Printable View
I need some tried and true 30-06 loads for the M1 Garand using H4895 and IMR4895 powders with a 168 gr bullet. I am most interested in the load recipe using IMR4895 but I do have a pound of H4895 I purchased by mistake and want to use it up.
I am going to be using the Widener's 168 gr "mil-spec" bullet.
I will be using the CCI "mil-spec" primers but may also use Winchester large rifle primers.
Any help on a recipe would be appreciated. Thank you.
I have no experience with the CCI primer you mention. It is supposed to not just be hard, but magnum strength. The Winchester is regarded by many as being actually hotter than the CCI mil spec. Regardless what you do, work up to it.
For years, I shot about 46gr of IMR or H4895 (I could not tell the difference) in .30-'06 Garands, with Winchester primers.
Here is a good website to compare people's suggestions against:
NJ Hipower Rifle
Depending on the powder, something like 45-47 grains should be about right.
Since 4895 does vary a lot in burn rate, experiment before you load above 45 grains.
Mike the tried and true IMR 4895 load for the M1 with 168 grain is 45-47 grains of powder. Service rifle reciepe load em and, shoot em. Hope this helps.
The loaded seven with 46.0 gr of H4895 with a Fed 210M primer. They went over the chronograph at 2542 fps with a SD = 32. Note that this is over 100 fps slower than shown on the NJ High Power web site at the link, above. It seemed a bit low to me, too. Even though the bullet is heavier than the ball ammo, I was expecting more. The rifle functioned just fine - no hint of anything bad.
The rifle and I aren't good for more than about 3-4 MOA with ball ammo, so judging accuracy of the ammo is very subjective so I couldn't judge the accuracy other than to say it wasn't horrific.
I plan to reload using the CCI primers and will switch over to the IMR4895 when it arrives next week. That's a lot to change, so it seems another range session is in order before I load any significant quantity of ammo. I also need to get a new chronograph, as the one I have died.
What are your expectations/requirements?
Are you trying to get the smallest group off a 100yd bench or hold the 10-ring from prone at 600yd? Or something else?
As Bill H and Jaildog noted, for highpower match shooting the normal charge weight is between 45-47gr of IMR4895.
The often seen "industry standard" published by NRA calls for 47gr; 46.5 seems to work just as well for me and several other folks I know. It will hold the 10-ring if I and my rifle can.
Differences in nominal charge weights less than 0.5gr don't seem to matter much. I will accept a +/- 0.2gr variance for short-line loads and 0.1gr for 600.
For H4895 I usually need to be 0.5gr lower (eg, 46.0) than for any IMR load.
I haven't seen any truly significant difference on the target or over the chrono with any primer I've tried (CCI, Rem, Win).
Generally speaking, load development for .30cal Across-the-Course shooting is a waste of time. In the past 70 years someone else has tried just about everything at one time or another. Sometimes folks will find something that's marginally better, or cheaper, or cleaner, but the good old 168-175gr bullet, around 47gr of IMR4895, and just about any Large Rifle Primer formula will clean any target when it's pointed correctly.
There's no need to re-invent the wheel - unless you want to ;)
Maury
Actually, I am trying to NOT reinvent the wheel - I'm looking for a tried and true recipe.
As far as expectations go, I was a little surprised by the low velocity I obtained (2542 versus an expectation of around 2700 fps). It has been a long time (~10 years) since I loaded 30-06 and then it was mostly for a long barreled, Model 1917 bolt rifle using a slower powder (W760). Is this a mistaken expectation on my part or is the measured 2542 fps genuinely slow?
The usual disclaimer is to have you check reloading manuals ect... try a list of components... work up the load for your particular rifle... what works for me might not work for you, or be safe for your rifle. With that said...
Here is my 30-06 load....
LC 69 Case
168 HPBT (Nosler or Hornady)
45grs IMR 4895
CCI 34 Primer
3.34 OAL
The load doesn't beat me to death, and performs well at 600yds. I use it in my Garand and '03.
"THIS WE'LL DEFEND!"
"Life has many choices... Eternity only has two!"
"Actually, I am trying to NOT reinvent the wheel - I'm looking for a tried and true recipe."
I kinda thought that based on your original post. But there are some people out there who actually enjoy tweaking their loads to a gnat's ***. Reloading for them can be a hobby (or obsession) unto itself :)
"As far as expectations go, I was a little surprised by the low velocity I obtained (2542 versus an expectation of around 2700 fps). It has been a long time (~10 years) since I loaded 30-06 and then it was mostly for a long barreled, Model 1917 bolt rifle using a slower powder (W760). Is this a mistaken expectation on my part or is the measured 2542 fps genuinely slow?"
I don't think your numbers are way off. Rummaging around in my records and throwing in a bit of fudge factor for the heavier bullet, I find almost identical chrono numbers for a 173gr bullet (MV2533, SD39). That's with 46.0gr IMR4895 and a WLR primer. CCI34 primer numbers are about the same.
Sierra says the optimum velocity for their 168MK is around 2550-2650. That's probably good for any other 168gr bullet as well. Add another 0.5 or 1.0gr powder and I think you'll be pretty close.
I don't worry too much about the numbers though. I use them to be sure I'm at a desired velocity (milspec, manufacturer's recommended, supersonic at intended range, etc). Then I look at the ES and SD to see if they're all flying in a 10-ring size formation.
After that it's up to me to hold 'em and squeeze 'em.
Maury
Very good, Maury! Thanks also to the others - oney, Bill H, jaildog and NuJudge. I'll be off to the loading bench to make a few rounds for testing as soon as I get the IMR powder, next week.
I think I'll make about 24 rounds and shoot them over the chronograph. I'll get some stats, ensure functioning and get accuracy data, too.