M1 Garand commercial ammo

Every now and then someone has a question about suitable commercial .30-'06 ammo for the Garand. I checked this topic on the well-known US site CSP GUN TALK with Gus Fisher, who is a retired USMC armourer and currently services rifles for the National Match competitions at Camp Perry, Ohio. Gus's advice was to use the American Eagle FMJ 150-gr. load, which he has used frequently with no problems. His other preferred load was the Federal Gold Match 168-gr. FMJBT load, which was designed for the Garand but is very expensive. He had no opinion on the Remington-UMC or Winchester 150-gr. loads.

The crux of the matter here is the burning speed of the powder. I still have some PMC M2, which is an exact copy of the US military load for the Garand. The American Eagle, as well as the Winchester and UMC loads, equals the ballistics for those companies' 150-gr. hunting loads, which seem to use powder of the wrong burning speed for the Garand. However, Gus Fisher acknowledged that the American Eagle was a bit hotter than the military loads, but still caused no problems such as bent op rods, etc. He was unsure about this problem re the Winchester or UMC loads.

I would like to hear opinions on this question from other Garand shooters out there, especially non-reloaders like myself. Many people feel that there is no problem with any standard commercial 150-gr. load, but I prefer to err on the side of caution and stick with the American Eagle and Federal loads, and my dwindling stock of PMC.

All answers appreciated, and Merry Christmas from Alberta!

The US Civilian Marksmanship Program used to have it made up in special boxes just for their yearly Garand Match. I bought a lot of it so I could get really good zeros before leaving for Camp Perry. It was not particularly accurate, but I heard no complaints about it. It was much more accurate than late 1960's US GI Ball, and had no problems with duds. Comparing different lots produced in different years, my Garands put it within an inch or two of other years. I also shot it through several 1903 Springfield rifles, with no difficulty extracting it.

I saw this advertisement from Hornady yesterday:
Hornady

I am wondering if the US Civilian Marksmanship Program is going to use the Hornady stuff, instead of the Greek-made M2 ball that they have been using the past several years. The Greek stuff shot about the same as the Federal stuff, but I had severe trouble extracting the Greek stuff from manually-operated 1903 rifles. I had no extraction troubles in Garands with the Greek stuff, and no torn rims either.

Years ago I shot some commercial .30-'06 through a Garand. The ammo companies are trying for better ballistics than the cartridge gave in 1938, because this is a selling point. The only way to do that is to use powders that produce a longer pressure curve, which results in higher pressures at the gas port near the muzzle. It clearly did not like it: operation of the action was much more violent, brass thrown much harder & further. I won't do that again.

I have no experience with the PMC.

This past summer I bought my first Garand and had the same concerns. I had been reading on various forums and heard about "Adjustable Gas Plugs" aka adjustable gas cylinder lock screws. There are two both available from Brownells, Shuster(sp.) and McCann(sp.).

I ended up with the Shuster. The shuster uses an allen headed plug and locking screw that can be adjusted easily if you use different loads. The McCann uses a set of perforated disks that that are changed to find the right amount of gas to operate the action, I think this would be good if one type of ammo was used.

I have been reloading for a couple of years and hunt. I started out with factory loads to get a base line with the Shuster plug. There is no one setting and so you just screw the plug in until the action works.

I use 180 gr Bronze Tip and Core-locked Remington factory ammo, no problems.
For reloding I'm settling on some flavor of 180 gr. bullet and H4895 or IMR4064.

Federal recommends against using their commercial American Eagle and Gold Metal ammunition in the Garand. CMP did contract Federal to load Garand spec ammo and Federal labeled it "American Eagle" and "Match". I know Gus Fisher and have been following the ammo for the Garand for a while.

The only commercial ammunition recommended for the Garand is the very expensive Hornady 168 grain match load. We can still buy mil surp M2 and match ammo in the US. In Canada I would think converting Garand's to 308 Winchester would be more popular.

Before the John C Garand matchs in the US that require 30-06, 308 Winchester conversions were very popular and the ammo is easier on the rifles.

Early pre ATK owned Federal American Eagle a30-05 was loaded with an unknown ball powder. The current production from ATK is loaded with more than 50 grains of RL-15. This is hot for the Garand. Early CMP contract American Eagle ammo was loaded in new Federal brass and bullets cannelured for 308 Winchester causing the cartridge to be shorter than minimum mil spec. This ammo was loaded with 47.5 grains of powder reported to be either RL-15 or commercial IMR-4895. Then CMP contracted Federal to load the ammo to "mil spec" not just milder than standard AE. This ammo was loaded in processed unfired Lake City late 1960's cases(taken from pulled down unfired M2 ammo). Using Sierra 150 grain FMJ loaded close to mil spec minmum 3.30" and one charge weighed 48.7 grains of new commercial IMR-4895 and new CCI #34 primer. The CMP match load was the 168 grain Sierra, 46.5 grains of IMR-4895, LC cases and CCI #4 primers. Many people complained they thought the 150 grain load was too hot. CMP requested that Federal make the 150 grain load milder but without specs. Federal decided to use the match charge weight of 46.5 grains of IMR-4895 behind the 150 grain Sierra FMJ for the mild load so both the 150 grain and 168 grain match loads had exactly the amount of powder, LC cases and CCI #34 primers. This was the last CMP contract AE and match ammo.

The Hornady match load uses the Sierra 168 grain bullet with Varget powder. This was the second most accurate powder. The most accurate powder was N-135 from Finland but cost and limited availability caused Hornady to go with Varget powder.

On the Federal site under what's new they have a listing for American Eagle M1. It's a 150grn FMJ BT. Should be interesting to see how well it shoots.

The Federal ammunition looks to have been announced in Jan 2009 but nobody has seen any yet. You might get an adjustable gas valve for your Garand. This would allow adjusting the gas system but wouldn't make up for over sensitive primers. The two popular ones are the Mc Cann and the Schuster. The Mc Cann seeems most recommended for using commercial ammunition and the Schuster is for finer adjustments for fine tuning the gas system for accuracy. The idea is to start with the largest gas bleed and step down in gas bleed size until the action cycles. I have never used them as I handload. Years ago people used to drill out the gas plug but the steel is very hard and the required drill bit is very small.

Federal now markets American Eagle ammo marked especially for the garand. I have shot a lot of it with no problems. More accurate than greek ammo in my CMP "special". The hornady match ammo for the garand I have found has the 168gr amax bullet. It is expensive at about $30.00 per 20. Have not tried it. I am planning to buy one box to try. If it works well then I may work up a reload to duplicate. Shouldn't be that difficult as we know they use varget. I may try the N150 if I can find it around here anywhere. The hornady loading manual states they got the best results with that powder. It has a section just for the m1 garand.

most of the Yugo ammo, ESPECIALLY the Igman Red Box ammo is great stuff. Accurate and very mild shooting.

Once again, I tell you all that here in Canada we knew nothing about this impending doom of firing hunting ammo through an M1 for years and years. Only in the past few years has this info come to light. Basicly with the start of these forums I would guess. Until then we shot all that came to hand. I never even HEARD of the detonation you suggest. Once again we rehash this subject here on the open forum. Maybe Badger would consider putting several of these threads up as a sticky to avoid doing this repeatedly. I see most of the regulars aren't even here this time. By the way, I don't know of anyone here who uses a Shuster or any other type of adjustable gas plug. Most M1 owners won't even know what you're talking about.

I reload so I don't buy commercial ammo but I do know what a Shuster plug is and they are made in Toledo Ohio which is about as far west of Camp Perry as I am east of there. And when it comes right down to it I don't mind the subject coming up over and over because it helps the newer shooters and refeshes the older ones now and then. Don't you think?"

This works very well if you do not reload.
Federal American Eagle Ammunition AE3006M1, 30-06 Springfield, Full Metal Jacket, 150 GR, 2740 fps

---------- Post added at 02:53 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:49 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Once again, I tell you all that here in Canada we knew nothing about this impending doom of firing hunting ammo through an M1 for years and years. Only in the past few years has this info come to light. Basicly with the start of these forums I would guess. Until then we shot all that came to hand. I never even HEARD of the detonation you suggest. Once again we rehash this subject here on the open forum. Maybe Badger would consider putting several of these threads up as a sticky to avoid doing this repeatedly. I see most of the regulars aren't even here this time. By the way, I don't know of anyone here who uses a Shuster or any other type of adjustable gas plug. Most M1 owners won't even know what you're talking about.

---

Problem is not with a slam-fire but with bending OP-Rods with the slower powders having higher port PSI/Megapascals.

Armed with a little good data, one can deduce a fairly simple way of estimating the relative quickness of an unknown powder if the cartridge, bullet, and velocity are known.

Shown below are extracts from Sierra's data for 180 and 150 grain bullets. I've chosen the 2600 and 2700 fps columns because they have charges for all powders listed, but the conclusions hold with data up to 2800 fps in 30/06. Note that all the slow powders (starting with 760) take a charge of greater than 52 grains to acheive the velocities shown and none of the medium powders use more than 49 grains. Hmmm. . .

Unless I suspected a powder composition with a very different ratio of weight to energy than the rather wide variety Sierra shows, I'd be confident in assuming there's a high probability that a cartridge delivering 2700 fps with a 150-grain bullet (or 2600 fps with a 180) and containing a charge under 50 grains is loaded with a medium-burning powder, as appropriate for the M1 gas system as the old standbys like 4895. If I found my ammunition was loaded with a bullet from 150 to 180 grains and a charge over 52 grains, I'd be making a logical conclusion if I figured the powder might be a bit too slow for the M1. Between 50 and 52 grains would be marginal.

Pulling down a couple of rounds and checking the powder charge isn't a postive test (you need a gas-port pressure setup for that), but it is certainly better than guessing or hoping your ammo isn't loaded with powder that will produce enough gas volume to damage your M1.

30-06 Springfield
.308 180 gr
Charge for 2600
748 47.5
BL-C(2) 46.9
IMR-4895 46.3
Varget 45.7
IMR-4064 46.8
AA-2520 44.8
IMR-4320 47.0
RE-15 45.1
H380 48.4
760 52.6
H4350 52.1
IMR-4350 52.3
Nor 204 52.9
RE-19 53.3
IMR-4831 53.6
Vi N160 52.8
AA-3100 53.7
H4831 54.9
MRP 55.8

.308 150 gr
Charge for 2700
IMR-3031 46.1
H322 45.6
AA-2230 43.7
748 48.4
AA-2460 44.5
BL-C(2) 43.8
IMR-4895 46.4
Varget 46.5
IMR-4064 48.0
IMR-4320 48.5
RE-15 46.1
H380 47.5
Vi N150 46.8
760 53.1
H4350 52.8
IMR-4350 53.9
RE-19 55.8
IMR-4831 56.2
H4831 57.8

Here's some additional discussion on this basic principle:

One of the problems with the internet is that erroneous or incomplete information sometimes gets circulated and accepted to the point that it overwhelms the truth.

In the case of M1 rifle port pressure, the erroneous information is that port pressure is primarily related to powder burning rate and bullet weight. The truth is that these are merely secondary factors. M1 port pressure is most closely related to gas volume (technically, mass and temperature), which is directly related to powder charge weight. Burning rate and bullet weight of course have a direct influence on PEAK pressure, but this occurs long before the bullet gets to the gas port.

With light bullets, we normally use faster powders for best performance since the relative ease with which the bullet starts to move means we can use a fairly large charge of fast powder without excessive peak pressure. With heavy bullets that take longer to accelerate, charge tables tell us the slower powders will give the highest velocity with the lowest peak pressure.

The M1 rifle's gas system was designed for the port pressures generated by the volume of gas produced by a charge of about 44 to 50 grains of powder behind a 173-grain bullet at 2640 fps (M1 Ball). It also happened to work just fine with about the same charge using 150-grain bullets at about 2800 fps (M2 Ball). The burning rate that gives these velocities to these bullets is about that we find in IMR 4895 and 4064. If we use a slower powder, say 4350, we find the appropriate charge for these velocities is heavier - about 55 grains for the 173 and 58 for the 150. Such heavier charges naturally generate a larger volume of gas, but at a slower rate that keeps peak pressure in normal limits. Given that the volume of the cartridge case and bore (up to the gas port) is a fixed quantity, the larger volume of gas necessarily translates to higher pressure at the gas port.

Conversely, if we stick with 4895 but change to a 110-grain bullet, we can stuff in some 54 grains of powder at normal pressure, for a much higher velocity. Again, the heavier charge generates more volume of gas and gives high port pressure. With 200-grain bullets, on the other hand, we can get good performance with 45-50 grain charges of slightly slower powders like 4320 or 4350, giving the same gas volume and consequently appropriate port pressure.

A lot of people who haven't well understood the role of gas volume have focused on burning rate or bullet weight instead - and that's what gets them into logical difficulty. It's very true that an optimum load of the slow powders with 150-180 grain bullets will give excessive M1 port pressure, and also true that the usual best bolt-gun loads of the really slow numbers (like 4831) with 200+ grain bullets will also give excess port pressure. What's missing in the logic is that it's neither the powder burning rate nor the bullet weight that's the problem's root cause - but rather the charge weight (mass, to be more accurate) and consequent gas volume.

It's unfortunate this mistaken (or just incomplete) logic has been so widely publicized, since knowing the whole story really makes powder selection much easier. Regardless of bullet weight, powder charges below 50 grains will generally give appropriate M1 port pressure (or less). Between 50 and 52 grains is marginal. Over 52 grains we may begin to see risk of damage to the operating rod. Of course powders must be chosen that will also yield acceptable peak pressure and velocity. (50 grains of 4198 will still make a mess - thanks to excessive peak pressure - but the port pressure would be near normal.)

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo.../30bhcti-1.jpg
50-grain charges of fast and slow powders yield vastly different peak pressure and velocity, but M1 port pressure is virtually the same even with these extreme examples.

There are certainly exceptions to this basic rule. Different powder compositions give off different volumes of gas for a given charge weight. But if we stick to the commonly-available rifle powders now on the market, there is surprisingly little variation in the mass/gas relationship and we're not likely to get in trouble with excess port pressure if we choose a published load using less than 50 grains of a powder that gives acceptable performance with our chosen bullet weight.

I urge anyone finding this concept difficult to stick to their existing guidelines. After all, there's little to be lost by limiting one's bullet and powder choices to the accepted standards - 150-180 grain bullets and powders close to 4895's burning rate.

In the estimates below, "P.Muzz" for a 23" barrel corresponds to the pressure at the M1 gas port.

Cartridge : .30-06 Spring.
Bullet : .308, 150, Hornady SP 3031
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.340 inch or 84.84 mm
Barrel Length : 23.0 inch or 584.2 mm

Predicted Data for Indicated Charges of the Following Powders.

Matching Muzzle Velocity: 2700 fps or 822 m/s

Powder.type..........Filling/Loading.Ratio..Charge.....Vel..Prop.Burnt.P.max..P .muzz
......................................%.....Grains ....fps.....%.......psi.....psi..
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alliant.Reloder-25.................106.7.....63.0.....2700....91.8 ....38700...12760
Vihtavuori.N560....................101.1.....61.3. ....2700....84.8....39596...12449
Winchester.WXR.....................104.2.....61.2. ....2700....87.9....39509...12344
Alliant.Reloder-22.................101.5.....60.9.....2700....88.1 ....39419...12340
IMR.7828...........................106.0.....61.2. ....2700....85.5....40833...12166
IMR.7828.SSC.......................100.3.....61.2. ....2700....85.5....40833...12166
Hodgdon.H1000......................112.2.....65.9. ....2700....85.6....43163...12158
Ramshot.Hunter......................90.6.....57.3. ....2700....92.5....40099...11741
Alliant.Reloder-19..................98.3.....58.3.....2700....89.0 ....41104...11735
IMR.4831...........................101.8.....57.9. ....2700....93.4....40395...11678
Accurate.4350.......................97.5.....55.3. ....2700....95.0....39928...11675
Winchester.760......................88.3.....55.5. ....2700....91.5....40405...11605
Vihtavuori.N550.....................90.2.....54.7. ....2700....94.8....40399...11570
Hodgdon.H4831......................106.2.....61.3. ....2700....85.7....43270...11561
Hodgdon.H4831.SC...................102.1.....61.3. ....2700....85.7....43270...11561
Hodgdon.H4350.......................93.0.....54.9. ....2700....93.0....40107...11553
Vihtavuori.N165....................105.8.....62.1. ....2700....90.7....42726...11465
Hodgdon.H414........................85.1.....53.8. ....2700....93.0....41707...11366
IMR.4350............................98.8.....56.2. ....2700....88.6....42892...11284
Ramshot.BigGame.....................89.2.....52.9. ....2700....96.6....40531...11182
Vihtavuori.N160....................105.8.....60.2. ....2700....88.5....44410...11158
Hodgdon.H380........................86.5.....52.5. ....2700....95.3....42521...11066
Hodgdon.BL-C2.......................79.9.....51.8.....2700... .98.1....41563...10949
Alliant.Reloder-15..................84.3.....50.1.....2700....96.5 ....41890...10925
IMR.4320............................86.5.....50.5. ....2700....97.1....42158...10640
Winchester.748......................77.3.....49.4. ....2700....98.9....41435...10593
IMR.4895............................84.5.....48.5. ....2700....98.4....40668...10587
Accurate.2700.......................91.8.....56.3. ....2700....92.8....46789...10574
Hodgdon.VARGET......................87.6.....50.3. ....2700....96.8....43595...10573
Accurate.4064.......................90.6.....50.3. ....2700....99.9....42289...10535
Vihtavuori.N540.....................87.7.....52.7. ....2700....97.9....44964...10526
Accurate.2520.......................82.3.....50.3. ....2700....99.5....42340...10495
Ramshot.TAC.........................79.0.....49.2. ....2700....98.6....43064...10451
IMR.4064............................88.4.....49.6. ....2700....97.1....43783...10451
Vihtavuori.N150.....................93.6.....52.5. ....2700....99.3....43787...10355
Vihtavuori.N530.....................79.1.....47.2. ....2700....98.7....43334...10315
Hodgdon.H4895.......................87.1.....50.0. ....2700....99.2....42732...10300
Accurate.2460.......................78.0.....49.7. ....2700....99.3....44230...10242
Hodgdon.H335........................74.5.....48.3. ....2700....99.8....43352...10108
Accurate.2230.......................77.0.....49.0. ....2700....99.3....44666...10088
IMR.3031............................83.4.....46.3. ....2700...100.0....41236...10055
Accurate.2495.......................84.5.....47.5. ....2700...100.0....42846...10037
Vihtavuori.N140.....................87.2.....49.8. ....2700...100.0....44444....9860
Ramshot.X-Terminator................75.3.....46.3.....2700.. .100.0....44152....9787
Vihtavuori.N135.....................91.0.....49.0. ....2700...100.0....44050....9627
Accurate.2015.......................79.7.....45.8. ....2700...100.0....46238....9195
Alliant.Reloder-10x.................77.7.....43.5.....2700...100.0 ....45761....9134

I never said anything about a slamfire JBS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

I never said anything about a slamfire JBS.

---

Excuse me, I took your use of the word Detonation to represent slamfires.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Parashooter

Armed with a little good data,

---

Parashooter, remember that Hartmut Broemel's program does not have empirical data for bunker powders used by major reloading companies, only canister grade powders.

The non-canister powders used by ammo manufacturers are of the same essential composition as similar canister-grade powders. (For example, Hodgdon BL-C2 is a canister-grade selection/blend of St. Marks WC846. See http://www.hodgdon.com/PDF/MSDS%20Fi...%20Powders.pdf ) Consequently, while the burning-rate may vary from canister-grade, the basic relationship between charge weight and M1 port pressure is sufficiently consistent for the "50-grain" guideline to be as useful (or useless, to those who reject the principle) with non-canister powder as it is with canister-grade.

I'm not sure what is meant by "major reloading companies". My primary concern here is explaining a rational method for estimating the suitability of new factory-loaded (not reloaded) ammunition by weighing sample powder charges.