M1 Garand 600 and 1000 yard loads

[mac86951]

Just tossing this out there for a reference point; a 175 SMK with 46.5 IMR 4895 and Federal LR match worked just fine. Watch pressures for op rod; and IMR may be a little temp sensitive if starting over I may choose a different powder.

-Mac

 

[scubohuntr]

If you're going to load anything that doesn't duplicate a military ball load or doesn't use IMR powders, get an adjustable gas plug. Midway has them for about forty bucks. Cheaper than an op rod.

 

[Bart B.]

If you're going to load anything that doesn't duplicate a military ball load or doesn't use IMR powders, get an adjustable gas plug.

Interesting comment.

Anybody remember when Lake City Army Ammo Plant had Winchester take over operations and used ball powder in 7.62 NATO match ammo? Folks hoarded earlier lots made by Remington folks using IMR4895. While ball powder met accuracy specs (3.5" mean radius at 600 yards; at least 15 inches extreme spread), over all it was worse than what Remington folks got with IMR powder.

 

[DRNewcomb]

If you're going to load anything that doesn't duplicate a military ball load or doesn't use IMR powders, get an adjustable gas plug. Midway has them for about forty bucks. Cheaper than an op rod.

While I'm not convinced that you can't safely reload ball powder for the M1, I just broke down a LC67 M2 round and found it contained stick powder. I don't personally know of any post-67 .30-'06 military M2 ball production.

 

[akajun]

It’s a decades old myth that longer sight radius enables better accuracy or precision. The distance the front sight is from the rear sight does not change how much the rifle wobbles hand held without artificial support. Doesn’t matter if its 28.5" or about 2.5" less or 50" more. If the sight’s LOS visually aligns 2 MOA off center on the target image, the center of the front sight post will appear the same distance off the target center regardless if it’s 1 yard in front of the rear sight or another range to infinity. Remember the front sight must appear dead center in the rear sight aperture for consistency; off to the edge means bullets will strike opposite where it’s seen on the target; the bore is pointing that way.

The US Navy and US Air Force rifle teams used Garands for all ranges after the first M14NM rifles were built. Army and Marine Corps teams used M14's thereafter. But the USN Match Conditioning Unit in San Diego built the most accurate ones. Moreso with the 7.62 conversions that shot better groups from accuracy cradles than the rebuilt M14NM rifles for a short time, then the Army and Marine Corp shops finally fixed all the bugs in their new rifles. The best of both 7.62 M1's and M14NM’s would shoot commercial match ammo from Federal or Remington into 4 inches at 600 yards. That’s better than what the best 30-06 match bolt action rifles would do with Sierra match bullets in the mid 1960's.

Three 1000 yard loads were popular for the 30-06 M1's correctly rebuilt with good barrels that tested a bit over MOA at 600 yards and about 1.6 MOA at 1000. The 600 yard “B” target had a 2 MOA V ring, 3.3 MOA 5 ring; 1000 yard “C” target had 2 MOA V ring and 3.6 MOA 5 ring....

* M72 30-06 match ammo’s 173-gr FMJBT bullet was pulled then replaced with a Sierra 180 Match King; the FMJBT original. This load shot test groups half the size or better than what M72 arsenal match ammo would; it had only one lot of very good bullets whereas M72 (and later, M118 7.62 match ammo) had bullets from 3 or 4 different bullet making machines. Four levels of bullet quality that limited bolt gun test barrels to shoot them no better than about 2 to 3 MOA at 600 yards in arsenal tests.

* Commerial Western Cartridge Company 180-grain FMJBT match ammo loaded about 1/10th longer for single round loading; boxes were labeled “For Single Round Loading Only” because they usually wouldn’t fit in Garands when clipped up

* Any good new case and primer with a Sierra or WCC 180-gr. match bullet over 48 grains of IMR4064. This one was typically the best of these three loads. This powder had the best track accuracy record in 30-06 M1's with 165 through 180 grain bullets, but charges had to be weighed to at least a 2/10ths grain spread as it didn’t meter to uniformly.

Best long range loads for rebuilt 7.62 Garands follow:

* The US Air Force developed the best; new M118 match case and primer, 44 grains of IMR4320 under a Sierra 190 HPMK bullet. Easily shot under 4 inches at 600, under 10 at 1000 yards. The USN shop also used Lapua D46 185-gr. FMJRB .3092" diameter match bullets that shot a little better in barrels with slightly larger groove diameters of .3082" to .3084". The USN shop built the USAF team rifles and all their Springfield Armory arsenal 7.62 barrels were air gauged for uniformity and those at .3078" or less were set aside for match use.

* New commercial case with 43 grains of IMR4064 under Sierra 180 MK bullets

None of the consistently best scores used resized cases; only new ones. Garand (and M14NM) bolt faces were never squared up so fired cases from them had out of square bolt faces. That caused shots to string 90 degrees from the bolt lug in-battery axis; 7 to 1 o-clock. Case head smacked bolt faces off center and that changed the barrel whip axis to 90 degrees from the 10 to 4 o-clock bolt lug axis. It made only ½ to 2/3 MOA difference at range, but the best marksmen could see it easily.

Note that the military team best 5.56 NATO rifles shooting heavy bullets never shot consistently good 1000 yard scores compared to what good M1A and M1 7.62 rifles did. Which is why the US Army AMU got the NRA to allow AR10's be classified as “service rifles” for long range matches starting in 2012 at the Nationals. They no longer had any M14NM’s worth using.

Other ‘smiths at the USN Match Conditioning Unit built rifles after it closed down. Ray Kerbs for one; he’s in Florida now but no longer rebuilds Garands.

I give Charlie Frazier (USN CPO, Retired) credit for figuring out how to make Garands shoot as accurate (precise) as they do as well as develop some of the best loads for them. He first managed the USN Match Conditioning Unit for years after it was established and his best rifle ‘smiths were also retired USN CPO’s; Don McCoy, Ray Kerbs and John Lovric. John Lovric rebarreled a worn out 7.62 M1 barrel for me over 20 minutes time. Took it to a match the next day, sighted in with two sighter shots standing then went on to win the match.

I'm going to disagree with you on the sight radius, if what you were saying was true, then there would be no point in building match rifles with 30" barrels , not to mention bloop tubes.
Your other info is pretty much spot on, and I'm sure you can agree with what I'm saying, a good nm garand is still competitive at 1k.
Issac and Gus are the only living / working armorers I know that I would trust with a nm garand, you know others?

 

[Bart B.]

I'm going to disagree with you on the sight radius, if what you were saying was true, then there would be no point in building match rifles with 30" barrels

Issac and Gus are the only living / working armorers I know that I would trust with a nm garand, you know others?

Palma rifles have 30" barrels to get muzzle velocity for 150 and 155 grain bullets up to 3000 fps so they'll stay safely supersonic in cool weather to 1000 yards. And to add about 100 fps to otherwise 26" ones' bullets for better wind bucking

Bloop tubes were first and now used to extend the front sight forward to be more easily seen sharply for people with vision focus issues. Smaller rear sight apertures didn't help in low light conditions; a longer sight radius was the solution. A 6 MOA wide M14 front sight width changes to a 5.5 MOA wide one on an M1, but its center is still in the same place. Best front sight width will equal bullseye width; better windage consistency. Increase it with sight radius the same ratio.

Sight radius increase of 20% doesn't reduce the area on target your aim holding area covers at target range. All fired shots will subtend the same angle your hold area covers plus the extreme spread of the accuracy regardless of sight radius. The limit of our eye's angular resolution between rear and front sight alignment to a downrange target is fixed regardless of how far away the front sight is

Scope sights have an infinite sight radius; they show the same angular error for a given offset angle at all ranges

Don't know those 'smiths mentioned; don't know any others still doing them right.

 

[HomeSlice]

@mnm1945

Sorry all for reviving a year-old thread, but this seemed the most relevant of any I found while searching. I’m curious what load OP settled on and how it performed?

We have a USMC match this summer that I’m thinking of shooting in, using my M1. The match format is the standard 80 round across-the-course match followed by 20 rounds with unlimited sighters at 1000.

This is a memorial match, and is really for fun (for me anyway). While I’d love to be able to hit the black on the target, I’m more concerned with not damaging my rifle.

I’d love to hear OP’s, or anyone else’s, experience.

 

[Papa Charlie]

I would recommend you also check on the CMP forum. They live M1 Garands and shooting CMP matches. I am sure that you can find exactly the information you are looking for there. Not that I don't believe there are knowledgeable reloaders here.

http://forums.thecmp.org/

 

[riflewoman]

Interesting comment.

Anybody remember when Lake City Army Ammo Plant had Winchester take over operations and used ball powder in 7.62 NATO match ammo? Folks hoarded earlier lots made by Remington folks using IMR4895. While ball powder met accuracy specs (3.5" mean radius at 600 yards; at least 15 inches extreme spread), over all it was worse than what Remington folks got with IMR powder.

When Winchester took over at Lake City, the 118 match load was well on the way out. Both LC and Frankfort Arsenal toyed with using ball powder in 118 match ammo, but the service teams complained because zeros were shifting all over the place. So they went back to 4895 and seldom used ball powder for match ammo. Also by the time Winchester took over from Remington, the tools to make 172 grain bullets were pretty worn out and weee no longer capable of making bullets accurate enough for even Army standards. That’s when the 175 gr Sierras and 174 Hornady came to be.

 

[riflewoman]

As for the statement about the M1 can’t withstand the recoil impulse of a heavy bullet. The M1 was designed around the M1 Ball round which was a 174 grain bulletin at 2640 fps. Also the vast majority of ammo shot in combat and what became standard issue post WW2 was 165 grain AP. The gun will handle any ammunition that has the correct port pressure. For that you need powders no slower than Accurate 2520 and no faster than 3031. This, not the barrel length per se, limits the velocities of the heavy bullets. Clarke’s set of data is a good place to start. But there are other powders that have great potential in the M1.

As always, YMMV.

 

[Bart B.]

Also by the time Winchester took over from Remington, the tools to make 172 grain bullets were pretty worn out and weee no longer capable of making bullets accurate enough for even Army standards. That’s when the 175 gr Sierras and 174 Hornady came to be.

When I toured Lake City ammo plant last October, I discussed that issue with them. Sierra 175's replaced the Sierra 168's in their most accurate 7.62 ammo because 168's too often went subsonic before 1000 yards. It was cheaper to by 175's from Sierra than make new sets of bullet forming dies every year. 3 to 4 sets were needed to need the demand for their 173 grain FMJBT match bullets. They mixed all bullet making machine's bullets in each lot of ammo using 173's. A single lot of Sierra 175's was much more accurate.

Besides, LCAAP was well aware of military teams rebulleting M118 match ammo with 168 or 180 grain commercial match bullets and shooting test groups 1/3rd that what M118 ammo did with arsenal 173's.

Rebulleting accurate lots of 30-06 AP ammo with Sierra 180's was a favorite in the 1950's and was more accurate than M72 30-06 match ammo.

Few realize that arsenal match ammo with their 173/174 grain match ammo was typically 2 to 2.5 MOA stuff at 600 yards in the best rifles. National Match lots were 1.8 to 2.0 MOA. Arsenal spec was 3.5 inch mean radius at 600 yards.

 

[Dusty Stevens]

Id love to be able to shoot my m1a and m1 rifles more. For a bone stock NM m1a what is the best powder and charge for a 175smk and what seating depth is a good bet? Id love to find one of the old huge big red stocks straight off the match circuit too. Something nostalgic to me about shooting those 2 over a modern sporting rifle.

 

[chkunz]

As for the statement about the M1 can’t withstand the recoil impulse of a heavy bullet. The M1 was designed around the M1 Ball round which was a 174 grain bulletin at 2640 fps. Also the vast majority of ammo shot in combat and what became standard issue post WW2 was 165 grain AP. The gun will handle any ammunition that has the correct port pressure. For that you need powders no slower than Accurate 2520 and no faster than 3031. This, not the barrel length per se, limits the velocities of the heavy bullets. Clarke’s set of data is a good place to start. But there are other powders that have great potential in the M1.

As always, YMMV.

M1 Ball was not 174 grain, more like 147 grain? The M118 match ammo was based on an 173 grain boat tail bullet. Also, I do not think the AP bullet was "the vast majority of ammo shot in combat and what became standard issue post WW2.." The M1 port pressure was designed around the IMR 4895 bun rate. Also, as you say, the port pressure is the important point, not the bullet weight. If the port pressure is too high you will damage the op rod.

 

[chkunz]

Id love to be able to shoot my m1a and m1 rifles more. For a bone stock NM m1a what is the best powder and charge for a 175smk and what seating depth is a good bet? Id love to find one of the old huge big red stocks straight off the match circuit too. Something nostalgic to me about shooting those 2 over a modern sporting rifle.

I have shot the M14 for many years and always shot 41 grains of IMR 4895 with the 168 SMK and then the same load with the 175 SMK when it came out. The M14s are not easy to shoot like the ARs, you will loose your nostalgia very quickly when you get a fat lip. Use the standard seating depth for the M14/M1A. This is a semi auto military type rifle and does not lend itself to some of the accuracy loading techniques of the match rifles. The gas system is designed around the burn rate of IMR 4895, although the op rod may be somewhat more forgiving than the M1, burn rate it is still important.

 

[Bart B.]

M1 Ball was not 174 grain, more like 147 grain?

In the late 1920's, the 174 grain FMJBT bullet was the original M1 bullet for military 30-06 ammo for the M1903 and M1917 service rifles. It was replaced with a 150 grain FMJ flat base spitzer M2 bullet.

Read all about it in:

http://cartridgecollectors.org/?page=introduction-to-30-06-cartridges

 

[Bart B.]

For a bone stock NM m1a what is the best powder and charge for a 175smk and what seating depth is a good bet?

43 grains of IMR4064 and seat bullets as long as possible for reliable functioning.

 

[riflewoman]

Also, I do not think the AP bullet was "the vast majority of ammo shot in combat and what became standard issue post WW2.." The M1 port pressure was designed around the IMR 4895 bun rate. Also, as you say, the port pressure is the important point, not the bullet weight. If the port pressure is too high you will damage the op rod.

http://forums.thecmp.org/archive/index.php/t-166792.html In this thread several sources are stated including a reference to Bruce Canfields book. Ball was for training stateside. AP was for combat.

4895 came after the M1 was designed. It was actually designed around M1 ball which used IMR 1185. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield

 

[swehrman]

This is a memorial match, and is really for fun (for me anyway). While I’d love to be able to hit the black on the target, I’m more concerned with not damaging my rifle.

You should give some consideration to the poor soul that is in the pits pulling your target. It's no fun having to do pit calisthenics because the shooter on the line brought a rifle that can't hold the seven ring.

-- Scott

 

[HomeSlice]

You should give some consideration to the poor soul that is in the pits pulling your target. It's no fun having to do pit calisthenics because the shooter on the line brought a rifle that can't hold the seven ring.

-- Scott

We’ll be shooting electronic targets, but point taken. I think my rifle is capable if I can find a load that will stay supersonic without causing damage. That’s my request for advice.

 

[Bart B.]

The M14s are not easy to shoot like the ARs, you will loose your nostalgia very quickly when you get a fat lip.

Any hard recoiling rifle is harder to shoot as accurate as soft recoiling ones.

Grip and cheek M1 and M14 rifles correctly and you won't get a fat lip.