My father has several M1 Garands, including one of these that he acquired from the CMP. When he got it, the plastic spacer was missing, and let me tell you...if you're missing the spacer (which apparently is common among these rifles), don't set this down next to a .30-06 Garand with the exact same wood furniture like I did, unless you enjoy spending a solid 5 minutes prying .30-06 out of the chamber with a knife round by round. Those spacers are there for a very good reason lol
@@yellowchartreuse I'm aware of that. .30-06 is longer than .308 and will prevent the clip release from functioning due to the longer cartridge length. The tension from the follower also makes it very difficult to remove the rounds from the clip in the receiver. The easiest (and it's not easy) way to remove 8 rounds of .30-06 jammed in a .308 gun is to cycle each round and pry it out of the chamber, one at a time (which is what I mean't by "round by round")
In Brazil, we have Gewehr 98's converted to 7.62x51mm. They have a FN FAL barrel and muzzle break, allowing to fire rifle grenades. They are used for training in military bases located in small towns.
Not Gew98, but DWM M1908 Brasilian Mausers...called Mosquete M968. Also, barrel is not an FN FAL barrel, but a 7mm M1908 Mauser Barrel re-bored and chambered to 7,62 NATO. I have 2 of them. Very good shooters. Work done by IMBEL, ITAJUBA. DocAV.
I think my pop owns one of these, it's a 1943 receiver with a supposed 1963 refit. When we received it, it confused everyone but with some simple figuring we found it to be cambered in 7.62 NATO, now I know what it is, Thanks Ian
When I was an Army ROTC Cadet (70-74), our freshman and sophomores were issued M14's, the Juniors carried M16's and the Seniors either M14's or M16's depending on which class they were in charge of. The Navy/Marine guys had Mark 2 Mod 1's and the Air Force wouldn't let its cadets touch a weapon (very wise of them). As far as "why did the Navy" go to this length, it realized that it was last in line for new rifles and 30-06 would be increasing hard to find in a combat zone compared to 7.62mm. One use not mentioned was mine disposal. Mine sweepers would cut the cables of contact mines (the USN encountered Russian contact mines made in 1906 in Korea) and they would float to the surface - still dangerous. So some sweepers followed the first line of sweepers and used their weaponry to detonate (or sink - some refused to explode) the mines. Small arms were preferred as they avoided have large caliber shells ricocheting of the sea and going &diety knows where. The USN also converted a bunch of M1919A6's to 7.62 for the "Brown Water Navy" in Vietnam and called them Mark 21 Mod 0. The Israelis did the same thing as did the South Africans and the Canadians as I discovered when my outfit sponsored a Canadian one at FT Lewis in 76 www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/machineguns/c5machinegun.htm en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_South_African_Army#Machine_guns
I actually own one of these rifles, and used it for NRA matches for years, it is a great shooter and with a set of match sights and match op rod and some glass bedding it has served me well.
I would think sub-machine guns and handguns would be more beneficial to the Navy. I had a buddies Dad who served in Japan in the 60's said they still patrolled the deck at night with Thompson's and occasionally they would let them dump a mag into the ocean at the end of their shifts. haha different times.
Guy I know had said that trench guns were issued and stored intermittently on his boat, I would think a shotgun would be more useful if the ship was boarded.
7.62 x39mm A bit about my service to establish where I'm speaking from . I was in the US Navy from 1985 to 1995 . My rating was Operations Specialist (radar) . I was on a Destroyer for four years , a Military Policeman in Yokosuka Japan for two years , then on a Cruiser for four years . The shotguns we were armed with were M870s , the military designation for the Remington 870 pump 12ga . They had cylinder bores . Loads wers 2&3/4 inch 00 Buck , 6 in the mag + 1 in the chamber , a belt pouch of loose rounds for reload . Barrel length was @ 20 inch . Wood stock , no bayonette , bead front sight, no heat guard . Not a trench gun , more like a police cruiser shotgun . This was mid 80s to mid 90s , on ships and Military Police . This weapon and 1911A1 pistols were our main weapons for ship and shore security . M14s were sometimes issued . When I was an MP the Marine Barracks had the M9 Beretta and the M16 rifle , among other weapons . About this time some military units had the M590 Mossberg shotgun , which may have had the heat guard , bayonette , and other features of a trench gun . The Marine Barracks may have had them , but I never saw them armed with one . Interestingly , my home state , South Carolina, has a State Guard . Separate from the National Guard , they are official Militia of South Carolina. Unpaid volunteers not subject to Federal call , but serving at the call of The Governor . They must purchase their personal gear at their own cost . The state equips them with weapons , ammunition, communications , and transport as needed . Their weapon , when issued , is the M590 Mossberg shotgun , and they may carry their personally bought sidearm if they have a valid state handgun license . They mostly get called up for hurricanes and floods and such . But wait , there's more ! South Carolina has an official South Carolina Navy ! I still haven't figured out what that is . It seems to me to be a yacht club of sorts , maybe a State Coast Guard ? What I've seen so far is that they do historical exploration and cartography mostly .
You would be right, but we can't let go of the long arms. I got out a couple years ago, but we still use M14's to this day to fire shot line from ship to ship during underway replenishment. It's pretty cool to see.
@Victor Waddell I was talking about a gentleman who served 70 years ago, in fact, I think he "appropriated" one of those shotguns and supposedly it rests on his mantle. I know of the Remington 870 pump-action, thanks for the clarification on your side though, interesting story. I'm a weapons discusser but I'm not an avid shotgun guy. A break action suits me fine and my personal favorite self-loader is the Saiga, was never terribly fond of pump-action firearms of any kind.
No chamoimuros, italian army converted the garand for 7,62 nato.(garand t1 t is for Terni Arsenal). BM59 It s an another a.r. based on garand mechanics, as m14. I shot with both during my military duty.
Trained with the M16 in the Army. After I got out of the Army I enlisted in the Coast Guard and qualified with the Garand in boot camp and we had them at the Air Station I was stationed at until the later part of 1972 when we switched over to the M16. We also had a couple of M3 grease guns and a couple of Thompson's and had to get rid of those as well. I think every body wanted to keep the Garands and shit can the 16's.
I've got a 1912-61 Chilean Mauser in 7.62 Nato made by Steyr and it has a chamber plug. It started life as a 7mm and it was converted in the sixties. They made thousands of them and I've never heard of a plug coming out so I guess it is possible for it to work. It may be that the slower,more controlled extraction of a bolt action doesn't pull as hard on the insert.
I have an AMF converted on I bought working at a gun shop for years. Always loved my old military weapons and I learned 2 new things about it that I didn’t already know. Good job RIA
Greetings and Salutations from Topock Arizona, where my old motor home is parked facing the big ball of fire in the East this morning! Way back before I became disabled, I used to work during my off duty hours from the PD with a couple of Gunsmiths, one was into general gun work, the other built his own barrel making outfit, and produced the K&P Rifle Barrels. Well at night, myself and the general smith used to build guns using the machine tools at the K&P plant, with Ken’s permission, of course. I got into buying up old actions from Numrich Arms and building them up into working rifles. My most odd-ball was an old Styer Manlicher straight pull 8mmR that I rebarreled into .444 Marlin. Had it working great to but because I only had one clip, I had to modify it so it remained in the rifle after the last shot, not a hard modification. Well once I ordered a P14 Engfield action, and it never came, so I called Numrich and they sent another. About a month later, I received 2 of them, so I built one into a magnum rifle, he other that was just laying there, I decided to stick a .444 Marlin barrel on, it worked GREAT, put it in a Bell and Caralson Stock with a nice Weaver Scope on top, and she was a great woods gun for deer hunting. I took one deer with the Styer, the following year, I took 2 with the P-14 conversion. My favorite over all caliber though was the 25-o6, and after seeing that the M1 Garand was indeed converted to .308 (I think I knew that once) converting one to 25-06 or perhaps 270 sounds like it would make a great hunting rifle as well. Who knows, might start a fad….
And why not? The Navy doesn't need the newest, or, best shoulder arms, and, the Garand is one of the finest rifles ever produced, a Hell of a lot better than the M14, anyway.
Matt Johnson Nope, just regular kind. The U.S. Govt has a long, documented history of trying to utilize/convert old parts, cling to old designs, and reutilize previously designed ammunition.
When I went through Navy OCS in 1976, we had M1's for our weekly parade. Don't know if they could be fired but they were kept locked up in an armory and only issued to us for the parade. When I got to my ship, we had M14's. I had an opportunity to fire one off the fantail. According to the Bluejacket's Manual, the Navy M14's had been modified for semiautomatic fire only but ours were full auto.
In 1988,my cousin's FFG USS Doyle had M1 Garands in 7.62x51mm. My ship & his were both down in Cuba for Fleet Refresher Training after overhaul. He said that the Marines who conducted their weapons qualification training were amazed that they had M1s & even asked"How come we don't have these?See,Gunny? They don't even have to worry about losing the magazine because it's built in to the rifle!"
..I am amazed considering the era, that some 'bright spark' didn't think or at least suggest using 'explosives' to join the insert to the chamber/barrel - remembers the video clip of that washed up whale carcass being detonated with TNT - sometime in the 1960s; after which it was suddenly infinitely more preferable to leave the carcass, to bury it or to tow it out, offshore. But then the Navy is reputedly smarter than the Army, and so, also likelier smarter than the civic & public persons.
You had it right the first time. Approximately 35,000 rifles were sleeved with the barrel bushing and in Navy Inventory. According to the Garand Collectors Association summer 2012 edition.
Mr. Don McCoy of Santee, California worked for the U.S. Navy & built rebarrelled many Garands to shoot 7.62 NATO. I have one of those Garands with a Gene Barnett Heavy barrel. Don McCoy told me that the conversions that H&R did were great and the sleeve never fell out. But the one's that AMC converted had problems with them.
My in JROTC in California had an entire Armory full of non-functional 762 NATO for drill. Could never figure out where the hell they came from. Ours were marked on the original spot 7.62 right behind the sights. Did one of the companies do that over there later versions that were produced? Great show!
I fired a 7.62 NATO M-1 at Camp Elliot in 1970 during boot camp in Dan Diego. These guns did not have the mag well spacer so we were thus cautioned to be sure the clip was fully to the rear while inserting it. To my surprise the M-1s care onboard my ship were chambered for 30-06.
I recently acquired this same rifle from the CMP in Talledega, also a Springfield done by H&R in 1965, however, my serial number is less under 500,000 which I think is pretty cool. Mine also has a cool yellow painted on rack number on the stock. I did a video on it over on my channel.
Hi, I have a grand 7.62 Navy, that doesn't have the receiver block. Its a 1943 with a a AMF barrel. I have paperwork that shows it was in Navy inventory up to 1966.
Nice. I've heard a little about these over the years. Nice to hear the full story. I didn't know they were still in inventory that late. I know the Navy went to M14's, probably in the 70's, and i think they are still used for line launching, mine detonation, etc. I think they use the M4 as their standard shoulder arm now. Strange fact: my buddy's younger son is in the Navy, currently in nuclear propulsion school. When he went through basic (graduated in March) no rifle instruction at all, only on the M9. He shot tops in his class. ☺ My buddy and i are big gun guys, and of course he was very pleased. Great video as always
Troy Ortega I was in the US Navy from '85_'95 . We had the M14 in the armories of both my ships and my Military Police unit . I loved shooting them . Sorry to see them replaced by the M4 . I heard that most of them became Squad Designated Marksman Rifles for the ground pounders , but some were kept for the SEALs . EOD , as line launchers , etc ....
We had a command show up around 2005 Pacific Fleet with M1's they still had in their armoury. Theyre still a huge number of them stored at Naval Weapons Station Crane
Yeah it was a surprise to us as well. NSWC Crane ordered them to be sent back. The Navy still uses them for trophies, given to winners from Fleet Matches and above. I was able to win one iirc in 2006 or so
@@Navyrifleshooter Want the hear a better one, I received a Mk2 Mod 0 today that still had the 1965 inspection date tag on it. 1965 was when the Navy called all of the Mk2 Mod 0s back to either change the barrels or reseat/inspect the chamber adapters. Mine also came with a 1964 sling and complete maintenance set in the butt stock of the rifle. Too bad I couldn't have just grabbed it on either of my two trips to Crane that I made in 1988. It still has its original Oct 1942 barrel on a Nov 1942 receiver. If it wasn't in 7.62, it would still be just like it left SA in 1942. The barrel only has ~.003 wear so it did not have a lot of rounds ever fired thru it. I also have #3 of the M1903A3s that the Navy converted to wall hangers. Along with it is the plaque on it from Crane. It can never fire again but it sure is shiny with its Chrome plating.
I wonder if they had the same problems with the plugged chamber Garands as with the converted 1895 7mm Spanish Mausers? I believe a number of them were converted to 7.62 NATO(?) years ago and an inherent problem with these conversions is that the gap between the chamber and the insert is subject to 'flame-cutting', such as with the top strap on a revolver, because the cartridge neck does not extend past the joint to protect it.
Were used as trophy weapons for upper level competition, east/west coast, All Navy , Interservice, and National Championships. Went to Navy shooters.. won two of them 88-92.
In 2003-04, CMP had these on their website for "upcoming sale" but later the site just dropped all reference to these. A few years later a friend who had recently returned from Iraq told me a bunch of these had shown up for designated marksmen/snipers and were being used. I know that's anecdotal, so not claiming that's what happened to CMP rifles, and for all I know they may have been navy leftovers.
I don't know a lot about chamber pressure and the force's involved so this might seem like a stupid question. But why didn't they just weld the .308 adapter into position? I mean after all if done correctly and with the right alloys the bead can often be stronger than the pieces they join.
Rufus Chucklebutty - There are a few ways to do it. The easiest and sloppiest way would probably be by Miling out the walls of the chamber and throat to make room for a sleeve that could then be welded into position and headspaced for .308. Which would have been much faster, easier and cheaper than buying new manufacture barrels.
toomanyaccounts - It takes far more time and work to bore out and rifle a new barrel than it does to shorten the chamber length of an existing barrel. Plastic is not strong enough to contain the pressure of firing thats why guns are made out of metal. Also the barrels were fine because they were still fairly new and had'n't seen much use. The whole idea of a .308 M1 was to update to the new Nato standard as cheaply as possible.
Heat tends to make Loctite fail so I don't think it would have done much good. I guess it couldn't hurt anything either but the new barrels seem like a better solution than the plugs.
The Navy dragging its feet in small arm conversion is kind of the normal pattern. After they did finally adopt the M-14 they continued to use the M-14 long after other services had converted to the M16 and its follow on variants.
Handheld firearms aren't really a high priority in the navy, they already have rifles and 7.62 is still a standard NATO round so no real reason for them to change.
Indeed they did. Our landing party used the conversion along with the M14. They were both perfectly good weapons. I was the SAR and got to try and fire the M14 and the M14A1 on auto. My story of this is on Ian's video of firing the M14 on full auto. He and I had similar experiences, which were foul.
I have too agree. It made a lot more sense for them to do this conversion than to get the new rifle. You are not exactly going head to head with enemy forces with your rifle in the navy with the rare exception of a landing party.
Rather than replacing the barrel, they might have threaded the chamber and the plug and screw the plug in, maybe, with a couple of prick-punches to the rear edge of the plug just in case.
After reading the comments I now understand that they used the same clips. I would be curious to know how the logistics of this worked. Did the arsenal keep making new clips and do runs of ammo to package into them just for navy use, or did they salvage now surplus ammo, take the .30-06 out and put 7.62 in instead? Either way it seems like a bit of a hassle.
Did San Diego RTC IN 1970 and we did our firearm qualification was with the 7.62 M1 Garand. On the ship I served on we had M1 Carbines not Garands. It is my understanding that the Navy would continue using the Carbine until 1973.
kinda, my navy match rifle clone I made actually has a danish rear sight cover with 7.62 nato and the navys anchor etched in to it. the Danes did it them selves from rifles given to them.
I used to serve in the german army during cold war in the late eighties. When it came to ammo we hat a little prob with the H&K G3. We used 7.62 x 51, the Warsaw Pact did use 7.62 x 53 that does not fit to the G3. If I look at this Garand and its mag.... It would be a nice way to clear this prob uninstall the spacer in the mag to use both kind of ammo. This youst in case you had to use ammo from the enemy.
7.62x53R ammo is a fat, rimmed cartridge the Finnish used, very similar to the Russian 7.62x54R. And then there is the 7.65x53 Mauser cartridge used by Argentina and Belgium. Are you referring to one of these? None would be simply convertible into a 7.62x51 NATO chamber.
Years ago, when the South Korean guns were imported, I bought one with a shot out barrel and had a gun smith barrel it to 308 I did not have him shorten the follower, but I did have him stamp the caliber above the chamber.
There is no modification needed to install the spacer block, I have 2 M1's in 7.62x51, one with the plastic spacer (which you can purchase from the CMP), the other with a steel insert from Italy, which made M1's under license in 7.62x51, known as the BM-59. the inserts simply slip in with no mods needed. There are videos on Youtibe that show this process.
A friend of mine has a 7.62 Nato Garand by accident.I dont know if its a rebuild or an original Navy rifle.He bought it at a gun show as the vendor was packing up and didnt learn it was this way until he went to put a clip in it when we were doing some shooting a little later.That spacer block saved him because he had some 3006 rounds loaded in clips.
I got a Garand last week, made by Beretta for the Danish Army, in .30-06. I am looking for any info I can get on this production, how many were made? When? I only found a total production number of around 20k but for both calibers, 7.62Nato and .30-06. And yes, you can fire a .308 in a .30-06 Garand, don't ask how I know...
Interesting idea. Kind of makes me wonder, were there many actually successful major service rifle conversions? (Be it caliber conversions, semi-auto or otherwise)
Canada took Browning 1919 MGs and converted them to 7.62 NATO and disintegrating link ammo. I would hardly call it successful though. I understand the US rejected to design. I used them during my service and besides being a beast to lug around compared to the MAG 58 we eventually got they were horribly unreliable. It takes more recoil energy to feed from a disintegrating link than it does from a cloth belt, and the gun had lower recoil energy. The size of the hole in the barrel bearing plug was reduced to boost the energy but it still was not that reliable.l
Beretta did Two Garands converted to 7,62 for the Italian Armed Forces. First Version, standard M1 barrel chambered in 7,62 Nato; Second Version, 30 cal Barrel set-back and rechambered to 7,62 NATO. Both these used 7,62 cartridges delivered in 8 round En-bloc clips. Only recently released to Surplus Market by FAET. DocAV
Interesting gun i only ever hear of the "tanker garands" in 7.62 nato. And Ian, Mod is modification not model. I'm sorry had to say it it annoyed me. So thought id let you know.
The specification for .308 was to have an identical ballistic path to 30-06. Improvements in gunpowder allowed for a short action case that was over a centimeter shorter than 30-06
Not necessarily true if i recall. It wasn't so much improvements in gunpowder it was that the 30:06 originally had much more powder in the case, but was dumbed down later. So they decided to make the case smaller since they weren't using the extra space anyway. Could be wrong, though.
Hear I am thinking about bearings where you heat the part receiving bearing and freezing the bearing when the heat is completed you tap in the bearing when both equalize it's a super tight fit. Why didn't they just do that?
I suspect that who ever it was that sold the whole "Plug" idea was out of credibility after two fails. Making new barrels might have cost more but there would be no surprises waiting. They were tired if surprises.
It would probably be the bullets in a clip of 30-06 that would hit that plastic bit in the well, since the '06 is longer than 7.62N... If someone lost the block and stuck 30-06 in there, it simply wouldn't go fully into battery when the bolt was released.
No you use the same clip the .308 case is wider at the point the clip holds on to so they are a bit harder to put in but they function just fine. 30-06 has a slight taper to the outer case wall as were the .308 is straight walled. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield#/media/File:Cartridge_30-06.png
I have a m1 garand converted to 7.62NATO, but the barrel is from 1963 and it doesnt even say 7.62mm on it, nor does it have the manufacturer print on, it does have a military proof mark though, and the receiver is in the early 800 thousands which is cool, wondering if this is a navy conversion or just made to look like one? got it for cheap any ways.
The .30-06 clips hold the fatter 7.62x51mm rounds too tight, which can cause feeding issues. This was addressed by opening up the gas port, but that beats up the rifle. The US Navy should have adopted the M14.
Hello - It sold for $2300 in 2017. I'm M1 rookie and want my 1st M1. Q1. Is Navy M1 308 as desired as a collectible when compared to the legendary M1 30-06 ? Q2. What's est price (Navy 308) to buy today & where ?.....est price M1 30-06 ? Q3. How many genuine Navy 308 out there to buy ? thanks to all.......sammy
Not the same Springfield Armory. The US government arsenal that designed and built the M1 rifle was closed in 1968. A group of investors bought the rights to the name and set up the commercial gun company that exists today.
I just bought a 308 converted m1 for 500 from a buddy who was selling his dads collection. I have zero knowledge on the functionality of it, marking or anything, just the history and that's why I bought it. But I was so confused as to why there was a little plastic piece in there. Pretty sure that's all I needed to know. They guy even threw in 40 rds of 30-06 thinking the same thing I did haha
Watched this with my M1. We both enjoyed this video.
Did it watch it with its barrel?
Mine is downstairs with the stock off. Getting a good coating of raw Linseed Oil on it. Mine is a Mk2 Mod 0.
:-)
@@nosraltinmad5767 It had it's sights on it. ;-)
Its like watching Netflix but gun lol
My father has several M1 Garands, including one of these that he acquired from the CMP. When he got it, the plastic spacer was missing, and let me tell you...if you're missing the spacer (which apparently is common among these rifles), don't set this down next to a .30-06 Garand with the exact same wood furniture like I did, unless you enjoy spending a solid 5 minutes prying .30-06 out of the chamber with a knife round by round. Those spacers are there for a very good reason lol
I dont allow any one to touch my .308 Garand. If shooting someone else's rifle I ask what cartridge first.
Only one will go in the chamber at a time. There is no "round by round." It's only one round.
@@yellowchartreuse I'm aware of that. .30-06 is longer than .308 and will prevent the clip release from functioning due to the longer cartridge length. The tension from the follower also makes it very difficult to remove the rounds from the clip in the receiver. The easiest (and it's not easy) way to remove 8 rounds of .30-06 jammed in a .308 gun is to cycle each round and pry it out of the chamber, one at a time (which is what I mean't by "round by round")
In Brazil, we have Gewehr 98's converted to 7.62x51mm. They have a FN FAL barrel and muzzle break, allowing to fire rifle grenades. They are used for training in military bases located in small towns.
Not Gew98, but DWM M1908 Brasilian Mausers...called Mosquete M968. Also, barrel is not an FN FAL barrel, but a 7mm M1908 Mauser Barrel re-bored and chambered to 7,62 NATO.
I have 2 of them. Very good shooters. Work done by IMBEL, ITAJUBA.
DocAV.
@@astridvallati4762🤓🤓🤓🤓
I think my pop owns one of these, it's a 1943 receiver with a supposed 1963 refit. When we received it, it confused everyone but with some simple figuring we found it to be cambered in 7.62 NATO, now I know what it is, Thanks Ian
When I was an Army ROTC Cadet (70-74), our freshman and sophomores were issued M14's, the Juniors carried M16's and the Seniors either M14's or M16's depending on which class they were in charge of. The Navy/Marine guys had Mark 2 Mod 1's and the Air Force wouldn't let its cadets touch a weapon (very wise of them). As far as "why did the Navy" go to this length, it realized that it was last in line for new rifles and 30-06 would be increasing hard to find in a combat zone compared to 7.62mm. One use not mentioned was mine disposal. Mine sweepers would cut the cables of contact mines (the USN encountered Russian contact mines made in 1906 in Korea) and they would float to the surface - still dangerous. So some sweepers followed the first line of sweepers and used their weaponry to detonate (or sink - some refused to explode) the mines. Small arms were preferred as they avoided have large caliber shells ricocheting of the sea and going &diety knows where. The USN also converted a bunch of M1919A6's to 7.62 for the "Brown Water Navy" in Vietnam and called them Mark 21 Mod 0. The Israelis did the same thing as did the South Africans and the Canadians as I discovered when my outfit sponsored a Canadian one at FT Lewis in 76
www.canadiansoldiers.com/weapons/lightweapons/machineguns/c5machinegun.htm
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_equipment_of_the_South_African_Army#Machine_guns
Very cool info and I like the links thanks for that
I actually own one of these rifles, and used it for NRA matches for years, it is a great shooter and with a set of match sights and match op rod and some glass bedding it has served me well.
Probably less trouble than all the problems the M14 had.
Nope
The block to not allow 30.06 is a good idea in hindsight having it serve in Vietnam along side arvn units Using standard garands
I would think sub-machine guns and handguns would be more beneficial to the Navy. I had a buddies Dad who served in Japan in the 60's said they still patrolled the deck at night with Thompson's and occasionally they would let them dump a mag into the ocean at the end of their shifts. haha different times.
We had M14s , but M1911a1 pistols and M870 shotguns were used more .
Guy I know had said that trench guns were issued and stored intermittently on his boat, I would think a shotgun would be more useful if the ship was boarded.
7.62 x39mm A bit about my service to establish where I'm speaking from . I was in the US Navy from 1985 to 1995 . My rating was Operations Specialist (radar) . I was on a Destroyer for four years , a Military Policeman in Yokosuka Japan for two years , then on a Cruiser for four years . The shotguns we were armed with were M870s , the military designation for the Remington 870 pump 12ga . They had cylinder bores . Loads wers 2&3/4 inch 00 Buck , 6 in the mag + 1 in the chamber , a belt pouch of loose rounds for reload . Barrel length was @ 20 inch . Wood stock , no bayonette , bead front sight, no heat guard . Not a trench gun , more like a police cruiser shotgun . This was mid 80s to mid 90s , on ships and Military Police . This weapon and 1911A1 pistols were our main weapons for ship and shore security . M14s were sometimes issued . When I was an MP the Marine Barracks had the M9 Beretta and the M16 rifle , among other weapons . About this time some military units had the M590 Mossberg shotgun , which may have had the heat guard , bayonette , and other features of a trench gun . The Marine Barracks may have had them , but I never saw them armed with one . Interestingly , my home state , South Carolina, has a State Guard . Separate from the National Guard , they are official Militia of South Carolina. Unpaid volunteers not subject to Federal call , but serving at the call of The Governor . They must purchase their personal gear at their own cost . The state equips them with weapons , ammunition, communications , and transport as needed . Their weapon , when issued , is the M590 Mossberg shotgun , and they may carry their personally bought sidearm if they have a valid state handgun license . They mostly get called up for hurricanes and floods and such . But wait , there's more ! South Carolina has an official South Carolina Navy ! I still haven't figured out what that is . It seems to me to be a yacht club of sorts , maybe a State Coast Guard ? What I've seen so far is that they do historical exploration and cartography mostly .
You would be right, but we can't let go of the long arms. I got out a couple years ago, but we still use M14's to this day to fire shot line from ship to ship during underway replenishment. It's pretty cool to see.
@Victor Waddell
I was talking about a gentleman who served 70 years ago, in fact, I think he "appropriated" one of those shotguns and supposedly it rests on his mantle.
I know of the Remington 870 pump-action, thanks for the clarification on your side though, interesting story.
I'm a weapons discusser but I'm not an avid shotgun guy. A break action suits me fine and my personal favorite self-loader is the Saiga, was never terribly fond of pump-action firearms of any kind.
We had m1 's in 308 in Italy
eltenda fabrizio You mean BM-59?
champimuros no they had m1 garands that both converted and built in .308, bloke on the range has great videos about his.
I believe that the Italians also made standard M1's in 7.62 NATO, before moving on to the BM-59.
Craig Joksch yup I believe so..mostly of our unit ones were us made
No chamoimuros, italian army converted the garand for 7,62 nato.(garand t1 t is for Terni Arsenal).
BM59 It s an another a.r. based on garand mechanics, as m14.
I shot with both during my military duty.
Trained with the M16 in the Army. After I got out of the Army I enlisted in the Coast Guard and qualified with the Garand in boot camp and we had them at the Air Station I was stationed at until the later part of 1972 when we switched over to the M16. We also had a couple of M3 grease guns and a couple of Thompson's and had to get rid of those as well. I think every body wanted to keep the Garands and shit can the 16's.
I've got a 1912-61 Chilean Mauser in 7.62 Nato made by Steyr and it has a chamber plug. It started life as a 7mm and it was converted in the sixties. They made thousands of them and I've never heard of a plug coming out so I guess it is possible for it to work. It may be that the slower,more controlled extraction of a bolt action doesn't pull as hard on the insert.
Just a FYI; Mod. in Navy parlance does not stand for model, it stands for modification.
This channel is consistently excellent. Very well done Ian, keep up the good work man :)
I have an AMF converted on I bought working at a gun shop for years. Always loved my old military weapons and I learned 2 new things about it that I didn’t already know. Good job RIA
I remember the inserts. They would occasionally eject with a spent case. We tried lock-tite, but it did not help. To much heat and shock, I guess.
Greetings and Salutations from Topock Arizona, where my old motor home is parked facing the big ball of fire in the East this morning! Way back before I became disabled, I used to work during my off duty hours from the PD with a couple of Gunsmiths, one was into general gun work, the other built his own barrel making outfit, and produced the K&P Rifle Barrels. Well at night, myself and the general smith used to build guns using the machine tools at the K&P plant, with Ken’s permission, of course. I got into buying up old actions from Numrich Arms and building them up into working rifles. My most odd-ball was an old Styer Manlicher straight pull 8mmR that I rebarreled into .444 Marlin. Had it working great to but because I only had one clip, I had to modify it so it remained in the rifle after the last shot, not a hard modification. Well once I ordered a P14 Engfield action, and it never came, so I called Numrich and they sent another. About a month later, I received 2 of them, so I built one into a magnum rifle, he other that was just laying there, I decided to stick a .444 Marlin barrel on, it worked GREAT, put it in a Bell and Caralson Stock with a nice Weaver Scope on top, and she was a great woods gun for deer hunting. I took one deer with the Styer, the following year, I took 2 with the P-14 conversion. My favorite over all caliber though was the 25-o6, and after seeing that the M1 Garand was indeed converted to .308 (I think I knew that once) converting one to 25-06 or perhaps 270 sounds like it would make a great hunting rifle as well. Who knows, might start a fad….
Converting previously made rifles. The U.S. military just can't help themselves.
And why not? The Navy doesn't need the newest, or, best shoulder arms, and, the Garand is one of the finest rifles ever produced, a Hell of a lot better than the M14, anyway.
Anon Nymous
Debatable.
Matt Johnson Nope, just regular kind. The U.S. Govt has a long, documented history of trying to utilize/convert old parts, cling to old designs, and reutilize previously designed ammunition.
Everyone did this, flintlock to cap, cap to breech-loading.
What? The M14 might have been outdated when it entered service - but its everything the Garand was - just better.
"- except for the barrel and one special part in the magazine well" This is gonna be a roller coaster of a video.
When I went through Navy OCS in 1976, we had M1's for our weekly parade. Don't know if they could be fired but they were kept locked up in an armory and only issued to us for the parade. When I got to my ship, we had M14's. I had an opportunity to fire one off the fantail. According to the Bluejacket's Manual, the Navy M14's had been modified for semiautomatic fire only but ours were full auto.
Keeping me awake at work. Thanks for the great program ian
These were still being issues to sailors in 1982-83 at NTCSD for training only we didn't get to fire them at that time.
In 1988,my cousin's FFG USS Doyle had M1 Garands in 7.62x51mm.
My ship & his were both down in Cuba for Fleet Refresher Training after overhaul.
He said that the Marines who conducted their weapons qualification training were amazed that they had M1s & even asked"How come we don't have these?See,Gunny? They don't even have to worry about losing the magazine because it's built in to the rifle!"
The Navy never heard of red lock-tite?
Wouldn't the heat of shooting cause the red-tite to release?
Trained on and fired one of these weapons in January 1970 at NTC San Diego. Was the best day we had other than graduation.
I was a marine on a navy ship in 2012 and watched them use Garands to shoot lines between ships for underway resupply.
Made 30 thousand plugs to find out they didn't work
John La Duke I’m 100% sure one guy was saying that from the beginning but was outranked by someone else.
..I am amazed considering the era, that some 'bright spark' didn't think or at least suggest using 'explosives' to join the insert to the chamber/barrel - remembers the video clip of that washed up whale carcass being detonated with TNT - sometime in the 1960s; after which it was suddenly infinitely more preferable to leave the carcass, to bury it or to tow it out, offshore.
But then the Navy is reputedly smarter than the Army, and so, also likelier smarter than the civic & public persons.
Sounds about right for our military
Wonder why they simply didn't pin the plugs in place.
Friction welding would've worked. Spin the plug inside the chamber at high speed then give it a light machine if necessary.
You had it right the first time. Approximately 35,000 rifles were sleeved with the barrel bushing and in Navy Inventory. According to the Garand Collectors Association summer 2012 edition.
I don’t think I have ever not enjoy your videos, thanks for what you do
A gunsmith in Pennsylvania named Shufflin could convert you Garand (M1 .30-06 Ca) into a .308 (7.62 NATO). Great upload.
Ian's videos are so well prepared I automatically give him the thumbs up click...
All garands look really nice
Local shop by me Orion 7 had a few of these on the shelf when I went in to grab .30-06 for my m1. Wanted to grab one then but never did
toomanyaccounts I doubt that Orion 7 specializes in garands and they've never lied to me. Also they never said authentic navy just said .308 m1's
Mr. Don McCoy of Santee, California worked for the U.S. Navy & built rebarrelled many Garands to shoot 7.62 NATO. I have one of those Garands with a Gene Barnett Heavy barrel. Don McCoy told me that the conversions that H&R did were great and the sleeve never fell out. But the one's that AMC converted had problems with them.
Don built me one circa 1988. Fine shooting rifle!
Fantastic! Always love a good battle rifle.
We were just talking about the M1 and whether they'd been barreled for 7.62 Nato a few weeks ago. Thanks.
My in JROTC in California had an entire Armory full of non-functional 762 NATO for drill. Could never figure out where the hell they came from. Ours were marked on the original spot 7.62 right behind the sights. Did one of the companies do that over there later versions that were produced? Great show!
I fired a 7.62 NATO M-1 at Camp Elliot in 1970 during boot camp in Dan Diego. These guns did not have the mag well spacer so we were thus cautioned to be sure the clip was fully to the rear while inserting it. To my surprise the M-1s care onboard my ship were chambered for 30-06.
That's the first rifle I ever qualified on in 1969.
Thank you Ian nice video my friend
I recently acquired this same rifle from the CMP in Talledega, also a Springfield done by H&R in 1965, however, my serial number is less under 500,000 which I think is pretty cool. Mine also has a cool yellow painted on rack number on the stock. I did a video on it over on my channel.
Nice rifle!I've only seen & held one of them in my life,never fired one,always wanted one.Have a Happy Thanksgiving!
Hi, I have a grand 7.62 Navy, that doesn't have the receiver block. Its a 1943 with a a AMF barrel. I have paperwork that shows it was in Navy inventory up to 1966.
Navy conversions. Gotta love em.
Nice. I've heard a little about these over the years. Nice to hear the full story. I didn't know they were still in inventory that late. I know the Navy went to M14's, probably in the 70's, and i think they are still used for line launching, mine detonation, etc. I think they use the M4 as their standard shoulder arm now. Strange fact: my buddy's younger son is in the Navy, currently in nuclear propulsion school. When he went through basic (graduated in March) no rifle instruction at all, only on the M9. He shot tops in his class. ☺ My buddy and i are big gun guys, and of course he was very pleased. Great video as always
Troy Ortega I was in the US Navy from '85_'95 . We had the M14 in the armories of both my ships and my Military Police unit . I loved shooting them . Sorry to see them replaced by the M4 . I heard that most of them became Squad Designated Marksman Rifles for the ground pounders , but some were kept for the SEALs . EOD , as line launchers , etc ....
We had a command show up around 2005 Pacific Fleet with M1's they still had in their armoury. Theyre still a huge number of them stored at Naval Weapons Station Crane
Wait the M1 in 2005?
Yeah it was a surprise to us as well. NSWC Crane ordered them to be sent back.
The Navy still uses them for trophies, given to winners from Fleet Matches and above. I was able to win one iirc in 2006 or so
@@Navyrifleshooter Want the hear a better one, I received a Mk2 Mod 0 today that still had the 1965 inspection date tag on it. 1965 was when the Navy called all of the Mk2 Mod 0s back to either change the barrels or reseat/inspect the chamber adapters. Mine also came with a 1964 sling and complete maintenance set in the butt stock of the rifle. Too bad I couldn't have just grabbed it on either of my two trips to Crane that I made in 1988. It still has its original Oct 1942 barrel on a Nov 1942 receiver. If it wasn't in 7.62, it would still be just like it left SA in 1942. The barrel only has ~.003 wear so it did not have a lot of rounds ever fired thru it. I also have #3 of the M1903A3s that the Navy converted to wall hangers. Along with it is the plaque on it from Crane. It can never fire again but it sure is shiny with its Chrome plating.
Good lord, I never thought I'd see one of these. NEGDEF (Naval Emergency Ground Defense Force) had them at NAS Cubi Point in 1970.
I wonder if they had the same problems with the plugged chamber Garands as with the converted 1895 7mm Spanish Mausers? I believe a number of them were converted to 7.62 NATO(?) years ago and an inherent problem with these conversions is that the gap between the chamber and the insert is subject to 'flame-cutting', such as with the top strap on a revolver, because the cartridge neck does not extend past the joint to protect it.
Always great vids Ian, THANKS !!
I too just acquired a 1945 Navy M1 MK 7.62x51 cmp national match rifle. 1965 SA conversion. Should be in my hands tomorrow.
Were used as trophy weapons for upper level competition, east/west coast, All Navy , Interservice, and National Championships. Went to Navy shooters.. won two of them 88-92.
Had one at OCS in 1977 in New Port, RI. I often wondered about it.
In 2003-04, CMP had these on their website for "upcoming sale" but later the site just dropped all reference to these. A few years later a friend who had recently returned from Iraq told me a bunch of these had shown up for designated marksmen/snipers and were being used. I know that's anecdotal, so not claiming that's what happened to CMP rifles, and for all I know they may have been navy leftovers.
I don't know a lot about chamber pressure and the force's involved so this might seem like a stupid question. But why didn't they just weld the .308 adapter into position? I mean after all if done correctly and with the right alloys the bead can often be stronger than the pieces they join.
Capacitive welding could do the job.
Rufus Chucklebutty - There are a few ways to do it. The easiest and sloppiest way would probably be by Miling out the walls of the chamber and throat to make room for a sleeve that could then be welded into position and headspaced for .308. Which would have been much faster, easier and cheaper than buying new manufacture barrels.
toomanyaccounts - It takes far more time and work to bore out and rifle a new barrel than it does to shorten the chamber length of an existing barrel. Plastic is not strong enough to contain the pressure of firing thats why guns are made out of metal. Also the barrels were fine because they were still fairly new and had'n't seen much use. The whole idea of a .308 M1 was to update to the new Nato standard as cheaply as possible.
Heat tends to make Loctite fail so I don't think it would have done much good. I guess it couldn't hurt anything either but the new barrels seem like a better solution than the plugs.
I believe the Civilian Marksmanship Program is still making this conversion.
Yes, but the barrel is marked “.308 WIN”, usually from Criterion Barrels. Also the spacer is metal.
Interesting that the pressure curve of 7.62 is close enough to 06' that it doesn't require a modification of the gas port.
762gunr I found that one neat as well. Weird that there aren’t more .308/.30-06 multi-cal rifles with swappable barrels and mags.
But they did do a minor adjustment to the gas port, according to the video...
I didn't catch that part I guess.
762gunr they said they learned early the gas ports have to be opened up to allow for the pressure curve
Listen from 3:30 onwards.
Gun Jesus blesses us with another reading of the Scripture.
It would be a real honor to get to shoot and own an M1 Garand.
The Navy dragging its feet in small arm conversion is kind of the normal pattern. After they did finally adopt the M-14 they continued to use the M-14 long after other services had converted to the M16 and its follow on variants.
FirstToken they still use a mk14 rifle. Because .308 hits harder and reaches further. Better at wrecking pirates and their boats..
Handheld firearms aren't really a high priority in the navy, they already have rifles and 7.62 is still a standard NATO round so no real reason for them to change.
look at the ranges our navy expects to be firing at. the extra power of the 308 is often necessary
Indeed they did. Our landing party used the conversion along with the M14. They were both perfectly good weapons. I was the SAR and got to try and fire the M14 and the M14A1 on auto. My story of this is on Ian's video of firing the M14 on full auto. He and I had similar experiences, which were foul.
I have too agree. It made a lot more sense for them to do this conversion than to get the new rifle. You are not exactly going head to head with enemy forces with your rifle in the navy with the rare exception of a landing party.
Rather than replacing the barrel, they might have threaded the chamber and the plug and screw the plug in, maybe, with a couple of prick-punches to the rear edge of the plug just in case.
We rechambered m1 grand to 7.62x54 and 7.62x51 and also in 8mm Mauser
After reading the comments I now understand that they used the same clips. I would be curious to know how the logistics of this worked. Did the arsenal keep making new clips and do runs of ammo to package into them just for navy use, or did they salvage now surplus ammo, take the .30-06 out and put 7.62 in instead? Either way it seems like a bit of a hassle.
Saw some with drilled and pins to hold the plug in place.
Did San Diego RTC IN 1970 and we did our firearm qualification was with the 7.62 M1 Garand. On the ship I served on we had M1 Carbines not Garands. It is my understanding that the Navy would continue using the Carbine until 1973.
Denmark had the M1 Garand in 7.62mm NATO until quote recently. I wonder if those had any connections with this NAVY conversion....
kinda, my navy match rifle clone I made actually has a danish rear sight cover with 7.62 nato and the navys anchor etched in to it. the Danes did it them selves from rifles given to them.
I used to serve in the german army during cold war in the late eighties. When it came to ammo we hat a little prob with the H&K G3. We used 7.62 x 51, the Warsaw Pact did use 7.62 x 53 that does not fit to the G3. If I look at this Garand and its mag.... It would be a nice way to clear this prob uninstall the spacer in the mag to use both kind of ammo. This youst in case you had to use ammo from the enemy.
7.62x53R ammo is a fat, rimmed cartridge the Finnish used, very similar to the Russian 7.62x54R. And then there is the 7.65x53 Mauser cartridge used by Argentina and Belgium. Are you referring to one of these? None would be simply convertible into a 7.62x51 NATO chamber.
Sheesh, by the time they got them they might as well have just waited for M16's
SgtKOnyx the navy expects to be firing at longer ranges with their rifles. they need the extra power of the 308
@@garrettholland664 no we dont, we use rifles at the ecp and for patrolling the weather deck in port
@@sdivine13 then an m1 is plenty good enough
Again the main reason the navy went with this rifle was cost.
@@roboticrebel4092 the m1 was fine, and so was the m14, my point was were not only firing long range.
Thank you for your insights and knowledge
Years ago, when the South Korean guns were imported, I bought one with a shot out barrel and had a gun smith barrel it to 308 I did not have him shorten the follower, but I did have him stamp the caliber above the chamber.
Ian forgot to mention the stock requires 2 small cutouts to accommodate the white spacer block
There is no modification needed to install the spacer block, I have 2 M1's in 7.62x51, one with the plastic spacer (which you can purchase from the CMP), the other with a steel insert from Italy, which made M1's under license in 7.62x51, known as the BM-59. the inserts simply slip in with no mods needed. There are videos on Youtibe that show this process.
A friend of mine has a 7.62 Nato Garand by accident.I dont know if its a rebuild or an original Navy rifle.He bought it at a gun show as the vendor was packing up and didnt learn it was this way until he went to put a clip in it when we were doing some shooting a little later.That spacer block saved him because he had some 3006 rounds loaded in clips.
I believe the civilian marksmanship program is still making the conversion and selling M1s in 7.62 NATO
Introducing the NATO version made life a little easier in places like Vietnam where we used the belted 7.62-NATO (308) rounds in the M60.
it is nice to hear some one say John Garands name correctly.
Saw one company doing a conversion with a threaded plug on a hydraulic locked spindle
This is really cool.
My grandfather was in the navy in the late 60s, he always complained about how heavy the damn things are.
I got a Garand last week, made by Beretta for the Danish Army, in .30-06. I am looking for any info I can get on this production, how many were made? When? I only found a total production number of around 20k but for both calibers, 7.62Nato and .30-06.
And yes, you can fire a .308 in a .30-06 Garand, don't ask how I know...
A very minor point, AMF is American Machine and Foundry, not Forge.
Interesting idea. Kind of makes me wonder, were there many actually successful major service rifle conversions? (Be it caliber conversions, semi-auto or otherwise)
Canada took Browning 1919 MGs and converted them to 7.62 NATO and disintegrating link ammo. I would hardly call it successful though. I understand the US rejected to design. I used them during my service and besides being a beast to lug around compared to the MAG 58 we eventually got they were horribly unreliable. It takes more recoil energy to feed from a disintegrating link than it does from a cloth belt, and the gun had lower recoil energy. The size of the hole in the barrel bearing plug was reduced to boost the energy but it still was not that reliable.l
Beretta did Two Garands converted to 7,62 for the Italian Armed Forces.
First Version, standard M1 barrel chambered in 7,62 Nato; Second Version, 30 cal Barrel set-back and rechambered to 7,62 NATO.
Both these used 7,62 cartridges delivered in 8 round En-bloc clips.
Only recently released to Surplus Market by FAET.
DocAV
Interesting gun i only ever hear of the "tanker garands" in 7.62 nato.
And Ian, Mod is modification not model. I'm sorry had to say it it annoyed me. So thought id let you know.
So the ballistics of 30-06 and 308 are close enough to not require modified sights? Or did I miss that?
The specification for .308 was to have an identical ballistic path to 30-06. Improvements in gunpowder allowed for a short action case that was over a centimeter shorter than 30-06
That's handy, thanks for the info.
Not necessarily true if i recall. It wasn't so much improvements in gunpowder it was that the 30:06 originally had much more powder in the case, but was dumbed down later. So they decided to make the case smaller since they weren't using the extra space anyway. Could be wrong, though.
Well there is a deference in speed but not that much in the ballistic threat level the level 4 has .30-06 Springfield as the level 4.
I'm petting my MK2 mod 1❤ and watching this video
Hear I am thinking about bearings where you heat the part receiving bearing and freezing the bearing when the heat is completed you tap in the bearing when both equalize it's a super tight fit.
Why didn't they just do that?
barrel heats up when firing
I suspect that who ever it was that sold the whole "Plug" idea was out of credibility after two fails. Making new barrels might have cost more but there would be no surprises waiting. They were tired if surprises.
Is there any difference between 30-06 clip and 7.62 clip?
Nope, .308 and .30-06 share the same case width, so the clips are identical
TheGoldenCaulk thanks! I was wondering that too
It would probably be the bullets in a clip of 30-06 that would hit that plastic bit in the well, since the '06 is longer than 7.62N... If someone lost the block and stuck 30-06 in there, it simply wouldn't go fully into battery when the bolt was released.
No you use the same clip the .308 case is wider at the point the clip holds on to so they are a bit harder to put in but they function just fine. 30-06 has a slight taper to the outer case wall as were the .308 is straight walled.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield#/media/File:Cartridge_30-06.png
I have a m1 garand converted to 7.62NATO, but the barrel is from 1963 and it doesnt even say 7.62mm on it, nor does it have the manufacturer print on, it does have a military proof mark though, and the receiver is in the early 800 thousands which is cool, wondering if this is a navy conversion or just made to look like one? got it for cheap any ways.
The .30-06 clips hold the fatter 7.62x51mm rounds too tight, which can cause feeding issues. This was addressed by opening up the gas port, but that beats up the rifle. The US Navy should have adopted the M14.
I'm hoping Ian will be able to find one of the m1 garands chambered in 458 winchester someday
I qualified at the US Naval Academy with the 7.62 version in 1968..
these extra barrels floating around - they do or do not have H&R or AMF stamped on them?
Hello -
It sold for $2300 in 2017.
I'm M1 rookie and want my 1st M1.
Q1. Is Navy M1 308 as desired as a collectible when compared to the legendary M1 30-06 ?
Q2. What's est price (Navy 308) to buy today & where ?.....est price M1 30-06 ?
Q3. How many genuine Navy 308 out there to buy ?
thanks to all.......sammy
Springfield armory re made some m1s in 308 and 30 06 a few years ago
Not the same Springfield Armory. The US government arsenal that designed and built the M1 rifle was closed in 1968. A group of investors bought the rights to the name and set up the commercial gun company that exists today.
What was that weird noise at 1:53/8:47
I just bought a 308 converted m1 for 500 from a buddy who was selling his dads collection. I have zero knowledge on the functionality of it, marking or anything, just the history and that's why I bought it. But I was so confused as to why there was a little plastic piece in there. Pretty sure that's all I needed to know. They guy even threw in 40 rds of 30-06 thinking the same thing I did haha
I remember seeing those chamber adapters for sale, always wondered how they'd work.
One of these just popped up for sale recently and i realllyy wish i could ask you about it lol. Time to hit the books
Hi Ian, Is the same clip used for loading the 7.62 as for the 30-06?
Yes, you can use the same clips.
I have one in my collection with the original plug conversion.
The price estimation on this one doesn't seem crazy. I'll have to keep an eye on it
I want an og m1 garand so bad