Thanks. May be a while before I get to loading for the Garand, so I'll "watch" this thread so I can refer back to it. I'm working on a load for my FIL's .338wm, a reduced recoil target load for my daughter's .25-06, a 150 gr TTSX load for my .300WM, and a load for my 1884 trapdoor. That's the queue anyway. Only the first two have been started.
M1 Garand powder
- Thread starter Charlie98
- Start date
- Status
There are several powders with IMR and H followed by the same number. But I would highly suggest you use data, specific for each H and IMR. Hornady manuals have specific sections for M1 Garand 30-06 and 308 Service Rifle loads. Get a Hornady manual for your service rifle reloading to be positive of your handloads and not rely on "Forum Wisdom"...
Yes, I could buy the Hornady manual, but I won't. I typically use the online resources at Hodgdon, Alliant, Western, Nosler, and Barnes, all free. I have only tried to load with Hornady bullets once, the results weren't as good as with Nosler bullets and Hornady charges for their load manual.
Hodgdon has a separate category for .308 Winchester Service Rifle, but not .30-06. In the end, I'll probably load with whatever powder I like and just use my Schuster adjustable plug, but I like to learn what I can.
Some of of my very best purchases in 40 years of reloading is my reloading manuals, with Hornady up near, if not at the top. There is waaaaay more to reloading manuals than just load data and I'm sure I don't know everything about reloading so the "front half" comes in handy. But I understand there are those out there that don't like books...
I share my "Rule #1" a bit and highly suggest it to new reloaders; I pay little (no) attention to any load data I see on any forum, or pet loads website, or hear from any range rat, good intended friend, gun counter clerk, or gun shop guru. I get 98% of my starting/max load data from published reloading manuals wit a few from powder manufacturer's websites. I record every load to refer to for future loading. In over 40 years of reloading I have produced some very accurate handloads, had one squib, 1970, and no Kabooms. My handloads feed, fire and extract/eject cleanly from every firearm I own. I don't believe I could have achieved such excellent results just depending on/using "free" data...
Another advantage of published reloading manuals, those that I purchased years ago is the data available in the '70s and '80s to compare present data to older data and for "discontinued" cartridge data. I even have a text with load data from the 1930s, very informative and a great "expansion" of my reloading education...
I share my "Rule #1" a bit and highly suggest it to new reloaders; I pay little (no) attention to any load data I see on any forum, or pet loads website, or hear from any range rat, good intended friend, gun counter clerk, or gun shop guru. I get 98% of my starting/max load data from published reloading manuals wit a few from powder manufacturer's websites. I record every load to refer to for future loading. In over 40 years of reloading I have produced some very accurate handloads, had one squib, 1970, and no Kabooms. My handloads feed, fire and extract/eject cleanly from every firearm I own. I don't believe I could have achieved such excellent results just depending on/using "free" data...
Another advantage of published reloading manuals, those that I purchased years ago is the data available in the '70s and '80s to compare present data to older data and for "discontinued" cartridge data. I even have a text with load data from the 1930s, very informative and a great "expansion" of my reloading education...
Last edited:
Are you saying that the free data published online by Hodgdon, Alliant, Western Powders, Nosler, and Barnes is inaccurate or no better than a "pet load" found on an internet forum? If I'm not going to load with Hornady bullets, why would their load data be better for me? Regarding the info at the front half of the book, I do have an old Sierra load manual. Is there some new innovation in loading technique that I can only find in a Hornady manual?
OP
OP
Charlie98
Member
I bought the Hornady manual primarily for the Service Rifle data... but it's a good load book regardless, and I rank it right up there with my Speer manuals. It just depends on what you are looking for... not all good data is free or available on the internet.
When researching new loads, I use a combination of old manuals, new manuals, online data, and... yes, even Internet Lore data. I load for some cartridges not in regular production, so data is kind of scarce... sometimes I have to use what data I can find. It is what it is.
When researching new loads, I use a combination of old manuals, new manuals, online data, and... yes, even Internet Lore data. I load for some cartridges not in regular production, so data is kind of scarce... sometimes I have to use what data I can find. It is what it is.
Kevin Rohrer
Member
I also use 4895. If that was not available, then BLC-2, IMR4064, or Varget.
I will eventually be loading for my FIL's 8mm Nambu. The only published data that I know of is very old, published by the founder of MidwayUSA. The only way I could find it was through castboolits.gunloads.com. Also, the posters there had additional information.
Yes, The information in the "front half" of the Hornady manual is as good as any published reloading information and better than a lot, excellent reference. I mentioned Hornady manual because it's the only one that has specific M1 data and Service Rifle data. But yes, the Hornady manual is an excellent manual with good, safe, tested data.
I have seen real BS posted on line more than once. Published reloading manuals are safe. "Pet Loads" websites are just gathering places for reloaders to post their loads. but relying on an amateur, even one with some experience(?), anonymous screen name, for safe loads is foolish. Yes most of the time the shared data is safe, but me and my guns will not risk anything. I have seen loads posted on line that were frightening. On one occasion a forum expert posted a handgun load that was a full grain over max of W231. The post stayed on line for a full day and the OP came back and said "sorry, I hit the wrong key". I have seen "expert recommendations" of using identical charges with Unique and Universal, grain for grain. Might work, but not in my handloads. I prefer to use data provided by expert technicians using the latest testing equipment. As for the "Are you saying that the free data published online by Hodgdon, Alliant, Western Powders, Nosler, and Barnes is inaccurate or no better than a "pet load" found on an internet forum?". Reread my original post (just the black letters/words not the white spaces). I do occasionally use data from powder manufacturer's web sites, the same data the put in their manuals.
Most reloaders that think about what they are reloading will have no difficulty using Hornady data for other manufacturer's bullets (and to repeat for those that don't know; same size, weight, and type). I have used, quite safely, data from my Hornady manuals for Nosler, Sierra, and Speer bullets. With a modicum of experience/information, a reloader can safely get data from one bUllet manufacturer's data and use it for the same bullet manufactured by another.
But, bottom line I don't care if you refuse to purchase a reloading manual, and I don't care where you get your data, but you are touting your methods on a public forum. Many, many new, unexperienced reloaders read info on forums and some may believe they shouldn't get a manual (if you can't afford one, they are available in most libraries). There is some responsibility for what you say, even anonymously on a web forum...
Last edited:
Wow the pot calling the kettle black. You might want to actually read my posts. Slowly this time. Please quote my words that lead you to believe I was "touting my method." Where exactly did I suggest that anyone do as I do? You certainly have suggested that people do as you do, but I have not. Secondly, please quote my words that lead you to believe I rely on "pet loads" posted on an internet forum. I stated that I rely on data published on Hodgdon's, Alliant's, Western's, Nosler's, and Barnes websites. Note that these companies list pressures along with charge weights, which suggest that they actually tested these loads. If this is not true, please educate me.
You are the one who is telling other people what to do. You are also the one who insists on conflating data published by powder and bullet manufacturer's websites with "pet loads" (your words) posted to internet forums.
Last edited:
Barman54
Member
Charlie,
Highpower Shooter here.
In both .308 and 30.06 IMR 4895 shortline 2-300 Yards, IMR 4064 for my 600 yard Loads.
All Bullets weights.
2 and 300, 125, 135, 155, 168's for 600 168, and 175's
Not any problem switching from 4895 to 4064 in a Match going from the Short Line to 600Yards, as some Report.
I have shot 4064 at the 2-3 just like IMR 4895 better, use less Powder.
Barman54
Out
Highpower Shooter here.
In both .308 and 30.06 IMR 4895 shortline 2-300 Yards, IMR 4064 for my 600 yard Loads.
All Bullets weights.
2 and 300, 125, 135, 155, 168's for 600 168, and 175's
Not any problem switching from 4895 to 4064 in a Match going from the Short Line to 600Yards, as some Report.
I have shot 4064 at the 2-3 just like IMR 4895 better, use less Powder.
Barman54
Out
English is sometime difficult to understand and "touting your methods" was just that; you were defending/ explaining why you won't buy a published reloading manual. But I'll give up this worthless conversation and let you have the final word. Go for it...
Yes, English is difficult for some. Look up the actual definition of tout and then quote what I wrote and demonstrate that I was touting my method. Or I'll save you some time. From freedictionary.com (https://www.thefreedictionary.com/touting):
tout
(taʊt)
Informal. v.i.
1. to solicit business, employment, votes, or the like, importunately.
2. to act as a tout.
v.t.
3. to solicit importunately.
4. to describe or advertise boastfully; praise extravagantly: a highly touted nightclub.
5. to provide information on (a racehorse), esp. for a fee.
6. to watch; spy on.
n.
7. a person who solicits business, employment, etc., importunately.
8.
a. a person who gives information on a racehorse, esp. for a fee.
b. Chiefly Brit. a person who spies on a racehorse in training for the purpose of betting.
I wasn't soliciting business, employment, votes , etc. I did not praise my method or boast about my method. I wrote one post in which I said that I would not purchase the Hornady manual because they charge money ($43) for it and I preferred to rely on free data from powder manufacturer's and other bullet manufacturers. Please, please embarass me in front of all the members of The High Road and quote my actual words to demonstrate where I suggested that anyone else do as I do or advertised my method boastfully or praised it extravagantly.
- Status
