![](media/image1.jpeg){width="8.244444444444444in"
height="1.2381944444444444in"}

**Fact Sheet #5**

**THE M1 \"TANKER\" MODIFICATION**

![](media/image2.jpeg){width="5.99375in" height="1.823611111111111in"}

The so-called \"Tanker\" owes its existence to the long-standing
dissatisfaction with the range, lethality and foliage penetration
(\"brush cutting\") capabilities of the M1 carbine. A few statistics
explain why this is true: the bullet used in the .30-06 M1 (Garand)
rifle weighs 150 grains; fired with a velocity of 2,740 feet per second
(fps), it develops 2,170 foot-pounds of energy at 100 yards. By
comparison, the bullet fired by the M1 carbine weighs 110 grains; at a
muzzle velocity of 1900 fps, it produces only 600 foot-pounds of energy
at the same distance\--not much more than a quarter of the Garand. Thus,
the temptation to substitute the greater fire-power of the M1 rifle is
understandable, although reducing the barrel to carbine length would
sacrifice some of the gain in power.

The Ordnance Department was basically unsympathetic to these field
complaints, maintaining that the carbine and rifle were intended to
serve separate and distinct purposes. In 1945, with fighting raging in
the dense jungles of the western Pacific, where \"brush-cutting\"
ability was important, the Pacific Warfare Board took matters into its
own hands. It ordered an ordnance unit of the 6th Army in the
Philippines to make up 150 shortened M1 rifles for testing. These rifles
were cut to carbine length, making them short enough to carry
comfortably in the jungle or to fit into a tank. This, apparently, is
the origin of the term \"tanker\" Garand, which was never officially
adopted and is somewhat puzzling in that tank warfare did not figure
prominently in the Pacific Theater.

Col. William Alexander, head of the Pacific Warfare Board, obviously
thought the \"short Ml\" was the answer, for he requested the Ordnance
Dept. to make up 15,000 short rifles. To facilitate design of the new
weapon, he sent one of their rifles by special courier to the Ordnance
Dept.

When the \"short rifle\" arrived at Springfield Armory, engineers
recognized immediately that they had done the same thing a year before
when they had developed the M1E5. The only difference was that the E5
had a folding wire stock and was intended primarily for paratroops. All
they had to do was to pop off the trigger housing, remove the folding
stock, and install the action on a standard M1 stock. However, since the
receiver of the earlier experiment was marked M1E5, the model shop took
a new M1 receiver and built

it from ground up with modified parts. This rifle, along with the rifle
from the Pacific Warfare Board, was shipped to Aberdeen Proving Grounds
for tests. By now the \"short rifles\" had been designated T26.

The results of the testing showed that the weapon suffered from lack of
reliable function, excessive recoil and excessive muzzle blast. Function
problems were traced to: (1) the rework needed to produce a shorter
operating rod changed force angles, causing the rod

to bind occasionally; (2) the shorter spring length caused premature
spring failure rates; (3) the pressure port was closer to the chamber
and permitted increased volumes of unburned powder residue to foul the
gas system. Increased recoil was expected, but muzzle blast was, to say
the least, spectacular. When fired with standard military ball
ammunition, the muzzle flash and dust signature was unacceptable. (Flash
hiders and muzzle brakes weren\'t being used then.)

Because Germany had already surrendered and victory in the Pacific was
close at hand, and because test results were unsatisfactory, it was
decided to cancel all orders before any T26 rifles were actually
produced. The only T26 made at Springfield Armory was damaged during
testing and possibly salvaged for parts. The Pacific War Board prototype
was returned to Springfield and placed in the museum. This is the weapon
that appears in standard published photos. In reality, there were only
151 \"Tanker\" Garands made. Few of these probably survive. Some may
have gone home in soldiers\' duffel bags, but most would have been
stripped and rebuilt to normal configuration in the years following
World War II.

Identification of a legitimate \"Tanker\" is difficult. All specimens
would have been built from rifles in used condition; therefore, the
serial number range would reflect that. Numbers would probably be lower
than 3,500,000 and could not be above 3,800,000. The barrel date, of
course, would be no later than early 1945.

Also, the receiver is marked as a normal M1 and would be of either
Springfield Armory or Winchester manufacture. Judging by the specimen in
the Springfield Armory Museum, workmanship was marginal. The barrel
splines look like they were hand filed and much freehand saw and file
work shows up.

Despite the insignificant numbers of \"Tanker\" Garands actually made by
the Army and their complete lack of success, their popularity grew. By
the 1960s, when Garands became readily available through government
surplus channels, a number of enterprising individuals began providing
customizing services for M1 owners. One of the more popular services
was, predictably, making \"Tanker\" versions. In those days a nice M1
could be obtained for \$79.95, so a \$40 \"chop job\" was not considered
to be an offense against a collector\'s piece.

**Text & images: Springfield Armory NHS, US NPS**