• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Reloading guidelines for M1 Garand M2 Ball ammo

I was told by my cousin who was in the Korean war and was awarded the silver star but was right beside his lieutenant which was awarded the CMA feeding the machinegun killing lots of Chinese this about the AP round. He as well as most combat solders preferred the slightly heaver black tip AP round because it was also a bit longer bullet and tended not to tumble like the M2 Ball shorter flat base did on impact because when the Chinese came in their human waves the AP bullet tended to get more than one per shot. It would penetrate the first guy and go on to get one or more behind him.

I do know about the penetration capability of the AP round. When I was 12 years old in 1969 my neighbor who was a deer hunter told me that if I got a high power rifle he would take me deer hunting. I worked my butt off the next year mowing yards, working in the tobacco fields, helping bale and put up hay and anything else I could find to do to make money. I had saved up $45. At that time there were shopping carts or barrels stacked with WWII rifles for around $30 in a number of the sporting goods stores or places like Kmart. My Dad took me to one of these stores to get a rifle. Most of these rifles were either 7mm or 8mm Mauser but when we got to this store they had their rifles boxed and standing up in a shopping cart with a price tag of $40 on the cart. Dad, a WWII vet, opened one of the boxes and pulled out the rifle and told me "this is what you want". It turned out to be a "unissued" Remington 1903A3 Springfield. Dad got me a box of 150 gr SP ammo and the rifle for my $45. The cousin mentioned above was in the National Guard at that time and when he went to muster each month he would bring me a 200 round can of the black tip AP ammo. It shot really well. There was an old logging truck sitting on a hill where I roamed that had been wrecked. I decided to see what the AP round would do. From 100 paces I fired a round across the front end of the truck striking one front finder and the bullet went through it and then put a hole through one of the cylinders of the straight 6 engine block and then exited the other finder. That rifle would kick like a mule but I learned how to handle the recoil and learned how to judge yardage and set the rear sight to the yardage and became a pretty good long range shot. At that time deer were few and far between and I carried that rifle for 4 years and never saw a deer. I sold that rifle and bought a shorter lighter Marlin 30-30 Win. and when I was 18 years old I saw my first deer while hunting and killed it with the 30-30. It was a 5 point buck that field dress at 164 lbs which was a MONSTER weight wise in the mountains of TN.
 
It’s not overly complicated. Push a 150 FMJ about 2700 fps and it will shoot good without damage. I like the low cost Hornady 3037 over 46.2gr H4895 sparked by Fed 210 in my 1945 SA. Shoots great.
I’ve never had a problem with Fed primers, but I’ve only shot about 500 rounds through mine.
 
The m1 bullet was 172-3 and was replaced by the m2 150 gr bullet for weight savings on the soldier and shipping however the m1 was still retained for belted machine guns and sniper use as it did in fact fly farther for the machine guns and shoot better for snipers.
Nm 06 Ammo was always loaded with 172/3 grain bullets and is fine for the garand.
the round count firing a garand in matches does not even come close to using them in combat, marksmanship practice etc. when a new rifle is tested for endurance they fire thousands of rounds to observe parts breakage not firing 40 -50 rds at a match once a year. the 173 gr bullet was taking a toll on the garands and for longevity they went back to the 150 grain
 
How does a heavier bullet cause more damage. There is less powder.
I broke an op rod, m2 ball. But it was un cut.

nothing more than 50 grains of powder and 150’s , few grains less with 175’s and it will be fine. They are not made of bubble gum.
 
I had read that the government at some point had gone to a heavier 173 gr BT bullet, but went back to a 150 gr bullet. Not sure if the 150 gr was a Spitzer FB or a BT. Although I think it was the Spitzer FB. I think the 150 gr Spitzer FB may be my choice here. It is my understanding that there is no benefit to BT at ranges less than 300 yards.

The original 30-06 ball round was a 150gn FMJ flat-base at a nominal 2,700 fps MV, It performed fine (in a military sense) in rifles, but was found to have markedly inferior maximum range in machineguns on the WW1 western front compared to the British 303, French 8mm, and German 7.92. The Germans had in fact by that stage of the war moved onto a heavy-bullet (196gn streamlined type) high-pressure loading for these weapons.

The final couple of years of WW1 saw MGs used in batteries, sometimes in dedicated MG battalions as a form of light artillery firing on fixed lines over support trenches, roads and light railways, supply dumps and troop concentrations at ranges way beyond 3,000 metres, sometimes approaching 5,000.

US Army officers came away from this conflict with serious concerns about 30-06 performance in this role. A series of actual ranging tests in MGs was carried out that showed the original 30-06 150gn round had inferior range capabilities as suspected and ran nearly 1,500 yards down on the original prewar estimated maximum range. A programme to produce a high-performance, heavy higher BC bullet load was instituted initially experimenting with the 173gn FMJBT loaded in the Swiss GP11 7.5X55mm service round, a contemporary ballistic leader, but later devising a whole series of US in-house designs at FA and resulting in the M1 round, a hot high-pressure loading. So hot, the initial production loading had to be reduced as whilst MGs had no troubles handling it, M1903s suffered excessive wear and even damage in extended use. It was intended throughout that for logistics reasons, the M1 would be the sole 30-06 US military standard ball round.

However when it came into service, there were still millions of WW1 era 150gn cartridges in store and it was deemed that they had to be used up first before M1 stocks were issued. This took the best part of 10 years such was the downscaling of US forces in the 20s and 30s and the very limited live firing training allowed. By the time the M1 came into use in the late 30s, support weapons and tactical doctrines had changed dramatically with effective company level mortars and light field guns that were far more effective than grouping scores of MGs together and blanketing areas 1,500 yards and more away with subsonic rifle calibre bullets. Also, when the M1 cartridge was issued in quantity to line units, two problems arose. GIs hated the additional recoil when fired in M1903s, and National Guard units pointed out that their ranges lacked sufficiently long danger areas to contain M1 bullets inside range boundaries.

So, a decision was made to develop a revised 150gn flat-base bullet design solely for Guard issue, result the 152gn M2, basically a modernised variant of the original that gave an extra 100 fps MV thanks to improved propellants, and that used a gilding metal (brass) jacket vice the badly barrel-fouling cupro-nickel original. This was finalised and went into production c. 1938. So, the US fielded two 30-06 rounds for a few years.

After the M1 Garand rifle was developed and introduced, concerns arose that the M1 cartridge was too heavily loaded for extended use in it. Concerns reappeared about logistics too with two ball cartridge versions being produced. As the need for ultra long-range MG ammo had apparently evaporated it was decided to ditch the M1 cartridge and standardise the M2 variant for all infantry use. If machinegunners found themselves in a tactical situation that required heavier loadings / extended ranges, they had access to armour-piercing ammo that met the need, and that's what happened in practice in WW2. Overall, a pretty sensible outcome and the M1 rifle + M2 ammo combination served the US very well in WW2 and Korea.

As @riflewoman says, this did create the myth that the M1 rifle can't handle heavy (ie ~175gn) bullet weights without damage to the op-rod, but it was actually the pressure and heavy loadings of the M2 that were potentially too heavy. They were also too heavy by quite a margin it appears for many experienced infantrymen and marines in the M1903 rifle from contemporary accounts and would have presumably been brutal on unseasoned recruits inducted in huge numbers and given minimal live firing training after Pearl Harbor.
 
Last edited:
A bit of clarification, if I may. It wasn’t the M2 Ball ammo that was overdriving the M1 op rod. It was the M2 AP. M2 AP fired a 165 grain bullet at 2700 FPS. The nominal charge was 55 grains WC852 (roughly H380). Hence my reservation about exceeding 50 grains of powder. The chamber pressures were 55000 (CUP but expressed in psi). The M1 rifle is stout except in the op rod.

This ammo isn’t a problem if you have an ordnance repair depot 5 - 10 miles in the rear, but a civilian doesn’t have that and besides op rods are becoming expensive.
 
The Johnson rifle was much stronger handled 65K PSI easily cheaper to make then the Garand but politics led to Johnson being shunned same way Stoner was by the Army. I love the Garand but the operating rod was a real weak link. I say if you just shot 220 gr bullets with normal not hot powder charges in the Garand the operating rod would not last long
 
the round count firing a garand in matches does not even come close to using them in combat, marksmanship practice etc. when a new rifle is tested for endurance they fire thousands of rounds to observe parts breakage not firing 40 -50 rds at a match once a year. the 173 gr bullet was taking a toll on the garands and for longevity they went back to the 150 grain
You do realize that the garand was the match rifle for years, even after the M1A’s /m14 came to be I myself shot a garand for a while. They used to issue us the nm ammo which was the 172/73 bullet and I can say I have never seen a garand damaged by it. For Christ sakes for years the “ load” for long range was a 180smk and you only got one loading on that brass. No damage to my gun or any other.
The problem with slow powders has to do with dwell time and it bending the op rod. When that happens in a nm garand it’s no longer bedded properly and you get fliers, but it generally will still work. Bulked weight is not a concern.
Don’t ask me though, ask old armorers like Gus fisher or Clint Fowler it issac Mccaskill.
 
If damage to the op rod is a concern, installing a Schuster Plug (and tuning the plug to your ammo) is a better solution than obsessing over ammo and powder type. A properly adjusted Schuster Plug will produce gentle cycling of the action and protect your op rod.
 
I appreciate the posts. While I am concerned by the pressure, you can protect the op rod by using a bleed off gas plug. They spill excessive gas pressure and help to protect the op rod.
As for the weight of the bullet. The heavier the bullet the heavier the recoil. We all know this. That recoil no only has an affect on our shoulders, but has an affect on the components of the rifle as well.
I don't believe there is sufficient difference between a ~155 gr bullet and a ~172 gr bullet as far as recoil. The heavier bullet will create some additional pressure which has to be handled by the the gas cylinder and therefore must be bled off to prevent damage to the rifle.
Most likely I will go with this load:

Ether a 155 or 173 gr bullet
H4895 or the Varget
CCI BR-2 Primers
I will probably start with a 44 gr load and test up to find the right load, watching pressure and velocity.

Thanks very much for the input and the discussion. Very interesting read.

I love my M1. She is one of the 30k that bear the duplicated SN's with Springfield. Would love to find the SA with matching SN. That is the holy grail.

I have been collecting accessories for my M1 for some time. My plan is to build a WWII display to show off the rifle and the accessories. Yes, I will continue to shoot her now and then but I would love to have her visible the rest of the time and not hide in a case or the safe.

Working with some members on CMP to get some used (beyond use) parts including: barrels, gas cylinder and forearms, etc to make shorts to hold the bayonet and grenade launcher separate from the rifle. Also have most of the common issued equipment for an infantryman for 1943. Still playing with the layout, but here are some basics I put together using Excel. I have bandoleers, 1911 holster and mag pouch, first aid pouch, ammo cans, spam cans, tons of clips with standard ball and AP rounds. So the display should look pretty good when it is done. This is a long term project and I am still not happy with it. But fun to plan.

Diplay Option 4.JPG
 
Last edited:
If damage to the op rod is a concern, installing a Schuster Plug (and tuning the plug to your ammo) is a better solution than obsessing over ammo and powder type. A properly adjusted Schuster Plug will produce gentle cycling of the action and protect your op rod.
That would work, or you could just not use 4350 or rl19
I had a schuster plug on my garand and you can use it to adjust your dwell time and get damn good groups with your 600 yd ammo but I did have a few alibis in rapids with what was short stroking. I could have probably overcome it by upping my powder charge but I started using me M1A’s then my AR’s and really haven’t messed with my NM garand in years as it needs a new barrel anyway. Hell I might break it out and put a new tube on it to see if I can shoot HM xtc.
If my eyes can still see the sights
 
A bit of clarification, if I may. It wasn’t the M2 Ball ammo that was overdriving the M1 op rod. It was the M2 AP. M2 AP fired a 165 grain bullet at 2700 FPS. The nominal charge was 55 grains WC852 (roughly H380). Hence my reservation about exceeding 50 grains of powder. The chamber pressures were 55000 (CUP but expressed in psi). The M1 rifle is stout except in the op rod.

This ammo isn’t a problem if you have an ordnance repair depot 5 - 10 miles in the rear, but a civilian doesn’t have that and besides op rods are becoming expensive.
Yea I never fired the ap stuff, I have a bunch though I’ve collected over the years.
Btw op rods can be straightened , or at least bent back like they are supposed to be bent as they have two bends in them
I spend a little time when I bedded my NM garand making sure it didn’t touch the stock and handguard. Clint Fowler had a treatise on doing it I followed when I did it and it worked.
There are people that even weld up the tabs and solder on new pistons because they are getting expensive.
 
the round count firing a garand in matches does not even come close to using them in combat, marksmanship practice etc. when a new rifle is tested for endurance they fire thousands of rounds to observe parts breakage not firing 40 -50 rds at a match once a year. the 173 gr bullet was taking a toll on the garands and for longevity they went back to the 150 grain
The book of the M1 grand by JS Hatcher page 126. The M1 was designed and built for the M1 bullet. 172 grains because, they found in world war one I ammo would not shoot as far as the British and the French. After the war, the US had millions of rounds of 150 grain full metal jacket, ammunition, but all that and all the match shooters had moved up to 172 gr bullet with a 9° boat tail it was found that agave much better long range performance. The only reason the US went back to what became the 152 grain M2 ball was not to wear and tear on the M1. it was the shorter rifle ranges used on national ranges. They would over shoot the ranges and cause problems for possible civilians. You say that the 172 was too hard on the M1 but a great deal of ammo in World War II was the AP ammo
 
The book of the M1 grand by JS Hatcher page 126. The M1 was designed and built for the M1 bullet. 172 grains because, they found in world war one I ammo would not shoot as far as the British and the French. After the war, the US had millions of rounds of 150 grain full metal jacket, ammunition, but all that and all the match shooters had moved up to 172 gr bullet with a 9° boat tail it was found that agave much better long range performance. The only reason the US went back to what became the 152 grain M2 ball was not to wear and tear on the M1. it was the shorter rifle ranges used on national ranges. They would over shoot the ranges and cause problems for possible civilians. You say that the 172 was too hard on the M1 but a great deal of ammo in World War II was the AP ammo
This is correct
 
Privi Pritzi or however you say it has a great M2 ball 150g bullet Cheap! It works awesome for me in my Eddystone--I load precision 223 and I loved the 30-06 because you can load it with Lee dippers or a tea spoon and be off by few grains and they will still shoot same FPS--I laugh when I say that I know folks always go crazy with precision but--30-06 is VERY forgiving when you are in the lower power pressure type ranges Very forgiving----That bullet is a winner for these old rifles and is cheap as they come
If you keep the load on the lighter end you can enjoy those rifles without having to be so darn anal about the loading---the line on those bullets is in the right place also--it is a line not a knurled canalure--Makes life easy for a change
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,802
Messages
2,203,323
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top