Danish Beretta 308 Garands

sunray said:
Any 165 grain load will be fine. The powder/load has nothing to do with it.
Epp's is listing 2 Berretta 7.62 M1 Rifles at $1765.00.
Click to expand...

You should stop saying this because some people will actually start believing it. The propellant has everything to do with it. Propellants which produce the proper gas port pressure to cycle the Garand action reliably and without damaging the rifle include IMR4064, IMR4895, and H4895. As a bonus these will produce excellent accuracy as well. IMR4895 was/is the MILSPEC propellant for military Garand ammo.

Folks who want to shoot commercial ammo in their Garand should use an adjustable gas plug and stick to 150-168gr bullets. Both Hornady and American Eagle make Garand specific ammo with packaging so marked.
 
Purple, There is even more to it than that... I found the following article (below) from a fellow on another forum called "Parashooter". He explains it better than I could.


Armed with a little good data, one can deduce a fairly simple way of estimating the relative quickness of an unknown powder if the cartridge, bullet, and velocity are known.

Shown below are extracts from Sierra's data for 180 and 150 grain bullets. I've chosen the 2600 and 2700 fps columns because they have charges for all powders listed, but the conclusions hold with data up to 2800 fps in 30/06. Note that all the slow powders (starting with 760) take a charge of greater than 52 grains to acheive the velocities shown and none of the medium powders use more than 49 grains. Hmmm. . .

Unless I suspected a powder composition with a very different ratio of weight to energy than the rather wide variety Sierra shows, I'd be confident in assuming there's a high probability that a cartridge delivering 2700 fps with a 150-grain bullet (or 2600 fps with a 180) and containing a charge under 50 grains is loaded with a medium-burning powder, as appropriate for the M1icon gas system as the old standbys like 4895. If I found my ammunition was loaded with a bullet from 150 to 180 grains and a charge over 52 grains, I'd be making a logical conclusion if I figured the powder might be a bit too slow for the M1. Between 50 and 52 grains would be marginal.

Pulling down a couple of rounds and checking the powder charge isn't a postive test (you need a gas-port pressure setup for that), but it is certainly better than guessing or hoping your ammo isn't loaded with powder that will produce enough gas volume to damage your M1.

30-06 Springfield
.308 180 gr
Charge for 2600
748 47.5
BL-C(2) 46.9
IMR-4895 46.3
Varget 45.7
IMR-4064 46.8
AA-2520 44.8
IMR-4320 47.0
RE-15 45.1
H380 48.4
760 52.6
H4350 52.1
IMR-4350 52.3
Nor 204 52.9
RE-19 53.3
IMR-4831 53.6
Vi N160 52.8
AA-3100 53.7
H4831 54.9
MRP 55.8

.308 150 gr
Charge for 2700
IMR-3031 46.1
H322 45.6
AA-2230 43.7
748 48.4
AA-2460 44.5
BL-C(2) 43.8
IMR-4895 46.4
Varget 46.5
IMR-4064 48.0
IMR-4320 48.5
RE-15 46.1
H380 47.5
Vi N150 46.8
760 53.1
H4350 52.8
IMR-4350 53.9
RE-19 55.8
IMR-4831 56.2
H4831 57.8

Here's some additional discussion on this basic principle:

One of the problems with the internet is that erroneous or incomplete information sometimes gets circulated and accepted to the point that it overwhelms the truth.

In the case of M1 rifle port pressure, the erroneous information is that port pressure is primarily related to powder burning rate and bullet weight. The truth is that these are merely secondary factors. M1 port pressure is most closely related to gas volume (technically, mass and temperature), which is directly related to powder charge weight. Burning rate and bullet weight of course have a direct influence on PEAK pressure, but this occurs long before the bullet gets to the gas port.

With light bullets, we normally use faster powders for best performance since the relative ease with which the bullet starts to move means we can use a fairly large charge of fast powder without excessive peak pressure. With heavy bullets that take longer to accelerate, charge tables tell us the slower powders will give the highest velocity with the lowest peak pressure.

The M1 rifle's gas system was designed for the port pressures generated by the volume of gas produced by a charge of about 44 to 50 grains of powder behind a 173-grain bullet at 2640 fps (M1 Ball). It also happened to work just fine with about the same charge using 150-grain bullets at about 2800 fps (M2 Ball). The burning rate that gives these velocities to these bullets is about that we find in IMR 4895 and 4064. If we use a slower powder, say 4350, we find the appropriate charge for these velocities is heavier - about 55 grains for the 173 and 58 for the 150. Such heavier charges naturally generate a larger volume of gas, but at a slower rate that keeps peak pressure in normal limits. Given that the volume of the cartridge case and bore (up to the gas port) is a fixed quantity, the larger volume of gas necessarily translates to higher pressure at the gas port.

Conversely, if we stick with 4895 but change to a 110-grain bullet, we can stuff in some 54 grains of powder at normal pressure, for a much higher velocity. Again, the heavier charge generates more volume of gas and gives high port pressure. With 200-grain bullets, on the other hand, we can get good performance with 45-50 grain charges of slightly slower powders like 4320 or 4350, giving the same gas volume and consequently appropriate port pressure.

A lot of people who haven't well understood the role of gas volume have focused on burning rate or bullet weight instead - and that's what gets them into logical difficulty. It's very true that an optimum load of the slow powders with 150-180 grain bullets will give excessive M1 port pressure, and also true that the usual best bolt-gun loads of the really slow numbers (like 4831) with 200+ grain bullets will also give excess port pressure. What's missing in the logic is that it's neither the powder burning rate nor the bullet weight that's the problem's root cause - but rather the charge weight (mass, to be more accurate) and consequent gas volume.

It's unfortunate this mistaken (or just incomplete) logic has been so widely publicized, since knowing the whole story really makes powder selection much easier. Regardless of bullet weight, powder charges below 50 grains will generally give appropriate M1 port pressure (or less). Between 50 and 52 grains is marginal. Over 52 grains we may begin to see risk of damage to the operating rod. Of course powders must be chosen that will also yield acceptable peak pressure and velocity. (50 grains of 4198 will still make a mess - thanks to excessive peak pressure - but the port pressure would be near normal.)


50-grain charges of fast and slow powders yield vastly different peak pressure and velocity, but M1 port pressure is virtually the same even with these extreme examples.

There are certainly exceptions to this basic rule. Different powder compositions give off different volumes of gas for a given charge weight. But if we stick to the commonly-available rifle powders now on the market, there is surprisingly little variation in the mass/gas relationship and we're not likely to get in trouble with excess port pressure if we choose a published load using less than 50 grains of a powder that gives acceptable performance with our chosen bullet weight.

I urge anyone finding this concept difficult to stick to their existing guidelines. After all, there's little to be lost by limiting one's bullet and powder choices to the accepted standards - 150-180 grain bullets and powders close to 4895's burning rate.

In the estimates below, "P.Muzz" for a 23" barrel corresponds to the pressure at the M1 gas port.

Cartridge : .30-06 Spring.
Bullet : .308, 150, Hornady SP 3031
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.340 inch or 84.84 mm
Barrel Length : 23.0 inch or 584.2 mm

Predicted Data for Indicated Charges of the Following Powders.

Matching Muzzle Velocity: 2700 fps or 822 m/s

Powder.type..........Filling/Loading.Ratio..Charge.....Vel..Prop.Burnt.P.max..P .muzz
......................................%.....Grains ....fps.....%.......psi.....psi..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant.Reloder-25.................106.7.....63.0.....2700....91.8 ....38700...12760
Vihtavuori.N560....................101.1.....61.3. ....2700....84.8....39596...12449
Winchester.WXR.....................104.2.....61.2. ....2700....87.9....39509...12344
Alliant.Reloder-22.................101.5.....60.9.....2700....88.1 ....39419...12340
IMR.7828...........................106.0.....61.2. ....2700....85.5....40833...12166
IMR.7828.SSC.......................100.3.....61.2. ....2700....85.5....40833...12166
Hodgdon.H1000......................112.2.....65.9. ....2700....85.6....43163...12158
Ramshot.Hunter......................90.6.....57.3. ....2700....92.5....40099...11741
Alliant.Reloder-19..................98.3.....58.3.....2700....89.0 ....41104...11735
IMR.4831...........................101.8.....57.9. ....2700....93.4....40395...11678
Accurate.4350.......................97.5.....55.3. ....2700....95.0....39928...11675
Winchester.760......................88.3.....55.5. ....2700....91.5....40405...11605
Vihtavuori.N550.....................90.2.....54.7. ....2700....94.8....40399...11570
Hodgdon.H4831......................106.2.....61.3. ....2700....85.7....43270...11561
Hodgdon.H4831.SC...................102.1.....61.3. ....2700....85.7....43270...11561
Hodgdon.H4350.......................93.0.....54.9. ....2700....93.0....40107...11553
Vihtavuori.N165....................105.8.....62.1. ....2700....90.7....42726...11465
Hodgdon.H414........................85.1.....53.8. ....2700....93.0....41707...11366
IMR.4350............................98.8.....56.2. ....2700....88.6....42892...11284
Ramshot.BigGame.....................89.2.....52.9. ....2700....96.6....40531...11182
Vihtavuori.N160....................105.8.....60.2. ....2700....88.5....44410...11158
Hodgdon.H380........................86.5.....52.5. ....2700....95.3....42521...11066
Hodgdon.BL-C2.......................79.9.....51.8.....2700... .98.1....41563...10949
Alliant.Reloder-15..................84.3.....50.1.....2700....96.5 ....41890...10925
IMR.4320............................86.5.....50.5. ....2700....97.1....42158...10640
Winchester.748......................77.3.....49.4. ....2700....98.9....41435...10593
IMR.4895............................84.5.....48.5. ....2700....98.4....40668...10587
Accurate.2700.......................91.8.....56.3. ....2700....92.8....46789...10574
Hodgdon.VARGET......................87.6.....50.3. ....2700....96.8....43595...10573
Accurate.4064.......................90.6.....50.3. ....2700....99.9....42289...10535
Vihtavuori.N540.....................87.7.....52.7. ....2700....97.9....44964...10526
Accurate.2520.......................82.3.....50.3. ....2700....99.5....42340...10495
Ramshot.TAC.........................79.0.....49.2. ....2700....98.6....43064...10451
IMR.4064............................88.4.....49.6. ....2700....97.1....43783...10451
Vihtavuori.N150.....................93.6.....52.5. ....2700....99.3....43787...10355
Vihtavuori.N530.....................79.1.....47.2. ....2700....98.7....43334...10315
Hodgdon.H4895.......................87.1.....50.0. ....2700....99.2....42732...10300
Accurate.2460.......................78.0.....49.7. ....2700....99.3....44230...10242
Hodgdon.H335........................74.5.....48.3. ....2700....99.8....43352...10108
Accurate.2230.......................77.0.....49.0. ....2700....99.3....44666...10088
IMR.3031............................83.4.....46.3. ....2700...100.0....41236...10055
Accurate.2495.......................84.5.....47.5. ....2700...100.0....42846...10037
Vihtavuori.N140.....................87.2.....49.8. ....2700...100.0....44444....9860
Ramshot.X-Terminator................75.3.....46.3.....2700.. .100.0....44152....9787
Vihtavuori.N135.....................91.0.....49.0. ....2700...100.0....44050....9627
Accurate.2015.......................79.7.....45.8. ....2700...100.0....46238....9195
Alliant.Reloder-10x.................77.7.....43.5.....2700...100.0 ....45761....9134
 
purple said:
You should stop saying this because some people will actually start believing it. The propellant has everything to do with it. Propellants which produce the proper gas port pressure to cycle the Garand action reliably and without damaging the rifle include IMR4064, IMR4895, and H4895. As a bonus these will produce excellent accuracy as well. IMR4895 was/is the MILSPEC propellant for military Garand ammo.

Folks who want to shoot commercial ammo in their Garand should use an adjustable gas plug and stick to 150-168gr bullets. Both Hornady and American Eagle make Garand specific ammo with packaging so marked.
Click to expand...

Sunray never listens to anybody but himself. :rolleyes:

CGN's own villager. :HR:
 
The "parashooter" quote is an interesting read, but a lot of it is based on extrapolation and speculation rather than on actual lab testing with the appropriate pressure testing setup for the Garand gas system. He does swing around to state the universal recommendation that the gas system works best with IMR4895 and IMR4064 which is exactly where a reloader should be when handloading for these rifles.

The military used IMR4895 as the universal propellant for countless millions of .30 cal ball, AP, and Match ammo rounds using 150/152gr, 168gr and 173gr bullets and this was done after some pretty exhaustive testing. That in itself is a ringing endorsement for IMR4895, H4895 or IMR4064. I've loaded and fired thousands of rounds in Garands using these propellants and 150-168gr bullets with excellent accuracy and reliability and no damage to the rifles whatsoever, and for me there's really no need to look further.

He is correct in his assertion that less of a faster burning powder and more of a slower burning powder is required to generate the same MV with the same weight of bullet. I've done a lot of experimentation with .30-06 bolt rifles (not Garands) using a range of propellants from SR4759 on the fast end to H4831 on the slow end. At the end of this my preference is for either IMR 4895, H4895, IMR4064 or Varget for full power loads using 150, 165, 173 and 168gr bullets and either IMR4350 or H4831 for 180gr loads. Honorable mention also goes to IMR 4320 and W760 in a bolt gun with the heavier bullets. Again this is for .30-06 bolt rifles, not gas operated Garands.
 
I mostly use 4895 and 4064 for my '06 loads. Now, for the average handloader making rounds for his M1 rifle, he would hard pressed to do better than these choices.

That said, I find the information in his posting to be quite useful for the advanced handloader wishing to experiment further.
 
For folks who like to load a variety of MILSURP ctgs IMR4064 and IMR4895 are the closest thing there is to a universal MILSURP propellant. I've used them in all of the .223Rem/5.56, 6.5x55 Swede, 7x57 Mauser, .308Win/7.62, .30-06, .303 Brit, 7.62x54 Russ and 8x57 Mauser with good results. They both pop up quite often in the Lyman and Sierra manuals which list accuracy loads and propellants for various rounds. For some of these ctgs a slower burning propellant, like IMR3450 or W760, will be a bit better with heavier bullets, but 4064/4895 will always work. IMR3031 also has application in a wide range of military ctgs and is well worth a try in the .223/5.56 and .308/7.62. It was the original propellant for the 7.62 match ammo.

There is a lot of marketing hype about the latest new powder with all sorts of advantages, many more theoretical than real, being claimed for it. Varget, which hit the shelves about 20 yrs ago, is a good example. Varget is a good powder and I always have some on hand, but it isn't the super propellant that some believe it to be. I sometimes wonder how we managed to get by with 4064/4895 before it showed up. It's quite surprising how the old IMR (Improved Military Rifle) powders incl IMR3031, IMR4895, IMR4064, IMR4320 and IMR4350, which came out in the 1930s, have stood the test of time.
 
Shelldrake said:
Maybe it was in 2009. That was the year The Shooting Edge brought in a bunch of Danish Beretta's in .308, and they didn't last long at all.
These were in excellent to almost mint condition. The op rods were marked 7.62mm and were overall about a half inch shorter than a 30/06 Garand.
Click to expand...

That 1/2" difference is the giveaway that these rifles were rebuilt with Italian 7.62 parts.
 
maple_leaf_eh said:
That 1/2" difference is the giveaway that these rifles were rebuilt with Italian 7.62 parts.
Click to expand...

I was happy to locate another Italian 7.62 Tipo 2 kit from another CGN member consisting of a shortened stock, op rod and 23.5 inch SIAU 1967 barrel. This will be my fifth 7.62 Garand build using the Italian surplus components. All other parts are standard Garand parts, except you need to shorten the rear handgd .5 inch at the receiver end and bob the op rod spring a bit. These make up into fine rifles as most of the Italian parts are unused or only slightly used.
 
A friend just bought one of those Italian 7.62mm Nato reworks of the M1. As expected, the barrel, hand guard, op rod, and Stock were shortened 1/2". The left side of the stock is stamped "FAT 71" underneath a five pointed star inside a rounded corner rectangular box. The rifle is stamped 7.62-2 on the flat just behind the rear sight base.

This one is likely from the batch you are referring to, which were rebuilds for the Italian Government. As such, I would say they are certainly more collectable (and valuable) than your average homegrown build done on Breda or Beretta receivers. Just how much more valuable I couldn't say. My friend said he paid around $1,200 for it.

Now some will say that $1,200 is far less than what most of the home build M1's supposedly sell for on the EE. However, one must remember that it always costs more to build something from parts than purchase it complete. Does that mean that these home builds from parts are worth what they cost to build? From a collectable point, no, and after all, that's really what you're asking.


big bear said:
A few years ago a few dozen of these were imported. I tried to find the discussion on the "search" function to no avail. My question: what if any impact do all the recent "builds" on BM and BMB receivers have on those rifles value. I have seen only one of the batch come up for sale. Just curious because I have a Garand or 2 :cool:
Click to expand...
 
It's tough to say what appeals most about Garands, their collectability or shootability. From what I've seen over the yrs it seems to be the latter. Collectibility and collector value is a function of originality and condition, and the fact is that it is very hard to find a Garand in original, as manufactured, condition as a result of military maintenance and overhaul processes over time.

Most folks I've dealt with seem to be of the shooter inclination and most will prefer a rifle that looks good and shoots well, no matter the extent of parts replacement. That said, many do prefer a rifle with a wartime Springfield Armory of Winchester made receiver by reason of it's cachet and the certainty that the rifle was used in WW2, and maybe in Korea. The post-WW2 Springfields, IHCs, HRAs, Berettas and Bredas are all made to a high quality line and are desirable both as shooters and collector pieces in their own right. Some folks even like the "bling" of a restored rifle with a bowling pin shine on the commercial stock and commercial barrels. Vive la difference.

The Italian arsenal built 7.62 rifles have an unknown collector value. They were all rebuilds on existing receivers to start with using a mix of modified or original Garand parts, but the fact is that there are few of these in circulation. You can see the de-milled back half of the receivers on the Numrich website which seems to have been the destiny of most of them. One thing for sure, the 7.62 rifles which are being assembled on Beretta/Breda receivers using the unique Italian Tipo 2 parts are at least worth the value of the sum of the parts which is around $1400-1500 nowadays given the prevailing exchange rate. Beyond that they are a highly shootable rifle as most of the unique Tipo2 parts are in either lightly used or as new condition. That said, a person can go the other route and get a new commercial .308Win barrel and build up a rifle with it for around the same cost.
 
purple said:
It's tough to say what appeals most about Garands, their collectability or shootability. From what I've seen over the yrs it seems to be the latter. Collectibility and collector value is a function of originality and condition, and the fact is that it is very hard to find a Garand in original, as manufactured, condition as a result of military maintenance and overhaul processes over time.

Most folks I've dealt with seem to be of the shooter inclination and most will prefer a rifle that looks good and shoots well, no matter the extent of parts replacement. That said, many do prefer a rifle with a wartime Springfield Armory of Winchester made receiver by reason of it's cachet and the certainty that the rifle was used in WW2, and maybe in Korea. The post-WW2 Springfields, IHCs, HRAs, Berettas and Bredas are all made to a high quality line and are desirable both as shooters and collector pieces in their own right. Some folks even like the "bling" of a restored rifle with a bowling pin shine on the commercial stock and commercial barrels. Vive la difference.

The Italian arsenal built 7.62 rifles have an unknown collector value. They were all rebuilds on existing receivers to start with using a mix of modified or original Garand parts, but the fact is that there are few of these in circulation. You can see the de-milled back half of the receivers on the Numrich website which seems to have been the destiny of most of them. One thing for sure, the 7.62 rifles which are being assembled on Beretta/Breda receivers using the unique Italian Tipo 2 parts are at least worth the value of the sum of the parts which is around $1400-1500 nowadays given the prevailing exchange rate. Beyond that they are a highly shootable rifle as most of the unique Tipo2 parts are in either lightly used or as new condition. That said, a person can go the other route and get a new commercial .308Win barrel and build up a rifle with it for around the same cost.
Click to expand...


Some people have no taste and build their Garands using beaten up ill fitting wood.
 
too purty to shoot!

The arsenal rebuilt rifles (at least mine;)) are too durn purty to shoot. I shot both mines just to set zero, cleaned and put up. They are very accurate by the way. For 308 fun, I shoot my Norcs, if somehow I break something, scratch something, whoopdedoo. Maybe someday I'll breakdown and get one of them out to shoot some more, maybe.I guess I'm counting on a nice range in heaven!:cheers:
 
If you want to have a real Garand in .308 listen to me. I don't post reams of useless crap because I'm not a verbose idiot and I'm too busy building Garands.

Now look at this rifle. It is a Breda with a .308 chrome lined Criterion barrel. It has a Breda bolt and it is perfectly timed and headspaced. The bolt with close on a go gauge and it will not close on a no go gauge.



Here is another view of the rifle and please take note of the serial number:



Please take note of the green Parkerizing. This beautiful finish was the result of polishing the receiver with Bramasole olive oil. This is the preferred olive oil of the Gardonese and it is what the folks at Beretta and Breda used back in the day.

Now take a look at receiver BMR 8895--it is the receiver on the far left. Do you see how dark it was immediately after parkerizing? Well that was before it was polished with Bramasole. If you want to really build a proper .308 Italian Garand, you have to make the piece look right.





Now about the stock--it is from Dean's Gun Restorations. It is a "commercial stock", but don't be fooled by loudmouths who look askance down the ends of their pointy, well-picked noses. This is the best stock you can get. It fits perfectly and you have to handle it to believe it.

If an oil-soaked, loose-fitting GI stock was more conducive to accuracy or function, then I would get one. But it isn't and I won't settle for second rate.

If you want an accurate Garand, the action must fit tightly into the stock. Dean's stocks fit tightly. ( And they look beautiful too. Anyone who would argue otherwise is either jealous or stupid. Or both)

Finally, the rifle features a Beretta magazine block. This block is not a copy but a real Beretta made block.




The rifle shoots wonderfully and don't believe anyone who tells you that chrome lined barrels won't shoot well.

Here's the barrel:

 
Last edited:
Wowser, almost as much "bling" to that piece as Captain Corelli's mandolin.

Olive oil, the staff of life for Mediterranean people, with a variety of uses besides eating incl a traditional personal lubricant (maybe that's why "extra virgin" is always more expensive);)and a hair and skin conditioner. Its even great to feed to a cat to help with hairballs too.:puke: Tomatoes are in season now and I've been enjoying it in bruschetta and as a topping over chopped tomatoes on humus. I've even had a few olive oil massages and that was pretty nice. And now we learn about a more arcane use to treat the parkerizing on Garands back at the Breda works 60 years ago, and right down to the precise brand name of the olive oil. :eek:

The correct color of Parkerizing is always a great discussion point with a lot of inconclusive results. The color of Parkerizing is highly variable depending on several factors incl the type of Parkerizing used (zinc or manganese based), the type of steel being parkerized, the preparation of the steel surface, the strength of the Parkerizing bath, and the treatment of the surface after being removed from the bath. The final color can range from light grey to black depending on all of the foregoing. The standard treatment for newly parkerized steel after a cold water rinse and the application of a petroleum based stopping agent is to coat the metal surface with oil and allow it to cure for several days. Anything from engine oil to 3 in 1 oil (my personal choice) can be used for this. The general consensus a on green tinted parkerized finish is that this results from the effect of the chemicals in a protective coating of cosmolene after a period of storage. This is especially evident on US Army 03-A3 Springfield rifles which were kept in depot level storage for quite a period of time prior to disposal. Tough to say about the original color of a parkerized Breda receiver as so many have been re-parkerized over the years, but my view is that is was kind of a light French grey. I once owned a 2K s/n Breda rifle with what I thought to be the intact original finish and this is what it looked like.

Bruce Canfield's recently published 872 page book on the Garand includes an extract of a 1954 dated letter on page 611 concerning problems that the Italians were having in establishing the correct Parkerizing color for their Garands. The letter is a response from Springfield Armory to a query from the Italians and it indicates that the final finish will range from dark grey to black, provided that the finishing procedures in US Army TM9-1861 were followed. I haven't seen TM9-1861, but I'm thinking that the standard procedures did not include a post-Parkerizing treatment with olive oil of whatever brand. Olive oil has a considerable acid content and that and steel don't work too well, although the parkerized finish would certainly offer some resistance to the corrosive effects of the acids in olive oil. I wouldn't use it on any of my firearms for this reason.

I'd like to know more about the source of this information and it's reliability. No doubt Bruce Canfield would have liked to add it to his book if it could be authenticated. It's been 60 years since Breda/Beretta ran their Garand production line for Denmark and much of the technical details have no doubt been lost in the sands of time as old manufacturing records and processes tend to get discarded over the years. Maybe old Luigi or Antonio down in the receiver finishing room at Breda had a "eureka moment" when they accidentally spilled some olive oil of a specific brand from their lunchbox onto a freshly parkerized Garand receiver:d, but who knows. Anyway, I like to think of them harmonizing a duet of "O Solo Mio" as they lovingly caressed those receivers with olive oil.:cheers:
 
Last edited:
purple said:
Wowser, almost as much "bling" to that piece as Captain Corelli's mandolin.

Olive oil, the staff of life for Mediterranean people, with a variety of uses besides eating incl a traditional personal lubricant (maybe that's why "extra virgin" is always more expensive);)and a hair and skin conditioner. Its even great to feed to a cat to help with hairballs too.:puke: Tomatoes are in season now and I've been enjoying it in bruschetta and as a topping over chopped tomatoes on humus. I've even had a few olive oil massages and that was pretty nice. And now we learn about a more arcane use to treat the parkerizing on Garands back at the Breda works 60 years ago, and right down to the precise brand name of the olive oil. :eek:

The correct color of Parkerizing is always a great discussion point with a lot of inconclusive results. The color of Parkerizing is highly variable depending on several factors incl the type of Parkerizing used (zinc or manganese based), the type of steel being parkerized, the preparation of the steel surface, the strength of the Parkerizing bath, and the treatment of the surface after being removed from the bath. The final color can range from light grey to black depending on all of the foregoing. The standard treatment for newly parkerized steel after a cold water rinse and the application of a petroleum based stopping agent is to coat the metal surface with oil and allow it to cure for several days. Anything from engine oil to 3 in 1 oil (my personal choice) can be used for this. The general consensus a on green tinted parkerized finish is that this results from the effect of the chemicals in a protective coating of cosmolene after a period of storage. This is especially evident on US Army 03-A3 Springfield rifles which were kept in depot level storage for quite a period of time prior to disposal. Tough to say about the original color of a parkerized Breda receiver as so many have been re-parkerized over the years, but my view is that is was kind of a light French grey. I once owned a 2K s/n Breda rifle with what I thought to be the intact original finish and this is what it looked like.

Bruce Canfield's recently published 872 page book on the Garand includes an extract of a 1954 dated letter on page 611 concerning problems that the Italians were having in establishing the correct Parkerizing color for their Garands. The letter is a response from Springfield Armory to a query from the Italians and it indicates that the final finish will range from dark grey to black, provided that the finishing procedures in US Army TM9-1861 were followed. I haven't seen TM9-1861, but I'm thinking that the standard procedures did not include a post-Parkerizing treatment with olive oil of whatever brand. Olive oil has a considerable acid content and that and steel don't work too well, although the parkerized finish would certainly offer some resistance to the corrosive effects of the acids in olive oil. I wouldn't use it on any of my firearms for this reason.

I'd like to know more about the source of this information and it's reliability. No doubt Bruce Canfield would have liked to add it to his book if it could be authenticated. It's been 60 years since Breda/Beretta ran their Garand production line for Denmark and much of the technical details have no doubt been lost in the sands of time as old manufacturing records and processes tend to get discarded over the years. Maybe old Luigi or Antonio down in the receiver finishing room at Breda had a "eureka moment" when they accidentally spilled some olive oil of a specific brand from their lunchbox onto a freshly parkerized Garand receiver:d, but who knows. Anyway, I like to think of them harmonizing a duet of "O Solo Mio" as they lovingly caressed those receivers with olive oil.:cheers:
Click to expand...



There is no "bling" to this rifle. It was simply made of the very best components and was built to the standards required of a high quality Italian weapon.

If you were more open minded, I would even send it to you--that way you would learn something.

Extra virgin olive oil is mildly acidic. It must have a ratio of oleic acid to oil of 0.8 per cent and proper extra virgin oil will not hurt gun metal. And in fact the Parkerizing bath is far more acidic in the first place.

There are a number of chemicals which can result in green Parkerizing such as copper ion contamination of the Parkerizing bath as well as zinc chromate.

You can see from the pictures that Bramasole will turn parkerizing green. It is the simplest and easiest way to get that beautiful aged green Parkerized look. Here is a Winchester receiver after it was treated with Bramasole:



Why don't you go to Gardone Val Trompia and visit the Beretta Museum? You could ask them how Garands were made.

Finally, Italian Garands were made in Northern Italy in the Lombardy Region. Nobody up there would sing, "O Solo Mio", because that is a Neapolitan song.
 
Last edited:
OK, with some reluctance I'll be your Huckleberry on this one more time. I spent 32 years in the Army where I spent a lot of time trying to change people's minds, and I was pretty successful at this. Some folks rolled over quickly; others needed more persuasion. In your case it would seem to be an exercise in futility. But I think that I should offer a some more comments on this just because there are other people who actually do read this drivel with the aim of getting factual information which might be useful to them. My military service also gave me a pretty good insight into just what military small arms are and what is required of them.

I am quite open minded and am always receptive to more factual information on the Garand rifle, no matter the source. I've owned these rifles for the past 40 plus years and have enjoyed collecting them, shooting them, reloading for them, repairing them and building them over the years. I also have a very extensive library of books on the Garand from reputable authors and probably every US Army Technical and Field Manual that was written on their use and maintenance. Sheesh, I even have a book which contains a copy of Beretta's very own English language maintenance manual on the Garand (the only cleaning and preservation agents that it mentions are hot, soapy water for the bore and chamber, gun oil, and graphite wheel bearing grease for the specified lubrication points - no mention of olive oil). There is a world of difference between credible sources of authentic information and various gleanings, speculation and opinions which are floated on the internet, many of which are just plain wrong. There is always a tendency for people on the various gun forums to run an opinion or a bit of unsubstantiated conjecture up the flagpole to see who salutes, but that's just the downside of the 'net which people need to keep in mind during their quest for the right answers.

For anyone else who really wants to learn about the historical and technical aspects of the M1 Garand I can suggest building up a personal library using the following short list of accurate and comprehensive sources of information from credible sources with no internet hokey or unsubstantiated BS. All of these can be found on ebay or from sources like Brownells;

1. US Army TM 9-1275 Ordnance Maintenance U.S. Rifles, cal .30 M1 dated June 1947. This is an excellent, well illustrated guide to military inspection, repair and overhaul procedures. I have an original copy with a hand amendment dated 22 Sept 1949 which I got from a CF Technical Library back in the early 1970s which tends to substantiate the fact that the CF actually did possess Garand rifles at some point in the past.

2. The Book of the Garand by Maj. Gen. Julian Hatcher published in August 1948. This one has really stood the test of time and includes info on development and trials, WW2 combat use, operation and maintenance and early match conditioning.

3. The U.S. .30 Caliber Gas Operated Service Rifles, a Shop Manual by Jerry Kuhnhausen. This was published in 1995 and is the best single technical reference for the inspection, care and maintenance of both M1 and M14 type rifles.

4. The M1 Garand:World War II by Scott Duff published in 1993. Although it needs a bit of an update, it is a great product of historical research into the production of the rifle at Springfield Armory and Winchester. This is the "Red Book" which people look to for drawing numbers and parts changes during production to learn about what a "parts matching/correct" WW2 Garand really means.

5. The M1 Garand Rifle by Bruce N. Canfield. This 872 page book was published in 2013 with the input of a large number of acknowledged Garand experts and is quite monumental in it's scope and quality of information and illustrations. It even includes data on foreign use of the Garand including production in Italy and the single experimental model in 7.63mm Argentine which I was fortunate to see in the National Arms Museum in Buenos Aires early last year.

6. The M1 Garand Owners Guide published by Scott Duff in 1994. This is a 126 page book with an overview of the history of the rifle as well as information on user operation and maintenance as well as a number of tips from recognized and competent authorities.

7. US Army FM 23-5 U.S. Rifle Caliber .30 M1 dated may 1965. This was the last edition of the FM on the Garand and provides information that the individual soldier was taught about the operation and maintenance of the rifle.

Beyond these hard copy references one can also join the Garand Collector's Association and receive the Garand Collector's Journal which is published quarterly. The Journal is an excellent source of historical and technical information and one can also buy copies of back issues which cover a wide array of topics, incl several articles on the Italian Garands. Membership in the GCA gets you access to the annual conventions which are held in various US locations and which include presentations by knowledgeable people who can back up their statements with research, not just opinions. All of the above are a valuable source of factual information and studying them can be a great way to while away those long winter evenings. Who knows, this might even help some of our Alberta enthusiasts to make it through the unknown perils of the upcoming "NDP winter". If you are lucky the NDP will exempt books from the taxes which they are sure to impose on everything else.

Back to the topic of Parkerizing colors and processes. There is a wide agreement that there is no single Garand Parkerizing color which is correct for a number of reasons outlined in my previous post. The fact is that the rifles were actually assembled from individual parts which were made and parkerized in separate lots and which were then assembled into complete rifles on the production line. For this reason a single rifle most likely will not show a uniform color on all parts. I've owned a number of new Beretta parts still in original preservation and packaging, the largest ones being trigger housings and rear sight bases and basically found them to show up black. Maybe they didn't get the olive oil massage like the receivers, but who knows? My records show that I have owned 65 different Garands over the years and the color of Parkerizing on their receivers has ranged from a light grey thru a charcoal black with a greenish hue seen on some US made receivers and at least one Italian-made Breda. You also see this with the Parkerizing outcomes on M1 Carbines and M1903 Springfields for the same reasons. By way of illustration I have 2 Springfields, a 1934 vintage Springfield Armory and a 1943 03-A3 which I had re- parkerized about 3 yrs apart in the small arms workshop in 202 Workshop, Montreal in the late 1970s. This was done in an industrial scale military overhaul operation intended for refinishing CF issue small arms using all of the steps in the Parkerizing processes which I had a chance to observe from start to finish. The final receiver colors are noticeably different with the 1934 having a darker finish and the 1943 receiver taking on a bit of a grey-green color. One reason for this is the different steels used in the receivers, but the other parts also tend to follow suit. One interesting aside was that the maestro of the Parkerizing tank at the time was a very black man. Local humour had it that he was actually white when he started working there, but that he had parkerized himself as a result of years spent hanging over the Parkerizing tank.

Now let's drill down into the olive oil business a bit more. Of course the Parkerizing solution is highly acid based, and a hang of a lot more so than olive oil or other vegetable oils. In fact, it has either a manganese or zinc compound suspended in phosphoric acid which is diluted with distilled water to create the hot Parkerizing bath. The acid component is what causes the fizzing reaction with the steel when parts are actually being parkerized. When the fizzing stops the parts are removed from the Parkerizing bath and given a cold water flush followed by a petroleum based stopping agent which basically kills the Parkerizing process. A petroleum oil is then applied to the now neutralized parts which facilitates curing over a period of several days. I'm not claiming to be a Parkerizing expert, but I've been doing it for the past dozen yrs or so using both zinc and manganese kits and I've always gotten excellent results, and the usual range of grey to black colors, by religiously following the manufacturer's step by step process. I've probably done 24 Parkerizing runs over time and the only trouble that I ever had was with a Breda receiver which would not take parkerizing in a couple of spots. I concluded that this was due to deeply embedded oils so I boiled the receiver in a lye solution and re-parked it again. That worked.

Lets assume that the Beretta/Breda plants actually followed the Parkerizing step process and procedures as they are established. After all Parkerizing is Parkerizing, whether it is done at Springfield Armory, the Beretta plant, 202 Workshop or my own back yard. It's a pretty forgiving process which has been around for the past 100 yrs and which hasn't changed much at all. There really isn't much room for deviations here as the Parkerizing simply wouldn't have worked as intended unless the required processes were followed. I'd be inclined to believe that the Italians actually followed a post-Parkerizing process which used a cold water flush and a petroleum based stopping agent to neutralize the Parkerizing process which is a necessity to get a proper finish. Why wouldn't they? Now what did they do after applying the stopping agent? Did they use a petroleum oil to cure the finish or did they use olive oil, or did they use both? How do we really know what they did? We do know from the 1954 letter from Springfield Armory that the people at Breda were having troubles with their Parkerizing (buy the Canfield book and read it yourself). Some of the trouble-shooting advice from Springfield noted the possibility of copper contamination in the solution which would produce a reddish(not green) color on steel or perhaps lead traces that would produce a smudgy coating. The letter also cites a bad outcome on account of improper steel surface preparation, failure to remove the after Parkerizing sludge (called flocculent sludge which is often seen in the solution, and which can be removed from the parts by scrubbing with a brush while the part is still in the post-Parkerizing cold water rinse) by setting up the required water sprays, or by contaminating the solution with other acids, salts or an alkali metal cleaner. Oil contamination as a result of incomplete de-oiling/greasing is always a potential problem, as is fingerprint contamination, using water with a high mineral content rather than distilled water, and running the solution at the wrong temps.

The bottom line in Springfield Armory's advice to the Italians was to follow the procedures closely as outlined in TM 9-1861 and that the Parkerizing bath should be replaced as it was depleted by the volume of work done. Nothing magical there; anyone who has actually done any amount of Parkerizing work can attest to this. Their definitive statement on final color was a dark grey to black after treating with oil. They also stated that when the parts were removed from solution and rinsed and dried before oiling the coating might be of a light grey color. Springfield also mentioned that they used Parkerizing chemicals supplied by the American Chemical Paint Company or the Parker Rust Proof Company, both of which had sales and service branches in Italy. I don't have a copy of TM 9-1861, but I'm 100 percent sure that it doesn't mention olive oil at all.

Back to the olive oil business and the use of a particular brand of it at Beretta, other than maybe in the plant cafeteria. Sure we could tour the Beretta museum and get a nice talk about their Garand production from a guide and maybe even see pictures of manufacturing process. Maybe we can also see some of their finished rifles. But just how do we authenticate that olive oil was actually used to treat their rifles after Parkerizing? Are there copies 1954/55 production documents and production processes and/or shop flow charts to be seen that say something like "step 12. After removal from the Parkerizing solution rinse in water for "x" period of time, then apply a petroleum based stopping agent, then wipe clean and rub with olive oil and allow to stand for "y" period of time"? Is there documentation available containing authenticated statements about this from workers who actually did this 60 years ago or is it just hearsay and conjecture? One thing that we do know is that olive oil is a poor metal preservative and lubricant in comparison to petroleum based oils, so at some point before being passed for military acceptance the supposed olive oil treatment would need to be removed and replaced by proper military grade preservatives. One of the big plusses of a parkerized finish on military weapons, in addition to it's inherent rust proofing qualities, is that a parkerized surface will take up and hold preservative oils and lubricants which is the basic reason for using Parkerizing in the first place. I'm afraid that unless we see some actual documented research into this, it is just a cute and arcane little story with no basis in fact.

One of the problems which I and some others have with your mostly bombastic and unfounded claims is that they are based on your own biases and opinions, and not on any accepted documented information or authoritative sources at all. You don't have to send me your BMR8895 rifle for examination. We can all agree that it looks very pretty with it's olive oil rubdown, white tire crayon or whatever filling in the stampings, and shiny commercial stock. It's actually kind of amusing that you seem to be so devoted to re-creating a supposedly original military finish on the receiver when so much of the rest of it is so far removed from what the military actually used. No military ever used a Garand chambered for the .308 Winchester with a commercial barrel or a super shiny stock ( excepting the USMC Silent Drill team which uses highly polished and deactivated M1 Garands). I saw them perform once at the Marine Corps Barracks in Washington, DC and was very impressed with both their precision and their silence , but not with their rifles.

The only bona-fide military Garand rounds were .30-06, 7.62NATO and one copy that we know of in 7.63 Argentine. In comparison to an actual military rifle yours comes across like a hot-rodded 1964.5 Ford Mustang, rather than an actual original vehicle. Contrary to your claims, the "best" and most authentic Garand military rifles are any one of the original 6 million made in the same condition that they were passed by military acceptance after production. The second best are the ones in the same condition as they were proofed by a military overhaul facility following rebuild. Everything else is everything else. On looking at your BMR 8895 rifle the rear of the upper handguard seems to be in hard contact with the front face of the receiver. If you plan to shoot this piece very much I'd suggest that you dress off the rear of the handguard so that there is a clearance of approx the thickness of a business card between it and the front face of the receiver. When the barrel heats up from shooting it expands. That, and the barrel harmonics when the rifle is fired, will often cause the rear handguard to split as can be seen on many military Garands. For the same reason there must be some clearance between the front handguard ferrule and the rear of the gas cylinder.

I do admit that I was wrong when I assumed that Luigi and Antonio were harmonizing "O Solo Mio" while massaging olive oil into those Beretta receivers. Chances are that it might have been something from "Rigoletto".
 
Last edited:
Thank you very much for the information!

ThkThk

And now I have an excuse to buy that expensive ($100 amurcain money) canfield book.
 
It is not a super shiny stock. Get new glasses.

Your are the Canadiangunnutz answer to the late Howard Cosell. Do you ever stop to take a breath?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom