If it is that much more powerful then perhaps a spring for heavier bullets would be the remedy.
Frankly, Winchester has a pretty good idea of how to build ammunition, and hitting port pressure targets is child’s play for them.
I would like to know more about this, and the Google doesn't remember.. . . But don't forget that Federal's M2 ball that was supplied in the 1998 inaugural JC Garand match was loaded way too hot, and bent many peoples OP rods
You throw that word "lie" around a lot. Care to back your assumption with any referenced FACTS?Rifles don’t work like pistols. The op rod spring doesn’t really fight the gas pressure, just sets the op rod, and stiffening the mainspring would make the damage to the op rod worse.
The “answer” for Garands, for ~80yrs, has been to control the port pressure with wise and discerning ammunition selection.
But as stated here, the author in the article made a pseudoscientific claim (lie) that the increased powder charge weight indicated the port pressure would be higher, increasing wear and tear on the action.
Frankly, Winchester has a pretty good idea of how to build ammunition, and hitting port pressure targets is child’s play for them. It’s arrogant and foolish of the author to claim Win screwed the pooch simply because he pulled a bullet and weighed a powder charge (of unidentified powder).
You throw that word "lie" around a lot. Care to back your assumption with any referenced FACTS?
When in doubt use a ported gas plug-Seen the following claim in a magazine:
View attachment 840966
Interesting! What about Federal AE3006M1, that one is still good in M1, right?
The FUD is:
M2 Ball - was Chrono'ed at 2740 fps 78 Feet from the muzzle, ...which is ~ 2805 fps at the muzzle.
When I have tested real ball ammunition, the velocities are surprisingly low. This is Garand era ammunition.
There is something missing from that spec value, what the ammunition was tested in, and tested against. I have the acceptance spec sheet for my lot of WC852. DCAS probably did the acceptance, signing off on the "DD250". The Government buyer had standardization cartridges traceable to a Frankfort Arsenal test barrel. One standardization cartridge gave 2700 fps in the vendor's test barrel, the second 2675 fps. Pressure was less than spec maximum. These standardization values were used to correct the velocities and pressures from the vendor's barrel. What I see is that they added 25 fps to the velocities in the vendor's barrel, based on the velocity of the calibration cartridges fired in the Frankfort Arsenal barrel. The corrected mean velocity of this particular lot of WC852, with a 150 grain bullet and 60.1 grains was 2750 fps at 78 feet, and therefore the lot met requirements and was accepted by the Government.
Therefore, quoting spec values is very misleading in my opinion. Those spec values are only valid for one particular test barrel at Frankfort Arsenal. Your barrel is different.
I am not duplicating the exact cases, primers, nor bullets, but in the same length of barrel, with one load 0.4 grains over the Government data, and another 0.6 grains under, my velocities are 100 fps less than any 2850 fps estimate.
J.C. Higgins M50 24" Chromed lined barrel
150 Fed Fusion 60.5 grs WC852 wtd, Fed cases, CCI #34 OAL 3.225" greased bullets & cases
7 Jan 2019 T = 48 °F
Ave Vel = 2703
Std Dev = 9
ES = 28
High = 2710
Low = 2682
N = 10
SAKO 24" Barrel
148 gr IMI FMJBT 59.5 grs WC852 thrown, IMI cases, CCI 200 greased bullets & cases
9 Feb 2018 T = 59 °F
Ave Vel = 2631
Std Dev = 22
ES = 70
High = 2659
Low = 2589
N = 10
When I have tested real ball ammunition, the velocities are surprisingly low. This is Garand era ammunition.
M1 Garand Douglas Barrel 1:10 twist
150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball
14 Nov 2011 T= 74 ° F
Ave Vel = 2545
Std Dev = 20
ES = 68
Low = 2513
High = 2581
N = 8
M98 26" 1-10 Wilson Barrel
150 gr FMJBT TW 56 Ball
24 Mar 04 T= 70 ° F
Ave Vel = 2680
Std Dev = 31
ES = 78
Low = 2620
High = 2698
N = 6
150 gr FMJBT 1966 Ball
14 Nov 2011 T= 68 ° F
Ave Vel = 2596
Std Dev = 47
ES = 190
Low = 2498
High = 2688
N=11
Group Size: Surprisingly good ammunition.
Hear me now, believe me later: you are better off keeping 150 Garand ammunition less than 2700 fps, and I think 2650 fps with a 150 is just fine.
I've seen a lot of tests from the late 50s and 60s LC M2 ball and it's usually reported in the 2500s or 2600s like you posted. But I've read the WW2-era M2 ball and linked machine gun ammo was hotter, closer to the 2740 fps @ 78 ft spec, usually somewhere in the mid-2700s.
When in doubt use a ported gas plug-
http://www.garandgear.com/m1-garand-ammunition
Heres a great chart of various factory loads tested for port pressure with and without a ported plug.
Winchester knows how to manufacture ammos, it's true, but they have had their share of recalls and such over the years... so nothing is concrete.
Even the CMP had to learn about the peculiarities of Garands and its ammunition. In 1999 the CMP ran out of surplus US ball to issue for the Camp Perry Garand Match. They purchased 150 gr commercial ammunition from Federal. Not only was that stuff slamfiring so much on the load command, that "like the match never got started", it was loaded to commercial pressures and velocities. It was clocking close to 2900 fps. I saw lots of malfunctions, Garands ejecting partially loaded clips, bolt over rides, etc. After that fiasco, the CMP ran some of its own tests, and the next batches of ammunition they bought from Federal had mil spec primers and was a lot slower.
Knowledge about reloading for Garands and M1a's was always kept within a small group of highpower competitors, and you find that industry has downsized almost all of its corporate memory, and what is left is "outsourced" from vendors. As a whole, industry just keeps on getting stupider and stupider, and the labor force keeps on getting cheaper and younger.
Every day a wise man dies, and every second hundreds of ignorant babies are born.