Quantcast

Winchester Victory "not appropriate" for M1 Garand

Discussion in 'Rifle Country' started by zaitcev, May 11, 2019.

  1. zaitcev

    zaitcev Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2016
    Messages:
    540
    Seen the following claim in a magazine:

    victory.jpg
    Interesting! What about Federal AE3006M1, that one is still good in M1, right?
     
    Merle1 and NIGHTLORD40K like this.
  2. someguy2800

    someguy2800 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2015
    Messages:
    4,845
    Location:
    Minnesota
    I would go to winchester and ask. Just because it has more powder weight than original M2 ball ammo does not mean it generates more pressure at the gas port. Powders have changed in the last 70 years. Without testing gas port pressure or operating rod velocity, the author in my opinion is making an unfounded assumption to say it is not appropriate for a garand.
     
    horsey300, Charlie98, Merle1 and 3 others like this.
  3. LRDGCO

    LRDGCO Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    947
    Utterly unverifiable claim based on faulty logic by the magazine that contradicts a statement by Winchester that, if false, would open them to very substantial damages.
     
    LoonWulf and Texas10mm like this.
  4. skeeterfogger

    skeeterfogger Member

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2019
    Messages:
    282
    If it is that much more powerful then perhaps a spring for heavier bullets would be the remedy.
     
  5. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,432
    Location:
    Alabama
    If Winchester has powder that meets the port pressure limitations of the weapon, than it should function and be safe.

    CajFzmf.jpg

    However, I am going to say I would be very skeptical that a 2850 fps round would not cause jams and malfunctions in a Garand. I have shot enough ammunition to say you are better off keeping a 150 grain bullet just at 2700 fps in a Garand, using powders in the IMR 4895 burn rate. Powder selection is highly important as a slow burning powder gives excessive port pressures, even though the breech pressure would be within spec.

    I don't know what world the in print guy lives in, but the weight of the charge in the case is irrelevant. What matters is breech pressure and port pressure. My lot of WC852 was a ball powder for the M1 Garand, I have the acceptance sheet. And my lot of WC852 used 60.1 grains of powder to achieve spec velocities, and it was tested in Garands.
     
    horsey300, zaitcev and LoonWulf like this.
  6. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,958
    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).
     
    horsey300, LoonWulf and LRDGCO like this.
  7. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,057
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    The FUD is:

    M2 Ball - was Chrono'ed at 2740 fps 78 Feet from the muzzle, ...which is ~ 2805 fps at the muzzle.




    GR
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
  8. Laphroaig

    Laphroaig Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2013
    Messages:
    1,297
    Location:
    W. PA
    We should hope. But don't forget that Federals M2 ball that was supplied in the 1998 inaugural JC Garand match was loaded way too hot, and bent many peoples OP rods.

    IMG_20190512_164117618.jpg

    Hopefully they learned something from that.
     
    d2wing and LoonWulf like this.
  9. edwardware

    edwardware Member

    Joined:
    Feb 23, 2010
    Messages:
    1,544
    I would like to know more about this, and the Google doesn't remember.
     
    LoonWulf likes this.
  10. mshootnit

    mshootnit Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2007
    Messages:
    2,787
    You throw that word "lie" around a lot. Care to back your assumption with any referenced FACTS?
     
  11. Varminterror

    Varminterror Member

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2016
    Messages:
    5,958
    If the author is throwing out unsubstantiated claims using illogical pseudoscience, it's a lie. That simple. I'd generally assume someone who knows enough to be writing fodder for match shooters should understand that varying powder charges doesn't tell the whole story for the pressure curve - so what's he trying to do by claiming "there's more powder, so the Victory load is not appropriate for use in a Garand." If it were some slackjaw on Youtube making an ignorant observation, sure, I'd buy it that he just didn't know any better. I expect the author of the article in the OP's magazine isn't some slackjaw on Youtube. Maybe I'm just old fashioned and expect too much of those involved with old media. But the author and any staff editor should have known better than to think that was sufficient evidence of operating pressure, and certainly not taken it to print without better evidence.
     
    Last edited: May 12, 2019
    horsey300, Texas10mm, LRDGCO and 2 others like this.
  12. CapnMac

    CapnMac Member

    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2009
    Messages:
    3,559
    Location:
    DFW (formerly Brazos County), Texas
    The other variable, and one complicated to verify, is that the critical thing is the Op Rod speed.

    For current Garand owners, the answer is, typically, to use a gas port that can be adjusted with a given ammo to give the desired speed. (Which I want to remember is ±200fps, but could be wrong.) The op rod speed is the result of a complicated calculs involving projo weight, MV, pressure and the like, all of which interact with the gas port diameter, too..
     
  13. NIGHTLORD40K

    NIGHTLORD40K Member

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2015
    Messages:
    3,607
    Location:
    Nostramo (in absentia), Segmentum Ultima
    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.
     
  14. 22250Rem

    22250Rem Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1,552
    Location:
    Western NY State
    This is interesting and informative, having owned an M-1 for 22 + years now, and another for a few years prior to this one. Just makes me glad my current M-1 has seen pretty much only handloads with 150 gr bullets using known safe charges of IMR-4895. Only factory ammo ever used in it has been some 1957 U.S.G.I. ball ammo and that was mostly for chronographing purposes. Stuff like that article makes me wary of using anything other than handloads of known components.
     
  15. jeepnik

    jeepnik Member

    Joined:
    Sep 25, 2011
    Messages:
    1,971
    Location:
    SoCal
    Did you all know that there was a loading of M2 ball that was for machine guns. It had a higher operating pressure. They did the same thing with 50 cal. Different loadings for ground machine guns than aerial machine guns. They wanted the aircraft guns to fire faster since their time on target was usually less.
     
  16. LRDGCO

    LRDGCO Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    947
    In any event, I am reasonably certain that Winchester's law dept would be very interested in the author's categorical statement that its ammunition is not appropriate for use in the Garand rifle and that the author will be rather uncomfortable in the subsequent discussion.
     
    Varminterror likes this.
  17. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,432
    Location:
    Alabama
    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.
     
  18. Goosey

    Goosey Member

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    297
    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.
     
  19. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,057
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    Don't know what you are talkin'bout, but for M2 Ball and IMR 4895...?

    According to TM 43-0001-27 (1994) P. 5-9:

    Ball Cartridge for Rifle, Caliber .30, M1:
    Propellant:
    Type: IMR 4895
    Weight: 50 gr.
    Chamber pressure: 50,000 psi.
    Velocity: 2740 fps, 78 ft from muzzle.


    Interestingly, TM 9-1904 (1944) Pp. 192-3:

    CARTRIDGE, Ball, Cal. .30, M1
    Average maximum pressure: 48,000 lb per sq in
    Velocity:
    At 78 ft: 2,600 ft per sec
    At 53 ft: 2,620 ft per sec
    At muzzle: 2,647 ft per sec
    Muzzle energy: 2,675 ft-lb

    CARTRIDGE, Ball, Cal. .30, M2
    Average maximum pressure: 50,000 lb per sq in
    Velocity:
    At 78 ft: 2,740 ft per sec
    At 53 ft: 2,755 ft per sec
    At muzzle: 2,805 ft per sec




    GR
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  20. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,432
    Location:
    Alabama
    Ammunition deteriorates with time and pressures increase as the stuff ages. I don't know what to say about chronograph data for WW2 ammunition in fact I am a bit distrustful of my 1956 ball ammunition. I am going to say, as a highpower competitor who shot the Garand in NRA across the course competition, you are better off not attempting to push bullets to the "TM" values in your rifle. Go slower. Those TM values were measured in pressure barrels not your barrel. And in fact, if you use those powder charges listed in the TM's, you are going to have lots of problems and the recoil could be so hard you could knock the heel of your receiver.

    cuxJCE6.jpg

    tFzoezE.jpg

    5Ri0uXR.jpg

    jzkafWG.jpg

    s7M56fl.jpg

    3mjwJkm.jpg

    DizIy47.jpg


    cK8FlTW.jpg
    vWjCRyf.jpg
    ncGc9Bs.jpg


    For those who quote TM's, these TM's were not reloading manuals. Ammunition plants had their own pressure and velocity gages, the bulk powders they bought (in 75,000 lb lot quantities) the charge weights were adjusted. These bulk powders were not blended products, lots varied in burn rate. The powders they used were of a different burn rate rate then the blended IMR 4895 powders we buy.

    I consider an interesting fact, that many of the products we buy, consume, are blended products. You just have the illusion that your wine, whiskey, grape jelly, etc, came right off the tree. This illusion is maintained because people hunger for "authenticity", demand consistency from nature, which of course, is not there.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  21. Charlie98

    Charlie98 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2017
    Messages:
    1,399
    Location:
    McKinney, TX
    I'm not a lawyer, and don't play one on TV, but I agree that the OP article is nonsense. No matter how valuable chronograph readings are to any load or load development, it is not the Alpha and Omega in data, particularly with a gas gun. The quantity of powder has absolutely no bearing on whether or not a cartridge operates at a safe pressure... it would be like opening a can of green beans and saying you know they are going to taste better because they look like they would...

    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.
     
    Slamfire likes this.
  22. Dave DeLaurant

    Dave DeLaurant Member

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2018
    Messages:
    278

    Apropos of the gas plug suggestion, InRangeTV did some high speed photography comparing op-rod speeds with different ammo and both MilSpec and the Schuster adjustable gas plugs.




    Having and installing an adjustable plug seems like cheap insurance when using 'if in doubt' ammo in a Garand. Even with M2 ball, it appears that a properly set up adjustable plug can reduce op rod speed without compromising reliability.

    https://www.midwayusa.com/product/1...s-plug-with-wrench-m1-garand-steel-parkerized
     
    NIGHTLORD40K likes this.
  23. Slamfire

    Slamfire Member

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2006
    Messages:
    9,432
    Location:
    Alabama
    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.
     
    Texas10mm likes this.
  24. LRDGCO

    LRDGCO Member

    Joined:
    Jul 11, 2018
    Messages:
    947
    Be all that as it may, the presumption that one of the world's largest ammunition manufacturers doesn't know the peculiarities of loading for the Garand, especially when their load is designed, in their own words, to replicate WWII loads for the Garand, has no legs. It is however a far less absurd proposition than the author of the article basing his statement that the ammunition "is not appropriate for use in the M1 Garand" on the charge weight of an unknown powder in pulled ammo.
     
  25. Garandimal

    Garandimal Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2017
    Messages:
    1,057
    Location:
    Lee of Death Valley, ...where Tigers feed.
    It was loaded w/ soft commercial primers - not the hard MilSpec primers the M1's floating firing pin requires.

    Easy on the FUD.

    And as far as cracked heals - How many were using 50 yr. old out-of-spec op-rod springs?

    For $6.75? It's the first thing done to a new M1 rifle.




    GR
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2019
  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