[TexasShooter59]

Title says it. I found enough range brass to fill up a quart size ziploc bag. Brass is mostly (or all?) FC or LC headstamped.

EDIT: see post #3 for more specifics

[Squeaky Wheel]

M1 shoots 30-06. Are you asking if M1 brass can be loaded outside normal loadings used for M1?

[TexasShooter59]

Well, I realize that the M1 shoots 30-06; I am wondering if you have to do anything special, like maybe small base dies, special trimming, etc. to get it sized properly for a 30-06 bolt gun.

Sorry for the vagueness!

[PlusP]

Remove primer crimp and full length resize and check length that should do it 30-06 brass is 30-06 brass after that..

[ArchAngelCD]

M1 brass is 30-06 brass. Other than the possibility of the primers being staked it's the same. Just load it like you would any other brass you use for you bolt action rifle.

[2zulu1]

Military 30-06 brass is constructed heavier than commercial 30-06 brass; therefore reduce your powder weight 1.0-1.5 grains to compensate for the difference.

[FROGO207]

In regards to the above statement that SOME military brass is thicker depends on the caliber and brass maker whether it is or not. Weigh a couple different headstamp types of commercial cases and then whatever MIL brass headstamps you have. The ones that weigh the most have the smallest internal capacity. It could be thicker sidewalls or thicker web but that really does not matter. Just work up a separate load if you have thicker brass to be safe. If it is thinner either use the same load you use for your regular loads and understand it will have a reduced velocity or work up one with the same velocity. Good find BTW.:D

[USSR]

Military 30-06 brass is constructed heavier than commercial 30-06 brass; therefore reduce your powder weight 1.0-1.5 grains to compensate for the difference.

Not really. Military 7.62x51 brass is constructed heavier than commercial .308 brass, so a lot of people assume that .30-06 is as well. It is not. In fact, commercial Federal .30-06 brass is heavier and has less case capacity than USGI .30-06 brass. So, just begin with the starting load listed in any reloading manual and you will not need to reduce your charge weight for any .30-06 brass.

Don

[Zeke/PA]

Usually, the military primer pockets require a "swaging" operation because of the origional crimped/staked in primers of the same.
A tool for this is available as is a primer pocket reamer.
About 50 years ago, I picked up a quanity of LC (Lake City) brass that I'm still using.

[SlamFire1]

If the brass was shot in a GI chamber than it was ballooned when it was ejected.

With range pickups, you will find cases of all difference sizes all depending on the chamber it was fired in. Standard dies won’t be able to reduce some of these cases down enough to chamber in a well made rifle. With a bolt gun, you can always do what the neck sizing guys eventually have to do, take a mallet and beat the bolt handle down, and then get a 2X4 to knock it open again. Standard base sized range pickup brass will choke semi auto’s with match chambers .

I use small base dies. There are people who take a violent objection to small base dies, but I small base die every cartridge that I can find a small base die. I set up my dies with a Wilson type gage and I size to gage minimum. That way I am ensuring maximum interchangeability for that ammunition.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/ReducedWilsongagemeasuringnew308bra.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/CartridgeHeadspacegagelinedrawin-1.jpg

[cfullgraf]

I use small base dies. There are people who take a violent objection to small base dies, but I small base die every cartridge that I can find a small base die. I set up my dies with a Wilson type gage and I size to gage minimum. That way I am ensuring maximum interchangeability for that ammunition.



No objections from me. I have been small base sizing my 223 Remington for ARs for a while. I recently got an M1A and a 308 M1 and have decided to do the same fro them. One stuck case on chambering cures you quickly on the supposed negatives of small base sizing.

While I have not had an issue with the 30-06 M1s, I may get a small base die for them. I am not interested in segregating ammunition for the M1s.

[TexasShooter59]

Thanks for all the replies - I got the answers I was after. I'm not a stranger to crimped primers thanks to .223/5.56!

:cool:

[ranger335v]

I've used lots of surplus 30-06 cases since '65. Have no idea of what it was fired in but the same old set of Lyman dies I started with has sufficed for a half dozen or so rifles quite well. Don't understand the idea that it's difficult to size machine gun cases. Nor the popular thought that all autoloaders require small base dies, their chambers are usually cut with the same reamers as any others.

[USSR]

I've used lots of surplus 30-06 cases since '65. Have no idea of what it was fired in but the same old set of Lyman dies I started with has sufficed for a half dozen or so rifles quite well. Don't understand the idea that it's difficult to size machine gun cases. Nor the popular thought that all autoloaders require small base dies, their chambers are usually cut with the same reamers as any others.

It's highly unlikely that any military .30-06 brass you've gotten in the last half century were machinegun fired. However, if you've ever dealt with 7.62x51 brass fired in a M60 with a large chamber, you would understand perfectly. After I got a batch of those, I swore I would never accept machinegun fired 7.62x51 again even if they were given to me.

Don

[2zulu1]

Not really. Military 7.62x51 brass is constructed heavier than commercial .308 brass, so a lot of people assume that .30-06 is as well. It is not. In fact, commercial Federal .30-06 brass is heavier and has less case capacity than USGI .30-06 brass. So, just begin with the starting load listed in any reloading manual and you will not need to reduce your charge weight for any .30-06 brass.

Don
You are incorrect regarding military 30-06 brass, as Sierra, Nosler and Lyman, among others, state in their reloading manuals.

[MEHavey]

There is so much legendary "truth" about military brass (one way or the other) running around out there,
that I just take the time to determine a relative water weight and go from there.

That said, take the following 308Win brass data:

Lapua: 55.61 grains
Winchester: 57.70 grains
Lake City: 54.77 grains
Federal: 54.98 grains

From min (LC) to max (Win), there is a difference of slightly less than three grains in water capacity.
Maxing out w/ 45gr of IMR4895 and a 168gr Sierra SMK at 2.800" OAL:

Lake City brass gives me 60,300psi/2700fps (right at CIP MAX)
Winchester brass drops that to 53,300psi/2,621fps

That's about 1.7gr of difference in powder for equal pressure/velocity between the two cases
...about 3%

[MEHavey]

There is so much legendary "truth" about military brass (one way or the other) running around out there,
that I just take the time to determine a relative water weight and go from there.

That said, consider the following 308Win brass data:

Lapua: 55.61 grains
Winchester: 57.70 grains
Lake City: 54.77 grains
Federal: 54.98 grains

From min (LC) to max (Win), a difference of slightly less than three grains water capacity.
Maxing 45gr of IMR4895 under a 168gr Sierra SMK at a standard 2.800" OAL:

Lake City brass gives me 60,300psi/2700fps (CIP Pressure MAX)
Winchester brass drops that to a leisurely 53,300psi/2,621fps

In the end, dropping about 1.7gr of powder (~3%) in the LC brass gives equivalent pressure/25fps lower velocity.

I'm sure there's a rule in there somewhere...... :cool:

[USSR]

You are incorrect regarding military 30-06 brass, as Sierra, Nosler and Lyman, among others, state in their reloading manuals.

2zulu1,

I can point you to a lot of things in print that are just plain wrong. Rather than just take someone's word for it, take a Federal .30-06 case and a USGI .30-06 case, weigh them and measure them for case capacity. You will see for yourself.

Don

[USSR]

Good data, MEHavey. Where guys get in trouble with .308 is: load data uses Winchester brass and they are using 7.62x51, Lapua, Federal, etc. They load the 46gr of Varget load for Winchester brass in their brass and, instant pressure problem.

Don

[Hacker15E]

You are incorrect regarding military 30-06 brass, as Sierra, Nosler and Lyman, among others, state in their reloading manuals.

Despite what's printed, there is plenty of actual evidence to the contrary.

Example:

http://carteach0.blogspot.com/2012/05/military-brass-is-thicker-and-heavier.html

"On average, the commercial brass was heavier than all the military. Both Lake City and the commercial were heavier than the Greek HXP military."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fnvqJyz3ujI/T7A5YsC3XZI/AAAAAAAAGus/-Yv68gaBO_I/s1600/graph.jpg

[2zulu1]

There is so much legendary "truth" about military brass (one way or the other) running around out there,
that I just take the time to determine a relative water weight and go from there.

That said, take the following 308Win brass data:

Lapua: 55.61 grains
Winchester: 57.70 grains
Lake City: 54.77 grains
Federal: 54.98 grains

From min (LC) to max (Win), there is a difference of slightly less than three grains in water capacity.
Maxing out w/ 45gr of IMR4895 and a 168gr Sierra SMK at 2.800" OAL:

Lake City brass gives me 60,300psi/2700fps (right at CIP MAX)
Winchester brass drops that to 53,300psi/2,621fps

That's about 1.7gr of difference in powder for equal pressure/velocity between the two cases
...about 3%
This has absolutely nothing to do with mil surp 30-06 (7.62x63mm) brass.

[2zulu1]

2zulu1,

I can point you to a lot of things in print that are just plain wrong. Rather than just take someone's word for it, take a Federal .30-06 case and a USGI .30-06 case, weigh them and measure them for case capacity. You will see for yourself.

Don
Sierra has already done that in their 5th reloading manual. Their reloading data uses commercial Federal brass. Their remarks end with;

"Loads for G.I. cases should be reduced by one to one and a half grains to compensate for their heavier construction. "

I also began loading for the 30-06 in the mid 60s and have a lot of vintage WWII and Korean War vintage headstamps and their construction is heavier than the new commercial Winchester brass I have.

Since we should remain focused on the 30-06 Garand operating system, it's only common sense and prudent as to follow the recommendations of companies with the stature of Sierra, Nosler and Lyman, to mention a few, over some internet dude who states his methods are not scientific.

Or, if the OP follows the wrong opinion, I'm sure those who offered their "outside the box" opinions will step up and pay the cost of a replacement operating rod or whatever other damage that may be caused by improper loads.

[MEHavey]

This [308Win case differences] has absolutely nothing to do with mil surp 30-06 (7.62x63mm) brass.Perhaps, then, the informed gentle reader will take the information in the intended light of how different case volumes between mil-sup and various commercial 30-06 brass can significantly affect his reloading decisions, hmmmmm?

But for those who now see the effect of those differences in volume and want to make the jump to `06 brass in weight, here are some google'd comparisons:

Nosler = 181.8g
RP = 195.9g
"Super Speed" = 186.6g
FC = 203.2g
Winchester = 185.9g
LC (various dated headstamp) = 193.4g
UMC = 206.4g
Super-X = 183.1g
WW Super = 188.5g
PPU = 180.2g
Norma = 181.8

I tend to shy away from pure weight as a definitive guide to fine-line load differences.
Case in point that for `06 brass that I measured downstairs just now:

WW HXP68 AbsDiff %Diff
Full 261.4 262.5 1.1 0.42%
Empty 190.8 191.7 0.9 0.47%
Net H2O 70.6 70.8 0.2 0.28%

Weight difference is not a 1-for-1 measure of Volume difference.
I would load the Win & HXP above identically and expect little variation.

And... as the shap-eyed reader might note... I'd not trust Google'd sources.
Run the water weight yourself.

.

[USSR]

...it's only common sense and prudent as to follow the recommendations of companies with the stature of Sierra, Nosler and Lyman...

2zulu1,

The pedestal that you put them on is in many cases much too high. For example, Sierra's Maximum Loads. I called them once, questioning a particular load being a "Maximum Load" and asking what the pressure was. Their answer? "Don't know, that's just where we decided to stop". So much for the scientific approach. 2zulu1, there's a lot to be found out that is contrary to published info, IF you are intellectually curious. There are some posters on this site who just like to confirm or disprove what others will accept without question. Once you've been on a site for awhile, you figure out who they are and in most cases can take what they say to the bank. Since you want to focus on the M1 Garand operating system (I have 3 Garands), I can say with certainty that any Garand safe load data using commercial .30-06 brass will be Garand safe with military .30-06 brass. There simply is not enough difference between them to cause a problem.

Don

[2zulu1]

Perhaps, then, the informed gentle reader will take the information in the intended light of how different case volumes between mil-sup and various commercial 30-06 brass can significantly affect his reloading decisions, hmmmmm?

But for those who now see the effect of those differences in volume and want to make the jump to `06 brass in weight, here are some google'd comparisons:

Nosler = 181.8g
RP = 195.9g
"Super Speed" = 186.6g
FC = 203.2g
Winchester = 185.9g
LC (various dated headstamp) = 193.4g
UMC = 206.4g
Super-X = 183.1g
WW Super = 188.5g
PPU = 180.2g
Norma = 181.8

I tend to shy away from pure weight as a definitive guide to fine-line load differences.
Case in point that for `06 brass that I measured downstairs just now:

WW HXP68 AbsDiff %Diff
Full 261.4 262.5 1.1 0.42%
Empty 190.8 191.7 0.9 0.47%
Net H2O 70.6 70.8 0.2 0.28%

Weight difference is not a 1-for-1 measure of Volume difference.
I would load the Win & HXP above identically and expect little variation.

And... as the shap-eyed reader might note... I'd not trust Google'd sources.
Run the water weight yourself.

.
I have enough inventory of mil surp 30-06 brass that I don't need to Google what others have posted. After weighing over 120 casings from various arsenals dating between 1942 and FA Match casings from 1958/1959, the statements I've stated and those published statements by Sierra, Nosler and Lyman have been verified. WRA brass from 1942 and 1955 are on the lighter end of the scale, and since HPX ammunition has taken their design from Winchester, it would stand to reason that HPX casings would also rate on the lighter end of the scale. The RA casings from 1951 I expect to average higher than you posted and the RA 1942 I anticipate will average over 200 grains.

When I have a little more time I'll post random 10 casing averages of Winchester commercial (~186grs)
vs TW 5, WRA 55, WRA 42, LC 52, LC 4 (5 casings), LC 53, SL 53, TW 42, RA 51, RA 42 (23 casings) and FA Match casings.

Only have three samples, but three Peters casings (3G 1906) weighed in at 205.6, 205.5 and 206.8 grs; the latter being the heaviest casing weighed. Doing a fast read, WRA 42 had a variance of ~15.8grs. That's a lot of weight difference for a single headstamp and I expect chamber pressure too.

All casings were weighed with an RCBS Range Master 1500 calibrated at the beginning and end of the weighing session.

[2zulu1]

Despite what's printed, there is plenty of actual evidence to the contrary.

Example:

http://carteach0.blogspot.com/2012/05/military-brass-is-thicker-and-heavier.html

"On average, the commercial brass was heavier than all the military. Both Lake City and the commercial were heavier than the Greek HXP military."

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-fnvqJyz3ujI/T7A5YsC3XZI/AAAAAAAAGus/-Yv68gaBO_I/s1600/graph.jpg
Interesting read; however, the LC 52/53/4 brass I just finished weighing are more in the green graph zone with a weight difference of 8.3 grains.

Somewhere I have some HPX casings that I expect to be near the WRA brass weights, maybe I should get out the SA Match and head out to the range and weigh some 'fresh' brass. :)

[MEHavey]

I was about to ask the point of all this, then decided to just boil it down.

- Standardize on a (any) brass and its volume. Record it.
- New brands/lots of brass should be 're-volumed' and loads adjusted up or down.
- Don't bank the farm on anyone else's 'general' weights, rules or volumes posted or published.

Do it yourself. It isn't hard

[ranger335v]

"...if you've ever dealt with 7.62x51 brass fired in a M60 with a large chamber, you would understand perfectly."

Oh, would I? :rolleyes:

For decades I made a good bit of surplus 7.62 and .30-06 stuff into .22-250 and 6mm International; might that have given me some insight into the real effects of "brass fired in a M60 with a large chamber" in comparision to a smaller? Seems if we lube any 7.62 case properly and slide it fully into a .308 FL die we will be perfectly done. At least I think so, but ... maybe not. ?? :D

[2zulu1]

Hopefully the above title will assist those who are interested in handloading the M1 Garand and the handloader will heed warnings/remarks published in the current Sierra #5 (Federal brass), Nosler #6 (Nosler brass) and Lyman #49 (Winchester brass) reloading manuals. For those who shoot their Garands at extended distances and use mil surp brass, it's always a good idea to weigh your brass for shot consistency.

I have about 1,000+ mil surp brass dating from the WWII and Korean War era and chose to average about 10 brass casings per headstamp. Given that there are thousands of individual headstamps from a multitude of countries, this list is far from being representative, but it does support the premise that mil surp brass is constructed heavier than commercial 30-06 brass, namely Winchester, and it should be loaded accordingly. As Lyman advises, maximum Garand loads should be kept 1.0-2.0 grains less than their maximum commercial brass loads given the Garand's powder and bullet weight/type limitations.

Winchester commercial (10)
Avg186.0 grains
Lo 185.1 - Hi 186.4 - spread 1.3 grains

WRA 42 (7)
Ave 189.5
185.4 - 201.2 - spread 15.8 grains

WRA 55 (10)
Avg 190.2 grains
Lo 185.6 - 192.6 spread 6.5 grains

TW 42 (10) Twin Cities
Avg 196.7 grains
Lo 195.1 - Hi 199.9 spread 4.8 grains

TW 5 (10)
Avg 200.5 grains
Lo 197.4 - Hi. 202.9 spread 5.5 grains

SL 53 (10) St Louis
Avg 199.0 grains
Lo 192.1 - Hi 201.8 spread 9.7 grains

LC 52 (10) Lake City
Average 197.6 grains
Lo 195.7 - Hi 200.1 spread 5.4 grains

LC 53 (10)
Average 195.7 grains
Lo 191.8 - Hi 198.3 springs 6.5 grains

LC 4 (5)
Average 193.6 grains
Lo 187.7 - Hi 195.9 spread 8.2 grains

RA 42 (23) Remington Arms
Average 201.0
Lo 196.8 - Hi 204.0 spread 7.2 grains

RA 51 (10)
Average 198.4 grains
Lo 196.7 - Hi 201.5 spread 4.8 grains

FA Match 58 (7) Frankford Arsenal
Average 197.8 grains
Lo 195.7 - Hi 199.7 spread 4.0 grains

FA Match 59 (12)
Average 197.7 grains
Lo 196.5 - 201.3 spread 4.8 grains

4-54
SF I
7.62 (5) Societe Francaise des Munitions, Moulineaux, France
Average 199.6 grains
Lo 198.0 - 202.7 spread 4.7 grains

For fun
Peters 3G1906 (3)
205.5
205.6
206.8 grains

I came across a number of LC 42 and to lesser degree DM 42 (Des Moines) brass later on during the sorting process and since they were of heavier construction as those above, I didn't include them in the list.

[BBDartCA]

Nosler = 181.8g
RP = 195.9g
"Super Speed" = 186.6g
FC = 203.2g
Winchester = 185.9g
LC (various dated headstamp) = 193.4g
UMC = 206.4g
Super-X = 183.1g
WW Super = 188.5g
PPU = 180.2g
Norma = 181.8

.

That's my data I posted a while back.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=622976&highlight=30-06+weight

Brass weight does not correlate to case capacity necessarily. Other factors can influence the weight. If I did not have a life, I'd find this brass, and measure case capacity of each, and plot the correlation.

[MEHavey]

If I did not have a life, I'd find this brass, and measure case capacity of each, and plot the correlation.You and I agree... on both points above. :D

[PlusP]

A little of topic, I have some old primed crimped 30-06 brass stamped
WRA 45 ..I loaded some and the primer seemed a little slow and it turned out they are corrosive ... I deprimed them and they look ok is there any way the primers could have weakened the brass by being in them all these years ???? Thanks,Randy

[2zulu1]

That's my data I posted a while back.
http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=622976&highlight=30-06+weight

Brass weight does not correlate to case capacity necessarily. Other factors can influence the weight. If I did not have a life, I'd find this brass, and measure case capacity of each, and plot the correlation.
But case weight can and does affect powder weight. While some use water, and I'm not saying using water is not viable, but powder can also be used. Nosler uses case powder volumes in their data to assist the handloader.

For the discussion of this thread I broke out the very popular Garand powder IMR 4895 and weighed the difference between a random commercial Winchester case and random mil surp TW 5 case.

Winchester empty - 186.1 grains
full 251.0 grains
capacity 64.9 grains

TW 5 empty - 201.6 grains
full 265.3 grains
capacity 63.7 grains

Difference between the two casings is the TW 5 mil surp held 1.2 less grains than the Winchester commercial casing.

Don't know if these figures work back for 75-80% load capacity etc, but there is certainly a quantifiable difference between these two casings that were measured.

The staffs at Sierra, Nosler and Lyman are shooters just like the rest of us and their respective data bases reflect their research and what they publish.

While there is an overlap in case capacities between commercial and mil surp brass, I can see no reason to continue to beat a dead horse to satisfy the egos of a few.

[TexasShooter59]

I'm glad I asked about the M1/30-06 brass as it opened up a pretty good discussion! :cool:

[Hacker15E]

Thanks for taking the time to record and post that data, 2zulu1!

[MEHavey]

Winchester commercial (10)
Avg186.0 grains
Lo 185.1 - Hi 186.4 - spread 1.3 grainsDo your empty weights include spent primers (so you can then fill the case w/ powder and weigh again?

[2zulu1]

Do your empty weights include spent primers (so you can then fill the case w/ powder and weigh again?
Post #33 answers your question.

If you need further clarification may I suggest you decap a commercial/USGI case, fill with a few grains of IMR 4895 and time how long it takes to empty out the powder in the casing through the flash hole. :)

[2zulu1]

I'm glad I asked about the M1/30-06 brass as it opened up a pretty good discussion! :cool:
It's turned out to be an informative and insightful thread.

I take the Garand pressure warnings found in the reloading manuals seriously, same principle as the 40 S&W unsupported chamber warnings.

[MEHavey]

If you need further clarification...I ask because my Winchester bulk cases weigh 2-3 grains more, even new/unprimed.

Second, powder -- especially extruded powder like 4895 -- is subject to settling when used as a volume measure. So I will probably continue to run water volume for individual case lots/manufactuers (e.g, Win/Lapua/HXP), and use that in QuickLoad to adjust powder weights to maintain pressure/velocities in loads I've standardized for velocity in the AR, the M1 & the M1A. (It's worked pretty good so far) :)

[2zulu1]

I ask because my Winchester bulk cases weigh 2-3 grains more, even new/unprimed.

Second, powder -- especially extruded powder like 4895 -- is subject to settling when used as a volume measure. So I will probably continue to run water volume for individual case lots/manufactuers (e.g, Win/Lapua/HXP), and use that in QuickLoad to adjust powder weights to maintain pressure/velocities in loads I've standardized for velocity in the AR, the M1 & the M1A. (It's worked pretty good so far) :)
I find this post contrary to the Winchester average brass weight of 185.9 grains (post #30 quote), nearly identical to the Winchester brass weight I posted, 186.1 grains.

Now you write that your Winchester brass weighs 188/189 grains unprimed, how many other other weight changes can we expect?

While powder volumes can settle a bit over time, IMR 4895 in the above test did not settle for any reason and the weight would not have changed regardless because additional powder was not added to the commercial or USGI casing.

Do you have sufficient USGI mil surp brass from the WWII and Korean War era to proceed with your experiment?

I found it very informative that the French manufactured 7.62x63mm brass was a much heavier construction than the Greek brass weight posted.

[MEHavey]

186.5-188 empty when I weighed several out of the plastic bags I still have.
Take a look at post 23 "when I went downstairs..." using 2X fired primed cases.
Since I use water weight, I will always use primed cases.

As to how many other changes I might expect, it becomes irreverent as I weigh every lot and go from there.
(and where did the USGI milsurp from WWII and Korea become an issue?)

The only issue in this entire thread has been that of using one type/volume of case vice another as it relates to pressure. Since that case volume change can have dramatic effect on that pressure, my counsel remains that the re-loader spend 5 minutes to do his own water weight comparison when changing components, and not rely on the internet.

[USSR]

...powder -- especially extruded powder like 4895 -- is subject to settling when used as a volume measure. So I will probably continue to run water volume for individual case lots/manufactuers (e.g, Win/Lapua/HXP)...

+1.

Don

[FROGO207]

I have been following the thread myself.

Thanks to all those that weighed in on this safety matter.
There is some great info added for those of us that don't have the old data/brass to draw conclusions from. Again it becomes apparent that ALL brass can be different from yours and the bottom line is---to be safe figure out the case capacity of yours with whatever method you want to use and apply that as the final result. Me I am in no way an expert on reloading (have been doing it for 40+ years so far) and there is still a LOT to learn I am afraid.:cool:

[MEHavey]

Over on the Firing line this afternoon, Jim Watson remembered..."Once upon a time a moderately technical publication named The American Rifleman
(not to be confused with the present collection of political bulletins and manufacturers'
press releases of the same name) recommended that powder charge be reduced by one grain
for every 11 grains of empty case weight...."http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5102777&postcount=4

Turns out after looking at what that means relative to the volume variance and QuickLoad, it's a pretty doggone good rule of thumb for medium/large military cartridges.

[2zulu1]

Over on the Firing line this afternoon, Jim Watson remembered...http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5102777&postcount=4

Turns out after looking at what that means relative to the volume variance and QuickLoad, it's a pretty doggone good rule of thumb for medium/large military cartridges.
Perhaps you should start your own 308 thread on THR instead of substituting 308 data for 30-06 Garand data.

[2zulu1]

186.5-188 empty when I weighed several out of the plastic bags I still have.
Take a look at post 23 "when I went downstairs..." using 2X fired primed cases.
Since I use water weight, I will always use primed cases.

As to how many other changes I might expect, it becomes irreverent as I weigh every lot and go from there.
(and where did the USGI milsurp from WWII and Korea become an issue?)

The only issue in this entire thread has been that of using one type/volume of case vice another as it relates to pressure. Since that case volume change can have dramatic effect on that pressure, my counsel remains that the re-loader spend 5 minutes to do his own water weight comparison when changing components, and not rely on the internet.
Now that I've become "irreverent" in responding to your posts, the issue on this thread has been that several forum members have steadfastly taken the position to ignore safety warnings and load any USGI mil surp brass to commercial brass load weights and then shoot those loads through Garands.

If you had war vintage brass to calculate operating pressures of war vintage Garands you would have done so by now, but you've chosen to make personal attacks instead.

[hang fire]

Just remember that all standard issue GI brass is thicker walled and has less capacity than it's civilian counterpart.

But I have scads of NM 7.62x51 brass and it has more capacity than the GI standard issue, also the primers were not crimped in.

[USSR]

Just remember that all standard issue GI brass is thicker walled and has less capacity than it's civilian counterpart.

Just not true when it comes to the .30-06. Have been loading it for decades for my Garands and my custom built Tactical Rifle. True for the 7.62x51, but definitely not true for the .30-06.

Don

[MEHavey]

It was the weight changes that became irrelevant, 2Zulu, not yourself. As I run
water volume measures on all new lots and go from there, I don't worry about
the changes. My apologies if offense was seen as none was intended.

But... you (and many others) might be interested the weight changes that do occur
within the same manufacturer's line per UncleNick's experience:
http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=5103458&postcount=16

[2zulu1]

Just about everyone who loads for the Garand has come across this website, but the link for those who haven't ;

http://masterpostemple.bravepages.com/M1load.htm