Re#16 and the M-1 Garand

[Ironworker]

Do you think Re#16 is too slow of a powder for use in an M-1 Garand shooting 150 gr bullets

 

[danny]

Not familiar with it. Where does it fit in, in relation to IMR 4320? Off of the top of my head, I would say yes, without a vented gas system, as it would be slower than RE 15, correct?

Danny

 

[fyrewall]

Yes absolutely, don't go there. Re16 - Not the powder for the M1 Garand.

Nothing slower than Varget and such. Excessive pressure at gas port near end of barrel. Re 16 is sort of like H4350 in burn speed. For years I used H380 but at moderate charges being advised of suitability by my Speer manual (frugality and a .22-.250) but I would use a lower density(more bulk) extruded powder now like H4895. Vast quantities of 4895 were made for WWII and it works well in the Garand even with lots of air space in the loading.

Re 16 might be wonderful with 168's in a .30-06 bolt gun but not the M1 Garand gas gun.

I believe 4320 evolved sometime after WWI for use in the Springfield but this needs to be verified.

I once knew this guy who got confused and loaded 6.5-06 rounds with H4895 mistaking it for H4831 (only 1/2 of the numbers are wrong) anyhow it locked up his pre 64 M70 so bad the barrel needed to be unscrewed and probably a new extractor. This sort of popped into my head as I typed out 4895. This was way back when the stuff came in cardboard containers that probably had same colors. H4831 was also made in vast quantities for some 20mm cannon in WWII. H4831 is also a no-go for the M1 Garand.

 

[Ironworker]

Thought so . I currently burn H4895 in my M-1. Its just I have a few lbs of Re#16 I was burning in my 6 creed ,but H4350 is now my go to powder for my 6 Creed .

 

[dave@aDave]

Find an American Rifleman dated March 1986. There is an article starting on page 50 titled 'Reloading For the M1 Rifle' by John R. Clarke.
This is for a 30-06 Garand. It has loads for 150 through 200 grains for a M1. He recommends powder between IMR3031 to IMR4320. Tells you about everything you need to know.
Also, Speer Reloading Manual # 13 has a special table for "gas-operated semi-automatic match rifles" on page 297 for 168 gr bullets. The powders listed are: N160, H4350, IMR4350, H380, IMR7828, RE19, IMR4831, H414, 760 IMR4895, IMR4064.
Hope this helps.

 

[mmcu]

Find an American Rifleman dated March 1986. There is an article starting on page 50 titled 'Reloading For the M1 Rifle' by John R. Clarke.

For those who are interested, here's the link to Clarke's article. https://www.scribd.com/document/40852596/Reloading-for-the-M1-Rifle-J-Clarke

 

[Beau]

I read an interesting take on this that stated that the volume of powder used is the underlying factor that makes a powder suitable for the M1. It said that any powder that uses ~48-52gr under a 150gr bullet is suitable for the M1.
You can check out Master Po's for powder comparisons under several bullet weights.
http://masterpostemple.bravepages.com/M1load.htm

 

[Zero333]

IMR-4064 will fill the case pretty good compared to other similar burning powders.

 

[fyrewall]

Here we go again....Get a copy of a load manual and see what works - My Hornady manual(s) has a section on loading the M1 Garand - like the rifle used in WWII & Korea. No powders are listed with slower burning rates than BL-C2. Any mention of using powders like IMR7828 or Re19 with the Garand with any bullet, show ignorance - IMR 7828 is one of the slowest burning powders being slightly above H1000 in the list. Using 52 grains of a slow burning powder like H4350 with a 150 could get you into, from Load Data - "IMR4350, IMR4831 and others with similar burning rates cause short cycling, increased recoil, erratic port pressures and accelerated wear in an M1". Things work real nice with H 4895, Hornady also mentions VIHT N140 & N150, these are sort of pricy.

From the Sierra Manual - exceptions - "the M1 Garand rifle. Powders in the medium burning range must be used when loading for a Garand. Due to its system of operation, the Garand can be damaged by improper powder selection even if the loads themselves are perfectly safe. We (Sierra) have had our best results when using IMR-4895, IMR-4064, XMR-2495, and 2520." Sierra goes on with an explanation of the M1 Garand operating rod. The gas system of the Garand is "closed" quite unlike that of a direct impingement AR.

Additional info from Sierra in powder suitability for Gas Gun Reloading - Excessive port pressure results in the action's being violently slammed open, possibly damaging it. This is particularly critical in the M1 Garand. With its closed gas system and relatively fragile operating rod choosing the correct powder is essential to avoid damaging the rifle."

Don't screw up your fine rifle by using ammo that is not designed for its gas system. Go to a reliable source. It is likely any one making suggestions of using Re 19 or IMR 7828 never shot or disassembled one. Getting a replacement for a damaged or bent Garand operating rod might be difficult.

Malwarebytes blocked "masterpostemple" for "malware" - could it be their knowledge is a risky as their site?

 

[danny]

Thought so . I currently burn H4895 in my M-1. Its just I have a few lbs of Re#16 I was burning in my 6 creed ,but H4350 is now my go to powder for my 6 Creed .

With only a few pounds of powder at hand, and with the expected use of 150 gr. bullets, it is not worth messing with. If the intent was heavier bullets and shooting Highpower at 1000 yds., experimenting with slower powders and venting the gas system might be warranted

Danny

 

[dave@aDave]

It should be mentioned that a lot of 30-06 factory loads are too "hot" for a M1 Garand.

 

[Beau]

Malwarebytes blocked "masterpostemple" for "malware" - could it be their knowledge is a risky as their site?

The loads listed are the same 50 year old loads we've all been working with.

But that's not the point of the OP's question. The question deals with an unknown, untested powder and how one is to know, without actually firing any of it, if it is suitable for the M1 Garand.

The way to tell if a powder is suitable is if it produces a max pressure load at approximately 48-52 grains of powder.
Anything less and the powder is too fast and will yield peaky, erratic loads with spotty functioning. Anything more will generate too high a volume of gas for the M1's closed gas system to deal with.

For example, if someone knew nothing about H4831 except for the load data presented at Hodgdon, they could conclude that H4831 IS NOT suitable for the Garand by looking at the maximum charge and seeing that it is 57.8gr, which violates the 52gr max rule by a long shot.
If they looked at the Varget data, they would see the max is 51gr, which rightly indicates that it is a suitable powder for the M1.

You made me do it, you made me go to Alliant's website and check their data for Re16. http://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...?gtypeid=2&weight=150&shellid=81&bulletid=459

It says that the max 30/06 load for the 150gr bullet is 58gr. This clearly violates the 52gr rule, so Re16 IS NOT a suitable M1 powder.

ETA: Check out http://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...?gtypeid=2&weight=150&shellid=81&bulletid=121 and see if you can pick the suitable M1 powder from among the 3 listed.

 

[dave@aDave]

I made a mistake.
The recommended powders in Speer Reloading Manual # 13 for "gas operated semi-automatic match rifles" 168 gr bullets are:
H380, IMR4895, and IMR4064 ONLY.
The others that I previously listed are for rifles other than a M1 Garand.
Again, sorry for the mis-information.

 

[fyrewall]

The loads listed are the same 50 year old loads we've all been working with.

But that's not the point of the OP's question. The question deals with an unknown, untested powder and how one is to know, without actually firing any of it, if it is suitable for the M1 Garand.

The way to tell if a powder is suitable is if it produces a max pressure load at approximately 48-52 grains of powder.
Anything less and the powder is too fast and will yield peaky, erratic loads. Anything more will generate too high a volume of gas for the M1's closed gas system to deal with.

For example, if someone knew nothing about H4831 except for the load data presented at Hodgdon, they could conclude that H4831 IS NOT suitable for the Garand by looking at the maximum charge and seeing that it is 57.8gr, which violates the 52gr max rule by a long shot.
If they looked at the Varget data, they would see the max is 51gr, which rightly indicates that it is a suitable powder for the M1.

You made me do it, you made me go to Alliant's website and check their data for Re16. http://www.alliantpowder.com/reload...?gtypeid=2&weight=150&shellid=81&bulletid=459

It says that the max 30/06 load for the 150gr bullet is 58gr. This clearly violates the 52gr rule, so Re16 IS NOT a suitable M1 powder.

All this is about suitable powders in the closed gas system Garand M1 rifle, not some funny 52 grain rule - the goal is to get working velocities and achieve optimum functioning of the M1 Garand gas system (gas pressure at gas port) - this is about burning rates and gas pressures at the gas port - drive the piston back - drive the operating rod back - turn & drive the bolt back to extract/eject spent round - spring compression release next to barrel sweeps up loaded round from enblock 8 round clip. Mr. Garand would go into apoplexy to read some of the crap thinking to apply bolt gun load data to his design developed in the 1930's.

Please comment on Sierra's comment, "loads that are perfectly safe" Please realize that chamber pressures are not the issue but pressures at the gas port some 20 inches away from the chamber are!

Re 16 sounds like a great powder for the .30-06, especially in duplicating some classic 4350 type loads with 165 grain bullets for shooting deers & elks. I am happy you made the inquiry into Alliant's site. I am as fussy as to what I use for powder in my rifles as to what I allow in my computer thus my "malware" note about that site - acceptance not required. Please consider this as a general safety advisory to prevent frustration, harm, and compromise that appears to be rife in todays environment of free flowing information and unsubstantiated authority.

Have you ever fired and maintained a Garand?

 

[Beau]

All this is about suitable powders in the closed gas system Garand M1 rifle, not some funny 52 grain rule - the goal is to get working velocities and achieve optimum functioning of the M1 Garand gas system (gas pressure at gas port) - this is about burning rates and gas pressures at the gas port - drive the piston back - drive the operating rod back - turn & drive the bolt back to extract/eject spent round - spring compression release next to barrel sweeps up loaded round from enblock 8 round clip.

And that is exactly what the 52 grain rule does.

Please comment on Sierra's comment, "loads that are perfectly safe" Please realize that chamber pressures are not the issue but pressures at the gas port some 20 inches away from the chamber are!

You'll notice that all the powders Sierra recommends comply with the 52gr rule. Not only does 52 say something about chamber pressure, it says something about burn rate as well & therefore port pressure & gas volume.
Keep in mind, all powders are within a percent or maybe two at most in the volume of gas they generate per grain. It's easy to cut that conversion rate down by adding adjuncts (like decoppering agents) but difficult to make the conversion significantly more efficient.

Re 16 sounds like a great powder for the .30-06, especially in duplicating some classic 4350 type loads with 165 grain bullets for shooting deers & elks. I am happy you made the inquiry into Alliant's site.

Yes, it does. I may have to pick some up for my boltgun. I'll bet it burns clean.

Have you ever fired and maintained a Garand?

I've had 6 or 7 pass through my hands over the last 30 years. I still have & shoot 3 of them.

 

[fyrewall]

And that is exactly what the 52 grain rule does.

You'll notice that all the powders Sierra recommends comply with the 52gr rule. Not only does 52 say something about chamber pressure, it says something about burn rate as well & therefore port pressure & gas volume.
Keep in mind, all powders are within a percent or maybe two at most in the volume of gas they generate per grain. It's easy to cut that conversion rate down by adding adjuncts (like decoppering agents) but difficult to make the conversion significantly more efficient.

Yes, it does. I may have to pick some up for my boltgun. I'll bet it burns clean.

I've had 6 or 7 pass through my hands over the last 30 years. I still have & shoot 3 of them.

Would 52 grains of a 4350 powder have equal chamber pressures as 52 grains of H4895? Probably about 45 K psi for the 4350 vs. 56 K psi for H4895. Percent or two per grain? - possibly for certain powders but not with Re 16 vs. H4895.

Clarification is needed for "maximum pressures" - "52 gr. rule" in regard to the Garand vs. bolt guns - Sierra - how would a 51.7 grain load of IMR 4895 at approximately 3000 fps with 150 grain bullet work out for the Garand? IMR 4895 is included in Sierra's list of happy powders for the Garand.

Being a sensible prudent person I would use the maximum data shown in my Hornady manual as 46.4 grains of H4895 at 2600 fps with a 150 grain bullet.

Is the Sierra data for shooting deers with a bolt gun vs. Hornady's data for sane operation of the Garand? Different powders but real close in purpose and burn rate - these work out well with lots of air space. Mr. Garand did not initially plan on using his design for the .30-06 but a mv of 2600 fps with 150's with the 06 round was more than adequate for the purpose.

Save the Garand's don't load them like varmint rifles! Keep crap out of our computers!

Did some of your Garand's have bent operating rods? My guess is, if you used a zippy Sierra 51.7 grain IMR4895 max load for 3000 fps at 56K psi with 150's, they did - 51.7 is real close to 52.

Don't know if Re16 burns clean but it costs about 15 percent less than H4350.

 

[fyrewall]

Forgot- wise to crimp bullets - I used a Lee crimp die and crimp in a separate operation. Any cannelure might or might not be at the right spot. With all the use the Garand has had over decades of use including WWII, Korea, and while I was in Viet Nam, ARVN troops were issued them (mid 1960's) - I wonder how many steel Garand clips it would take to make a Ford 150. These clips are real springy and are probably hi grade steel. If use occurred at low humidity cold climates many clips are still there - alpine areas in Italy or such?

 

[dave@aDave]

NOTE: I have not tried any of this information in my M1 Garand........yet. Checking with a couple of reloading manuals it seems to be OK
165/168 gr BT to 600 yards, 45.5 - 46 gr of IMR 4895, CCI #34 primer
more that 600 yards 175 Sierra Match, 46.5 gr IMR 4895, CCI #34 primer
as a general rule:
150 gr bullet = less than 2850 fps
165/168 gr bullet - less than 2750 fps
173/178 gr bullet = less than 2650 fps
AGAIN... I have not tried these suggestions. They were given to me by a Gunny at the Mare Island Marine Barracks. I put them in my notes and forget about them until now.
USE AT YOUR OWN RISK.

 

[Beau]

Would 52 grains of a 4350 powder have equal chamber pressures as 52 grains of H4895? Probably about 45 K psi for the 4350 vs. 56 K psi for H4895. Percent or two per grain? - possibly for certain powders but not with Re 16 vs. H4895.

No. Gas volume <> chamber pressure. You are forgetting that the slower powders are more progressive burning than faster powders.

Clarification is needed for "maximum pressures" - "52 gr. rule" in regard to the Garand vs. bolt guns - Sierra - how would a 51.7 grain load of IMR 4895 at approximately 3000 fps with 150 grain bullet work out for the Garand? IMR 4895 is included in Sierra's list of happy powders for the Garand.

I don't know where you are coming up with this, but my Sierra manual (2nd edition) shows a max of 50.4gr of IMR 4895 with the 150gr.

Being a sensible prudent person I would use the maximum data shown in my Hornady manual as 46.4 grains of H4895 at 2600 fps with a 150 grain bullet.

Is the Sierra data for shooting deers with a bolt gun vs. Hornady's data for sane operation of the Garand? Different powders but real close in purpose and burn rate - these work out well with lots of air space. Mr. Garand did not initially plan on using his design for the .30-06 but a mv of 2600 fps with 150's with the 06 round was more than adequate for the purpose.

Save the Garand's don't load them like varmint rifles! Keep crap out of our computers!

You may load it as hot *you* want. Simply shooting a gun wears on the gun. Obviously, hotter loads accelerate the wear.
Keep in mind that you are way off-topic on this thread. Just because a powder is SUITABLE doesn't mean you should load it peddle-to-the-metal.

Did some of your Garand's have bent operating rods? My guess is, if you used a zippy Sierra 51.7 grain IMR4895 max load for 3000 fps at 56K psi with 150's, they did - 51.7 is real close to 52.

This thread isn't about whether or not it's a good idea to run max loads in an M1. This thread is about determining if a powder is SUITABLE for use in an M1. Using the 52gr rule and looking at pressure-tested data, I can tell you with great assurance that Re16 IS NOT suitable for the M1 and that 4895 IS.

 

[rammac]

Ya' all are funny. I love the old "that's the way we did it back then..." argument.

In general, the 52gr rule is a pretty safe way to do business.

Actually the problem with bent op rods isn't really port pressure, it's impulse and momentum. Port pressure limits are a simplistic way of monitoring potential forces that reach the op rod. You actually need to know how fast the powder expands in the gas cylinder so that you can determine what the Impulse and momentum forces are. If you can calculate those forces then you would be able to determine what powders will damage the op rod. What the gas port pressure is isn't a true picture of what the gases are doing in the gas cylinder. But in reality we all know that nobody but the federal government would have the tools and money to do that kind of work and so the 52gr rule is a good substitute because that limitation on the powder charge relates to how much gas port pressure is developed which, in turn, relates to how much impulse and momentum the op rod experiences.

Oh, and yes, I'm one of those old guys too (62 years old this year) but tend to try to keep up with science behind the shooting sports.

P.S. - when you criticize people and software for being inaccurate it would behoove you to check your spelling and sentence structure. Otherwise your comments loose credibility. The plural of the words deer and elk are; deer and elk, not deers and elks.