Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
Member Login

Posted: 12/14/2020 8:33:10 PM EST
Is velocity the only worry when using current factory hunting ammo through the Garand?

The CMP is selling Creedmoor 150 grain with a velocity of 2810fps.

I have a case of Privi hunting ammo that is 180 grain and the Privi website shows it is doing 820mps or 2690fps.

Is this safe to shoot in my Garand since the velocity is slower or will the extra weight of the projectile cause more gas to enter the recoil system and cause issues?

I keep seeing conflicting data on the net and while I did order some CMP ammo with my Garand order I also wanted to use what I have on hand for deer and hog hunting.



Link Posted: 12/14/2020 8:55:57 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/14/2020 8:56:57 PM EST by Nick_Adams]
Dude, just use an adjustable gas plug like the M1 Pros do.

Then any worries about your op rod doing the 'crack!-n-pop!' thing, because of stoopid ammo choices, magically fade away.

You can thank me later.
Link Posted: 12/14/2020 9:37:51 PM EST
M1 pros I know don’t use adjustable gas plugs.

The general problem is not velocity, it is pressure at the gas port. Slower powders and heavier bullets may have higher pressures at the gas port. I say may because actually data and testing shows you can’t say a certain weight bullet is too much or a certain powder and slower is too much. They are general guidelines.

The Garand is pretty tough and probably can survive a lot of hunting loads. My understanding is for years many people did not pay any attention. Marketing of adjustable gas plugs seemed to cause worry for new Garand owners. I have not bent rods everywhere.

Here is some good data to review, Grandgear. According to it your privi has a higher pressure than the highest surplus ammo they tested. If you are worried about it, use 150gr hunting ammo or 180 Remington corelok instead of wasting money on the gas plug.
Link Posted: 12/14/2020 11:26:02 PM EST
Stop worrying over nothing and having to buy gimmicks.


Grease your rifle properly and ensure you have a good oprod spring in it and you can shoot what you want.


Link Posted: 12/15/2020 8:26:41 AM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2020 8:27:29 AM EST by TGH456E]
OP:

So this comes up about every 6 months or so...… and you won't escape the conflicting answers that you got other places asking here.    

As others have said, it's the pressure of the cartridge is the issue.  

I'll second these comments:  "....Here is some good data to review, Garandgear. According to it your privi has a higher pressure than the highest surplus ammo they tested. If you are worried about it, use 150gr hunting ammo or 180 Remington corelok instead of wasting money on the gas plug...……."  

The Garand gear test is a well written, performed test.  
If you want to shoot the ammo you have …….. I'd use the adjustable gas plug.  

It was originally designed by Mr Garand himself.  

http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 8:58:52 AM EST
Rifles are different.  Ammo is different.

What breaks someone else's rifle may not harm yours.

If you have a pretty worn gas system then higher gas port pressures may not affect your rifle like it would someone with a nice, well in spec. gas cylinder and op rod rifle.  Then there's the op rod spring strength/newness, the load thing (how do you know what powder a manufacturer used to load your ammo?  Might be faster burning powder (in the range for M1 Garand gas systems) or it might be slower burning powder (higher gas port pressures than recommended).

I have an adjustable gas plug on my shooter M1.  The only one I shoot these days.  Works great.  No issues.  But the thing you need to remember is that it's adjustable so you can adjust it.  Adjust it for the heavy bullet/slow burning powder loads and it may not function with the standard GI type ammo.  Adjust if for the GI surplus ammo and it may be harsh on the rifle's action with the 180 grain hunting loads.

The chamber pressure difference between commercial hunting ammo and GI surplus ammo is not what can damage your M1 - it's the pressure at the gas port that needs to be in spec for the rifle's design/parts.

If you get an adjustable plug, try to either keep the same ammo running through it or try different ones and keep notes about any changes you make to the gas plug adjustment.  The best thing would be if it works in one spot for several brands of ammo/bullet weights, but you won't know that till you try it.

Unless you're hunting big deer or bears a 150 or 165 grain hunting bullet will do all you need to do with a .30-06.
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 9:22:27 AM EST
One thing to remember with the garand gear data...
They are using their test data to show you need to buy their product.

A few problems show up when looking at their "test".  They used the weakest M2 ball in their testing.  Also their data doesn't match the results Springfield armory came up with in the 60s.

If a new condition rifle was tested with commercial ammo with no adverse results then its safe to say a worn rifle is in less danger...


Good springs and good lubrication is all you need.


If you want to throw money away on gimmicks..that's your right...but it certainly isn't something the average shooter would need.

Someone loading up super duper hot long range loads could find a use for it..that's about it.
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 4:05:40 PM EST
I don't shoot hunting ammo through my Garands. I use my reloads with IMR-4895 or IMR-4064 for fuel and 150 through 175 grain match bullets.

You have absolutely no idea what powder any commercial ammunition is using. It's probably going to be a slower burning powder like a 4350 or 4831 in .30-06. That allows them higher velocities with heavier bullets and works great in .30-06 bolt actions which probably make up 90+% of their consumers.

For my entire life I have been warned against using slow powders and heavy bullets in Garands, in the last couple of years people claim it doesn't matter anymore. I'm going to follow the old instructions for several reasons:

1. Garand parts aren't getting any cheaper or more plentiful.
2. I reload, so I have total control over what ammo I feed my rifles.
3. I am unconvinced that everyone was wrong for 70+ years and now someone makes a video or two and to prove it.
4. H-4350, IMR-4350, H4831, IMR-4831 and similar powders were available when John C. Garand invented this rifle. They would have generated more velocity at acceptable chamber pressures, yet they chose the 4895 burn rate instead. Were they wrong, or did they get it right?
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 4:11:36 PM EST
When I used to have access to GI surplus .30-06 in the 1980's most of the Lake City ammo (M2 ball) only ran around 2600 to 2640 fps over our club chronograph (Oehler P35). Not very fast for a 150 grain bullet through a 24" barrel.

Headstamps were normally late 60's, fifteen to twenty years old when sold to our club for DCM tournaments. I doubt they lost much in the way of velocity compared to new. This tells me that the government wasn't pushing the envelope one bit when issuing ammo for these rifles.
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 4:41:43 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By borderpatrol:
When I used to have access to GI surplus .30-06 in the 1980's most of the Lake City ammo (M2 ball) only ran around 2600 to 2640 fps over our club chronograph (Oehler P35). Not very fast for a 150 grain bullet through a 24" barrel.

Headstamps were normally late 60's, fifteen to twenty years old when sold to our club for DCM tournaments. I doubt they lost much in the way of velocity compared to new. This tells me that the government wasn't pushing the envelope one bit when issuing ammo for these rifles.
View Quote
Actually 4895 didn't exist when the garand was designed and adopted....

and secondly the late 60s ammo is known to be substandard and doesn't meet required specs.  But when there is a war on and a shortage of 4895 and you have to switch to canadian CMR 100 powder you make exceptions. The early 70s ammo is right back up there where you need to be velocity wise.

Late 60s M2 ball is junk...period.  All other time periods of USGI M2 ball from WW2 thru Korea and early 70s on up all make MINIMUM of high 2700s at 15ft some even go to mid 2800s.

Using late 60s ball as a baseline results in skewed data.....
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 7:39:48 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2020 7:41:10 PM EST by TGH456E]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
One thing to remember with the garand gear data...
They are using their test data to show you need to buy their product.

A few problems show up when looking at their "test".  They used the weakest M2 ball in their testing.  Also their data doesn't match the results Springfield armory came up with in the 60s.

If a new condition rifle was tested with commercial ammo with no adverse results then its safe to say a worn rifle is in less danger...


Good springs and good lubrication is all you need.


If you want to throw money away on gimmicks..that's your right...but it certainly isn't something the average shooter would need.

Someone loading up super duper hot long range loads could find a use for it..that's about it.
View Quote


Sir:
If you wish you can use:  M72 Match ammunition, M1 Ball, their Handloaded ammunition, HXP Ball or the LC Ball.
They have included all those "base line" pressures..............  
So if you wish...... use the 1934 M1 Ball they used in their test....... the result is the same.
But your comments about using only M2 Ball is, well, ignorant.    

As far as trying to sell you something............ sometimes a product works.  
In this case, the product was designed by Mr Garand, and he was humble enough to realize a shortcoming in his design and how to address it.  
It's funny that some 75 years later, some want to ignore his own observations.

If Garand gear is trying to sell something, they are doing a poor job of it.  No where do they say you must use their product, that theirs is the only one
or even that it's necessary.  They provide the results of a test they conducted and you can decide for yourself what it means for you.    
       
 

Link Posted: 12/15/2020 8:41:26 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Sir:
If you wish you can use:  M72 Match ammunition, M1 Ball, their Handloaded ammunition, HXP Ball or the LC Ball.
They have included all those "base line" pressures..............  
So if you wish...... use the 1934 M1 Ball they used in their test....... the result is the same.
But your comments about using only M2 Ball is, well, ignorant.    

As far as trying to sell you something............ sometimes a product works.  
In this case, the product was designed by Mr Garand, and he was humble enough to realize a shortcoming in his design and how to address it.  
It's funny that some 75 years later, some want to ignore his own observations.

If Garand gear is trying to sell something, they are doing a poor job of it.  No where do they say you must use their product, that theirs is the only one
or even that it's necessary.  They provide the results of a test they conducted and you can decide for yourself what it means for you.    
       
 

View Quote
Nothing about my comment was ignorant...I am well versed on this and my comment stands...

They used a substandard M2 ball load and used NONE of the USGI loads that create MORE port pressure...its almost as if the data was cherry picked. No WW2 or KW or last issued M2 ball was tested...ONLY the known substandard years.

Sorry the GG product wasn't designed by John Garand.  GG copied it off the Italian BM59 where they moved the gas port closer to the chamber thus increasing the port pressure.  So the Italians modified the cylinder lock screw by hollowing it out...GG just stole the idea and "marketed" for the garand...which doesn't need it in the first place.

They provided the results of a test that wasn't conducted with a wide variety of milsurp ammo. A test which they use to set the "limit" as decreed by them which is lower that what a more thorough test would have shown. A test that likely would have shown no modifications are needed to the garands gas system.  But hey...at least we have capitalism where we show you the test that shows you need their product...
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 9:12:49 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/15/2020 9:17:34 PM EST by TGH456E]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Nothing about my comment was ignorant...I am well versed on this and my comment stands...

They used a substandard M2 ball load and used NONE of the USGI loads that create MORE port pressure...its almost as if the data was cherry picked. No WW2 or KW or last issued M2 ball was tested...ONLY the known substandard years.

Sorry the GG product wasn't designed by John Garand.  GG copied it off the Italian BM59 where they moved the gas port closer to the chamber thus increasing the port pressure.  So the Italians modified the cylinder lock screw by hollowing it out...GG just stole the idea and "marketed" for the garand...which doesn't need it in the first place.

They provided the results of a test that wasn't conducted with a wide variety of milsurp ammo. A test which they use to set the "limit" as decreed by them which is lower that what a more thorough test would have shown. A test that likely would have shown no modifications are needed to the garands gas system.  But hey...at least we have capitalism where we show you the test that shows you need their product...
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Sir:
If you wish you can use:  M72 Match ammunition, M1 Ball, their Handloaded ammunition, HXP Ball or the LC Ball.
They have included all those "base line" pressures..............  
So if you wish...... use the 1934 M1 Ball they used in their test....... the result is the same.
But your comments about using only M2 Ball is, well, ignorant.    

As far as trying to sell you something............ sometimes a product works.  
In this case, the product was designed by Mr Garand, and he was humble enough to realize a shortcoming in his design and how to address it.  
It's funny that some 75 years later, some want to ignore his own observations.

If Garand gear is trying to sell something, they are doing a poor job of it.  No where do they say you must use their product, that theirs is the only one
or even that it's necessary.  They provide the results of a test they conducted and you can decide for yourself what it means for you.    
       
 

Nothing about my comment was ignorant...I am well versed on this and my comment stands...

They used a substandard M2 ball load and used NONE of the USGI loads that create MORE port pressure...its almost as if the data was cherry picked. No WW2 or KW or last issued M2 ball was tested...ONLY the known substandard years.

Sorry the GG product wasn't designed by John Garand.  GG copied it off the Italian BM59 where they moved the gas port closer to the chamber thus increasing the port pressure.  So the Italians modified the cylinder lock screw by hollowing it out...GG just stole the idea and "marketed" for the garand...which doesn't need it in the first place.

They provided the results of a test that wasn't conducted with a wide variety of milsurp ammo. A test which they use to set the "limit" as decreed by them which is lower that what a more thorough test would have shown. A test that likely would have shown no modifications are needed to the garands gas system.  But hey...at least we have capitalism where we show you the test that shows you need their product...



Sir:
Again.... they clearly post the pressures for the various ammunition they tested.
It's right there in the chart.  
Again use the 1934 M1 Ball pressures they found if it is more valid for you. Or any of the 5 cartridges they tested-- take your pick.
That's why the test is quite informative.... it contains alot of different test points.  


Further..... The link I provided has yet another link to the Patent Mr Garand applied for in 1942 and patented in February 1945.............  
Well before the Italians and the BM59.  
So I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

But could you please just read the article before you comment on what it does or doesn't contain............
ie.  your confusion over a BM59 plug and the Garand-Garand gear plug.    

PS..... Now I'm confused: Are you saying that the M1 Ball cartridge isn't a valid cartridge to test in an M1?  

   
Link Posted: 12/15/2020 9:20:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TGH456E:



Sir:
Again.... they clearly post the pressures for the various ammunition they tested.
It's right there in the chart.  
Again use the 1934 M1 Ball pressures they found if it is more valid for you. Or any of the 5 cartridges they tested-- take your pick.
That's why the test is quite informative.... it contains alot of different test points.  


Further..... The link I provided has yet another link to the Patent Mr Garand applied for in 1942 and patented in 1945.............  
Well before the Italians and the BM59.  
So I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

But could you please just read the article before you comment on what it does or doesn't contain............
ie.  your confusion over a BM59 plug and the Garand-Garand gear plug.    
   
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Sir:
If you wish you can use:  M72 Match ammunition, M1 Ball, their Handloaded ammunition, HXP Ball or the LC Ball.
They have included all those "base line" pressures..............  
So if you wish...... use the 1934 M1 Ball they used in their test....... the result is the same.
But your comments about using only M2 Ball is, well, ignorant.    

As far as trying to sell you something............ sometimes a product works.  
In this case, the product was designed by Mr Garand, and he was humble enough to realize a shortcoming in his design and how to address it.  
It's funny that some 75 years later, some want to ignore his own observations.

If Garand gear is trying to sell something, they are doing a poor job of it.  No where do they say you must use their product, that theirs is the only one
or even that it's necessary.  They provide the results of a test they conducted and you can decide for yourself what it means for you.    
       
 

Nothing about my comment was ignorant...I am well versed on this and my comment stands...

They used a substandard M2 ball load and used NONE of the USGI loads that create MORE port pressure...its almost as if the data was cherry picked. No WW2 or KW or last issued M2 ball was tested...ONLY the known substandard years.

Sorry the GG product wasn't designed by John Garand.  GG copied it off the Italian BM59 where they moved the gas port closer to the chamber thus increasing the port pressure.  So the Italians modified the cylinder lock screw by hollowing it out...GG just stole the idea and "marketed" for the garand...which doesn't need it in the first place.

They provided the results of a test that wasn't conducted with a wide variety of milsurp ammo. A test which they use to set the "limit" as decreed by them which is lower that what a more thorough test would have shown. A test that likely would have shown no modifications are needed to the garands gas system.  But hey...at least we have capitalism where we show you the test that shows you need their product...



Sir:
Again.... they clearly post the pressures for the various ammunition they tested.
It's right there in the chart.  
Again use the 1934 M1 Ball pressures they found if it is more valid for you. Or any of the 5 cartridges they tested-- take your pick.
That's why the test is quite informative.... it contains alot of different test points.  


Further..... The link I provided has yet another link to the Patent Mr Garand applied for in 1942 and patented in 1945.............  
Well before the Italians and the BM59.  
So I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

But could you please just read the article before you comment on what it does or doesn't contain............
ie.  your confusion over a BM59 plug and the Garand-Garand gear plug.    
   
Not sure where you think I'm confused.  I'm not worried about what ammo they tested..I'm more concerned about the ammo they DID NOT test....you know (as I've already stated) the ammo that delivers MORE port pressure than the ones they DID test.  "FIVE" test points is NOT "a lot".

What JCG patented (and no ever adopted it because it wasn't needed) is what became the "schuster" adjustable.  The Italians did NOT use JCGs patent design for THEIR modified screw.  My point is the GG version was taken from the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock screw.  There is no "confusion"..the GG "screw" (not a plug) is based on the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock "screw".

Perhaps you are the one confused?
Link Posted: 12/16/2020 10:11:36 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Not sure where you think I'm confused.  I'm not worried about what ammo they tested..I'm more concerned about the ammo they DID NOT test....you know (as I've already stated) the ammo that delivers MORE port pressure than the ones they DID test.  "FIVE" test points is NOT "a lot".

What JCG patented (and no ever adopted it because it wasn't needed) is what became the "schuster" adjustable.  The Italians did NOT use JCGs patent design for THEIR modified screw.  My point is the GG version was taken from the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock screw.  There is no "confusion"..the GG "screw" (not a plug) is based on the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock "screw".

Perhaps you are the one confused?
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Sir:
If you wish you can use:  M72 Match ammunition, M1 Ball, their Handloaded ammunition, HXP Ball or the LC Ball.
They have included all those "base line" pressures..............  
So if you wish...... use the 1934 M1 Ball they used in their test....... the result is the same.
But your comments about using only M2 Ball is, well, ignorant.    

As far as trying to sell you something............ sometimes a product works.  
In this case, the product was designed by Mr Garand, and he was humble enough to realize a shortcoming in his design and how to address it.  
It's funny that some 75 years later, some want to ignore his own observations.

If Garand gear is trying to sell something, they are doing a poor job of it.  No where do they say you must use their product, that theirs is the only one
or even that it's necessary.  They provide the results of a test they conducted and you can decide for yourself what it means for you.    
       
 

Nothing about my comment was ignorant...I am well versed on this and my comment stands...

They used a substandard M2 ball load and used NONE of the USGI loads that create MORE port pressure...its almost as if the data was cherry picked. No WW2 or KW or last issued M2 ball was tested...ONLY the known substandard years.

Sorry the GG product wasn't designed by John Garand.  GG copied it off the Italian BM59 where they moved the gas port closer to the chamber thus increasing the port pressure.  So the Italians modified the cylinder lock screw by hollowing it out...GG just stole the idea and "marketed" for the garand...which doesn't need it in the first place.

They provided the results of a test that wasn't conducted with a wide variety of milsurp ammo. A test which they use to set the "limit" as decreed by them which is lower that what a more thorough test would have shown. A test that likely would have shown no modifications are needed to the garands gas system.  But hey...at least we have capitalism where we show you the test that shows you need their product...



Sir:
Again.... they clearly post the pressures for the various ammunition they tested.
It's right there in the chart.  
Again use the 1934 M1 Ball pressures they found if it is more valid for you. Or any of the 5 cartridges they tested-- take your pick.
That's why the test is quite informative.... it contains alot of different test points.  


Further..... The link I provided has yet another link to the Patent Mr Garand applied for in 1942 and patented in 1945.............  
Well before the Italians and the BM59.  
So I'm not sure exactly what your point is.

But could you please just read the article before you comment on what it does or doesn't contain............
ie.  your confusion over a BM59 plug and the Garand-Garand gear plug.    
   
Not sure where you think I'm confused.  I'm not worried about what ammo they tested..I'm more concerned about the ammo they DID NOT test....you know (as I've already stated) the ammo that delivers MORE port pressure than the ones they DID test.  "FIVE" test points is NOT "a lot".

What JCG patented (and no ever adopted it because it wasn't needed) is what became the "schuster" adjustable.  The Italians did NOT use JCGs patent design for THEIR modified screw.  My point is the GG version was taken from the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock screw.  There is no "confusion"..the GG "screw" (not a plug) is based on the Italian BM59 gas cylinder lock "screw".

Perhaps you are the one confused?


Sir:
Your comments about what ammunition is junk or under pressure etc are just that...…. your comments.
Otherwise you are just some random guy out in the internet world, just like me.  
So you can make statements all you want and declare things to this or that...….  but they mean nothing, without some sort of evidence.  

You've spent a lot of time explaining to any one that will listen that the M1 was designed around the M1 Ball cartridge.
So if you don't trust their M2 Ball data, use that.
They have the M1 Ball data...……….  use that...….. it's in their results.  

I appreciate you declaring what/how you think the GG plug was designed.  
But you don't work for them or have any insight into how or why they came up with the design they did.  
So ……. Thanks for the guess????

(What's amazing to me is if you actually sat down and read the article and the results.  Just carefully did so, you'd realize that it isn't the threat to your "any ammo is safe" idea that you've been
screaming about for years now that you think it is)………………  But whatever...….
 


 

Link Posted: 12/16/2020 10:24:57 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Sir:
Your comments about what ammunition is junk or under pressure etc are just that.... your comments.
Otherwise you are just some random guy out in the internet world, just like me.  
So you can make statements all you want and declare things to this or that....  but they mean nothing, without some sort of evidence.  

You've spent a lot of time explaining to any one that will listen that the M1 was designed around the M1 Ball cartridge.
So if you don't trust their M2 Ball data, use that.
They have the M1 Ball data....  use that..... it's in their results.  

I appreciate you declaring what/how you think the GG plug was designed.  
But you don't work for them or have any insight into how or why they came up with the design they did.  
So . Thanks for the guess????

(What's amazing to me is if you actually sat down and read the article and the results.  Just carefully did so, you'd realize that it isn't the threat to your "any ammo is safe" idea that you've been
screaming about for years now that you think it is)  But whatever....
 


 

View Quote
Sorry but the data for my comments is already out there in spreadsheet form garnered from lots of shooting and recording info.

They have ONE year of M1 ball data...  I have two different years that have more port pressure than 1934.   So again..back to the data point of "one" for M1 ball, "one" for USGI M2 ball, "one" for Greek M2 ball, "one" for M72 Match, "one" for handloads.

Not much data there at all....and if they had done a larger sample...say perhaps 30 or 40 different types of M2 ball...they would have a clearer picture.  Or maybe they did shoot some of the higher port pressure ammo and decided that wouldn't fit in their business model....who knows.

The facts are...there "data" is thin and also questionable.  How can some of the slowest shooting M2 ball have the highest port pressure.  Lets don't forget that their gas cylinder pressure readings don't match up with Springfield Armory's pressure results.

You're right...GG just thought it up all by themselves....conveniently overlooking the fact that Italy did it in the 60s....  Sort of like Schuster did with his....he copied JCGs idea.

I've read the article and the results...my comment is directed to those who say that GG is "good" data.... it's not...for the reasons outlined above.

And lets not forget in some rifles the GG screw causes rifles to short stroke.


Link Posted: 12/16/2020 5:33:58 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Actually 4895 didn't exist when the garand was designed and adopted....

View Quote


This statement is not only incorrect, 4895 was the standard powder for US rifle ammunition throughout WW2. They manufactured so much of it they sold the surplus for over 15 years before starting new manufacture for public sales in 1962.
Link Posted: 12/16/2020 6:11:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By borderpatrol:


This statement is not only incorrect, 4895 was the standard powder for US rifle ammunition throughout WW2. They manufactured so much of it they sold the surplus for over 15 years before starting new manufacture for public sales in 1962.
View Quote
I would suggest you check your facts....  my comment was accurate.

I didn't say ANYTHING about what "the" standard powder was during WW2.
Link Posted: 12/16/2020 6:49:16 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/16/2020 6:56:18 PM EST by TGH456E]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Sorry but the data for my comments is already out there in spreadsheet form garnered from lots of shooting and recording info.

They have ONE year of M1 ball data...  I have two different years that have more port pressure than 1934.   So again..back to the data point of "one" for M1 ball, "one" for USGI M2 ball, "one" for Greek M2 ball, "one" for M72 Match, "one" for handloads.

Not much data there at all....and if they had done a larger sample...say perhaps 30 or 40 different types of M2 ball...they would have a clearer picture.  Or maybe they did shoot some of the higher port pressure ammo and decided that wouldn't fit in their business model....who knows.

The facts are...there "data" is thin and also questionable.  How can some of the slowest shooting M2 ball have the highest port pressure.  Lets don't forget that their gas cylinder pressure readings don't match up with Springfield Armory's pressure results.

You're right...GG just thought it up all by themselves....conveniently overlooking the fact that Italy did it in the 60s....  Sort of like Schuster did with his....he copied JCGs idea.

I've read the article and the results...my comment is directed to those who say that GG is "good" data.... it's not...for the reasons outlined above.

And lets not forget in some rifles the GG screw causes rifles to short stroke.


View Quote


Oh, ok.  I see where you're headed with this......  you still think your ridiculous "bolt speed" stuff is some how accurate......  

Sir:  
The GCA let you publish your article after you bullied them into it.
You had your chance and failed.  
Noone thinks that was accurate, mainly because your tests were so flawed.
It was so bad they had to publish a correction and a blunt one at that.  

So do you have a third party, accurate test to base your ammunition comments on or not?
Show me a third party accurate- true port pressure- test that you say you have.........By all means......  post it.    

Otherwise, all I can say is along with not understanding how a Garand operates, you don't understand how ammunition develops pressure when fired.  
Link Posted: 12/16/2020 7:17:34 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By TGH456E:


Oh, ok.  I see where you're headed with this......  you still think your ridiculous "bolt speed" stuff is some how accurate......  

Sir:  
The GCA let you publish your article after you bullied them into it.
You had your chance and failed.  
Noone thinks that was accurate, mainly because your tests were so flawed.
It was so bad they had to publish a correction and a blunt one at that.  

So do you have a third party, accurate test to base your ammunition comments on or not?
Show me a third party accurate- true port pressure- test that you say you have.........By all means......  post it.    

Otherwise, all I can say is along with not understanding how a Garand operates, you don't understand how ammunition develops pressure when fired.  
View Quote
Funny I didn't bully anyone for anything.

The tests aren't flawed.

And the "correction" article had no "corrections" to it...merely an anecdote or two with no actual data and then several comments that had nothing to do with commercial ammo.  That third one was really nothing more than repeating the old myth "because some guys said so..." but nothing to actually support that claim.

If my tests aren't valid then neither is the inrange test which so many seem to think is proof commercial ammo is bad.  In the same vein the GG test is also as flawed for the reasons listed above.

You keep assuming things about me which you are wrong about.  I'm fully aware of how the garand operates and how ammunition develops pressure.

Maybe you just don't understand basic physics?
Link Posted: 12/17/2020 7:21:55 PM EST
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 10:24:02 AM EST
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 10:49:28 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By D_J:

This.  You can disagree, but once it devolves into petty comments and insults the conversation is over.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By D_J:
Originally Posted By TOTHEMAX:
Take it to the pit. This is a technical forum and we don't need purse swinging. You guys have been going back and forth so many times I am not going to deal with it anymore. Warnings and timeouts will be issued to anyone who keeps insulting the other party. Keep the petty fights out of here.

This.  You can disagree, but once it devolves into petty comments and insults the conversation is over.
Agreed
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 2:21:49 PM EST
I’d like more 3rd party independent testing.

I have the Schuster plug. It smooths the rifle on firing.

It’s also a PITA to lock. Because the screw comes out so far, it’s hard to have any bite to secure it to the rifle.

My basic understanding of weapons/physics is:

+ Speed = + Friction = + Heat = + Wear

- Speed = Less Friction = Less heat = Less Wear

So by slowing down the guns cycle will cause less friction/heat and will slow down metal erosion.
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 2:48:06 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2020 2:48:53 PM EST by Jeremy2171]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rabidus:
I'd like more 3rd party independent testing.

I have the Schuster plug. It smooths the rifle on firing.

It's also a PITA to lock. Because the screw comes out so far, it's hard to have any bite to secure it to the rifle.

My basic understanding of weapons/physics is:

+ Speed = + Friction = + Heat = + Wear

- Speed = Less Friction = Less heat = Less Wear

So by slowing down the guns cycle will cause less friction/heat and will slow down metal erosion.
View Quote
not quite..

The two main issues with the garand are the "force" put on the oprod and the "velocity" that it moves.

The harder the force (high port pressure) the faster it goes.

The faster it goes the harder it hits the rear of the receiver.  Some rifles it doesn't hit at all due to production tolerance..others it gets tapped all the time.  AKA tolerance stack.

The best thing shooters can do is get NEW springs Orion 7 or Wolff springs.  Lots of people have poo pooed Wolffs in the past but my initial testing shows it slows oprod velocity by an average of 10%...ironically they are +10% springs...

The second thing is proper lubrication..which is grease for the areas that slide and cam.  

Testing shows that a "dry" (bone dry) rifle has about 15% SLOWER oprod velocity due to friction... that "friction" is a force imparted against the oprod as it tries to unlock the bolt.  THAT force is where oprods get tweaked.

Going in dry is never a good thing...right?  :D

So a properly greased rifle when it hits the bolt lug to unlock just glides and moves everything to the rear and if your oprod spring is worm you will get excessive bolt speed and hammering of the receiver.  Good springs slow all that down.

Noted garand author Jim Thompson proved this theory himself in the 80s by shooting hundreds of 220grn slow powder bullets with no detrimental effect on the rifle/oprod.  He got down to his last box and degreased the rifle with carb cleaner.  IIRC in about 4-5 rounds the oprod would no longer cycle.  He chucked it in the dumpster and put a new rod in the rifle and nothing else was wrong with it.
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 3:21:14 PM EST
[Last Edit: 12/18/2020 3:22:22 PM EST by rabidus]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
not quite..

The two main issues with the garand are the "force" put on the oprod and the "velocity" that it moves.

The harder the force (high port pressure) the faster it goes.

The faster it goes the harder it hits the rear of the receiver.  Some rifles it doesn't hit at all due to production tolerance..others it gets tapped all the time.  AKA tolerance stack.

The best thing shooters can do is get NEW springs Orion 7 or Wolff springs.  Lots of people have poo pooed Wolffs in the past but my initial testing shows it slows oprod velocity by an average of 10%...ironically they are +10% springs...

The second thing is proper lubrication..which is grease for the areas that slide and cam.  

Testing shows that a "dry" (bone dry) rifle has about 15% SLOWER oprod velocity due to friction... that "friction" is a force imparted against the oprod as it tries to unlock the bolt.  THAT force is where oprods get tweaked.

Going in dry is never a good thing...right?  :D

So a properly greased rifle when it hits the bolt lug to unlock just glides and moves everything to the rear and if your oprod spring is worm you will get excessive bolt speed and hammering of the receiver.  Good springs slow all that down.

Noted garand author Jim Thompson proved this theory himself in the 80s by shooting hundreds of 220grn slow powder bullets with no detrimental effect on the rifle/oprod.  He got down to his last box and degreased the rifle with carb cleaner.  IIRC in about 4-5 rounds the oprod would no longer cycle.  He chucked it in the dumpster and put a new rod in the rifle and nothing else was wrong with it.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Originally Posted By rabidus:
I'd like more 3rd party independent testing.

I have the Schuster plug. It smooths the rifle on firing.

It's also a PITA to lock. Because the screw comes out so far, it's hard to have any bite to secure it to the rifle.

My basic understanding of weapons/physics is:

+ Speed = + Friction = + Heat = + Wear

- Speed = Less Friction = Less heat = Less Wear

So by slowing down the guns cycle will cause less friction/heat and will slow down metal erosion.
not quite..

The two main issues with the garand are the "force" put on the oprod and the "velocity" that it moves.

The harder the force (high port pressure) the faster it goes.

The faster it goes the harder it hits the rear of the receiver.  Some rifles it doesn't hit at all due to production tolerance..others it gets tapped all the time.  AKA tolerance stack.

The best thing shooters can do is get NEW springs Orion 7 or Wolff springs.  Lots of people have poo pooed Wolffs in the past but my initial testing shows it slows oprod velocity by an average of 10%...ironically they are +10% springs...

The second thing is proper lubrication..which is grease for the areas that slide and cam.  

Testing shows that a "dry" (bone dry) rifle has about 15% SLOWER oprod velocity due to friction... that "friction" is a force imparted against the oprod as it tries to unlock the bolt.  THAT force is where oprods get tweaked.

Going in dry is never a good thing...right?  :D

So a properly greased rifle when it hits the bolt lug to unlock just glides and moves everything to the rear and if your oprod spring is worm you will get excessive bolt speed and hammering of the receiver.  Good springs slow all that down.

Noted garand author Jim Thompson proved this theory himself in the 80s by shooting hundreds of 220grn slow powder bullets with no detrimental effect on the rifle/oprod.  He got down to his last box and degreased the rifle with carb cleaner.  IIRC in about 4-5 rounds the oprod would no longer cycle.  He chucked it in the dumpster and put a new rod in the rifle and nothing else was wrong with it.


The faster the op rod moves, the higher the friction, higher friction will create faster metal erosion.

The faster the op rod hits the rear receiver the greater force on the receiver and the op rod = faster wear, that’s Newton’s 3rd law
The op rod is pushing on the receiver as is the receiver is pushing on the op rod. Greater push yields faster wear.
Op rod will go first due to its design and weaker structure.

Again, speed = faster wear on things mechanical.

Slow down the shooting cycle, slow down the gas cycle, allow metal to cool and a rifle would last much longer.
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 4:14:35 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rabidus:


The faster the op rod moves, the higher the friction, higher friction will create faster metal erosion.

The faster the op rod hits the rear receiver the greater force on the receiver and the op rod = faster wear, that's Newton's 3rd law
The op rod is pushing on the receiver as is the receiver is pushing on the op rod. Greater push yields faster wear.
Op rod will go first due to its design and weaker structure.

Again, speed = faster wear on things mechanical.

Slow down the shooting cycle, slow down the gas cycle, allow metal to cool and a rifle would last much longer.
View Quote
Actually the friction is minimal in a properly greased rifle.

The oprod doesn't hit the rear of the receiver...the bolt does...(sometimes in some receivers)

Receiver and oprod aren't "pushing" on each other...the oprod is pushing against the oprod spring and during it's travel it unlocks and takes the bolt to the rear.

There is no heat in the wear area of the oprod that you can control.
Link Posted: 12/18/2020 4:39:47 PM EST
I have to comment on this friction and heat discussion.

Dynamic friction force is not dependent on speed in most cases.

At the speeds the bolt and op rod move with amount of dynamic friction force that exists, essentially no heat is created on the parts. You can confirm this by removing the op rod spring and cycling the action. There is very little friction and if you do it fast, parts don’t get hot.

Wear on parts is generally independent of speed when we’re talking low contact pressure and speeds a M1 op rod and bolt move. Wear is more from the number of cycles.

Now if we’re talking high speed or load bearings, it may be different.

Link Posted: 12/18/2020 4:42:44 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By pepe-lepew:
I have to comment on this friction and heat discussion.

Dynamic friction force is not dependent on speed in most cases.

At the speeds the bolt and op rod move with amount of dynamic friction force that exists, essentially no heat is created on the parts. You can confirm this by removing the op rod spring and cycling the action. There is very little friction and if you do it fast, parts don't get hot.

Wear on parts is generally independent of speed when we're talking low contact pressure and speeds a M1 op rod and bolt move. Wear is more from the number of cycles.

Now if we're talking high speed or load bearings, it may be different.

View Quote
Exactly..thank you.
Link Posted: 12/25/2020 1:28:25 PM EST
I’m now confused.

Then why do op rods stretch and fail from over pressure loads?

Yes little heat is generated from the op rod on the receiver but the faster metal run one another, the greater the friction.

Yes grease/oil creates a barrier between the two metal surfaces and slow down the friction coefficient.

But my point still stands. Greater velocity on two opposing metal pieces will lead to faster metal wear.

Grease and a proper spring slows down the wear but speed still equals faster wear vs two slower moving metal parts.

If we’re worried about expensive parts failing where we use new springs and lubricants, then why can’t we use lower pressure ammo?

One has a direct causation to the others and vice versa.

Link Posted: 12/25/2020 2:07:41 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By rabidus:
I'm now confused.

Then why do op rods stretch and fail from over pressure loads?

Yes little heat is generated from the op rod on the receiver but the faster metal run one another, the greater the friction.

Yes grease/oil creates a barrier between the two metal surfaces and slow down the friction coefficient.

But my point still stands. Greater velocity on two opposing metal pieces will lead to faster metal wear.

Grease and a proper spring slows down the wear but speed still equals faster wear vs two slower moving metal parts.

If we're worried about expensive parts failing where we use new springs and lubricants, then why can't we use lower pressure ammo?

One has a direct causation to the others and vice versa.

View Quote
Oprods don't "stretch and fail".

Pistons get worn from wear just like in your cars engine.

They can't get tweaked out straightness by simply disassembling them incorrectly.  Shooting them without lubrication also causes them to get tweaked.  

The "ammo pressure" creates higher oprod velocity not necessarily any "bending".

Considering milsurp, commercial ammo and "garand safe" all work with a similar pressure.  It's REALLY been overrated at this point and the internet has made this myth spread worse than covid.
Link Posted: 12/25/2020 3:04:04 PM EST
Port pressure is the issue, not chamber pressure, in case anyone is confused.

Powders slower than 4895/4064 are commonly used in commercial .30-06 ammo, especially with heavier bullets. IMR-4350 and slower is a common powder in .30-06 and it's burn rate is considerably slower than GI standard. Something similar to IMR-4831 may even be used in some commercial ammo with heavy bullets in this caliber.

Everyone has the right to shoot whatever ammo they want in their personal firearms. It is, after all, your firearm. I will continue to feed my M1's and M1-A's ammo using legacy powders that have been recommended by countless sources ranging from the NRA to various loading manuals. When I first started shooting NRA/DCM High Power the standard load in a M1 Garand was 46.0 grains of IMR-4895 under a 168 grain or 173 grain match bullet. It was a maximum load if you were shooting the surplus M72/M118 173's.

4895 from any brand simply works, is accurate and reliable.
Link Posted: 12/25/2020 3:08:13 PM EST
4895 isn't the only powder that was loaded in military ammo and some of it was quite slower than 4895.

And most commercial powder has similar port pressure as milsurp and "garand safe" ammo so shooters should understand that it's not the big worry the internet makes it out to be.
Link Posted: 12/26/2020 6:31:24 AM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Jeremy2171:
Actually 4895 didn't exist when the garand was designed and adopted....

and secondly the late 60s ammo is known to be substandard and doesn't meet required specs.  But when there is a war on and a shortage of 4895 and you have to switch to canadian CMR 100 powder you make exceptions. The early 70s ammo is right back up there where you need to be velocity wise.

Late 60s M2 ball is junk...period.  All other time periods of USGI M2 ball from WW2 thru Korea and early 70s on up all make MINIMUM of high 2700s at 15ft some even go to mid 2800s.

Using late 60s ball as a baseline results in skewed data.....
View Quote



From what i understand 4895 was the powder used by the factories making M2 ball ammunition in ww2.  I just wasn't called that until after the war.  It was sold as a reloading powder after the war due to the huge surplus about that was in stock.  I could be wrong though
Link Posted: 12/28/2020 4:38:37 PM EST
Unless you're using an adjustable gas plug in your M1, it's best to avoid .30-06 ammo that makes pistons drop and op rods pop.

Word to the wise.
Link Posted: 12/28/2020 4:42:36 PM EST
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Originally Posted By Nick_Adams:
Unless you're using an adjustable gas plug in your M1, it's best to avoid .30-06 ammo that makes pistons drop and op rods pop.

Word to the wise.
View Quote
Pistons don't "drop" and oprds don't "pop".

Still looking for common commercial ammo that will do the kinda damage you claim...
Top Top