T-26

[Clancy]

Gentlemen,
Here are three files that show how the T-26 came about. These picked up the name of "Tanker Garands". There is no Official Ordnance for these (2) two models except the Ordnance file which has them marked as the T-26. In the 1950's and 1960's many CIVILIAN gunsmiths made up this model and called them the Tanker Garand. Many were built using welded receivers. I have read on the Garand sites that 1000's of these were built, sorry about that but Ordnance only built TWO. This First Photo is of the M1 Garand which was cutdown in the field and sent back to Ordnance in the states I hope this data helps to get out what the real story is about these types of Rifles.

http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/eclancy/tankab-1.jpg


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/eclancy/apgta1naab.jpg


http://i24.photobucket.com/albums/c21/eclancy/Dra####er.jpg

I could use some input on this question guys because I think it is important.
Some data has been posted before others have not.

Gentlemen you know what to do TIA.

Thanks again
Clancy

NRA Life Endowment
NRA Training Counselor
NRA Instructor
FSS 90% / BW X Speed Div by 1000 = PF
THA 63

 

[Dimitri]

The craze to go to carbines was and still is all the rage. The shorter, smaller gun is the best gun. The M1 had it with the T-26 and later "remanufactured" cut down M1's for the shooting public. The Enfield had it a few times going from the Long Lee to the Short Lee No.1 to the No.5 "Jungle Carbine". Personally I think the longer version of the M1 looks better then the Tankers I've seen.

Basiclly its a effort on the part of Ordance to make the M1 lighter and easyer to carry for troops, sort of like the M1 Carbine execpt with more "punch". It's a good idea but IMO it adds to the mess, now you got to carry in your Armoury units in the rear more parts for shortend versions and the like atleast untill they convert every M1 out there, adds to the problems of logistics from what I can see.

Dimitri