commercial 30-06 in a Garand

[USSR]

So I've heard from Garand forums, but nowhere else. Where does this information come from? Mind, I know about light magnums. But otherwise SAAMI has been pretty good about keeping commercial .30'06 to reasonable levels. I don't know of any major change in the power of .30'06 hunting ammo since the 30's. Indeed if anything it's not as potent as it was. the .30 cal. ball ammo of WWII was pretty weak, but surely they didn't limit the rifle to that low power range? Apart from the operating rod the thing is a tank.

Cosmoline,

M1 Shooter explained it pretty well. It's not the power of commercial '06 ammo that hurts the Garand, it's the slow powders they use. With medium burning powders, the pressure near the end of the barrel where the gas port is, is at a reasonable level and sends the op rod back the way it was intended. However, with slow burning powder, the pressure at the gas port remains high, too high in fact, and the op rod is sent back at a velocity beyond what it was designed to do. So you see, the current commercial ammo may not be necessarily more powerful, but just have a different pressure curve than was existant in the powders that were available in the 1930's when the Garand was designed. While this information may not be known by the general shooting public, it has been known by High Power shooters for generations.

Don

 

[Nightcrawler]

So would it be safe to assume then that a .308 Garand is only good for 147 grain M80 ball?

And didn't World War II era .30-06 AP ammo have a 173 grain bullet?

 

[Swampy]

Cosmo,

M1 Shooter and USSR are both correct in what they are telling you, 100% across the board...

So I've heard from Garand forums, but nowhere else. Where does this information come from?

The tech weenies of Springfield Armory (the REAL one... which made the M1 rifle.), way back in the 1950's, when the M1 rifle was first being made available to civillian Highipower competitors, passed on info about this to the NRA to forward on to civvy shooters. Prior to this ammo concerns were no issue because the ONLY people who were allowed to shoot the M1 were military shooters.... and the ONLY ammo they put in the rifle was what they were issued.

Also passed on by SA Techies was correct info for "M1 rifle Gas System Safe Loads"..... as follows:

1) NEVER shoot bullets HEAVIER than 180 grains
2) NEVER shoot powder SLOWER than IMR-4320

You must observe BOTH these rules to prevent damage to the M1's gas system.

As already stated, even with commercial loads of correct bullet weight, the burn rate of the powder used in any one lot of commercial hunting ammo can never be ascertained. Many are outside M1 parameters.... and there ain't no way to know which are and which are not cuz' commercial loaders use widely varying lots of powder for their ammo... varying the charge to give the advertised velocity of the round they are currently making. One box of hunting ammo you buy today may be OK in the M1. The next box of that same load you buy may not.

Also remember.... metal fatigue is a CUMULATIVE process. Firing a box or six of a certain load may give a false sense of security when no immediate damage occurs. If however, this load is above the design limits of the M1, damage may be happening.... and when it finally reaches the point that you become aware of it, it's already too late. Parts replacement will be your only recourse.

Have you checked the price of M1 op-rods lately??? The price has tripled in the last 3 years and is still going up...... Wish my IRA would do that.

The new found popularity of the M1 over the last 6-7 years means a LOT more people are shooting them... and a LOT of people are NOT getting the word about "M1 gas system safe ammo"... and that means that the supply of functional op-rods is getting used up in a hurry.

Adjustable port gas lock screws: Fine idea. Just don't forget that every time you buy a different manufacture lot of your hunting ammo, or a different type or maker of hunting ammo, you have to go through the adjustment procedure again... which will most likely take half or most of a box of ammo.

To avoid this... find a lot number of ammo you like and buy in bulk.

Just my 2 bits,
Swampy

Garands forever.... but not if too many yahoos deplete the supply of op-rods.

 

[Swampy]

So would it be safe to assume then that a .308 Garand is only good for 147 grain M80 ball?

Without an adjustable port gas lock screw.... YES !!!

With a .308 M1 the concerns may be even greater than with '06. The ONLY way that commercial .308 ammo can reach some of the advertised velocities they have is to use powders that burn WAAAaaay too slow for the M1's gas system.

And didn't World War II era .30-06 AP ammo have a 173 grain bullet?

Don't know the exact weight for sure..... but don't matter. 173 grains is well with the design parameters (See my post above.).

Best to all,
Swampy

Garands forever

 

[Titus]

So I've heard from Garand forums, but nowhere else. Where does this information come from?

See my post above. I emailed a few ammo companies about their 150 grain FMJ loads (which one might assume were for M1s, but...) You could try emailing them yourself in case they've changed anything lately.

 

[Titus]

The tech weenies of Springfield Armory (the REAL one... which made the M1 rifle.), way back in the 1950's, when the M1 rifle was first being made available to civillian Highipower competitors, passed on info about this to the NRA to forward on to civvy shooters.

I believe this information is in the NRA's M1 Garand reprint.

 

[Jenrick]

Question to the Garand weenies in the audience: If I have no need to be able to function the rifle as a semi-auto, would simply removing the gas cylinder plug and shooting it as a single shot cause damage? I have no plans to do so, but if TSHTF and I don't have "safe" ammo to use in a hunting situation, would this cause any excess wear/damage to the rifle?

-Jenrick

 

[Tberger688]

Is this problem also in the new Garrand made by Springfied! If this is a problem wouln't you think they would make the necessary fix rather then sell defective weapons.

Just asking - -has anybody called Springfield for there take on this.

 

[davera]

Question to the Garand weenies in the audience: If I have no need to be able to function the rifle as a semi-auto, would simply removing the gas cylinder plug and shooting it as a single shot cause damage? I have no plans to do so, but if TSHTF and I don't have "safe" ammo to use in a hunting situation, would this cause any excess wear/damage to the rifle?

It would work but removing the gas cylinder plug would leave the cylinder and the oprod tip open to damage and contamination. Just get the Schuster plug and open it up and you'll have a straight pull action garand.

The Schuster is easy to use, mine is tuned to just barely cycle with the Remington express 150 gr. 30-06. I figure that gives me a little latitude with that round with regard to different lot numbers and such.

 

[Swampy]

Is this problem also in the new Garrand made by Springfied! If this is a problem wouln't you think they would make the necessary fix rather then sell defective weapons.

Sorry Bud... but your entire premise is incorrect.

The fact that the M1 rifle is not made to digest commercial ammo is NOT a problem and it's NOT a defect.

Do you get mad and throw your muzzle loader cuz' the instructions say not to shoot smokeless powder in it?? Would you roll your gasolene fueled car off a cliff because you can't put kerosene or diesel in it without damaging things??? Do you kick the dog because he has to have dog food and won't eat grass??

The M1 rifle was designed to serve the US military establishment... not cater to possible civilian shooters and collectors down the pike after it's service years come to an end. It was designed to shoot the ammo made for it by the same military establishment that made the rifle. That was the ONLY concern at the time and rightfully so.... that it work reliably on the field of battle with the ammo provided to the soldiers, sailors, and marines doing the work.

Now, 60+ years later, we civvy shooters and collectors are hardly in a place to second guess the needs of that time and place. If you want to shoot a piece of history, you have to be cognizant of the conditions that existed AT THAT TIME, and feed the rifle accordingly, not whine because you can't shoot the ammo from the local Wal-Mart.

Now... the idea that the current civilian commercial concern callling itself "Springfield Armory" did not "correct" a problem with the M1 is patently absurd on the face of it. They are attempting to market their "new" M1 rifles as a copy of the original. To do this they are, admittedly, faithfully producing an M1 "copy" that is as close to original as possible given the very expensive nature of producing such a mechanical item.

In actuality, their "new" M1 has a newly made receiver, barrel, and wood set. All other parts (including the gas system parts under discussion) are either old, used and reconditioned military parts or are NOS (New, but Old Stock) military parts. Nothing "new" at all for over half the rifle..... and therein lies the ONLY reason they are able to sell these "new" M1's for a price that the market will bear. If they had to produce real new parts entirely through the rifle, the price would be 3 times as much as they are now asking.

Having said all this.... that the M1 was and is a gem for doing what it was designed to do and with the ammo made to go with it.... for those persons who just must shoot commercial ammo in an M1, the previous mentioned ported gas lock screws (A new commercial innovation.) are available and will allow that with no muss, no fuss....

If you accept the M1 for what it is... a fine weapon that needs a particular type of ammo to function as it was designed, OR are willing to take the small step of installing a readily available ported gas lock screw to allow shooting other ammo..... then all is rosy and good..... if not... then sorry, but the thumb and finger I'm rubbing together are a VERY teensie violin and they are playing a sad song just for you.....

Just my 2 bits,
Swampy

Garands forever

 

[Cosmoline]

Thanks for the clarifications. Looks like I'll be passing on the M-1.

The M1 rifle was designed to serve the US military establishment... not cater to possible civilian shooters and collectors down the pike after it's service years come to an end.

Well if it's like the firearms I'm used to, if it's chambered for X round it should be able to shoot X round. The Garand can only shoot a very limited array of light powered, medium weight .30'06 with powders of medium to fast burn rates. It can shoot almost no commercial ammo without the risk of blowing a rod. Whether that's a "defect" I don't know, because as you say it was never designed to shoot anything but the low powered US ball. But it does limit the Garand's applicability. Since no commercial HP or SP can be safely used in it, the Garand is not too useful for shooting people outside of a war zone, or for hunting. It's for wall hangers or target shooters, that's about it.

I understand that semis can be less durable than bolt, and that you have to tone down the loads. PSL's are like that. You will rattle them loose if you shoot thousands of rounds of heavy 200 grain commercial out of them. Same thing with some older firearms and +p ammo. But the weapons don't ususally break. And I don't know of many quality military semis that are so restricted in their ammo. On the SAFN's if you shoot slower burning ammo it just rips the brass apart. The rifle itself doesn't care. And it will eat 200 grain 8mm bullets no problem. It seems like the Garand's design could have been improved to allow for similar durability. For example, why didn't they use a gas system that didn't rely on a fragile rod? Or use an adjustable gas vent like the SAFN's? These ideas were not unknown in the 30's.

 

[USSR]

Hey Swampy, quit holding back, tell us how you REALLY feel.

Don

 

[M1 Shooter]

First of all I have to give Swampy a big +1. Right on brother.


Now this statement I find funny.

The Garand can only shoot a very limited array of light powered, medium weight .30'06 with powders of medium to fast burn rates. It can shoot almost no commercial ammo without the risk of blowing a rod. Whether that's a "defect" I don't know, because as you say it was never designed to shoot anything but the low powered US ball.

I find the "low powered US ball" part especially funny. So, let me get this straight, you think a 150 grain bullet traveling at 2700-2800fps is "low powered". OK fine, why don't you just go buy yourself a nice magnum rifle to play with since thats not powerful enough for you. You obviously have no appreciation for the Garand anyway, and therefore, you don't deserve one anyway. Leave them for those of us who appreciate them for what they are.

 

[ftierson]

By the way, for many years and relatively recently, Winchester also produced a 165gr PSP loading in .30-06. I know because I still have a number of boxes of it. However, I bought it to shoot in a Howa 1500 and not in my M1 because I'm pretty sure that they would have used a powder a little slower than I want to burn in my Garand.

Forrest

 

[Wes Janson]

It seems like the Garand's design could have been improved to allow for similar durability. For example, why didn't they use a gas system that didn't rely on a fragile rod? Or use an adjustable gas vent like the SAFN's? These ideas were not unknown in the 30's.

If I had to guess, it might have something to do with the fact that their goal was to equip pretty much everyone with a semi-automatic battle rifle. Even a tiny, tiny increase in the complexity of the weapon has massive ramifications when you're making millions upon millions of them in war-time conditions. You make the ammo for the rifle, not the other way around.

 

[eldon519]

A 150 grain bullet at 2700-2800 is fairly "low powered" for a .30-06. You don't need to get a magnum to play with if that's not powerful enough for you; you can just shoot normal, full-strength .30-06.

 

[Cosmoline]

you think a 150 grain bullet traveling at 2700-2800fps is "low powered".

It is for a .30'06, and M2 ball is closer to 2700. You can easily crank a 150 out beyond that. Standard factory loads are over 2,900 fps for that rate. A light mag loading can go over 3,000 fps. The ball ammo of the time did not use the cartridge to its potential. And because of the Garand's limited design parameters, the rifle's gas system can't cope with slow burn loads. I'm not sure why anyone would think that's a positive thing. It may not be a defect, but it is most certainly a LIMITATION. And for me it's an annoying one. I don't want a rifle that will only shoot target ammo.

You obviously have no appreciation for the Garand anyway, and therefore, you don't deserve one anyway.

I appreciate them for what they were, but I don't worship them. I simply demand more from a rifle. Maybe it's a generational thing.

 

[Guy B. Meredith]

Aw get with it. Semis are notoriously finicky--rifle or handgun. That is the reason I shoot only revolvers and tolerate the semi auto action on the Garand only for historical reasons. I have also installed the Schuster plug on my Garands to get around the semi auto firearms' tendency to be limited in range of ammo that works well.

If you want a firearm that handles everything you feed it, semis should probably be at the bottom of the list.

 

[Nightcrawler]

I'm going to have to agree with Cosmo on this. I, personally, don't collect guns. I use the guns I have as much as I can. As such, not being able to use a box of plane jane .30-06 FMJ ammo in the rifle is annoying at the least.

The adjustable gas plug is a nice touch. I have to disagree about having to re-adjust it for every LOT of ammo (as opposed to every load). I think modern commercial loads would be a lot more consistent than wartime-production ammo cranked out by the tens of millions of rounds, and sixty year old surplus being imported from Greece.

Fulton Armory chambers Garand rifles in .30-06, .270, .308, and .243. There's another company that makes them in .338 Win Mag, but that involves a lot more modification. The receiver itself isn't fragile; quite the opposite.

None of this makes the Garand a bad design. For 1936, it was pretty darned good, and likely superior to any similar autoloading service rifles fielded at the time (Tokarev, K.43, etc.).

Now here's a question. Will steel cased ammunition hurt a Garand? I don't think so; the US issued steel cased ammo during the war. In what quantities, I cannot say.

 

[Swampy]

It seems like the Garand's design could have been improved to allow for similar durability. For example, why didn't they use a gas system that didn't rely on a fragile rod? Or use an adjustable gas vent like the SAFN's? These ideas were not unknown in the 30's.

Cosmo,

I have to ask a great big.... WHY !!!!

All the things you mention were not a concern to the people who made it and at the time it was needed.

The M1 was a BATTLE rifle. The US military only needed it to function reliably with the ammo THEY made for it and issued to the troops to shoot in it.

As to durability.... the M1 has PROVEN itself extremely durable. AAMOF, it's almost a legend in that regard..... AS LONG AS the ammo that it was DESIGNED to use is fired in it.

Same thing with the Nipponese Mitsubishi 6 cylinder in your Chrysler mini-van. Put the fuel in it that it was designed to use (Gasolene) and it will run for 300k miles. Put kerosene or diesel in the tank and see if you make it down the block before something bad happens.

As to a stiffer rod or a gas vent being needed.... they were NOT needed to shoot GI ball ammo. Extra $$$ at a time when the coffers were very tight all around (The M1 design work took place during the 20's and early 30's).

Cosmo.... I understand you wanting a rifle that shoots anything that will fit in the chamber. No biggie. Maybe the M1 is not for you. That's fine... different strokes and all that..... but to second guess the designers from 70+ years ago who did NOT have ammo issues or concerns and ended up with a weapon that has performed admirably through 3 wars.... and to see it as flawed because it won't shoot the ammo we have today (or even comercial made ammo from 70 years ago) is just "out there".

Again... why denigrate a fine mechanical item that has performed as well as the M1 has for as long as it did with the ammo that it was DESIGNED to shoot???

Sorry Bud, just can't fathom that part of the discussion......


Now.... having said ALL that.... I'll say that most of the "improvements" you ask about DID happen to the M1 rifle later on in it's life.

They called it the M14.

The M14 won't chamber 30-06 and the bigger bullet rounds... but then again, that all goes back to the NEEDS of the people doing the design work. They did not want nor need a round with a heavier or faster bullet. They stuck pretty much with a 150 to 175 grain bullet moving at about the same speed as the one(s) they used before in the 30-06 and M1..... but, HEY, that's what they wanted and needed AT THAT TIME.

Best regards,
Swampy

 

[Cosmoline]

The M1 was a BATTLE rifle. The US military only needed it to function reliably with the ammo THEY made for it and issued to the troops to shoot in it.

I've heard this, but I don't completely buy it. The Garand would have been better as a rifle it had been able to chamber weights up to 200 grains and slow powders, as that would have allowed it to be more effective. For example, a heavier longer bullet made for AP purposes would be more effective at penetration than one limited to 150-175 grains only. M2 ball is most certainly not the end all and be all of .30'06, even for military applications. And as Nightcrawler points out, the Garand receiver is a real tank. Why build such a strong receiver and then stick a weak gas system on it? If they just wanted it to accept a limited range of all ammo, they could have shaved quite a bit of steel off the receiver because they really didn't need to handle max pressures.

Again, this just means the Garand is limited, not necessarily defective. It was after all a pretty early semi and the first approved for such widespread issue. Later semis improved upon it.

Put the fuel in it that it was designed to use (Gasolene) and it will run for 300k miles. Put kerosene or diesel in the tank and see if you make it down the block before something bad happens.

Well, by that analogy the M1 really should be able to "fill its tank up" on any .30'06. But it can't, and that's the problem. It's like a car that can't buy gas at a station. You have to buy special unleaded WWII surplus gasoline for it LOL

 

[Frog48]

The way I understand it, the Garands was not hindered from the onset. It was a gradual change over time.

Today's loads arent the same as the basic loads of 100 years ago. Over time, commercial loads increased in power due to design changes, while (obviously) the gun stayed the same. So basically, the .30-06 cartridge "outgrew" the gun.

I dont know if I'm articulating this as clearly as I should, but it makes sense to me.

 

[Cosmoline]

I don't know about that. With most loadings, the companies were actually prone to make hotter loads before the modern age of litigation. It's true with .357 and .38 Special loads from the '30's. Can a Garand shoot period hunting rounds? I suspect it would have the same problems with pressure. Powders weren't limited to 4064 burn rates back then. They did have slower powders.

 

[Swampy]

Grant,

Your understanding is not quite correct.....

As cosmo correctly stated earlier, there were indeed commercial loads even way back in the 20's and 30's that were not suitable for the M1's design.... both as to bullet weight and powder burn rate...... but that was NOT a concern or issue of the people making the M1 rifle. From their perspective the ONLY ammo that would ever be fired in the M1 was what the US military establishment made and distributed to the troops using it. Never was what was available commercially even a consideration in the M1's design parameters.

Best regards,
Swampy

garands forever

 

[USSR]

The Garand would have been better as a rifle it had been able to chamber weights up to 200 grains and slow powders, as that would have allowed it to be more effective. For example, a heavier longer bullet made for AP purposes would be more effective at penetration than one limited to 150-175 grains only. M2 ball is most certainly not the end all and be all of .30'06, even for military applications.

Cosmo,

Why would the U.S. government design a weapon for ammo that it does not have, want or use? At the time the M1 was being designed, the issue ammo was M1 ball (M2 ball didn't come about until just prior to our entering WW2), which used a 173gr boattail bullet at a specific velocity. The military went to M2 ball and the 150gr bullet BECAUSE OF THE EXTENDED RANGE OF THE LONGER AND HEAVIER 173gr BULLET. Military use doesn't always correlate to civilian use. When the government is designing something for use by our troops, they listen to the military, and not some civilians complaining that it doesn't suit their purposes.

Don