iam starting up a load for a m-1 garand. i realize the traditional types of bullet weight for this rifle is usually 150 grn to heavier bullets. iam using a 110 v-max(hornady) but i am trying to figure out a powder charge. iam using reloader 19 for a powder. the reason iam using it is becuase i loaded a old 1903 springfield beutifully sporterized and on this load i found that weapon was one of the finest firing and most accurate weappon i run across in a truely long time... anyway i had some ammo from that batch left over so ran them through my m-1. anyway that gun threw the 110 grn v-max really well . but it still needed some work i mean i think that garand can throw them better if i had better load. so any one out there have any starting points for really tight shooting load please let me know. thanks to the men who have lived longer than me and can share there shooting loading knowledge. joekid25

A couple of issues: If you want to load a bullet that light, use Reloader 10X, which was designed to work with light bullets. Using a slower powder puts you at risk of creating secondary pressure spikes. The Garand will be particularly vulnerable to this phenomenon because the gas port is near the muzzle where the pressure spikes occur. These spikes can actually blow up a muzzle, but where they don't, can inflict damage on the op-rod. RL19 is too slow to be safe with such a light bullet if you don't have pressure measuring gear to check that it's OK? Texas gunsmith Charlie Sisk has been able to blow up muzzles on demand with these spikes. You can see a measurement of one repeating consistently in the last graph near the bottom of the page here (http://www.shootingsoftware.com/pressure.htm).

The Garand has a limited range of safe loads. Slow powders are not safe with it because, in burning more slowly, they maintain pressure longer down the tube. The gas port should see no more than about 8000-8500 PSI or you are risking bending the op rod. The Hornady loading manual has a separate Garand-specific .30-06 load section because of this. Bolt guns can handle slower powders much more easily for this reason. Basically, nothing slower than RL 15 and no bullet lighter than 150 grains can be counted on to both function the action and not damage the op-rod. The op-rods are getting scarcer these days, precisely because they are the most commonly dmaged part.

I recommend you start with the closest imitation to M72 match ammunition that can be put together today. That is 46.5 grains of IMR 4895 under the 175 grain Sierra MatchKing bullet seated to 3.300" COL in a Remington or Lake City case with a CCI N0. 34 primer. If you go to the higher capacity Winchester cases, you will need about half a grain more powder.

iam starting up a load for a m-1 garand. i realize the traditional types of bullet weight for this rifle is usually 150 grn to heavier bullets. iam using a 110 v-max(hornady) but i am trying to figure out a powder charge. iam using reloader 19 for a powder. the reason iam using it is becuase i loaded a old 1903 springfield beutifully sporterized and on this load i found that weapon was one of the finest firing and most accurate weappon i run across in a truely long time... anyway i had some ammo from that batch left over so ran them through my m-1. anyway that gun threw the 110 grn v-max really well . but it still needed some work i mean i think that garand can throw them better if i had better load. so any one out there have any starting points for really tight shooting load please let me know. thanks to the men who have lived longer than me and can share there shooting loading knowledge. joekid25

i really appreciate your knowledge on this and will forever make it apart of mine from hear on out. but two more questions i have for you. one would reloader 7 work ok a faster powder at least as far as i can tell. and is bad to use the lighter 110 v max. the only reason i ask is becuase. in my few short years of reloading (which covers about six years worth) i find i get better accuracy a higher percentage of the time with lighter bullets less abuse on my shoulder(recoil wise) ... no trying to challenge your experience becuase you obviuosly know more than me. which is great becuase i learn from men like you. but i wanted to also set this rifle up for varmints ground hogging and coyotes as well so i figured if the gun threw them well and i would be shooting alot i could use less recoil in a afternoon of shooting. now i probably know where your going next as well. why a m-1 garand for varmints when i could have a hand full of different rifle that would be much more suited for this part of the trade. well i am just always after trying differnet stuff on long range hard targets to keep my skills as sharp as i can.. anyway you have really educated me on this and i really appreciate it. if the reloader 7 is bad idea i'll go with the 10x as you stated early on. but i have alot of 7 just sitting around so i figured why not use it. anyway just wondering... i look forward to your reply. thanks again joekid25

Reloader 7 will work safely. The Alliant Reloader series get faster as the numbers get lower, as you thought. One issue will be that a maximum load of this powder under that light bullet will be around 43 grains, which leaves a very op-rod-safe muzzle pressure of about 7100 PSI, but which only fills about 75% of the case when you seat to 3.17” COL (from Hornady’s A-max data). The empty case space means you will see quite a velocity variation depending on whether the powder is further forward or rearward in the case when you fire?

The IMR 4895 load I mentioned fills the empty space about 83%, but will also have some MV variation, owning to the empty portion. About 80 fps, depending whether you tilt the muzzle down or up just before coming level to fire (moving the powder rearward of forward in the case). However, in the Garand with the 175 grain bullet weight, that IMR powder rather famously tends to give good accuracy anyway. Indeed, even with other bullet weights, this powder is known to be more accurate than most with a partially filled case (as low as 60% full). It has to do with how quickly the recoil impulse raises the muzzle as the bullet heads down the tube. If it is just right, a lower velocity round fires from a slightly higher angle of departure and winds up impacting about the same place at most practical ranges.

The other thing you will find is that a load that kicks you sharply in the Springfield feels much softer fired in the Garand. The gas mechanism pushes the bolt rearward fast enough to counter the initial recoil peak, compressing the op rod spring, which then pushes back against your shoulder more gradually as it runs the bolt forward to chamber the next round. In other words, the mechanism spreads the recoil out over time, with the result if feels gentler or mushier than bolt rifle recoil. So, a heavier bullet won’t bother you as much in the Garand. They won’t shoot as flat as a 110 grain bullet over the first few hundred yards, but will hold up much better at 600 yards (the standard service rifle slow fire prone range) and will keep working to over 1000 yards.

The last issue with the light bullets will be that they have less bearing surface than heavier ones and have to be seated to shorter COL to be captured by the neck. Both these work against accuracy. The semi-automatic mechanism slams the rounds up the loading ramp pretty smartly, and this tends to tip the bullet in the case. Shorter bullets don’t realign themselves as easily when they fire, and wind up going down the tube at a slight cant. This can add a couple of m.o.a. to your groups. Also, most guns have (determine this by experiment) a nominal seating depth for best accuracy and this is usually closer to, rather than further from, the lands. So, you may discover that for good accuracy, your light bullet loads have to be loaded singly to avoid the feed ramp bump. (Indeed all long range slow fire matches, even using the heavier bullets, are loaded singly.) Doing this lets you seat the bullets only slightly, which gets them nearer the lands. Also, you can then neck size-only and get better case alignment in the chamber.

Reloader 10X will max out at close to 50 grains with the 110 grain bullet at the above mentioned seating depth. This fills the case to 82%; a little better. It produces about 8100 PSI at the muzzle, which is just about nominal for Garand operation.

Note: If you push the reply button at the bottom left of the screen, you won't have to quote yourself.

IMR4895 works well with most M1 Garand laods. Same with IMR4064. I never shoot facoty ammo in my M1 Garands because I do not know what powder they used. Take care...
Oberndorf

IMR4895 works well with most M1 Garand laods. . .

With 147 grain bullets and up, I agree. But even though it isn't particularly slow, I would still hesitate to use 4895 with the 110 grain bullets without a strain gauge instrument to verify that no secondary pressure spikes were ocurring. Both RL-7 and RL-10X will be burned up before the bullet is 20" down the barrel, which is where these spikes typically start to show up. IMR 4895 won't have a lot left, but won't quite finish burning in the tube.

An old benchrest trick to assure consistent powder location is to elevate the muzzle (90 degree, if possible), then sloooowly lower it down to horizontal again. This places the powder train in excess capacity cartridges in the same configuration. If shooting in an overhead enclosed firing line, the range officers may frown on this practice. :D

As stated, you want to get as much bullet seating depth as possible to ensure proper bullet alignment with the bore. One caliber (diameter of bullet) seating depth is generally recommended, but at least enough to get good pull tension on the bullet.

Personally, I've always found the best accuracy with the M1 Garand is the 150 - 165 gr bullet and IMR4064 or 4320.

How about lead 170 gr with a powder that functions the garand.this summer I intend to shoot lead in mine.my 1903 I use 13 gr red dot with the .311291.but know? it wont work the M1.

I'd be a little concerned about shooting cast lead bullets in a semi-auto that uses a gas port for functioning.

What is the twist rate of the Garand? I have some 155 gr. A-Max I would like to try in a Garand and do not know if this bullet will stablize in it. It should produce less muzzle rise during a rapid fire string.

Your 155 gr Hornadys should stabilize nicely in the M1.

I am surprised no one has yet recommended Accurate 2520 for the M1. I have no direct experience with it myself, but I have heard second-hand reports of its being used widely in Garand matches. It is reported to perform at least as well as IMR4895 and IMR4064, but burn cooler with less barrel erosion. Anybody here tried it?

Thanks,

The Old Guy

Lynn,

It is 1 turn in 10", designed to stabilize the 173 grain boattail bullet in the M1 Ball ammo issued between the WW's; also what the "M1" Garand gets the first term of its name from. Long bullets are harder to stabilize and require more twist than short ones. You have more than you need for the 155 grain Sierra and Hornady bullets, and it is about right for the long, low density, high BC Lapua Scenar 155 grain bullet.

The so-called "over stabilizing" that twist will impose on the shorter bullets means you will have a little more sensitivity to seating alignment error and bullet mass symmetry imperfections in the gun. For peak accuracy you'll want to use a competition seater die and load singly. For merely "good" accuracy, as in sitting rapid fire at 200 yards, the 155 will do fine in spite of being slammed up the feed ramp (which tends to tip it slightly in the case mouth).


TOG

I ran 2520 in the M1A for a season. I discovered that it filled the case rather marginally, which will be worse in the larger .30-06 case. In the '06 a load of 2520 that produces equal muzzle velocity in to the M72 bullet I mentioned and does it with that same 175 grain bullet from a 24" tube, requires about 5% more powder, produces about 5% higher peak pressure (the stuff has lower stored energy and burns faster) and leaves about 5% more empty space in a loaded case. The main thing about it, being a ball powder, it is harder to light, which the empty space hurts even more. I didn't get the best accuracy from 2520 until I started deburring flashholes to help ignition. That cut the groups off the bags from around 1.2 moa to 0.75 moa in my rifle. With stick powders I never could see any difference. They light up too much more easily to care. With the right bullet and preparation, AA 2520 is a pretty good powder in the shorter .308 case, but is going to be a bit less convenient in the '06.

Been a long time since toting an M1 around the hills and dales of Frozen Chosen, but as I recall, the M1 ball is a 149 - 150 gr boattail FMJ cartridge, while the M2 ball is the 173 gr armor piercing cartridge.

Have I been wrong all these years? :confused:

. . . I recall, the M1 ball is a 149 - 150 gr boattail FMJ cartridge, while the M2 ball is the 173 gr armor piercing cartridge. . . :confused:

This is military nomenclature, so of course it's messier than that. The military had a succession of ball ammunition cartridges: 1906, M1, and M2, using nominally 150, 172 (actually 174.5, +0, -3 grains, so why 172, I don't know?) and 152 grain FMJ bullets, respectively. The 168 grain armor piercing bullet is in the M2 AP cartridge. Why this cartridge didn’t get its own separate "M" number, I don’t know? Everything else seems to have gotten its own. Hatcher's Book of the Garand, pp. 125-127 (reprint edition) gives the history and dates of adoption and obsolecence through 1948.

TOG

I ran 2520 in the M1A for a season. I discovered that it filled the case rather marginally, which will be worse in the larger .30-06 case. In the '06 a load of 2520 that produces equal muzzle velocity in to the M72 bullet I mentioned and does it with that same 175 grain bullet from a 24" tube, requires about 5% more powder, produces about 5% higher peak pressure (the stuff has lower stored energy and burns faster) and leaves about 5% more empty space in a loaded case. The main thing about it, being a ball powder, it is harder to light, which the empty space hurts even more. I didn't get the best accuracy from 2520 until I started deburring flashholes to help ignition. That cut the groups off the bags from around 1.2 moa to 0.75 moa in my rifle. With stick powders I never could see any difference. They light up too much more easily to care. With the right bullet and preparation, AA 2520 is a pretty good powder in the shorter .308 case, but is going to be a bit less convenient in the '06.

Thanks, Nick -- exactly the information I was looking for. You have convinced me to stay with what I know works in the M1, the stick powders that are about as old as I am.

The Old Guy

Good old IMR 4895 is hard to beat. The one Accurate powder I want to try with the 175 grain SMK is the XMR 4064 stick powder. In QuickLOAD it shows you need 49.2 grains of it to match the barrel time of the 46.5 grain load of IMR 4895, and you get a higher peak pressure, 49.8K PSI vs 44.3 KPSI (but still well within Garand receiver limits). You actually get a slightly reduced muzzle pressure (8150 PSI vs 8300 PSI), more velocity (2649 fps vs 2601 fps), and the case is filled much better (89.9% vs 83.4%). 50 grains of Vihtavuori N150 is another possible. It is between the two above loads on pressure (47.2K PSI), has the lowest muzzle pressre (7940), and fills the case 89.2%. For older op-rods, this might be the way to go. You give up a little muzzle velocity (2585 fps), but not enough to matter over the standard 200 to 600 yard course.

Good old IMR 4895 is hard to beat. The one Accurate powder I want to try with the 175 grain SMK is the XMR 4064 stick powder.

Thanks, Nick. Your post triggered an old and very vague memory of having read something about load development for the then-new M1 in the '30s, maybe by Hatcher or Whelen???

The gist was that IMR 4064 was a slightly better powder for the M1, but that IMR 4895 metered better for automated high-speed production and so was selected for the expected war-time use.

Any idea how close to each other the various "4064" powders are -- H, IMR, XMR? More than the variation between lots of any one of them?

Thanks,

The Old Guy

TOG,

The only hard data I have is in the QuickLOAD database, and it is derrived by testing just one sample lot of each powder. A Hodgdon tech once told me it costs about $50K to have a powder fully characterized by a lab, so even they don't have all the data about all their powders. They just run the tests they need to keep cannisters consistent. QuickLOAD's author owns his own lab, which is how he gets around the cost, but it doesn't give him time to test multiple lots.

From the QL data, the IMR and XMR are not quite interchangeable. The same peak pressure takes 47.0 and 48.0 grains, respectively, The energy density of the XMR is about 5% lower, and its bulk density is a little over 1% greater, so it fills a case better for the same pressure charge. I usually try to load to same barrel time to match barrel harmonics to a sweet spot, if I have one. That takes over 2 grains more of the XMR to do, reflecting other differences in its burning characteristics. Anyway, they are similar, but not identical.

Hodgdon doesn't make a 4064 variant. The old Scot Powder Company plant in Scotland made a product called Scot 4065, It was supposed to be slightly slower than 4064; hence the number difference. In the .30-06 it filled the case much better than either 4064 or 4895, and was clean burning like Vihtavuori. It became my standard Garand powder until the plant was destroyed and the investors decided it wasn't worth rebuilding. You can still get the Scot brand flake powders for shotgun, since they are made somewhere else.