Skip to main content
Help Center Community Shop

Need a fellow C&R expert!

Rocklobster
I'm trying to obtain an M1 "Tanker" from a dealer, and need help determining whether it is C&R eligible.

I know that no "Tankers" were ever officially issued by the military, so the "30 cal. M1 rifle, military issue only, produced prior to 1956" clause does not apply.

The guy says it was produced in 1955. I suppose, technically, for the rifle to be declared "at least 50 years old" it would have had to have been manufactured prior to May, 1955.

Am I correct? Any help greatly appreciated!
0

Comments

10 comments

Date Votes
  • Laredo Lefty
    My understanding is that if the original gun, ie reciever, is over 50yrs old it then qualifies as a C&R.

    Just because the gun was later shortened does not alter its original manufacture date. So if it was originally made prior to May 55, it should qualify.





    Joe
    "Never let school interfere with your education"
    0
  • duckhunter
    I think "Lefty" is correct.

    I WOULD RATHER BE DUCK HUNTING.
    0
  • codenamepaul
    I believe Lefty is incorrect. I do know firearms modified from C&R eligible firearms are no longer C&R eligible. I.E- a sporterized Mauser or 1903 Springfield is no longer eligible. This was recently addressed in the C&R letters put out by the ATF. However the only way to know this is by physically viewing the firearm. I do not know how this particular firearm is documented (M-1 ?) And don't really know if there's any way to determine that the mods were not done by you. Smell what I'm cookin'? This also may fall under the perview of the "curiosities" clause.

    EDIT- If you do have a C&R it behooves you to know intimately the rules surrounding the license. This would concern any issue concerning firearms. We are all violating one statute or another. ALL-period. It, unfortunately, is just a matter of which ones and how many- and those you are aware of.

    Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
    0
  • nmyers
    codenamepaul is correct.

    The specific ATF wording here is: "For a military rifle to be classified as a curio or relic the complete firearm must be in its original military configuration. The classification is based on the complete firearm not just the frame or receiver." --- 27 CFR S 178.11.

    No wiggle room here; a "tanker" isn't a C&R.

    But, I have good news. Tankers are terrible guns; at least you found out before you wasted your money.

    Neal
    0
  • codenamepaul
    Just out of curiosity.
    1) What are they asking ?
    2) Where did the "tanker" idea come from? (vs. the other options i.e. pistol, grease gun, carbine)

    3) Who produced them and from what ?


    Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my gun.
    0
  • nmyers
    Late in WWII some field personnel requested development of a shortened version of the M1. In response to this request, Springfield Armory made 2 rifles (named T26); the Pacific Warfare Board also made a few conversions. Testing showed that they produced too much muzzle blast to merit adoption. The only surviving conversion is in Springfield Armory today.

    Following WWII, many commercial companies made a similar conversion, naming their product "tankers". Many were made using demilled receivers, hazardous under any circumstances. Most tankers will not function reliably; at best, they still have excessive muzzle blast & can usually be counted on to clear the firing line. They are not worth owning under any circumstances. If you want a shorter, lighter, handier version of the M1 rifle, get a M14-clone.

    Neal
    0
  • Rocklobster
    Thanks, nmyers. Pretty much what I suspected. I know that Springfield has made some "Tankers" fairly recently, but wasn't sure whether any T26's survived after McArthur's authorization after WW2.

    Wasn't aware of the poor characteristics of the shortened version of the M1, though! Being an old-firearm fan, I thought it would neat to add this variation to the collection.
    0
  • Laredo Lefty
    Cant argue with quotes from the ATF, I stand corrected.

    Neal,, Does this mean that a Garand M1D sniper rifle cannot be sold as a C&R if the scope, leather cheek piece and the flash hider have been removed?

    Its "original configuration" has been changed in addition to its designation from M1D to M1.





    Joe
    "Never let school interfere with your education"
    0
  • beantownshootah
    I'll reconfirm what has already been confirmed. . .I've been told that if the gun's basic layout has been changed, its not C&R eligible anymore.

    I do have a followup question, though.

    Apart from the fact that doing so will render the gun no longer C&R eligible, is there anything (legally) wrong with taking a gun you've acquired on a C&R and modifying it?

    EG: Let's say I wanted to build my own "tanker" from a C&R M1. Or let's say I wanted to add a beavertail to a beat-up WWII era 1911.

    As long as I didn't sell it via C&R, would that be OK?
    0
  • nmyers
    Lefty, an M1D can go to a C&R with or without the scope, cheekpiece, or flash hider, as they are just accessories. Actually, a better question might be "Is ANY M1D a C&R?"; all them are rebuilt standard issue M1's, so technically, none is "original issue". No need to worry about that, as ATF has determined that all USGI (& USGI contractor) produced variations of the M1 rifle are C&R.

    Beantownshootah, there's no problem in your modifying a C&R; the only thing is, when you dispose of it, it can only go to a resident of your state (state/local law permitting) or to an FFL.

    Neal
    0

Please sign in to leave a comment.

Recent Activity