powder for 30-06
raindeer
to reload 30-06 huntingloads from 110-165 grains?
The rifle is a featherweight sporter (3.0 kg) with a 60 cm. 4 twist
barrel built on a K98 action.
I have been using AA 2230 in my .223 for many years and I am guite
satisfied with it. I doubt however if this powder would be a wise
choice for 30-06
-----------------------------------------------------------
Learn about rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bart B.
powders for two reasons.
First, in the heyday of the .30-06 cartridge's use by the best
marksmen using the finest rifles on the planet, best accuracy was
attained with extruded powder. Nobody got consistantly good accuracy
with any ball powder. A couple of USA arsenals tried ball powder but
gave up as it never produced the accuracy levels as extruded powder.
If one shoots a few test groups of 3 to 5 shots each with several
powder types and charge weights from the popular benchrest position,
then chooses the type and weight used to produce the smallest group,
most any powder could easily be claimed as the "best."
Second, these two powders meter well enough through most properly used
powder measures to throw charge weights to a 3/10ths-grain spread.
Plenty good enough to shoot 2/10ths inch (5 mm) groups all day long at
100 yards (90 m) from the best rifles tested properly. Although IMR
4064 may yield smaller groups if each charge is weighed exactly, at
ranges less than 328 yards (300 m), one would be hard pressed to tell
the difference.
Bill VH
writes:
#
#I have been using AA 2230 in my .223 for many years and I am guite
#satisfied with it. I doubt however if this powder would be a wise
#choice for 30-06
#
Probably not. Go to a slower burning powder on the order of IMR 4350.
Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
Thermopylae had it's messenger of defeat, COME AND GET THEM !
The Alamo had none.
Bterr
bullets, try Varget.
Stephen Leoce
bullets up to 150 grains. 3031 was the original service propellant for
30-06 which introduced the progressive-burning propellant era of the
"Improved Military Powder" line by DuPont which at that time shut down the
production of #15, #17, and EX-1127 which was the former service load
powder.
It will burn much cleaner and more efficiently than 4895. 4895 was
developed later expressly for the Springfield Armory during the development
trials for the Garand gas systems and moreso for the improved loading speeds
of automated equipment of the day which had some difficulties measuring the
3031 strands which are about twice as long as 4895.
Happy Loading.
"raindeer" <th...@hetnet.nl> wrote in message
news:bpp33a$f5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
weekendshooter
to temperature fluctuations. According to my reloading manuals it
also produces the highest velocities.
Tom Gibson
# In article <bpp33a$f5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, th...@hetnet.nl (raindeer)
# writes:
# #
# #I have been using AA 2230 in my .223 for many years and I am guite
# #choice for 30-06
#
I'll second that opinion. I've been using IMR 4350 in my 270 Win and
30-06 for nearly 20 years with excellent results. Good groups and
very consistent velocity when chronographed.
HTH,
Tom G
Kaboom
Just trying to find out what weight projectiles and what type of poweder are
used in these rounds.
thanks.
Handywired
<bpp33a$f5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>:
What would be the best powder in terms of accuracy and loading density to
reload 30-06 huntingloads from 110-165 grains?
I've had good luck with both H4350 and IMR4064. The H4350 is what I use for
several different 150-gn loads, and I've never had any trouble getting up
around published velocities, if I want to. I tried the H4350, and W760 too, in
my quest for a top-velocity 180-gn elk Partition load with no luck, but the
IMR4064 really worked great, giving me a full-power (and then some, heh) load
that was alos accurate.
however, every rifle is different, and what works in mine is probably differnet
than what your's wants, at least as far as accuracy goes. So... try some and
see! heck, working up loads is the fun part of handloading!
-jeff
Rodman S. Regier
Gibson) wrote:
#wvanh...@aol.com (Bill VH) wrote in message news:<bprm6m$hpn$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
## In article <bpp33a$f5$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>, th...@hetnet.nl (raindeer)
## writes:
## #
## #I have been using AA 2230 in my .223 for many years and I am guite
## #satisfied with it. I doubt however if this powder would be a wise
## #choice for 30-06
##
## Probably not. Go to a slower burning powder on the order of IMR 4350.
## Bill Van Houten (USA Ret)
#
#I'll second that opinion. I've been using IMR 4350 in my 270 Win and
#30-06 for nearly 20 years with excellent results. Good groups and
#very consistent velocity when chronographed.
Just don't use IMR 4350 burning rate powders in loads intended for a
"as issued" Garand in .30-06. It's not compatible with the gas system
pressure curve requirements.
Powders suitable for an "as issued" Garand in .30-06 have burning
rates like IMR 4895 and IMR 4064.
Bart B.
Remington. So, they used uncanistered lots of IMR 4895 from DuPont.
Uncanistered lots typically don't quite meet the specs of canistered
lots sold to the public. They may be a bit faster or slower and
produce pressures not quite the same as canistered lots. DuPont
shipped this powder in 55-gallon drums and Lake City Arsenal did
testing to see how much the powder charge should weigh to get muzzle
velocity, peak pressure and accuracy standards for the round.
Lake City may have used IMR4475 which was never sold to the public by
DuPont but was extensively used in 7.62mm NATO ammo with the 147-gr.
ball bullet in the M80 round. Someone at Lake City Arsenal told me in
the late '60s than they did make a limited number of 30 caliber ball
with IMR4475 and some may eventually end up on the market through
surplus stores. IMR4475 is about the same diameter as IMR4475 but is
shorter in length; meters very accuretely.
Without the "MATCH" word on the headstamp, the bullet is probably a
150-gr. one. Some
Amy Lewis
"Kaboom" <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bpvg9n$iqj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# I've come across some Lake City FMJ ammo (30-06). The head stamp is "LC
72".
# Just trying to find out what weight projectiles and what type of poweder
are
# used in these rounds.
I get the 150 gr. Spitzers that came out of them from Jeff Bartlett in KY. I
bought 2000 of those cases from him too. They work great. Go to GIbrass.com.
Amy Lewis
Joe Portale
I am not 100% sure on this but I do believe that you have some 150 grain
bullets loaded on top of about 50 grains of IMR 4895 powder. The ammo
doesn't have "Match" on the head stamp does it?
"Kaboom" <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bpvg9n$iqj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
72".
> ...
are
> ...
Joe Portale
I am not 100% sure on this but I do believe that you have some 150 grain
bullets loaded on top of about 50 grains of IMR 4895 powder. The ammo
doesn't have "Match" on the head stamp does it?
"Kaboom" <s36...@student.uq.edu.au> wrote in message
news:bpvg9n$iqj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
> ...
72".
> ...
are
> ...
-----------------------------------------------------------
Bart B.
I made the comment: "IMR4475 is about the same diameter as IMR4475. . ."
I should have said "IMR4475 is about the same diameter as IMR4895. . "
Asa
Just trying to find out what weight projectiles and what type of powder are
used in these rounds.<
Kaboom,
As Bart and a few others have pointed out, the type of ammunition you have
will make a difference in how it was loaded.
In 1972, Lake City was still loading 30-06 ammo. Much of it was for Browning
machine guns, though some of it was match ammo. The differences:
Match ammo (M-72):
Projectile: 173 Grain (nominal weight. Most I've seen were 174 or 175 grains)
boat tailed full metal jacket.
Powder: IMR-4895, approximately 50 grains. Lake City typically loaded to ammo
to meet velocity specs, not by powder charge weight.
Nominal MV: 2640 FPS @78 feet from the muzzle. (This is a standard test
condition.)
Headstamp would read "Match" or NM" in addition to LC72
Ball ammo (M-2)
Projectile: 152 Grains. Flat based, full metal jacket projectile.
Powder: Approximately 50 grains of IMR-4895 (extruded), or WC852 (spherical).
Some 30-06 was loaded with 45 grains of CMR-100 (extruded powder, made in
Canada), though I think this was WW2 production.
Nominal MV: 2740 FPS @78 feet from the muzzle.
Aside from LC72, there would be no additional headstamp markings.
Jeff's website has a page listing the powders he sells. According to the page
(http://www.gibrass.com/gunpowder.html), some of the 1972 ammo was loaded with
57 grains of a slow lot of WC852.
Hope this helps.
Asa
Support the US Palma Team!
www.uspalma.com
jlg
gr boat-tail spitzer after using Varget for Remington Core-lokt 150
and 165 grain slugs. For the first time at 100 yards I had bullet
holes in the target printed on top of each other. What a pretty sight.
(Yeah, there were a few flyers, but the big, ragged hole was a new
experience for me.) I'm sure the aerodynamics of the boat-tail round
didn't hurt either. After 64 rounds my shoulder was sore, but it
seemed a small price to pay. My (humble) platform was an NEF
single-shot Handi-rifle with a 4x scope.
handy...@aol.com (Handywired) wrote in message news:<bpvgb2$irn$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu>...
> ...
Asa
machine guns, though some of it was match ammo. The differences:<
Okay, some info from Jeff Bartlett (who does have the whole story:)
Asa:
Thanks for the note. However, there are some errors in this info. There was
no Match M72 ammo loaded in 1972. The very last lot of loaded M72 was LC lot
12258, loaded in 1968.
Lake City did produce a run of the cartridge case only (for DCM sales), in
1978, headstamped LC78 NM. All of the Lake City Ball M2 ammo loaded in 1972
(LC 72 headstamp), used waivered lots of WC852, and was packed out in MLBs
(linked), for MG use only. Any LC72 headstamped Tracer M25 used 4895 powder.
The DCM has offered many of the Red River (RR) repacked lots of Ball M2,
packed in Garand clips, 280rds per can, to clubs and/or members. However, much
of this ammo is headstamped LC72, and is not suitable for M1 Garands. If you
pull the bullets and weigh the powder, you will find the charge weight to be
between 56 and 61 grains of waivered WC852 ball powder. This ammo is safe for
bolt guns, but will generate excessive port pressures in the M1 Garand, and
will ultimately bend the op rod.
The Canadian CMR100 powder was used only for Ball M2 ammo, headstamped LC67,
LC68, or LC69. There were not very many lots loaded with CMR100, and they were
scattered out among those three years only.
Jeff
So there's the answer. (Thanks, Jeff for helping me set the record
straight!)
Roger
best with IMR4064. His brother uses 4895 for best result. Finding
what works in your gun will take lots of range time. during all this
shooting I would suggest getting a shoulder pad as I think that
feather weight will get to you after a while. I have found that Case
Over All Length will greatly effect accuracy. Generally speaking, IF
the bullet is somewhere between .03 and .015 off the lands will give a
noteable effect. every powder and every bullet will be different. I
would suggest you pick a bullet and a powder and load up with the
bullet .02 off the lands start by loading up three rounds with a given
weight of powder then increase the powder by .3gr. never exceed the
max load listed in your data manual. i would suggest you trickle
charge each load to insure accuracy of the charge. once you find the
load that gives the best accuracy fiddle with C.O.A.L. If the
accuracy is not to your likeing. repeat with another powder. Note as
the barrel gets dirty it will affect the point the bullet hits the
target. My proceedure is to put 4 rounds down range then work new
loads. after about 15-20 rounds the pattern will open up again. After
15 rounds I clean the bore then burn 4 more round then get back to
work. Some prefer to shoot with a clean bore. this means cleaning the
barrel after every shot. When I'm ready for the huntI go down to the
range and put 4 down range. then I don't touch the bore until I'm
done looking for Bambi. For varmint on a busy day I will clean the
bore in the field. My 22-250 gets real cranky after 15 rounds. so
thats only 11-12 round of for real shooing.
# What would be the best powder in terms of accuracy and loading density
# to reload 30-06 huntingloads from 110-165 grains?
#
#
Mike Bott
To: mb...@columbus.rr.com
Subject: LC72
From: Mark Johnson <mjoh...@odcmp.com>
Date: Mon, 01 Dec 2003 14:07:39 -0500
Dear Sir,
The Army spec. manual shows no difference between "machine gun ammo" and
"Garand ammo". There is no load difference in the spec. manual, totally
interchangeable. I have fired LC 72 through my Garands with no problem and
no difference to other M2 Ball. The testing we have done shows no
difference. As ammo ages the velocity and pressures seem to decrease. The
testing we have done shows consistent decrease in velocity with age. If the
LC 72 were loaded "hotter", which we have no proof of that what-so ever, the
velocity and pressure would have more than likely decreased with age to the
original spec. The .30 cal. machine gun functions flawlessly when using LC
69 ammo... So the "different" loading of machine gun ammo and Garand ammo
seems to be somewhat of a legend????
--Mark, CMP
The above information is consistent with the TM 43-0001-27, the Army Ammunition
Data Sheets, Small Caliber Ammunition, FSC1305 published in April, 1994.
On Fri, 28 Nov 2003 00:51:23 +0000 (UTC), sdhig...@aol.com (Asa) wrote:
> ...
Jeff
----------------------------------------------------------
Shoot the best, forget the rest! Win your choice of Fulton
Armory prize packages in the 'Classic Military Gas Guns of
the 20th Century' rifle raffle held by Marylanders for the
Preservation of Firearm Ownership. Get all the details at
http://www.direct-action.org
----------------------------------------------------------
Learn rec.guns at http://www.recguns.com
----------------------------------------------------------
Asa
Subject: LC72
From: Mark Johnson <mjoh...@odcmp.com>
Mike,
Some issues the CMP has not addressed:
1. The M1919 machine gun is recoil operated, it does not use a gas piston. So
long as the total recoil impulse remains the same, the machine gun doesn't care
what powder is in the round. Search the rec.guns archive, there was a lot of
Austrian 30-06 (OJP headstamp, various years from late 1950s to early 1960s)
sold in the US in the 1990s that was also for Browning 1919 machine guns only.
Use it in a Garand, and all sorts of malfunctions would occur. These would
range from failures to extract to bent operating rods to broken receiver heels.
We are discussing the same problem here.
2. In a gas operated firearm, slower powders generate more pressure at the gas
port. With more pressure, you get more force on the Garand operating rod.
While a few shots may not cause problems, a sustained diet of such rounds will.
3. Powder burn rate has an effect on rifle reliability. Try loading H414 in a
30-06, and fire it from a Garand. You won't get reliable function - extraction
is taking place while the case is still stuck against the chamber walls. If
you're lucky, the case will extract, but the rims may be bent. Worst case is
that the extractor goes through the rim, leaving the casing in the chamber.
4. CMP contracted HP White ballistics laboratory to test some of the LC72.
Supposedly, the ammo was safe. See:
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/pressure_testing.htm
However, HP White's assertion that there are no specifications for gas port
pressure in an M-1 (see page 5, paragraph 3.2.2) is NOT correct. There is a
specification for this. (At least, I think I've seen it in print before.)
Also, several pages of the report are missing. Sloppy work, one does not omit
official documentation or report information without saying why.
5. Waivered powder. Jeff Bartlett has been selling surplus components for at
least seven years. He has dealt with the US Army on issues with demilitarizing
ammunition, and thus has access to documentation that you and I do not see.
Now, if he is in the business of reselling powder, it is in his best interest
to sell as much of it as possible. Why then does he go out of his way to NOT
recommend a particular lot of powder for use in Garands?
6. To quote the CMP email:
#The Army spec. manual shows no difference between "machine gun ammo" and
"Garand ammo". There is no load difference in the spec. manual, totally
interchangeable.<
Specifications state the nominal value of a measured quantity, or the nominal
material to be used. Waivers are issued to allow deviations from
specification, so long as listed limitations in the waiver are observed.
7. >The above information is consistent with the TM 43-0001-27, the Army
Ammunition Data Sheets, Small Caliber Ammunition, FSC1305 published in April,
1994.<
The data sheets are incomplete in at least two instances that I know of.
See:
http://www.biggerhammer.net/manuals/tm43-0001-27.pdf
For an online copy of the document.
- M80 Ammunition (pages 11-17 and 11-19). The TM lists the powder as WC846,
which is a spherical (ball) powder. I have several rounds of LC 65 that were
loaded with tubular powder, I believe it is IMR-4475 (about 41-42 grains). The
data sheet does not list 4475 as a propellant for this round.
- M852 Ammunition (page 11-31). The TM lists a charge weight of 42 grains of
IMR-4895. I once disassembled some of this ammo (LC 93, I think?) to reuse the
powder and brass. The powder was a tubular type, but the charge weight was
about 44 grains. (Yes, the scale was reading correctly.)
Ken Marsh
Mike Bott <mb...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
#And the CMP view on LC 72 follows:
Furthermore:
http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/pressure_testing.htm
Which would seem to be definitive, except I didn't notice any mention
of what type/weight powder was in the tested batches... leaving
the question still open!
Ken.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mail: kmarsh at charm dot net | Save the environment! Buy US-made
WWW: http://www.charm.net/~kmarsh | heavy industries products.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Croatalus
anyone done a similar analysis to see if this ammunition is suitable for Garands?
The ammo is packed in 20 round boxes, not 8-round clips, but I have no idea as to
its suitability for Garands. Anyone care to weigh in?
Thanks,
Max
Asa wrote:
> ...
Ronald Bloom
"Croatalus" <carto...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:brpia9$gtj$1...@grapevine.wam.umd.edu...
# I see Korean surplus M2 Ball on the market now in rather large
quantities. Has
# anyone done a similar analysis to see if this ammunition is suitable
for Garands?
# The ammo is packed in 20 round boxes, not 8-round clips, but I have no
idea as to
# its suitability for Garands. Anyone care to weigh in?
It was made especially for the Garand.
Trenton G. Twining
#
# I see Korean surplus M2 Ball on the market now in rather large quantities. Has
# anyone done a similar analysis to see if this ammunition is suitable for Garands?
# The ammo is packed in 20 round boxes, not 8-round clips, but I have no idea as to
# its suitability for Garands. Anyone care to weigh in?
#
After buying a case of this, loaded in M1 clips, Iw as alarmed at the
condition of the ammo. The first several clips had cartridges that had
been flexed so hard I doubted they would feed a bolt gun, let alone an
M1. The vendor replaced these rds at no cost; so it I don't have
problem with the vendor particularly. An my guess is that hte damage
occurred while packing the bandoliers into the .50cal ammo box (probably
pounding on those at the top with the edge of the fist to close the
lid). Caveat emptor.
--
"The road to wisdom? Well it's plain and simple to express:
Err and err and err again, but less and less and less."
- Piet Hein, poet and scientist (1905-1996)
Trenton G. Twining
Stan Schaefer
# anyone done a similar analysis to see if this ammunition is suitable for Garands?
# The ammo is packed in 20 round boxes, not 8-round clips, but I have no idea as to
# its suitability for Garands. Anyone care to weigh in?
#
# Thanks,
# Max
#
Since a good portion of the surplus Garands now in the US are FROM
Korea, I'd assume it was close to being the same ballistics as US M2.
Storage is all with surplus ammo, you'd have to buy some to see how
velocity variation was and whether it's green or not. Chrono some in
a bolt gun first before trusting it in a Garand. Packed in M1 clips
would be nice, I've got some nice Taiwanese ball that came in a spam
can that way. Too bad the Boxer primer isn't a standard size. Has M2
ballistics, though, which is what counts.
Stan
FRANK
Marsh) wrote:
#Hi,
#
#Mike Bott <mb...@columbus.rr.com> wrote:
##And the CMP view on LC 72 follows:
#
#Furthermore:
#
#http://www.odcmp.com/Services/Rifles/pressure_testing.htm
#
#Which would seem to be definitive, except I didn't notice any mention
#of what type/weight powder was in the tested batches... leaving
#the question still open!
#
I read the CMP report and concluded that Jeff Bartlett's statement
that the LC72 30-06 is waivered ammo restricted to machine gun use is
consistent with the CMP findingings, as these only compared it with
SAMMI reference ammo, which has nothing to do with whether it is
proper for use in a Garand. There is a lot of perfectly fine
commercial 30-06 ammo meeting SAMMI specs which has the wrong pressure
curve for a Garand. Unless you like buying replacement operating
rods, stick to ammo loaded specifically for the Garand, preferably
with IMR 4895 or H 4895 (see the comment in the Hodgdon manual)
Frank
Mike Bott
And as Orest Michaels has said "FWIW - between 2000 and 2002 the CMP sold over
15 million rounds of this - and not one report of a damaged oprod."
The above is from a current thread on Culver's. No need for me to play
middleman, why don't you take it up with him directly and I'll sit back an watch
for a change. :)
Mike