M1 Ammo

[tbierley]

I pull some Lake City 69 ammo that I got from cmp last week and the powder was ball type and the weight was 55-56 grains. What type of powder is this.

[Mauser48]

Should be imr4895.

[Outpost75]

If it is a spheroidal powder, it is most likely WC852, which burns similarly to W760 or H414.

[ReloaderFred]

Most likely WC852, but the powder charge is a little heavy, since they normally run about 50 grains with that powder and the lighter bullet. It would be correct for the Armor Piercing bullets. There is variation from lot to lot, though, so they tailor the load to the lot of powder they're loading at the time.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[Larry Gibson]

Assuming by "M1 Ammo" (thread title) you mean 30-06 ammo from CMP intended for your own M1 rifle?

Only asking because there is and "M1" 30-06 cartridge also which was loaded with IMR4895 and 174 gr FMJBT bullets.

If your ammo was loaded in '69 then it is probably M2 ammunition with a 150 gr FMJ bullet?

Larry Gibson

[4719dave]

could be ap they had a nice run on that a few years ago ..

[tbierley]

Yes Larry it is M2 ammo. I also a 8 pound keg WC846 and a Keg of Russian 7.62x54 powder. I am looking for some load data for cast and jacketed in 30/06.

[runfiverun]

I'd start a new thread for each one and include all the details you have on them.

[Outpost75]

Yes Larry it is M2 ammo. I also a 8 pound keg WC846 and a Keg of Russian 7.62x54 powder. I am looking for some load data for cast and jacketed in 30/06.

Years ago I tried WC846 with Ball M2 pulled bullets and ringed the chamber necks of two M1 rifles. Ignition, pressure and velocity were very erratic. I would not recommend WC846, or similar powders such as WC844, H335, BLC2 in the .30-'06 because you have more than 20% airspace with a full charge, and even when using government M34 primers, Winchester WLR or Federal 210s, which are generally suited for spheroidal powders, ballistic uniformity in the '06 is far inferior than when used in the .308 Winchester or 7.62 NATO rounds, for which those powders were intended, and in which a full charge occupies about 90% of the available powder space.

The extruded tubular 7.62x54R Russian pulldown powder I have used worked very well in the M1 rifle using data for IMR4895 and 50 grains with 150-grain jacketed bullets approximated the velocity and point of impact of Ball M2 ammunition and functioned well in both of my M1s.

As a historical note only, the cal. .30 Ball M1, 174-grain cartridge used by the Army in the 1930s was not loaded with IMR4895, because it did not exist yet. It was loaded with IMR1185, which has a tubular cut and burning rate similar to IMR4064. I still have some Ball M1 which I use as reference ammo for testing purposes.

142890142891

[Ken in Iowa]

Agreed that it is WC852. I bought some from Bartlett many years ago. It was great in my 6mm and 22/250 improved.

Did you need data for it, or were you just wondering what it was?

[Ballistics in Scotland]

The military only require one load, so the powder needn't be exactly the same as the civilian canister versions with the stated numbers. Smokeless powders commonly varied a little in power and pressure, so arsenal practice was to accept any powder that came close enough to achieve the right results by adjust it by varying the charge. The need to make the powder perform exactly to specification only arises with canisters for the civilian market, in which it may be used for many cartridges without pressure testing, and loaded by the receipe book.

[giddy]

The powder is definitely WC852. This ammo should exhibit evidence of once being linked. This will prove that the ammo left Lake City in MLBs (metallic linked belts), and was expected to have been fired in MGs (not M1 Garands). Based on the powder charge (55-56 grs), this indicates use of one of the slower (waivered) lots of WC852. Lake City manufactured a huge amount of brass headstamped LC69, and consequently was able to load this headstamp thru 1970 and 1971. This is why there are no LC70 or LC71 headstamps in .30-06. There was already enough LC69 ready to load. By this time, during Viet Nam, most of the ammo needs in .30-06 were for MG use. This provided Lake City the opportunity to utilize some of the "too slow" lots of WC852 (not suitable for M1 Rifles). This ammo was loaded (on waiver) and linked, restricted "For MG Use Only". During 1970 and later on, most all .30-06 Ball M2 ammo was loaded for MG use, and utilized waivered lots of WC852. In order for any lot to be restricted to MG use only, it required at least 54grs (up to 61.5) of WC852 to meet velocity specs. Because this ammo would fail the port pressure test required for M1 Garand ammo, it was therefore linked, for MG use. 1969 headstamped ammo using waivered WC852 is quite unusual. However, ALL LC72 headstamped Ball M2 ammo used waivered WC852 powder, and was not approved for M1 Garands. However, not all lots of WC852 were waivered. Normal WC852 is similar to Hodgdon H380.

[Larry Gibson]

...........As a historical note only, the cal. .30 Ball M1, 174-grain cartridge used by the Army in the 1930s was not loaded with IMR4895, because it did not exist yet. It was loaded with IMR1185, which has a tubular cut and burning rate similar to IMR4064. I still have some Ball M1 which I use as reference ammo for testing purposes.

142890142891

Outpost is correct that the M1 ammunition loaded in the 1930s (actually the late '20s The NM ammo with the heavier 170 - 174 gr BT bullets also) with different "lots" of IMR; 1147, 1185 and 1186. IMR4895 was developed and adopted in 1941 for use in the 30-06 cartridges (Including M72 Match). However, the OP is referring to LC 69 ammunition and thus any "M1" ammunition that may have been made at LC in '69 would have had IMR4895 in it as was the M72 Match ammunition being produced there at the time. I know of no M1 ammunition of any year that was produced with ball powder.....If someone can please provide info if anyone knows otherwise?

I recently acquired a couple boxes of this "M2 Alternative" ammunition. It is SL 43 and has 52 gr of IMR4895 under the 150 gr FMJ. Does anyone have an official description of "M2 Alternative"? There was the original M2 which was supposed to duplicated the M1906 ballistics for use on NG ranges. It was then "dumbed down" velocity wise twice to where most M2 produces 2450 - 2600 fps. However, ther was also supposed to have been an "upgrade" of M2 ammo performance giving the M2 bullet 2800+ fps? If that's what this "Alternative" M2 ammo is then 52 gr of 4895 certainly should do that. I'll conduct a velocity/pressure test of it when the temperature gets back under 100 degrees down here.

Larry Gibson

142892

[Larry Gibson]

BTW; I've velocity/pressure tested numerous lots of U.S. milsurp ammunition and have found M1906 to be very close to 2700 fps muzzle velocity. Only a couple lots of M2 have come close to 2700 fps with most in the 2450 - 2650 fps muzzle velocity range. The LC 69 M2 I tested had 44.5 gr IMR4895 under the 150 FMJ. It produced 2629 fps muzzle velocity out of the 24" test barrel with a psi of 45,700.

Larry Gibson

[Outpost75]

I was told by William C. Davis, Jr. when he was director of the small-caliber lab at FA, that most of the Ball M2 manufactured after 1966 was destined for the South Vietnamese and was the equivalent of what the Brits used to call "Tropical Charges" to avoid high pressure problems in elevated temperatures. Also, the RVNs being of small stature and being armed with Garands, the reduced recoil of a lighter load was deemed desireable.

WW2-era LC43, SL43, DEN43 I tested in the 1970s, all was all 2700+, as was TW52, 53, 54, 55 evaluated at the same time.

[tbierley]

Yes the ammo showed signs on mg links. And shot 2 to 3ins low at a 200 yard target. I am going to pull the remained of the ammo for brass.

[giddy]

Larry:
The "Alternative" loading was the beginning of the GMCS (gilding metal clad steel) projectiles. The clad steel reduced the amount of gilding metal needed, and made the GM material last longer. You will find it to be magnetic. I have some of that very same lot number (SL43), and found it quite accurate, but is corrosive. The CMP sold off quite a bit of this type ammo (WWII Ball M2) around 2000 or 2001. I bought a bunch of it while at Camp Perry. You can find "Alternative" ammo loaded by all the military arsenals, but I believe the commercial contractors (WCC, WRA, RA, DA, VC, etc.) continued to use the standard gilding metal projo.

[ReloaderFred]

Larry Gibson,

My Cartridges of the World, 10th Edition (the latest I have), on pages 491 and 492, shows Cartridge, caliber 30, Ball, M2, for several firearms, both full auto and semiauto, including the Rifle, U.S. Cal .30, M1. There are three powders listed for it; IMR 4895, WC852 and CMR-100. The WC852 is a Double Base Spheroidal powder.

Hope this helps.

Fred

[giddy]

Larry:
After re-reading your last post (#14), I notice you mentioned some LC69 Ball M2 with a charge weight of 44.5gr of IMR4895. I suspect the powder is not IMR4895, but actually CMR100. If you will compare this powder with some known IMR4895, you will probably see the CMR100 is slightly smaller diameter, and a tad bit shorter. CMR100 was a Canadian made powder that was used from time to time during the late 60's to load the Ball M2 round when IMR4895 was temporarily unavailable. CMR had a slightly faster burning rate than 4895, and required lesser charge weights. CMR is known to be quite accurate, especially in .223 ammo. I know several HighPower shooters who would buy the CMR powder when it was available, as surplus, in the late '90s, and load in .223 for across-the-course shooting.

[Larry Gibson]

giddy

Thanks for the explanation of "Alternative". They are indeed loaded with steel jacketed bullets. After reading your post I was able to read the fine print on the cartridge drawings in Brophy's book on the M1903 and see where the term was used to designate the bullets. I had just never seen it on cartridge boxes before. I had also investigated it might be CMR100 but a close inspection shows the powder in the LC 69 to be IMR4895. Further testing with equal loads of IMR4895 (known pull down) from other M2 cartridges gives the same velocities and pressures. I pulled all the bullet of the LC 69 and increased the powder charge until the muzzle velocity from my own three M1903s averaged 2800 fps. It took 28.5 gr of the LC 69 powder to do that with the psi being still a low 54,600 psi(M43). Definitely not CMR100.


ReloaderFred

I'm aware those 3 powders were used in M2 Ball ammunition. There is no doubt the powder in the LC 69 I have is IMR4895 as it is larger kernelled than CMR100 and is identical to appearance as the pull down IMR4895 from the M72 LC 67, 68 and 69 ammunition I compared it to. Also as noted the burning rate is much slower than CMR100 and identical to the known pull down IMR4895 it was velocity and pressure tested in comparison to.

In looking at my Oehler M43 data I noted a test of LC 57 M2 which was loaded with 48.5 gr of WC852 under the 150 FMJ. The muzzle velocity from the 24" barrel 2459 fps with only 38,000 psi (M43).

Larry Gibson

[Ken in Iowa]

The powder is definitely WC852. This ammo should exhibit evidence of once being linked. This will prove that the ammo left Lake City in MLBs (metallic linked belts), and was expected to have been fired in MGs (not M1 Garands). Based on the powder charge (55-56 grs), this indicates use of one of the slower (waivered) lots of WC852. Lake City manufactured a huge amount of brass headstamped LC69, and consequently was able to load this headstamp thru 1970 and 1971. This is why there are no LC70 or LC71 headstamps in .30-06. There was already enough LC69 ready to load. By this time, during Viet Nam, most of the ammo needs in .30-06 were for MG use. This provided Lake City the opportunity to utilize some of the "too slow" lots of WC852 (not suitable for M1 Rifles). This ammo was loaded (on waiver) and linked, restricted "For MG Use Only". During 1970 and later on, most all .30-06 Ball M2 ammo was loaded for MG use, and utilized waivered lots of WC852. In order for any lot to be restricted to MG use only, it required at least 54grs (up to 61.5) of WC852 to meet velocity specs. Because this ammo would fail the port pressure test required for M1 Garand ammo, it was therefore linked, for MG use. 1969 headstamped ammo using waivered WC852 is quite unusual. However, ALL LC72 headstamped Ball M2 ammo used waivered WC852 powder, and was not approved for M1 Garands. However, not all lots of WC852 were waivered. Normal WC852 is similar to Hodgdon H380.

Good info giddy. I had suspected that this was the case.

We received several cans of this ammo from the CMP/DCM back in the 80s. It was on 8rd clips. It obviously was de-linked ammo and many cases were dented. I sorted it out and fired quite a few. The op rod on my pet M1 bent a bit. I still have several hundred rounds.

I can't understand why it was placed in 8 rd clips if the powder was unsuitable for Garands....

[Ken in Iowa]

Yes the ammo showed signs on mg links. And shot 2 to 3ins low at a 200 yard target. I am going to pull the remained of the ammo for brass.

That seems a shame, but that is what I did with some of mine. My model 1917 does not have the best accuracy with it. :(

AIRC, that powder was in the H450 range. You can do a little reverse engineering (include a bias for the heavy GI brass) and you may find a use for it. Mine was used up in hot varmint rifles with heavy bullets.

[giddy]

http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by giddy http://castboolits.gunloads.com/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://castboolits.gunloads.com/showthread.php?p=3291984#post3291984)
The powder is definitely WC852. This ammo should exhibit evidence of once being linked. This will prove that the ammo left Lake City in MLBs (metallic linked belts), and was expected to have been fired in MGs (not M1 Garands). Based on the powder charge (55-56 grs), this indicates use of one of the slower (waivered) lots of WC852. Lake City manufactured a huge amount of brass headstamped LC69, and consequently was able to load this headstamp thru 1970 and 1971. This is why there are no LC70 or LC71 headstamps in .30-06. There was already enough LC69 ready to load. By this time, during Viet Nam, most of the ammo needs in .30-06 were for MG use. This provided Lake City the opportunity to utilize some of the "too slow" lots of WC852 (not suitable for M1 Rifles). This ammo was loaded (on waiver) and linked, restricted "For MG Use Only". During 1970 and later on, most all .30-06 Ball M2 ammo was loaded for MG use, and utilized waivered lots of WC852. In order for any lot to be restricted to MG use only, it required at least 54grs (up to 61.5) of WC852 to meet velocity specs. Because this ammo would fail the port pressure test required for M1 Garand ammo, it was therefore linked, for MG use. 1969 headstamped ammo using waivered WC852 is quite unusual. However, ALL LC72 headstamped Ball M2 ammo used waivered WC852 powder, and was not approved for M1 Garands. However, not all lots of WC852 were waivered. Normal WC852 is similar to Hodgdon H380.



Good info giddy. I had suspected that this was the case.

We received several cans of this ammo from the CMP/DCM back in the 80s. It was on 8rd clips. It obviously was de-linked ammo and many cases were dented. I sorted it out and fired quite a few. The op rod on my pet M1 bent a bit. I still have several hundred rounds.

I can't understand why it was placed in 8 rd clips if the powder was unsuitable for Garands....



Ken:
I suspect that when all that linked ammo was sent to Red River for repacking, the ammunition data cards did not accompany each of the ammunition lot numbers. These cards were clearly stamped "For MG Use only". I also suspect that if anyone at RR Arsenal happened to notice this, they probably didn't know what it actually meant.
Giddy

[M99SavNut]

Fascinating. I, too, have some SL 43, so will check for powder charge, evidence of MG links, etc. before trying in any of my Garands. Thanks guys.

Jess

[tbierley]

If it is the WC852 and has 50grs it shot low in both my 03 and M1. I pulled the bullets and used the cases and bullets

[giddy]

During WWII, all .30-06 military ammo was loaded with the IMR4895 type powder. WC852 was loaded only by WCC, and I have not found any WCC ammo headstamped during the war years (1941-45) loaded with IMR4895. WC852 did not come into general use by the other arsenals until Korean War era. All .30-06 ammo loaded with WC852 was suitable for all weapons, including M1 Garands, if headstamp year was before 1969. Waivered lots of WC852 were not utilized until the early 1970s, and were packed out on MLBs. The data cards were also stamped with the "For MG Use Only", even though the ammo was linked, and therefore expected to have been fired in MGs. It was not until the mid to late 1980's that the DCM ran out of 8-rd clipped ammo for issue to their member clubs, that the DoD advised them that there was no more 8-rd clipped ammo in inventory, and offered to delink MG ammo and repack into 8-rd clips for issue to DCM clubs. There was quite a lot of MG linked ammo in inventory that had been loaded in 1967, 1968, and 1969 using either IMR4895 or CMR100. Even though this ammo had been linked, it was still approved for the M1 Garand. Not until the early 1970s did Lake City get the opportunity to utilize the waivered lots of WC852 in ammo, since it was all destined to be linked, with no thought of it ever being shot in the Garand. Unfortunately, when 8-rd clipped ammo dried up, there was still millions of rounds of linked ammo. This is when Red River Arsenal delinked much of this ammo and repacked it into 8-rd clips for the DCM to issue to their clubs. Any RR repacked ammo showing LC67 or LC68 headstamp is fine for the Garand. If LC69 is found, it is best to pull the projo and check the powder. If IMR4895, it is fine for the Garand, but if WC852 is found, it probably is a waivered lot (loaded with 54gr or more) and not suitable. All 1972 Ball M2 is loaded with waivered lots of WC852, not suitable for Garands, but perfectly fine for any bolt action rifle. I have not found any LC74 or LC75 dated Lake City ammo loaded with WC852, only the IMR4895.

[GooseGestapo]

WOW! I'm glad I stubled across this thread.
I've got two M1's. First is one I inherited from my older brother when he passed in '12. He used it to shoot some hi-power matches in Montana in the '80s. I've now got a CMP "Special" I bought to use in "as-issue" JohnGarand matches.
Along with the rifle were an assortment of ammo and components. There is one metal ammo box with ~100rds of LC-72 in the described 8rd clips.
Glad I didn't shoot it either of the M1's.
How do you know if you have a "ringed" chamber or barrel on you M1's.
I've noticed that some of the '06 brass I've resized have large necks... I assume from those fired in "his" M1...

[Ken in Iowa]

Great stuff Giddy. That all makes sense.

It sounds like you were privy to some inside information.

[Larry Gibson]

Anyone close to me who wants to donate 10 rounds of that LC 72 M2 ammo so I can pressure test it?

Larry Gibson

[Ken in Iowa]

I found the info that I had on WC852. The acceptance documents came from Bartlett. The data sheet from River Valley Ordnance is for a different lot which appears to be a bit slower.

As has been mentioned in this thread, this powder is not acceptable for Garands.