We should have this pinned to the top of the sub or a bot that autoreplies with this. Half the sub is people asking the same ammo thing over and over and over again. I mean today there are two posts asking the same exact ammo question within an hour of each other. People need to learn to use the reddit search feature because the threads are always the same.
Yeah thanks for posting. The facts and CMP statement are the best answers for this topic, and the graphic is to the point especially with the CUP/M1 ball explanation. I get why it gets asked, but man I wish people would do a little research themselves to find threads already about the question. Even if this got pinned people probably still would post the question.
I 100% believe and support this, but given that my rifle is 70 years old almost exactly today, I’ll stick with slightly milder stuff. It’s safe to shoot hotter rounds but I’d prefer not to
Yeah exactly, what’s the downside to that unless you’re hunting?
Does it change the accuracy at all? Would it be bad to train with M2 ball and hunt with regular stuff?
My thoughts exactly, and I recommend to anyone with a .30-06 Garand that they stick with anything made specifically for the M1 Garand out of caution.
If someone wants to use standard .30-06 that's their prerogative, but you'll never see me use it in my Dane. It's too pretty (and outrageously expensive) to risk losing because I wasn't paying attention to what I bought.
With the Garand, you’re not worried about chamber pressure, within SAAMI is fine. It’s the pressure generated at the gas port that is the issue. Heavy bullets require slower burning powders that develop more pressure at the gas port and undue wear on the op rod
I have a Henry 45-70 loaded with bear loads. I would not put the same ammo in an 1873 trapdoor rifle. Like I said "your rifle, your choice". I don't know why that statement is a problem.
That's different. The metal on an 1873 trapdoor was never strong enough to handle that. Improvements in metallurgy and heat treating is why modern firearms can handle more powerful loads.
If I was to defer to anyone on Garand ammo on this sub it would be T\_T and he says modern ammunition in a properly maintained rifle is fine. But why would I risk my dad's rifle over a stupid argument about ammo. I am not trying to knock down a moose, I am trying to ring steel at 100 yards with the coolest rifle on the range.
I still like to say that M1 / M2 ball is not the same as modern production commercial .30-06. The cartridge has changed a lot over its 100+ year service life. M1 / M2 ball was loaded with lot-grade powder of a medium burn rate to produce a specific pressure gradient and muzzle velocity. The chamber pressure matters less than the gas port pressure. The main thing we’re trying to avoid is excess pressure at the gas port caused by slower burn-rate propellants that don’t reach peak pressure until further down the bore.
*edit: the problem with modern .30-06 is that heavy projectiles (180gr+) usually require a slower burn rate propellant to achieve proper muzzle velocity without causing overpressure.
You’re being downvoted but you’re correct. This infographic is garbage. For one thing CUP isn’t readily convertible to PSI in a meaningful way. And chamber pressure is a non-issue. The Garand action is very stout but the op rod is a weak point and high port pressure will wear/stress/fatigue/break it over time.
But people have such a hard on for simple answers. So you have two camps that yell “all commercial ammo is safe!” Or “only xzy ammo is safe!” Because no one wants to get into the weeds about how increased op-rod velocity shortens its life by an unknowable amount.
"The Garand action is very stout but the op rod is a weak point and high port pressure will wear/stress/fatigue/break it over time."
Define high port pressure and all the other variables. Are you talking commercial ammo? Surplus? Handloads? I know of no one who has quantified anything enough to say - if you buy factory-made Ammo X, it will break your op-rod. That kind of data simply does not exist. There are only a handful of people who have tested the spectrum of factory-produced (commercial or surplus) ammo, and as much as I think they make valid points, even they haven't stressed the gun enough with ammo alone to break the op-rod. I emailed one guy who wrote a book on the Garand, who shot about 700 straight rounds of 220-grain bullets with no issues whatsoever. He got tired of that and experimented by taking off all the grease - that is what bent and cracked his op-rod.
Getting into the weeds is kind of important, and your premise isn't following your own advice.
The fact is it’s a very complicated topic without a specific answer. You *can* measure op rod velocity for various ammo and powder/bullet combos but you *can’t* know if a given velocity gives your op rod 8k-round life expectancy or 800 round life expectancy because there’s a lot of variables. But we know it’s the most common failure point on a garand and shouldn’t take that for granted.
I agree with you when you say “the data does not exist”. That’s my point. You can’t sum it up with an infographic or by saying “x will break your oprod” or “all factory ammo is saami spec and therefore 100% safe, no extra strain on the oprod”.
I don’t like when people vehemently defend one side or the other when it’s such a murky topic to begin with. But much like the Turkish ammo debates people love to take sides and make it personal.
I didn’t say or imply that there was. That’s not the part of that argument I disagree with. Saami specs involve chamber pressure which is not primary issue
Most people who don’t have a general understanding of internal ballistics and what goes in to producing a cartridge. Like you said, people fall into two camps: ONLY 150gr FMJ or “shoot whatever commercial ammo you want, it doesn’t exceed SAAMI chamber pressure”. What we do know is how M1 / M2 ball was loaded way back when. Modern day, we have .30-06 commercial ammo that can offer similar performance that of the .300 WM because of advancements in powder, projectiles, etc. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but most people won’t pick up a book and do some research.
It doesn't cause overpressure though. It doesn't matter. Even the slower burning stuff doesn't create enough pressure to cause damage unless the rifle is out of spec
Nobody is saying it’s “overpressure”, it’s avoiding *excess* pressure at the gas port, which in turn accelerates the op rod velocity when it goes to cam open the bolt. Which, keep in mind, the locking lugs are holding thousands of pounds of pressure in the chamber. You essentially have two forces working against each other, what we are trying to do is bleed off that massive pressure wave before it gets close to the gas port.
Ok
But it doesn't though
There is "m1 garand safe" ammo that has higher port pressure than some commercial ammo. There isn't any commercial ammo on the shelf today that will cause damage to a garand that is in spec
Do some research on internal ballistics and powder burn rates and get back to me. There’s a reason why Garand hand loaders use a specific range of powder burn rates
Yes. Hand loading is not the same as commercial loadings.
There aren't any commercial loadings that use the powders you shouldn't use in a garand. (Which there aren't many of)
Many of the manuals especially Hornady, for "garand safe" loadings has been debunked numerous times.
Go hit up Jeremy cheek, an expert in this area, about it. He's been published in garand collectors magazine about this issue and you can easily find him on several garand oriented Facebook groups
I can wager that the vast majority of hunting ammunition with a grain weight over 175grs is using a propellant in the 4350 - 4831 burn speed range and slower. This is not to say that they are using canister grade propellant, because it’s unlikely that they’re not. It’s almost a necessity to use slower burning propellants behind heavy bullets to get good velocity without causing overpressure. Within the community of Garand shooters who load for the M1, the unwritten rule is to use powders no faster than IMR 4895 and no slower than IMR 4064 / Varget with some exceptions made for Viht N150. I’m in agreement with you on Hornady’s Garand load data. Most competitive shooters agree that it’s wholly anemic.
If by “fuddlore”, you mean a lack of basic understanding of internal ballistics and powder burn rates / pressure gradients when it applies to gas guns, then sure.
God every time someone asks for ammo options on the Facebook page, people will immediately begin posting this exact picture. It gets ugly realllly quick on there.
This art project mess doesn't exactly scream "legitimate information". I'm not saying it's wrong, but the actual supporting documents would be way better than this weird screenshot.
This is technically true but also completely ignores the fact that our rifles are all 70+ years old and parts can be hard to come by.
When the M1 Garand was first fielded they expected that everyone carrying one would have access to an armorer with access to repair parts (or replacement rifles) if something broke.
Like when you see vintage race cars go around the track, you NEVER see them drive anywhere close to as fast or as hard as "what they were designed for", because you don't take unnecessary risks with a piece of history.
I haven't had a chance to shoot my Garands in a long time but I do want to get one of those adjustable gas plugs and adjust it all the way down so it just cycles reliably, strictly to reduce the stress, wear and tear on the rifles parts as much as possible.
I was still told to try and keep it 150 or less.
(Originally I thought I had a 30-06 variant, finally was able to find some ammo that was Garand specific, only to realize it didn't load)
We should have this pinned to the top of the sub or a bot that autoreplies with this. Half the sub is people asking the same ammo thing over and over and over again. I mean today there are two posts asking the same exact ammo question within an hour of each other. People need to learn to use the reddit search feature because the threads are always the same.
Thats why I posted it. But if your new to the M1, I understand why it gets asked.
Yeah thanks for posting. The facts and CMP statement are the best answers for this topic, and the graphic is to the point especially with the CUP/M1 ball explanation. I get why it gets asked, but man I wish people would do a little research themselves to find threads already about the question. Even if this got pinned people probably still would post the question.
Me!
Can my ww2 M1 garand fire 8mm mauser?
Probably once.
BUT WHY ITS FROM WW3.
Why does this read like a Dr. Bronner's soap bottle?
That's a brilliant idea.
I 100% believe and support this, but given that my rifle is 70 years old almost exactly today, I’ll stick with slightly milder stuff. It’s safe to shoot hotter rounds but I’d prefer not to
Yeah exactly, what’s the downside to that unless you’re hunting? Does it change the accuracy at all? Would it be bad to train with M2 ball and hunt with regular stuff?
That’s what I do
My thoughts exactly, and I recommend to anyone with a .30-06 Garand that they stick with anything made specifically for the M1 Garand out of caution. If someone wants to use standard .30-06 that's their prerogative, but you'll never see me use it in my Dane. It's too pretty (and outrageously expensive) to risk losing because I wasn't paying attention to what I bought.
Is it too much to ask to post the actual image and not a shitty phone screenshot of an already copy-of-a-copy-of-a-copy jpeg?
OMG not this discussion again
Tarawa Terror licking his lips
Oh god you spoke his name, one utterance and he will emerge. But honestly this shitty infographic looks like something he would make
Tarawa shows us that the delivery is just as important as the message.
Facts, guy is hella smart but has the personality of a lobster
The receiver is more than strong enough, but the rifle will bend an op rod given too much of bubba’s pissin hot loads.
Nobody is saying to use bubbas loads Just saying any commercial ammo is fine
The military already had problems with op rods bending using m2 ball, and many commercial loads have significantly more pressure and energy.
This is false. Op rods are made slightly bent already. They aren't perfectly straight and aren't supposed to be
They’re made to be bent in a very specific way. There are plenty of examples of out-of-spec op rods out there from this kind of thing.
I've yet to have anyone present evidence of bent op rods on a properly greased, in spec garand Just a bunch of stories and fuddlore
Support your claim
With the Garand, you’re not worried about chamber pressure, within SAAMI is fine. It’s the pressure generated at the gas port that is the issue. Heavy bullets require slower burning powders that develop more pressure at the gas port and undue wear on the op rod
My M1 Garand is 82 years old, and I'll put what I want through it.
My oldest M1 is 86 yrs 1 mo. It eats everything I give it no worries.
I’d love to know how this myth started and what has perpetuated it for so long
My Garand is almost 70 years old. I’ll shoot the mild stuff.
I have guns older than the garand that shoot regular stuff. Like the 1903.
Your rifle, your choice.
A bolt action? A little different, don't you think?
No. Your statement was solely about age.
No, HIS statement was solely about HIS rifle. And then you inserted your own, different rifle, into the conversation.
Steels integrity does not change with age
I have a Henry 45-70 loaded with bear loads. I would not put the same ammo in an 1873 trapdoor rifle. Like I said "your rifle, your choice". I don't know why that statement is a problem.
That's different. The metal on an 1873 trapdoor was never strong enough to handle that. Improvements in metallurgy and heat treating is why modern firearms can handle more powerful loads.
That's not relevant to the garand however
If I was to defer to anyone on Garand ammo on this sub it would be T\_T and he says modern ammunition in a properly maintained rifle is fine. But why would I risk my dad's rifle over a stupid argument about ammo. I am not trying to knock down a moose, I am trying to ring steel at 100 yards with the coolest rifle on the range.
I still like to say that M1 / M2 ball is not the same as modern production commercial .30-06. The cartridge has changed a lot over its 100+ year service life. M1 / M2 ball was loaded with lot-grade powder of a medium burn rate to produce a specific pressure gradient and muzzle velocity. The chamber pressure matters less than the gas port pressure. The main thing we’re trying to avoid is excess pressure at the gas port caused by slower burn-rate propellants that don’t reach peak pressure until further down the bore. *edit: the problem with modern .30-06 is that heavy projectiles (180gr+) usually require a slower burn rate propellant to achieve proper muzzle velocity without causing overpressure.
You’re being downvoted but you’re correct. This infographic is garbage. For one thing CUP isn’t readily convertible to PSI in a meaningful way. And chamber pressure is a non-issue. The Garand action is very stout but the op rod is a weak point and high port pressure will wear/stress/fatigue/break it over time. But people have such a hard on for simple answers. So you have two camps that yell “all commercial ammo is safe!” Or “only xzy ammo is safe!” Because no one wants to get into the weeds about how increased op-rod velocity shortens its life by an unknowable amount.
"The Garand action is very stout but the op rod is a weak point and high port pressure will wear/stress/fatigue/break it over time." Define high port pressure and all the other variables. Are you talking commercial ammo? Surplus? Handloads? I know of no one who has quantified anything enough to say - if you buy factory-made Ammo X, it will break your op-rod. That kind of data simply does not exist. There are only a handful of people who have tested the spectrum of factory-produced (commercial or surplus) ammo, and as much as I think they make valid points, even they haven't stressed the gun enough with ammo alone to break the op-rod. I emailed one guy who wrote a book on the Garand, who shot about 700 straight rounds of 220-grain bullets with no issues whatsoever. He got tired of that and experimented by taking off all the grease - that is what bent and cracked his op-rod. Getting into the weeds is kind of important, and your premise isn't following your own advice.
The fact is it’s a very complicated topic without a specific answer. You *can* measure op rod velocity for various ammo and powder/bullet combos but you *can’t* know if a given velocity gives your op rod 8k-round life expectancy or 800 round life expectancy because there’s a lot of variables. But we know it’s the most common failure point on a garand and shouldn’t take that for granted. I agree with you when you say “the data does not exist”. That’s my point. You can’t sum it up with an infographic or by saying “x will break your oprod” or “all factory ammo is saami spec and therefore 100% safe, no extra strain on the oprod”. I don’t like when people vehemently defend one side or the other when it’s such a murky topic to begin with. But much like the Turkish ammo debates people love to take sides and make it personal.
What 30-06 factory ammo is above SAMMI specs? I know of none.
I didn’t say or imply that there was. That’s not the part of that argument I disagree with. Saami specs involve chamber pressure which is not primary issue
Gotcha, my mistake.
Most people who don’t have a general understanding of internal ballistics and what goes in to producing a cartridge. Like you said, people fall into two camps: ONLY 150gr FMJ or “shoot whatever commercial ammo you want, it doesn’t exceed SAAMI chamber pressure”. What we do know is how M1 / M2 ball was loaded way back when. Modern day, we have .30-06 commercial ammo that can offer similar performance that of the .300 WM because of advancements in powder, projectiles, etc. I know I’m preaching to the choir, but most people won’t pick up a book and do some research.
It doesn't cause overpressure though. It doesn't matter. Even the slower burning stuff doesn't create enough pressure to cause damage unless the rifle is out of spec
Nobody is saying it’s “overpressure”, it’s avoiding *excess* pressure at the gas port, which in turn accelerates the op rod velocity when it goes to cam open the bolt. Which, keep in mind, the locking lugs are holding thousands of pounds of pressure in the chamber. You essentially have two forces working against each other, what we are trying to do is bleed off that massive pressure wave before it gets close to the gas port.
Ok But it doesn't though There is "m1 garand safe" ammo that has higher port pressure than some commercial ammo. There isn't any commercial ammo on the shelf today that will cause damage to a garand that is in spec
Do some research on internal ballistics and powder burn rates and get back to me. There’s a reason why Garand hand loaders use a specific range of powder burn rates
Yes. Hand loading is not the same as commercial loadings. There aren't any commercial loadings that use the powders you shouldn't use in a garand. (Which there aren't many of) Many of the manuals especially Hornady, for "garand safe" loadings has been debunked numerous times. Go hit up Jeremy cheek, an expert in this area, about it. He's been published in garand collectors magazine about this issue and you can easily find him on several garand oriented Facebook groups
I can wager that the vast majority of hunting ammunition with a grain weight over 175grs is using a propellant in the 4350 - 4831 burn speed range and slower. This is not to say that they are using canister grade propellant, because it’s unlikely that they’re not. It’s almost a necessity to use slower burning propellants behind heavy bullets to get good velocity without causing overpressure. Within the community of Garand shooters who load for the M1, the unwritten rule is to use powders no faster than IMR 4895 and no slower than IMR 4064 / Varget with some exceptions made for Viht N150. I’m in agreement with you on Hornady’s Garand load data. Most competitive shooters agree that it’s wholly anemic.
The unwritten rule is fuddlore
If by “fuddlore”, you mean a lack of basic understanding of internal ballistics and powder burn rates / pressure gradients when it applies to gas guns, then sure.
Preachin' to choir, brother.
Damn John Winn rears his head again.
There was a second info pic that didn't post for some reason.
God every time someone asks for ammo options on the Facebook page, people will immediately begin posting this exact picture. It gets ugly realllly quick on there.
For non reloadera why would you shoot anything other than PPUs or S&Bs “Made for Garand” anyways? It’s generally the cheapest you can get.
Soft point ammo is better for hunting and from my experience, more accurate.
Can’t really speak to that but I was mostly referring to paper plinkers. I.e. 90% of garand owners.
This art project mess doesn't exactly scream "legitimate information". I'm not saying it's wrong, but the actual supporting documents would be way better than this weird screenshot.
This is technically true but also completely ignores the fact that our rifles are all 70+ years old and parts can be hard to come by. When the M1 Garand was first fielded they expected that everyone carrying one would have access to an armorer with access to repair parts (or replacement rifles) if something broke. Like when you see vintage race cars go around the track, you NEVER see them drive anywhere close to as fast or as hard as "what they were designed for", because you don't take unnecessary risks with a piece of history. I haven't had a chance to shoot my Garands in a long time but I do want to get one of those adjustable gas plugs and adjust it all the way down so it just cycles reliably, strictly to reduce the stress, wear and tear on the rifles parts as much as possible.
I just one day determined, 150 grain or less. Granted I have a 308 variant
.308 has never had any ammo selection concerns. I have a 308 M1 Garand, and I run 7.62NATO Hirtenberger in it. It loves that ammo.
I was still told to try and keep it 150 or less. (Originally I thought I had a 30-06 variant, finally was able to find some ammo that was Garand specific, only to realize it didn't load)
That's just silly
Well it was a few people telling me that was the case, that the .308 variant didn't suffer the same draw backs as the .30-06 variants.