Shoot it or pull it down?

[bigbossman]

No you made a claim it has specific requirements....what are they..

No - you made the claim that most all ammo was safe in a Garand. Substantiate it, or give up. You have not backed up your initial assertion that this is so, with any sort of substantive, authoritative source.

I've called Hornady, I've called Hodgdon. They have both told me why they publish separate loading data for the Garand. I've cited Shooting Times and Handloader Magazine. You think they are all ignorant, lazy, and don't know what they are talking about.

I'll choose to listen to the EXPERTS, over some internet fellow with no cites, data, or credentials. You do you.

[Jeremy2171]

No - you made the claim that most all ammo was safe in a Garand. Substantiate it, or give up. You have not backed up your initial assertion that this is so, with any sort of substantive, authoritative source.

I've called Hornady, I've called Hodgdon. They have both told me why they publish separate loading data for the Garand. I've cited Shooting Times and Handloader Magazine. You think they are all ignorant, lazy, and don't know what they are talking about.

I'll choose to listen to the EXPERTS, over some internet fellow with no cites, data, or credentials. You do you.

Why do you keep avoiding this?

Just tell us as the specific criteria garand ammo has to meet.


However some simple googling would show you that this myth has been debunked.

https://youtu.be/UOSdswZHJUc

Part 2 is really good

https://youtu.be/5kKTrT9_Fus

[bigbossman]

Why do you keep avoiding this?

Just tell us as the specific criteria garand ammo has to meet.


However some simple googling would show you that this myth has been debunked.

https://youtu.be/UOSdswZHJUc

Part 2 is really good

https://youtu.be/5kKTrT9_Fus

Hornady.
Hodgdon.
Shooting Times.
Handloader Magazine.

Random youtube videos don't help your baseless case.

[Jeremy2171]

Try again.. shooting times and handloader have already been proven wrong.


And since you obviously haven't watched the two videos to actually see the tests and data provided means you are already unable to have a rational conversation on this subject.

Research is your friend....you should try it sometime.

[bigbossman]

Try again.. shooting times and handloader have already been proven wrong.


And since you obviously haven't watched the two videos to actually see the tests and data provided means you are already unable to have a rational conversation on this subject.

Research is your friend....you should try it sometime.

Proven wrong..... by who, you? lol
Hodgdon and Hornady. Hmmm... you might try your own advice.

"The Milsurp Guy"? You take that as more authoritative than component manufacturers? You might do as I did and drop a dime, call the folks that make the components, and ask them..... as opposed to getting your gospel from Youtube abd Reddit.

These guys have an opposing view with the same "analysis", and are every bit as credible as your "expert":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_F1riBth8

Research is indeed your friend. Make the calls a learn something, instead of choosing to engage in an endlessly circular argument of your own design.

[Jeremy2171]

Proven wrong..... by who, you? lol
Hodgdon and Hornady. Hmmm... you might try your own advice.

"The Milsurp Guy"? You take that as more authoritative than component manufacturers? You might do as I did and drop a dime, call the folks that make the components, and ask them..... as opposed to getting your gospel from Youtube abd Reddit.

These guys have an opposing view with the same "analysis", and are every bit as credible as your "expert":

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQ_F1riBth8

Research is indeed your friend. Make the calls a learn something, instead of choosing to engage in an endlessly circular argument of your own design.

Well considering Hornady can't even duplicate milsurp velocity with their data it's already suspect and known to be anemic.

And again you link a video done by two guys who don't know what they are talking about as they also claim it was designed for M2 ball (it wasn't) and then their poorly done test was debunked in the videos I linked if you had bothered to even watch them.

So again...do some research..I have..

[TKM]

Jeremy is a thread killer on The High Road as well.

I didn't think anybody could annoy Jim Watson.

[Jeremy2171]

Jeremy is a thread killer on The High Road as well.

I didn't think anybody could annoy Jim Watson.

Sorry you hate facts

[NapalmCheese]

I'm enjoying the bickering, so let's recap!

Hodgdon and Hornady both offer specific data for the M1 Garand; and neither one stands to sell more things by offering specialized data (in Hodgdon's instance they stand to sell less powder in fact) other than if your gun doesn't break you can buy more components.

In Range has video showing the bolt velocity of the M1 Garand with a few different rounds, and posits that the velocity difference is potentially damaging to the op rod and suggests using an adjustable plug if you're going to use commercial ammo.

Milsurp guy does a similar test, with a rifle he built, in which he replaced the recoil spring with a brand new spring, and finds the velocity difference to be up to 30+% and suggests that since the Army saw similar bolt velocities to the high-end velocities he saw with commercial ammo, it's just fine.

I mean it seems to me that at the end of the day you've got two companies that stand to make money by ensuring you don't break your gun and at least one guy that deals with old guns professionally suggesting that you use mild ammo (or an adjustable gas plug) vs. a guy with a youtube channel and a bunch of people on the internet that have watched that channel.

Did I miss anything? What are Milsurp Guy's credentials such that he's an authority on what the proper op-rod velocity for an M1 Garand is?

[Jeremy2171]

Did I miss anything? What are Milsurp Guy's credentials such that he's an authority on what the proper op-rod velocity for an M1 Garand is?

Probably the fact that he corrected the false information spread by inrange since it's obvious they don't know much about the garand or did much research on it.

Secondly the inrange test was fully duplicated then debunked by switching the brand of M2 ball ammo. Since inrange used the weakest loading out there .

Who knows what deals inrange has to push those aftermarket parts ..not to mention all the revenue from all the clicks they get with their sensationalized video and the fact they misled lots of new garand owner's.

[bigbossman]

Did I miss anything? What are Milsurp Guy's credentials such that he's an authority on what the proper op-rod velocity for an M1 Garand is?

You pretty much summed it up correctly.

The takeaway is - Hornady and Hodgdon don't really know what they are doing, but the "Milsurp Guy"? Ahhhh...... The Milsurp Guy. He Knows, Man. He KNOWS.

[Jeremy2171]

You pretty much summed it up correctly.

The takeaway is - Hornady and Hodgdon don't really know what they are doing, but the "Milsurp Guy"? Ahhhh...... The Milsurp Guy. He Knows, Man. He KNOWS.

Well Hornady load data doesn't meet milspec velocity.

Hogdon data is much better..but those aren't the only powders you can use. Just what THEY tested.

[bigbossman]

Well Hornady load data doesn't meet milspec velocity.

Well, when your "research" consists of watching a YouTube video, I can understand why you'd think that way.

But..... Ummmm...... yeah, it does in fact meet milspec velocities:

From Hatcher's Notebook:



Hornady data FOR SERVICE RIFLES:

[Jeremy2171]

Well, when your "research" consists of watching a YouTube video, I can understand why you'd think that way.

But..... Ummmm...... yeah, it does in fact meet milspec velocities:

From Hatcher's Notebook:



Hornady data FOR SERVICE RIFLES:

You need some help doing research it appears. First you circled the velocity for M1906 ball....not M2 ball.

Secondly you linked hogdon data not Hornady...

Let me know if I can be of further assistance.

[NapalmCheese]

So your first assertion here is

Probably the fact that he corrected the false information spread by inrange

So you think In Range is spreading false information with the statement "commercial ammo can produce higher op-rod velocities which might damage your gun"? They did in fact show higher op-rod velocities with commercial ammo (which they admitted was hot loaded commercial ammo) vs their M2 Ball (which they never stated a source for).

since it's obvious they don't know much about the garand or did much research on it.

I honestly don't know how much research they've done on the M1 Garand, but Ian McCullum is a professional historian specializing in firearms.

Secondly the inrange test was fully duplicated then debunked by switching the brand of M2 ball ammo.

Again, the In Range test just stated that commercial ammo can increase the op-rod velocity. Milsurp Guy's videos show the same thing.

Since inrange used the weakest loading out there .

I just re-watched the In Range video, I don't recall them saying which loading they were using other than "surplus M2 ball".

Who knows what deals inrange has to push those aftermarket parts ..

Again, having just watched the video, I don't recall them every specifying which gas plug to procure if you want to reduce the op-rod velocity of your M1 Garand (thought hey do suggest the adjustable one is better than the non adjustable ones), so you think they potentially have deals with all of the gas plug manufacturers?

not to mention all the revenue from all the clicks they get with their sensationalized video and the fact they misled lots of new garand owner's.

I would assume that they do in fact get some amount of money from those ad clicks, it could be substantial I suppose. I'm not sure how you see this video as sensationalized however. They have their data, they admit to comparing surplus M2 ball with "hot loaded" commercial ammo, and suggest that you can reduce the op-rod velocity of the M1 Garand with any loading by using an adjustable gas plug (which they then demonstrate on video).

What are Milsurp Guy's qualifications that he can speak more authoritatively on the subject of proper op-rod velocity for the M1 than a professional firearms historian?

Having reviewed his video all I see is that he ALSO found a 30+% velocity increase between the mildest M2 ball loads and the hottest commercial loads, but his conclusion is that it's fine, because the Army did a test when they were looking to switch the M1 Garand from .30-06 to 7.62 NATO and the ammo they used produced op-rod velocities greater than the op rod velocities he was seeing with hot loaded commercial ammo (and a brand new spring).