Jeremy2171
Member
Well pretty much all of them did.... nearly 33,000 of them.
Garand History
- Thread starter tark
- Start date
- Status
Really? I think it was intended as a serious statement.
OP
OP
tark
Member
Well, regardless of which gas cylinder those 33,000 had, I had never heard of that prototype gas port gas cylinder. Scott Duff doesn't mention it in his book. Can't argue with the pics lysanderxiii posted, it did exist. So I learned something I didn't know. That's a good thing....
Jeremy2171
Member
Its funny because he has docs that "prove" his point but he won't share them.
He has one barely legible screenshot that doesn't support his claim either. It just says it was tested with M2 ball (M1906 ball clone) and one rifle that was oiled had issues.
This isn't a surprise since M1906 and early 1940 and older "M2" were only 2700fps at the muzzle loaded with a relatively fast powder which didn't give as much port pressure as M1 ball. Tests show the M1906 loads are down around the weak LC69 in pressure levels. Not surprising since LC69 had a similar charge of a fast burning powder as well.
In 1940 M2 ball velocity was increased 100fps and that change also helped with reliability.
So to say it "was optimized" for M2 may be reaching since at the time of these tests M1 ball was still the standard round. You can say it had to be "modified" to work with the weaker (early) M2 Ball by increasing the gas port size. However when the upgraded M2 became standard in 1940 and the larger gas port pretty much eliminated any reliability problems.
What you described as "funny" was a suggestion by an Administrator that you access the documents yourself.
Do so, or forget about it.
Jeremy2171
Member
I'm not asking for the docs...I'm discussing the scan he posted and pointing out his claims don't match the docs.
Reloadron
Contributing Member
During the early and mid 1990s I did quite a bit with Garands. Not really a collector but went through a few WWII vintage ones making them correct. Books by Scott Duff were among the most informative. Bruce Canfield also had a few but his main focus seemed to be the M1 Carbine.
If I recall correctly Gas Cylinders made by Springfield Armory and Winchester differed.
I still have a bucket of parts laying around, some more rare than others. Think I still have an uncut operating rod here somewhere. A pile of old take off barrels also, suitable as tomato stakes.
Ron
If I recall correctly Gas Cylinders made by Springfield Armory and Winchester differed.
I still have a bucket of parts laying around, some more rare than others. Think I still have an uncut operating rod here somewhere. A pile of old take off barrels also, suitable as tomato stakes.
Ron
lysanderxiii
Member
It supports exactly what I claimed. I claimed that M2 ball was used to develop the "new front end for the M1"
I did not claim that one M1 having issues had anything to do with anything.
There is much in that report discussing graphite vs oil and which should be issued,which is irrelevant to the discussion.
Are you talking about "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1," Aberdeen Proving Grounds, March 1941? (The dates of the actual test was earlier.)
That report states the following muzzle pressures:
M1906 Ball (Pyro D.G.) - 9,250 psi
M1 Ball (IMR 1185) - 11,200 psi
M2 Ball (IMR 4675) - 9,100 psi*
M2 Ball (EX 4745) - 9,545
It also notes that ". . . the IMR 1185 powder was considerably slower burning than the the other three powders . . ."
It further goes on to state in the recommendations:
"It is recommended that unless the M1 Rifle is further modified to operate at lower muzzle pressures, the specifications for powder to be used in these rifles should be include a stipulation regarding the minimum pressure to be allowed."
The specifications for M2 ball never stipulated a port or muzzle pressure.
By 1944, the earliest drawing I have for the M1 barrel, there where 33 changes to the drawing, unfortunately none were annotated. Was one of those changes an increase in gas port diameter from 0.069" shown on the March 1939 Dwg # 13661?
_ _ _ _ _ _
* This is the powder that would be used from mid - 1940 until around 1943-44 when IMR 4895 supplanted it.
Last edited:
Jeremy2171
Member
of course M2 was used in the developement...it had to be tested to make sure they lower pressure ammo would operate the rifle.
But we know grease is the answer...
Good info (maybe....you would have to post the document )...but questionable... how does higher port pressure ammo create slower bolt speed and lower "peak" pressure. And maybe certain lots were slower... but some weren't since a few years of it move the bolt slower than comparable loads with 3031 and 4895 etc.
It wasn't stipulated as they realized it wasn't needed. Lots of recommendations show up in reports that aren't needed...some could be quite silly.
Of course....to help with reliability of the rifle using the weaker "early" M2 ball. Those issues were further mitigated when the "new" M2 ball showed up with more powder/velocity.
Jeremy2171
Member
Lol..not really.
If you make a claim and don't post the supporting documents YOUR credibility is the issue.
JCooperfan1911
member
- Joined
- Oct 8, 2020
- Messages
- 2,709
The M1 rifle is as solid, proven, and potent as a fighting rifle comes.
To this day it commands great respect. Eight rounds of .30-06 as fast as the trigger may be pulled and quickly reloaded with a clip ensure even in today’s realm it remains a rifle not to be trifled with.
A man so armed with an M1 and clips to feed it can solve a great many problems.
To this day it commands great respect. Eight rounds of .30-06 as fast as the trigger may be pulled and quickly reloaded with a clip ensure even in today’s realm it remains a rifle not to be trifled with.
A man so armed with an M1 and clips to feed it can solve a great many problems.
lysanderxiii
Member
CORRECTIONS: All ammunition used 150 grain bullets, M1906 with Pyro, and M2 Ball with IMR 1185, IMR 4676 (not 4675 as I wrote), and EX 4745
The test indicates the M1 gas port as it was at the time, was undersized for M2 Ball at the time.
The muzzle pressure for M2 Ball, loaded with IMR 4676 is around 9,500-9750 psi. Yes, it is a bit more than the older stuff, but still comparable to M1906, and not anywhere near the IMR 1185 pressures.
Again ask for:
AD080024 - "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1"
AD0079213 - "Pressure-Travel Data for Caliber .30 Ball, M2 Bullets"
See post #22.
You really ought try and get there, you can read a lot interesting information.
It does not, never said it did.
The test indicates the M1 gas port as it was at the time, was undersized for M2 Ball at the time.
That is certainly a possibility. However, if you read "Pressure-Travel Data for Caliber .30 Ball, M2 Bullets," Frankford Arsenal, February 1943, they develop a model of how to calculate the pressure-distance (P-D) curve from the pressure-time curve measured at the chamber, the increase in muzzle pressure was not that pronounced. (It must be further noted that the pressure at the base of the bullet is not the same pressure in the chamber.)
The muzzle pressure for M2 Ball, loaded with IMR 4676 is around 9,500-9750 psi. Yes, it is a bit more than the older stuff, but still comparable to M1906, and not anywhere near the IMR 1185 pressures.
Again ask for:
AD080024 - "Measurement of Muzzle Pressure in Cal. .30 Rifle, M1"
AD0079213 - "Pressure-Travel Data for Caliber .30 Ball, M2 Bullets"
See post #22.
You really ought try and get there, you can read a lot interesting information.
Last edited:
BLACKHAWKNJ
Member
- Joined
- Dec 30, 2007
- Messages
- 1,127
I note that the switch from the gas trap to the gas port did not cause a change in designation, no M-1A1 Rifle, e.g.
lysanderxiii
Member
Possibly a political consideration. Unwillingness to admit that the latest, greatest rifle doesn't quite work as well with the new ammunition as you thought it did. (Especially, when someone like Johnson was mounting an offense against the rifle.)
In any case, to say that the M1 with the ported barrel, as we know it today was designed with only M1 ball in mind is unfounded. It would seem from reports written at the time, the rifle, and possibly M2 ball ammunition as well, were tweaked to get desired performance.
CapnMac
Member
The "new" M designations were begun in 1936, they did not have concrete rules for applications yet.
Like, if you only change one part of an M-X, which makes no change to the dimensions, use, or operations of that item, should it become an M-XA?
With the Garand the change was from gas-operated to gas-operated. And a significant number of issued rifles were updated, and changed from the one standard to the newer one.
Supposed to be:
M-1 First of a thing.
M-1A first significant change of the M-1 (engineering, armament, dimension, use, etc.)
M-1A1 Modification of that changed variant (different powerplant, ammo change, additional use, etc.)
M-1B Second major variant, significant parts discompatiblity with "A" variants.
M-2 Next variant of a thing.
Rinse & repeat as needed.
"E" gets used for "Expedient Use of" E.g. M-4A3E6 was an M-4A3, but with only the suspension and track changed, and to not all M-4A3)
This was varying amounts cleaved to.
M-1 Carbine was 1st.
M-1A1 was the folding stock (technically this was supposed to be an M-1A carbine, but there was a war on).
M-2 A select fire Carbine (there were arguments that it was to be an M-1B, but there was a war on)
M-3 Carbine A carbine fitted for IR "night" sights (debate on using an M-1 or an M-2 as a host, made it a Three).
M-4 Carbine A shortened, carbine-length M-16.
It's "cleaner" in SMG:
M-1 SMG is the product-improved tommy gun
M-1A is the improved M-1
M-2 is the Hyde SMG
M-3 is the "grease gun."
Of late, the fashion is to make the first variant "A1" for anything not aircraft (a/c have their own rules)
lysanderxiii
Member
Interestingly, the other end of the Ordnance Department, the automotive end, had pretty much gone with the Model (M) number, Alteration (A) number, and Test (T) number, Experiment (E) number, version of numbering things.
Examples:
M1 Combat Car (1937)
M1E1 Combat Car (new turret and different idler)
M1A1 Combat car (production M1E1, 1938)
M1A1E1 Combat Car (and M1A1 with a different engine)
M2 Combat Car (production M1A1E1)
T2 and T2E1 tanks (two variations of an improved T1 Tank, 1934)
M2 Tank (T2E1 adopted, 1935)
M2E2 Tank (twin turret version of the M2, 1935)
M2A1, M2A2 and M2A3 (further refinements to the twin turret design, 1936-37)
M2A4 Tank (single turret with a 37 mm AT gun, 1938)
M1 105mm Howitzer, on carriage, M1 (19330)
M2 105mm Howitzer, on Carriage M1 (1932, modified breech block for semi-fixed ammunition)
M2 105mm Howitzer, on Carriage M2 (1939, the M1 carriage was a horse drawn carriage, the M2 intended to have a truck as the prime mover)
M2A1 105mm Howitzer on Carriage M2 (1940, improved breech ring for production)
M101A1 105mm Howitzer (1962, DoD re-designated a bunch of stuff, it is the same item as the M2A1 Howitzer on the M2 Carriage)
The current system is detailed in MIL-STD-1464, Army Nomenclature System.
EDIT: There can be a letter after the A designation to indicate a minor variation, for example the M35A2C 2-1/2 ton Truck.
Examples:
M1 Combat Car (1937)
M1E1 Combat Car (new turret and different idler)
M1A1 Combat car (production M1E1, 1938)
M1A1E1 Combat Car (and M1A1 with a different engine)
M2 Combat Car (production M1A1E1)
T2 and T2E1 tanks (two variations of an improved T1 Tank, 1934)
M2 Tank (T2E1 adopted, 1935)
M2E2 Tank (twin turret version of the M2, 1935)
M2A1, M2A2 and M2A3 (further refinements to the twin turret design, 1936-37)
M2A4 Tank (single turret with a 37 mm AT gun, 1938)
M1 105mm Howitzer, on carriage, M1 (19330)
M2 105mm Howitzer, on Carriage M1 (1932, modified breech block for semi-fixed ammunition)
M2 105mm Howitzer, on Carriage M2 (1939, the M1 carriage was a horse drawn carriage, the M2 intended to have a truck as the prime mover)
M2A1 105mm Howitzer on Carriage M2 (1940, improved breech ring for production)
M101A1 105mm Howitzer (1962, DoD re-designated a bunch of stuff, it is the same item as the M2A1 Howitzer on the M2 Carriage)
The current system is detailed in MIL-STD-1464, Army Nomenclature System.
EDIT: There can be a letter after the A designation to indicate a minor variation, for example the M35A2C 2-1/2 ton Truck.
Last edited:
Jeremy2171
Member
Good news...
tested four different lots of M1 ball from the whole span of M1 ball production and they produced from 8600 to 9700 psi at the port. So there is something wrong with the 11000psi claim in that report.
IMR 1185 is NOT a slow powder
Reloadron
Contributing Member
This is a good read on the subject with a defined (somewhat) method used to get the numbers they got. When taking measurements, just about any measurements, the method, procedure used and equipment used needs to be noted. Unless all of that is spelled out you can get different numbers for a given measurement. A good example is measuring chamber pressure. The CUP, the newer Piezo Pressure Sensor method and even the CIP Method all have well defined way of deriving numbers. CIP measures pressure at the case mouth (or thereabouts) and SAAMI take their measurement in the middle of the case. Different methods yielding different pressures for the same cartridge. My own little conclusion being unless the method, procedure and equipment used for a measurement are known and defined the numbers really don't mean much. While the Garand Gear link does not get into all the details they do show their setup. Taking the measurement the way they did, measuring at the gas cylinder port yields numbers nothing like what I am seeing here? Not getting that at all?
Ron
Ron
Jeremy2171
Member
I've duplicated their method with different equipment and gotten different chamber pressure numbers than they did however mine are close to Springfield armory test results.
Their test is ok but it's lacking in real data. Especially since they didn't test but a few years of M2 ball and some of the weakest at that. So they have given the gas system an artificially low "threshold" to compare against commercial ammo then using THAT reference to then promote their product as something you "need" to shoot your rifle safely.
If they had tested a wider selection of milsurp they would have seen that commercial ammo isn't really an issue....however if they did all that...they wouldn't have a product to sell...
Remember its THEIR (selected) test data they use to say you need it...
Just saying...
Reloadron
Contributing Member
Yes, I agree and also we need to consider the test, measurement and diagnostic equipment we have available today is a heck of a lot more advanced than anything Springfield Armory had or for that matter any armory of that era. Today we have much, much better equipment.
Ron
lysanderxiii
Member
Reading is fundamental.
That 11,200 psi is M2 ball loaded with IMR 1185, NOT M1 ball.
A quick look at the P-T curve for IMR 1185 will show that it is slower than Pyro, 4676, or 4895
In that report, muzzle pressure was chosen as the parameter so as ammunition performance with the older gas trap M1 design could be compared the the newer gas port design.
What lots were tested?
and
That 11,200 psi is M2 ball loaded with IMR 1185, NOT M1 ball.
A quick look at the P-T curve for IMR 1185 will show that it is slower than Pyro, 4676, or 4895
In that report, muzzle pressure was chosen as the parameter so as ammunition performance with the older gas trap M1 design could be compared the the newer gas port design.
What lots were tested?
Last edited:
Jeremy2171
Member
yeah...their numbers are off RE: 1185. 1185 isn't slow in any way shape or form.
I'll have to dig thru my notes but it was WRA 27, FA 33, FA 35 NM and FA 40. Might have been a few others.
point is..that test result for 1185 is off.
lysanderxiii
Member
Those are headstamps, not lot numbers. In short, you have no idea what propellants are actually in them.
I have a report from a reputable testing facility that had been testing weapons for years (Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen, Md), that gives me all the background information, such as set-up configuration with multiple weapons, ammunition from know lot numbers and propellant types and with known storage condition histories, shooting a few hundred rounds to get a average, and exact details (such as make a model of pressure gauge, amplifiers and filters) stating that M2 Ball (150 gr) loaded with IMR 1185 has a muzzle pressure averaging around 11,200 psi.
On the other hand I have somebody of unknown qualification, shooting a half dozen rounds of ammunition, from unknown lots, loaded with unknown propellants, that is nearly 100 years old, stored in unknown and unrecorded conditions for most of that time, fired from an unknown test set-up, with unknown equipment telling me the original report is wrong. Not to mention the ammunition used here is M1 ball with a 174 grain bullet.
Okay, whatever.
Let's see, on one hand:
I have a report from a reputable testing facility that had been testing weapons for years (Aberdeen Proving Grounds, Aberdeen, Md), that gives me all the background information, such as set-up configuration with multiple weapons, ammunition from know lot numbers and propellant types and with known storage condition histories, shooting a few hundred rounds to get a average, and exact details (such as make a model of pressure gauge, amplifiers and filters) stating that M2 Ball (150 gr) loaded with IMR 1185 has a muzzle pressure averaging around 11,200 psi.
On the other hand I have somebody of unknown qualification, shooting a half dozen rounds of ammunition, from unknown lots, loaded with unknown propellants, that is nearly 100 years old, stored in unknown and unrecorded conditions for most of that time, fired from an unknown test set-up, with unknown equipment telling me the original report is wrong. Not to mention the ammunition used here is M1 ball with a 174 grain bullet.
Okay, whatever.
- Status
