Are we (SLIGHTLY) babying our M-1 Garands?

[MakeMineA10mm]

Let me get something out of the way, right up front: I'm not talking about cast boolit loads. This post/thread is regarding condom "full-power" (a.k.a. military-ammo simulation) loads.

I've been re-reading Hatcher's Book of the Garand (an NRA re-print of the original), and I've noted him providing historical and technical information and being rather defensive about some of the pre-war anti-Garand hysteria that was going on, especially regarding the ammo which the Garand can handle. I need my intelligent and experienced brothers here at CB to help me sort this through in my head...

Some interesting information is included by Hatcher about ammunition, and what the Garand was able to or even designed to handle. On page 74, he notes that in 1926, while Garand was working on his semi-auto rifle design, the government, with two ammunition changes which occurred simultaneously, caused Garand to start over, almost from a clean sheet of paper, on his design.

All of his designs prior to this were designed to use the power of the primer setting back approx. .030" against an enlarged firing pin head to impart energy to the unlocking mechanism contained within the bolt itself. (Pretty nifty idea - no gas system at all, pretty simple, straightforward and lightweight...)

Well, in 1926, the government adopted the idea of a crimped-in primer, apparently because primers were falling out of cases in machineguns. In addition, the government changed loads from a 150gr bullet with Pyro D.G. powder giving 2700fps to the M-1 Ball load which was a 172gr bullet with IMR powder giving 2640fps. Basically, these two changes meant Garand had to go to a gas system, because his original primer-actuation idea wouldn't work anymore, and the gas system would be designed from the outset to work with the M-1 load.

Julian Hatcher (the author of this book, as opposed to a couple other Hatchers [his brothers] who also worked for Army Ordnance) also was assigned to Frankfort Arsenal and includes details of the loads in question here (pg. 59, pgs 74-75, and pgs 125-127):


Ammo: Load: Powder: Bullet: Velocity: Max. Pressure:
Cal. 30 M1906: 45-50grs Pyro D.G. 150gr 2700 fps 50,000 psi
Cal. 30 M-1 Ball: 48-52grs I.M.R. 174gr 2640 fps 48,000 psi
Cal. 30 M1906 (1937): 152gr 2700 fps 48,000 psi
Cal. 30 M-2 Ball(1940): 152gr 2800 fps 50,000 psi
Cal. 30 M-1 A-P: 168gr 2775 fps 50,000 psi

On pages 126-127, Hatcher goes on at great length about the fact that the M-1 Garand Rifle, as it was being developed from 1926 onwards (after going away from primer-actuation) was being developed for use with M-1 Ball ammunition with 172gr bullet at 2640fps. He also describes that M-1 Ball ammo was standard-issue from 1936, when the Garand was officially adopted as the M-1 Rifle to 1939, when M-1 ammunition was declared limited standard, and that M-1 Ball was continued to be used and issued until after 1944, when it was declared obsolete. He goes on to point out in great detail that the M-2 Ball load was developed for the National Guard who complained that the new M-1 Ball load had too great a danger range to be safe at many of their ranges. They asked for continued production of the old M1906 load for training use at these ranges. Ordnance updated the cartridge by replacing the Cupro-Nickel jacket with a Gilding metal jacket, and M-2 was originally loaded and issued as limited standard. (Therefore, M-1 Ball was being used for at least four to five years as the primary load in the Garand.) Later still, the M-2 Ball load was tested against the M-1 Ball load to determine which was better for "searching the reverse slopes" of hills with machine gun fire, and when the M-2 Ball was found to be superior in that task with it's greater arching trajectory (1940), ordnance upgraded the load by 100fps, so it "would better match" the trajactory of the M-1 Armor Piercing load, and made the M-2 Ball standard over the M-1 Ball.

Now, there's some interesting food for thought here. First off, the government tends to be penny-wise and pound-foolish. They adopt the M-2 Ball because it is superior with it's arching trajectory for searching reverse slopes at 2000 yards, and then they turn around and increase it's velocity, which flattens the trajectory?!? Sounds more to me like they were wanting to save money on the extra 20grs of bullet vs. the M-1 Ball load to me, but this is purely my conjecture.

Anyway, more important to the discussion at hand are my following questions:

1) M-1 Ball ammo certainly fires a bullet at the top-end range of what most modern-day Garand shooters/reloaders recommend, and most I've read, say never to go over the 168gr HPBTs. To a man, all of them say avoid the 180gr bullets and heavier. Now, by my math, 180grs is only 6grs heavier than 174grs (which was the upper tolerance limit of weight for the M-1 ball bullet). Makes me go "hmmmmm". So, is there really a bullet weight limitation, or is it a matter of finding the right load that stays within pressure limits and produces the correct port pressure?

2) It seems to me that the oft-quoted mantra of "48.0grs of 4895" while a good load, is also very limited/restrictive. Looking at the Frankford Arsenal data in the book, it appears they loaded a pretty wide variation in powder loads, I'm sure after testing it to determine where the powder in question hit in regards to max pressure and port pressure. I'm sure we modern reloaders with like 200+ powders available to us, have a little more available to us than one powder and one load. I note Mike Venturino has loaded Varget, RL-15, 4064, and 4895 (at least) at 48.0grs. (I'm assuming under the theory that since they are all very close in speed to 4895, that the port pressure will not be too out of line.) So, don't we have more powder options open to us today that will work with our Garands???

3) It would be nice to have some data about Garand-load port-pressures from somebody like Hornady (who makes a Garand load) or the powder companies who should have the testing facilities to give us this information. I know Accurate Arms in it's two Data Manuals (before they sold out to Western Powders, and it went down to a little pamphlet) had an entire chapter devoted to military-rifle loads with appropriate port pressures for the rifles in question, including the Garand. In reviewing those loads, I always felt they were too hot, but now I'm starting to wonder. What I'm really interested in, is what about using a very-slightly slower powder than 4895, such as Varget or RL-15 with a 165gr hunting bullet, like the Nosler Partition in a load that gives appropriate port pressure, but still retains full-power velocities?? I'm thinking a simulation of the M-1 Armor Piercing load would be perfect with this bullet. Something like 49.0 or 50.0grs of one of those with the 165gr Nosler??

I have in my ammo locker M-2 Ball, M-1 Armor Piercing, and M-72 Match (173gr FMJ-BT) [basically a post-WWII Match-load duplication of the M-1 ball load, and I know the military loaded it for Garand use, because they come packed in the 8-rd clips...]. I plan on pulling the bullet from one or more of these and checking them to see what quantity of powder they're loaded with. I know when I pulled a bunch of M-2 ball WWII generation ammo, the powder load averaged 47.5grs (for a couple hundred rounds), but some rounds had as little as 45.5grs and some had 49+ grs of powder.

[Landric]

I am far from a Garand expert, though I do own and shoot one. I load my jacketed loads using data from the Hornady manual Garand section. I'm planning on working up some cast boolit loads for it eventually. The gun is a joy to shoot and I'll go so far as to say its my favorite of all my guns. The Garand is also an excellent piece of history that is, as far as I know, no longer in production anywhere.

So, lets say that we are in fact babying the Garand with current load data and practices. So what? Does an extra 100-200 fps really make that much of a difference, especially when its all north of 2500 fps? I'm not a match shooter when it comes to rifles, I use my Garand for fun, informal rifle side shoots at IDPA matches, and hunting. Given that, the jacketed bullets I load are 150 grains pretty much universally. Federal factory 150 grain soft points run about 2950 fps out of my Garand. They don't, in my experience, do anything better than my handloaded 150 grain bullets at 2700 fps. I only shot a couple of boxes of them, and I don't plan to shoot any more. No ill effects from the couple of boxes, but I don't see any reason to push anything.

So, while I may be babying my Garand a bit, I don't see any reason not to. Parts are getting more expensive and harder to find, and I can't simply go out and buy a new Garand if I wear mine out.

[MakeMineA10mm]

I don't disagree with any of your points.

Just for clarity, It's my belief that most of the bent op-rods were from more than a passing or occasional use of higher-powered loads, like the Federals you mention. Just a box or two spread out over a couple hunting seasons is not likely to give you much harm, I think, but this also feeds into my question and slightly erodes your position of it being wise to baby our Garands...

My point isn't so much that I want to squeeze every last little FPS out of a load, but rather that we have a slightly broader range of powder choices and loads than 48.0grs of 4895... If the 163-168gr AP bullet was launched at 2775 fps, I'd be perfectly happy with that with the 165gr Nosler. Not asking to "hot-rod" or get the last FPS out of the Garand. I just think that we can choose a broader spectrum of loads than has been commonly recited.

Another anecdotal piece of information in the book is that John Garand at one point loaded up incrementally until he got to the maximum amount of proof powder that he could fit into a 30-06 case and fired that in an M-1. (Hatcher even cites the serial number of the rifle in question.) No one with a pressure gun would fire the load in it to see what pressures it was developing out of fear of breaking the pressure guns, but it was definitely over 90,000 psi, and Garand estimated it at 120,000 psi. Upon firing, the case disintegrated and several parts broke, including the bolt, stock, and magazine floorplate. (I would guess the op-rod bent too, but it wasn't mentioned.) However, the barrel and receiver were totally fine, and the broken parts were replaced and the rifle was issued out for service. It was mentioned that the headspace barely changed... That story, while interesting, doesn't prove anything about sane loading practices, other than that we can really wreck a Garand with an overload.

When listening to what people think/say/hear about loading for the Garand, I get the feeling a lot (with the exception of some advanced cast boolit shooters here at CB) that everyone has a shudder go down their spine and thinks that if we stray .2grs one way or the other from 48.0grs of 4895, really bad things happen. I don't think so, but I would like to get others' input, especially if we can find data in some more places...

I didn't realize Hornady had a section on Garand loads. Which Edition is it? I think my newest Hornady is a Fourth or Fifth Edition. (It was the first one they split into two volumes.) It does not have a Garand data section. May have to buy one of those now... :-o

[Landric]

The Hornady manual I have is the 7th edition. There is an 8th edition that either just came out, or is about to. I have seen the 7th edition on sale for $15 or so since the announcement of the 8th edition, so it might make sense to get one now. I expect the 8th edition would also have Garand data, but I haven't actually seen one to verify that.

I re-read my first post and it sounded a little snotty. That was not my intent, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I expect the Garand can be pushed a little harder than conventional wisdom suggests, but its not something I am interested in trying myself. I would be interested in the results of others, if for nothing else than to expand my knowledge.

[MakeMineA10mm]

The Hornady manual I have is the 7th edition. There is an 8th edition that either just came out, or is about to. I have seen the 7th edition on sale for $15 or so since the announcement of the 8th edition, so it might make sense to get one now. I expect the 8th edition would also have Garand data, but I haven't actually seen one to verify that.

I re-read my first post and it sounded a little snotty. That was not my intent, and if it came off that way, I apologize. I expect the Garand can be pushed a little harder than conventional wisdom suggests, but its not something I am interested in trying myself. I would be interested in the results of others, if for nothing else than to expand my knowledge.

I didn't think your post was snotty at all! Hopefully you don't think mine is either, but after re-reading, I could see where it could sound that way too.

Thanks for the tip on the 7th Edition manual going on sale. I'll definitely do some scrounging around the sites today for it.

Yes, I'm sure there's people out there who have learned through experience that there is some flexibility involved with our Garands.

I'd love to see a lab make a 24" 30-06 barrel with a sloppy military chamber and a pressure measurement device at the appropriate point. I'd donate a box each of M-2 Ball, M-1 AP, and M-72 Match to them for calibration, and then I'd love to see what they come up with for port pressure and duration (time the pressure lasts) with those loads as well as commercial powders and bullets that are available today... I may have to contact some industry people and see if they're interested.

[Ole]

Just get an adjustable gas plug and shoot any (safe) ammo you want in your Garand.

I don't understand why everyone doesn't do this.

[smokemjoe]

I find that 48 gr. 4895, with 147 to 150 bullets in all my M1s is to hot, I dropped back to 44 grs. and shot better groups and not hard on the action.

[farmallcrew]

I only shoot jackected out of my Garand, my dad has all my reloading stuff and he made some loads for me to try in, nothing to hot, just for accuracy. But wont be bring the M1 out until spring. It habiernates in the winter.

[NickSS]

I have shot thousands of rounds through my M1s and love them. I shot them in competition a lot in the 70s and early 80 until I switched to an M1a in 308 for match shooting. I have shot bullets of 168 to 180 gr in the M1 with perfect satisfaction. I have used 3031, 4895, 4064, AA 2520, H 380, Blc2, h335, Win 748 and one of the reloader series but do not remember the number. I got my best results in an M1 with The first four powders. Most of my match ammo was loaded with them. Today I have an adjustable gas piston and have tried out several other powders including some slow burners that would give too high a port pressure and potentially damage my rifle except with the adjustable gas plug I can get it to work. I have ever fired 190 gr matchkings with 4350 powder with perfect satisfaction using the adjustable gas plug. These loads with the standard gas plug would definitely stress the op rod if it were not for the plug.

[madsenshooter]

MMA10MM, you hit the nail on the head when you said to develop a load that will stay within the pressure limits, AND develop the proper port pressure. Quickload can show you that the port pressure is 10000-11000psi with a standard M2 load, and can predict pressures for other loads. There's a couple threads on http://www.jouster.com/forums/index.php, concerning this topic, both in the reloading section, and the M1 Garand section. Parashooter has contributed some Quickload tables that show what powders would be acceptable, but only with a couple bullets. My personal preference for the Garand is 50gr of WW760 behind a 190gr match bullet. Around 2550fps. Parashooter's take on the workings of the system, and his opinion on the "only certain bullet weights, only certain powders" fallacy is a good read.

[leadman]

A friend and I many years ago bought some WWII surplus 4895. This powder had a burn rate much faster than the H4895 I now use. It was very close to 3031.
I have used AA2520 with very good results in my M1 Garand with the 150gr and 174gr military surplus bullets.
I bought some of the Greek surplus HXP ammo from the CMP and it has a noticeable increase in recoil. I will have to check my logs to see if I chronographed it. It did send the brass 2 or 3 feet farther away than the Lake City.
I still have LC and HXP so will check the velocity soon.

[Multigunner]

The Garand receiver and bolt are very strong, but the rifle has moving parts that should not be subjected to un neccessary stress.

For a gas operated autoloader gas port pressures are very important.

The reason heavy bullets aren't reccommended for the Garand is that most loads for heavy bullets use a slower burning powder that generates higher port pressures for the same chamber pressure range.
Even if the op rod doesn't bend or break excessive gas port pressure can slam the bolt back against the rear of the receiver damaging the firing pin and sometimes jamming the firing pin to produce a out of battery slam fire.

The rear of the Receiver is annealed by dipping in molten lead to avoid breakage if a hot load slams the bolt against it. In early development some receivers broke there when heavy charges were used.

Excessive speed in cycling can wear out the track and cause other forms of excessive wear to moving parts.

PS
Chamber pressure of all .30-06 Ball still in use by the US Army is listed as 48,000 CUP maximum average working pressure. That includes M72 Matchgrade and M2 Ball. I could find no gas port requirement. Probably because remaining .30-06 weapons still in inventory are bolt action match rifles, sniper rifles, and recoil operated MGs.

Also in the 60's a number of Garand actions were barreled for much more powerful and higher pressure cartridges, but these were generally converted to straightpull operation.
The receiver and bolt are capable of withstanding much higher pressures that the moving parts.

[sqlbullet]

My take is....Yes, we go baby our Garands. Primary concern is bending the op-rod, followed by the notorious and possibly apocryphal cracked heal.

We do so because we all know the CMP will run out of them some day, and we want to shoot ours forever.

I have read one article, that of course I didn't bookmark, which provided a sound basis that many of the issues people have are due to improper greasing of the gun, usually the use of too much. I actually find this quite beleiveable. Too much grease could create quite the hydraulic hammer to really mess things up.

Madsen really nailed it though. As long as you keep your pressure at the port in line, you won't have issues. Hard part is accurately measuring or estimating pressure at the port, especially for us non-Windows users.

If you want to shoot nuclear loads, get an adjustable gas plug. They are cheap and VERY effective.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Thanks fellas for all the input.

Special thanks to MadsenShooter. Terry spoke very highly of your help/assistance with his knowledge when I met him to buy his 1896 Krag Rifle, and I see his praise was accurately placed. That was a very helpful/inciteful post and the link is now in my bookmarks! THANKS :drinks:

I went digging and found my CoTW by Frank Barnes (7th Edition), because it has a big section documenting military ammo in the back. Mr. Barnes, being the good researcher he was, cited where he got the info: Small Arms and Small Arms Ammunition, Vol. 2 by Office of Chief of Ordnance (no date given) and Small Arms Ammunition Pamphlet 23-1, Dept. of the Army, Frankford Arsenal, Philadelphia, PA. One of the things I like about the loads recited is that it tells which weapons they are intended for. For example, the Cal. 30 Ball M2 (Overhead Fire Application) was meant for the machineguns only. (Now, it's only difference is that it is more-precisely made, so as not to drop bullets down into the troops that it is meant to be fired over -- the load is actually the same as the rifle ammo...)

The list includes the following loads:
Cal. 30 Ball M2 (152gr bullet) [Vel. 2740fps +/- 30fps at 78'] 50grs of IMR4895 (tubular) or WC852 (ball) OR 45grs CMR-100 (tubular) 50,000psi Max. Avg.
Cal. 30 Tracer M1 (152gr bullet) [Vel. 2700fps +/- 30fps at 78'] 50grs of IMR4895 (spheroidal??) 52,000 psi Max. Avg.
Cal. 30 Armor Piercing M2 (166gr bullet) [Vel. 2715fps +/- 30fps at 78'] 55grs of WC852 (Spheroidal) or IMR4895 (Tubular) 54,000psi Max. Avg.
Cal. 30 API M14 (151gr bullet) [Vel. 2780fps +/- 30fps at 78'] 50gr of WC852 (Spheroidal) or IMR4895 (Tubular) 54,000psi Max. Avg.
Cal. 30 Match, M72 (175gr bullet) [Vel. 2640fps +/- 30fps at 78'] 50grs IMR4895 (Tubular) 50,000psi Max. Avg.

I guess I should have started with CotW, and answered part of my own question myself. Yes, the Garand can handle loads heavier than 48.0grs of 4895. Of course, I can make the "standard line" argument (in a slightly different way) and point out that the military had a never-ending replacement supply of op-rods, and they had a war to win. So, if an AP round made enough extra penetration to justify going up 4000psi with 7grs more powder, so be it. We could re-build the guns once we'd won the war... That makes sense to me, but on the other hand, would you chance losing a battle on slightly too hot ammo causing a vast majority of a unit's rifles to break?? Of course, I'm sure there was variation in the burning rates of each lot of powder, and these loads were adjusted up or down as needed...

I also know from re-reading Hatcher's Book of the Garand, that there was a lot of discussion in the Ordnance Dept. about making sure there was enough "reserve power" to ensure reliable functioning of the rifle in field conditions. This could explain a couple extra grains of powder, but 7grs extra with a heavier bullet (for that AP load) is kind of shocking to me. I'd have thought they would have went with a slightly slower powder, which is why I was thinking about RL-15 and Varget...

Which brings me to another aspect of my question: whether we could expand SLIGHTLY the choices of powders available. I know that folks have done some testing with powders like RL-15, Varget, etc. I also recall that it was clearly stated (long ago, probably on another site) that IMR-4320 is certainly too slow-burning, having too high a port pressure, so I know I have a cap on the range of potential powders, but where next?

Somebody, either above or in another thread, or perhaps at another website I ran across researching this question, said something like: "there's three legs to the stool - port pressure, max pressure, and gas volume."

I guess somewhere between 45grs and 50grs there's sufficient gas volume. And, MadsenShooter has given us a map of the port pressure - we need something with 10,000-11,000 psi of residual pressure when the bullet is at 22" down the bore. And, if I'm going with the 165gr Nosler, I know I want something a LITTLE slower than 4895, but not much. I have to go back and look at my mega-powder burn-rate chart and see what other powders are in the 4895 zone, but faster than 4320.

Also, even though I started with the premise of a load equivalent to the M2 AP load, after seeing that load in CotW, I'm backing off of that... I agree with you guys' primary concern. My most-used M-1 is a SA that was built a month before WWII started (for us), so it's creeping up on 70 years old next year. For my load, I'm sticking with something in the 48.0-50.0gr load, and a powder that's barely slower than 4895, possibly Varget or RL-15. My choice will be a SLIGHTLY slower powder, at the same or SLIGHTLY heavier load than "the load," but still within the range of loads shown in CotW for M2 BALL or M72 MATCH, but I'm NOT going as high as the M2 AP load! (55.0grs) That's just too much. I'll be in research mode the rest of the night... :popcorn:

What do you guys think of this as a concept? Acceptable, and within reasonable limits? Or scary as hell, and no way you'd go there?

[MakeMineA10mm]

OK, I've been researching. First off, I eliminated the ball powders. Nothing wrong with them per-se, as is obvious since the Ordnance Dept. loaded plenty of Cal. 30 rifle ammo with WC852 during and after the war. However, there's the issue of ensuring that the load density is over 73%, and since this process is complicated enough, while there may be a workable one (especially liking AA2520), I'm sticking (sorry for the pun) with extruded powders for now, and later will consider folding in ball powders.

What I found after comparing and contrasting burn rate charts and looking at what powders group together and where, I narrowed the list down to the following powders:

Hodgdon H4895
Accurate XMR 2495
Alliant RL12
IMR 4895
Scot Brig 4065
Vihta Vuori N135
Hodgdon Varget
IMR 4064
NORMA 202
Accurate XMR 4064
Alliant Reloder 15

So, I went looking for load data that would be suitable/appropriate. I needed load data that would show max pressure of around 50,000psi (but no more) for a load between 47grs and 50grs. Several of the powders just don't have that type of information available. Interestingly, of the powders which do, most are IMR (shocking, I know... :-? ) Interestingly, the data from Hodgdon is mixed as to source, as some of it is in CUP while others is in PSI, so pressures are not completely comparable. All but the Accurate XMR4064 were listed as using a Sierra 165gr SPBT, loaded to an OAL of 3.300". The Accurate load is with a 165gr bullet, and loaded to an OAL of 3.313". There was no pressure data for the Accurate information, either, but as I think you'll see, some comparisons can be made.


Hodgdon H4895 48gr = 2811fps = 49,500cup
IMR 4895 48gr = 2712fps = 49,500psi
Hodgdon Varget 48gr = 2768fps = 46,000cup
IMR 4064 48gr = 2696fps = 49,400psi
Accurate XMR4064 48gr = 2688fps = ??,???

I put these in approximate order of burning rate, but if we ignore the pressure data (since CUP is not comparable to PSI), we can notice that the velocities fit right in according to burning rate, except for one: Varget. It appears from this that Varget, with a 165gr bullet in the 30-06 is actually a tad faster than IMR4895. Still, the only load that looks unacceptable to me, for the pressures we want, is the H4895 load. Velocity is too high and pressures are too high. Hmmmm, seems smokemjoe said something like that earlier... (Good call, Joe!) Also, it is obvious that IMR & H 4895s are NOT interchangeable... So, I'm eliminating Hodgdon 4895 as too fast, and Varget is actually faster than IMR4895 in this application, so it's gone as well.

So, that leaves IMR4064 and Accurate XMR4064. There's only 8fps difference between them for the same load, and with no pressure data for the Accurate and the close-to-max pressure info for the IMR, I think there's barely any room to increase the load (perhaps .5gr). This doesn't seem to me to be much of a gain, perhaps 25 fps?? Still, all-in-all, not a bad load.

Going back to my list above, that really only leaves me Norma 202 and RL-15 to play with. Here is where it gets interesting. A couple burn rate charts put RL-15 right near Varget as slower than 4895 and faster than 4320, making it close to 4064, perhaps a bit slower. One chart puts RL-15 as slower than 4320... This implies that it can be too slow, depending on application. I can find no data for either Norma 202 or RL-15 that gives me data with pressure in a 24" barrel with 165gr bullets...

That sends me back to the ball powders, and Accurate 2520 is the stand-out. It snuggles right in with RL-15 and Varget on most burn rate charts -- right in-between 4064 and 4320. So, I go grab my copy of the Accurate Loading Manual #1, which has the "Service Rifle/Highpower" section in the back. Find that they list a max load with the 168gr SMK at 3.295" OAL as 47.5grs giving 2681fps. OK, that sounds like it falls right in-line, until I read the pressure column: 58,000psi... :violin:

So, it looks like I've used up a lot of ink (bandwidth) to show that my big improvement will be using 48.5grs of IMR-4064 with the 165gr Nosler Partition for about 2700-2725 fps. (Seems like a lot of you had already been saying something along these lines...) Still, that's a pretty slammin' load for the old Garand. Wouldn't want to be a deer and get hit by that.

And, I'm still not sure I'm done with RL-15. It may be the winner yet. Since I already have some, and don't have any 4064, I suppose I'll send an e-mail to Alliant and ask for info. Then, start at 48.0grs and work up to no more than 50.0grs (based on the Ordnance Dept's Arsenal load data cited via Barnes' CotW). The chronograph will tell the story. If I get anything more than 25-50fps above what I can with 4064, I'll assume that it's via higher pressure, and with it's slower burn rate, that will mean port pressure is too high as well. Of course, this is open to change depending on what Alliant says...

Fun project for this Spring!! Time with a mil-surp preparing a hunting load! :bigsmyl2:

[MakeMineA10mm]

Oh, and several of you have suggested the adjustable gas plug. That's a great suggestion, but I want to shoot something that is as close to a WWII load as possible. Since AP was the primary combat issue round during the war (with plenty of Ball also used), I was really aiming for something like the M-2 AP round, and I really like the 165gr Nosler Part. for a hunting bullet. Plus this is one of those esoteric / advanced reloading exercises I love! :mrgreen:

[Larry Gibson]

Many do not realize that most of the M2 used in WWII and after was the downloaded "NG" ammo. The specs called for 2550 to 2650 fps and the many lots of it I have chronographed over the years very fy that. I think this is also why the AP ammo was favored by many as it was still oaded to spec. I've also found several lots of M72 loaded for M1s in the 8 round clips to be downloaded to 2550 fps. Hard to believe that many units only had the substandard M2 load and went to war with it in WWII and Korea. This is probably why the AP shot flatter and was more accurate. By tipping the muzzle nose down or nose up there can be 200+ fps variation shot to shot with the substandard M2 ammo in M1903s or M1s. I've pulled a lot of M2 bullets and upped the powder charge to 48 - 48.5 gr so the velocitiy was the spec of 2800 fps for M2 and the internal ballistics improved greatly as does accuracy.

I pursued a quest very similar to yours some years back to duplicate M1 '06 ammo ballistics with several thousand M118/M72 bullets I got through DCM. Depending on the flavor of 4895 I found 47 - 48 gr duplicated the 2640 fps at close to the TM stated pressure. Accuracy was excellent out of my 2 M1s I had at the time and the M1903A1 I had. Subsequently those rifles were traded off and I've 3 other M1903s. I've about 900 or so of the M118/M72 bullets left and they still shoot very well in my relicated M1903A3 National Match Type II, pretty much 1-1.5 moa consistently.

My target load for the 175 gr MK for the match '03 is 49 gr Varget at 2650 fps It will shoot less than MOA and I've got some really good HM scores at 600, 800, 900 and 1000 yards with it. Have not tried it in an M1 so don't know about it there though.

Larry Gibson

[madsenshooter]

I have some of the last surplus 4895 that Bartlet had, the stuff that you're supposed to use 4064 data with. It took me 49.5gr of it to get a Nosler 168 up to 2650fps. I was using LC69 brass, you have to remember that there's differences in the position of the chrongraph too, the military sets them way out there. That WC852 is the stuff that had all sorts of burning rates, some was even loaded in 30/06, up to 62gr! Tested in the Garand, somehow the port pressure remained low enough, I think Parashooter said that was the first Accurate2700, which I have used some in my Garand.

[Multigunner]

Before I traded off my Garand I had it rebarreled with a slightly used Match Grade take off barrel. It showed no obvious wear so I figured it was either taken off for an upgrade or possibly someone found a properly marked barrel for a period restoration.

When my gunsmith cranked the match barrel on he at first used the string through the gas port method for clocking in. He was very suprized to find the gas port was not centered properly. He then carefully clocked her in by careful inspection of the front sight and got it on right.

We examined the match barrel closely and found that some previous owner had cut a dovetail where the original port had been and inserted a piece of steel with a smaller port drilled in it.

My guess is this was done to choke down the port to allow use of heavy bullets with slow powders.

[MakeMineA10mm]

Excellent and interesting info. from all of you. Thank you!!

Definitely will be using a chrono in my load development. I think a can of 4064 is in my future, as well as 4895 (both IMR brand), just so I have a referrence line to work off of.

I'll then work with the RL-15 and see what I get. Interestingly, Mike Venturino did an article called something like "one load, many rifles" in a Handloader a year or two ago. He has about 15 or so 30-06's, almost all military or replicas, and he stuck to the 48.0gr load. Without saying so, I think he was strongly considering the "Gas-Volume" leg of the stool more than anything. He ran both Varget and RL-15, as well as some others (probably the IMRs, but my memory isn't holding onto that particular detail...). In his tests, the RL-15 stunk, and the Varget was the winner, but I wonder what would have happened if he played with the load a little, especially taking into consideration it's slower burn rate.

One other question for you guys. What are your thoughts on the mainspring in the Garand? I have three, and one has the original spring, and has not really been shot much since it was built. (It's a Winchester in basically new condition - never got issued.) Does the spring weaken due to purely age, regardless of the amount of use? My main "shooting Garand" is a low-serial number, pre-WWII Spr.Arm. that has been rebuilt God-knows-how-many times. No original barrel or stock, and I haven't looked real hard at the other parts, because those I could easily check obviously were not original. (The gas tube under the barrel looks original, though -- thing is shiney as can be!! :) ) I'm sure the spring has been replaced, but I'm not sure how long ago. Is it prudent when looking at my project to go with a new spring from Brownells, such as a Wolff?

[zomby woof]

One other question for you guys. What are your thoughts on the mainspring in the Garand? I have three, and one has the original spring, and has not really been shot much since it was built. (It's a Winchester in basically new condition - never got issued.) Does the spring weaken due to purely age, regardless of the amount of use? My main "shooting Garand" is a low-serial number, pre-WWII Spr.Arm. that has been rebuilt God-knows-how-many times. No original barrel or stock, and I haven't looked real hard at the other parts, because those I could easily check obviously were not original. (The gas tube under the barrel looks original, though -- thing is shiney as can be!! :) ) I'm sure the spring has been replaced, but I'm not sure how long ago. Is it prudent when looking at my project to go with a new spring from Brownells, such as a Wolff?

Change the original mainspring and again every couple thousand rounds. There're cheap.

http://m1garandrifle.com/Garandparts.htm

[MakeMineA10mm]

Wow, upgrade to stainless steel, built off specs of the Springfield Armory drawings, for $7 each!?! That's a no-brainer, isn't it? Thanks!

[mroliver77]

THESE SPRINGS COME VERY HIGHLY RECOMENDED BY Friggen caps lock!) many well seasoned Garand shooters. Reminds me to grab a couple more.
Back on topic, as has been hinted at the Garand has way more ooomph provided to cycle,than needed. In a battle situation it could be a life saver but for most of us we are paper shooters and/or hunters and a malfunction is not a big deal. I use an adjustable gas plug to reduce the amoun t of battering on my M1;s and M1A"s.
Jay

[MakeMineA10mm]

Hmmm. Been perusing that site a little deeper. I can get most of the small parts to restore my June, 1941 SA to original style. Of course, the hardest and most-expensive parts are not available that easily. Need an April, May, or June, 41 barrel. Not easy. May have a line on a stock, but how much dough? It's a tempting thought to restore her. No telling how far-flung of places that rifle has been!

[MakeMineA10mm]

Well, I've continued with my research into this topic. If you've been following along, you'll notice that my original intent/questions were really two-fold:

1. Could I make a hunting load with a 165gr Nosler Partition that maximizes the potential out of an M-1 Garand? (No where near what we could push it to in a bolt-gun, but still quite lethal enough...) And -

2. Generally, aren't the generally-accepted, "recommended" loads a step or more below what the military loaded Garand-appropriate ammo, back in the 30s through 50s?


I think there has been some very good discussion about both of these issues on this thread. I had some data before starting this thread, and I've continued researching, and thinking about what folks have said here. I want to thank everyone who posted here, because I've found each and every one of you have made excellent points in your posts! :drinks:

To summarize, here is what I learned and what I'm thinking:

First off, three non-ammo-related issues:

1. We can REALLY do a BIG service to our "shooting" Garands by replacing the op-rod spring with a fresh one. Go to the bottom of this page: http://www.m1garandrifle.com/news.htm. They're CHEAP!! And, it will give us optimal action in our rifles, rather than 70-yr-old spring-action...

2. Grease should ONLY be used in the pocket of the op-rod where the right bolt lug engages the op-rod. Grease was ONLY issued by the military AFTER the M-1 was at war overseas, when it was discovered that in the Pacific monsoons and European rains, the standard lubricating oil washed out of that particular area to the point of being detrimental to operation. EVERYTHING else on our M-1s should be oiled with standard lubricating oil!! Grease comes in those tiny cups for a reason (and that's not so it fits in the buttstock)!!

3. If one wants to shoot any loads in the Garand, an adjustable gas plug is a must. There are apparently a few different styles on the market, but I'm still looking at things from the point of view of, I want safe loads for any Garand, even with the standard gas plugs (which are far more common).

4. Depending on the load and the strength of your spring, the Garand can really tear up brass, especially rims. (Combine a warmer load with a weaker spring, you extractor will really cut down on your brass life...) REPLACE those springs!

5. M-1's generally have fairly loose chambers, which allows the brass to really swell up. Hot loads and weak springs can aggravate this by letting the action open too early/quickly in the process. (REPLACE THOSE SPRINGS!!!) Additionally, if you do not size your brass down aggresively enough (either through reducing the swelling near the head or from failing to move the shoulder back sufficiently), slam-fires may result. This is a bad thing... Personally, I'm ordering an RCBS X-die in 30-06 to use with my Garand. I'm not getting the Small Base set, because the "generous" chambers will cause the brass to get over-worked with the SB die.

Secondly, ammo issues itself:

A) There is a tripod of issues to deal with as far as Garand ammo - First off, we must have a load that keeps maximum pressures within reason. In my research, I found ONE load assembled by the military that developed 54,000psi. Likewise, I found ONE load that developed 52,000psi. All the rest of military ammo developed 48,000 to 50,000psi max avg. pressure. We all know how to develop loads like this.

B) Generally speaking, 95% + of powders which are appropiate for the Garand use a load of 48.0-50.0grs of powder. Why? Because there has to be a certain VOLUME of GAS moving through the gas cylinder/system to provide the "push" to cycle the action. Now, powders which use probably 46.0grs or more can certainly provide 100% reliability, and probably lower. When Hatcher speaks of John C. Garand talking about making sure there is a power "reserve", he means the gun should work with 44-46grs, but with 48-50gr loads, there is some extra gas volume reserve to ensure reliable cycling, in case the gun is dirty from combat conditions.

C) Not only must the gas be a certain VOLUME, it must also be at a certain PRESSURE (a.k.a. PORT PRESSURE). Just like the volume has to be there to provide the push, the pressure is there to make sure the push is strong enough. Volume is about how far the push happens, pressure is about how hard the push happens. Madsenshooter referred me to a post by Parashooter over at Culver's, which is here: http://www.jouster.com/forums/showthread.php?1165-M1-Garand-reload-with-VV-N150-amp-150gr-load&p=73645#post73645

This chart that Parashooter made with QuickLoad shows that I was right that we can increase our loads above those that have been considered "the standard" loads, including a broader range of powders. One of my goals is to acquire QuickLoad myself, so I can start running the data for 165gr bullets... I might PM Parashooter and see if I can impose on him to do so... One of the interesting things about his QuickLoad chart is that slower powders, such as IMR-4320 are appropriate. I remember "back in the day" that it was tabboo to use IMR-4320, because all the "old hands" said it was too slow and would bend op rods. (I'm betting they actually used too hot a load, not that the powder itself is bad...)

That all said, I've come to another conclusion. Re-reading the earlier parts of my post about the springs, early-opening, re-sizing, tearing rims, etc., all being exacerbated by heavy loads, I see no reason to load such that we're squeezing every last FPS out of the load. Hmmmm. Seems like I've heard this before.... Oh yeah!! Several smart guys here and several smart guys over at Culvers have pointed out the same thing: These rifles are 50-75 years old, and they're not making them any more. So, if we're just punching holes in paper, why load hot??

SO, here is what I've decided to do:

1. For general target shooting, I'm going to use something that's loaded-down from the recommended loads. Probably something in the range of 46.5 to 47.0grs of IMR4895. It will cycle the action, and with a new spring installed, the case rims should be safer and the bolt shouldn't open early, resolving as much case life issues as possible. Maybe combining with the X-Die and I'll actually get some sort of reasonable case life? (Probably still not as good as a bolt gun, though...)

2. For the occasional hunting opportunity (or for any AP projectiles that might find their way into the barrel), I'll be loading a heavier charge of a slower powder. Just to be clear, I will still be holding things to the level of arsenal-original ammo. (50grs or less of powder, a powder no slower than RL-15, and breach pressures at or below 52,000psi). This load will still be at or below the WWII arsenal M-2 AP ammo, probably about equal to M-2 Ball (but with a heavier bullet). I think that this, being shot so occassionaly/rarely will not be abusive on the gun, although it may do a number on the brass.