Tanker Garand

[Nestucca]

I’ve gone Garand nuts and keep seeing Tanker models. Were these a real thing or are they a made up thing? We’re they actually produced for the US Military?

[TJT]

Yes and no, respectively. They were an experimental rifle late in the war for airborne units and only about 200 were made.. My late father was in the 503rd PIR in the SWPA and had one. In a nut shell, they didn't work out as hoped, plus the war ending scrapped the project. "Tanker" is a mis-nomer as there was no room in a tank for any kind of long gun. The term was a sales gimmick in the 60's and 70's. There are only 2 surviving known originals. One is at SA and the other is in a private collection. All of the others were ordered to be returned to normal M1 configuration.
Jon

[RDS]

I have owned (3) "Tankers" over the years. A Fed. Ord from the 1990s on a USGI receiver, A SAI from the 1980s on a SAI commercial investment cast receiver and a Arlington Ordnance from the 1990s in .308. on a US GI receiver. The only one that shot straight and works is the Arlington Ordnance. The SAI looked great but shot a foot high. The Fed Ord looked like crap but was the cheapest. I believe if the Army had developed a BM 59 type "drop down" gas cylinder with a straight op rod it would have worked as well as a standard M1 rifle.

[Nestucca]

Those answers are pretty much what I was thinking, they sure look neat though. I’ll turn my attention else where.

[TJT]

The problem was the excessive muzzle flash giving away the shooter's position, nothing mechanical.
Jon

[Zorba]

What about a flash hider? That's what the Brits did with the #5 Enfield...

[Nestucca]

Didn’t the Number 5 Jungle Carbine have a wondering zero issue? Or is that poppycock as they say?

[RDS]

Yes Number 5 Jungle Carbines did not hold zero. Two piece stock set up and short fore end did not help matters.

[RCS]

The Lee Enfield No 5 receiver had lightning cuts on both sides to save weight which was a major cause of the carbine not holding zero. If you substitute a standard issue Lee Enfield No 4 receiver with the No 5 barrel and wood, the wondering zero problem will be solved, this has been done to prove the cause of the zero problem.

Most post WW2 use of the No 5 carbine was in close range and in jungle areas where the zero problem was not really an issue.

[Nestucca]

I’ve always been cotton to the Enfields and have been looking for a Number 4, MarkII but they seem to fetch a $600 price these days. I am a bit puzzled on the Jungle Carbine because there seems to be a bunch of cut down fakes floating around. I had , for a short time, a Gibbs Rifle Ishapore Jungle in 308, but traded it and some cash for a Glock.

[RCS]

You could start posting about Lee Enfields under the Military Bolt Action forum

[RDS]

Robert your absolutely correct. I forgot about the lightning cuts to the receiver and effects on zero. Its been 30yrs since I owned a No5.

[CCyooper]

I just sold an as issued 1946 fazakerly a couple months ago. I didn’t shoot it very much but I really did not notice the wonder. It appeared to be pretty accurate. Good luck with your search.

[MRusan]

There was an importer back in the day who trimmed full sized Garands down to the "Tanker" experimental length. I read an article on it ages ago.
They sort of have their own collector group. I think there is a mention of that variant in the Blue Book. Not sure offhand and don't have the Blue Book in front of me at the moment.