The Load in M1917

[ticker]

I tried something called "the load" by Ed Harris (13.0 gr Red Dot, standard boolit, sized to throat diameter +2/1000") in my M1917. A 165 gr. FP cast boolit didn't stabilize, with about 1 in 5 shots tumbling at 50 yards. Speed was likely about 1500 fps. Curious if others have tried The Load in their M1917.

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[Patrick Chadwick]

I have tried something similar in my M1917, of which more later. But first of all a few thoughts.

This kind of load is sometimes termed a "cat's sneeze" load.

Thinking about sneezing, have you ever had the irrepressible need to sneeze in a sensitive situation, like in a concert, and then held your nose to stop the "muzzle blast"? Remember the feeling that you eardrums were about to explode, because the pressure had not been rapidly released in an uninhibited sneeze? Well, if your rifle had feelings and could talk it would probably report a similar experience with the load you describe.

Putting it rather unscientifically, there are two major phases in getting a bullet launched from a rifle barrel.
1) The "whack" phase, when the bullet is forcibly engraved in the rifling.
2) The "shove" phase, when the bullet is accelerated down the barrel to the muzzle.

The trouble with a "cat's sneeze" load is that all the energy may be used up in the whack, with very little (or none) left for the shove. In which case, you end with a plugged barrel.

And from your report I suspect that you may indeed be close to that. The tumbling indicates that the bullet is staggering out of the barrel, and a chronograph measurement might show a startlingly low muzzle velocity.

I shoot calibers from .22 short up to .577 Snider, so I never imagined there was a universal load. Why should there be? The 30-06 case is larger than many others, and the M1917 barrel is longer than many others.
If your barrel is good, then the bore is tight to the muzzle. So after the engraving, the powder gases have to do some work in forcing the bullet down the bore to the muzzle, not just accelerate the mass of the bullet. But the very fast pistol powder that you used is all whack and no shove.

And why on earth make the bullet 2 thou above bore diameter? This just increases the mechanical deformation work to be performed by the powder and raises the peak pressure as a result.

Sorry Ed Harris, there is not a universal load for all calibers. Maybe it will enable the bullet to crawl out of the muzzle in most cases, but the above post shows that the result can be poor to hazardous.

I strongly suggest that you avoid using the load you describe, and either go back to a conventional 30-06 loading, or try something along the following lines...

...Sorry, got an appointment. Part 2 later.

[browningautorifle]

Patrick's quite right. There's no universal load. Stay away from hearsay loads and use full house loads that come from reliable sources such as powder manufacturers that publish books on the subject. If you don't actually want to buy a book, or it's too much trouble, then refer to the on line info such as this site... http://data.hodgdon.com/main_menu.asp

[OLDER THEN DIRT]

In other words, if you can`t handle the big gun punch, then go to the 22 rimfires.

[Wineman]

There is not much sneezy with 13 grains of Red Dot. That is a lot of fast powder and Ed chose it because it is bulky and it would be hard to double charge a case (plus he had something like a lifetime supply from some shotgun buddies who had passed away). The cast bullet shooters have found that their best results are with bullets sized to fit the throat or leade. This could be a couple of 1,000's over groove diameter, and soft lead is not bothered much by a bit of a squeeze. However none of the records for cast bullet matches are held by "The Load", Accurate 5744 is the powder of choice with Alliant 2400 and a couple of others also in the win column. You are right that it is quite a smack, but I doubt anything would stick if cast lead, jacketed maybe if not at 13 grains, but not lead.

The Cast Bullet Association

That said I have tried numerous cast loads in my 1918 Eddystone with the original 5-groove barrel. These have ranged from a pinch of Bullseye, through 16+/- grains of 2400 to full 2,100 fps load of IMR 4350. I have also played with cast bullet diameters of 308-316 and weights from 170 to 205 grains and several different lubes. None were spectacular and several leaded badly even with gas checks. It will put jacketed bullets into 2.5 MOA on command especially the Hornaday 0.3105 "Enfield" bullet. I have also found the sight adjustments you need for the light loads lacking on this rifle. My M1903A3 2-groove will put almost anything sized at 0.314 of cast lead into one ragged hole at 25 yards and keeps them fairly close out to 200 or so if pushed at 1500-1600 fps.

The biggest problem is with a safe full of kids, it is hard to devote much time to one brat at the exclusion of the others. I am sure that somewhere there is a cast load that my M1917 would shoot decently, but I don't have the time to work it out. Ed Harris also used jacketed bullets with his "The Load" especially lighter ones and had good success. I like a challenge, but "Easy" is also nice when it happens.

Dave

[ticker]

Thanks for the tips. I agree that going lighter seems more likely to work: I had good results a few years ago using 125 grain FMJ over H4895 at 75% of max. load. I haven't seen H4895 in ages, but I'll probably go back to that when I do.

[Patrick Chadwick]

...Sorry, got an appointment. Part 2 later.

Well, it took a bit longer than I anticipated to find the test target.

Just to show that a lighter load can work with the right components "here's one I shot earlier". Several years back, in fact. Before reading the details I recorded, please note that something like this will ONLY work if you FOLLOW THE BOOK! No funny stuff with jacketed bullets and different powders please!

The load is taken from the Haendler & Natermann reloading manual for their copper-plated bullets, which also have a proprietary plastic coating to reduce friction and prevent leading. IT IS NOT SUITABLE FOR ANY OTHER TYPE OF BULLET OR POWDER.

Attachment 43919

As you can see, pretty good results. Obvious question: why didn't I follow this path? The answer lies in the trajectory.

The 5-shot group in the center required the M1917 sight to be set at 600 yards! The two patched-over sighter shot-holes in the 7 at 6 o'clock were made with the sight one notch lower, and the sighter at 12 o'clock in the 6 was with the sight set one notch higher. At the 100 yard setting the shots would not even have been on the paper!

So although a load like this might be usable with an Enfield No.4, thanks to the vertical screw adjustment, it is pretty useless in practice on an M1917 because of the lack of fine adjustment. And small variations in powder charge, seating depth, light conditions, temperature etc etc are going to result in vertical shifts that cannot be corrected by the crude steps of the M1917 backsight leaf.

If you want to try something like this, follow the published data. Get the H&N data and their bullets. And the same powder. Do not try "making it up as you go along" with different bullets and powder. You have been warned!

[ticker]

Genau! What is so nice, with the reduced load, is that the rear sight becomes usable, even at 100m. I believe that you must find a load that reaches the bullseye at the distance you shoot. Greek HXP surplus M2 shoots high in my M1907 below 300m, even at the lowest sight-ladder setting.

[Patrick Chadwick]

Greek HXP surplus M2 shoots high in my M1907 below 300m, even at the lowest sight-ladder setting.

Since the M1917 ladder goes down to 200 yards, it sounds as if you could use a taller sight blade. And when looking for one, don't forget - you can use Enfield blades!

[Wineman]

That taller front sight is the way to go, but the huge aperture at the rear and the usual windage issues with slower bullets is another source of frustration. I have found that using 25 grains less in bullet weight and 3-5 grains more powder (Speer TNT; 4895 burning rate powder, 2,900 fps) I have less recoil and am fairly close to the POI of M2 Ball ammo. Regardless, it is still not a 22LR or even a 223 in recoil or muzzle blast but it is a noticeable reduction.

Dave