Armory Sponsor
M1 Garrand 30-06 loads (Page 1 of 2)
Posted: 11/5/2015 11:21:07 PM EDT
|
Hey Guys _
I am finding load data for the 30-06 M1  not as available as it used to be.
Knowing that this has been kicked around alot , do you guys have any starting and or favorite loads for the 30-06 M1 ?? I have plenty of IMR 4895 and Varget laying around .. And 150 gr Hornady fmj and 168 Nosler Match bullets with Federal Cases and WLP primers Thanks John |
This is the first hit when I do a Yahoo search for "NRA M1 Loads". I do not use Google
Vince |
USAF 1969-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
|
The Garand can be tricky to load for, since a BT design bullet does not like to jump far before it throws a fit. check your jump to lands if plan on coming out of the clips, and if you find that the jump to lands is over .010", may be better off with a flat tail bullet instead (flat tail bullet can jump long to the rifling and it will not effect them too much instead).
Also, you don't want to over pressure the gas system with the 168gr loads, so you need to look into changing out the gas plug to a ported gas plug instead (to vent the unneeded gas pulse so you don't bend the gas rod). http://www.brownells.com/gunsmith-tools-supplies/rifle-tools/gas-system-tools/m1-garand-adjustable-gas-system-prod1538.aspx Truth is, for reduced yardage matches, will find that the 110gr flat bullet does hold tight patterns, and you not punished from shot to shot or a long jump to lands isntead. |
Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
'Twas not the <cough> sweet and innocent <cough> PlaymoreMinds...
<---skips away in frilly skirts to Candyland, leaving gutters and snorkels FAR behind.
'Twas not the <cough> sweet and innocent <cough> PlaymoreMinds...
<---skips away in frilly skirts to Candyland, leaving gutters and snorkels FAR behind.
| I have it bookmarked in my computer at home, but there is a page called Master Po's M1 reloading page , or something very similar. I'm sure someone here will have a link. |
I hated going to weddings. All the grandmas would poke me and say "You're next". They stopped that when I started doing it to them at funerals.
|
John,
the master po site is a good one for Garand safe loads. They're fairly hot/full military power loads in my opinion. Like was said, you really don't need all that unless you want it for a short local course load. You can download the imr4895 load a couple grains and still have a nice load. You can download it further quite a bit and it will still cycle. +1 to lighter bullets for short courses. I used to dabble with speer 110, 125 and 130 grain bullets and they did fine for 100/200 yard club shoots. I'd either use those or burn up my stash of virgin surplus USGI 150 FMJ's. The commercial bullets were more accurate than the USGI surplus. Knowing Hornady, their 150 grain FMJ will likely be much more accurate than the USGI bullets. Their 55 grain .224 FMJ's were significantly better than their peers, not match but damned good. ETA- I'm guessing you typo'd the primers you intend to use. The WLP is the Winchester large pistol primer and not correct for a garand load. I think you meant the WLR, rifle primer of course. I just looked at my load book, my 168 Nosler load is the same as the master po load, except mine is in a Greek HXP surplus case. It's a full power load about 2560 fps. |
NYSRPA Life Member, NRA Life Member
| As always check data in your manuals but for M1 Garand with IMR 4895 powder and Hornady 150 FMJ's or military type M2 150 FMJ-FB bullets loads, no need to start below 45 grains of powder and maximum should be 48 grains of IMR 4895. I've loaded 47 to 47.5 grains in LC, RP, Win, and HXP brass and the only primer I've used has been Remington 9 1/2 LR. Make sure primers are seated below flush. With Hornady 150 FMJ's Hornady gives an overall length at 3.185" which puts the cannelure at the case mouth if you crimp. Older Hornady data listed an oal at 3.262" but this puts the cannelure out in front of the case mouth. I've shot them at both oal's and they feed and function fine at both lengths and I don't see any change in accuracy. Although 48 grains of IMR 4895 is not maximum for 30-06 rifles it should be considered maximum in the M1 Garand for 150 grain bullets. |
|
Originally Posted By rg1:
As always check data in your manuals but for M1 Garand with IMR 4895 powder and Hornady 150 FMJ's or military type M2 150 FMJ-FB bullets loads, no need to start below 45 grains of powder and maximum should be 48 grains of IMR 4895. I've loaded 47 to 47.5 grains in LC, RP, Win, and HXP brass and the only primer I've used has been Remington 9 1/2 LR. Make sure primers are seated below flush. With Hornady 150 FMJ's Hornady gives an overall length at 3.185" which puts the cannelure at the case mouth if you crimp. Older Hornady data listed an oal at 3.262" but this puts the cannelure out in front of the case mouth. I've shot them at both oal's and they feed and function fine at both lengths and I don't see any change in accuracy. Although 48 grains of IMR 4895 is not maximum for 30-06 rifles it should be considered maximum in the M1 Garand for 150 grain bullets. Sir, FWIW for 200yd John Garand matches I've used 45gr of IMR 4895 with a Sierra 168gr SMK for quite a few years and have quite a few medals to show for it. It's a quite accurate load, does't push the envelope for the gas system, and cycles quite well in a garand M1. JMHO, 7zero1. |
|
46.0 grains of IMR-4895 is a standard load for 168 grain SMK's when used in M1 Garands. It will also feed and function well with 150 grain bullets.
I would not increase that charge. 46.0 to 47.0 grains of Varget will work well too. 7zero1's load data is a good place to start and maybe stay. |
|
Link to download John R. Clarke's Reloading For The M1 Rifle pdf. |
"No Matter Where You Go, There You Are." Buckroo Banzai - 1984
Using RF and gunpowder to speed global warming
Joined:
Oct 2006
Posts:
9504
EE: 100% (18)
AZ, USA
|
Recommended .30 caliber M1 loadings from the NRA
147 - 155 grain FMJ or HPBT bullets IMR 3031 - 48.0 grains IMR 4895 - 49.0 grains IMR 4064 - 50.0 grains W748 - 48.0 grains AA2460 - 49.0 grains AA2520 - 51.0 grains AA2495 - 50.5 grains H4895 - 49.0 grains BLC-2 - 49.0 grains H335 - 49.0 grains RL-12 - 48.0 grains 165/168 grain FMJ, HP or SP bullets IMR 4895 - 47.0 grains IMR 4094 - 48.0 grains AA2520 - 47.5 grains AA2495 - 47.0 grains H4895 - 47.5 grains BLC-2 - 49.0 grains H335 - 47.0 grains RL-12 - 44.5 grains 173/175 grain FMJ or HPBT bullets IMR 4895 - 46.0 grains IMR 4064 - 47.0 grains AA2460 - 46.0 grains AA2495 - 46.0 grains H4895 - 47.0 grains BLC-2 - 48.0 grains 180 grain FMJ, SP or HPBT bullets IMR 4895 - 43.0 grains AA2460 - 46.5 grains AA2495 - 45.5 grains H4895 - 44.0 grains BLC-2 - 47.5 grains RL-12 - 41.5 grains I'd reduce by 10% and work up to these loads. |
...behind every blade of grass...
| Reading these post I have a question I would like to ask concerning M1 Garand reloads. My Speer manual suggest using IMR 4895 or 4064. I reloading the shells with 150 grain fmj with a load 46.3 grains IMR 4064. Does anyone have any info on this load. Worried about the cycling of the op rod if over pressure or more worried about under pressured now. |
|
My Sierra manual list these loads for 150gr bullet using IMR4064.
44.9gr - 2600fps 46.7gr - 2700fps 48.5gr - 2800fps 50.3 gr - 2900fps 52.1gr - 3000fps MAX Hornady manul list 44.2gr - 2500fps 46.1gr - 2600fps 47.9gr - 2700fps 49.8gr - 2800fps 51.7gr - 2900fps 53.6gr - 300fps MAX Lyman list 48.0gr - 2695fps 53.0gr - 3012fps I typically load my M1 loads for about 2700 to 2800fps. I think you are OK with 46.3gr of IMR4064. Keep in mind though IMR4895 has long been considered the primo powder for M1 Garand loads. No need to change gas plug IMO. Vince |
USAF 1969-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
37717
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
Using RF and gunpowder to speed global warming
Joined:
Oct 2006
Posts:
9507
EE: 100% (18)
AZ, USA
|
Originally Posted By Gunrunr:
Thanks, That's what I was worried about. Will get some 4895 for future reloads! Get a pound of 4895 to try before you switch from IMR4064. My M1 likes 150g Hornady FMJ's, 48g of IMR4064 over any load I tested with 4895. |
...behind every blade of grass...
|
This is a great reference for the M1 reloader. I have an old hard copy. I also refer to Master Po. Sometimes, it's nice to reload a cartridge/rifle that is so well known. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Use one of the three standard M1 powders: IMR 4064, 4064 or Varget. Work up your loads and find the accuracy you're looking for. Master Po's information is long out of date and Clarke's article is a sloppy generalization of what to load for an M1. The admonition to work up your loads is valid but what is wrong with either of the references? When I did my load work up, I ended up right in line with their information. The info is old but unless the powder formulation is dramatically changed, the information remains valid. There is nothing new under the sun about IMR 4895 for the M1 Garand. If there is something wrong with the info, please be specific so we can avoid trouble reloading. |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Master Po's information is long out of date and Clarke's article is a sloppy generalization of what to load for an M1. Follow the NRA M1 Garand load data and you will be spot on every time. Vince |
USAF 1969-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
|
I've only used IMR 4895 and 4064 with 150/155 gr bullets in my M1 at around 2600-2700 fps. I see no reason to go higher. Some say they get their best groups with 168 gr match style bullets and 4064 powder at mild velocities.
The CMP Forums are an excellent source for M1 Garand info. |
|
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
The admonition to work up your loads is valid but what is wrong with either of the references? When I did my load work up, I ended up right in line with their information. The info is old but unless the powder formulation is dramatically changed, the information remains valid. There is nothing new under the sun about IMR 4895 for the M1 Garand. If there is something wrong with the info, please be specific so we can avoid trouble reloading. Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Use one of the three standard M1 powders: IMR 4064, 4064 or Varget. Work up your loads and find the accuracy you're looking for. Master Po's information is long out of date and Clarke's article is a sloppy generalization of what to load for an M1. The admonition to work up your loads is valid but what is wrong with either of the references? When I did my load work up, I ended up right in line with their information. The info is old but unless the powder formulation is dramatically changed, the information remains valid. There is nothing new under the sun about IMR 4895 for the M1 Garand. If there is something wrong with the info, please be specific so we can avoid trouble reloading. The information on loads in those sources is good. But NOBODY can guarantee that EVERY Garand will work properly OR SAFELY with any generic load. ALWAYS work up your loads for YOUR rifle. This keeps us from reading about another blown up Garand and another handloader minus a hand... |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
The information on loads in those sources is good. But NOBODY can guarantee that EVERY Garand will work properly OR SAFELY with any generic load. ALWAYS work up your loads for YOUR rifle. This keeps us from reading about another blown up Garand and another handloader minus a hand... Originally Posted By GHPorter:
Originally Posted By Trollslayer:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Use one of the three standard M1 powders: IMR 4064, 4064 or Varget. Work up your loads and find the accuracy you're looking for. Master Po's information is long out of date and Clarke's article is a sloppy generalization of what to load for an M1. The admonition to work up your loads is valid but what is wrong with either of the references? When I did my load work up, I ended up right in line with their information. The info is old but unless the powder formulation is dramatically changed, the information remains valid. There is nothing new under the sun about IMR 4895 for the M1 Garand. If there is something wrong with the info, please be specific so we can avoid trouble reloading. The information on loads in those sources is good. But NOBODY can guarantee that EVERY Garand will work properly OR SAFELY with any generic load. ALWAYS work up your loads for YOUR rifle. This keeps us from reading about another blown up Garand and another handloader minus a hand... Yes, we agree on that point. The question to TGH456E was this - what is wrong with the data from those two sources, if anything? |
|
Trollslayer:
There are several things that make those 2 article poor references: -Both use powders/ primers that have changed in the 29yrs since being published. -Neither have the newer powders that have arrived since then ie. VARGET. -Neither list ANY accuracy tests at all. The fact that the loads went "bang" is worthless to me unless they are accurate. -Master PO simply states, " These loads only duplicate military spec. velocities for the given bullet weight, using commercial cases and powders." Why would I care to simply match "mil-spec" velocities without regard for accuracy? -Clarkes isn't any better. He ....."looked for three things: functional reliability, group size and velocity." But then he just summarizes the group sizes (from 1moa to 3.75 MOA) with out attaching them to ANY load. By that standard.......... I could jam a 308 round in there and fire it........... Clarke would say the load was ok.......... -Like the powder, there are better bullets out there now................... Master PO goes up to a 180 (SMK?) which as a BC of 0.475................. THE 175 TMK has a BC of 0.545................ Clarke also mentions bullets that could easily be replaced by better bullets: USE the SAME 175TMK to beat the 190SMK (BC-0.533) USE a Berger 185 Target (BC 0.576) to beat a 200 SMK (BC- 0.565) -But then why would I want to load such heavy bullets any way????? If you are competing in CMP matches--- use a light 110-135 bullet. Use the 168 out to 600. You won't be competitive with a 3006 M1 any further out.................. -Neither have ANY data for the lighter bullets. -Neither have any reference to ANY pressure testing with ANY of these loads............ Let me read them some more and I'll come up with more points...................... OP: Use/Try 4064, 4895 or Varget............ one of those will give you great accuracy. Pick a reasonable bullet for what you want it to do. Work your loads up and stop when you find the accuracy you want. Be done with it.................... |
|
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Trollslayer: OP: Use/Try 4064, 4895 or Varget............ one of those will give you great accuracy. Pick a reasonable bullet for what you want it to do. Work your loads up and stop when you find the accuracy you want. Be done with it.................... In summary, they don't have Varget and the 175 SMK, therefore they are "out of date" and "poor references". I agree, they have neither. IMO, they are still very good references for the reloader for the Garand. I am struck by the contrast between your argument and your final recommendations. Instead of trashing published data that is known to work even with modern production lots of these powders, perhaps you could have just recommended the OP also try Varget and the 175 SMK. The following is meant as debate: When a reloader is doing the load work up, they will generate their own accuracy info. Even if they had published accuracy info, it would be, always has been and will remain largely irrelevant, as the reloader's rifle, even yours, would be different. My experience with the M1 has been the non-accurized, DCM/CMP-issued rifle is that the rifle is the accuracy limiter, not the shooter and not the cartridge. Do you really think you can use someone else's accuracy info to pick a load for your rifle? Really? The articles are from an era when reloaders did not have ready access to chronographs and pressure (strain) gages and still, bazillions of rounds were reloaded and fired with accuracy and safety. This is one benefit of using well-established powders and bullets like IMR 4895, IMR 4064 and bullets like the 168 SMK. It may be over-kill at 100 yards but it works well. After "cutting my teeth" with the 168, I also went to the 155 SMK, some 125 gr Remington bullets , etc for use at 100 yards. For me, in the end, my M1 lacked the accuracy I was after. The AR-15 shooters were getting much better accuracy from their rifles, so I moved on. |
|
Originally Posted By firescout:
In my findings, it seems like most Garand 'kabooms' are caused by out-of-battery firing, due to a problem with the rifle or improper op rod manipulation. Originally Posted By firescout:
...This keeps us from reading about another blown up Garand and another handloader minus a hand... In my findings, it seems like most Garand 'kabooms' are caused by out-of-battery firing, due to a problem with the rifle or improper op rod manipulation. |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
| I don't think either of those online sources is "bad." They are not current, and they may list loads that wouldn't get into a newly published manual (probabaly due to being hotter than the lawyers like). But they are just fine as starting points for developing loads. Which is the whole point...developing your own loads safely based on reasonably constructed data. Remember, if you compare two different, current manuals, you'll find some pretty significant differences in loads for the same bullet and powder. That's why you use a critical eye and common sense while developing a load - this is not a "cookbook" hobby. |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
|
Trollslayer:
You asked for me to explain my comments and I did. Why you didn't read them more closely is odd to me. Your summary is wrong. The out -of date parts of both articles is that they are written so long ago they don't account for new powder or bullets. One new(er) powder is Varget. The newer bullets, like the TMK series of bullets negates the use of those 180+ bullets they have in their articles. I didn't recommend any one bullet. I suggested any of three powders...........not one. Your debate is flawed too: -Why you would take the time to explain to me about working up a load is odd- I'm the one that is consistently telling the OP to do that. -You missed the point to me bringing up the lack of group accuracy in the articles........It wasn't to copy them. It's to show the lack of completeness in the articles. It would be like reading a car review and the reviewer didn't take the time to drive the #$$%^ thing. Or another example.... it would be sloppy reporting to talk up a Quarter Back but forget to mention he leads the league in interceptions..... -NOW in 2015 WE DO have easy access to chronographs and just about all reloading companies include pressure results in their articles. Another reason to work your own loads up and not rely on info from 1986 when they did not. -You moved onto an AR................ Ok, well in 1986 the AR hadn't developed into the accurate shooting rifle it is now. But you've moved on. There is an idea I'd like to work on................. So things change, products come out and things get better (or sometimes worse) but after some looking and testing...... you went to an AR. So why is so hard to apply the same idea to the M1 Garand? Leave the notes from 1986 behind. There are better bullets and potentially better powders out there. There are better and cheaper ways for any shooter to test his loads now. Just like you moved on to the AR, how about we leave the poorly written articles from 1986 behind too............................. OP: Work up your own loads. I'd suggest one of three powders: 4064, 4895 or Varget. Bullets: -Depends on what you what to do. But with todays bullets, you don't really need to go beyond the 175's.......... |
|
My M1 Garand likes 150gr bullets. Plus it likes boat tail bullets specifically Sierra 150gr BTSP.
It also likes old pulled 150gr fmjs of unknown origin with flat base. I've read all of the old articles and think they are interesting and informative but use and trust Hornady M1 Garand specific data. My 2 favorite powders are IMR-4895 and WC-844 (or H-335) although the ball powders require the use of a magnum primer, at least it does in my rifle using loads appropriate for use with 150gr bullets. Motor |
Don't over complicate things. Cover the basics and you'll be ok.
|
I finally got back to this discussion. Because it reads more like angry argument than discussion, this will be my final post in this thread.
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
... the lack of group accuracy in the articles... ... is irrelevant. Each rifle is different and most M1's suck in the accuracy department. If you can shoot your accurized M1 into sub-MOA groups, you do not need help reloading, but the OP does. -NOW in 2015 WE DO have easy access to chronographs and just about all reloading companies include pressure results in their articles. Another reason to work your own loads up and not rely on info from 1986 when they did not. The use of chronographs as a tool for the reloader is grossly over-rated. I use one because I have one (or is it two or three) but it has never once helped me improve accuracy of my loads or my shooting. They are toys and largely a distraction to the novice who should concentrate on shooting technique, not muzzle velocity or BC or statistics. I'd say ditto for pressure measurement. Use well established loading data and you will never need one. I have never needed one, not even when reloading wildcats. These devices are expensive and time-consuming, even for an experienced reloader/shooter. Also, they almost never provide data that matches published figures. Just watch how many chrono users ask why their data does not match published data. Many even adjust charges trying to match published speeds. How many of those people call each and record the call for every shot in the test group, compare POI to call, recover their targets and take them home to analyze group sizes, drop, wind drift,... You moved onto an AR................ Ok, well in 1986 the AR hadn't developed into the accurate shooting rifle it is now. But you've moved on. There is an idea I'd like to work on................. So things change, products come out and things get better (or sometimes worse) but after some looking and testing...... you went to an AR. So why is so hard to apply the same idea to the M1 Garand? I never said any of THAT, except that I moved away from the M1 (due to its very poor accuracy, 3-4 MOA at 100 yards). A relative novice M1 reloader and shooter is unlikely to benefit from any of the more advanced and expensive bullets - it's the archer, not the arrow. Leave the notes from 1986 behind. Master Po's info is just fine. I consider it as a one viable source of info and recommend it, consistent with good reloading practices you mention below: Work up your own loads. I'd suggest one of three powders: 4064, 4895 or Varget. Bullets: -Depends on what you what to do. But with todays bullets, you don't really need to go beyond the 175's.......... I agree with the others on this point. If the OP is only shooting at 100 to 200 yards, he really need not go beyond the 155 gr bullets. The 168's and 175's are tried and true bullets but are wasted at short ranges. |
|
This discussion is interesting and pointless at the same time. I shoot and reload my M1 Garand for fun not accuracy. For accuracy I shoot my 03A3 Springfield.
Vince |
USAF 1969-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
Norton AFB 1969-71, 63rd Military Airlift Wing
Cam Ranh Bay RVN 1971-72, 483d Tactical Airlift Wing
Dyess AFB 1972-73
|
Again, the Garand gas system was designed around 150gr ball ammo with 4895.
If you are going to use heaver bullets, or increase the gas pressure to the gas system ( the opt rod), then you need to vent the un-needed gas to the opt rod, or your going to bend your opt rod out of shape instead. As for gas venting gas plugs, am a huge fan of the Mccann allen screw with different size vent channels drill through them type. Why, it just a lot easy to change the insert vent allen screw to match the load you are using very quickly, than to have to play with the Schuster type to get another setting back for another load instead. |
Posted By PlaymoreMinds:
'Twas not the <cough> sweet and innocent <cough> PlaymoreMinds...
<---skips away in frilly skirts to Candyland, leaving gutters and snorkels FAR behind.
'Twas not the <cough> sweet and innocent <cough> PlaymoreMinds...
<---skips away in frilly skirts to Candyland, leaving gutters and snorkels FAR behind.
|
There are several more very good alternatives, the point is that you have to be careful not to damage the op rod, which is more than just staying within the normal .30-06 limits.
Don't be too afraid to run the alternatives unless you don't understand the normal reloading risks of the Garand. At the bottom of this page, you will see a wide assortment of powders that have been used by guys who shoot their Garands for Service Rifle competition, not just occasional plinking. http://www.radomski.us/njhp/cart_tech.htm |
|
Originally Posted By penrod72:
I see all of you saying IMR4895 - any issue substituting H4895? H4895 is suitable for Garand, along with the IMR-4895, VARGET, IMR-4064, 4320 I think, and a host of other flavors in that burn range, though these seem to be the most common powder used |
|
On a related point, I'm being asked to tutor a new handloader who wants to load for his Garand. I've been looking at entry level presses and I'm looking at Lee's O-frame Classic press for him. I like that it's a cast iron, O-frame press, so it'll handle just about anything. Is the Classic "enough press" for sizing .30-'06 for the Garand? And any suggestions for what to warn a newbie about in relation to loading for the Garand would be appreciated as well.
As for me, I haven't loaded any rounds for my own Garand. Not yet. But I have H4895, a bunch of brass, and I'm on the lookout for M2 bullets (when my spending money recovers from the holidays, anyway). I've been following this thread from the beginning, andI hope to apply some of what I've learned here in the near future. |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
|
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
On a related point, I'm being asked to tutor a new handloader who wants to load for his Garand. I've been looking at entry level presses and I'm looking at Lee's O-frame Classic press for him. I like that it's a cast iron, O-frame press, so it'll handle just about anything. Is the Classic "enough press" for sizing .30-'06 for the Garand? And any suggestions for what to warn a newbie about in relation to loading for the Garand would be appreciated as well. As for me, I haven't loaded any rounds for my own Garand. Not yet. But I have H4895, a bunch of brass, and I'm on the lookout for M2 bullets (when my spending money recovers from the holidays, anyway). I've been following this thread from the beginning, andI hope to apply some of what I've learned here in the near future. That Lee's Classic press should do fine. I use an almost 40 year old Hornady 0-7 press. It has only one link bar, is aluminum and has been sizing .30-06 almost since I got. The Classic has two. I load Sierra 150 gr flat base Gamekings. Unless you find actual surplus fmj's these, or Hornady's 150 gr Spirepoints, can be cheaper than new manufacture fmj's. Mostly because of the quantity made. The solid, consistent base aids in accuracy. |
Drugs kicked in now, need sleep, radiation tastes funny at 7 am every day... a bit like victory. - Ginger
|
Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
That Lee's Classic press should do fine. I use an almost 40 year old Hornady 0-7 press. It has only one link bar, is aluminum and has been sizing .30-06 almost since I got. The Classic has two. I load Sierra 150 gr flat base Gamekings. Unless you find actual surplus fmj's these, or Hornady's 150 gr Spirepoints, can be cheaper than new manufacture fmj's. Mostly because of the quantity made. The solid, consistent base aids in accuracy. Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob:
Originally Posted By GHPorter:
On a related point, I'm being asked to tutor a new handloader who wants to load for his Garand. I've been looking at entry level presses and I'm looking at Lee's O-frame Classic press for him. I like that it's a cast iron, O-frame press, so it'll handle just about anything. Is the Classic "enough press" for sizing .30-'06 for the Garand? And any suggestions for what to warn a newbie about in relation to loading for the Garand would be appreciated as well. As for me, I haven't loaded any rounds for my own Garand. Not yet. But I have H4895, a bunch of brass, and I'm on the lookout for M2 bullets (when my spending money recovers from the holidays, anyway). I've been following this thread from the beginning, andI hope to apply some of what I've learned here in the near future. That Lee's Classic press should do fine. I use an almost 40 year old Hornady 0-7 press. It has only one link bar, is aluminum and has been sizing .30-06 almost since I got. The Classic has two. I load Sierra 150 gr flat base Gamekings. Unless you find actual surplus fmj's these, or Hornady's 150 gr Spirepoints, can be cheaper than new manufacture fmj's. Mostly because of the quantity made. The solid, consistent base aids in accuracy. |
"--you can't conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
Heinlein
NRA Life Member
Glock Certified Armorer
Certified AR15 Armorer
Certified M1911 Armorer
|
Originally Posted By Gunrunr:
Reading these post I have a question I would like to ask concerning M1 Garand reloads. My Speer manual suggest using IMR 4895 or 4064. I reloading the shells with 150 grain fmj with a load 46.3 grains IMR 4064. Does anyone have any info on this load. Worried about the cycling of the op rod if over pressure or more worried about under pressured now. You're safe and a little low, probably. I shoot Sierra 150 ProHunters (#2130) over 49.0 grs. of IMR4064 for a muzzle velocity of ~2750 fps as measured 10' from the muzzle of my Garand with my Pact Model 1 chronograph. But you should verify my findings on your own. Chronies are cheap and available everywhere now a days. |
Drugs kicked in now, need sleep, radiation tastes funny at 7 am every day... a bit like victory. - Ginger
|
Originally Posted By JohnInPA:
Hey Guys _ I have plenty of IMR 4895 and Varget laying around .. And 150 gr Hornady fmj and 168 Nosler Match bullets with Federal Cases and WLP primers Any published loads using IMR 4895 will be safe in the Garand. No real reason to go all the way to Maximum though, best accuracy (in my experience) tends to be a few grains under max. I normally use 47-47.5 grains with a 150 grain bullet. Win or CCI Large Rifle primer, LC brass. If using commercial brass you might want to go up a half grain. |
Global Warming Hoax Skeptic before it was cool
Joined:
Jun 2007
Posts:
41158
EE: 100% (1)
WA, USA
|
Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob: You're safe and a little low, probably. I shoot Sierra 150 ProHunters (#2130) over 49.0 grs. of IMR4064 for a muzzle velocity of ~2750 fps as measured 10' from the muzzle of my Garand with my Pact Model 1 chronograph. But you should verify my findings on your own. Chronies are cheap and available everywhere now a days. Originally Posted By Bumblebee_Bob: Originally Posted By Gunrunr: Reading these post I have a question I would like to ask concerning M1 Garand reloads. My Speer manual suggest using IMR 4895 or 4064. I reloading the shells with 150 grain fmj with a load 46.3 grains IMR 4064. Does anyone have any info on this load. Worried about the cycling of the op rod if over pressure or more worried about under pressured now. You're safe and a little low, probably. I shoot Sierra 150 ProHunters (#2130) over 49.0 grs. of IMR4064 for a muzzle velocity of ~2750 fps as measured 10' from the muzzle of my Garand with my Pact Model 1 chronograph. But you should verify my findings on your own. Chronies are cheap and available everywhere now a days. Good to see you stop by BBBob. |
Selling agent for Algores carbon credit scam.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
Shooting and Reloading, one hobby feeds the other.
|
Originally Posted By Dano523:
Again, the Garand gas system was designed around 150gr ball ammo with 4895. Not this old saw again? The M1 Gas System was designed around the 172-173 grain M1 Ball. The 150-152 grain M2 ball came out several years AFTER the M1 was already in service, and was primarily intended for National Guard use on shorter ranges. |
M1 Garrand 30-06 loads (Page 1 of 2)
Armory Sponsor