Is this the next overblown issue?

[Roadkingtrax]

I don't understand the cause for alarm, since no data exists that can attribute failures.

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=86716

here:

http://forums.thecmp.org/showthread.php?t=86751

[timshufflin]

I'm trying to remember where I saw a Garand bolt blow up due to not having bolt lugs within even .005" of each other, oh, I remember, never. I talked to a man a few years ago who actually was one of the folks in charge of checking bolts for the Garand during WWII, I asked if he checked for lug symmetry, the answer was no.

This being said, I do often find the condition that this poster describes (left lug gap) but I have to say, even when this happens, so what? The rifle fires and there will certainly be flex in the bolt lugs to make up for even .008" gap.

Does the CMP now have to lap in every bolt for every rifle they sell? Does every Garand being sold in every retail store, auction sale, face to face deal, gun show scenario, need to have the bolt lapped? The world is a scary place already man, now we have another way to make people even more scared.

I don't see myself jacking up my prices anytime soon to insist on bolt lapping, something the military did not even do. You can make anything safer but at some point things just become stupid.

[Roadkingtrax]

Thanks for confirming my suspicion.

The 1903 Springfield's safety lug, must have a minimum of .004" clearance. I associate the L/H lug of an M1 to act in a similar manner based on design. The M1 Receiver and Bolt, are an advancement in metallurgy and strength over the 1903.

I understand that accuracy would have more to do with it, but someone suggesting a safety risk...is going overboard. Too many commercial receivers can be the only reason it comes up.

[timshufflin]

Roadkingtrax, I'm not going to sit here and act like I have the "all knowing" skill set to confirm any suspicions BUT I will also say that this poster does NOT have the "all knowing" skill set to make this a valid issue. Frankly, it sickens me that this issue is being addressed in this manner.

Oprods flying at people
Bolt lugs ready to shear off
My God man, how can we even go on?

Add to all this that the Italians took this to the next level! The Italians shaved off parts of the M1 bolt right under the lug areas so that the bolts would work with the BM59 magazine lips. Yep, Beretta weakened the mighty Garand bolt that COULD have had left lug gap. I guess they (Beretta) just didn't care? Maybe they just weren't very smart? Perhaps they just overlooked what this poster knows to be true? Again, never heard of a failure relating to this "bolt issue", not ever.

[ordmm]

......Ah sounds like a great basis for a product liability lawsuit. One of them class action things. We would be alot safer if ALL M1 Garand rifles were recalled......Whoops, maybe I should'nt speak so loud. Knowing the anti-gunners there will be a segment on 60 minutes interviewing people with big ass holes in their heads were op-rods were inbedded. Stories of bolts flying out of guns and taking out whole rifle companies back in the day. Can see an old GI right know sitting at the bar at the VFW talking about he told J.C. Garand himself about the bolt on the Garand being unsafe. What a bunch of crap-o-la.


*****Just looked up a factoid...at one point Springfield reach production of something like 3,000 rifles per day. One would think they were not lapping bolts to receivers at that point.

[Roadkingtrax]

I like my M1's, like everything else in life.

K.I.S.S., when you start talking about lapping bolts, and drilling this and tweaking that...I personally feel it departs from the basis of the rifle design. Simple, and functional. Some tweaks are simple, and very legitimate.

Motorcycles & Cars are that way, tinkering all the time.

[Orlando]

I think they are just talking about on Commercial receivers

[timshufflin]

I think they are just talking about on Commercial receivers

No sir, he is not.

[timshufflin]

Okay, now I'm become a bit irritated. The guy just made a run at roadkingtrax and called him stupid. The guy also says he's not saying it's a safety issue but then says it is? I'm very lost and guess I'm just as stupid as roadkingtrax. There's talk of circular reasoning and other cool stuff.

"Supporting data. Ok, how's this. I tell you there is, and was setback ( not setback, manufacturing). Three different receivers with numerous bolts to try, and all showing the same ratio to the receiver lugs, 40's to post war production. I have witnesses. Check yours and ask your friends to check theirs if you have any. That will give you the data you seek. I have proof, do you have proof of your assersions ? That it is not an issue or could not become one in an emergency ? NO, you don't. No, commercial is not the only concern or I wouldn't waste my time writing all this or trying to get it through people like you's heads. Am I not explaining it clearly enough for you? I can assure you, I am not new to shooting, or the M1 or M14. I served as a range officer for 17 years, and have built 33 M14's and an uncounted number of M1's, so I think I know a little bit about what I write. If you do not consider a gap at the left lug a matter of concern, then by all means, keep shooting in blind bliss, and good luck with that. Just don't blow smoke at me and others here and tell us it is fog rolling in. The ordinance gauge that the military used that indexed on the receiver bridge and the lugs was my guide, and was how I determined the left lug placement was off. I took the measurements from barrel ring datum to both and subtracted to find left lug spec on the receiver. This is the data, and points directly to the manufacturing as the reason. And for the last time, I have never yet said it was a safety risk. Go back and read it again, I said "in the event" of an emergency type situation, such as an explosion like partial out of battery, slam fire, receiver, or barrel blow-ups, etc. etc. Which one is more important, safety or accuracy ?.....jeez, I'm done trying to relate to you. That has got to be the dumbest question ever. Accuracy Of Course. So please, unless you have something to add that actually helps find more data, and doesn't spew dispersions on my character and insinuate I am making this up, then move on to someone else's threads and spread discontent there. Hey Geeck, tell this gentleman that you were there and saw this with your own eyes. A crack big enough to throw a cat through. Then he can ask you for supporting data ! Then we can get Doc to post about all his I did with the same problem. But somehow I don't think that will satisfy him anyway. He will probably want a statement from the CMP saying that they pulled every last receiver in their inventory and put them on the ordinance gauge before selling them to the public, or at least a warning statement or instructional pamplet on how to fix this issue with them before firing. Should they do that ? Yes they should. Or I guess we can wait until some bottom feeder gets injured and the cause is traced to the left lug as having a gap and letting it fly apart, when if it had good contact, the guy might have been ok, then he sues the CMP and we all lose. Yeah, that's the ticket, we'll just let it go and not speak of it anymore. It does not exist, it does not exist, there is no supporting data, so it does not exist. Circular reasoning works because circular reasoning works because..................."

[timshufflin]

I don't think anyone is saying that there may be a few thou setback on the left lug, what I am saying is who cares?