Available from Morphys here:
Mk2 Mod0 – https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_C__DOCUMENTED_USN_SPRINGFIELD_M1_GARAND_MK_2_MOD_-LOT661040.aspx
Mk2 Mod1 – https://auctions.morphyauctions.com/_C__DOCUMENTED_USN_SPRINGFIELD_M1_GARAND_MK_2_MOD_-LOT661041.aspx
When the US military adopted 7.62mm NATO, the Army considered converting M1 Garands to the new caliber, and decided it wasn’t worthwhile. For them, Garands in .30-06 were perfectly suitable for training, and a large supply of .30-06 ammunition was still on hand. For the Navy, however, the calculation was different. The Navy knew it was a relatively low priority for new M14 rifles but wanted ammunition commonality with the new standard – so they decided to convert about 30,000 Garands to 7.62mm NATO.
These conversions were initially don by simply pressing a chamber bushing into place (plus adding a spacer block in the magazine and slightly opening up the gas port). Conversions were done by American Machine & Foundry (AMF) and Harrington & Richardson (H&R) under the designation Mk2 Mod0. Unfortunately, the chamber bushings often came loose. Eventually the Navy gave up and bought a batch of new 7.62x51mm barrels from Springfield in 1965 and 1966, and changed the conversion program to a full barrel replacement – designated Mk2 Mod1.
One more example of how “quick fixes” rarely actually “fix” anything.
See also “Malandrin disc”.
clear ether
eon
Now I am wondering if they actually bother to select least used examples before applying conversion or they just picked them randomly?
“(…)quick(…)”
And by time they made it work (circa 1966) self-loading rifle was simply obsolete, with virtually all likely opponents toting selective-fire fire-arms. Though I must admit they at least manage to finally make it function properly as opposed to another assembly of off the shelf parts dubbed M247 DIVAD https://www.todayifoundout.com/index.php/2017/02/time-military-paid-anti-aircraft-gun-locked-onto-toilets/
I saw some for sale at Camp Perry last year. Now I wish I would have bought one!
Perhaps you were one of the many individuals I was telling about them so I wouldn’t buy another lol
We used these for the NEGDEF (Naval Ground Defense Force) at NAS Cubi Point, Philippines. in 1970. We never had to use them, it was a last ditch defense of Subic Bay.
Were they reliable? Accurate? Would you want one as a hunter or target rifle today?
“hunter(…)rifle today”
According to https://trailblisshub.com/30-06-vs-7-62-x51/
In real-world terms, this means the 30-06 is better suited for hunting larger game, such as elk or moose, where penetration is critical. The 7.62x51mm NATO, on the other hand, is well-suited for hunting smaller to medium-sized game, where expansion is more important.
which suggest that either converted or original might be more desirable depending on game type.
Important to note that modern .30-06 is often loaded to above the pressures the Garand was designed for, you need an adjustable gas block if you’re shooting non-milspec ammo in an M1. In bolt-actions .30-06 can be pushed close to .300 Win Mag performance, but that will beat the hell out of a Garand.
I fired one of those conversions at a match last summer and scored in the middle of the pack. Not sure if it was an Italian or (later) USN conversion. Bottom line it was reliable and accurate out to 300 meters/yards and kicked less than an FN C1A1 firing similar NATO 7.62 x 51mm ammo. Overall a decent target rifle and with a decent scope it would make a decent deer-hunting rifle.
I knew about the BM59 adaptations of the Garand, but I wasn’t really all that aware of the Italian 7.62 NATO conversions of the original M1 Garand rifles you mention. It makes sense that they exist, but I really wasn’t all that aware of them, nor that they’d ever been imported.
And, apparently, there were some that were converted far more heavily than the Navy ones were, with shortened actions, barrels, op rods, and all the rest forward of the receiver. Very interesting, and not very well-documented, either.
So, thank you for highlighting that. Maybe Ian can somehow work his way into the Italian arms industry/museum structure and get us a thorough outlining of what all the Italians did with the Garand in all the various iterations…
Apparently, there were a bunch of 7.62 NATO conversions that they did for the Danes off of Beretta-produced receivers, as well. Supposedly… Can’t find much that’s really definitive on the matter.
They aren’t really that heavily converted. You take half an in off of the chamber end of the barrel, the stock, the handguard, and the op rod. Run a finish reamer through the chamber, sweat the op rod tip back on and you’re done. It’s funny how close that 0.50″ figure is to being accurate, too.
Once again, proof positive that the USN throws NOTHING away. I flew with a Victory model S&W in my vest well into the late ’80s.
Thanks again for a great episode!!!!!!
…And it worked!
> proof positive that the USN throws NOTHING away
Case in point: within the last five years, I’ve handled Colt XM16E1 lowers mated to a flat-top upper and racked as “M4A1”s in a Navy armory.
“Unfortunately, the chamber bushings often came loose”
According to https://laststandonzombieisland.com/2024/06/25/the-elusive-navy-mk2-7-62-nato-garand-not-so-elusive-for-now/ CMP who obtained batch of said rifles claims that
MK2MOD0. These rifles were conversions of the M1 Garand to 7.62 NATO using a chamber bushing to convert the barrels from 30.06 Springfield. CMP categorizes these rifles as unserviceable due to the likelihood of “bushing ejection”. These will be inspected and generally complete but will be shipped in an inert state that maintains the rifle’s historical integrity. A waiver must be signed to acknowledge receipt of this NLU as a non-functioning display piece along with CMPs intention that no attempt be made to reactivate the firearm to a functional state. Parts will not be gauged, and no implication of serviceability should be implied. Transferred exclusively for collectability and display…
and whilst these with new barrel does not have this problem, they discourage using commercial spec .308 WIN that is
The MK2MOD1 was a purpose-built 7.62 NATO caliber rifle, built without the problematic “barrel bushing”. The MOD1 has a 7.62 NATO chamber without the barrel bushing and is safe to use with 7.62 NATO ammunition. These rifles have been inspected, repaired as needed and function fired. Cosmetic condition is good, but Throat and Muzzle readings may exceed normal service-grade criteria. These are being sold as is. Purchase will require written acknowledgment regarding EXCLUSIVE compatibility with 7.62 NATO, Mil-Spec ammunition. These rifles should not be assumed safe for use with commercial spec, .308 WIN ammunition…
Is there technical reason for making usage of .308 WIN verboten or it simply effect of sticking to documentation: this fire-arm was ordered as “7.62 NATO” and therefore must not use any other cartridge?
I’d like to measure the gas port diameter on those guns. I have a 7.62 conversion done by (probably) Beretta in which the gas port was hogged out so badly to compensate for the lower port pressure of the smaller cartridge that an adjustable gas plug was necessary to keep from torquing the op rod. Spec M-80 ball is violent in an overgassed rifle, so hot .308 might be worse.