Quantcast

Blc in an M1

Discussion in 'Handloading and Reloading' started by 8mmman, Aug 11, 2016.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. 8mmman

    8mmman Member

    Joined:
    Jun 9, 2008
    Messages:
    131
    I've got a lot of Ball C and was thinking of loading it for my M-1 anyone have luck with doing so.

    Is it to fast for the operating rod? Don't want to bend it.
     
  2. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    W. PA
    Actually, its slower burning powders that result in the high port pressures that damage op rods.

    Based on the Hodgdons burn rate chart, BL-C2 is slower than Varget, which IMO is about as slow as you can safely go. I've never heard of anyone using it in an M-1, and if you do it will be borderline. I'd proceed with caution and maybe wait to hear from someone who has and who has a proven load.

    Laphroaig
     
  3. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    26,071
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
    I feel BL-C(2) is too slow a powder for use in the M1. Write Hodgdon and ask them, Mike Daly will answer your mail in short order. I don't know him personally but have gotten several replies to my questions.
     
    Last edited: Aug 12, 2016
  4. macgrumpy

    macgrumpy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    627
    Hornady's 9th Edition reloading manual shows powder charge weights for 168 and 178 grain bullets in their M1 Garand section.
     
  5. Fatelvis

    Fatelvis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,920
    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    I wouldn't use it in a Garand
     
  6. Reloadron

    Reloadron Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    8,176
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Hornady 9th Edition has sections devoted to service rifle loadings including safe loads for the M1 Garand. BL-C(2 can be used just fine but only with the heavier bullets because yes, it is a slower powder. You will see it used with the 168 grain bullets and heavier. Here is what it looks like for 30-06 loadings for the M1 Garand.
    Loading Data For: 168 grain bullets COL 3.240"
    Loading Data For: 178 & 180 grain bullets COL 3.240"

    Personally I never used it but to answer your question yes, it can be used in M1 Garand safe loads. The link is taken directly from Hornady's 9th Edition 30-06 Springfield M1 Garand starting on page 446.

    Ron
     
  7. macgrumpy

    macgrumpy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    627
    Must be an echo in here.
     
  8. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    26,071
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
    Some people seem to need recognition to make them feel good too. I feel its all about helping others, not the helper.
     
  9. Reloadron

    Reloadron Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    8,176
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Sorry but I added a link to the data you mentioned. My intent was not to echo or parrot your post but add to it with a link to the actual load data. Again, sorry if it looked like an echo.

    Ron
     
  10. Longhorn 76

    Longhorn 76 Member

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2012
    Messages:
    237
    Location:
    South Carolina
    OP did not specify if he had ball c(1) or ball c(2). Are the burn rates close? Asking, because ball c(1) was simply referred to as ball c, before they came out with another powder.
     
  11. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    W. PA
    Me either. A Garand will still function with an out of spec op rod, just not accurately. I'd want to hear more about how Hornady tested their "M1 Garand Load data".

    This makes no sense to me and makes me question Hornady's methods. I don't know of any Garand shooter who hasn't used IMR 4895 with 150 gr. projectiles sometime. Varget wasn't even invented until fairly recently, at least in my time frame. Its also a slower burning powder by all accounts

    Laphroaig
     
  12. Reloadron

    Reloadron Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    8,176
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    Like most I have sent countless 150 gr. bullets downrange using IMR 4895 as well as H 4895. Never had a problem. I merely quoted Hornady as to the use of IMR 4895 with the 147 & 150 grain bullets. Another source of data for M1 Garand loads is M1 loads (Courtesy of the NRA) Master Po. However, that said, this isn't about IMR 4895. The suggested NRA Master Po load data also has load data using BL[C]2 powder. As I mentioned, I never tried it. Questions concerning why Hornady does not suggest IMR 4895 can be directed at Hornady I guess having been there and done that. IMR 4895 and IMR 4064 have always been my M1 go to powders. As to Varget? I agree it is a relatively newcomer to the game and I did try it but never got really good results. Not in my rifles anyway.

    Ron
     
  13. mdi

    mdi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,669
    Location:
    Orygun!
    When I first got my Garand I did a bunch of research on reloading for it. One bit of info I found referred to "military equivalent" loads for the M1, researched and published by the NRA. BLC-2 loads of 49.0 gr. for 147-155 gr. bullets were reported but I cut that back to 47.0 to start and loaded some 155 Sierra HPBTs. Fine accuracy and have gone to 48. 0 with some loads, same bullet, but untested as of yet. I have checked my data with the fellows at the CMP reloading forum. I am still "experimenting" with my Garand reloading and so far 90% of my reloads are done with IMR4064 and 150-155 gr bullets.

    FWIW; NRA M1 equivalent loads...


    147/150-gr. bullets – either FMJ or HPBT
    IMR 3031 48.0 grs.
    IMR 4895 49.0 grs.
    IMR 4064 50.0 grs.
    Win 748 Ball 48.0 grs.
    Acc AA2460 49.0 grs.
    Acc AA2520 51.0 grs.
    Acc 2495BR 50.5 grs.
    Hod H-4895 49.0 grs.
    Hod BL-C2 49.0 grs.
    Hod H-335 49.0 grs.
    Herc Re-12 48.0 grs.
     
    Last edited: Aug 13, 2016
  14. macgrumpy

    macgrumpy Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2015
    Messages:
    627
    I'm amazed at how many snowflakes attend this forum, I guess it never occurred to any of you Mensa members that I might have been attempting to be humorous.

    KMASH
     
  15. mdi

    mdi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,669
    Location:
    Orygun!
    Black letters on a white background do not convey humor, sarcasm, or any other emotion. It's just "black and white" with no inflection. Folks take it as it's printed... :p
     
  16. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    W. PA
    Ron, thanks for posting the link as it does give the OP some data to use with his stash of BLC2 (if that is what he has) powder. In fact, I have the Master Po link saved as a favorite but haven't referred to it in many years.

    I wasn't questioning you in any way but just found it strange the comments regarding IMR4895. I'm pretty sure it was one of the powders used in Lake City M2 Ball ammo considering the availability of 4895 pull down powder in the past. I bought that stuff whenever I could find it and always used IMR 4895 data in several cartridges with good results. But now that I think about it, it was sold as 4895 not IMR4895.

    Sorry for my rant and getting off track from the OP.

    Laphroaig
     
  17. Reloadron

    Reloadron Member

    Joined:
    Jul 6, 2012
    Messages:
    8,176
    Location:
    Cleveland, Ohio USA
    I think what happens with rifles like the M1 Garand, M1A or even AR-10 is many of us begin a quest for that ideal load. Eventually we find loads we like and just seem to settle down on those loads. M1 Garand I settled years ago on powders like IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 and just got in a routine. I am guilty as I began looking at other loads for other rifles.

    I also questioned the absence of IMR 4895 for the 147 and 150 grain bullets, I mean it's a given mainstay. Anyway, that was what I got from Hornady so I shoved it in the web page which needs work. Rant? :) That wasn't no rant. Have a good Sunday, what's left of the weekend anyway. Wet here and likely wet there.

    Ron
     
  18. Fatelvis

    Fatelvis Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2002
    Messages:
    1,920
    Location:
    Lockport, IL
    Me too! In fact, after trying his personal favorite load of 47.0 grns 4064 under a 175SMK, it has become my favorite match load for both my Garands. Very accurate, No load tinkering required! Lol
     
  19. ArchAngelCD

    ArchAngelCD Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2006
    Messages:
    26,071
    Location:
    Northeast PA, USA
  20. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,684
    Location:
    Alabama
    It is wise to look at burn rate and toss out any powder choices that are slower burning than IMR 4064, given that you do not have any other data points.

    But ball powders are goofy. Even though their "burn rate" is slower than extruded, they burn so quickly that by the time the bullet is at the gas port, the pressure at the port is OK. I shot a bunch of WC852 and AA2700. Accurate Arms 2700 was originally one 90,000 pound lot of surplus WC852, and when that ran out, Accurate Arms had new made, of the same pressure curve. When you look up AA2700 it is considered a slow burner and yet, millions if not billions of rounds of 30-06 ball was loaded with the stuff.

    I talked to a Badger Army Ordnance plant worker, WC852 was so low pressure that they basically ignored the pressures, because all lots were below 50,000 psia, and just paid attention to the grains it took to get the velocity the Army wanted. This was a consequence of gunpowder advancement. The 30-06 round and its performance requirements were set before WW1 and yet, by the time you get to WW2 and beyond, the Army was able to get the same velocity, well below their maximum pressures, which was all to the good. If you can do the same job at less pressures, well, that causes less problems.

    But anyway, AA2700 and WC852, if you looked at their burn rate, if you did not know any more, you would be right to discard it as a Garand powder, and yet, it worked well in the Garand.

    These sort of things you should know ahead of time, but once you know, go try it and see how it does in your rifle.
     
  21. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,747
    Location:
    W. PA
    Ha, WC852. That brings back some memories!

    My dad worked with a guy who would load ammo for a fee. So I had my dad get me some "hot" 30-06 150 grs. for hunting. Based on the data written in ballpoint on the cardboard divider, he used WC852. One day we took a break from small game hunting to sight in my rifle over the hood of a '59 Mercury at a strip mine. The unburnt powder grains burned the paint on the Merc's hood. Fortunately, the old girl was far from mint condition.

    Fast forward about 30 years. When I got my first Garand I bought some WC852 on a buddies advice. I think I paid $40 for 5# in a Folgers coffee can. I made some decent loads with 147 gr. FMJ's (M-80's?) but the amount of unburned powder was amazing. It would accumulate in the chamber and give the brass pock marks. But my loads were still more accurate than the Lake City M2 ball available to me. If I was lucky I could get thru a 50 rd. match before I had chambering issues.

    Laphroaig
     
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2016
  22. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    10,684
    Location:
    Alabama
    My WC852 shot well both in my Garands and in my match 30-06 bolt rifle. It had its limitations, you could not download the stuff by much.

    I used the stuff in my match bolt gun, this is a 20 shot group at 100 yards in NRA reduced High Power competition. This is prone with a sling with irons. With a 168 or 175 grain bullet WC852 is capable of excellent accuracy in the 30-06.

    M98168Sierra570WC852198-12XReduced.jpg


    It shot well in the 270 Win with a 150 grain Speer.

    270WinFNDeluxe150Speer540grsWC852_zps3cc92256.jpg

    I also shot it in the 6.5 X 55 and it is a good powder for that cartridge.
     
  23. mdi

    mdi Member

    Joined:
    Dec 31, 2007
    Messages:
    3,669
    Location:
    Orygun!
    Yep, Master Po, NRA loads, says BLC-2 is OK, and I've used some on occasion, but "normal" reloading powders for the M1 are in the IMR3031 to IMR4320 range. BLC-2 is a bit slower than IMR4320. So, I'm safe with my IMR4064...:rolleyes:
     
  24. Dudedog
    • Contributing Member

    Dudedog Contributing Member

    Joined:
    Oct 19, 2013
    Messages:
    6,172
    Location:
    Southern CA
    I was thinking BLC(2) [BLC?] was used by the military for 308/30-06? in M1/M14?
    Maybe just imagining this........
     
  25. FLIGHT762

    FLIGHT762 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2011
    Messages:
    285
    Location:
    Nor Cal/SFO area
    BLC-2 is not slower than IMR 4320. The problem with some powder burn rate charts is the list the powders numerically when some of them are actually in the same burning speed rate.

    This chart: http://www.frfrogspad.com/burnrate.htm shows the relative burn rate with other powders and gives a more accurate rating.

    BLC-2 can be used in the Garand. It will be a bit flashy. I've used a bit of H-335 in the Garand with 150 grain bullets. It's also flashy. If you use the reloading data off of Master Po's site, cut the powder charges a couple of grains. I used a recommended charge of 49.0 grs. of H-335 with a 150 gr. bullet. The load was way Hot and stretched primer pockets in G.I. LC cases. 47.0 grs. worked fine. Like BLC-2, it produced impressive muzzle flashes.
     
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