Good load for my M1's and 1903 Springfield

[Bulletguide]

I meant to post this earlier and forgot, took some loads to the range a couple of weeks ago and tried them in both a 1903/A3 and WWII era Garand with excellent groups.

I've been trying to work up a simple, predictable load that I can swap back and forth between these two systems and have them produce similar results. It's not that easy as
bolt action rifles tend to like different loads, at least in my experience.

The 1903 has a scope mount, the Insta-Mount I got from Brownells a while back. It took some work to get it lined up and stable but it's become a pretty reliable mount with no alteration
to the rifle. I was able to pick up an extra front stock (top wood fore-stock) and modify it to fit the mount. When using that Insta-Mount there is no obvious way to re-use your
wood top stock piece. Having an extra GI piece, I was able to modify it to just fit under the small lip of the Insta-Mount and it's been stable with no problems. I found a late 50's/early
sixties Redfield Bear Cub scope, 4X, which looks nice on the rifle and is good for 100-200 yards (the max my range allows anyway). The Garand is a 1944 I built up from correct parts,
all National Match except for the barrel (I know, like a 65 SS 396 Malibu with a 6 cylinder engine) but still a very nice shooter.

I use LC brass, CCI or Winchester primers, 4064 powder at 49gns, 150 flat base bullets I got a Wideners. They are pretty much exact copies of the M2 projectiles the military used
for so many years. I had a hard time finding any difference between them and the pulled bullets I tried from some early LC rounds.

Very similar groups in both rifles, the Garand loved them and the Springfield kicked as per usual but never missed a beat.
There are lots of good loads for these rifles but this was the first one I found that was so effective in both, shooting them back to back. OAL was just under 3.30, and tight for the
chamber in my 1903 which is very close to un-fired specs. I set up the headspace to just close on a round with that OAL.

Just my experience, load using your best judgement, these are for reference only. Finding a load like this is great and it may become my go-to load
in the future, even though I've always like 4895 as a standard. This powder performs in a very similar fashion, is not too dirty and very reliable. I think it's pretty available,
I can get it locally over the counter so that makes a difference as well...

-Bruce

As in all cases, these loads work for me, you're mileage may vary.

[Phil McGrath]

Try some of the loads I listed in the post below.

[Prince Humperdink]

I use the same load for the M1(although I just use Sierra 150gr psp),but I only load the bolt loads at 46.5 gr for recoil purposes.They both do the job i need them for(hunting)very well.

[sardog72781]

Bulletguide, Did you use standard #200 CCI primers for that load? If so, do you ever have any issues with slam fire? Thanks

[lapriester]

49gr of 4064 behind a 150gr bullet is a very, VERY hot load for an M1. It's close to or above max M1 loading data for that powder. I wouldn't even consider running it in any of my M1's. You are obviously using bolt gun data for both rifles and that is not wise. My match load for my match M1 is 46gr behind a 155gr Nosler CC and it's very accurate in all my rifles including the 1903's. Why subject your rifle and yourself to high recoil and stress? Generally, loading near or above max does nothing more than waste powder and negatively effect the longevity of your rifle while not creating any increase in accuracy. I suggest a load redevelopment starting at around 45gr up to.a max of 47.5, especially for the M1. For the bolt guns you can go quite a bit higher but there's no advantage to it if you find an accurate load at a lower charge.

Even for my M1D, which includes 600 yard shots in competition, I load at 47.5gr of 4064 behind 168gr. At bit hot for my taste but the most accurate at 600 yards and proven to stay supersonic and accurate out to 900 yards.

[lapriester]

Bulletguide, Did you use standard #200 CCI primers for that load? If so, do you ever have any issues with slam fire? Thanks

Slam fires are virtually never caused by the type of primers used. High primers , bad reloading techniques, faulty ammo, weapon malfunction, short headspace and other reasons are so far ahead of primer selection it's hardly even relevant to mention primers. I have loaded my M1 ammo with CCI 200's for over 10 years and thousands, upon thousands of rounds fired. Never a hint of slam fires.

CCI has done an amazing job marketing their mil spec primers convincing countless people they are a requirement for your rifle when they are not. I'm sure bonuses were given for a job well done. Most so called slam fires are actually bump fires or "doubling" caused by milking an M1 trigger and incorrect rifle handling while doing so. Those are prevented by knowing how and performing your trigger pulls in a correct fashion. That means a full and complete trigger manipulation on every trigger pull and full, solid support of the rifle.

[[email protected]]

my m1 seems to shot better groups below hornadays max garand load just 1 rifle so you know

[Smokey]

I use Quickload for working up loads with a Garand. I first entered the data for the standard M2 ball and got a curve with the peak and port pressure. I next tried different powders for a given bullet weight to stay below the M2 Ball data. Years ago I scored a bulk purchase of Rem 180gr pointed corelokt bullets. I found IMR4320 loading to about 2550fps gave a nice pressure profile. The rounds cycle the rifle reliably and a little softer than the M2. It's also more accurate. I have to deal with bear, moose, mountain lion and now wild boar on my property; and carry a Garand with these loads "just in case".

[SeafoamTele]

49gr of 4064 behind a 150gr bullet is a very, VERY hot load for an M1. It's close to or above max M1 loading data for that powder. I wouldn't even consider running it in any of my M1's. You are obviously using bolt gun data for both rifles and that is not wise. My match load for my match M1 is 46gr behind a 155gr Nosler CC and it's very accurate in all my rifles including the 1903's. Why subject your rifle and yourself to high recoil and stress? Generally, loading near or above max does nothing more than waste powder and negatively effect the longevity of your rifle while not creating any increase in accuracy. I suggest a load redevelopment starting at around 45gr up to.a max of 47.5, especially for the M1. For the bolt guns you can go quite a bit higher but there's no advantage to it if you find an accurate load at a lower charge.

Even for my M1D, which includes 600 yard shots in competition, I load at 47.5gr of 4064 behind 168gr. At bit hot for my taste but the most accurate at 600 yards and proven to stay supersonic and accurate out to 900 yards.

WRT the above, so I believe hornady lists 48 ish as max (I dont have the book in front of me, Ive been using the Speer and Lyman manuals recently more, but neither have garand specific data) for using IMR 4064. 46 gr is an interesting suggestion, I was intending to use 48 gr because I have the ported gas plug and it works wonders so I'm not concerned with over working my op rod at that low of a load, relative to modern 30/06 anyway. I took to 48 gr because it gets me at about 2700 fps, which seems to be the magic number for the garands, but I'm going to start at 46 and see where that gets me and work up to 49, testing accuracy and examining cases in between. I have been interested in using a lesser load of 4064 with a magnum primer. 4064 seems to be on the slow end of what to use in a garand, and the magnum primer brings the burn temperature up, which will increase burn rate, and less powder means less gas volume to work on the op rod, which means less wear on the gun. Indicative of a best of both worlds situation. Any experience with this?

[lapriester]

WRT the above, so I believe hornady lists 48 ish as max (I dont have the book in front of me, Ive been using the Speer and Lyman manuals recently more, but neither have garand specific data) for using IMR 4064. 46 gr is an interesting suggestion, I was intending to use 48 gr because I have the ported gas plug and it works wonders so I'm not concerned with over working my op rod at that low of a load, relative to modern 30/06 anyway. I took to 48 gr because it gets me at about 2700 fps, which seems to be the magic number for the garands, but I'm going to start at 46 and see where that gets me and work up to 49, testing accuracy and examining cases in between. I have been interested in using a lesser load of 4064 with a magnum primer. 4064 seems to be on the slow end of what to use in a garand, and the magnum primer brings the burn temperature up, which will increase burn rate, and less powder means less gas volume to work on the op rod, which means less wear on the gun. Indicative of a best of both worlds situation. Any experience with this?

This is all great but throw away the ported plug and just load reasonable loads. If you were going to start shooting commercial hunting ammo it might be a benefit to you. Otherwise it's a complete waste of money and serves no usefull purpose. It might even make your rifle less reliable with proper Garand loads plus being illegsl for competition.

That extra velocity more often gains you nothing but wasted powder. "Velocity" as a "magic number" for a Garand is urban myth. It should not even be considered as a factor in load development. Best accuracy is your goal not some mystical equation or shortcut. You don't need magnum primers for 4064. Adding a mag primer will increase pressure for no logical purpose and I doubt it's going to do what you imply at all.

For the record, in 13 years of load development for my M1's and m1903's, I've never taken a chrono to the range. Velocity is a non factor for me in developing accurate ammo and my most accurate loads have never been at MAX or above.

[SeafoamTele]

I am definitely keeping my ported gas plug, it has shown zero reduced reliability in cycling and that is with more than enough different types of ammo put through it, commercial or otherwise. And considering that Garand Gear was kind and attentive enough to provide the recorded pressure/impulse data for comparison, I am confident in saying that the $40 investment was far from a waste of money in the sake of reduced wear on the gun. Illegal for competition is a VERY GOOD POINT, especially on this forum, but I dont shoot in competition so that doesnt really bother me.

I wouldnt go as far as to say that the extra velocity doesnt buy you anything. It may very well not, and everyone's rifle is going to be different, I concur with that part, but its not a 'shortcut' that I am looking for. There definitely is a science to it and as an engineer I look for that very thing. A projectile, given a fixed diameter, barrel length, and twist rate, there is a velocity where angular momentum is optimal, but there is just as important an effect on barrel wear, bullet shape/bearing surface, and the internal ballistics, specifically the impulse curve and the corresponding acceleration data associated with the powder, as well as the previous two factors I mentioned. All I mean to say is that empirical evidence suggests that this velocity is a good starting point for finding a well accurate load. Its also an interesting point to note that, yes I agree that accuracy loads are seldom max loads, that there is a difference between garand max loads and 30/06 max loads, and while it may not be important to everyone in this forum, the people like me who are capable and willing to shoot full power loads in their rifles may find accuracy nodes between garand max and 30/06 max, there is not just one of these nodes in a given range of possible loads.

Lastly, similar concept with the magnum primer, I am not saying that there is a better alternative using a mag primer, but rather asking if anyone has tried. Basic physics dictates, in piston expansion and work, two things are important; Pressure and Specific gas volume. Less mass of powder corresponds to less gas volume, and that is constant, regardless of pressure. So less volume means more pressure can be applied, disproportionately so since it is integrated over time to get total impulse, and that means that a similar or greater impulse MAY (not definitely) be imparted on the bullet within reasonable limits of the original gun. If the short answer is that no one has good data for this, then the standing point is that it is an unexamined data point and I would be interested in pursuing it. Again, I am NOT saying that I am definitely right, I am saying that I THINK this based on logic and a strong background in engineering mechanics and I would be more than glad to examine this on my own and report results. A bad data point is not an unsuccessful data point, and is still useful regardless of the outcome. However, I think there is something to be looked at seriously here, and I wouldnt disregard it so quickly or say theres no purpose, not without reasonable basis, which I dare say I have enough of to warrant interest in the topic