Printable View
I read a week ago on one of these threads (can't find it now), that a Garand Publication has stated that any commercial ammo with 150 t0 180 grain bullets is safe to fire in an M1. Does anyone have documentation of this? Apologies to whoever posted this but I really want to believe this. In the 1970s and 80s I fired all kinds of ammo through my Garand with no adverse effects but since the warning came out about commercial ammo I find the "M1 appropriate" ammo quite expensive.
BEAR
I believe that I am the one that mentioned that. It was the Winter 2019 issue of the Garand Collectors Association Journal (Volume 34, Issue 1) that had the article. It was entitled "M2 Ball Facts vs. Myth: Another Point of View" from page 23-26.
Now, I could scan and post those pages, but since the GCA Journal is a paid publication, I do not feel comfortable doing so without the consent of someone representing the publication like Bob Seijas (who is a member here.)
Now, that said, one of the points of data they use was posted by this gentleman:
M1 Garand commercial ammo testing ...safe or not?? - YouTube
ammooprodtest.xlsx - Google Drive
who actually measured op-rod velocity using various lots of commercial and M2 ball ammunition.
Look at the data and draw your own conclusions. However, my interpretation is that if you have varieties of M2 ball which result in higher op-rod velocity than most commercial ammunition, the use of most commercial ammunition is fine. I would avoid anything with a particularly heavy (200+ grain bullet) or very high muzzle velocity (3000+ fps), although this is more because I don't like punishing my shoulder, the gun would likely endure it just fine.
Anyone who has questions about the metallurgy of the M1 should get a hold of a copy of Hatcher's Book of the Garand which describes some of the testing done on the rifle at Springfield armory. One particular incident I recall reading was when John Garand put a 120,000 PSI proof load in the rifle, the case head melted and the bolt got stuck, but held in the receiver and the barrel and the rifle was again put into working condition.
Thank you Hcompton79 for this video and I would not expect you to copy any publication that was for members only. I was just curious about your statement. Thanks again.
BEAR
Well, the original Don Kemps survey of available Garand ammo ignited some vehement disagreement! I invited the most vocal critics John Winn and Jeremy Cheek to write something in response, which they did. Now THAT has generated disagreement in other quarters and a Part 3 is slated for the next Journal. One of the authors is Gus Fisher, one of GCA's Technical Advisors and a most authoritative source. It turns out to be a highly controversial subject! Stay tuned. But always feel free to quote anything from the GCA Journal, just give a simple credit.
Sounds like the quagmire of shoot/no shoot low number 1903s. Thanks Bob.
BEAR
Thank you HCompton79. A nice review and a large amount of data for everyone. As Bob said, tremendous controversy. We are trying to coax more life out of our 60-85 year old rifles. JCG never planned to them to have this longevity. The military only planned to use them for a short period and parts were disposable and made to be replaced if worn out. If they were so valuable and precious we would have kept every original one and never produced any more. How many machine gun barrels have been replaced, just because an Army, Air Force, Navy or Marine held their finger longer than they were supposed to? Will the M1 wear out? Well sure it will but not probably in the amount that we will shoot them any more. HXP being hot is no secret. If you fire 5,000 rounds per year you may wear out an op rod with ammo that is within a 10,000 psi muzzle pressure. The metal is old, the wood is most likely old and most of us are "old", parts are going to be replaced. Finding them may be an issue. You have been warned, 150-180 grain bullet, 47-52 grains of powder that gives a velocity of ~2,800 fps is the sweet spot. One other thing is that in 20 years of cruising the Internet, I have never seen one photo of a "Bent" op rod. I've seen rifles blow up, blown up, bolts cracked, stocks cracked, loose gas cylinders, worn gas pistons and bad poppet valves. I'm sure they exist, and that is one crazy piece of metal that kept the M1 the longest serving service rifle until the "Black Rifle" passed it by with many years to go. I usually regret these replies due to the heat I will get. I love my M1, it is a piece of American history and gave us an edge in WW2 and Korea. It was however a tool and if overused or misused it may break. It is fun to compete with it, and even today it would hold its own. But if the Marines on Guadalcanal had M1's and the army had M16's, you know what they would have done.
Dave
PPU Garand ammunition has seemed reasonably priced to me. Lower than most other commercial brands by quite a bit. I bought quite a bit of it over the past few years. Gun shows they sell it in white boxes. Blue boxes are usually on store shelves.
Yes, it was one of Don's examples that is specifically loaded for the M1. In his tests, however, it was not as accurate as Creedmoor:
Maker Avg Mean Radius Extreme Spread
Creedmoor 0.781 2 3/8
PPU 1.365 5 11/16
Lake City 1.483 5 7/8
Amer Eagle 1.778 6 1/4
Not commonly known but PPU make 2 loads with 150 grn bullets in 30-06, if you follow the link and scroll down a bit on the right hand side two loads are listed with the second load having a lower MV, according to Prvi that is the M1 Garand load. However the other hotter stuff works well and costs less!Quote:
Originally Posted by Aragorn243
https://www.prvipartizan.com/download/PPU_2018.pdf
It's fascinating that we're here discussing openly what civilian ammo to use for the M1 while normally these threads disintegrate into a bunfight over "Can't use anything but M2"... I have to agree though that before the advent (or invent) of the internet we shot what came to hand. That meant anything 30-06 in nature and never, I mean not even once have I ever heard of anything untoward happening. I didn't even hear of anyone who knew someone...that had something happen.
Now of course, all we hear is about a catastrophic failure imminent... Except for right now where we're sharing info.
I agree with what Jim just said. I remember my first Garand it not only had a "welded" but also a welded barrel. That was in the late 70s. I shot any 30-06 I could get. Back then we didn't know better "no internet". Funny thing that it shot very well and was as accurate as any Garand I have ever shot. However after I found out about the barrel I never shot it again. I parted it out. I still have the barrel and "gave" the receiver to a friend that wanted to build a M1 with parts he had. I even installed his barrel for him I told him what the receiver was that was OK with him.
I am glad that my our (Jeremy Cheek and moi) article in the GCA is being read and discussed.. I think that if anyone actually reads the article, they will find that it is well documented (and thanks to Mr. Seijas for allowing us to write and publish the piece). And yes, this was in response to the previous article which repeated almost all of the misinformation you see on the net. BTW, the editors of the GCA Journal were "tough but fair" and the editing process made the piece even better. For example, when I wrote that "many soldiers preferred AP over ball in combat" the editors made us go find some documentation to support this. What we found was a 1945 ARMY publication that said exactly this.. etc.
I welcome anyone's different opinions, but hopefully AFTER they have read the article.
Oh yeah, if you go BACK to 2009 (and WAY before on Jousters) (and on CMP) you will find that I have been preaching against the "myth" of M2 Ball for about ...
20+ years.
..And not even once since at least 1997-98 beginning with Jousters has ANYONE come up with one of these "bent" (damaged) operating rods.
As for Mr. Fisher. If the Editors of GCA hold him to the same verification and sourcing standards as they held Jeremy and me to, then this upcoming article might be worth a read (or just as likely another rebuttal piece).
I like Kar66 speak of back to the '70's...when I bought my first M1, a nice LL SA 328219 that had a round firing pin. That too I shot until I read and felt it prudent to avoid a possible failure. At least there was some sort of evidence on that one...
Round firing pin is a legitimate safety issue (if it breaks). Shooting good quality commercial ammo isn't EVER a "dangerous" thing to do.
Yes, that had pictures accompanying. I just couldn't imagine why there was a nice new firing pin with the rifle and a worn one in it, I was only about 19 then. It took some years to find out why. There's a picture in Pyle's book about the gas trap showing a gas trap that was found in the rafters of a barracks in Hawaii after the attack. All these years later it was fired and the round firing pin broke, detonating it.Quote:
Originally Posted by JohnW.
@ JohnW, I completely agree with your GCA article that there is no problem shooting standard commercial ammo in a Garand. I often did it before I “learned” you were only supposed to shoot M2 (or much heavier M2 AP or M1…) and I never had a problem. The fact that there is such a wide range of “allowable” loadings definitely supports your conclusion.
Just one comment on the article that you and the editors may have missed: you state the reason M2 increased from to 152 grains vs. 150 in the ’06 was due to the newer gliding metal jacket. This is not the case. Per Hatcher’s notebook, page 29 of my copy, there was a scarcity of tin and antimony during WWII. So recycled lead (mostly from car batteries) was used for the core instead of the original lead alloy, increasing the weight slightly.