30-06 M2 bullets

[samari46]

Thank you gentlemen for your historical, factual, information and experiences most appreciated. And thanks for your service. Frank

[Multigunner]

" Recall if you will that we went from the 55 grain FMJ in VN to the 63 grain green tip in Desert Storm to the 77 grain projectile we are often using now."

Apples and oranges don't begin to describe comparison between .30 caliber and .22 caliber rifle cartridges. The 77 gr projectile weighs little more than half as much as the .30 M2 bullet.
The .223/5.56 didn't have the range they wanted for recent combat situations, the 7.62 with 147 gr bullet as used in LMGs and Designated Marksmen weapons (though I'm sure they also use M118 when available) helps take up the slack by giving practically the same performance as M2 Ball had done.

They speak these days of reclaiming the "Infantry Half Kilometer" the 500 meters that WW1 and WW2 Infantry rifle fire dominated so handily using the .30-06 Ball and then the M2, with 7.62 M80 Ball for the most part recreating the proven combination of bullet weight and velocity.

The only point to this entire discussion is that M2 Ball was in fact the best available ammunition for use with the Garand when that rifle was adopted. It stressed the action less, recoiled less than M1 Ball, provided sufficient accuracy and range, and its terminal performance on flesh was as gruesome as any one might wish of an FMJ bullet without resorting to two piece cores or other dodges.

[Larry Gibson]

Since the thread has been revived, though without any additional information to speak of I should add that M2 AP was not on average (all things being equal) as accurate at ranges up to 600 yards as was the M2 Ball. The acceptable Mean Radius of M2 AP was about half again as much as the M2 Ball, most likely due to increased yaw at the muzzle of the longer bullet and the known and proven fact that M2 AP did not fully stabilize till it had traveled a good two hundred yards, which in part negated its otherwise outstanding penetration. If anything this made M2 more deadly at close range due to tumbling of the longer bullet inside the body of the victim.

Just have to love it when someone googles some "specification", assumes all ammunition made meets those numbers and makes assumptions based off that misinterpretation. Apparently our expert here assumes his interpretation is factual. He ignores all those '03 and M1 match shooters along with most snipers in the Korean War who preferred M2AP over M2 ball because it was more accurate, especially at longer ranges. The poor performance and inconsistency of M2 ammunition did not lend itself to match winning scores nor hits on enemy personnel at longer ranges. M2 AP did and it was the coveted choice. Reason was it was consistent lot to lot and gave an honest 2600+ fps with the 165 gr AP bullet. M2 on the other hand varied from 2450 to 2800 fps lot to lot and they could never depend on what the next lot would do. With M2 AP they could. But then let us not let reality interfere with "known and proven fact that M2 AP did not fully stabilize......" Known by whom and what proof? Oh, yeah, excuse me.....MG read it on the internet.........

"Since the M1 Ball saw far less use in combat than either of the above cartridges I could find no information on terminal effects."

Obviously MG is oblivious to the fact that everything is not to be found on the internet.......apparently he's not read of actions in Central America and the Far East where M1 Ball was used with great affect in the M1919s, M1903s and BARs. Obviously he never read of the very affective use of M72 (match load identical load to M1 Ball)in Viet Nam in M1903A4s and M70s. Obviously he never read all the reports of the effectiveness of the M118 bullet out of M14NM rifles, M21s and M40 rifles. Problem is MG hasn't a clue what he's talking about as evidence by his completely incorrect next statements.

"The closest modern cartridge and bullet would be the M118 7.62X51. No direct comparison can be made because the bullet of the M118 is an open point with enclosed base while the M1 Ball is an open base with fully enclosed nose. The wound channel of the M118 bullet is often fairly large due to separation of the core and fragmentation of the jacket. These effects are very inconsistent from one shot to another. If the bullet holds together wounds can be through and through with little disruption of tissue."

I guess MG couldn't find, even on the internet, the correct facts. The XM118, M118 White Box and M118SB bullet is and always was a FMJBT similar to the M72 bullet which is identical to the M1 Ball bullet sans a cannelure. The M118 bullet does not have an open point and the base is open. Here's what a gob of M118 bullets look like;

Attachment 193858

Here's the boxes for M72 and M118 White box, note the bullet is the same.

Attachment 193859

Here's a pair each of M1 Ball, M118 and Sierra MKs

Attachment 193860

I would guess what MG managed to find on the internet is a description of the M118LR bullet which is the Sierra 175 gr MK. His obvious lack of actual experience with any of the ammunitions under discussion leads him continuously to make wrong guesses about them.

Here is the M1 Ball bullet and an M72 bullet. The only difference being the two bullets is the cannelure. Both were loaded to 2640 - 2648 fps depending on which "data sheet" specification you read.

Attachment 193861

"The heavy boat tail bullet is best for extreme range sniping, but medium and close range lethality with rapid incapacitation is to be preferred by the infantry rifleman.
Every military on the planet seems to agree with me on that point."

Again MGs lack of experience and incorrect assumptions would lead to just about every "military on the planet" laughing at him. He has absolutely no idea nor 1st hand experience of what a 173 gr FMJBT at 2550 to 2640 fps can do at close range to an enemy combatant compared to any 5.56 projectile. We have a saying; "what is cover to 5.56 (including the current Russian cartridge) is only concealment to 7.62 NATO. Better than Master Card or VISA, 7.62 NATO.....never leave home without it...." That was derived from experience on the battlefield by infantrymen, not gleaned off the internet........as Scharfschuetze say MG; "let it go".

Larry Gibson

[Scharfschuetze]

While we don't talk about it much, those that have seen what a rifle of almost any military calibre, 5.56mm or 7.62mm, can do to a biped at close range... cringe at the memory. Those that haven't just have no idea and no credibility in an argument over it. Those that have sometimes develop some serious mental issues.

While he won't mention it, Larry knows first hand what it feels like to suffer such abuse. He brought home the rifle of the VC soldier that shot him. Both were using full power 7.62mm calibre weapons. Larry won. I'm here today having also won a night time close range gun fight when ambushed.

Let it go MG. High velocity rifle fire is catastrophic to the body at close range. Doesn't much matter what calibre or bullet style it is. I see the results of it all the time at my biannual visits to the VA hospital.

[Multigunner]

I've seen men die of wounds, I've treated gun shot wounds. Don't for a moment think you know anything about my personal experiences. I don't lose sleep over it, and I often wonder why I don't. I guess my earliest memory as a child being a man carried past me with both legs torn off at the hip joints may have had some effect.
I certainly know the difference between a clean through and through and a wound made by a bullet that tumbles in flesh.

"Let it go MG. High velocity rifle fire is catastrophic to the body at close range. Doesn't much matter what calibre it is. "
It makes quite a bit more difference than you seem to think it would, most especially when living targets hide behind substantial barriers or are firing on you from beyond the effective range of your poodle shooter.

You answers are simplistic to say the least, as if people stood around bare chested inviting a bullet.
Bullets of different calibers and types can behave very differently in flesh, I'd have thought anyone who did much shooting knew that much.
Much of recent development of the 5.56 has been to improve performance from the shorter barrel of the M4. Rounds that were very lethal when fired from the M16 often failed to stop an enemy when fired from the M4 due to the lesser velocity.

We've all read the reports on similarity of wounds of 7.62 and 5.56, mostly from when the 55 gr bullet from the M16 could be relied on to tumble wildly in flesh. At three hundred yards that 55 gr bullet was less deadly than the .30 Carbine at the same range. the 7.62 could walk through a sturdy tree and do the same damage.
I've seen the 55 gr bullet from a CAR turn sideways and the jacket flatten spraying its core like dust shot after traveling through no more than three inches of a dry rotted stump. The remains of that bullet wouldn't have penetrated a field jacket much less caused serious harm to a human body.

M80 Ball remains supersonic well beyond 800 yards, beyond the range that a rifleman using iron sights could be expected to hit a individual enemy, much less put the bullet in a narrow kill zone.

A rifle fitted with telescopic sights can make better use of the heavier boat tail match grade bullets of the M118 just as Marine snipers of WW2 could make good use of the M1 Ball when they could still get it for their bolt action Springfields fitted with Unertal scopes as long as your arm. Scoped Garands were not standard issue.

Some seem to rocket back and forth between bemoaning the fact that the .276 wasn't adopted and doing the same that the M1 Ball wasn't made the standard issue. They seem to think that the M2 Ball was not effective enough, then sing the praises of the 5.56.

I'm not the one grasping at straws by trying to compare a 77 gr .22 to a 152 gr .30. There are good reasons why the 5.56 is classed as an Assault Rifle cartridge while the .30-06 and 7.62 are classed as Main Battle Rifle cartridges.

[Scharfschuetze]

You answers are simplistic to say the least, as if people stood around bare chested inviting a bullet.

Well yes, it's a pretty simple topic. Almost all of our enemies have been unarmored wearing only shirts, silk PJs, robes or jackets over their bare chests. It's really only since 911 that even US or Soviet soldiers have enjoyed ceramic body armor that is capable of stopping a rifle round. The average Roman Legionare was more heavily armored than the average soldier in the 20th Century.

So let's review.

John Garand designed the M1 Rifle for M1 Ball ammo. He could not have done otherwise as that was the issue ammo at the time.

The National Guard Bureau requested training ammo with an obsolete bullet design to reduce drastically the maximum range of M1 Ball in order to stay with in the safety zone of their abbreviated ranges. As we know, that round was a rehash of the 1906 Ball round that was found lacking in combat in WWI and which generated the need for a better round.

John Garand was against using M2 Ball ammo in the M1 Garand fearing that it would not provide enough impulse to operate the action. He was wrong on that point as M2 has operated the M1 Rifle well as far as reliability goes. Still, as the designer of the rifle, he was a proponent of the M1 Ball load and not a training load. Please review Larry Gibson's pressure testing of all the types of M1 ammo. Arguments that M1 Ball was of too high a pressure do not hold water.

War Department doctrine prior to WWII was to obsolete M1 Ball in favor of the armor piercing ammunition and relegate M2 Ball to its designed use: that of training ammo. Of course the vagaries of mass conscription and fighting a war on several fronts disrupted that policy, but by 1944 and the invasion of Europe, that policy was in effect in the ETO.

Given the lack of performance at longer ranges of the M2 Ball load, US Ordnance reintroduced the M1 Ball load as the M72 load for issue when M2 ammo was insufficiently accurate or ranged.

Granted, the M2 Ball load soldiered well in various conflicts and even as training ammo it was generally more powerful than Japanese and Italian military loads.

My comments about the increasing weights in the 5.56mm over time are valid... as that is exactly what happened with the 30/06 round the correlation between the two is obvious to an unbiased observer.

I guess my real question is why someone would continue to champion an obsolete and inferior bullet design over a much better projectile. Arguments that the M1 can't stand up to the M1 or later M72 load just don't hold water. I was issued M72 ammo for use in the M1D rifle and we never had any issues. I've shot thousands of rounds of DCM issue M72 in the M1 in matches and I've never had a problem. In fact, my match conditioned M1 Garand is on its third barrel (who knows how many before me) and I'm still using the same oprod that it came with in 1976.

The US Navy was mentioned earlier and it was intoned that they bent their oprods with the later M118 load used in their M1 Garands. I personally shot against and talked often with the US Navy shooters at several matches. Their old salts using the M1 in 7.62 NATO never mentioned an oprod problem. What they did talk about was chamber inserts getting ejected in the early barrels modified for the 7.62 NATO and the plastic or nylon magazine filler insert for the shorter 7.62 round proving to be an unnecessary part, which they threw away to a man.

I might add that the Colorado Rifle Association's junior shooters all used M1 Garands chambered in 7.62 NATO and they shot M118 ammunition in them. At times I saw up to 10 or more of these on the shooting line at the big Colorado matches in the 80s. I never heard one complaint about them. They were very noticeable as their birch stocks were finished without stain and they really stood out when you looked down the line from your position scoring the shooter in front of you.

One DCM rifle club that I belonged to in the 80s had 13 M1 Garands that were lent out to members for use in the DCM (now CMP) matches. These rifles were long in the tooth, but they handled the DCM issue M72 ammo with aplomb. No issues with oprods. The barrels just kept getting replaced as necessary as well as rear sight parts, hammers and other trigger components as they wore out. The oprods were like the Ever Ready Bunny. They just kept on going and going.

If the M2 Ball bullet had been a superior military projectile, then why was the 7.62 NATO bullet designed with a boat tail with a sharper ogive that is very similar to the M1 bullet other than weight and not the flat base M2 design? I have used the M80 round against soft targets on deployment at up to and slightly over 1,000 yards. An M2 bullet would have just not done the job nearly as well, so again, why wasn't the M2 bullet adopted as the projectile for the M80 round?

MG I know that you are getting upset, but please just look at the facts and don't rely on emotion for your argument when defending what is arguably an inferior design of bullet. With your interest in firearms and ammunition, did you ever join the Army and try for the Ordnance Corps?

[M-Tecs]

The US Navy was mentioned earlier and it was intoned that they bent their oprods with the later M118 load used in their M1 Garands. I personally shot against and talked often with the US Navy shooters at several matches. Their old salts using the M1 in 7.62 NATO never mentioned an oprod problem. What they did talk about was chamber inserts getting ejected in the early barrels modified for the 7.62 NATO and the plastic or nylon magazine filler insert for the shorter 7.62 round proving to be an unnecessary part, which they threw away to a man.

I might add that the Colorado Rifle Association's junior shooters all used M1 Garands chambered in 7.62 NATO and they shot M118 ammunition in them. At times I saw up to 10 or more of these on the shooting line at the big Colorado matches in the 80s. I never heard one complaint about them. They were very noticeable as their birch stocks were finished without stain and they really stood out when you looked down the line from your position scoring the shooter in front of you.

One DCM rifle club that I belonged to in the 80s had 13 M1 Garands that were lent out to members for use in the DCM (now CMP) matches. These rifles were long in the tooth, but they handled the DCM issue M72 ammo with aplomb. No issues with oprods. The barrels just kept getting replaced as necessary as well as rear sight parts, hammers and other trigger components as they wore out. The oprods were like the Ever Ready Bunny. They just kept on going and going.

In addition to the above mentioned teams the Air Force and Air National Guard teams were issued M1's in 7.62. I had 20 of them to maintain. M72 or mex match with some being rebarreled 6 or 7 times. All had original op rods. The piston was replaced as needed. Later when we received M14"s they mostly were used for honor guard duty.

[Multigunner]

"As we know, that round was a rehash of the 1906 Ball round that was found lacking in combat in WWI and which generated the need for a better round."
The .30-06 Ball round was not "found lacking" as an infantry rifle cartridge. You have a way of mischaracterizing.

As Hatcher put it those WW1 machinegunners who had wished for a longer ranged round were falling by the wayside long before the Garand or M2 ball came along. Have you ever wondered why M2 ball became the standard for the 1919 and other US .30 MGs?
Extreme range volley fire had never caught on with the 20th century armies, even the British dropped that tactic early in WW1.
Extreme range rifle caliber MG fire also fell by the wayside as more efficient auto cannon and .50 MGs became commonplace.

Had the Garand been designed specifically for the M1 Ball and nothing else it might have functioned better with M1 Ball, but it did not.

"Arguments that M1 Ball was of too high a pressure do not hold water."
Nothing in Larry's posts about his limited testing of one batch of 1928 headstamped M1 Ball would lead me to believe that 30's M1 Ball had a low gas port pressure. As I mentioned standard M1 Ball used 1185 long grain slow burning powder. For less than two years ending about 1928 they used short cut faster burning 1186 powder which metered better but in the end proved less accurate.

"The US Navy was mentioned earlier and it was intoned that they bent their oprods with the later M118 load used in their M1 Garands. I personally shot against and talked often with the US Navy shooters at several matches. Their old salts using the M1 in 7.62 NATO never mentioned an oprod problem. "

I said nothing about op rods bending when M118 ammunition was used. Re read the post if you failed to see that the ammunition that bent the op-rods was M72 .30-06 Match ammunition.

You seem to have completely lost track of the fact that excessive gas port pressure caused bent and broken op rods and fractured receiver heels, not bullet weight itself. Either that or your inability to counter the argument has led you to erect strawman arguments.

"If the M2 Ball bullet had been a superior military projectile, then why was the 7.62 NATO bullet designed with a boat tail with a sharper ogive that is very similar to the M1 bullet other than weight and not the flat base M2 design? "
You might as well ask why the M14 has a slower rate of twist while you are at it. Early test versions of what would become M80 ball did have a flat based bullet.
As you point out the boat tail of the M80 bullet does slightly increase the accurate range, as does the slower twist.
the 1:10 twist of the 1903 and the Garand was a result of stabilizing the original 220 gr bullet of the .30 1903 Ball. Just as the 1:10 twist of the Lee Enfield was designed to stabilize the 215 gr bullet originally used for the .303.
A better question might be why they didn't adopt a boat tail 152 gr bullet as the M2 Ball. Best guess is that they did not consider it at all necessary since the flat base .30-06 worked just fine.
I strongly suspect that the .30 M2 Ball fired from the Garand is still more lethal than the M80 when fired from the M14 despite their being ballistic twins, due to the over spin effect of the Garand rifling. excessive speed of rotation increases likelihood of bullet fragmentation in flesh.

Enough for now.

BTW
I've read that Townsend Whelen pressure tested some WW2 era M2 Ball and found it generated only 42,000 CUP rather than 48-50,000 CUP.

The acceptable Mean Radius at 600 yards
of M2 Ball intended to be packed in enbloc clips was 5.5 in and M2 Ball intended for linking in MG belts had an acceptable Mean Radius of 7.5 in. The acceptable Mean Radius of M2 AP was 10 inches.
Its likely that any serious complaints about accuracy of M2 Ball come from use of old delinked MG ammo, some of which was loaded using slow burning powders.
M2 ball that passed the tighter accuracy standards was meant to be reserved for use in the Garand and 1903A3 rifles.

I'm still amazed that Dunn would consider a single worn out range beater 1903 shooting 10 inch groups to be representative of the Springfield rifles as a whole. That alone casts doubt on much that he has written.

"MG I know that you are getting upset"

I'm not upset but I am vexed when you can't even keep track of the actual arguments or what's been posted earlier. Snide assumptions and blind acceptance of scattered quotes by gun writers who seem to have done most of their research while in their cups and statements that defy common sense and the laws of physics are commonplace on these forums, I'm used to it by now.

[mac1911]

Why not just buy a better bullet.
Most of these M2 type bullets offered are only a few pennies less than the nosler 155s and 168s when on sale.
Why waste time trying to duplicate M2 ammo when it was good enough for GI at 5moa ish

[Larry Gibson]

Why not just buy a better bullet.
Most of these M2 type bullets offered are only a few pennies less than the nosler 155s and 168s when on sale.
Why waste time trying to duplicate M2 ammo when it was good enough for GI at 5moa ish

That is exactly what Scharfschuetze and I recommended to Char-Gar (the OP). We suggested at least to use the Winchester 147 gr FMJBT or, preferably, the Hornady 150 FMJBT (Both basically M80 bullets). Both those bullets are more accurate in M1903 and M1 rifles than all but a very few lots of M2 ammunition. The only M2 that I've found as accurate was made to original specification of 2810 fps and there was very little of that made. Most all M2 was made to 2650 - 270 fps or 2450 - 2500 fps. The M80 bullets were also designed with a sharper ogive and boat tail for better long range performance and lethality as the M80 would tumble in flesh.

Additionally, the match quality bullets you mention are excellent choices but still cost considerably more than M80 type bullets. However, even Speer, Hornady and Sierra 150 and 165 gr SPs or SPBTs (or their BT counterparts) are an excellent choice of intermediate cost. Then there are cast bullets.........

Only one person here seems to be enamored with the M2 bullet and ammunition.

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

Not sure where MG gets his "facts" from. He can't even manage to get Dunlap's (Dunn?) name correct.........since MG doesn't apparently believe Dunlap to be correct perhaps he should carefully read Col Whelen and Col Hatcher......Col Whelen was in charge of Frankford Arsenal during the development of M1 ammunition. Col Hatcher took over in 1923 and in 1925 (quoting Hatcher) "the type E, 9 degree boat tailed bullet was adopted as standard for both rifles and Machine guns, and the ammunition is called the .30 caliber M1." [pages 24 and 25 of Hatcher's Notebook]. On page 29 Col Hatcher describes the adoption of M2 and considered it as "going backwards".

That's pretty much straight from the horses mouth and is good enough for me.

BTW; Dupont IMR #1185 was made for the M1 Ball cartridge. #1185 was introduced in 1926 and was still in manufacture in 1937. #1186 was another "lot" of the same powder but it was stated "it was not a standardized powder and differs lot to lot." IMR 4064 and IMR 4320 were introduced in 1935. IMR 4895 was introduced for use in M2 ammunition as it metered more uniformly through the loading machines than #1185, IMR4064 or IMR 4320. All per Philip Sharpe but then I suppose he didn't know what he was talking about anymore than Dunlap, Whelen or Hatcher did.......

Larry Gibson

[Larry Gibson]

An interesting note is my "limited test" (do we know of anyone who has conducted an "extensive" test of M1 Ball lately?) of FA 28 Ball ammunition was quite interesting. The specified velocity for M1 Ball is 2640 fps at the muzzle. The FA28 M1 Ball I tested produced 2638 fps at the muzzle with a very uniform 57,000 psi(M43). The accuracy was on par with the best of any M72 Match I've tested or used. The FA 28 produced a group at 100 yards of 1.3"

I also recently tested 4 lots of M2 ball (20 round cardboard boxes) loaded to original M2 specification of 2810 fps; SL52, SL43 and TW42 and FA42. The group accuracy (10 shots) of those at 100 yards out of the same test rifle was 2.4", 2.25", 2.3" and 2.2".....all excellent and the best performing M2 Ball I've ever tested.

Conversely, out of the same test rifle, 8 rounds in M1 clips of LC 68 M2 Ball produced 2655 fps at the muzzle and a 4" group at 100 yards. That is typical of all lots of M2 Ball I've tested loaded to NG specifications of 2450 - 2700 fps.

The M80 bullet (pull downs, bulk purchase from Widners) loaded to 2650 fps over 4895 runs 2 moa or less out of the same test rifle and 2 - 2 1/2 moa out of my M1903A1 with issue sights.

Larry Gibson

[Outpost75]

Larry's data agrees with my own, testing LC43, TW54 and LC69 Ball M2, FA34 Ball M1 and FA49 APM2 and LC63 M72. Interestingly the LC63 M72 was delinked from machinegun belts prepared for the Contras for Oliie North and Company.

[Larry Gibson]

........ Interestingly the LC63 M72 was delinked from machinegun belts prepared for the Contras for Oliie North and Company.

I worked with a SOF weapons NCO on a mission who assisted with that debacle some years back. He said they had to link the M72 because it was the same as M1 Ball which would function the MGs we were giving the CONTRAs. They couldn't find any M2 Ball that would reliably function the MGs (probably M1919A6s from the description he gave). He also said the M2 Ball (LC 60s) they first got wouldn't even function the M1918s either.

Larry Gibson

[Multigunner]

"That is exactly what Scharfschuetze and I recommended to Char-Gar (the OP). We suggested at least to use the Winchester 147 gr FMJBT or, preferably, the Hornady 150 FMJBT (Both basically M80 bullets). "

"The M80 bullet (pull downs, bulk purchase from Widners) loaded to 2650 fps over 4895 runs 2 moa or less out of the same test rifle and 2 - 2 1/2 moa out of my M1903A1 with issue sights."

Acceptance standards for M80 ball are exactly the same as they were for .30 M2 ball.

"I also recently tested 4 lots of M2 ball (20 round cardboard boxes) loaded to original M2 specification of 2810 fps; SL52, SL43 and TW42 and FA42. The group accuracy (10 shots) of those at 100 yards out of the same test rifle was 2.4", 2.25", 2.3" and 2.2".....all excellent and the best performing M2 Ball I've ever tested."

So you will at least admit that not all M2 ammunition was junk.
2MOA more or less agrees with my own experience when using non accurized bog standard Garands in good condition and clean WW2 era M2 Ball.

"Conversely, out of the same test rifle, 8 rounds in M1 clips of LC 68 M2 Ball produced 2655 fps at the muzzle and a 4" group at 100 yards. "

Looking over less opinionated posts in discussions of M2 Ball on other boards the consensus of opinion is that 1960's LC manufacture M2 Ball is the absolute worst ever produced.

"They couldn't find any M2 Ball that would reliably function the MGs (probably M1919A6s from the description he gave). He also said the M2 Ball (LC 60s) they first got wouldn't even function the M1918s either. "

Which would agree with the observations of others that 1960's era LC M2 Ball was of very low quality compared to WW2 era M2 Ball which apparently was very reliable in the 1919 just as the ballistic near twin WW1 .30-06 Ball proved to be in functioning the M1917 MGs.

Your experiences with ultra crappy 60's production M2 Ball has little to add to any discussion of the quality of WW2 M2 Ball or why the US Government chose to adopt the M2 Ball as the standard for Infantry rifle ammunition.

" The FA28 M1 Ball I tested produced 2638 fps at the muzzle with a very uniform 57,000 psi(M43)"
Then it performed better after more than 80 years of storage than brand spanking new 1928 Palma Match ammunition loaded at Frankfurt Arsenal with its Mean Radius of 5.85".
They were testing various powders at the time. The IMR 1147 powder used in 1928 for the Palma Match ammunition gave 2715 FPS with a chamber pressure of 42,000 CUP.
When 1186 was used chamber pressures varied greatly by lots. When lot #1619 was used chamber pressure was 49,685 CUP, when Lot # 1620 was used chamber pressure was 54,335 CUP.

BTW
Extreme long range MG fire was remarkably ineffective during WW2 other than to harass the enemy.
Troops found that at such extreme ranges the bullets would seldom break the skin and they used nothing more than loose duck boards and ration crate covers to shield their heads as they moved about. When artillery still had hooves such straffing as it was called could panic horses at best.
Also according to Hatcher tests of the M1 Ball proved it had rather poor penetration power at 200 yards penetrating only 18 inches of Oak while Hatcher presents photos of the M2 Ball penetrating 32 1/2" of Oak at 200 yards, at 50 yards before the bullet fully stabilized the M2 Ball only penetrated 11" of Oak which supports the short range lethality of the bullet due to tumbling and fragmentation . You'd think that it would be the other way around. The M1 Ball certainly offered the rifleman no real advantages at normal combat ranges.

Finding a few rounds of M1 Ball that appears to have out performed Palma Match ammunition with the same headstamp has given you reason to sing its praises, just as firing a lot of what is recognized as the worst M2 Ammo ever produced has soured you towards all M2 Ball.

At no point have I made any claim that M2 Ball of WW2 was some miraculous long range matchgrade ammunition. It was adequately accurate, extremely deadly and better suited to the Garand than M1 Ball would have been. That's simple enough to understand.
It certainly was not just some sort of training ammunition.

[Multigunner]

Excuse me
Correction.
"Hatcher presents photos of the M2 Ball penetrating 32 1/2" of Oak at 200 yards, at 50 yards before the bullet fully stabilized the M2 Ball only penetrated 11" of Oak "
That should be
"Hatcher presents photos of the .30-06 Ball penetrating 32 1/2" of Oak at 200 yards, at 50 yards before the bullet fully stabilized the .30-06 Ball only penetrated 11" of Oak "
Only difference between 1906 Ball and M2 was 2 grains weight and gilding metal rather than Cupro-Nickel jackets.

[Outpost75]

I worked with a SOF weapons NCO on a mission who assisted with that debacle some years back. He said they had to link the M72 because it was the same as M1 Ball which would function the MGs we were giving the CONTRAs. They couldn't find any M2 Ball that would reliably function the MGs (probably M1919A6s from the description he gave). He also said the M2 Ball (LC 60s) they first got wouldn't even function the M1918s either.

Larry Gibson

That answers alot of questions... Great quantities of TW APM2 and cal. .30 M72 were transferred from the Marines to FBI inventory in the late 1970s when the Marines retired their Model 70 Marksman, George Van Orden pattern WW2 and Korean era sniper rifles, which had been returned from Vietnam. These were fitted mostly with 8X or 10X Unertl Vulture scopes with dehorned mounts. PO'ed lots of people when the good cal. .30 ammo disappeared from the bunker in the middle of the night...

When the Remington M40 was adopted the Winchester Model 70s were "retired" with a few being retained by the USMC Scout-Sniper school, but the majority going to the FBI, some being for National Academy "school guns" and the rest being dispersed to FBI field offices across the country. At the time I was a DoD civilian tasked with screening the best rifles and ammo lots for issue to the field offices, and the remainder to be allocated to Quantico as National Academy training weapons, the Marines training FBI gun vault personnel to rework and maintain them. Several Marine Warrant officers were retired from the corps and picked up by the Bureau and tasked with rebuilding and maintaining those rifles for training screening out the best ones for HRT and the field offices.

BJ Obermeyer was the prime contractor for replacement barrels matching the original George Van Orden 1942 specs and JGS made the special chambering reamers and gages.

The original M70 Marksman stocks were duplicated by Boyt and pillar bedded in Fenwal or Marinetex after having been impregnated with ethylene glycol and pillar bedded for stability. Acceptance spec for the rebuilds was 10cm extreme spread for an average of five consecutive 10-shot groups at 300m with the best lot of ammo selected and "married" to the rifle. Unertl scopes were zeroed at 200m and data card with come-ups to 500m laminated to the stock.

This was 1980s...

[Larry Gibson]

"Acceptance standards for M80 ball are exactly the same as they were for .30 M2 ball."

That is an "acceptance standard" meaning that the 7.5" mean radii translates into right at 4 moa at 600 yards. That applies to M2 Ball as well as M80 Ball. The specification for M2 ball was set at 2810 fps also because that would reliably function the M1919 MG and variants along with the M1918s. Notice in the TMs and manuals there are no "acceptance standards" for the 2700 fps and very quickly further reduced to 2450 - 2500 fps training M2 ammunition. This is referred to in military terminology as "relaxed standards". the use of "relaxed standards" ammunition occurred recently in the current war. Non standard commercial M193 5.56 ammunition was procured in large quantities for training. I shot a lot of it during training of units for deployment to Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere. It was also the training ammunition used when my own unit trained up and deployed. It was also the ammunition that was provided during train up in Kuwait prior to deploying into Iraq. AND it was also the ammunition issued as the basic load for my units M16A2s and the M4s. The only M855 we were issued was the belted 5.56 for the M249s. You can read and quote all the specifications you can find on the internet but they most often do not reflect reality.

"So you will at least admit that not all M2 ammunition was junk.
2MOA more or less agrees with my own experience when using non accurized bog standard Garands in good condition and clean WW2 era M2 Ball."

Never said all M2 ammo was "junk". To the contrary I've posted several times noting what was the good M2 Ball. You just quoted where I praised several tested lots of M2 ammunition." You seem to have a problem keeping things straight? If the M2 ball you used was WWII lots of actual 2800 fps standard M2 ball then you probably did have good results. It was the issue of the relaxed standard M2 ball that causes the problems.

"Looking over less opinionated posts in discussions of M2 Ball on other boards the consensus of opinion is that 1960's LC manufacture M2 Ball is the absolute worst ever produced."

My "opinionated" posts are based on actual testing I have done, not simply quoting specifications of data sheets, referencing others opinions and misguided assumptions based on internet searches.

"They couldn't find any M2 Ball that would reliably function the MGs (probably M1919A6s from the description he gave). He also said the M2 Ball (LC 60s) they first got wouldn't even function the M1918s either. "

Which would agree with the observations of others that 1960's era LC M2 Ball was of very low quality compared to WW2 era M2 Ball which apparently was very reliable in the 1919 just as the ballistic near twin WW1 .30-06 Ball proved to be in functioning the M1917 MGs."

No it does not "agree" simply because the 2450 - 2700 fps M2 produced for the NG was for use in the M1903s and later the M1s. The linked M2 Ball still met the specification for M2 Ball of 2810 fps. Considerable commanders reports from the late '30s, '40s and '50s complaining the M2 ammunition issued for rifle use many times failed to function the M1918s. Particularly the those commanders reports found in the historical museums of state National Guards. But then you don't find that on the internet.

"Your experiences with ultra crappy 60's production M2 Ball has little to add to any discussion of the quality of WW2 M2 Ball or why the US Government chose to adopt the M2 Ball as the standard for Infantry rifle ammunition."

Contrary to your misguided opinion my posts here in this thread and in others reflects the results of actual testing of numerous different lots of M2 Ball ammunition from the early 1940s (during WWII) through the late 1960s. Most of the lots tested were from the '40s and '50s, not from the '60s. Most of those lots that were obviously the NG relaxed standard M2 all gave "crappy" results very comparable to the '60s M2. There were a couple exceptions where at least accuracy was good for ball ammunition even though the velocity was 2450 - 2650 fps. However, for the most part the relaxed standards NG M2 ammunition wasn't up to the better standards of M2 Ball meeting the 2810 fps and specified accuracy criteria. Again that is based on actual testing of numerous lots of M2 ammunition over the years from M1902s, M1s, target rifles, M191s and M1918s.

" The FA28 M1 Ball I tested produced 2638 fps at the muzzle with a very uniform 57,000 psi(M43)"
Then it performed better after more than 80 years of storage than brand spanking new 1928 Palma Match ammunition loaded at Frankfurt Arsenal with its Mean Radius of 5.85".

Any actual shooting experience and you would understand the difference between an "acceptance standard" of mean radii at 600 yards vs a group actually shot at 100 yards. The "acceptance standard" is the worst it could do at 600 yards, not what any lot of it actually did do. Also at 600 yards a group will be a larger than that the ammunition is capable of at 100 yards. That's because past 300-400 yards the parabolic curve of the group size becomes more measureable. You would know that if you had any actual long range shooting experience. A deeper internet search would also find other less opinionated information that says the same thing.

And what does the powders they were testing in Palma ammunition back then have to do with the powders used in M1 and M2 Ball ammunition? Many use slower powders in the '06 such as 4350, RL19 and 4831 with heavier bullets in bolt action rifles for enhanced performance. All of which are outside the specifications for M1 and M2 ball for use in M1 rifles, M1918s and M1919s. Your constant use of non germane internet factoids has nothing to do with the conversation and impresses no one.

"Also according to Hatcher tests of the M1 Ball proved it had rather poor penetration power at 200 yards penetrating only 18 inches of Oak while Hatcher presents photos of the M2 Ball penetrating 32 1/2" of Oak at 200 yards, at 50 yards before the bullet fully stabilized the M2 Ball only penetrated 11" of Oak which supports the short range lethality of the bullet due to tumbling and fragmentation . You'd think that it would be the other way around."

BTW; the 11" penetration of M2 was at 50 feet, not yards. Hatcher gives no direct comparison of bullet to bullet. However, have you considered the 18" of penetration at 200 yards of M1 Ball vs the shown 32 1/2" of M2 might be due to the M1 bullet causing more damage, dumping more energy and being more effective than the "stabilized" M2 bullet? Hatcher does not show a picture or mention the penetration of M1 Ball at 50 feet. Some of us with actual experience have seen the results of the same bullet at 2550 fps in human flesh at 50 feet to far beyond. Since you've no personal experience you should read the reports of Hathcock, Waldron and others who have also used the 173 gr bullet to great effect at close and far ranges.

" The M1 Ball certainly offered the rifleman no real advantages at normal combat ranges."

You have offered nothing but your own speculation on that. Your speculation differs from real experience of those who have used the M1 bullet.

"Finding a few rounds of M1 Ball that appears to have out performed Palma Match ammunition with the same headstamp has given you reason to sing its praises, just as firing a lot of what is recognized as the worst M2 Ammo ever produced has soured you towards all M2 Ball."

More assumption and speculation not based on fact. I simply have actually tested the various lots of ammunition and reported the actual results. Much different than simply quoting internet data sheets.

"At no point have I made any claim that M2 Ball of WW2 was some miraculous long range matchgrade ammunition."

No one said you made that claim. What was said was the M1 Ball ammunition and M2AP was better at long range than was standard M2 Ball and certainly better than the relaxed standards NG M2 ball.

"It was adequately accurate, extremely deadly and better suited to the Garand than M1 Ball would have been. That's simple enough to understand."

Standard M2 Ball certainly was "adequately accurate". The relaxed standard NG M2 Ball for the most part was not. You seem to continually fail to differentiate between the two different types of M2 Ball because the relaxed standards NG M2 is not listed on the data sheets. A whole lot of M1 shooters would disagree who shoot out to 600 yards with the M1 rifle. You won't find them using M2 Ball. In years past, pre M72 Match, you would find them using M2AP or reloads using the Sierra 180 gr MK. In the heyday of the M1 as the "service" rifle" you would find them all clamoring for M72 which is the ballistic twin of M1 Ball. That's the facts. And yes, it is "simple enough to understand".

"It [M2 Ball] certainly was not just some sort of training ammunition.

I certainly agree, M2 Ball was certainly not "just some sort of training ammunition". However, a great amount of relaxed standard NG M2 Ball was produced from the late 30s up through the late '60s and early '70s. That was "just some sort of training ammunition". Much of it found it's way to theaters of operation during WWII and Korea. That's where M2 Ball earned it's own poor reputation. I, nor Scharfschuetze had anything to do with it. Perhaps if you understood the difference in the 3 types of M2 Ball ammunition you would find it "simple to understand" but that information is not to be found on internet data sheets.

This discussion has run it's course so do us all a favor and let it go. You've made your point, we've made ours. You opinion won't change, neither will ours. However, the discussion is still valid if we stay on topic. Anything pertinent to the topic will certainly be welcome. Perhaps you could research the internet and find copies of the actual NG requests (there were 3 that I'm aware of) for the relaxed standards M2 Ball?

Larry Gibson

[Edward]

I followed this thread to its inevitable conclusion and Larry Gibson you absolutely know and have proven you have (been there and done that) you are the expert on most military weapons /and the use of them!

[Multigunner]

"Never said all M2 ammo was "junk". To the contrary I've posted several times noting what was the good M2 Ball. You just quoted where I praised several tested lots of M2 ammunition." You seem to have a problem keeping things straight? If the M2 ball you used was WWII lots of actual 2800 fps standard M2 ball then you probably did have good results. It was the issue of the relaxed standard M2 ball that causes the problems."

So what's your beef if any with my objection to characterizing the WW2 issue M2 ball as a "training" round?

Relaxed standard M2 Ball would have been the alternate mild steel jacket which was relegated to training purposes.

The only complaints about M2 Ball I've run across have been related to its use in the 1903A4 sniper rifle. The USMC used up as much M1 Ball as they could find for better performance at extreme long range. One Army Sniper interviewed in a documentary said he had tried to obtain better ammunition for his 03A4 from Machinegunners but they would not let loose of any. Whether that was M1 Ball or M2 AP I don't think he said.

"Much different than simply quoting internet data sheets."
So is Julian Hatcher some kid living in his mom's basement promoting internet myths? The information on 1928 Palma Match ammunition loaded using M1 Ball bullets came straight from his notebook.
The WW2 issue M2 Ball was certainly adequate to the task and operated the Garand near flawlessly while reducing recoil and its effects on the bedding on the Garand's wooden stock and reducing stress on the op rod as well as preventing damage to the receiver heel.

"Much of it found it's way to theaters of operation during WWII and Korea. That's where M2 Ball earned it's own poor reputation."
Excuse me but wasn't the claim made that M2AP was the standard issue for the Garand in the last months of the war in Europe and during the Korean War?
If any large amount of relaxed standard ammunition of any sort got to the front lines during the Korean War that's a major logistics SNAFU. The US as well as other allies had billions of rounds of WW2 Ammunition in storage for decades after the war, its unlikely that they'd run out of standard issue ammunition and have to resort to relaxed standard ammo. There was certainly no pressure from enemy bombings and submarine warfare during the Korean War, Eisenhower's Military Industrial Complex was still going full steam.

M2 AP has the potential for excellent accuracy , the long bullet and higher stands for the primers, but due to wartime pressure when the .30 rifle caliber MG was still in common use on older fighters and by gunners of bombers actual accuracy stands weren't that high. The more consistent and rapid ignition times aided shooters, but had no effect on test rigs that did not have trigger fingers or any tendency to flinch.

A cartridge may be theorectically more accurate but be held back by the effects of excessive recoil and shooter fatigue. I could shoot a hundred rounds of M2 Ball and not even notice the lasting effects of recoil till hours after packing up and going home. The less powerful .303 with its heavier bullet on the other hand made its effects known on the spot. The 7.92 Mauser if anything kicked worse that the .303 despite its more comfortable stock.

Have visitors bye for now.