30-06 Ammunition

  • 676 Views
  • Last Post 3 weeks ago
  • Topic Is Solved
Aaron posted this 07 April 2025

My sister has given me her DCM 30-06 M1 Garand rifle since her eyes (macular degeneration) have gone to hell in a hand basket. While I load for the 7.62x51 in the M1A, I do not know what the standard military load is (was) for the 30-06 Rifle. Can someone chime in here and let me know the traditional bullet weight and muzzle velocity of the 30-06 service ammunition typically used by us and called "ball" ammunition. I assume this ball ammo was used at Camp Perry but had some "match" designation when made by Winchester.

 

With rifle in hand, I confidently go forth into the darkness.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • JBinMN
Order By: Standard | Newest | Votes
gnoahhh posted this 07 April 2025

The M2 Ball ammo was tailor made for Garand use. In a nutshell it featured a 150gr. spitzer at 2700fps (give or take), propelled by a medium burning powder such as 4895 for the proper/safe pressure impulse the Garand system requires.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
Waleone posted this 08 April 2025

Sorry to hear about her eye issues, but that’s a darn good sister!

Cartridges of the World has a chapter on U.S. Military Ammunition, some good info in there.

A few years ago I was given 160 rounds of LC-61 .30 M72 Match ammo. The box has the bullet weight at 173 grains and velocity at 2640 fps.

Wayne

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • RicinYakima
  • Bud Hyett
linoww posted this 08 April 2025

they shoot cast pretty well at about 2000 fps.just need a gas system scrub every 300 or do rounds. 

I haven't shot mine in 10 years so I can't remember exactly the load but it was the NEI 72 Harris bullet and 3031 IIRC

"if it was easy we'd let women do it" don't tell my wife I said that!

Attached Files

longhunter posted this 08 April 2025

Look in our archives for Ed Harris work on the M1 loads.  He helped me.

The 173 gr match bullet was a failure.  I shot on the Guard team we pulled the 173 and loaded the Sierra 168 gr and called it Mexican Match.  It was a common practice across the military shooting teams.

Jon

Jon Welda CW5 USA Ret.

Attached Files

gnoahhh posted this 08 April 2025

Sorry to hear about her eye issues, but that’s a darn good sister! Cartridges of the World has a chapter on U.S. Military Ammunition, some good info in there. A few years ago I was given 160 rounds of LC-61 .30 M72 Match ammo. The box has the bullet weight at 173 grains and velocity at 2640 fps.
M72 Match is a different animal from M2 Ball (and safe for a Garand too). It closely resembles the pre-war M1 Ball ammo, performance-wise but not accuracy-wise (on average).
Lots of load data out there for the proper care and feeding of an M1, including cast data. Put some ammo together and make your sister smile!

 

 

Attached Files

mhice posted this 08 April 2025

My two go to jacketed loads for an M1 are 45.5 grains of 4895 behind a 150 FMJ and 46.7 grains of N-140 behind a 175 Sierra Match King, which is "maximum." CCI 200 or 34 primers. I do not use military brass on these loads nor Winchester primers in an M1, YMMV.

For cast, I shot military issue class in last month's match with an M1 using 18.5 or 19.0 grains of 2400 behind NOE 311-188-FN sized to .310". This load does not have enough pressure to cycle the action which means I do not have to chase brass. Group size was pretty good, although I missed some wind...

Tom A had a similar question that is here. I am sure a search and past military match results will find you more.

As with all rifles, seating depth is critical to expected function.

 

-Michael

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • muley
  • Bud Hyett
RicinYakima posted this 08 April 2025

The 173 grain bullet load was developed around the International Load for the 1903 Springfield in the 1920's fired at 2200 f/s for 300 meters. It was not happy in the M1 with the loads FA made for 1000 yards work, good but not great. 

Attached Files

Tom Acheson posted this 08 April 2025

Just a brief data point..

In the Garand matches that I shoot, various discussions with other shooters, indicate a target velocity of 2700, jacketed bullet weights 150-168-grains and powders usually 4895 or 4064 (lots of it,). Almost all use CCI 34 primers.

FWIW

Tom

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Rich/WIS posted this 08 April 2025

One of the big name reloading manuals had Garand safe loading data but don't remember which one.  There was also a table of loads that IIRC I got from the CMP Forum.  Wasn't a match shooter so only experience was with run of the mine Hornady 150 gr, either soft point or FMJ and the pulled 147 gr FMJ  from 7.62 GI ball. Loaded 50.0 grs of IMR 4064 to duplicate the original M@ ball load.  Shot some RCBS 308-165 SIL cast bullets with IMR 4064 as well in the 34 to 36 gr range.  Primers were CCI. Only problem with cast was tiny flecks of lead in the gas piston but wiped out easily. All my data for the M1 was in a binder that went with the rifle when I gave it to my son so can't help beyond the above info,  The Garand is a fun rifle to shoot and not picky to load for.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
Larry Gibson posted this 08 April 2025

There were 3 different levels (velocities) of M2 Ball with the 152 gr FMJ flat based bullet produced. The black tipped armor piercing ammunition also had the M2 nomenclature but I'll disregard it here. In the last 10 years or so I have chronographed and pressure tested various lots of M2 Ball and a couple lots of M1906 Ball ammunition. I have chronographed them in my M1903 and in my pressure test rifle all which have 24" barrels. The 3 different levels of M2 ammunition are readily apparent.

I measure the pressure in psi" not CUPs sometimes still referred to as "psi", particularly in older literature and manuals. The SAAMI MAP for CUP measurement was 50,000 CUP and the MAP for PSI measurement (transducer/gauge) is 60,000 psi. Thus the 50,000 of the CUP measurement is equivalent to the 60,000 psi of the transducer/gauge measurement. The MAP for M2 Ball was 47,000 CUP or about 56,500 psi as measured by transducer/gauge. TM 9-1305-200 Samll Arms Ammunition, US Army, dtd June 1961 specifies 45,000 to 50,000 psi (CUPs) for M2 Ball.

The M1906 ammunition tested produced right at 2700 fps as specified out of a M1903. It produced about 50 fps more out of the minimal chamber spec test barrel and ran right at 56,100 psi.......exactly what it was supposed to do.

In the mid '30s the supply of M1906 ammunition was running out and it was found the M1 Ball ammunition exceeded the safety fan of many training ranges, particularly National Guard training ranges. A request was made for ammunition specification comparable to M1906 ammunition be made for training use. This was the 1st level of M2 Ball ammunition performance. That specification called for 2700 fps with the 150 - 152 gr FMJ FB'd bullet. Just day before yesterday I tested a lot (DM 42) of that level of M2 Ball. It ran right at 2701 fps with 55,600 psi.

The 2nd level of performance of M2 Ball ammunition result in 1939 - 1940 when the National Guard Bureau requested a further reduction of velocity of M2 Ball resulting from the establishment of many newer training ranges (the National Guard had been mobilized pretty much completely by 1939) which did not have the safety fans to safely contain the original M2 Ball or M1906 ammunition. The request was for the M2's velocity to be reduced to 2550 - 2600 fps. This was done and I've found most of the M2 Ball tested made after the mid '50s falls into this level of performance. The velocities of numerous such lots runs from 2490 fps to 2600 fps. It appears from my testing all 3 levels of M2 Ball were produced by various arsenals up through the mid '50s with only the 3rd level produced after the adoption of the 7.62 NATO cartridge to replace the 30-06.

With the development of better powders (notably 4895 and ball powders) for use in the 30-06 cartridge in the early '40s we see the velocity specification for M2 Ball ammunition was upgraded to 2810 fps and sometimes reported as 2820 fps. This created the 3rd level of performance. I have tested numerous lots of this level also. Day before yesterday I also tested a lot of SL 52 which was loaded with 48.2 gr of extruded powder (probably 4895). It produced 2801 fps at 54,900 psi.

 

I have also tested a few lots of M1 Ball. Day before yesterday I also tested a lot of M1 Ball (FA 28) . The velocity ran 2638 fps at 57,000 psi.....again, just as it was supposed to do. A lot of M72 Match was also tested. It ran 2624 fps at 57,100 psi......just as it should have.


For practical shooting with M1 rifles, M1903/M1903A1s or M1903A3s I like to match the level of M2 ball performance to what the sights are regulated for. Of course if one is just shooting at one range then the regulation of the sights range doesn't matter. I shoot multiple ranges with my M1903A1 which is why I load to match the sight regulation.  A 147 gr M80 bullet at 2660 - 2780 fps closely matches the regulation of the M1 Rifle rear sight.  Of course, a 175 Sierra MK at 2600 – 2640 fps will also match the M1’s range settings.

The M1 Rifles sights are regulated for M1 Ball [173/174 FMJBT at 2640 fps].  The M1903/M1903A1 sights are regulated for the M1906 Ball or M2 Ball that gives 2700 fps with the 150 - 152 FMJFB bullet.

The M1903As sight are regulated for the 3rd level of performance; a 150-152 gr FMJFB bullet at 2810 fps. This is why many were frustrated with level 1 and particularly level 2 M2 Ball performance in M1903A3s.....the sight range settings just didn't correlate to impact at those ranges.

Quality M2 Bullets are almost impossible to get. In all my testing I found a great degradation of accuracy in US made M2 Ball after the late 50s, particularly that produced in the '60s and early '70s. The bullets are just of poor quality. Thus I use 7.62 M80 bullets which hold 2 moa +/- out of my M1903A1. The commercial made Hornady's have always given me the best accuracy, usually 1 1/2 moa +/-. I got a bunch of pull down M80s from Widner's about 10 years ago that hold 2 - 2 1/2 moa +/-.

I use 4895 for my loads with M80 bullets and in my M1903A1 load them to 2640 - 2650 fps which regulates the trajectory to the sight quite close out to 1000  
yards. For use in my M1903A3 I load the M80 bullets to 2730 fps which then regulates the trajectory to the sight ranges to 800 yards. The use of M80 bullets may be what you'll also find to be the best option.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Aaron posted this 08 April 2025

Thank you all for the replies! This data should keep me from bending an op-rod. 🙂

With rifle in hand, I confidently go forth into the darkness.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • delmarskid
M1fuzz posted this 09 April 2025

Do you want to shoot full power military type loads? Want to shoot cast? All up to you. I have cast loads that work the action of the Garand but, I just can’t get consistent accuracy. I WILL NOT shoot a Garand like a straight pull just to get it to shoot lead. Blasphemy on the design of this rifle!!!

Now a jacketed load this is easier on your rifle and your shoulder and accurate to 300 yards. Try 110 grain spitzer/hp type bullets from Sierra or Hornady. Even the 125 grainers work good. Use IMR3031 powder. Does very well. Has been used w/ success at CMP Matches.

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Bud Hyett
  • delmarskid
tomme boy posted this 5 weeks ago

You will never bend an op rod. That is an old wives tale. One of the powder manufactures had enough ?'s about this and did an extensive test with all med to slow burn rate powders. They tried over and over again and running loads higher than proof loads to try to bend a rod. Never did and had all the data to prove it. I had the link saved but can't find it. I sent it to Frank Green from Bartlein barrels and he knows the person that did the test. Frank even said it goes against all everyone has been told. It has come out that it was more to do with the safety aspects of the ranges as Larry has shown above. But it somehow got changed to bending rods blowing up guns. 

 

I know several guys that run nothing but 4350 in their guns and have never had a problem. So I tend to not believe the whole op rod thing

 

Attached Files

tomme boy posted this 5 weeks ago

Here I found it

 

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Commercial-ammo-in-garands-test-results-/5-2734055/

Attached Files

Aaron posted this 5 weeks ago

Interesting write up (report) on the testing done. I have had numerous email exchanges with Ken Johnson regarding Shooters World propellants and more importantly to me, the 45-90 cartridge and Buffalo Rifle propellant. In other posts, where I state that "I have it on good authority that Shooters World xxx propellant is the SAME propellant (chemically) as Accurate yyy propellant", he is my authoritative source there at Shooters World. He does not mince words or otherwise couch his replies. It's a breath of fresh air to have an email exchange where information is communicated completely and without suppressed or hidden content. His "here is the data, don't blow yourself up" replies are refreshing.

It is interesting to read the subsequent posts and replies to his white paper, all claiming that he is wrong.....so go the armchair ballistic experts and trolls.

Thanks for posting that link!

 

With rifle in hand, I confidently go forth into the darkness.

Attached Files

Larry Gibson posted this 5 weeks ago

Source for Ken Johnson's "white paper"?

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

Aaron posted this 5 weeks ago

https://www.ar15.com/forums/General/Commercial-ammo-in-garands-test-results-/5-2734055/

With rifle in hand, I confidently go forth into the darkness.

Attached Files

JBinMN posted this 5 weeks ago

I went and read the OP at the link that Tomme Boy & Aaron posted above and found down page at the bottom of the eP a link to some of the data offered by the Johnson feller:

Link to raw data. >  https://pink-nonna-70.tiiny.site/


Posting here in case it is missed by others wanting to look at the data since it is not highlighted as a link in that OP..

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • Aaron
Larry Gibson posted this 5 weeks ago

Interesting data.  I would like to learn a bit more information regarding the test barrel used, especially the length of it.  Reason being the pressure data falls in line with that I have tested of similar 30-06 ammunition.   However, the velocities in many, if not most, tests were somewhat higher in Johnson's test.  Some were considerably higher, especially the velocities of M2 Ball.

Not questioning the validity of the test data whatsoever.  I'm just curious is all.

LMG

Concealment is not cover.........

Attached Files

tomme boy posted this 5 weeks ago

everything I have ever been tod was you had to use 4895 speed powder. If you used anything slower you would blow yourself up. Just from what I have seen over the years with people that reload and the thousands of factory 3006 ammo fired in guns I have seen goes against everything I have been told. 

 

It seems that when one guy does something wrong and then blames the reason that a gun blew up was something other than their own mess up. Then they will not man up and say they screwed up. But this man may be a well known individual and everyone takes his word for it. Pretty sure this is what happened. I am really convinced that this and the range restrictions Larry mentioned is where ll of this came from. 

 

And that is why I try to spread this word on different forums when it comes up. 

Attached Files

  • Liked by
  • John Alexander
Show More Posts
Close