actual shooting incidents.  The researcher  analyzed incapacitation (or lack thereof) by caliber of weapons involved, number of shots fired and shot placement.   Here are some intersting findings:

• .32 ACP had the highest number of one-shot stops within pistol cartridges.
• .32 ACP shootings were the least fatal.
• .22LR, .25 ACP and .32 ACP completely failed to incapacitate nearly twice as often as .380 and up.
• Average number of rounds fired to incapacitate was roughly equal at 2 for all pistols cartridges (.22LR being lowest, and 9mm being highest).
• Across all calibers, immediate incapacitation by shot placement breaks down to 75%  headshots, 41% torso hits, 14% extremities. 

He explains further:

In a certain (fairly high) percentage of shootings, people stop their aggressive actions after being hit with one round regardless of caliber or shot placement. ... in the majority of shootings, the person shot merely gives up without being truly incapacitated by the bullet. In such an event, almost any bullet will perform admirably. If you want to be prepared to deal with someone who won't give up so easily, ... skip carrying the "mouse gun" .22s, .25s and .32s.

 

Amidst all this, rifle calibers consistently stand out from the pistol pack.  The researcher further concludes:

Now compare the numbers of the handgun calibers with the numbers generated by the rifles and shotguns. For me there really isn't a stopping power debate. All handguns suck! If you want to stop someone, use a rifle or shotgun!

Which brings us back to my opening statement.  This study also validates the underlying sentiment of the saying "a pistol is for fighting your way to your rifle".

Check out the full article on this study: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866

Ruger 10/22 "SRT"

I've been hearing about Appleseed, and their "Liberty Training Rifle" (aka LTR).  Well, I wanted something to train with for CMP Service Rifle competition.  Starting with a 10/22, and applying many of the upgrades of an LRT, I have what I call an SRT: Service Rifle Trainer.

To a basic Ruger 10/22 Carbine, I added Tech Sights which operate like an M16 A1 with windage and elevation, as well as a Rapidex knob for windage adjustment without a tool.   I got sling studs and swivels from MidwayUSA to attach a USGI cotton web sling.  And just for coolness factor, a flash-hider and 25rd magazine.

An afternoon in the woods with Wolf Match Target, Aguila Hypervelocity and Aguila Subsonic gave the basis for my trajectories table pasted to the stock.  I was able to get 2" groups from the Wolf without trying all that hard.  It is my hope that this will help my offhand scores with my M1 Garand.

Zombie ammunition!

My nephew alerted me to a new product.  Its by Hornady,  one of USA's top manufacturers of premier factory ammunition.  (It was their A-Max match ammo in 5.56 that was issued by CMP for the Small Arms Firing School at Camp Perry, and CMP sold lots of it in .30-06 for Garands).   So anyway, this new ammo appears to be based on the A-Max, but they are calling it Z-Max.  And the Z stands for Zombie.  Per their website, the disclaimer reads:

Disclaimer: Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition is NOT a toy (IT IS LIVE AMMUNITION), but is intended only to be used on…ZOMBIES, also known as the living dead, undead, etc. No human being, plant, animal, vegetable or mineral should ever be shot with Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition. Again, we repeat, Hornady® Zombie Max™ ammunition is for use on ZOMBIES ONLY, and that's not a nickname, phrase or cute way of referring to anybody, place or thing. When we say Zombies, we mean…ZOMBIES!

They even have a compelling video demonstrating why you need it, and how well it will serve you.  Check it out!