Winchester Victory "not appropriate" for M1 Garand
- Thread starter zaitcev
- Start date
- Status
someguy2800
Member
I would go to winchester and ask. Just because it has more powder weight than original M2 ball ammo does not mean it generates more pressure at the gas port. Powders have changed in the last 70 years. Without testing gas port pressure or operating rod velocity, the author in my opinion is making an unfounded assumption to say it is not appropriate for a garand.
skeeterfogger
member
- Joined
- Jan 5, 2019
- Messages
- 1,280
If it is that much more powerful then perhaps a spring for heavier bullets would be the remedy.
If Winchester has powder that meets the port pressure limitations of the weapon, than it should function and be safe.
However, I am going to say I would be very skeptical that a 2850 fps round would not cause jams and malfunctions in a Garand. I have shot enough ammunition to say you are better off keeping a 150 grain bullet just at 2700 fps in a Garand, using powders in the IMR 4895 burn rate. Powder selection is highly important as a slow burning powder gives excessive port pressures, even though the breech pressure would be within spec.
I don't know what world the in print guy lives in, but the weight of the charge in the case is irrelevant. What matters is breech pressure and port pressure. My lot of WC852 was a ball powder for the M1 Garand, I have the acceptance sheet. And my lot of WC852 used 60.1 grains of powder to achieve spec velocities, and it was tested in Garands.
However, I am going to say I would be very skeptical that a 2850 fps round would not cause jams and malfunctions in a Garand. I have shot enough ammunition to say you are better off keeping a 150 grain bullet just at 2700 fps in a Garand, using powders in the IMR 4895 burn rate. Powder selection is highly important as a slow burning powder gives excessive port pressures, even though the breech pressure would be within spec.
I don't know what world the in print guy lives in, but the weight of the charge in the case is irrelevant. What matters is breech pressure and port pressure. My lot of WC852 was a ball powder for the M1 Garand, I have the acceptance sheet. And my lot of WC852 used 60.1 grains of powder to achieve spec velocities, and it was tested in Garands.
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,857
Rifles don’t work like pistols. The op rod spring doesn’t really fight the gas pressure, just sets the op rod, and stiffening the mainspring would make the damage to the op rod worse.
The “answer” for Garands, for ~80yrs, has been to control the port pressure with wise and discerning ammunition selection.
But as stated here, the author in the article made a pseudoscientific claim (lie) that the increased powder charge weight indicated the port pressure would be higher, increasing wear and tear on the action.
Frankly, Winchester has a pretty good idea of how to build ammunition, and hitting port pressure targets is child’s play for them. It’s arrogant and foolish of the author to claim Win screwed the pooch simply because he pulled a bullet and weighed a powder charge (of unidentified powder).
Garandimal
member
The FUD is:
M2 Ball - was Chrono'ed at 2740 fps 78 Feet from the muzzle, ...which is ~ 2805 fps at the muzzle.
GR
M2 Ball - was Chrono'ed at 2740 fps 78 Feet from the muzzle, ...which is ~ 2805 fps at the muzzle.
GR
Last edited:
We should hope. But don't forget that Federals M2 ball that was supplied in the 1998 inaugural JC Garand match was loaded way too hot, and bent many peoples OP rods.
Hopefully they learned something from that.
edwardware
Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2010
- Messages
- 4,424
I would like to know more about this, and the Google doesn't remember.
You throw that word "lie" around a lot. Care to back your assumption with any referenced FACTS?
Varminterror
Member
- Joined
- Jul 17, 2016
- Messages
- 14,857
If the author is throwing out unsubstantiated claims using illogical pseudoscience, it's a lie. That simple. I'd generally assume someone who knows enough to be writing fodder for match shooters should understand that varying powder charges doesn't tell the whole story for the pressure curve - so what's he trying to do by claiming "there's more powder, so the Victory load is not appropriate for use in a Garand." If it were some slackjaw on Youtube making an ignorant observation, sure, I'd buy it that he just didn't know any better. I expect the author of the article in the OP's magazine isn't some slackjaw on Youtube. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and expect too much of those involved with old media. But the author and any staff editor should have known better than to think that was sufficient evidence of operating pressure, and certainly not taken it to print without better evidence.
Last edited:
CapnMac
Member
The other variable, and one complicated to verify, is that the critical thing is the Op Rod speed.
For current Garand owners, the answer is, typically, to use a gas port that can be adjusted with a given ammo to give the desired speed. (Which I want to remember is ±200fps, but could be wrong.) The op rod speed is the result of a complicated calculs involving projo weight, MV, pressure and the like, all of which interact with the gas port diameter, too..
For current Garand owners, the answer is, typically, to use a gas port that can be adjusted with a given ammo to give the desired speed. (Which I want to remember is ±200fps, but could be wrong.) The op rod speed is the result of a complicated calculs involving projo weight, MV, pressure and the like, all of which interact with the gas port diameter, too..
NIGHTLORD40K
Member
When in doubt use a ported gas plug-
http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition
Heres a great chart of various factory loads tested for port pressure with and without a ported plug.
22250Rem
Member
This is interesting and informative, having owned an M-1 for 22 + years now, and another for a few years prior to this one. Just makes me glad my current M-1 has seen pretty much only handloads with 150 gr bullets using known safe charges of IMR-4895. Only factory ammo ever used in it has been some 1957 U.S.G.I. ball ammo and that was mostly for chronographing purposes. Stuff like that article makes me wary of using anything other than handloads of known components.
Did you all know that there was a loading of M2 ball that was for machine guns. It had a higher operating pressure. They did the same thing with 50 cal. Different loadings for ground machine guns than aerial machine guns. They wanted the aircraft guns to fire faster since their time on target was usually less.
There is something missing from that spec value, what the ammunition was tested in, and tested against. I have the acceptance spec sheet for my lot of WC852. DCAS probably did the acceptance, signing off on the "DD250". The Government buyer had standardization cartridges traceable to a Frankfort Arsenal test barrel. One standardization cartridge gave 2700 fps in the vendor's test barrel, the second 2675 fps. Pressure was less than spec maximum. These standardization values were used to correct the velocities and pressures from the vendor's barrel. What I see is that they added 25 fps to the velocities in the vendor's barrel, based on the velocity of the calibration cartridges fired in the Frankfort Arsenal barrel. The corrected mean velocity of this particular lot of WC852, with a 150 grain bullet and 60.1 grains was 2750 fps at 78 feet, and therefore the lot met requirements and was accepted by the Government.
Therefore, quoting spec values is very misleading in my opinion. Those spec values are only valid for one particular test barrel at Frankfort Arsenal. Your barrel is different.
I am not duplicating the exact cases, primers, nor bullets, but in the same length of barrel, with one load 0.4 grains over the Government data, and another 0.6 grains under, my velocities are 100 fps less than any 2850 fps estimate.
J.C. Higgins M50 24" Chromed lined barrel
150 Fed Fusion 60.5 grs WC852 wtd, Fed cases, CCI #34 OAL 3.225" greased bullets & cases
7 Jan 2019 T = 48 °F
Ave Vel = 2703
Std Dev = 9
ES = 28
High = 2710
Low = 2682
N = 10
SAKO 24" Barrel
148 gr IMI FMJBT 59.5 grs WC852 thrown, IMI cases, CCI 200 greased bullets & cases
9 Feb 2018 T = 59 °F
Ave Vel = 2631
Std Dev = 22
ES = 70
High = 2659
Low = 2589
N = 10
When I have tested real ball ammunition, the velocities are surprisingly low. This is Garand era ammunition.
M1 Garand Douglas Barrel 1:10 twist
150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball
14 Nov 2011 T= 74 ° F
Ave Vel = 2545
Std Dev = 20
ES = 68
Low = 2513
High = 2581
N = 8
M98 26" 1-10 Wilson Barrel
150 gr FMJBT TW 56 Ball
24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F
Ave Vel = 2680
Std Dev = 31
ES = 78
Low = 2620
High = 2698
N = 6
150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball
14 Nov 2011 T= 68 ° F
Ave Vel = 2596
Std Dev = 47
ES = 190
Low = 2498
High = 2688
N=11
Group Size: Surprisingly good ammunition.
Hear me now, believe me later: you are better off keeping 150 Garand ammunition less than 2700 fps, and I think 2650 fps with a 150 is just fine.
I've seen a lot of tests from the late 50s and 60s LC M2 ball and it's usually reported in the 2500s or 2600s like you posted. But I've read the WW2-era M2 ball and linked machine gun ammo was hotter, closer to the 2740 fps @ 78 ft spec, usually somewhere in the mid-2700s.
Garandimal
member
Don't know what you are talkin'bout, but for M2 Ball and IMR 4895...?
According to TM 43-0001-27 (1994) P. 5-9:
Ball Cartridge for Rifle, Caliber .30, M1:
Propellant:
Type: IMR 4895
Weight: 50 gr.
Chamber pressure: 50,000 psi.
Velocity: 2740 fps, 78 ft from muzzle.
Interestingly, TM 9-1904 (1944) Pp. 192-3:
CARTRIDGE, Ball, Cal. .30, M1
Average maximum pressure: 48,000 lb per sq in
Velocity:
At 78 ft: 2,600 ft per sec
At 53 ft: 2,620 ft per sec
At muzzle: 2,647 ft per sec
Muzzle energy: 2,675 ft-lb
CARTRIDGE, Ball, Cal. .30, M2
Average maximum pressure: 50,000 lb per sq in
Velocity:
At 78 ft: 2,740 ft per sec
At 53 ft: 2,755 ft per sec
At muzzle: 2,805 ft per sec
GR
Last edited:
Ammunition deteriorates with time and pressures increase as the stuff ages. I don't know what to say about chronograph data for WW2 ammunition in fact I am a bit distrustful of my 1956 ball ammunition. I am going to say, as a highpower competitor who shot the Garand in NRA across the course competition, you are better off not attempting to push bullets to the "TM" values in your rifle. Go slower. Those TM values were measured in pressure barrels not your barrel. And in fact, if you use those powder charges listed in the TM's, you are going to have lots of problems and the recoil could be so hard you could knock the heel of your receiver.
For those who quote TM's, these TM's were not reloading manuals. Ammunition plants had their own pressure and velocity gages, the bulk powders they bought (in 75,000 lb lot quantities) the charge weights were adjusted. These bulk powders were not blended products, lots varied in burn rate. The powders they used were of a different burn rate rate then the blended IMR 4895 powders we buy.
I consider an interesting fact, that many of the products we buy, consume, are blended products. You just have the illusion that your wine, whiskey, grape jelly, etc, came right off the tree. This illusion is maintained because people hunger for "authenticity", demand consistency from nature, which of course, is not there.
Last edited:
Charlie98
Member
I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but I agree that the OP article is nonsense. No matter how valuable chronograph readings are to any load or load development, it is not the Alpha and Omega in data, particularly with a gas gun. The quantity of powder has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a cartridge operates at a safe pressure... it would be like opening a can of green beans and saying you know they are going to taste better because they look like they would...
Winchester knows how to manufacture ammos, it's true, but they have had their share of recalls and such over the years... so nothing is concrete.
Winchester knows how to manufacture ammos, it's true, but they have had their share of recalls and such over the years... so nothing is concrete.
Dave DeLaurant
Member
Apropos of the gas plug suggestion, InRangeTV did some high speed photography comparing op-rod speeds with different ammo and both MilSpec and the Schuster adjustable gas plugs.
Having and installing an adjustable plug seems like cheap insurance when using 'if in doubt' ammo in a Garand. Even with M2 ball, it appears that a properly set up adjustable plug can reduce op rod speed without compromising reliability.
https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...s-plug-with-wrench-m1-garand-steel-parkerized
Even the CMP had to learn about the peculiarities of Garands and its ammunition. In 1999 the CMP ran out of surplus US ball to issue for the Camp Perry Garand Match. They purchased 150 gr commercial ammunition from Federal. Not only was that stuff slamfiring so much on the load command, that "like the match never got started", it was loaded to commercial pressures and velocities. It was clocking close to 2900 fps. I saw lots of malfunctions, Garands ejecting partially loaded clips, bolt over rides, etc. After that fiasco, the CMP ran some of its own tests, and the next batches of ammunition they bought from Federal had mil spec primers and was a lot slower.
Knowledge about reloading for Garands and M1a's was always kept within a small group of highpower competitors, and you find that industry has downsized almost all of its corporate memory, and what is left is "outsourced" from vendors. As a whole, industry just keeps on getting stupider and stupider, and the labor force keeps on getting cheaper and younger.
Every day a wise man dies, and every second hundreds of ignorant babies are born.
Garandimal
member
It was loaded w/ soft commercial primers - not the hard MilSpec primers the M1's floating firing pin requires.
Easy on the FUD.
And as far as cracked heals - How many were using 50 yr. old out-of-spec op-rod springs?
For $6.75? It's the first thing done to a new M1 rifle.
GR
Last edited:
- Status
