Handloads for your m305

[m14medic.ca]

OP, sorry for the derailment of this thread...... I guess I opened a couple different cans of worms!

The big problem with Varget and the other new “super performance” powders is that they maintain max pressure in the barrel for a longer time period. This increases the port pressure, which can substantially increase the pressure in the gas system before the piston passes by the vent on the bottom of the gas cylinder or the bullet uncorks.

Conventional powders like 4895 tend to have a quick initial peak pressure but once the bullet is 10-15% of the way down the barrel pressure stops building and starts to subside. In a rifle that sees a 50K psi peak at the chamber will only be 10-12K psi at the port.

Varget and the other new “super duper” powders were designed to hold that peak pressure for much longer. Different coatings, burn rates etc. mean that the same rifle with 50Kpsi of peak pressure will still be at peak pressure for inches more than with conventional powders. This means that it is possible to see port pressures at 20K psi+. This equates to a much more vigorous reaction from the gas piston than the system was designed for.

There are several options/tweaks that can be done to an M-14’s gas system to mitigate these port pressures. Grooved pistons, adjustable gas plugs, drilling a small vent hole in a gas plug to name a few.

Using Varget is possible, but one must be cognizant of the hazards!

John

 

[hogie]

So which 4895? IMR or H?
One better than the other, I know they are similar, H being less temp sensitive.

 

[Robbs]

Lol, cherry pickin' don't count.

No cherry picking here. No 40 practice shots either. Just shooting off a bunch of different spare factory ammo I wanted to shoot off and going back to my most accurate load 3 times to prove the difference to myself. And yes, there is a big difference. I have achieved a sub moa load shooting off a bipod in winter field conditions no matter what you think.

 

[m14medic.ca]

So which 4895? IMR or H?
One better than the other, I know they are similar, H being less temp sensitive.

Both are safe to use. Personally, I use H, due to its temperature stability.

John

 

[cr5]

No cherry picking here. No 40 practice shots either. Just shooting off a bunch of different spare factory ammo I wanted to shoot off and going back to my most accurate load 3 times to prove the difference to myself. And yes, there is a big difference. I have achieved a sub moa load shooting off a bipod in winter field conditions no matter what you think.

I'm not saying your rifle can't shoot as well as you say it does, only you know that for sure. What I'm saying is that if you want to show the rest of us then posting pics with twenty holes and 3 circled and calling it a group isn't the way to do it.
Next time show us a couple five shot groups on a clean target without all the holes from your spare factory ammo and there will be no heckling.
Those are impressive groups but all the other holes take so much away from them. Like I said, it looks like the targets from the guys claiming their XCR is a 1 moa rifle which other than the odd fluke group they aren't (which is ok, it's not what they were designed to do).

OP, sorry for the derailment of this thread...... I guess I opened a couple different cans of worms!

The big problem with Varget and the other new “super performance” powders is that they maintain max pressure in the barrel for a longer time period. This increases the port pressure, which can substantially increase the pressure in the gas system before the piston passes by the vent on the bottom of the gas cylinder or the bullet uncorks.

Conventional powders like 4895 tend to have a quick initial peak pressure but once the bullet is 10-15% of the way down the barrel pressure stops building and starts to subside. In a rifle that sees a 50K psi peak at the chamber will only be 10-12K psi at the port.

Varget and the other new “super duper” powders were designed to hold that peak pressure for much longer. Different coatings, burn rates etc. mean that the same rifle with 50Kpsi of peak pressure will still be at peak pressure for inches more than with conventional powders. This means that it is possible to see port pressures at 20K psi+. This equates to a much more vigorous reaction from the gas piston than the system was designed for.

There are several options/tweaks that can be done to an M-14’s gas system to mitigate these port pressures. Grooved pistons, adjustable gas plugs, drilling a small vent hole in a gas plug to name a few.

Using Varget is possible, but one must be cognizant of the hazards!

John

Thanks John,
I've never heard it explained that way, makes much more sense now than just trying to compare powders on a burn chart.
I'll be picking up 4-5 pounds of H4895 as soon as I can find some in stock around here.

Edit:
Not really a derailment, you/we're still talking about loading for the M14 platform.
So we've determined that H4895 is probably the best powder to use, what about 4064 and some of the others people have been posting as their "go to"? Are there any others that have the favorable burn characteristics of the conventional powders?
I found a shop in Edmonton that has H4895 in stock and I'll be grabbing some today, just curious what other powders are safe to use in the M14 platform in case supply dries up and we need to try something else.

 

[Pr589]

Groups circled in red are my M1A NM shooting my 168gr load at 100m a few weeks ago. Temp -8 C and windy. I was shooting other factory ammo as well, but the difference is striking.

Looks like others have already responded. Not saying that your rifle does not shoot what you say but if it did it would be truly exceptional. The groups you posted look selective, omitting inconvenient "flyers" that I would consider part of the group.

See below an example of what others have posted on other threads and that I would find more credible.

Was out again today with my Norfield rifle, has been very satisfying after the amount of time and money spent!!
5 shot groups, 100 yards.
Groups today were 1.139. .973, .664, .942. and .764. Average .896
I know this is not normal with the M14 platform so anyone who is interested is invited to the Sharon Gun Club, Newmarket Ontario to see this and shoot this rifle! Just PM me and we can set up a date, I am having a blast with this thing!

Rodney

...and same rifle, same CGN'r, from his post:

First target was 1.220, 1.219, .813, .832, and 1.257. Average 1.068
Second target was 1.048, 1.083, 1.207, .904, and .819. Average 1.012.

TonyBen and a few others have also credibly demonstrated excellent rifles and none of them, I believe, would claim that their rifles are 0.5 - 1 MOA guns.

I ran a thread for almost 2 years regarding a 1.5 MOA Challenge (5 x 5 round groups on one sheet of paper, all under 1.5 MOA). I did this partly out of frustration at all of the 1 MOA claims for M14 pattern rifles. At the end of 2 years, here were the qualifiers. You will note that none of them are consistently under 1 MOA although some are close. Thread located here (https://www.canadiangunnutz.com/forum/showthread.php/1049913-M1A-Precision-Challenge-1-5-MOA).



CGN Challenge Winners - Scoped Rifles (1.5 MOA)

1. Hend238
Springfield NM, Avg 1.108 MOA (1.16") at 100 yards, Max 1.41 MOA (1.48"), Min 0.821 MOA (0.86")
(See post #79)

2. Pr589
Norinco M305, Avg. 1.117 MOA (1.169") at 100 yards, Max 1.387 MOA (1.45"), Min 0.698 MOA (0.731")
(See post #139. Updated numbers in post #257)

3. Pop
Norinco M305, Avg. 1.173 MOA (1.228") at 100 yards, Max 1.423 MOA (1.49"), Min 1.228 MOA (1.286")
(See post #148)

4. Rodauto
SA Loaded, Avg. 0.801 MOA (0.839") at 100 yards, Max. 1.294 MOA (1.355"), Min 0.387 MOA (0.405")
(See post #162, updated numbers in post #180)
M305 with Springfield medium barrel Avg. (0.896") at 100 yards, Max. 1.088 MOA (1.139"), Min. 0.634 MOA (0.664")
(See post #296)

5. Caramel
SA National Match, Avg. 1.193 MOA (1.249") at 100 yards, Max. 1.324 MOA (1.387"), Min 1.098 MOA (1.150") (See post #174)

6. TonyBen
Standard USGI M1A, Avg. 1.00 MOA (2.095") at 200 yards, Max. 1.231 MOA (2.579"), Min. 0.616 MOA (.1.290") (See post #220, Updated numbers in post #229)
M25 Avg. 0.992 MOA over 45 rounds (1.038") at 100 yards, Max. 1.161 MOA (1.216"), Min 0.875 MOA (0.916") (See post #301)


Challenge Winners - Iron Sighted Rifles (2.0 MOA)

1. Lycan
Springfield Loaded, Avg 1.385 MOA (1.45") at 100 yards, Max 1.843 MOA (1.93"), Min 1.375 MOA (1.44")
(See post #88)


I also ran a similar but less challenging challenge on a US M14 forum (called for 4 x 5 round groups rather than 5) and similarly, very few rifles could meet the challenge. Only 2 of them might be considered sub-MOA rifles. Consider how many customized M1A's there are in the US and you will see why I think a sub-MOA M1A is rare and exceptional.

Challenge Winners From Inception to April 7, 2016

1. RGPM1A: 4/25/14 @100 yds, 0.919", 0.766", 0.730", and 0.692", Average= 0.777", SAI M21, scoped, 168 gr FGMM (see post #36)
2. 08 Cayenne: 4/26/14 @100 yds, 1.272", 1.161", 1.042", 0.867", Average= 1.08", SAI M21, scoped, 175 gr FGMM (see post #42)
3. Bluto: 4/28/14 @100 yds, 0.719", 1.221", 1.346" and 1.467", Average= 1.188", SAI M21, scoped, 168 gr. AE OTM (see post #49)
4. TonyBen: 4/7/14 @100 yds, Note: 5 and 10 shot groups, 0.934", 1.126", 0.916", 1.000", 1.216", Average=1.038",LRB M25, scoped, Nosler 168 gr. over 42.8 gns. of 4064 (see posts #86, #163, #196, latest update post #208)
5. MtStream: 6/5/14 @100 yds, 1.364", 0.968", 1.272", 1.024", Average=1.157", Springfield Loaded in Sage EBR stock, scoped, Australian Outback 168 gr. (see post #105)
6. Polygunner: 6/18/14 @100 yds, 1.375", 1.313", 1.375", 0.875", Average=1.235", LRB medium barrel, iron sights, 168 gr. SMK over Varget in LC brass (see posts #109 and #121)
7. Pr589: 6/27/14 @100 yds, 1.440", 1.410", 1.127", 1.209", 1.317" for Average=1.301", Norinco Standard 22" in Blackfeather stock, scoped, Hornady 168 gr. BTHP over 42.5 gr. of Varget (see post #119)
8. Polygunner: 6/27/14 @100 yds, 0.795", 1.129", 0.899", 1.477", Average=1.075", Fulton Armory/Ted Brown heavy barrel in a JAE 100 stock, scoped, 168 gr. Amax over IMR4895 in LC brass (see posts #126, #127)
9. Pop: 6/28/14 @100 yds, 1.489", 1.145", 1.372", 0.990", 1.379", Average=1.275", Norinco Standard 22", scoped, 175 gr FGMM (see post #136)
10. Rodauto: 7/3/14 @100 yds, 0.405", 1.355", 1.122", 1.322", 1.310", Average = 0.839", Springfield Loaded , scoped, Hornady 168 gr. BTHP over 39.7 gr. IMR3031 (see post #137, updated in post #162)
11. Banban/JY Wolfe: 7/9/14 @100 yds, 0.534", 0.724", 0.878", 0.963" Average=0.775", JY Wolfe re-barrel of SEI double lugged rifle with Rock Creek 5R heavy contour barrel and McMillan stock, scoped, Remington BR brass with CCI 450 using 47.4 grains of N540 and 168 Berger Hybrid. (see post #147)

 

[purple]

I've tested all of H4895, IMR4895, IMR4064, IMR3031, W748 and BLC2 in the M14 any any one of them could be the best performer in a particular rifle. Hint; military match ammo first used IMR3031, then IMR4895.

 

[Robbs]

The groups you posted look selective, omitting inconvenient "flyers" that I would consider part of the group.

How are my groups selective? So I took advantage of a warmer day a few weeks ago, put up 3 paper targets at 100 m and used the aiming points to shoot off a bunch of spare factory and surplus ammo for the brass. I also took a box of my tuned 168gr SMK hand loads that shoot 1 moa or better rather consistently in my SAI NM. Shot the various ammo and then 3 times returned to my hand loads at the 3 1" squares I aimed at. I was very satisfied with the results of my hand loads at -8C with a 5-7mph wind, sometimes gusting to 10-11mph. Before I took down my targets I took a picture of my shooting, that is what you see. Nothing hidden, nothing doctored, just what I shot. If there were any flyers you would see them. In fact there is a bit of a separation in one of the groups I shot. What you see is what I got. Did I do a statistical analysis? No, not this time. Just showing a real example man, that's all. Believe my picture or not. I don't care.

 

[cr5]

Picked up 3 pounds of H4895 on Monday, will start making some test loads once I have some time to relax in the gun room

How are my groups selective? So I took advantage of a warmer day a few weeks ago, put up 3 paper targets at 100 m and used the aiming points to shoot off a bunch of spare factory and surplus ammo for the brass. I also took a box of my tuned 168gr SMK hand loads that shoot 1 moa or better rather consistently in my SAI NM. Shot the various ammo and then 3 times returned to my hand loads at the 3 1" squares I aimed at. I was very satisfied with the results of my hand loads at -8C with a 5-7mph wind, sometimes gusting to 10-11mph. Before I took down my targets I took a picture of my shooting, that is what you see. Nothing hidden, nothing doctored, just what I shot. If there were any flyers you would see them. In fact there is a bit of a separation in one of the groups I shot. What you see is what I got. Did I do a statistical analysis? No, not this time. Just showing a real example man, that's all. Believe my picture or not. I don't care.

Your groups look great, the problem with them and why it looks like you were cherry picking is all the other holes in the paper. If you want to show groups it should be 5 round groups on a clean piece of paper. What you did is the same as the guys who discount flyers. You may have printed some of the best groups I've ever seen from an M14/M1A but all those other holes from your spare factory ammo muddy the waters and takes away from some otherwise great shooting.
It doesn't really matter though, you know your rifle performs and if it was mine I'd be very proud of not only the groups but your shooting ability. Next time you're out I'd love to see a few groups without all the factory ammo holes.
With groups like that you could (I would) start a new thread to show them off and if it's as consistent as it looks I'd also post in the "my rifle shoots ..." threads pr589 talks about.

You also didn't mention what powder you were using, only that it was 168gr. So... ???

 

[Robbs]

You also didn't mention what powder you were using, only that it was 168gr. So... ???

I mentioned my load recipe earlier in the discussion. Please read the entire thread. Thanks.

 

[m39a2]

My match load for the M-14 is 41 grns of IMR 4064 under either a Hornaday or Sierra 168 grn BTHP match bullet. It has been the standard match load for the M-14 since about 1957 or so and mine for about 25 years. I tend to stick to CCI or Remington primers and stay as far away as I can from Federal primers for M-1 Garands and M-14 actions.

Scott

 

[burns k31]

My match load for the M-14 is 41 grns of IMR 4064 under either a Hornaday or Sierra 168 grn BTHP match bullet. It has been the standard match load for the M-14 since about 1957 or so and mine for about 25 years. I tend to stick to CCI or Remington primers and stay as far away as I can from Federal primers for M-1 Garands and M-14 actions.

Scott

Why not federal primers? Just wondering.

 

[cr5]

I mentioned my load recipe earlier in the discussion. Please read the entire thread. Thanks.

168gr SMK, 42.5gr Varget, Federal Brass, Winchester primers. I get velocities in around 2600 fps. Gets .5 to 1 moa in Springield M1A national match, 1 -2 MOA in stock m305.
A stock m305 is not exactly a match accurate rifle so you won't get the accuracy match ammo should deliver. Not worth shooting expensive ammo in a stock m305. Norinco surplus or Hirt do well for less money.

Yes, so you did.
Ok, well my testing ladder ran through 42.4gr under a 168 Hornady and gave me an ES of 32 fps and average velocity of 2541 fps. On paper it was about 2 moa.
Maybe I'm just not shooting well these days.

Why not federal primers? Just wondering.

Softer cups on Federal, many guys don't use them in order to reduce the chances of a slam fire. I worry less I guess, I use Fed GM primers when I have them. I also use CCI but try to be consistent, if I develop a load with one I stick with it.

 

[Wild_Thing]

Why not federal primers? Just wondering.

Claimed to be more easily set off by the light primer strikes of the free floating firing pin as the round is loaded into battery.
Primer seating depth is a very important part of reloading for these rifles. A high primer sets the stage for a KB.

 

[dahs]

Mine likes 41.5 H4895 under a Hornady 168HPBT. Just a tuned up, but stock parts (except for sights and op-rod guide). It has gone under the 1MOA a couple times, and over 2 a couple times. Averages in the middle of that somewhere, and I'm good with that considering what it is.

 

[Donster 125]

It’s been well documented that Varget is not an “adviseable” powder to use in the platform..... it’s been known to bend op-rods.

41.5gr of H-4895 in a military case pushing a 168 SMK or Horn. BTHP is my “all-round” “any rifle” test bed. Depending on the rifle and barrel length average velocities run 2533 (18.5”) to 2655 (22”).

Here is a very good write up that every person thinking about handloading for the M1A/M14/M305 should read:

http://www.zediker.com/downloads/m14.html

John

PS: I have never actually seen a “true” Sub-MOA M-14..... by that I mean a rifle that will consistently, group after group put 10 rounds into an inch at 100y. I have seen many, many rifles put the odd 5-round group into “close to an inch” groups, and many many more shoot one or 2, 1.5” groups once in a while.

I tell my customers all the time, I can build a true 1.5” rifle, but I’ll need $6,000.

What kind of accuracy could I expect from a Springfield M1A 22” standard in a full Blackfeather stock/upgrades with 168gr match king ammo?

 

[Wild_Thing]

Anyone using IVI once fired brass?

 

[stevebc]

Anyone using IVI once fired brass?

I am- got some from X-Reload. Needed more lube than I'm used to, and a small base die, but I'll be reloading some more soon. Haven't shot them much because last year was too busy, and then the fires burnt down the firing lines on our range.

Looking forward to spring...

 

[Pr589]

What kind of accuracy could I expect from a Springfield M1A 22” standard in a full Blackfeather stock/upgrades with 168gr match king ammo?

I would expect 1.5 - 2.0 MOA but it depends on whether the M1A "likes" 168 Match King. I have found that Springfield M1As don't necessarily shoot better than Norc's although they are finished much more nicely.

Finding the right load, followed by all the accurizing tricks, stock, etc. are the things that I've found help.

 

[Rocket Surgery]

These are my favourite threads, especially the sub-MOA posts

I personally use federal primers and just about to load my brass for the 5th time.

edit: my 2nd favourite posts are the wts m305 ones (the long ones)