Cool opinion but not relevant...facts work no feelings.Again... do not simply run ultra-light to uber-heavy bullets isn the Garand,
I've said as much about the Powders. Muzzle velocity is not a restriction however.and take care you run medium burn-rate powders and approximate GI-Issue muzzle-velocities/
Somewhat..but not exactly accurate.The Garand is an EverythingInModeration system.
.
Nothing wrong with that at all.Boundary Value Problem:
(Just for fun w/ QL)
Were I to reload the 24" Garand with 4895/48gr/175SMK/49,000psiChamber
2,640fps/9,600psi@Port
Were I to optimize velocity for that same 49,000psiChamber using slower RL26:
2,830fps/12,000psi@Port.
Hotrod? I didn't suggest that at all...Bottom Line: Don't hot rod a Garand like you could a bolt action...
even at lower pressures.
.
I follow "Handloader" like Jermemy2171, but I also look at the Hornady powder manual for the M1 Garand and often refer back to "The Complete M-1 Garand by Jim Thompson."Feel free to disprove my comment.
I just can't see why anyone would force the pressure on a fine, old, good shooting rifle, when 2,600 fps will do just fine.
That AA 4064 should be in the Goldilocks zone. I think it is slightly slower than the IMR version (internet ramblings grain of salt and all that). I load 46 grains for 168s and 47 grains for 150s of the IMR version. Nice even ejection pattern where it should be, good accuracy and nothing feels excessively hot or mild. Consult your data, but somewhere in that ballpark should be where you wish to be.
I did check again, and the Hornady 150 FMJBT, Hor 150 SP (have also used that one in the M1), and PRVI M2 (higher cost than the Hornady's) were in stock at Grafs. Happy loading!
Pick up some varget and 168/175 match bullets when you get a chance. 48.0 of varget will make your rifle shoot tiny groupsThank you for the link. Went ahead and ordered some of the FMJBTs. Looks like 44 or 45 grains of AA4064 should be a good starting - and maybe ending - load. I think I'm good to go!
yep..take note that zero evidence was presented in that article that commercial ammo was dangerous to the garand other than "we say so". They did provide an example of extreme long range ammo with slow powders in "handloads".The Gentle Readers might want to run some id the references and authors down as discussed in this article:
https://thegca.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/10/Ammo-Part-3-article.pdf
This is a prime example of people who don't know much about the garand making a video full of misinformation. Then making a catchy video that "proves" the gun show myth they've always heard. They did no research and used one of the weakest loadings of M2 ball out there to "prove" the myth is really true. Then people who know even less than about garands than these two using THIS video as "proof" to win an argument.For any who want to see how fast commercial ammo speeds up bolt velocity. Whether it’s harmful is another issue.
OOC: What ballistic performance do you consider weak?one of the weakest loadings of M2 ball out there
Not sure the purpose of the link in your post. It's not relevant to my comment.OOC: What ballistic performance do you consider weak?
https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6854999&postcount=27
What does the spec for M2 ball say? That is the spec.Again... what do you consider standard M2 ballistic performance ?
Already answered it. Army spec for M2 ballPlease answer the question since you stated Post#38
used "...one of weakest loadings of M2 ball out there...."
WHAT do you consider standard M2 ballistic performance ?
That information would be very helpful.
Wrong: Since you debated the M2 ball spec in Post#38, Give us your weight & velocity criteria.Already answered it. Army spec for M2 ball
You must have a hard time reading...Wrong: Since you debated the M2 ball spec in Post#38, Give us your weight & velocity criteria.
Last I heard it was page 5-9
http://pdf.textfiles.com/manuals/MILITARY/united_states_army_tm_43-0001-27 - 29_april_1994.pdf
which is the same as duplicated in https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6854999&postcount=27
You have something different that you would say Post#38 was sandbagging?
.
Before we discuss any of this...Thank you
Why? Because you said Post#38 was weak.
Please elaborate on that one
Otherwise, the comparative accelerated/slamming action of higher velocity commercial loads (60ksi if you
believe SAAMI) in Post #38 ...does tend to catch the eye.
I do note with interest (again) that TM 43-0001-27 lists 50ksi for standard M2 ball.
(...or did the United States Army -- an official organ of the United Federal Gov't -- manage to muck up CUP?)
Then again, I again_again note with interest that https://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6854999&postcount=27
does nail the Army weight/velocity/same powder spec -- right at 47,000 psi
'tis a puzzlement.....