M1 NM 30-06 "Go To Load"

[Hip's Ax]

Is there a generally agreed "go to service rifle load" for a 30-06 Garand similar to the 7.62 load of a 168 gr Sierra over 41.5 grains of IMR 4895?

Just curious, of course we should always start low and work up.

Thanks in advance.

[Maury Krupp]

46.5 H or IMR4895 or 47.0gr IMR4064 +/- .5gr for all.

Any good 168 or 175 match bullet.

Maury

[Parashooter]

Same as your 7.62 "go to" load except for about 5 grains more 4895 in the '06 case.

[Hip's Ax]

Thanks Guys!

Now, I recall a discussion on the old forum about VV N140 (?) being the best propellant for 30-06 NM loads? I'm sure I remember Big John extolling its virtues. Anybody recall or maybe have a copy of that discussion?

I'm getting a little antsy, Major Stuph e-mailed me a few days ago that my "As Good As It Can Get" M1 NM in 30-06 is close to being finished. :)

[Maury Krupp]

N140 is a very consistent, very clean burning powder that meters well through most powder measures. It works very well with 168gr bullets or lighter in .30-'06. It's nearly identical to IMR4064 for charge weights.

However, when I loaded it with Sierra 175MK in .30-'06 it tore rims off. It didn't happen during testing; only during matches. I also suspect it bent an Op Rod.

I bought a McCann Adjustable Gas Cylinder Lock Screw but never got around to doing much with it because around the same time all VV powders ran into import problems making them unavailable.

I decided N140 wasn't worth the hassle or expense compared to the simplicity and proven record of loads with 4895 and 4064.

Maury

[Griff Murphey]

I shoot a slightly lighter load of either 168 SMK's or my old stash of pulled 173 gr. with 43 grs. of Hogden's 4895. This is fine for 200 yard CMP shoots. It might be a little shy for 600 yard work.

[John Kepler]

To echo what Maury said.....only I don't have any more problems getting VV N140 than I do 4064, so that part of the equation isn't an issue for me. N140 IS generally harder to find and costs a little more (not much anymore), but I continue to feel that it's worth the small additional expense. It's SCARY consistent powder and will generate SD and extreme spread numbers that will have you scratching your head and wondering if your chronometer's busted. Also, in nearly 20 years of loading it.....I have NEVER had the slightest variation between powder lots, not even a smidge.....one can shoots exactly like the can before it, and the one that'll come after it! That is NOT something I can say about any other powder. Even more important in a Garand/M14....the stuff is CLEAN! No more coking, no more digging coal out of your M14 gas piston with a drill. What residue you do get is a soft gray powder that you can wipe off with a Kleenex (in a land covered in trees, the Finns make their nitrocellulose out of cotton fiber rather than wood-pulp making almost pure NC with VERY little contamination....wood-pulp powders have around 10% unreacted tannins in their NC, which is the coke, crud, smoke, and flash that you don't get using cotton fiber).

The "negatives" are exactly as Maury has stated them....cost and availability. The "advantages" are pretty much as I have stated them. Whether those "advantages" out-weigh the PITA factor involved in the "negatives", particularly in a Service Rifle where "close enough" probably is "good enough" is highly subjective......4064 is every bit as capable of shooting an X out of a Servicee Rifle as N140 is. For me, the answer to that "cost-benefit" equation is simple....for anyone else...YMMV!

[Hip's Ax]

Gentlemen, I Thank You For Your Time. Getting this kind of experienced advice is priceless. I will stick with 4895 and 4064 for now. This rifle was a long time coming (I've been collecting parts for 10 years) and I am excited to know I will be getting it in the foreseeable future.

I'll busy myself prepping brass (I have a 20mm can of Virgin LC NM 78 30-06 brass) and making up short line magazine length test lots. I'll have to wait for the long line test lots until I can measure the distance to the lands after I get the rifle.

Got to Love CSP!! :)

[Willo]

Check out these 2 links for some very good load info on the M1.
NRA M1 Garand Load Info;
http://masterpostemple.bravepages.com/M1load.htm

M1 Garand Loads;
http://forums.gunboards.com/showthread.php?169259-M1-Garand-reloading

Hope this helps.

[John Kepler]

It's load data, it's also OLD data....but I question how "good" it is! Does NOT come close to my or anyone elses optimal/accurate/competition loads. Listen to Maury!

[Plain Old Dave]

All right, question:

Will my M72 zeroes work with 46.5 of IMR4895 , M72 brass, and pulled M118s or 175gr SMKs?

[Johnny in Texas]

In 1963 the NM load was 46.7 gr 4895 2640 FPS 173 gr bullet I have loaded 47.0 Gr 4895 for 168-175 bullets with exell. results. ******* I always load in LC match brass********
2640 FPS is optimum vel. for those bullets in an M1 or bolt gun.

I have seen loads with up to 50.0 gr 4895 with vel. around 2800

M118 Match load I use is 42.5 4895 in LC Match brass with 175.O SMK bullet, I have mixed this load with factory M118LR and shot for groups under 1 MOA out of a Rem. 700 w/26" barrel.

[gulliver62]

I like to use the Nosler 155g Custom Competition. Very accurate and some relief on the recoil.
Start at 47g of 4895 and work up to 48g to see what shoots best.

[Andy/CA]

46.5 H or IMR4895 or 47.0gr IMR4064 +/- .5gr for all.

Any good 168 or 175 match bullet.

Maury

Hey Maury,

Do you reduce the charge with LC or mil capacity brass, or have you found no difference? Thanks!

[Maury Krupp]

Do you reduce the charge with LC or mil capacity brass, or have you found no difference?
All my brass is USGI or HXP.

FWIW I compared a few random commercial cases (FA or Win) to USGI by weighing empty and full of water. Didn't really find any major differences.

Maury

[Andy/CA]

All my brass is USGI or HXP.

FWIW I compared a few random commercial cases (FA or Win) to USGI by weighing empty and full of water. Didn't really find any major differences.

Maury

Thank you sir!! I've previously settled on a mild target load of 45.0gr of 4895 with 168 Custom Comps and hxp brass... may try some further load dev.

[cache]

Any recommendations for a reduced recoil load for a 200 yd JCG match?

[Maury Krupp]

Any recommendations for a reduced recoil load for a 200 yd JCG match?
Try 46gr of H/IMR4895 or 47.0gr of IMR4064 +/- .5gr and the Speer 125TNT.

The 45gr mentioned above will probably work OK too. There's a pretty big "sweet spot" around there; especially when it's short range and a big target.

The thing about reduced loads is when compared to "normal" loads they can be pretty slow. For Standing their barrel time means your shot break and follow through need to be better than with a faster load. At greater distances they can get pretty wind sensitive too.

But for 200yd in Sitting and Prone on the SR target you don't need laser beams.

Maury

[PhillipM]

Try 46gr of H/IMR4895 or 47.0gr of IMR4064 +/- .5gr and the Speer 125TNT.

The 45gr mentioned above will probably work OK too. There's a pretty big "sweet spot" around there; especially when it's short range and a big target.

The thing about reduced loads is when compared to "normal" loads they can be pretty slow. For Standing their barrel time means your shot break and follow through need to be better than with a faster load. At greater distances they can get pretty wind sensitive too.

But for 200yd in Sitting and Prone on the SR target you don't need laser beams.

Maury

Here's a test I did with 125 TNT's in my M1. Tested were 48,50, and 52 grains of 4064 powder pushing a 125 grain speer tnt bullet. In an effort to remove variables I shot one 48, then a 50, 52, then back to 48 so barrel temps and fouling would be consistent across the three targets. From a clean cold barrel I shot off two rounds at the gong just to foul the barrel then shot the targets. Interestingly the first three shots were very low across all three powder charges. After that the 48 looked like patterning a shotgun, but the 50's and 52's started grouping well. The 8 ring shot at 12:30 on the middle target was called off. Later shots with the 50 and 52 grouped more to the left than the earlier shots, this is more clearly shown in the right target with the group of five first, then the group of four. The last few rounds gave me some difficulty from mirage off the barrel so that could have affected my aiming point. I loaded some 168's to use as a control group but didn't have the target space for a fourth target and ran out of light so I couldn't shoot them at the end. The day before I shot 47's that looked like the 48's and 46's that had a group two inches wide and 12" tall, the worst vertical stringing I've ever experienced.

http://i35.servimg.com/u/f35/15/55/99/36/53826110.jpg

8 shot clip of 52 grains taking more time and letting the barrel cool.

http://i65.servimg.com/u/f65/15/55/99/36/photo111.jpg

At 52 grains I didn't feel like the recoil was any less than a 168 so I quit fooling with light bullets for now.

[Maury Krupp]

Phil,

What you saw is what I normally see with reduced light bullet loads. They're easy to shoot but don't group tight enough for anything but the normal SR targets. Bump up the powder charge and they group tighter but you lose the advantage of reduced recoil.

That's why I only use them for Sitting or Games.

The 100yd Smallbore target you used has scoring rings around 2/3 the size of the SR-1. A group that barely holds the 9-ring on that target would be clean (or close to it) on the SR-1.

Some of the vertical stringing may be due to powder position. There's a lot of empty space in a .30-'06; even with 4064.

Maury

[Plain Old Dave]

OK, new update: Most recent published data I have found states the 46gr of IMR 4895 is with civilian brass; the NRA M1 data says reduce by 2gr for milsurp brass. So, 44gr of IMR4895 behind M118 bullets in USGI M72 brass with Winchester LR primers looks like the way to go; checked with Sierra (going to 175SMKs when the 118s run out) and 46 is a near-max load for the M1 data they have. I'd also think that the lower handload might make finding brass somewhat easier. Questions:



1) Will setting my reloading dies with a loaded FA 1960 M72 round get me where I need to be for OAL/cartridge headspace, or do I need a cartridge headspace gauge?



2) Has anybody used a load with what I will be using at 600? That's what these are for; to start with for zero, I intend to use the standard comeup from my 300 zero.

[Maury Krupp]

"OK, new update: Most recent published data I have found states the 46gr of IMR 4895 is with civilian brass; the NRA M1 data says reduce by 2gr for milsurp brass."
All my brass is USGI or HXP and I've never had a problem with 46.0 IMR4895.

"So, 44gr of IMR4895 behind M118 bullets in USGI M72 brass with Winchester LR primers looks like the way to go;"
If you can get the desired velocity (~2640-2700fps). It takes 46.0gr for me.

"...checked with Sierra (going to 175SMKs when the 118s run out) and 46 is a near-max load for the M1 data they have."
Sierra is known for listing the lowest load data out there. Cross-check against a couple other sources, test for pressure signs and desired velocity, then decide.

"1)...do I need a cartridge headspace gauge?"
Yes.

"2) Has anybody used a load with what I will be using at 600? That's what these are for; to start with for zero, I intend to use the standard comeup from my 300 zero."
If you load it to a velocity of 2640fps at 78ft from the muzzle, thousands of people have shot millions of rounds of it; it's a clone of M72 Match. The standard comeup will get you in the black; refine for your conditions and hold.

Maury

[Plain Old Dave]

Interesting... IMR says 46gr is a starting load with 175s, NRA says 46gr is with civilian brass and to reduce by 2gr with military brass. This is confusing; I really wish M72 was not nearly $1/round...

Moving on, though, I do see a number of people talk about the cartridge headspace gage. What will it do that setting up my dies using a loaded round of M72 won't do? If the rounds are full-length sized, won't they fit *any* .30-06 chamber?

[Maury Krupp]

The "conventional wisdom" of reducing the powder charge is based on the idea that GI brass is heavier/has thicker walls and therefore less internal volume.

After weighing random commercial and GI cases empty and full of water, I haven't found that to be true. Both types of cases held comparable amounts of water.

The "conventional wisdom" may have been true at one time but as near as I can tell it doesn't seem to be today.

Still, it's always prudent to start a couple grains below the intended charge and work up just for safety's sake.

I'm not clear on how you intend to set up your sizing die with an already loaded round?

Full-length resizing isn't really the issue anyway; it's cartridge headspace (ie, where is the shoulder?).

A case re-sized (ie, shoulder pushed back) to SAAMI minimum should fit into the chamber of any rifle with a headspace between the SAAMI min and max spec for that chambering.

If the rifle headspace is at min and the case shoulder is at max it may not fit. That's a recipie for stoppages (failure to feed, failure to fire, failure to extract) and even worse, a possible slamfire.

There are two types of case headspace gauges: One type of case gauge measures the actual shoulder position; the other is a simple drop-in min-max "GO-NO GO"

Some reloaders resize to just under the headspace of a specific rifle to reduce stretching and prolong case life. You need a gauge that measures to do this.

Others resize to min to make the ammo usable in any rifle. The drop-in will work for that.

Either way you must ensure the case will fully enter the chamber and the bolt can go fully into battery.

Maury

[Plain Old Dave]

Makes sense about headspace gages; in 10+ years of reloading I have had one Krag round that would not chamber; while annoying in a boltgun, could be disasterous in a gasgun. Thanks for the info, Maury. I figure IMR is the data to go with and they have 46 of IMR-4895 as a starting load with 175 SMKs. If that works well enough (i.e. works the bolt and is good for 150+ at 600 which is about what I scored last time I shot M72 [had gun trouble]), I am done with load development (for now). At this point in my shooting career, I will be better served by getting out and shooting the Course rather than spending who knows how long tweaking handloads.

Other question: Is there any reason to go with one brand of gage over another?

[Maury Krupp]

One brand over another? None that I know of; they'll all do the job.

Maury

[da gimp]

Wilson gages are pretty dern good, & fairly in-expensive. Have them in .308Win, .30-06, .243Win, .223 Rem. Figure they'll out last me by far. Remember to clean ALL case lube off the brass each time before inserting them into a headspace gage.

[PhillipM]

Makes sense about headspace gages; in 10+ years of reloading I have had one Krag round that would not chamber; while annoying in a boltgun, could be disasterous in a gasgun. Thanks for the info, Maury. I figure IMR is the data to go with and they have 46 of IMR-4895 as a starting load with 175 SMKs. If that works well enough (i.e. works the bolt and is good for 150+ at 600 which is about what I scored last time I shot M72 [had gun trouble]), I am done with load development (for now). At this point in my shooting career, I will be better served by getting out and shooting the Course rather than spending who knows how long tweaking handloads.

Other question: Is there any reason to go with one brand of gage over another?

I like my rcbs. If you are serious about resizing to the minimum spec, remove the gas lock screw for your reference cases else the violent extraction stretches them. This phenomenon led me to believe I had too much headspace when I first got the rcbs case mic.