M1 Garand query

lysanderxiii said:
Actually, the gas trap design (1937) was designed around M1 Ball.

The design was changed in 1939 to the first prototype direct impingement piston system and tested with the first types of M1 and M2 Ball.

In 1940, the specifications and powder for M2 ball changed and the M1 barrel design was altered for use with M2 Ball and the new M2 Armor Piercing ammunition.
Click to expand...
Because M1 ball and M2 AP functioned fine... however M2 ball didn't have enough energy and the round had to be modified to ensure reliable operation.
 
If I had a Garand, I would treat it gently with GI equivalent, either 4895 and a 150.
There aren't the Army armorers and spare parts inventories that there used to be, go easy and save it for posterity.

CUP vs psi. During the development of .30 ammo, the crusher gauge was all there was to indicate chamber pressure. It was calibrated in pounds per square inch. So don't freak out when you see old values reported as psi but wildly different from recent piezoelectric transducer readings.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
Because M1 ball and M2 AP functioned fine... however M2 ball didn't have enough energy and the round had to be modified to ensure reliable operation.
Click to expand...
No, on several points:

1) M2 Ball's original velocity specification was 2700 fps at 78 feet, and was loaded with IMR 1185, which operated the system just fine, as testing in 1939 showed. M2 AP was not available for this test, as it was under development at the time. (New Front End Assembly for the US Rifle,Caliber .30, M1)

2) In late 1939, M2 Ball's velocity was increased to 2740 fps at 78 feet, and the propellant was changed to IMR 4676, a faster powder than IMR 1185. This change in powder reduced the port pressure requiring the gas port diameter to be increased by 15% (Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Caliber .30 Rifle, M1)
 
cfullgraf said:
I’m conservative and will stick to loads that mimic WWII ammunition in my Garands. My favorite powder for my Garands is H4895 but IMR 4895 is a close alternate. The powder charges are very similar but not identical.
Click to expand...
You will want your 150s and 165s to be running ~2800fps at the muzzle then.
cfullgraf said:
Powders developed since WWII have different burn characteristics from IMR4895, the powder frequently used in WWII 30-06 ammunition using IMR4895 powders. IMR4895 is considered the primary powder for the military to use for their main powder.
Click to expand...
4895 was "one" of "many" powders used in the garand. They all varied from fast to slow.

cfullgraf said:
Shoot what you want in your Garand. I’ll stick with what CMP considers safe for the grand old girl called the Garand.
Click to expand...

Which in their words is pretty much all commercial ammo.
 
Jim Watson said:
If I had a Garand, I would treat it gently with GI equivalent, either 4895 and a 150.
There aren't the Army armorers and spare parts inventories that there used to be, go easy and save it for posterity.
Click to expand...
So no 165s or 174s? There are however plenty of parts and qualified people to repair them if needed.

Jim Watson said:
CUP vs psi. During the development of .30 ammo, the crusher gauge was all there was to indicate chamber pressure. It was calibrated in pounds per square inch. So don't freak out when you see old values reported as psi but wildly different from recent piezoelectric transducer readings.
Click to expand...
I don't..but the problem is when someone reads 50,000 CUP and then says it's 50,000 psi and then says modern ammo is 60,000 psi and the garand is "weak". That just shows ignorance on their behalf.

SAAMI max chamber pressure 50,000 CUP (copper)
SAAMI max chamber pressure 60,180 PSI (piezo)

So 50k cup = 60180 PSI

Hence the garand is running at SAAMI spec for chamber pressure...actually it's more safe since AP ammo is usually 54,000 CUP.
 
lysanderxiii said:
No, on several points:

1) M2 Ball's original velocity specification was 2700 fps at 78 feet, and was loaded with IMR 1185, which operated the system just fine, as testing in 1939 showed. M2 AP was not available for this test, as it was under development at the time. (New Front End Assembly for the US Rifle,Caliber .30, M1)

2) In late 1939, M2 Ball's velocity was increased to 2740 fps at 78 feet, and the propellant was changed to IMR 4676, a faster powder than IMR 1185. This change in powder reduced the port pressure requiring the gas port diameter to be increased by 15% (Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Caliber .30 Rifle, M1)
Click to expand...


Pics....
 
Jeremy2171 said:
So no 165s or 174s? There are however plenty of parts and qualified people to repair them if needed.
Click to expand...

I don't see a need to replicate AP.
Now M1 or M72 NM might be a different matter if you liked vintage rifle matches.

With the retirement of my FLG, I don't know where to go to have a gun fixed. I would just avoid the search.

Triva Alert: I have a box of 173 gr boattails with prominent pull marks. A friend's Uncle was in the habit of making Mexican Match by pulling FMJs and replacing them with Sierras. Pull marks not withstanding, they shoot pretty well from my 788 .30-30. Has to be single loaded with those spitzers way out into the chamber throat.
 
Charger426 said:
Hi all,
I have an opportunity to purchase this particular M1 Garand rifle.
Everything looks good including some drawing numbers being year appropriate.
The barrel is dated S.A. 12 - 50 with a very good bright bore.
My concern is the line down the middle of the receiver heel.
I haven't really seen this before.
Is it of concern?
Does it affect value?
It must be original to the reciever as the serial number and maker rollmarks are clearly over the line.
Your thoughts are appreciated.
Click to expand...
Does that line possibly indicate a rewelded receiver?

What say the THR M1 experts? :scrutiny:
 
BRatigan said:
* * * If someone wants to shoot hot loads out of a Garand then that's their business but better check to see what op rod type you have. There are at least three different types that were developed due to cracks forming at the right-angle portion. It required a relief cut to strengthen the op rod. The latter models were stronger but still not strong enough to handle a steady pounding of hot loads as the rods may fail.
Click to expand...
Or, you could use one of the adjustable M1 gas plugs on the market and safely shoot any .30-06 ammo out of your M1. Plug-n-play.
 
And a little off topic.
I don't think its demilled.
The serial number and rollmarks look unaffected.
It would have to have occurred prior to those numbers being applied.
I'm leaning towards the consensus of a machine milling error.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
That's your opinion. There are +/- values built into the system and the ordnance board can give waivers if needed.

Moot point the ammo is fine and performed quite well.
Click to expand...
You will find that the specified limits are +/- 40 fps, so no, AP, M2 going 2800 fps is not spec and has changed over time. I have never heard of a waiver being given for a velocity change of that magnitude, 5 fps over, waiver, 50 fps over the maximum, no, period.

"Effects of Storage at Elevated Temperatures upon Caliber .30 Ammunition containing Propellant Powder of Composition IMR 1185" Sept 1932

"The Relation Between the Stability of Caliber .30 Powder and the ballistic Life of Ammunition Containing such Powder" July 1931

"Development of Small Arms Ammunition, Report on Caliber .30 Ammunition Program" Sept 1939

"Report on Test of Caliber .30 Ball M2 Cartridges Loaded with DuPont Powder" July 1939
 
lysanderxiii said:
You will find that the specified limits are +/- 40 fps, so no, AP, M2 going 2800 fps is not spec and has changed over time. I have never heard of a waiver being given for a velocity change of that magnitude, 5 fps over, waiver, 50 fps over the maximum, no, period.

"Effects of Storage at Elevated Temperatures upon Caliber .30 Ammunition containing Propellant Powder of Composition IMR 1185" Sept 1932

"The Relation Between the Stability of Caliber .30 Powder and the ballistic Life of Ammunition Containing such Powder" July 1931

"Development of Small Arms Ammunition, Report on Caliber .30 Ammunition Program" Sept 1939

"Report on Test of Caliber .30 Ball M2 Cartridges Loaded with DuPont Powder" July 1939
Click to expand...
That's great but like I said plenty of it's in spec to know how it performed.

And the rest is just fractionally faster so again it's a perfect example of much pressure AP puts in the system.
 
kwb377 said:
I envy the amount of spare time one has in order to engage in this level of pettiness and "I'm going to prove myself right on the internet!".
Click to expand...
Cool story bro...

I didn't know that the sham of commercial ammo is unsafe in the garand was "petty".

I suppose you are happy with a world of misinformation?
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Original M1 Garand?
2
Replies
29
Views
1K
S.Crockett
S.Crockett
soonerboomer
  • Locked
HELP! Need Values/Info on the M1 Garand International Harvester
Replies
8
Views
607
cfullgraf
cfullgraf
E
  • Locked
Small M1 Garand site update
Replies
0
Views
1K
eclancy
E
DMK
  • Locked
What's a historical good book about the M1 Garand?
Replies
4
Views
414
eclancy
E
E
  • Locked
M1 Garand question/quiz
Replies
1
Views
386
eclancy
E
Back
Top