M2 Ball Yaw?

Status
Not open for further replies.
You have fallen into the trap most internet "blogge rs" and "garand authors" (and even some ammo makers) have. You have confused the CUP vs PSI readings.

The in spec and properly lubricated garand can safely use commercial ammo without modifications with no issues.
AFAIK ammo manugacturers could care less what the port pressure is, let alone measure it.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I'll continue to load to protect my op-rod and you can shoot factory in yours. I'll let you know when my op rod fails and you can let us know when yours does.:rofl:

While SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute) was founded in 1926, 10 years prior to the acceptance of the M1 garand, I have never seen it mentioned in any references to US military ammo.
The garand was made to SAAMI specs and follows that regarding chamber pressure specs.

I've been talking about port pressure the whole time.
Since I've actually spent time and ammo in a SAAMI spec lab
Yet the garands chamber pressure limit is 50k CUP...the same as SAAMI.....

Hence...SAAMI spec ammo is safe in the garand.
 
Last edited:
AFAIK ammo manugacturers could care less what the port pressure is, let alone measure it.

I think we are just going to have to agree to disagree on this matter. I'll continue to load to protect my op-rod and you can shoot factory in yours. I'll let you know when my op rod fails and you can let us know when yours does.:rofl:

While SAAMI (Sporting Arms and Ammunition Manufacturers' Institute) was founded in 1926, 10 years prior to the acceptance of the M1 garand, I have never seen it mentioned in any references to US military ammo.
You may disagree all you like but since I'm looking at the port pressure numbers....they don't lie. In regards to commercial ammo they aren't dangerous to the garand and fall in the range of military ammo.

If the govt. says the chamber pressure is 50k CUP and SAAMI spec is 50k CUP....what does that imply?
 
If the govt. says the chamber pressure is 50k CUP and SAAMI breech pressure spec is 50k CUP....what does that imply?
Nothing!
I have loaded 30-06 w/H4895 (BR 94), IMR 4895 (BR 96), Reloader 15 (BR99), H Varget (BR108), H BLC2 (BR110), H4350(BR124) and even H450 (BR134). (BR numbers indicate burn rate-the lower the number the faster the burn)........what does that imply? The same nothing. :)
The only thing it implies is that a wide range of burning rate powders are suitable for 30-06 but not necessarily for the M1. Why? Because the lower burn rated powders (faster burning) will have a lower port pressure than the higher rated powders (slower burning) at the same breech pressure, which is what SAAMI uses as their guide line.

The same thing applies to whatever powder is used in any factory ammo.

You can achieve 50k Cup, or PSI whatever standard you wish to use with almost any one of a multitude of different powders and the port pressure, measured some 20" from the chamber will vary dependent upon the burn rate of the particular powder used.

1708213874745.png

hps1 out.
 
Last edited:
Nothing!
I have loaded 30-06 w/H4895 (BR 94), IMR 4895 (BR 96), Reloader 15 (BR99), H Varget (BR108), H BLC2 (BR110), H4350(BR124) and even H450 (BR134). (BR numbers indicate burn rate-the lower the number the faster the burn)........what does that imply?
The only thing it implies is that a wide range of burning rate powders are suitable for 30-06 but not necessarily for the M1. Why? Because the lower burn rated powders (faster burning) will have a lower breech pressure and muzzle than the higher rated powders (slower burning) at the same breech pressure, which is what SAAMI uses as their guide line.

The same thing applies to whatever powder is used in any factory ammo.

You can achieve 50k Cup, or PSI whatever standard you wish to use with almost any one of a multitude of different powders and the port pressure, measured some 20" from the chamber will vary dependent upon the burn rate of the particular powder used.

View attachment 1195023

hps1 out.
Yes...I know that port pressure is the issue...so YOU should stop saying that 50k psi is the chamber pressure limit.

And again...as stated...commercial ammo port pressure is in the same range as milsurp port pressure...so not an issue.
 
Burn rates were never a concern for me until I started reloading for my M1A. Now when working up a new load in addition to checking the recommended loads in the reloading manuals I also check burn rates. It may sound like overkill but M1A's are expensive and so are the parts. M1A's and M1's are tanks if taken care of.
 
Burn rates were never a concern for me until I started reloading for my M1A. Now when working up a new load in addition to checking the recommended loads in the reloading manuals I also check burn rates. It may sound like overkill but M1A's are expensive and so are the parts. M1A's and M1's are tanks if taken care of.
M14 and M1s are different gas system speaking. the M1 is more forgiving.
 
The more people feed this dude's wild ranting the longer he blabs with no proof.
 
How about you leave the personal attacks out of it and prove your point that commercial ammo is dangerous.

Reading id fundamental I never said every single load has the same pressure. I said that military ammo has a range of pressure and that commercial ammo falls in this range.
Prove it
 
You can damage an M1 with a dirty or improperly made BFA and blanks. A ported plug is insurance if you are going to shoot a lot and is cheaper than a new operating rod.

In early 2009 U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ investigated several failures with the Caliber .30 M1 Garand rifle firing M1909 blanks. Testing was the result of numerous complaints from veteran's groups regarding weapons stoppages, feeding problems, damaged weapons, and injury during ceremonies.

Now, you may be wondering how does firing a blank cartridge in a M1 manage to hurt it? Read and be amazed.

First off LCAAP redesigned the M1909 Blank cartridge back in 1999 which changed the mouth closure to a rosette crimp and expanded the acceptable propellants, as the original specified propellant was discontinued. And while LCAAP was the primary source for M1909 ammunition, one civilian firm was contracted to help meet demand. Since that redesign, there were an increasing number of problems reported.

In February 2009 there were a number of failures attributable to the blank cartridges reported from a Veteran’s organization. The reported failures were a ruptured blank firing adapter (BFA), two fractured operating rods, a firing pin, a cracked receiver, and most seriously, a broken receiver (601007) that cut that deeply cut the face of the shooter. Needless to say, all of these occurred with a BFA installed.

Figure 1. Broken Operating Rods
figure-1-broken-operating-rods-png.540798


Figure 2. Fracture Firing Pins
figure-2-fractured-firing-pins-png.540799


Figure 3. Failed Receiver, Top
figure-3-failed-receiver-png.540800


Figure 4. Failed Receiver, Bottom
figure-4-failed-receiver-png.540801


So, why?

Obviously, the primary suspect was the propellant, so two test weapons were assembled. The first was a standard Universal receiver with a EPVAT barrel installed. This had two pressure transducers installed one at the case mouth and where the port is located on the M1. The second was a standard M1 Garand (inspected and all parts found within specification) with a pressure transducer installed in place of the Gas Cylinder Lock Screw (P/N 7310079). A high speed camera was used to measure the bolt velocity.

Three types of ammunition were tested for chamber and port pressure (cylinder pressure in the M1), rounds from one lot of LCAAP produced M1909 blanks, rounds from the commercial lot of M1909 blanks, and Federal GMM 168 gr as a baseline.

Because blank cartridges have so little propellant, it was important to measure pressures and velocities at various angles, blanks were fired at vertical, barrel up (+90), vertical barrel down (-90), horizontal (0), and 45 degrees up, as it would be fired in a ceremony (+45)

Eight rounds of FGMM were fired as a baseline followed by 64 rounds of each blank lots in each position were fired through the M1 (512 total). And, 30 round of each blank lot were fired through the EPVAT barrel (240 total).
Horizontal firing:

EPVAT chamber pressure results were largely as expected, the FGMM ran around 50,000 to 55,000 psi, the LCAAP blank cartridges ran around 2,500 psi, and the commercial blanks around 5,500 psi. Port pressures for the Blanks mirrored the chamber pressures being 3,000 and 5,500 psi respectively for LCAAP and commercial. The FGMM port pressures were 8,600 to 8,700 psi.

Off Horizontal firing (Blanks only).

At all angles the port pressure increased dramatically. LCAAP blanks about doubled, and the commercial showed about a 50% increase. The increase was largest when at -90. Naturally, the cylinder pressures mirrored the port pressures running in the 2,000 to 2,500 psi range. This was somewhat puzzling until it was discovered that the initial pressure rise from the primer tended to blow the propellant out of the cartridge case and down the barrel. Some unburn propellant would collect at the BFA orifice and then burn causing a small pressure bubble at the muzzle.

Bolt velocity:

Most alarming was the bolt velocity.

Figure 5. Bolt velocity vs Displacement
aApnVdz.png


Because blank ammunition has no bullet to accelerate, the pressure rise in the barrel is faster and more uniform, the length of time the gas port in pressurized is longer, and while the average cylinder pressure of the blanks is only a few hundred psi off the FGMM, the average cylinder pressure is higher imparting more work to the system.

The M1 Garand was inspected after all testing was complete. After only 512 of these blanks, the receiver had two cracks on the heel, and excessive wear on the operating rod and receiver track.

The report concludes by stating a BFA should have an orifice of 0.172 inch and try to ensure the propellant is seated at the rear of the cartridge case. Also, noted was the operating rod spring should be within specification.

One more thing about the bolt velocity. The blank cartridges give a bolt velocity of 33 to 35 fps at impact with the rear of the receiver, the FGMM bolt velocity is just around 16 fps (which is a tad higher than with M2 ball). It doesn't take very much energy to increase the bolt velocity dramatically.
 
Last edited:
The more people feed this dude's wild ranting the longer he blabs with no proof.
Third personal attack...please stop. You are the only one acting uncivil in this whole thread.

I'll post the CoC as a reminder.

"4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. No name calling or insults of any kind will be tolerated. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
"
 
In early 2009 U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ investigated several failures with the Caliber .30 M1 Garand rifle firing M1909 blanks. Testing was the result of numerous complaints from veteran's groups regarding weapons stoppages, feeding problems, damaged weapons, and injury during ceremonies.
Thank goodness we aren't hunting with blanks!
 
This discussion regarding the Garands and what ammo is OK is just bizarre to me. Let me preface by saying I've owned my Garand since the '90's and other than Greek HXP a few decades ago, it's only had my handloads fired through it. As such, I really don't "have a dog in the hunt" where commercial ammo is concerned.

What I can't wrap my head around is this:

The CMP, whose employees and as an organization arguably knows more about the intricacies and operation of the Garand and their operation than anyone on the planet, says commercial ammunition, as long as the bullet weight is kept below 172-173 gr. is OK to fire in a Garand. Yet there are individuals on forums such as these who insist otherwise, stating that any commercial ammunition is bad for the Garand. Where exactly do these individuals get this information that is contrary to the CMP's information??

35W
 
This discussion regarding the Garands and what ammo is OK is just bizarre to me. Let me preface by saying I've owned my Garand since the '90's and other than Greek HXP a few decades ago, it's only had my handloads fired through it. As such, I really don't "have a dog in the hunt" where commercial ammo is concerned.

What I can't wrap my head around is this:

The CMP, whose employees and as an organization arguably knows more about the intricacies and operation of the Garand and their operation than anyone on the planet, says commercial ammunition, as long as the bullet weight is kept below 172-173 gr. is OK to fire in a Garand. Yet there are individuals on forums such as these who insist otherwise. Where do these individuals get this information that is contrary to the CMP's information??

35W
Let me answer your question with a question.... Where does CMP get THEIR information to support THEIR claim? What magically happens if you load a 175gr bullet or a 220gr bullet or even a 250gr Whelen bullet in your garand....since garands ARE in 35 Whelen AND 458 WinMag. I mean this is the same organization "arguably knows more about the intricacies and operation of the Garand and their operation than anyone on the planet" (your words) but yet still sends out unserviceable and broken rifles to customers. They seem very lacking in the QC department.



My information that is contrary comes from spending time in an actual ballistics lab shooting ammo and seeing what the results are. Something the CMP doesn't do.

When you look at the real numbers you see its mainly internet myth and the CMP comments are likely coming from their lawyers...OR from Mark Johnson the former COO who made the public FB posting stating no ammo over 50k CUP or 172gr. I PM'd him that M1/M72 ammo was 172-174gr..he then rereleased it saying "172-174 gr" ammo was safe. I then asked him CMP was going to stop selling .308 rifles since they were 52k CUP? He then deleted his posting... CMP doesn't know everything.
 
Let me answer your question with a question.... Where does CMP get THEIR information to support THEIR claim? What magically happens if you load a 175gr bullet or a 220gr bullet or even a 250gr Whelen bullet in your garand....since garands ARE in 35 Whelen AND 458 WinMag. I mean this is the same organization "arguably knows more about the intricacies and operation of the Garand and their operation than anyone on the planet" (your words) but yet still sends out unserviceable and broken rifles to customers. They seem very lacking in the QC department.



My information that is contrary comes from spending time in an actual ballistics lab shooting ammo and seeing what the results are. Something the CMP doesn't do.

When you look at the real numbers you see its mainly internet myth and the CMP comments are likely coming from their lawyers...OR from Mark Johnson the former COO who made the public FB posting stating no ammo over 50k CUP or 172gr. I PM'd him that M1/M72 ammo was 172-174gr..he then rereleased it saying "172-174 gr" ammo was safe. I then asked him CMP was going to stop selling .308 rifles since they were 52k CUP? He then deleted his posting... CMP doesn't know everything.

I'm not talking to YOU, I'm talking about the others who insist that ANY commercial ammo is bad for the Garand. I personally wouldn't hesitate to shoot any weight bullet through my Garand.

35W
 
Last edited:
In early 2009 U.S. Army Armament Research Development and Engineering Center, Picatinny Arsenal, NJ investigated several failures with the Caliber .30 M1 Garand rifle firing M1909 blanks. Testing was the result of numerous complaints from veteran's groups regarding weapons stoppages, feeding problems, damaged weapons, and injury during ceremonies.

Now, you may be wondering how does firing a blank cartridge in a M1 manage to hurt it? Read and be amazed.
Now, there is some very interesting facts we can sink our teeth into. Had no idea blanks could be a problem but very informative study. Never thought of blanks affecting port pressure, but not surprising when using w/BFA.

Surprised to see the improved op-rod (w/radius cut) broken the same as the original version.

1708286958954.png
Have seen a number of broken firing pins, but never broken at that point, they usually break right at the 90* bend.

Thanks for the post, lysanderxiii:
 
Last edited:
Yep...blanks are more of a problem than live ammo simply because they are overgassed and no way to rapidly depressurize like with live ammo. Thats one reason you see the high bolt speeds.

I tune all my local VFW garands and have them running like a top. Other units don't have as much luck. I also have to tune rifles for the local reenactors as well. Biggest they have is they always buy random blanks and don't retune when switching ammo.
 
Bringing the discussion back around to live ammunition, the bolt velocity curve for the FGMM shows it is a fairly stout load compared to WW2 ball. The red curve is around where M2 ball loaded with IMR 4745 ran, as measured in Feb 1941.

x4IWBtL.png


While a Ported Gas Plug (TM) might not be strictly required to keep from damaging a rifle, if I were going to shoot nothing but FGMM, I would use one. The same way as if I had a vintage Volvo with a B18 engine, I would not drive around all the time at 5,000 -5,500 RPM. Just to take it easy on the old girl.
 
I'm sure you meant IMR 4676.

FGMM isn't that stout depending on what lot you are using.

And milsurp can be quite stout depending on what lot you are using.


The actual facts are the port pressures are basically the same for milsurp and commercial and there isn't a need to do anything other than properly lubricate your rifle and ensure the oprod spring is at least 19.5" long.

Those add on gadgets have caused cycling issues in otherwise perfectly functioning rifles.
 
Already have...

Milsurp ammo operates from (approximately) 8500psi to 11000psi at the port. Commercial ammo is from (approximately) 9200psi to 11700psi(Horn Superformance 180gr) Highest commercial is ~7% more pressure than highest milsurp load.
Prove it !!!
 
Third personal attack...please stop. You are the only one acting uncivil in this whole thread.

I'll post the CoC as a reminder.

"4. Spamming, trolling, flaming, and personal attacks are prohibited. No name calling or insults of any kind will be tolerated. You can disagree with other members, even vehemently, but it must be done in a well-mannered form. Attack the argument, not the arguer.
"
Look back at your badmouthing and prove your ranting
 
I don't think anyone is suggesting that your M1/M1A will be destroyed by shooting reloads or commercial ammo. I do think one has to be aware that they may be damaged if hot rodded too much. Just like keeping the bullet weight under 172-173 grain. It took some research to be aware of this.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top