Best Semi-Auto 30-06?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bruce D Pease said:
I’d rely on CMP to answer about op rods, gas plugs, and non m2 ball suitability. They are the largest and best trained gunsmiths on the US Rifle Caliber 30 M1 around today. All of the armorers etc from Springfield Armory are long since gone, seeing as how the Armory was closed 52 years ago. If CMP gives it a go ahead believe it, if no go believe that. Nuff said
Click to expand...
CMP says 180gr commercial ammo and below is safe... greater than that "may" not "will" cause increased wear.

Actual testing shows commercial ammo operates at similar pressure as milsurp and operates the action at similar velocity so no danger... including 220grn ammo.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
CMP says 180gr commercial ammo and below is safe... greater than that "may" not "will" cause increased wear.

Actual testing shows commercial ammo operates at similar pressure as milsurp and operates the action at similar velocity so no danger... including 220grn ammo.
Click to expand...

It's simple Physics.

And "operating the action at similar velocity" is irrelevant.


Jeremy2171 said:
Not true at all...

AS stated ad nauseam they didn't test any of the "hotter" M2 ball ammo..they tested the "weaker" loads to support their claim... that is what I've been saying..

I've also said that their tests don't come close to Springfield Armorys results.

I've also asked you to explain how the "peak" pressure stresses the rod...at what point does the rod get "stressed" and where...
Click to expand...

Port pressure and system pressure are also different, but relative unto themselves.

As digital transducers are relatively new tech, old numbers are only relevant to old testing methods.

Like CUP vs. Piso-PSI for chamber pressure.


GarandGear - uses actual system pressures, and runs both baseline known (M2) and unknown rounds.

They are relative to each other - which is what is important. Not some number irrelevant to the test.


As for Peak pressure and Stress, that is a matter of Impulse.

Push something with a non-linear support with higher than design force, or over a distance in a shorter amount of time - and it will buckle.

That is what Peak pressure does... if excessive.


If M2 Peak pressure is at or below design strength, then anything lower is also below, and anything higher is at your own risk.


Op-rod speed affects extraction/ejection and Receiver wear/damage. (as do many other things)

The "Ported Gas Screw" reduces Area under the Curve pressure by less than 10%, yet reduces Peak pressure by over 1/3.

So both high and low pressure rounds will cycle safely and reliably.

An elegant solution.




GR
 
Last edited:
Garandimal said:
It's simple Physics.


Port pressure and system pressure are also different, but relative unto themselves.

As digital transducers are relatively new tech, old numbers are only relevant to old testing methods.

Like CUP vs. Piso-PSI for chamber pressure.


GarandGear - uses actual system pressures, and runs both baseline known (M2) and unknown rounds.

They are relative to each other - which is what is important. Not some number irrelevant to the test.


As for Peak pressure and Stress, that is a matter of Impulse.

Push something with a non-linear support with higher than design force, or in a shorter amount of time - and it will buckle.

That is what Peak pressure does... if excessive.


If M2 Peak pressure is at or below design strength, then anything lower is also below, and anything higher is at your own risk.


Op-rod speed affects extraction/ejection and Receiver wear/damage. (as do many other things)

The "Ported Gas Plug" reduces Area under the Curve pressure by less than 10%, yet reduces Peak pressure by over 1/3.

So both high and low pressure rounds will cycle safely and reliably.

An elegant solution.




GR
Click to expand...
Once again you continue to miss the point.

They didn't use a large enough sample to set a baseline. I wonder why they only used the weak loads not the ones more powerful.

There is no way that "modern" digital testing shows that the cylinder pressure is half of what springfield says it is. Sorry...that dog don't hunt.

Not to mention the SA oprod velocity matches with the test results I posted above.

The impulse against the oprod isn't relevant since the oprod isn't fixed. The lack of lubrication in the system is what causes things to get tweaked...not the "peak" pressure in the cylinder.

The lossy gas cylinder ensures their is enough gas to operate why excess higher pressure gas bleeds off rapidly


So until they test some of the hotter M2 ball loads their test is still junk and it currently has questionable data in it.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
Once again you continue to miss the point.

They didn't use a large enough sample to set a baseline. I wonder why they only used the weak loads not the ones more powerful.
Click to expand...

Which loads are these?

You have failed to provide any support for this claim.


Jeremy2171 said:
There is no way that "modern" digital testing shows that the cylinder pressure is half of what springfield says it is. Sorry...that dog don't hunt.
Click to expand...

Again, gibberish.

Different testing methods get different results.

Port pressure - is different than System pressure.

It could easily be double system, given the difference in orifice size.


Jeremy2171 said:
Not to mention the SA oprod velocity matches with the test results I posted above.
Click to expand...

So...?

Op-rod speed is irrelevant to Op-rod stress... as at that point it is essentially coasting.



Jeremy2171 said:
The impulse against the oprod isn't relevant since the oprod isn't fixed.
Click to expand...

Again, giggerish.

F=MA

Apply higher force, or the same force over a shorter time period, and it increases both impulse and stress.



Jeremy2171 said:
The lack of lubrication in the system is what causes things to get tweaked...not the "peak" pressure in the cylinder.
Click to expand...

Poor lubrication - increases friction to exacerbate Peak pressure stress.


Jeremy2171 said:
The lossy gas cylinder ensures their is enough gas to operate why excess higher pressure gas bleeds off rapidly
Click to expand...

Wrong again.

It's a simple valve to exhaust the system. The Op-rod is coasting by then.


Jeremy2171 said:
So until they test some of the hotter M2 ball loads their test is still junk and it currently has questionable data in it.
Click to expand...

Your ultimatums are so much ignorant religious fervor.

Get an education that didn't come from a YouTube video.




GR
 
Last edited:
Garandimal said:
Which loads are these?

You have failed to provide any support for this claim.




Again, gibberish.

Different testing methods get different results.

Port pressure - is different than System pressure.

It could easily be double system, given the difference in orifice size.




So...?

Op-rod speed is irrelevant to Op-rod stress... as at that point it is essentially coasting.





Again, giggerish.

F=MA

Apply higher force, or the same force over a shorter time period, and it increases both impulse and stress.





Poor lubrication - increases friction to exacerbate Peak pressure stress.




Wrong again.

It's a simple valve to exhaust the system. The Op-rod is coasting by then.




Your ultimatums are so much ignorant religious fervor.

Get an education that didn't come from a YouTube video.




GR
Click to expand...
Sorry but your aren't getting it apparently..it's well known that the 60s ammo is weak and is substandard and doesn't meet the required specs for M2.

Therefore using it as your benchmark is irrelevant. Get a wider sample of fully inspec ammo.

You keep throwing out gibberish but you can't explain it when you say that.

If SA says the pressure in the cylinder is 2200psi and your test says it's 1100psi... Someone is doing something wrong. I'll defer to the actual armory who designed the rifle...not a website that is producing test data that says you need to buy their product to protect your rifle. Poorly executed test data at that.

So is there more stress against a fixed object or one that floats?

Like you said..the oprod is coasting at this point and since it's traveling at the same velocity with milsurp or commercial ammo we don't have any concerns.

Like I said when their test data gets better then it might give better results. I've pointed out the holes but you keep ignoring them.

Not my problem.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
CMP says 180gr commercial ammo and below is safe... greater than that "may" not "will" cause increased wear.

Actual testing shows commercial ammo operates at similar pressure as milsurp and operates the action at similar velocity so no danger... including 220grn ammo.
Click to expand...

So are you claiming to know more than the folks at the CMP with regards to safety limits and commercial ammo in the M1?
 
Wow! I think we have us a bit of a squabble here!!! It's entertaining if nothing else. All I know is this:

I mistakenly bought an extra strength Wolff spring for my M-1. As one would expect, the gun short stroked with ball ammo. So I decided to try some Remington 150 grain commercial ammo loaded to over 2900 FPS.

The gun still short stroked.
 
Six pages and most of it off topic! I'll use my Belgium made Browning BAR with 180 Grain Remington Core Lokt for Deer and 150 Grain commercial for my M-1 Garand's. That's what I got out of this.
 
tark said:
Wow! I think we have us a bit of a squabble here!!! It's entertaining if nothing else. All I know is this:

I mistakenly bought an extra strength Wolff spring for my M-1. As one would expect, the gun short stroked with ball ammo. So I decided to try some Remington 150 grain commercial ammo loaded to over 2900 FPS.

The gun still short stroked.
Click to expand...
Not really a squabble...just data being presented.

I was of similar opinion about the wolff spring but I found it slowed the oprod down by about 6% with the hotter loads of M2 but the weak loads like late 60s date stuff the oprod speed slowed down almost 15%.

So if you have a marginally inspec gas system and poor lube combined with the substandard M2 ball you could have trouble.
 
Terry G said:
Six pages and most of it off topic! I'll use my Belgium made Browning BAR with 180 Grain Remington Core Lokt for Deer and 150 Grain commercial for my M-1 Garand's. That's what I got out of this.
Click to expand...
The OP asked about a garand...we are taking about garands...

The 180s are fine in the garand as well.
That's what CMP says. U2UfQTXl.jpg
 
Jeremy2171 said:
How is it contradictory?
Click to expand...

It’s contradictory in that the CMP says commercial loads for bullets over 180g may not be op rod safe.

You’re saying that they are.

Kudos for posting your test results to back up your assertions.
 
Boils down to this for me..... there’s still quite a bit of M2 Ball milsurp ammo available, AND there are commercial manufacturers who are making rounds that are safe to use in a Garand, so ..... if you’re going to own/shoot a Garand use one of these rounds, then there’s no need for an adjustable gas plug. Problem solved. Being old, and as a person who carried the beloved Garand, I’m somewhat of an originalist and still use Lubriplate 130A as my Garand lubricant. Applied the way my Gunny taught me I have no problem with the functioning of my April 1943 Garand, which is a few months older than the one the Marine Corps issued to me.
 
JeeperCreeper said:
Details, details!!!!
Click to expand...

For started its heavy AF, like 12 pounds out of the box. But its a great shooter and eats pretty much anything you feed it. One big downside is the price. 4,500 bucks is pricey. If i had to do it again I'd probably pass on it and get like 4 or 5 aero M5's lol.
 
Jeremy2171 said:
Sorry but your aren't getting it apparently..it's well known that the 60s ammo is weak and is substandard and doesn't meet the required specs for M2.

Therefore using it as your benchmark is irrelevant. Get a wider sample of fully inspec ammo.
Click to expand...

More unsupported gibberish.


Physics.

Given:
A 24" Bbl'ed M1 Rifle pushing a 150 gr. bullet with 50gr of IMR4895 to a MV of 2800 fps.
(The Army technical manual [TM 43-0001-27])

Now, push the same bullet, from the same rifle, to the same MV, ...but with Bulleye Pistol powder.


Area under the curve - will be the same.

Slide velocity - will be the same.


But, your ignorance will win you a special prize.

... an empirical education in Peak pressure.

:D



An Outstanding resource for determining Commercial Ammo suitability for the M1 Rifle.

... and the GarandGear "Ported Gas Screw" - is an elegant solution to the excessive Peak pressure ammunition problem.




GR
 
Last edited:
Garandimal said:
More unsupported gibberish.


Physics.

Given:
A 24" Bbl'ed M1 Rifle pushing a 150 gr. bullet with 50gr of IMR4895 to a MV of 2800 fps.
(The Army technical manual [TM 43-0001-27])

Now, push the same bullet, from the same rifle, to the same MV, ...but with Bulleye Pistol powder.


Area under the curve - will be the same.

Slide velocity - will be the same.


But, your ignorance will win you a special prize.

... an empirical education in Peak pressure.

:D



An Outstanding resource for determining Commercial Ammo suitability for the M1 Rifle.

... and the GarandGear "Ported Gas Screw" - is an elegant solution to the excessive Peak pressure ammunition problem.




GR
Click to expand...
I beginning to think you are some kind of shill for GG products...

I have supported my claim on pg 4 and pg 6...maybe you should do some more research because LC66 ammo does not reach 2800fps..its barely 2600. It doesn't have 50grn of I4895 in it either.

FYI 50grn of 4895 is more like 2910fps from a garand I should know...I chronyed that load last week....

And no bullseye powder and 4895 will not generate the same oprod velcoity. I do think your example of using pistol powder in a garand doesn't really make any sense...but at least you are being consistent.


And again..for the record...GG "might" be an outstanding resource ....IF they had used different control ammo that is known to meet the specs...like LC72 or even S&B garand safe ammo. THEN we could have an "honest" comparison.

But as I have repeatedly pointed out the holes in the GG test data that favors their suggestion to buy their product I'd say that they have a large stake in "proving" you "need" their product...

Wouldn't you say??

Meanwhile I've provided data showing that commercial ammo isn't the problem they make it out to be....
 
Jeremy2171 said:
LC66 ammo does not reach 2800fps..its barely 2600. It doesn't have 50grn of I4895 in it either.

FYI 50grn of 4895 is more like 2910fps from a garand I should know...I chronyed that load last week....
Click to expand...

I was wondering about the 50 gr. quote earlier, but not all lots of powder are equal but supposedly the arsenals loaded to a given velocity, not by a specific charge.

Shot the Garand in competition for a number of years in the 80's & 90's. Many of the leg matches issued either M2 ball or M72 Match ammo to level the playing field. Some service rifle matches allowed 2 sighters at each stage, others no sighters. Some matches competitors furnished their own ammo. Back then, the most common load used by most competitors (shooting 30-06) with whom I was familiar was 47 gr. IMR4895 behind either the 150 gr. or 168 gr. SMK to duplicate M2 & M72 trajectories/sight settings out to 600 yds. Been too many years to remember chronograph readings but LC 62 M72 is listed @ 2640 fps.

I may be old fashioned, but I'll continue to use 4895 w/175 gr and under bullets in my Garand as that is what all the AMU armorers of those days recommended. Guess my motto is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 4895 worked then in the Garand, and it still works today, even with lighter bullets.
45430694655_ef38c02328_m.jpg

Regards,
hps
 
Last edited:
hps1 said:
I was wondering about the 50 gr. quote earlier, but not all lots of powder are equal but supposedly the arsenals loaded to a given velocity, not by a specific charge.

Shot the Garand in competition for a number of years in the 80's & 90's. Many of the leg matches issued either M2 ball or M72 Match ammo to level the playing field. Some service rifle matches allowed 2 sighters at each stage, others no sighters. Some matches competitors furnished their own ammo. Back then, the most common load used by most competitors (shooting 30-06) with whom I was familiar was 47 gr. IMR4895 behind either the 150 gr. or 168 gr. SMK to duplicate M2 & M72 trajectories/sight settings out to 600 yds. Been too many years to remember chronograph readings but LC 62 M72 is listed @ 2640 fps.

I may be old fashioned, but I'll continue to use 4895 w/175 gr and under bullets in my Garand as that is what all the AMU armorers of those days recommended. Guess my motto is if it ain't broke, don't fix it. 4895 worked then, and it still works today, even with lighter bullets.
View attachment 949520

Regards,
hps
Click to expand...
Yep you are correct. However the late 60s M2 ball doesn't meet spec. it's around 2600ish with 44-47 gr of CMR-100 as 4895 was in short supply. WW2 and KW era ball is more more consistent and also has more port pressure than the junk 60s stuff.

I also like 168/175s under a healthy charge of Varget.

My last test with LC67 M72 showed it went at 2580.
 
Given the cost of ammo these days, I'd sell off the stash of .30-06 rather than buy a rifle for it. :neener:

Actually, that's what I did a few years back when I sold my last aught-six.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

zaitcev
  • Locked
Vepr 30-06
Replies
7
Views
2K
zaitcev
zaitcev
K
  • Locked
  • Poll
Best WWII Semi-Auto
2
Replies
29
Views
2K
Kalashnikov
K
C
  • Locked
best 30-06 semi-autos?
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
twoblink
T
C
  • Locked
Best semi-auto 30-06 rifle
2
Replies
39
Views
15K
PurpleProwess
P
P
  • Locked
Semi 30-06
Replies
17
Views
1K
CoRoMo
CoRoMo
Back
Top