Shoot it or pull it down?

[Jeremy2171]

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

Not at all...you just seem unable to look at facts and do research regarding the garand.

[NapalmCheese]

Actually it is "proper" according to the FM.

Not in freezing weather it isn't.

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

Good to know civilians will never put an M1 on their snow machine as bear defense...

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

By measuring it?

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

I never claimed my list to be exhaustive.

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.

The .30 cal service weapons of the time being the M1 Garand, the 03, and the BAR...

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

Because there are fun things to do out in sub zero temps? I do it quite often.

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

You claim. Prove it.

check the video

But you made the video before you made that claim in post 20

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

I don't think "debunking" means what you think it means. Their only claim was that "some commercial ammo can damage your rifle". Debunking that means you claim "no commercial ammo will damage your rifle". If that's the hill you want to die one be my guest but that's a bold and unprovable claim. Why not just be more forthcoming and drop the "debunking" and say "I theorize that no commercial ammo will damage your rifle if the recoil spring is in spec and the op rod is greased"?

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)

I mean, M2 ball is considered 'garand safe' and has been around since the rifle...

they have been shooting regular commercial up until all of sudden commercial ammo is "too hot" (it's not).

Because no one shoots M2 ball...

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?

In general I would say yes, though burn rates can affect the dv/dt but with the gas port being so close to the muzzle I wouldn't think that to be as important except at the extreme ends of burn rate.

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

Their claim is that some commercial ammo can possibly damage your gun because of increased op-rod velocity. They then show ammo causing increased op-rod velocity. Your claim is op rod velocity can't damage your gun. You then reach the same result they did (finding that some ammo can generate op rod velocities in excess of 30% greater than M2 ball) and claim it can't hurt your gun. You haven't proven anything. Neither have they, except that some commercial ammo can generate increased op-rod velocity (and adjustable gas plugs can reduce it).

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.

At the end of the day you have a theory. You haven't "debunked" anything because you can't. You cannot prove "all commercial ammo is safe to shoot in an M1 Garand". All the In Range guys need to prove their claim is evidence of one single commercial cartridge bending an op-rod. You have a weak stance as you've stated it. I'm of the opinion that if you cleaned up your theory and admitted that you disagree with the commonly held belief (including held by the CMP) that it is possible to damage your rifle with commercial ammo (so long as you aren't using it for bear protection in the arctic) you'd have a much stronger claim.

Edit to add: If you want to "debunk" something you need to PROVE something. I want you to PROVE something. So start PROVING things not just showing a bit of anecdotal evidence corroborating one of the primary claims of the video you say you've "debunked" (op rod velocity can increase with certain ammo). PROVE things, make your argument better, prove yourself into a stronger stance.

[bigbossman]

Not at all...you just seem unable to look at facts and do research regarding the garand.

Your video is not fact.... At best it's supposition. Pro tip...There are actual experts out there. You have not proven to be one.

[Jeremy2171]

Your video is not fact.... At best it's supposition. Pro tip...There are actual experts out there. You have not proven to be one.

You sure do like your opinions... facts are show in the videos. With hard data. Not opinions...or suppositions.

[Jeremy2171]

Not in freezing weather it isn't.


Good to know civilians will never put an M1 on their snow machine as bear defense...

The majority of them won't be

You claim. Prove it.

I can see you don't own an M1 garand. Any garand owner can look and see so there is zero need to "prove" it.

But you made the video before you made that claim in post 20

You missed the correction...again...

I don't think "debunking" means what you think it means. Their only claim was that "some commercial ammo can damage your rifle". Debunking that means you claim "no commercial ammo will damage your rifle". If that's the hill you want to die one be my guest but that's a bold and unprovable claim. Why not just be more forthcoming and drop the "debunking" and say "I theorize that no commercial ammo will damage your rifle if the recoil spring is in spec and the op rod is greased"?

no they specifically claimed the garand was "specifically designed for M2 ball". That is false.

I mean, M2 ball is considered 'garand safe' and has been around since the rifle...

Because no one shoots M2 ball...

Well actually after the rifle was adopted but 30-06 has been considered "garand safe" until people started saying it wasn't about 20 years ago..

In general I would say yes, though burn rates can affect the dv/dt but with the gas port being so close to the muzzle I wouldn't think that to be as important except at the extreme ends of burn rate.

Correct the garands gas system is pretty forgiving and very "lossy".

Their claim is that some commercial ammo can possibly damage your gun because of increased op-rod velocity. They then show ammo causing increased op-rod velocity. Your claim is op rod velocity can't damage your gun. You then reach the same result they did (finding that some ammo can generate op rod velocities in excess of 30% greater than M2 ball) and claim it can't hurt your gun. You haven't proven anything. Neither have they, except that some commercial ammo can generate increased op-rod velocity (and adjustable gas plugs can reduce it).

You missed the point apparently. If milsurp ammo and commercial ammo are moving the oprod at the same velocitywhere is the danger in commercial ammo?

At the end of the day you have a theory. You haven't "debunked" anything because you can't. You cannot prove "all commercial ammo is safe to shoot in an M1 Garand". All the In Range guys need to prove their claim is evidence of one single commercial cartridge bending an op-rod. You have a weak stance as you've stated it. I'm of the opinion that if you cleaned up your theory and admitted that you disagree with the commonly held belief (including held by the CMP) that it is possible to damage your rifle with commercial ammo (so long as you aren't using it for bear protection in the arctic) you'd have a much stronger claim.

Edit to add: If you want to "debunk" something you need to PROVE something. I want you to PROVE something. So start PROVING things not just showing a bit of anecdotal evidence corroborating one of the primary claims of the video you say you've "debunked" (op rod velocity can increase with certain ammo). PROVE things, make your argument better, prove yourself into a stronger stance.

It's been proven...commercial ammo and milsurp ammo operate at similar pressures.

You do realize that garands in service had damaged oprods while using USGI ammo.... sometimes they were bent during improper disassembly.

So oprods being damaged is not solely based on shooting "hot" (cough) hunting ammo in them.

[bigbossman]

You sure do like your opinions... facts are show in the videos. With hard data. Not opinions...or suppositions.

Your video has proven.............nothing.

[Jeremy2171]

Your video has proven.............nothing.

Lol. Cool opinion ...it's shown you are closed minded and unable to use your critical thinking skills.

[bigbossman]

Lol. Cool opinion ...it's shown you are closed minded and unable to use your critical thinking skills.

Your position is opinion, unless you can prove otherwise. The only data you'll consider is the supposition you arrive at in your video.

There is a velocity change in the op-rod movement
There is a potential for the op-rod to contact the rear of the receiver

You can spin and twist and argue in circles all you want, but you have yet to substantiate or prove anything, other than you made a video.

Excuse me if I give more weight to those with actual credentials to back up their theories.

[Jeremy2171]

Your position is opinion, unless you can prove otherwise. The only data you'll consider is the supposition you arrive at in your video.

You seem confused on facts vs opinion...

There is a velocity change in the op-rod movement
There is a potential for the op-rod to contact the rear of the receiver

There is no velocity change in the oprod when using certain milspec or garand safe loads compared to commercial loads.

Do you even own or have shot a garand?
There is zero potential for the oprod to contact the rear of the receiver.

You can spin and twist and argue in circles all you want, but you have yet to substantiate or prove anything, other than you made a video.

Excuse me if I give more weight to those with actual credentials to back up their theories.

My credentials are far better than yours. Hell.. you think oprods can hit the back of the receiver that in itself is telling of your actual experience and knowledge of the garand rifle.

[NapalmCheese]

The majority of them won't be

So?

I can see you don't own an M1 garand. Any garand owner can look and see so there is zero need to "prove" it.

I was hoping to give you a softball so you could actually PROVE something.

You missed the correction...again...

Apparently so?

no they specifically claimed the garand was "specifically designed for M2 ball". That is false.

So is THAT the misinformation you claim to have "debunked"? Is that REALLY why you made your two part video, so you can say "Hey, the Garand wasn't specifically designed for M2 ball"? That's it? That's what you debunked?

Well actually after the rifle was adopted but 30-06 has been considered "garand safe" until people started saying it wasn't about 20 years ago..

You said "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)". The fact that generations of shooters have been shooting M2 ball, which is the defacto standard for "Garand Safe" means precisely that generations of shooters have been shooting "Garand Safe" ammo.

Correct the garands gas system is pretty forgiving and very "lossy".

You missed the point apparently. If milsurp ammo and commercial ammo are moving the oprod at the same velocitywhere is the danger in commercial ammo?

But... your own video shows that milsurp and commercial ammo don't ALWAYS move the oprod at the same velocity, and that some commercial ammo exceeds milsurp ammo by up to 30+% in extreme cases, in your own video. You literally just showed the same thing the In Range guys did.

It's been proven...commercial ammo and milsurp ammo operate at similar pressures.

See, here you go again, taking a different angle to arrive to a conclusion you like. What are you trying to prove? That commercial ammo and milsurp ammo have the same chamber pressures? That's not what we were talking about. That's not what you claim to have debunked. Stay on target man. Oh, but wait, same pressures mean same oprod velocity! Except you've shown us that some ammo produces op-rod velocities in excess of 30% greater than other ammo and some commercial ammo outclasses ALL milsurp ammo in op-rod velocity (and therefore pressure). So again, what SPECIFICALLY are you trying to say.

You do realize that garands in service had damaged oprods while using USGI ammo.... sometimes they were bent during improper disassembly.

Sure

So oprods being damaged is not solely based on shooting "hot" (cough) hunting ammo in them.

I never claimed it to be so.

What, SPECIFICALLY, are you trying to say. If you say it concisely maybe, just maybe, we can see that you have a argument. Be specific, be concise, state your thesis and supporting arguments.

At this point I don't know what you're exactly getting at, but I'm still intrigued by what I thought was your argument "instead of swapping for an adjustable gas plug, you can simply ensure the op rod is well greased and the recoil spring is in spec and shoot any commercial .30-06 on the market". That would be a neat thing and could lead to some interesting experiments and videos you could put on your patreon rather than discussing how you "debunked" the "myth" that the Garand was designed for M2 ball.

[Jeremy2171]

I was hoping to give you a softball so you could actually PROVE something.

I find it odd that I have to prove the oprod doesn't get bent by hitting the back of the receiver when any garand owner should know that's an impossible thing to happen.

Are you sure you are familiar with garands?

[bigbossman]

Lol. A self-aggrandizing video is not proof of anything.

I find it odd that I have to prove the oprod doesn't get bent by hitting the back of the receiver when any garand owner should know that's an impossible thing to happen.

Yeah - the op-rod/receiver thing. That was me, not Napalm. You got me there, sport, I was thinking one thing and typed another. Sue me.

[40calfunk]

Came across this US Army Materiel Development and Readiness Command "DARCOM PAMPHLET" years ago, dated May 1984 titled LOGISTICS COMPLETE ROUND CHARTS, AMMUNITION THROUGH 30MM.

Chart 3 has all the design specifications for .30 caliber ammunition (M1/M2/M172/etc ammo designations); Chart 8 is for 7.62 x 51.

If anyone can get updated information, that would be fantastic.

[Jeremy2171]

Lol. A self-aggrandizing video is not proof of anything.



Yeah - the op-rod/receiver thing. That was me, not Napalm. You got me there, sport, I was thinking one thing and typed another. Sue me.

No.he said it too....are you not able to keep up?

I'm sorry you don't like facts. Perhaps you should stop responding since you aren't really bringing anything other than personal attacks.

[Jeremy2171]

So is THAT the misinformation you claim to have "debunked"? Is that REALLY why you made your two part video, so you can say "Hey, the Garand wasn't specifically designed for M2 ball"? That's it? That's what you debunked?

that and the claim that commercial ammo was dangerous.

You said "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)". The fact that generations of shooters have been shooting M2 ball, which is the defacto standard for "Garand Safe" means precisely that generations of shooters have been shooting "Garand Safe" ammo.

Are you now being disingenuous on purpose? "Garand safe" ammo is commercial ammo that is marketed as "garand safe". Because until they marketed it ...it was ALL garand safe.

But... your own video shows that milsurp and commercial ammo don't ALWAYS move the oprod at the same velocity, and that some commercial ammo exceeds milsurp ammo by up to 30+% in extreme cases, in your own video. You literally just showed the same thing the In Range guys did.

I'm not sure why I have to keep pointing this out...
If milsurp ammo and commercial ammo move the oprod at the same velocities why do we need adjustable dodads or "garand safe" ammo?



See, here you go again, taking a different angle to arrive to a conclusion you like. What are you trying to prove? That commercial ammo and milsurp ammo have the same chamber pressures? That's not what we were talking about. That's not what you claim to have debunked. Stay on target man. Oh, but wait, same pressures mean same oprod velocity! Except you've shown us that some ammo produces op-rod velocities in excess of 30% greater than other ammo and some commercial ammo outclasses ALL milsurp ammo in op-rod velocity (and therefore pressure). So again, what SPECIFICALLY are you trying to say. [/quote]
I didn't mention chamber pressure...you did.. I was speaking about "port" pressure.

What, SPECIFICALLY, are you trying to say. If you say it concisely maybe, just maybe, we can see that you have a argument. Be specific, be concise, state your thesis and supporting arguments.

been done ad nausem

At this point I don't know what you're exactly getting at, but I'm still intrigued by what I thought was your argument "instead of swapping for an adjustable gas plug, you can simply ensure the op rod is well greased and the recoil spring is in spec and shoot any commercial .30-06 on the market". That would be a neat thing and could lead to some interesting experiments and videos you could put on your patreon rather than discussing how you "debunked" the "myth" that the Garand was designed for M2 ball.

The fact you don't understand what I'm getting at is telling....I still find it odd that someone who thinks the oprod hits the back of the receiver is lecturing ME on the garand.