Shoot it or pull it down?

[NapalmCheese]

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.

Hornady's data for the M1 Garand shows two loads reaching 2750 FPS with 150 grain bullets with different powders. M2 ball specifies a 150 grain FMJ bullet at 2740 FPS.

(46.4 grains H-335 under a 150 grain class Hornady bullet and 47.9 grains of Viht N-135 under the same bullet, both loads published in Hornady 10th edition page 524).

How does the Hornady load not meet milspec velocity?

If you don't want to believe Wikipedia regarding the loading for M2 ball I would understand. If we go to https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA570469.pdf and look on page 2, we see a reference to M2 ball pointing to citation #11. Citation number 11 is for Frank Barnes "Cartridges of the World" book (which I do not have a copy of).

Are you suggesting that M2 ball was specified by the military to have greater than 2750 FPS velocity?

Ah, now I'm seeing it. We're mixing up the 78 foot velocity as measured by the military vs. muzzle velocity; Hornady tests at 15 feet. If I plug in the numbers with a 150 FMJBT from hornady to get 2740 at 78 feet, I see a muzzle velocity of 2800.8 FPS. If I plug in 2750 @ 15 feel, I see muzzle velocities of 2761.6 FPS. That's a 39.2 fps difference, or a 1.4% difference, the type of difference that might be within the acceptable lot to lot standard deviation for M2 ball (given that as we've seen, some is hotter than others).

[bigbossman]

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.

Nope on the former, my mistake on the latter (see Napalm's post above for relevant Hornady data). The chart is for M2 Ball, taken from Hatcher's notebook. Not as good an authority as The Milsurp Guy, but one has to make do with what one has. Bottom line - your "research" consists of a random video on YouTube, by some random fellow posing as an expert. You made a claim that "most all ammo is safe in a Garand", but have yet to back it up with anything.

Please show us a substantive authority that backs your opinion..... other than a knucklehead on YouTube, preferably.

Apparently you're just arguing for the sake of thread crapping? So far, your main argument is your opinion that what you say is so, but without any "research" to back it up. Like I said earlier - you wanna beat your rifle(s) up in a mistaken belief that "all ammo is OK", you go right ahead.

[NapalmCheese]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Jeremy2171 IS Milsurp Guy. (https://carolinafirearmsforum.com/in...exposed.35052/)

So what are your credentials such that you are more authoritative on the proper op-rod velocity of the M1 Garand than anyone preceding you?

In post #20 of that thread you admit that a) the SA said the max op-rod velocity should be 26 fps and b) your don't know WHY that is (did you ever find out?). You then assert that despite SA saying the max op-rod velocities should be 26 FPS op-rod velocities above that are fine under certain circumstances.

You go on to discuss an email you had with someone else demonstrating that a well greased op-rod didn't bend with heavy commercial ammo, but did when the grease was removed. Given that grease is not always specified, and that M1 Garands were to be run dry in certain conditions (extreme cold for instance), does it not follow that to ensure proper operation of the rifle in all conditions in which it may be asked to perform, op-rod velocity was to be kept down?

Does it not also follow that in a world filled with 80 year old rifles sold by the CMP to owners who may not choose to change their springs the simple instruction to "not use ammo not designed for the M1 Garand" is an easy way to decrease the potential of bent op-rods under any condition?

I would posit that SA's parameter of a 26 FPS op-rod velocity is designed to reduce malfunctions of the M1 Garand in any operating condition it may find itself, from extreme heat in the desert to extreme cold in the Arctic.

A supposed field manual (FM 23-5 in the maintenance section, supposed because I've not looked for a real copy of the FM 23-5) can be found at https://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/M1/m1.htm which specifies in extreme cold all grease and oil should be removed with dry cleaning solvent, and light oil applied to wear areas. That is, no grease on the gun.

In short, just like you CAN grease up the op-rod and replace the spring and fire commercial ammo to your hearts content (probably) without bending your op-rod; you CAN also just replace the gas plug with an adjustable gas plug and do the same without replacing the spring. Likewise just because you CAN do either of those things doesn't mean you SHOULD when ammo is available (and available to be handloaded) that already has reduced op-rod velocities. Of course you CAN if you so choose.

This seems like a really long winded way to say "Despite the Springfield Armory specifying a 26 FPS maximum op-rod velocity, I greased my gun and changed a spring and haven't yet bent an op-rod with out of spec (op-rod velocity wise according to the Springfield Armory) ammo".

So what IS your endgame? To convince people that greasing their op-rod and changing their spring is viable alternative to an adjustable gas plug? Or is it just to poo on In Range? If the former, thank you; I am a fan of having all the appropriate info and making decisions for myself rather than just being given the prescriptive 'dumbed down' version. I'll keep that in mind (despite owning an adjustable gas plug I have no need to install since I load my own ammo with time tested and dependable recipes known to not have increased op-rod velocities) should I need to fire commercial ammo without first installing and tuning an adjustable gas plug. If the latter then... cool story bro.

[Itsrockysmodernlife]

Corrosive primers.

Safe to use in the garand as pretty much all ammo is safe.

[bigbossman]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Jeremy2171 IS Milsurp Guy. (https://carolinafirearmsforum.com/in...exposed.35052/)

Well, now. That makes the cheese more binding.

In that case, I owe Jeremy a HUGE apology. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake and didn't recognize a worm when it was right in front of me, hiding in plain sight. On hell of a way to get clicks on your stupid YouTube videos, by ruining your credibility and veracity, and irreparably damaging your integrity. But I guess that is what the world has become. No wonder that was the only "authority" you had to back up your claim...... you were the source, making it up all along.

I've seen some low, scurrilous, duplicitous behavior in my time....... and these shenanigans rank right up there. You now have zero credibility, and your words and opinions are of no import.

A common, pedestrian frickin' shill, trying to pass himself off as some sort of "expert". No wonder you never produced anything to back up your claim.

Wow...... just, WOW.

[Jeremy2171]

Hornady's data for the M1 Garand shows two loads reaching 2750 FPS with 150 grain bullets with different powders. M2 ball specifies a 150 grain FMJ bullet at 2740 FPS.

(46.4 grains H-335 under a 150 grain class Hornady bullet and 47.9 grains of Viht N-135 under the same bullet, both loads published in Hornady 10th edition page 524).

How does the Hornady load not meet milspec velocity?

If you don't want to believe Wikipedia regarding the loading for M2 ball I would understand. If we go to https://apps.dtic.mil/sti/pdfs/ADA570469.pdf and look on page 2, we see a reference to M2 ball pointing to citation #11. Citation number 11 is for Frank Barnes "Cartridges of the World" book (which I do not have a copy of).

Are you suggesting that M2 ball was specified by the military to have greater than 2750 FPS velocity?

Ah, now I'm seeing it. We're mixing up the 78 foot velocity as measured by the military vs. muzzle velocity; Hornady tests at 15 feet. If I plug in the numbers with a 150 FMJBT from hornady to get 2740 at 78 feet, I see a muzzle velocity of 2800.8 FPS. If I plug in 2750 @ 15 feel, I see muzzle velocities of 2761.6 FPS. That's a 39.2 fps difference, or a 1.4% difference, the type of difference that might be within the acceptable lot to lot standard deviation for M2 ball (given that as we've seen, some is hotter than others).

M2 ball is 2805 at the muzzle or 2740 +/-30fps.

Hornady gives TWO 150grn loads that hit 2750 at MAX charge (per hornady) and nothing using more common powders like 4895/varget.

The 168/178 loads are even worse. All 100-200 fps slower than milspec.

So yeah hornady is wrong...Hogdon is much better

[Jeremy2171]

Nope on the former, my mistake on the latter (see Napalm's post above for relevant Hornady data). The chart is for M2 Ball, taken from Hatcher's notebook. Not as good an authority as The Milsurp Guy, but one has to make do with what one has. Bottom line - your "research" consists of a random video on YouTube, by some random fellow posing as an expert. You made a claim that "most all ammo is safe in a Garand", but have yet to back it up with anything.

Please show us a substantive authority that backs your opinion..... other than a knucklehead on YouTube, preferably.

Apparently you're just arguing for the sake of thread crapping? So far, your main argument is your opinion that what you say is so, but without any "research" to back it up. Like I said earlier - you wanna beat your rifle(s) up in a mistaken belief that "all ammo is OK", you go right ahead.

try again...you pointed to M1906 ball...(the red arrow)
Go down two lines to where it says M2 ball.

[NapalmCheese]

M2 ball is 2805 at the muzzle or 2740 +/-30fps.

Hornady gives TWO 150grn loads that hit 2750 at MAX charge (per hornady) and nothing using more common powders like 4895/varget.

The 168/178 loads are even worse. All 100-200 fps slower than milspec.

So yeah hornady is wrong...Hogdon is much better

The Hornady data is within 40 fps of your milspec when adjusted for where the screens are... The Hornady data is also in 50 fps increments so... maybe it's 2799 at 15 feet? I wasn't there when they measured it. Maybe 2774 at 15 feet?

I'm curious what you see as "wrong". How is it "wrong". It's a safe load that never claims to be M2 ball. How do you define "wrong".

[Jeremy2171]

Now we're getting somewhere.

Jeremy2171 IS Milsurp Guy. (https://carolinafirearmsforum.com/in...exposed.35052/)

So what are your credentials such that you are more authoritative on the proper op-rod velocity of the M1 Garand than anyone preceding you?

Been collecting, building and working on them over 30 years now.

In post #20 of that thread you admit that a) the SA said the max op-rod velocity should be 26 fps and b) your don't know WHY that is (did you ever find out?). You then assert that despite SA saying the max op-rod velocities should be 26 FPS op-rod velocities above that are fine under certain circumstances.

You missed the addendum that clarified that 26fps comment after I went back and talked to Scott Duff. All he knew was it was some test showing 26fps...not that it was the max..just that that test and that pic showed 26fps. velocity.

You go on to discuss an email you had with someone else demonstrating that a well greased op-rod didn't bend with heavy commercial ammo, but did when the grease was removed. Given that grease is not always specified, and that M1 Garands were to be run dry in certain conditions (extreme cold for instance), does it not follow that to ensure proper operation of the rifle in all conditions in which it may be asked to perform, op-rod velocity was to be kept down?

No it shows the proper lubrication prevents oprod damage. Jim Thompson and I discussed this about where he wrote about it in his book. Extreme cold is in combat at the Chosin resevior. For civilians on the range in the US...grease is expected and required.

Does it not also follow that in a world filled with 80 year old rifles sold by the CMP to owners who may not choose to change their springs the simple instruction to "not use ammo not designed for the M1 Garand" is an easy way to decrease the potential of bent op-rods under any condition?

Seeing as how CMP sends out rifles in sometimes sketchy condition why would you NOT replace an unserviceable spring? It's like $8? What is the criteria for ammo "designed for the garand"? You do realize that regardless of the ammo with a bad spring or no lube you are still going to damage the rifle.

I would posit that SA's parameter of a 26 FPS op-rod velocity is designed to reduce malfunctions of the M1 Garand in any operating condition it may find itself, from extreme heat in the desert to extreme cold in the Arctic.

Do you have a source for that claim?

A supposed field manual (FM 23-5 in the maintenance section, supposed because I've not looked for a real copy of the FM 23-5) can be found at https://www.koreanwaronline.com/history/M1/m1.htm which specifies in extreme cold all grease and oil should be removed with dry cleaning solvent, and light oil applied to wear areas. That is, no grease on the gun.

Answered above...

In short, just like you CAN grease up the op-rod and replace the spring and fire commercial ammo to your hearts content (probably) without bending your op-rod; you CAN also just replace the gas plug with an adjustable gas plug and do the same without replacing the spring. Likewise just because you CAN do either of those things doesn't mean you SHOULD when ammo is available (and available to be handloaded) that already has reduced op-rod velocities. Of course you CAN if you so choose.

Again why are you suggesting people shoot guns with worn springs and no lubrication as prescribed by the FM?

Do you think the oprod velocity is what bends the oprod?

This seems like a really long winded way to say "Despite the Springfield Armory specifying a 26 FPS maximum op-rod velocity, I greased my gun and changed a spring and haven't yet bent an op-rod with out of spec (op-rod velocity wise according to the Springfield Armory) ammo".

Except SA didn't say that...

So what IS your endgame? To convince people that greasing their op-rod and changing their spring is viable alternative to an adjustable gas plug? Or is it just to poo on In Range? If the former, thank you; I am a fan of having all the appropriate info and making decisions for myself rather than just being given the prescriptive 'dumbed down' version. I'll keep that in mind (despite owning an adjustable gas plug I have no need to install since I load my own ammo with time tested and dependable recipes known to not have increased op-rod velocities) should I need to fire commercial ammo without first installing and tuning an adjustable gas plug. If the latter then... cool story bro.

My only reference to inrange is that their info is wrong and proven so. People shouldn't take it as gospel when it's been debunked.

You should ONLY be shooting a rifle (any rifle)in operable condition...which means properly lubed and with inspec parts (and springs). Don't go blaming the ammo when you shot the rifle dry and the spring was over a 1/2" short and something breaks.

[Jeremy2171]

Tell us which box of commercial ammo is unsafe in the garand..thanks

[Jeremy2171]

Well, now. That makes the cheese more binding.

In that case, I owe Jeremy a HUGE apology. It seems I'm a little slow on the uptake and didn't recognize a worm when it was right in front of me, hiding in plain sight. On hell of a way to get clicks on your stupid YouTube videos, by ruining your credibility and veracity, and irreparably damaging your integrity. But I guess that is what the world has become. No wonder that was the only "authority" you had to back up your claim...... you were the source, making it up all along.

I've seen some low, scurrilous, duplicitous behavior in my time....... and these shenanigans rank right up there. You now have zero credibility, and your words and opinions are of no import.

A common, pedestrian frickin' shill, trying to pass himself off as some sort of "expert". No wonder you never produced anything to back up your claim.

Wow...... just, WOW.

lol..nothing was made up...you can do research or you can't..feel free to learn the facts.

BTW my videos are not setup to generate income. Nor do I sell anything.

[Jeremy2171]

The Hornady data is within 40 fps of your milspec when adjusted for where the screens are... The Hornady data is also in 50 fps increments so... maybe it's 2799 at 15 feet? I wasn't there when they measured it. Maybe 2774 at 15 feet?

I'm curious what you see as "wrong". How is it "wrong". It's a safe load that never claims to be M2 ball. How do you define "wrong".

I think I've stated repeatedly that their data cannot duplicate milsurp loads...and it can't.

Hogdon however does a good job for the few powders they listed.

The fact is the garand is a lot less ammo sensitive than everyone has been led to believe.

[NapalmCheese]

Been collecting, building and working on them over 30 years now.

Great news.

You missed the addendum that clarified that 26fps comment after I went back and talked to Scott Duff. All he knew was it was some test showing 26fps...not that it was the max..just that that test and that pic showed 26fps. velocity.

Was that in the Carolina shooters thread?

No it shows the proper lubrication prevents oprod damage.

Actually, it shows that lubricating the op rod CAN protect it. Lubricating the op-rod is not necessarily 'proper' lubrication, as taken from the field manual.

Jim Thompson and I discussed this about where he wrote about it in his book. Extreme cold is in combat at the Chosin resevior. For civilians on the range in the US...grease is expected and required.

The M1 Garand was designed as a combat rifle, for combat, using combat ammo, to work in combat. So it, and the design parameters of the ammo used in it, are designed for combat. Civilian usage is outside of its design parameters.

Seeing as how CMP sends out rifles in sometimes sketchy condition why would you NOT replace an unserviceable spring?

Because it's not unserviceable? Springs, like anything else, have a max and min.

It's like $8? What is the criteria for ammo "designed for the garand"?

US Ball M2 and US Ball M2 AP.

You do realize that regardless of the ammo with a bad spring or no lube you are still going to damage the rifle.

you should make a new video where you (in freezing conditions) shoot USGI ammo with no grease, and then commercial ammo with no grease, until you damage your op rod with either one.

Do you have a source for that claim?

I do NOT have a source, thus the reason I said I "posit".

Answered above...

Right, 'answered' by saying civilians shouldn't be shooting their rifles when it's cold...

Again why are you suggesting people shoot guns with worn springs and no lubrication as prescribed by the FM?

I am not suggesting that, I am suggesting that perhaps the combat rifle and combat ammo were designed such that their use would not tear apart the rifle in the worst battlefield conditions possible, thus keeping op-rod velocity lower.

Do you think the oprod velocity is what bends the oprod?

Those people you think are wrong posit that the op-rod hitting the back of the receiver is one possible reason for the op-rod bending. That would be due to velocity. Velocity is also responsible for increasing the impulse necessary to overcome static friction of an un greased gun, which is what you posit bends op-rods.

Except SA didn't say that...

But you said they did in post 20 of that other thread, which is where I pulled that number.

My only reference to inrange is that their info is wrong and proven so. People shouldn't take it as gospel when it's been debunked.

Debunked you say... You shot a few rounds and now claim "op rod velocity has nothing to do with bending op rods" with no statistically significant data to back that up. What did In Range say? "some commercial ammo can have high op-rod velocities that could lead to damaging your rifle".

You should ONLY be shooting a rifle (any rifle)in operable condition...which means properly lubed and with inspec parts (and springs). Don't go blaming the ammo when you shot the rifle dry and the spring was over a 1/2" short and something breaks.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say "I have proven to myself with statistically insignificant testing that greasing the op-rod and swapping in a new recoil spring is all that is necessary to shoot whatever .30-06 ammo you can find without damaging your gun; whatch this video, take or leave it"? You haven't proven anyone wrong is the issue. Generations of shooters have been successfully shooting their Garands, using 'Garand Safe' loads, without bending their op-rods. That you were able to do so with non-'Garand Safe' loads isn't telling, it's a single point. Go run 10,000 rounds of commercial ammo through your Garand and get back to me. The op rod will be broken or not. I'm interested either way.

[bigbossman]

Frankly, I'm surprised you came back. You sold your integrity for clicks on your videos

[Jeremy2171]

Great news.


Was that in the Carolina shooters thread?



Actually, it shows that lubricating the op rod CAN protect it. Lubricating the op-rod is not necessarily 'proper' lubrication, as taken from the field manual.

Actually it is "proper" according to the FM.

The M1 Garand was designed as a combat rifle, for combat, using combat ammo, to work in combat. So it, and the design parameters of the ammo used in it, are designed for combat. Civilian usage is outside of its design parameters.

actually "within" the designed parameters...because a civilian will not be utilizing it the extent same as the military.

Because it's not unserviceable? Springs, like anything else, have a max and min.

How do you know its not unserviceable? 19.5" is the generally accepted replacement length.

US Ball M2 and US Ball M2 AP.

You left out M1 Ball, M1 Tracer, M25 Tracer, M1 Incendiary, M14 API and M72 match.

But you overlooked the fact that NONE of those were designed FOR the garand. They are just 30cal service cartridges intended to be used in 30cal service weapons.

you should make a new video where you (in freezing conditions) shoot USGI ammo with no grease, and then commercial ammo with no grease, until you damage your op rod with either one.

Why? Is there some big reason why most garand shooters are going to be out in sub zero temps shooting their rifle?

I am not suggesting that, I am suggesting that perhaps the combat rifle and combat ammo were designed such that their use would not tear apart the rifle in the worst battlefield conditions possible, thus keeping op-rod velocity lower.


Those people you think are wrong posit that the op-rod hitting the back of the receiver is one possible reason for the op-rod bending. That would be due to velocity. Velocity is also responsible for increasing the impulse necessary to overcome static friction of an un greased gun, which is what you posit bends op-rods.

the oprod doesn't hit the back of the receiver..ever.

But you said they did in post 20 of that other thread, which is where I pulled that number.

check the video

Debunked you say... You shot a few rounds and now claim "op rod velocity has nothing to do with bending op rods" with no statistically significant data to back that up. What did In Range say? "some commercial ammo can have high op-rod velocities that could lead to damaging your rifle".

way more data than inrange...including duplicating then debunking their video.

Why don't you just cut to the chase and say "I have proven to myself with statistically insignificant testing that greasing the op-rod and swapping in a new recoil spring is all that is necessary to shoot whatever .30-06 ammo you can find without damaging your gun; whatch this video, take or leave it"? You haven't proven anyone wrong is the issue. Generations of shooters have been successfully shooting their Garands, using 'Garand Safe' loads, without bending their op-rods. That you were able to do so with non-'Garand Safe' loads isn't telling, it's a single point. Go run 10,000 rounds of commercial ammo through your Garand and get back to me. The op rod will be broken or not. I'm interested either way.

No generations of shooters haven't been shooting "garand safe" loads as those thing are relatively new (as in the last 15 or so years) they have been shooting regular commercial up until all of sudden commercial ammo is "too hot" (it's not).

Its real simple....if commercial ammo is moving oprods at x velocity and milsurp ammo moves the oprod at "x" velocity. Then it supports the claim the operating pressures are similar. Yes or no?

If you think my testing is statistically insignificant... then the inrage video is near worthless and less supporting of the claim.


Garands operate in a large range of port pressure from the low 8000psi to 11,000 psi with various milsurp ammo. Commercial ammo also falls into this range.