Lets Talk about the M1 Garand M2 Ball Only Myth.

L.Parratt

L.Parratt

CGN Regular
Rating - 100%
103   0   0
Location
Edmonton Alberta.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_F1riBth8
So im sure most of you have seen this video by now,

Its "Gun Jesus" Himself talking about how Commercial ammo in a Garand is possibly unsafe. This get used a whole heck of a lot in the debate against using modern ammo in a M1 Garand.

This video starts off with a False assumption.

"The M1 Garand was designed around a specific 30-06 loading commonly referred to as M2 Ball"

This alone isnt true, the M1 Was Designed around .276 and .30-06 M1 Ball. In fact .276 was dropped mainly due to the large stockpile of M1 Ball. (174gr @2675fps~) Designing/Testing/Adoption/standardization was 1928-1936.

M2 Ball itself was not developed until 1938, This means there was over a decade of production for M1 Ball, this ammo was not just thrown out.

FM-23-5 is a May of 1965 Field Manual for the M1 Garand at this time there was these rounds approved for use in the M1 Garand

Ball, M2 (150gr)
Armor Piercing, M2 (164gr)
Armor Piercing incendiary, M14
Incendiary, M1
Tracer, M25 (145gr)
Match, M72 (174gr)

So in 1965 several different weights of bullets were being used. So why "M2 Ball only"?

Secondly, I Believe they use Lake City lot 69 in the test. this is a well know under powered M2 Ball Lot. Just like there are some well known hot M2 Ball loadings. as Military spec ammo, especially at the time. has a decent +/-%

Currently there is a lot of MKE 63/64 M2 Ball ammo that is actually causing M1 Garands to meet a unfortunate ending to their life. But that is more a issue on not all surplus ammo is good.

Onto the CMP Notice.

Previously, The CMP was of the opinion to use anything under 180gr. And that is some sound advice. They recently put out a update saying the following

The CMP advises to not use .30/06 ammunition in M1 Garands, 1903s, and 1903A3s that is loaded beyond 50,000 CUP and has a bullet weight more than 172-174gr.

The Keyword here is AND.

50,000 Copper Unit of Pressure (CUP) / 60,190 psi is the maximum pressure called for by SAAMI. Shooting a round that exceeds this is any rifle has the potential to be extremely harmful. This doesnt say you cant shoot off the shelf ammo, to my knowledge there is no commonly available 30-06 that exceeds these pressures.

And no one seems to care that .308 Garands shoot all year long, with a cartridge that has a higher max pressure.


And lastly. Look at a garand. Look at how the op rod moves. You know what is going to bend WAY before the op rod ever does? The follower rod. And when people run ungreased garands. Or out of spec springs. This bends all the time when a rifle is not taking care of. i have yet to see a M1 Garand op rod damaged by ammo. i would love to see it if anyone here has one or info on one they can pass along.

Let me know if I can address anything else. or if i made a mistake, im open to having my mind changed.

Keep your rifle greased, Your op rod spring in spec. and have a good time at the range.
 
I think I have only shot 1 clip of commercial ammo through my M1's since owning them, always reloaded for them with 150gr Hornady FMJ at 2700fps using varget/rl15/4064/4895, never had an issue.
The commercial ammo I shot through it was stuff that was around 20 years ago, Greek 150gr ball, recoil was excessive, and about a 4ft fireball out the muzzle. I did not feel confident shooting that stuff through the M1, so it went through the M1917. Same thing, heavy recoil, huge muzzle blast. I think I still have some of that crap left too.
 
People are free to do as they like. Chamber pressure isn't an issue in a Garand. The receiver is absolutely massive and was proof tested with proof rounds with pressures way above anything you can find.

Gas port pressure is the issue, and that's why the military used faster burning propellants, specifically IMR4895, for GI M2 ball with a 150 gr bullet, AP with a 165gr bullet and match ammo with a 173 gr bullet. The correct port pressure pulse is critical to cycle the action w/o damage. Slower burning propellants are used in .30-06 sporting ammo because they deliver higher muzzle velocity.

All things being equal, I prefer to stick with what the military used rather than going off on voyages of discovery. I've shot thousands of handloads in Garands using 150,165,168 and 173 gr bullets with either IMR4895 and 4064 and never found a reason to look further. They are reliable, safe and accurate; what else is there?

The rifle needs to be properly lubed and all parts should be kept in spec. I have used an adjustable gas plug with a slower burning ball powder in .308 Garands because of it's excellent accuracy and because of large stocks on hand. I've owned and shot dozens of these rifles and have never seen an op rod damaged. Maybe that's because I've stuck with recommendations on lubing, maintenance, bullet weights and propellant selection.;)
 
I've got loads of Frankford Arsenal 3006 head stamped FA 31 "dot"
It's still on original 5 rnd brass stripper clips in canvas bandoliers .
I assume it was meant for the Springfield or P17 .
Ammo looks like it was made yesterday .
Would this be M1 or M2 ball ?
 
#1bcshooter said:
I've got loads of Frankford Arsenal 3006 head stamped FA 31 "dot"
It's still on original 5 rnd brass stripper clips in canvas bandoliers .
I assume it was meant for the Springfield or P17 .
Ammo looks like it was made yesterday .
Would this be M1 or M2 ball ?
Click to expand...

Far from being a expert on anything

But year 31 is before the garand time frame = for a bolt action
5 round stripper clips = also for a bolt action

Fa 31 is also likely to be corrosive

it might have Collector value ???

see
ht tps://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/fa-31-this-dot-is-important/7619
 
just having some fun said:
Far from being a expert on anything

But year 31 is before the garand time frame = for a bolt action
5 round stripper clips = also for a bolt action

Fa 31 is also likely to be corrosive

it might have Collector value ???

see
ht tps://forum.cartridgecollectors.org/t/fa-31-this-dot-is-important/7619
Click to expand...

I saw that link already . It's not much help
It's not corrosive .
Not sure 31 refers to the year of manufacture .
Early FA head stamps with the year were FA month & year
 
purple said:
People are free to do as they like. Chamber pressure isn't an issue in a Garand. The receiver is absolutely massive and was proof tested with proof rounds with pressures way above anything you can find.

Gas port pressure is the issue, and that's why the military used faster burning propellants, specifically IMR4895, for GI M2 ball with a 150 gr bullet, AP with a 165gr bullet and match ammo with a 173 gr bullet. The correct port pressure pulse is critical to cycle the action w/o damage. Slower burning propellants are used in .30-06 sporting ammo because they deliver higher muzzle velocity.

All things being equal, I prefer to stick with what the military used rather than going off on voyages of discovery. I've shot thousands of handloads in Garands using 150,165,168 and 173 gr bullets with either IMR4895 and 4064 and never found a reason to look further. They are reliable, safe and accurate; what else is there?

The rifle needs to be properly lubed and all parts should be kept in spec. I have used an adjustable gas plug with a slower burning ball powder in .308 Garands because of it's excellent accuracy and because of large stocks on hand. I've owned and shot dozens of these rifles and have never seen an op rod damaged. Maybe that's because I've stuck with recommendations on lubing, maintenance, bullet weights and propellant selection.;)
Click to expand...

Here is an interesting article about gas port pressure in the Garand. https://m1-garand-rifle.com/gas-pressure.php
Years ago I have modified a solid gas plug as per article for mine and it works great.
Not that I ever shoot anything but handloads but I figure it would be easier on the mechanisme.
 
#1bcshooter said:
I saw that link already . It's not much help
It's not corrosive .
Not sure 31 refers to the year of manufacture .
Early FA head stamps with the year were FA month & year
Click to expand...

Certainly it would be the standard practice for 31 to refer to year of manufacture, I'm not sure what else it could be?

If it is 1931, it would be M1 ammo (M2 not introduced until 1938), and it would definitely be corrosive.
 
Overlander2018 said:
Does this also apply to the Italian conversion rifles and .308/7.62 commercial ammo?
Click to expand...

Yes. The Tipo 2 is a modified Garand which was designed to use MILSPEC 7.62 NATO ammo. NATO 7.62 ammo can be identified by the "cross in circle" mark on the headstamp. MILSPEC 7.62 ammo used a variety of propellants which produced the required gas port pressure to cycle the action. IMR 4895 is a MILSPEC propellant for the 7.62 which works well in handloads for the rifle. IMR 4895 is always an excellent choice for both .308 Win and 7.62 handloads.
 
Good info on Garand loads. I have a 1942 Garand that I shot gas checked cast out of. Just my opinion, but there is nothing like letting off a clip with a big old Garand. The rifle has a distinct bark, nice recoil. Proper loading info is readily available in various manuals and on trustworthy places on the 'net. Same goes for shooting a Lee Enfield No.4.
 
Bumping this with info

I have some boxes of Canadian made (DIL which was an offshoot of CIL) S.A. M2 Ball Ammo
When I took one apart:

151.6 gr flat based projectile
47.5 grains powder (one assumes IMR 4895)
Cartridge OAL 3.320 - 3.325 -checked a few in one box

Got to the range yesterday with some Match loads I am trying and took some Ball along to chrono

The M2 Ball averaged 2840fps
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom