Jeremy2171
Member
Well pretty much all of them did.... nearly 33,000 of them.See above. It would appear at least some of them had standard gas trap gas cylinders.....
Well pretty much all of them did.... nearly 33,000 of them.See above. It would appear at least some of them had standard gas trap gas cylinders.....
Really? I think it was intended as a serious statement.Lol.. funny
Its funny because he has docs that "prove" his point but he won't share them.Really? I think it was intended as a serious statement.
What you described as "funny" was a suggestion by an Administrator that you access the documents yourself.Its funny because he has docs that
I'm not asking for the docs...I'm discussing the scan he posted and pointing out his claims don't match the docs.What you described as "funny" was a suggestion by an Administrator that you access the documents yourself.
Do so, or forget about it.
It supports exactly what I claimed. I claimed that M2 ball was used to develop the "new front end for the M1"I'm not asking for the docs...I'm discussing the scan he posted and pointing out his claims don't match the docs.
Are you talking about "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1," Aberdeen Proving Grounds, March 1941? (The dates of the actual test was earlier.)This isn't a surprise since M1906 and early 1940 and older "M2" were only 2700fps at the muzzle loaded with a relatively fast powder which didn't give as much port pressure as M1 ball. Tests show the M1906 loads are down around the weak LC69 in pressure levels.
of course M2 was used in the developement...it had to be tested to make sure they lower pressure ammo would operate the rifle.It supports exactly what I claimed. I claimed that M2 ball was used to develop the "new front end for the M1"
I did not claim that one M1 having issues had anything to do with anything.
But we know grease is the answer...There is much in that report discussing graphite vs oil and which should be issued,which is irrelevant to the discussion.
Are you talking about "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1," Aberdeen Proving Grounds, March 1941? (The dates of the actual test was earlier.)
That report states the following muzzle pressures:
M1906 Ball (Pyro D.G.) - 9,250 psi
M1 Ball (IMR 1185) - 11,200 psi
M2 Ball (IMR 4675) - 9,100 psi*
M2 Ball (EX 4745) - 9,545
It also notes that ". . . the IMR 1185 powder was considerably slower burning than the the other three powders . . ."
It wasn't stipulated as they realized it wasn't needed. Lots of recommendations show up in reports that aren't needed...some could be quite silly.It further goes on to state in the recommendations:
"It is recommended that unless the M1 Rifle is further modified to operate at lower muzzle pressures, the specifications for powder to be used in these rifles should be include a stipulation regarding the minimum pressure to be allowed."
The specifications for M2 ball never stipulated a port or muzzle pressure.
Of course....to help with reliability of the rifle using the weaker "early" M2 ball. Those issues were further mitigated when the "new" M2 ball showed up with more powder/velocity.By 1944, the earliest drawing I have for the M1 barrel, there where 33 changes to the drawing, unfortunately none were annotated. Was one of those changes an increase in gas port diameter from 0.069" shown on the March 1939 Dwg # 13661?
Really?I'm not asking for the docs...I'm discussing the scan he posted and pointing out his claims don't match the docs.
Your credibility suffers.If you have the docs... upload and share them here. I don't have to do random google searches to prove " your" point. You have them...share them...it's that simple.
Lol..not really.Really?
Your credibility suffers.
It does not, never said it did.Good info (maybe....you would have to post the document )...but questionable... how does higher port pressure ammo create slower bolt speed and lower "peak" pressure. And maybe certain lots were slower... but some weren't since a few years of it move the bolt slower than comparable loads with 3031 and 4895 etc.
That is certainly a possibility. However, if you read "Pressure-Travel Data for Caliber .30 Ball, M2 Bullets," Frankford Arsenal, February 1943, they develop a model of how to calculate the pressure-distance (P-D) curve from the pressure-time curve measured at the chamber, the increase in muzzle pressure was not that pronounced. (It must be further noted that the pressure at the base of the bullet is not the same pressure in the chamber.)It wasn't stipulated as they realized it wasn't needed. Lots of recommendations show up in reports that aren't needed...some could be quite silly.
Of course....to help with reliability of the rifle using the weaker "early" M2 ball. Those issues were further mitigated when the "new" M2 ball showed up with more powder/velocity.
Possibly a political consideration. Unwillingness to admit that the latest, greatest rifle doesn't quite work as well with the new ammunition as you thought it did. (Especially, when someone like Johnson was mounting an offense against the rifle.)I note that the switch from the gas trap to the gas port did not cause a change in designation, no M-1A1 Rifle, e.g.
The "new" M designations were begun in 1936, they did not have concrete rules for applications yet.the switch from the gas trap to the gas port did not cause a change in designation, no M-1A1 Rifle, e.g.
Good news...It supports exactly what I claimed. I claimed that M2 ball was used to develop the "new front end for the M1"
I did not claim that one M1 having issues had anything to do with anything.
There is much in that report discussing graphite vs oil and which should be issued,which is irrelevant to the discussion.
Are you talking about "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1," Aberdeen Proving Grounds, March 1941? (The dates of the actual test was earlier.)
That report states the following muzzle pressures:
M1906 Ball (Pyro D.G.) - 9,250 psi
M1 Ball (IMR 1185) - 11,200 psi
M2 Ball (IMR 4675) - 9,100 psi*
M2 Ball (EX 4745) - 9,545
It also notes that ". . . the IMR 1185 powder was considerably slower burning than the the other three powders . . ."
It further goes on to state in the recommendations:
"It is recommended that unless the M1 Rifle is further modified to operate at lower muzzle pressures, the specifications for powder to be used in these rifles should be include a stipulation regarding the minimum pressure to be allowed."
The specifications for M2 ball never stipulated a port or muzzle pressure.
By 1944, the earliest drawing I have for the M1 barrel, there where 33 changes to the drawing, unfortunately none were annotated. Was one of those changes an increase in gas port diameter from 0.069" shown on the March 1939 Dwg # 13661?
_ _ _ _ _ _
* This is the powder that would be used from mid - 1940 until around 1943-44 when IMR 4895 supplanted it.
I've duplicated their method with different equipment and gotten different chamber pressure numbers than they did however mine are close to Springfield armory test results.This is a good read on the subject with a defined (somewhat) method used to get the numbers they got. When taking measurements, just about any measurements, the method, procedure used and equipment used needs to be noted. Unless all of that is spelled out you can get different numbers for a given measurement. A good example is measuring chamber pressure. The CUP, the newer Piezo Pressure Sensor method and even the CIP Method all have well defined way of deriving numbers. CIP measures pressure at the case mouth (or thereabouts) and SAAMI take their measurement in the middle of the case. Different methods yielding different pressures for the same cartridge. My own little conclusion being unless the method, procedure and equipment used for a measurement are known and defined the numbers really don't mean much. While the Garand Gear link does not get into all the details they do show their setup. Taking the measurement the way they did, measuring at the gas cylinder port yields numbers nothing like what I am seeing here? Not getting that at all?
Ron
Yes, I agree and also we need to consider the test, measurement and diagnostic equipment we have available today is a heck of a lot more advanced than anything Springfield Armory had or for that matter any armory of that era. Today we have much, much better equipment.I've duplicated their method with different equipment and gotten different chamber pressure numbers than they did however mine are close to Springfield armory test results.
Their test is ok but it's lacking in real data. Especially since they didn't test but a few years of M2 ball and some of the weakest at that. So they have given the gas system an artificially low "threshold" to compare against commercial ammo then using THAT reference to then promote their product as something you "need" to shoot your rifle safely.
If they had tested a wider selection of milsurp they would have seen that commercial ammo isn't really an issue....however if they did all that...they wouldn't have a product to sell...
Remember its THEIR (selected) test data they use to say you need it...
Just saying...
andThat report states the following muzzle pressures:
All ammunition used 150 grain bullets, M1906 with Pyro, and M2 Ball with IMR 1185, IMR 4676 (not 4675 as I wrote), and EX 4745
yeah...their numbers are off RE: 1185. 1185 isn't slow in any way shape or form.Reading is fundamental.
and
That 11,200 psi is M2 ball loaded with IMR 1185, NOT M1 ball.
A quick look at the P-T curve for IMR 1185 will show that it is slower than Pyro, 4676, or 4895
In that report, muzzle pressure was chosen as the parameter so as ammunition performance with the older gas trap M1 design could be compared the the newer gas port design.
What lots were tested?
Let's see, on one hand:point is..that test result for 1185 is off.