Quantcast

Best Semi-Auto 30-06?

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by JeeperCreeper, Oct 5, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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.
     
  2. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    It's simple Physics.

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


    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: Oct 18, 2020
    P5 Guy likes this.
  3. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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.
     
  4. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    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
     
    Last edited: Oct 15, 2020
    Cannibul and P5 Guy like this.
  5. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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.
     
  6. Nature Boy
    • Contributing Member

    Nature Boy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages:
    5,535
    So are you claiming to know more than the folks at the CMP with regards to safety limits and commercial ammo in the M1?
     
    Cannibul, P5 Guy and hps1 like this.
  7. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    Please explain...I just quoted what the CMP says...then added that actual testing shows 220s aren't dangerous either.
     
  8. Nature Boy
    • Contributing Member

    Nature Boy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages:
    5,535
    It seems contradictory. Who's testing shows that 220s aren't dangerous?
     
  9. tark

    tark Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2013
    Messages:
    3,260
    Location:
    atkinson, ill
    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.
     
    P5 Guy, horsey300 and js8588 like this.
  10. Terry G

    Terry G Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Northwoods
    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.
     
    Cannibul and horsey300 like this.
  11. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    How is it contradictory? CMP days it "may" cause increased wear.... because they don't know. It doesn't say it "will" cause more wear.



    Testing of 220s vs garand safe ammo...
     
  12. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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.
     
  13. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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
     
  14. Terry G

    Terry G Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2007
    Messages:
    427
    Location:
    Northwoods
    My mistake, Sorry.
     
    horsey300 and Jeremy2171 like this.
  15. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    No wo
    No worries...glad to help
     
  16. Duster340

    Duster340 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2015
    Messages:
    739
    My 7400 reliable eats factory ammo.....lol

    Sorry, I couldn't resist! Love M1s and it is one of my bucket list milsurps.

    Be well folks
     
    Cannibul and LoonWulf like this.
  17. Nature Boy
    • Contributing Member

    Nature Boy Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2015
    Messages:
    5,535
    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.
     
    hps1 likes this.
  18. Bruce D Pease

    Bruce D Pease Member

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2018
    Messages:
    119
    Location:
    LOUISVILLE KY. Finally escaped living in DRPMA.
    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.
     
    Cannibul, horsey300 and hps1 like this.
  19. 455h013

    455h013 Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2017
    Messages:
    17
    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.
     
  20. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    2,405
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    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: Oct 17, 2020
    Cannibul and P5 Guy like this.
  21. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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....
     
  22. hps1

    hps1 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2002
    Messages:
    2,004
    Location:
    Texas
    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: Oct 17, 2020
    P5 Guy likes this.
  23. Jeremy2171

    Jeremy2171 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2007
    Messages:
    939
    Location:
    In a Retired Marines Valhalla
    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.
     
  24. Legionnaire
    • Contributing Member

    Legionnaire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2002
    Messages:
    7,292
    Location:
    Texas
    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.
     
    Cannibul and horsey300 like this.
  25. tallpaul

    tallpaul Member

    Joined:
    Oct 17, 2006
    Messages:
    1,188
    That is what I was going to suggest... :D
     
    mcb likes this.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice