If so could you list some of the loads they list for the M-1 Garand. I need to get one of em, but I am curious as to the loads they list for 150-180 grain bullets. I already have a good load for 150 Gr SP's using H-4895 or IMR-4064, I am more interested in the 165 gr and if there are any 180 Gr loads listed
Anyone got the latest Hornady or Sierra manual?
- Thread starter noonanda
- Start date
- Status
kidcoltoutlaw
Member
i have the book
but im not at my house right now i will get back with you . just reply so i can find the post easier.
but im not at my house right now i will get back with you . just reply so i can find the post easier.
Valkman
Member
Latest Hornaday manual:
168gr bullets:
39.6gr (2300fps) to 47.1gr (2600fps) for IMR 4895
41.4gr (2300fps) to 47.2gr (2600fps) for IMR 4064
178gr bullets:
39.8gr (2200fps) to 46.1gr (2550fps) for IMR 4895
39.5gr (2200fps) to 46.7gr (2550fps) for IMR 4064
168gr bullets:
39.6gr (2300fps) to 47.1gr (2600fps) for IMR 4895
41.4gr (2300fps) to 47.2gr (2600fps) for IMR 4064
178gr bullets:
39.8gr (2200fps) to 46.1gr (2550fps) for IMR 4895
39.5gr (2200fps) to 46.7gr (2550fps) for IMR 4064
Zeke Menuar
Member
I think the Garand has special reloading requirements
found this article, might help you out:
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/m1reload.html
ZM
found this article, might help you out:
http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh/m1reload.html
ZM
Wil Terry
Member
I REMAIN ABSOLUTELY AMAZED AT SOMEONE WHO CLAIMS TO BE A " RELOADER " AND
Who doesn't have the loading manuals at hand [ the college textbooks on the entire genre' ] to perform his hobby correctly. In stead he goes on the internet and asks for data from the latest manuals from complete strangers and takes it as gospel.
Furthermore, I remian amazed there are folks who spend their hard earned money to buy the latest loading manuals and who jump right in to furnish data to those too damned cheap to buy them for themselves.
Anyone who takes loading data off any site on the internet and doesn't check it against five or six printed sources for such data is a fool.
Who doesn't have the loading manuals at hand [ the college textbooks on the entire genre' ] to perform his hobby correctly. In stead he goes on the internet and asks for data from the latest manuals from complete strangers and takes it as gospel.
Furthermore, I remian amazed there are folks who spend their hard earned money to buy the latest loading manuals and who jump right in to furnish data to those too damned cheap to buy them for themselves.
Anyone who takes loading data off any site on the internet and doesn't check it against five or six printed sources for such data is a fool.
Smythe77
Member
Allow me to second your Post Wil Terry.
kidcoltoutlaw
Member
well
said i ask from time to time but cross check it .you can ask what has worked for you in the past but always check it again.
said i ask from time to time but cross check it .you can ask what has worked for you in the past but always check it again.
Valkman
Member
Yep, some of us like to actually help people. Guy asks for data, book is nearby, he gets data. Sorry for offending your "hard core reloading rules"! 
1)Well I have not had the chance to buy either one of these manuals
2) not but a couple weeks ago I bought the previous edition of the hornady manual but this one did not list any garand loads.
3) I dont take anything I have read off the internet as gospel. I had developed a load for 165 gr bullets, but I wanted to check myself, AND I wanted to know if there were any 180Gr bullet loads.
4) to those that helped thanks, to those that just wanted to raise their post count or be a hinderance, well thanks anyway
Last edited:
A little harsh there, Wil.
Grump
Member
I have access to about five reloading manuals of various vintages, and ...
ALMOST NEVER IS THE SAME BULLET WEIGHT/POWDER CHARGE COMBO LISTED IN ALL FIVE!
Cross-checking is okay, and this type of "testing the waters" is not only okay fair use, it is a great way to coax each other to buy the reloading manuals from which we post excerpts.
We already have a forum rule about posting above-published load data & results. Do we now need to also post big-old disclaimers about the obvious hazards of "oops, I had a typo" and "oops, I misquoted my notes" and "oops, I can never be sure that you will use the right powder I just posted"** and "Gee, that 180-grain bullet with the long shank tested in manual one might generate more pressure than the VLD short-shank bullet for the load in manual two"???
Even the teenagers reading this Board are grown-up enough to evaluate their own risks and be responsible for their own actions. Anyone who takes bad info from a Board and blows up their gun is either reckless (didn't cross-check), or reckless (did cross-check and stupidly went forward anyway.
Yes, either reckless or reckless. We should be making our educated evaluations and acting accordingly, assuming all risks with eyes wide open.
**Are we still having problems with the various burning rates of "Clays", "International Clays" and "Universal Clays"?? The powder company's choice of names followed some STUPID marketing theory of branding, and was actively negligent in doing so. Thus, some newbies know these three simply as "Clays", "International" and "Universal". I'm more than reasonably certain that the Internet reports of reloaders blowing handguns by confusing these three powders are true.
On-topic, if you stay with powders no slower than 4064, bullets no heavier than 180 grains, and watch the military vs. commercial brass cautions, you have an M1 Garand load, suitable for its gas system. I cannot vouch for Varget, but some sources indicate it is slower than the recommendations for M1s. I defer to those more informed than I.
ALMOST NEVER IS THE SAME BULLET WEIGHT/POWDER CHARGE COMBO LISTED IN ALL FIVE!
Cross-checking is okay, and this type of "testing the waters" is not only okay fair use, it is a great way to coax each other to buy the reloading manuals from which we post excerpts.
We already have a forum rule about posting above-published load data & results. Do we now need to also post big-old disclaimers about the obvious hazards of "oops, I had a typo" and "oops, I misquoted my notes" and "oops, I can never be sure that you will use the right powder I just posted"** and "Gee, that 180-grain bullet with the long shank tested in manual one might generate more pressure than the VLD short-shank bullet for the load in manual two"???
Even the teenagers reading this Board are grown-up enough to evaluate their own risks and be responsible for their own actions. Anyone who takes bad info from a Board and blows up their gun is either reckless (didn't cross-check), or reckless (did cross-check and stupidly went forward anyway.
Yes, either reckless or reckless. We should be making our educated evaluations and acting accordingly, assuming all risks with eyes wide open.
**Are we still having problems with the various burning rates of "Clays", "International Clays" and "Universal Clays"?? The powder company's choice of names followed some STUPID marketing theory of branding, and was actively negligent in doing so. Thus, some newbies know these three simply as "Clays", "International" and "Universal". I'm more than reasonably certain that the Internet reports of reloaders blowing handguns by confusing these three powders are true.
On-topic, if you stay with powders no slower than 4064, bullets no heavier than 180 grains, and watch the military vs. commercial brass cautions, you have an M1 Garand load, suitable for its gas system. I cannot vouch for Varget, but some sources indicate it is slower than the recommendations for M1s. I defer to those more informed than I.
This is what I have gone by as well for the M-1, I only use either IMR 4064, IMR 4895, or H4895. I would like to develop a 180 grain load, but I think the highest bullet Im gonna use will only be the 165 grainers. I have heard the Varget one too, but I'll stick with what I know too. And what you say about the different manuals having different loads for the same powder and bullet weight is the truth. comparing my lee, hornady, and speer manuals for some loads, plus the if you compare the 1 caliber loadbooks midway sells, they are all similar but do vary. Plus some list powders that others do not. Plus when you take into account the firearms they used for those loads.
One other thing I forgot to add, is the fact that all of the listed .30-06 loads in my different loadbooks are designed FOR rifles other than the M-1 ie bolt action or not so finicky gas systems. So I can't use those loads without risking bending the Op rod due to the narrow selection available to the garand. So I figured I would ask if someone had those loads. I didnt think I would get read the Riot Act for asking a question. All you had to do was say "well I recommend you get the manual" if it was that big of an issue. Obviously some people didn't think it was, and to those people Thanks.
I may not have many posts under my belt, but I do lurk here alot. And since I have only been reloading for 2 years yes I am still rather new compared to some. But there is no reason to bash someone for asking a question
I may not have many posts under my belt, but I do lurk here alot. And since I have only been reloading for 2 years yes I am still rather new compared to some. But there is no reason to bash someone for asking a question
kidcoltoutlaw
Member
nothing in the
new Sierra book. for the M-1
new Sierra book. for the M-1
Steve in PA
Member
I'm with Wil on this one.
Reloading manuals should be read cover-to-cover and back again before you start playing around with reloading. Anything less is an accident waitng to happen.
As for the loads, my current 168 BTHP load for my M1 is 46.5gr of IMR-4895, for 150gr its 47.0gr of IMR-4895, and I don't load for 180's.
Reloading manuals should be read cover-to-cover and back again before you start playing around with reloading. Anything less is an accident waitng to happen.
As for the loads, my current 168 BTHP load for my M1 is 46.5gr of IMR-4895, for 150gr its 47.0gr of IMR-4895, and I don't load for 180's.
I agree, and I have read my loadbooks, plus the ABC's of reloading, plus about 4 other books. I enjoy reading about this so thats not the problem. And I didn't just start reloading .30-06 for my garand, been doing it for 8 months using only 150 gr bullets and the three powders I listed before. In that 8 months I have probably shot 1000 reloads out of my Garand. I was looking for the info because I worked up a load for 165 gr bullets, and 1 need to check my load was within safe limits, and 2 wanted to know if the hornady had loads for 180. So I wasnt just throwing a spoonful of powder under a bullet and saying, well this should be safe.
But he was out of line tearing me a new butthole for asking for assistance. Maybe I should have asked what loads people used, but what is safe in your rifle might not be in mine. At least if I had the published loads I could gage where your load sits.
For example your 168 gr load is only .6 grains shot of a max load. I'm sure you worked that load up. I wanted to do the same. In fact the starting load I was working up 165 Gr bullets was 44.8 Grains of IMR 4064. well the lowest listed load is 41.4 to 47.2 So my load is midrange, I could go up if I wanted but I will probably stay where Im at cause It is shooting pretty good out of my rifle, plus it is easy on the brass.
But he was out of line tearing me a new butthole for asking for assistance. Maybe I should have asked what loads people used, but what is safe in your rifle might not be in mine. At least if I had the published loads I could gage where your load sits.
For example your 168 gr load is only .6 grains shot of a max load. I'm sure you worked that load up. I wanted to do the same. In fact the starting load I was working up 165 Gr bullets was 44.8 Grains of IMR 4064. well the lowest listed load is 41.4 to 47.2 So my load is midrange, I could go up if I wanted but I will probably stay where Im at cause It is shooting pretty good out of my rifle, plus it is easy on the brass.
Grump
Member
IIRC the NRA published a "military shoot-alike" list which had 47.5 or so of 4064 under the Sierra 168 HPBTMK, not to be exceeded in military brass. I can check for that if you want. Several other powders were listed, but this was before Varget and RL-15...
Steve in PA
Member
Every load I have for my guns, be it rifle or handgun was worked up from a middle of the road load. My loads go up in .5gr incriments, checking for accuracy and signs of pressure.
46.5gr gave me the better accuracy than 47.0gr, so I stopped there.
46.5gr gave me the better accuracy than 47.0gr, so I stopped there.
- Status
Similar threads
