M1 GARAND 30-06

Hello folks,


Is ok to shoot any 30-06 150 gr in an M1 Garand?
Is ok to shoot .270 ammo in an M1 Garand chambered in 30-06?


Regards :beerchug:

150 gr - yes

.270 - why? Just stick with the 150 gr 30-06 ammo since that is what the gun was made to fire.....

I believe the .270 round is what the designers wanted it to use in the Garand so they could fit 10 rounds into the clip but the military ordered the rifles in 30.06 do to the massive supply of 30.06 ammo already available for the 1903's. Enjoy that Garand!!

I believe you’re thinking of 276 Pedersen.

Regardless, definitely don’t shoot 270 in a 30-06. You probably won’t hurt anything but it would be wildly inaccurate and completely pointless.

I have seen photos of 7,62 or 308 fired out of a M1 rifle, case looks like a 444 marlin - no shoulder, not smart to do - no damage but still stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

I believe you’re thinking of 276 Pedersen.

Regardless, definitely don’t shoot 270 in a 30-06. You probably won’t hurt anything but it would be wildly inaccurate and completely pointless.

---

Yes, thank you! I couldn't remember the exact caliber.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Singer B

150 gr - yes

.270 - why? Just stick with the 150 gr 30-06 ammo since that is what the gun was made to fire.....

I believe the .270 round is what the designers wanted it to use in the Garand so they could fit 10 rounds into the clip but the military ordered the rifles in 30.06 do to the massive supply of 30.06 ammo already available for the 1903's. Enjoy that Garand!!

---

Hey Singer,

It has been a long time.
- So it's ok any 150 gr
- About the .270 that came to my mind because they are very similar.
Regards :beerchug:

---------- Post added at 07:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 07:16 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

I believe you’re thinking of 276 Pedersen.

Regardless, definitely don’t shoot 270 in a 30-06. You probably won’t hurt anything but it would be wildly inaccurate and completely pointless.

---

Hey Rcathey,
So a .270 would be just a plan B scenario in case there's no 3006 around, thank you.
Regards :beerchug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EddieM

So a .270 would be just a plan B scenario in case there's no 3006 around,

---

It's a different caliber and isn't to be used.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EddieM

Hey Rcathey,
So a .270 would be just a plan B scenario in case there's no 3006 around, thank you.
Regards :beerchug:

---

I would stick with NEVER doing this. It is a very bad idea to use any ammunition in a rifle it wasn’t designed for. Especially an 80 year old rifle.

I would wonder if the rifle would function properly with such an undersized bullet

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

It's a different caliber and isn't to be used.

---

Hello Jim

It has been a long time, you are so right we need to stick with the right ammo recommended for each weapon, I was just wondering because both calibers came from the 3003 and have a similar size and ballistic.
Regards :beerchug:

---------- Post added at 05:40 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:39 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

I would stick with NEVER doing this. It is a very bad idea to use any ammunition in a rifle it wasn’t designed for. Especially an 80 year old rifle.

---

Agree :beerchug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EddieM

Hello Jim

---

Hey Eddie, I somehow wonder if maybe you're having a go at us again like the carbine you showed us...

But seriously, there have been replacement barrels for the M1 rifle in various calibers, other than .30 such as .308, 25/06, .270. That's a rebarrel though, not an ammo swap.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Hey Eddie, I somehow wonder if maybe you're having a go at us again like the carbine you showed us...

But seriously, there have been replacement barrels for the M1 rifle in various calibers, other than .30 such as .308, 25/06, .270. That's a rebarrel though, not an ammo swap.

---

Come on Jim,

Are you serious?, all my doubts have been honest, when I got the Garand the seller gave me the clip with .270 ammo
Regards :beerchug:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by EddieM

when I got the Garand the seller gave me the clip with .270 ammo

---

Interesting, then he must not have known what caliber it was. Criterion makes them... https://criterionbarrels.com/product...v=7516fd43adaa

The .270 Winchester cartridge may not even chamber because the shoulder is slightly longer to prevent mis-loading it in a .30-06 chamber.
You ask "any 150gr 30-06" ?? If you are talking about commercially loaded 150gr ammo the answer is NO.
Unless it is marked Safe for use in M1 Garand, then you risk bending your op rod and damaging the rifle and or yourself and others around you.
M1 Garands were built with a limit to the amount gas pressure they can handle for safe function.
Only use M2 ball ammo or ammo that is marked safe for M1 Garand. PPU makes M1 safe ammo, and there is alot of M1 safe ball ammo for sale on the internet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rugersworld

PPU makes M1 safe ammo,

---

PPU makes two grades of M2, one normal and one for the Garand. I know from experience that the normal one works fine in the M1, I've fired over 1000 rds of it, but it does throw the empties around 15 to 20 ft!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Interesting, then he must not have known what caliber it was. Criterion makes them... https://criterionbarrels.com/product...v=7516fd43adaa

---

Hey Jim,
Thank you for the link :beerchug:

---------- Post added at 07:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:25 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rugersworld

The .270 Winchester cartridge may not even chamber because the shoulder is slightly longer to prevent mis-loading it in a .30-06 chamber.
You ask "any 150gr 30-06" ?? If you are talking about commercially loaded 150gr ammo the answer is NO.
Unless it is marked Safe for use in M1 Garand, then you risk bending your op rod and damaging the rifle and or yourself and others around you.
M1 Garands were built with a limit to the amount gas pressure they can handle for safe function.
Only use M2 ball ammo or ammo that is marked safe for M1 Garand. PPU makes M1 safe ammo, and there is alot of M1 safe ball ammo for sale on the internet.

---

Hey Rugersworld
Thank you :beerchug:

---------- Post added at 07:29 PM ---------- Previous post was at 07:27 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ex Crab

PPU makes two grades of M2, one normal and one for the Garand. I know from experience that the normal one works fine in the M1, I've fired over 1000 rds of it, but it does throw the empties around 15 to 20 ft!

---

Hey Ex Crab
thank you :beerchug:

The biggest issue with commercial, non-Springfield ammo is timing. The military ammo used an older formulation propellant that burns slower than the modern propellants. There's a sizable amount of timing involved in the feed system of a semi-auto rifle. The brass cartridge needs to expand at a predictable time to fill the chamber and seal it and then contract in time to be properly extracted. The extraction process is timed by the predictable expansion of gasses down the barrel and into the gas system to move the op rod. Change the burn rate and the parts of the system can cease to interact properly. It can be a little like a timing belt breaking in a zero-valve-clearance automobile engine. In the Garand, the light end of effects can be failures to extract. The extreme end of the bad interaction can be bent op rods and damaged receiver heels. There are lots of examples of people getting by with it. It seems to work fine... until it doesn't. The odd time it doesn't work and we hear about that too.

Complicating this situation are hand loaders that can use the original propellant formula but accidentally overload their shells and cause the same results. Undocumented or poorly documented cases of hand load accidents on the Internet can be conflated with accidents from commercial loads And that is complicated by the fact that a hand loader might not want to let on that he screwed up his load. So, who knows how often it is commercial ammo vs. hand loads popping off a Garand?

Bob

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bob Womack

The biggest issue with commercial, non-Springfield ammo is timing. The military ammo used an older formulation propellant that burns slower than the modern propellants. There's a sizable amount of timing involved in the feed system of a semi-auto rifle. The brass cartridge needs to expand at a predictable time to fill the chamber and seal it and then contract in time to be properly extracted. The extraction process is timed by the predictable expansion of gasses down the barrel and into the gas system to move the op rod. Change the burn rate and the parts of the system can cease to interact properly. It can be a little like a timing belt breaking in a zero-valve-clearance automobile engine. In the Garand, the light end of effects can be failures to extract. The extreme end of the bad interaction can be bent op rods and damaged receiver heels. There are lots of examples of people getting by with it. It seems to work fine... until it doesn't. The odd time it doesn't work and we hear about that too.

Complicating this situation are hand loaders that can use the original propellant formula but accidentally overload their shells and cause the same results. Undocumented or poorly documented cases of hand load accidents on the Internet can be conflated with accidents from commercial loads And that is complicated by the fact that a hand loader might not want to let on that he screwed up his load. So, who knows how often it is commercial ammo vs. hand loads popping off a Garand?

Bob

---

Hey Bob
Your feedback is very interesting I really appreciate it
Regards :beerchug:

There was an article in the GCA Journal a while back, the exact article I can't re-read as we moved and when downsizing I gave all my older Journal's to members of the gun club I belong to. Using the GCA Journal searchable spread sheet I believe it was Issue 34-1-23 Winter 2019 first key word "M2 Ball Facts vs. Myth". It was a controversial stance but well researched, if you have access to the article it can provide additional insight.

Can you? Probably yes. Should you? You pays your money, you takes your chances. Will it blow up? Smaller bullet, not likely. Cant fire because of the shoulder? Nonsense. 270 case length (OAL) is the same as the 30-03. Something like 0.10" longer than the 30-06, not enough to prevent chambering. Accurate? No data to prove yes or no. Shooting any 150 grain 30-06, probably OK but a 150 grain at 2,700 fps is definitely OK. If it was 3,000 fps you might want to think about it in an M1 as a steady diet. A 180 grain at 3,000 fps is probably too hot for an M1 day in and out.

Dave

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sarge1998

There was an article in the GCA Journal a while back, the exact article I can't re-read as we moved and when downsizing I gave all my older Journal's to members of the gun club I belong to. Using the GCA Journal searchable spread sheet I believe it was Issue 34-1-23 Winter 2019 first key word "M2 Ball Facts vs. Myth". It was a controversial stance but well researched, if you have access to the article it can provide additional insight.

---

Hey Sarge,
Unfortunately, I don´t have access, thank you.
Regards

---------- Post added at 01:14 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:13 PM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wineman

Can you? Probably yes. Should you? You pays your money, you takes your chances. Will it blow up? Smaller bullet, not likely. Cant fire because of the shoulder? Nonsense. 270 case length (OAL) is the same as the 30-03. Something like 0.10" longer than the 30-06, not enough to prevent chambering. Accurate? No data to prove yes or no. Shooting any 150 grain 30-06, probably OK but a 150 grain at 2,700 fps is definitely OK. If it was 3,000 fps you might want to think about it in an M1 as a steady diet. A 180 grain at 3,000 fps is probably too hot for an M1 day in and out.

Dave

---

Thank you Dave
Cheers :beerchug:

The headspace specs for the .270 Winchester cartridge are identical to the .30/06 and so is the .25/06, the .35 Whelen, and the semi wildcat .338/06. I believe you may be thinking of the .280 Remington which has the shoulder moved forward .050" to prevent forced chambering in a .270 rifle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ArtPahl

The headspace specs for the .270 Winchester cartridge are identical to the .30/06 and so is the .25/06, the .35 Whelen, and the semi wildcat .338/06. I believe you may be thinking of the .280 Remington which has the shoulder moved forward .050" to prevent forced chambering in a .270 rifle.

---

Hey ArtPahl,
I was thinking in .270
Regards

Although many consider M1s to be an -06, they're more correctly caliber .30M2. Specific projectile weights and powder charges are required for the M1 to function properly. 210 gr. .30-06 may damage the weapon, and 125 gr. light loads may not cycle the action properly. Same as with civilian loads for .223 Rem/5.56mm and .308 Win/7.62mm NATO. Do not put ANY ammunition in a firearm other than that specifically designed for it...Unless you really don't like your face.

My photo shows the 30-03, 30-06, 30M1 and 30M2 cartridges. The 30M1 was developed after WW1 to extend the range and the M1 Rifle was designed to use the 30M1 cartridge. Before WW2, the 30M2 was developed as a reduced range and recoil cartridge close to the original 30-06 cartridge in performance. When introduced into the military in 1937, the 30M2 cartridge had a stannic stain bullet (like the 30-06) for identification which lasted until 1940Attachment 119996

Very interesting…..