M1 Garand Loads Using 4895, 168 gr Bullets

[Sunray]

"...I'm looking for a tried and true recipe..." That doesn't work. No two rifles will shoot the same ammo, the same way. You must work up the load for your rifle.
In any case, IMR4064 gives more consistent accuracy with a 168 grain match bullet.
You don't need CCI #41 primers either. They're nothing but a marketing gimmick for magnum rifle primers. Seat regular primers properly and you'll have no problems.

[Mike_Mills]

Sunay, I understand what you are saying about working up a load but a guy's got to start somewhere. With a 30-06 cartridge and 4895, there should be a well-established region where one will likely start and end up. It's not a new wildcat cartridge or a new powder.

The CCI primers and 4895 powder were purchsed for use in the 30-06 loads. I already have them. They are a faite acompli (a done deed).

[lucky dog]

Mike, you must realize that what shoots great in one rifle might not do nearly as well in another. Even if the rifles are from the same manufacturer and built the same day they will shoot differently. That is why you must develop the load that works best for your rifle. If my rifle likes 46 grains yours might work best with 47.5. When I develop a load I do it "old school", start low and go up .5g at a time (I make 10 of each) until I get to the max suggested. Ten rounds of each load will give you a better idea of how the load groups than five will. You will see the groups get smaller and then they will open up. The smallest of course is the load your rifle likes. From there you tune the recipe by small adjustment of powder and bullet seating.
I stay away from maximum loads. They are not the easiest on the equipment and usually not the most accurate.

[Mike_Mills]

Guys, I think we are on different wavelengths here. I am not intending to develop a load that works only in one of my rifles because I have several of them and intend to feed them all the same ammo. I want (really, "need" is a more correct word) a load that works in all of them. These rifles do not require custom-tailored handloads to perform reliably. I am after a load that works reliably in all my rifles and would work in YOURS, too. I am not after highly customized match ammo, although the ammo I produce will be very high quality. Lake City does not load for one Garand they load for all Garands. That's what I am after.

I agree with staying away from maximum loads - 100% agree.

Did the US ever manufacture ammo for the garand that used a 168 gr bullet? If so, what muzzle velocity did it have? Unless something strange pops up, I can just replicate that with an appropriate powder charge.

Does the new production Garand ammo use a 150 or 168 gr bullet? Has anyone measured the performance of the new production ammo?

Here's an update with the little bit of info I have collected to date.

I have fired several rounds using both H4895 and IMR4895. I have fired rounds using 44, 46 and 47 gr of H4895. I have fired rounds using 44 and 47 gr of IMR4895. In all cases, the rifle functioned properly. These two powders are yielding velocities that are within about 50 - 100 fps of each other given an identical powder charge. I think if I load with 46.0 gr of either, I will be in the 2550 to 2600 fps range with this bullet. That velocity is right in the middle of the range of velocities shown in the Sierra Manual for their 168 gr MK bullet in a 30-06.

In none of these loads did I notice any particular banging or clanking of parts. Then again, I have no real idea how to tell if the rifle is being pushed too hard by a reload. Most were single loaded and extraction and ejection has been 100% with all of them.

[lucky dog]

M2 ball was used with the Garand. The bullet is 150gr flat based bullet with a velocity of around 2800fps. There is an armor piercing M2 round for the 30 caliber MG that uses a 165-168 bullet but I do not know the velocity.

I am of the opinion that 168gr bullets are at the maximum weight for the Garand. If I did not need the extra bullet weight for distance, then I would use the 150 gr flat base with 47gr of 4895 and know I was close to what the rifle was intended to perform with.

[Parashooter]

OK, seems like you could benefit from a brief history lesson.

The 1906 bullet (as in .30/06) was a 150-grain spitzer. After that one proved a bit disappointing in WWI, Ordnance developed a 173-grain boattail and loaded it in a cartridge adopted as "Ball, M1". Instrumental velocity at 78 feet was 2640 fps. Shortly before WWII, however, the army decided to return to a 150-grain bullet with "Ball, M2", which was the standard ball round for the rest of the .30/06's military career.

M2 ball is, however, pretty dismal as a long-range target round, so the services brought back a slightly modernized version of the M1 bullet for match ammo called M72 in .30 cal. and M118 in 7.62mm, loaded to that same nominal velocity of 2640 fps at 78 feet. As far as I know, the military never adopted any load with the 168-grain Sierra in .30/06 (although they did in 7.62). Lots of competitors wanting an accuracy edge did pull the GI 173's from M72 Match and replace them with Sierra 168's, giving slightly less pressure and about 10fps greater MV.

So the answer to your main question is that if you want a "standard" load for military .30/06 rifles with the 168 Sierra, you're looking for a velocity around 2650 fps at 78 feet (or about 2690 at the more usual 10'). Such a load should be virtually indistinguishable from Federal's Gold Medal ammo, GM3006M, listed by Federal at a MV of 2700 fps, and significantly better at mid-range (600 yards) than Federal's current "M1" ammo (AE3006M1) with a 150-grain spitzer at 2740 fps.


Box top on GI 173-gr FMJBT's from the DCM.

[Maury Krupp]

Milspec for Cartridge, Caliber .30, Armor Piercing, M2 was 2715fps. The bullet was a nominal 165.7gr flat base.

That's the closest USGI load for a 168gr bullet. But it was designed for piercing armor (duh) not piercing paper so accuracy was only part of the design requirement.

Federal Gold Medal Match and Hornady's new "Garand Match Ammo" use a 168gr bullet and work well back to 600. If you can afford it.

The old Federal "Garand Match" ammo used a 150gr; the new Hornady stuff wil probably do the same. OK for 200yd on the SR target; lacking a bit at 300 and 600.

If your objective is to punch itty-bitty cloverleaf groups off a bench from 100yd the time spent finding the load your rifle likes best might be worthwhile. Why you're trying to do that with an M1 is probably the subject for another discussion

I know I'm sounding like a broken record but if you're just trying to hold the 10-ring from position across-the-course, 46.5gr of IMR4895 (+/- 0.5gr) and a 168gr match bullet will do the job in any M1 worth shooting it through.

Any time spent tweaking for perfection would be better spent shooting more of the less tweaked but still good enough ammo. The trigger actuator is usually the weakest link.

Maury

[Mike_Mills]

Broken record much appreciated, Maury. 2700 fps with a 168 gr bullet seems like a pretty hot load based upon my testing. I was going to load 46.0 gr and call it good. Your 46.5 gr also sounds good to me.

Maybe I should start a poll.


Thanks to you all, I got started reloading in the right spot because everything to date has worked, for both powders. I think I'll load up a bunch at 46.5 and call it good. After I've shot them for functioning and accuracy and chronographed them I can load up a bunch more.

I was going to load about 1,000 rounds, so I wanted to get it right. It's like going into the ball ammo manufacturing business.

[Parashooter]

"As far as expectations go, I was a little surprised by the low velocity I obtained (2542 versus an expectation of around 2700 fps). . . Is this a mistaken expectation on my part or is the measured 2542 fps genuinely slow?"

"2700 fps with a 168 gr bullet seems like a pretty hot load based upon my testing."

You really ought to take a look at Hodgdon's data site, where you'll find maximum loads of IMR4895 for 165-168 grain bullets at over 51 grains, for velocities in the 2850+ fps range. There's nothing "hot" about a 2700 fps load, nor is 2542 fps unreasonably slow unless you're shooting at 1000 yards (where 168's aren't a real good choice anyhow). It seems to me your confusion derives from a batch of H4895 that's a little on the slow side or an inaccurate chronograph - both within the realm of reasonable expectations.

[Lance Boyle]

Mike,

I am in the same mode you are right now, I've finished the M1a puzzle long time ago and now am working the garand puzzles. I've been shooting LC and HXP for the last couple of years since my CMP addiction started. I only dabbled with a few match bullets early on and the particular rifle didn't seem to notice I spent the extra money so I gave up due to time constraints and just shot the HXP.

Only recently did I go back to the drawing board looking for more in a rifle I built up from a CMP service grade barreled receiver. I originally tried to get good accuracy with some of Pat's surplus 150 grain M2 ball bullets. Well they were only fair so I said what the heck and tried some Nosler 155's and some Sierra 168's.

The Nosler was good and I could tweak it some more but I stumbled into a very nice load for my HRA with the 168 SMK. Sunday I shot off the bench over the chronograph and 7 out of 10 shots were touching, the three outliers brought the group out to two inches, the worst I called off at the shot due to my eye bugging out.

168 SMK
HXP 73 case, trimmed, primer pocket uniformed with sinclair tool
WLR primer
47.0 IMR 4895

Of course i wasn't using the same brass as the books, they used Frontier and Federal for their loads. So it's a bit apples and oranges to direct compare them. I also was a tad suprised to see my velocities were lower than the reloading manuals stated. 47.0 should yeild 2700 fps according to Sierra but netted me 2560 fps.

-Is it my chronograph?
-Is it my lot of powder?
-Is it my like new HRA barrel?

All that doesn't really matter, it's shooting like a house of fire off the bench at a 100 yards. All I need to do is make sure it works out to 400 yards from position and I've done the job.

When I get time I still might tweak the 155 Nosler load to get a slightly lighter recoil. I only worked that one up to 2600 fps and that was about a two inch group too, with lots of bullet holes touching each other.

So I'm guess I'm saying.... load some at 46.5 and 47.0 and shoot!!!! It's all a guessing game until then.