M-1 Bullet Weights--Any clear accuracy champ by weight?

[Amanda4461]

Curiosity has me asking if anybody has done enough bullet weight testing with weights from 155gr to 180gr to be able to say "The xxxweight bullet prints the smallest groups out of the three most commonly used", those most common to me being 155/168/175. I typically just use the 168gr Sierra Match King, or its Nosler twin. Wondering if the 155gr bullets are even worth trying. Normal Service Rifle ranges from 200 - 600 yards. If you have a lightweight pet load and don't mind sharing, I would love to try it.
Thanks!
Amanda

[Maury Krupp]

There is so much other stuff going on with every shot out of an M1 (or just about any other semi-auto) that if you're looking for the "smallest groups" you probably ought to be looking for a different rifle.

Otherwise, it's a matter of finding a bullet/load that's "good enough" for what you need it to do. You don't need a 190gr bullet to hold the 10/X-ring at 100yd; a 125gr bullet isn't going to work at 1000.

IMO the "best" one bullet for XTC is a 168gr Sierra/Berger/Nosler. It's a good compromise between the requirements of the short and mid lines: Enough reach for 600 if you're on top of the wind but not too much to knock you out too badly in rapids.

For 200yd or less the Speer 125TNT will easily hold the 10-ring of the 600-reduced MR-52. Sitting rapid with it rivals the ratgun for lack of recoil. Beyond 200yd it runs out of gas and starts to have issues in any sort of wind. Sierra's 135MK does better at 300yd with only a very slight increase in recoil.

For 600 as noted the 168 is adequate but the 175 or even a 185/190 is better. At 1000yd the same can be said for the 175; it's adequate but the 185/190s are better.

I find for me the 150/155s to be neither fish nor fowl. They're more than really necessary for 200 & 300, but not quite up to the job at 600. Maybe that's just me?

So, as usual, it really comes down to the right tool for the job.

Maury

[Johnny in Texas]

The 155 match bullets were designed for use in combat matches where only service spec. ammo is allowed. They were supposed to be a match version of the M80 Ball ammo. that could be stable out to 1000 meters. To make the 155's perform from 600-1000 they have to be near max. pressure with custom chamber from reports I have seen. I tried some and they don't out shoot the 168 SMK or 175 SMK.

[Jim in Salt Lake]

For full XTC, I agree, 168s are the way to go. I want to try the Sierra 135s for the vintage matches since they're only 200 yards.

[Amanda4461]

Thanks guys. I really should narrow the question down to "What is the most accurate lightweight bullet that will stabilize in a Garand at 200 yards, since most of my matches are shot at that distance. I can find the lightweight bullets easily enough, and have seen the 155gr Palma bullets available locally at very reasonable prices, just didn't want to buy a stash of something that the M-1 can't work with. My typical load is a 168 SMK on 46.4gr IMR4064. As far as my old NM M-1 goes, that is the most accurate load I have found, using bullets from 165gr thru 180gr, measured off a bench at 200 yards. If the 155 will work well, and using 4064 or 4895, I'll try them out. As for the 155 or lighter bullets, I am looking for somebody with practical experience using them to say "this weight works well in my M-1, with this powder" or something similar.
Thanks for your info....Amanda

[Maury Krupp]

Take your current load of 4064 (maybe bump it up .5 or 1.0gr or maybe not) and seat a Speer 125TNT or a Sierra 135MK at about 3.20OAL.

Now go shoot the MR-52 at 200yd. If you're not clean with a good X-count for 20 shots it's not your ammo.

Maury

[Hip's Ax]

When I got my first Garand, a service grade from the CMP back in 1999 or 2000 I did bullet testing with CCI #34 primers and IMR 4895. I went from min to max with the 155 Sierra and the 168. The smallest groups I got were with the 155 and since the group got no smaller above 46 grains I just made that load. From prone with a sling I can almost clean an SR at 200, probably get a 9 or two. I just went right to 175's and IMR 4064 for 600 yards and there the suggested load worked the best (47.5 grains?) about 0.015" off the lands and from prone with the sling I can keep them all in the black at 600. Unfortunately there is no short cut, you have to do the testing and let the rifle tell you what it likes best.

[John Kepler]

The 155 match bullets were designed for use in combat matches where only service spec. ammo is allowed. They were supposed to be a match version of the M80 Ball ammo. that could be stable out to 1000 meters. To make the 155's perform from 600-1000 they have to be near max. pressure with custom chamber from reports I have seen. I tried some and they don't out shoot the 168 SMK or 175 SMK.

The only way a 155 Palma bullet works at 800-1000 yds is if you push it out at at least 2900 fps. And yes......it's a big load and absolutely NOTHING you want to attempt in a stock Garand! Otherwise, it's a completely forgettable XC load. As usual, listen to Maury! But I have to "contrary" in this specific context.

The Sierra 175 was designed for the M118LR....which is a .308 load for the M40 and the M-14 SMR....not for a Garand! Numerous people have reported over-pressure signs in Garands with what should be "acceptable" loads...one of those people was Roy Baumgadner at Precision Shooting. For whatever reason, the Sierra 175 ball has a HUGE barrel bearing area, and the smart money says this is why you get pressure signs in a Garand. The antithesis of the Sierra 175 is the Hornady 178 A-Max....with a smaller bearing area and a higher BC, it does everything the Sierra pill does, a lot of it better, and none of the bad stuff!

You haven't givie any indication of where you are on the precision shooting learning curve...but it's hard to beat a Sierra 168 MatchKing for just about anything except Long Range.

[Amanda4461]

John,
I don't need a bullet for anything past 600 yards. I only shoot a 6.5mm bolt gun at the 1000. I guess I am trying to cheat some. While I can occasionally shoot Master class scores with my Compass Lake AR15, I have never even come close with the Garand. I shoot a type-1 NM that is capable, but the rapid strings usually get me with the Garand. If a lighter bullet with less recoil will help, I am willing to try it. Might keep the bruising under my right eye down, too:-)
Thanks for the info.
Amanda

[Jim in Salt Lake]

I hear that, Amanda. The AR's lack of recoil gets me spoiled, that's why I want to try the smaller Speer or Sierra bullets Maury talks about for my Garand and 1903. I have the bullets, just need some powder. And I want to use my time better in the rapids, usually have too much left over.

[John Kepler]

Yeah.....well, that's one of the reasons that those of us old farts that started out XC shooting the "Big Iron" went up at least one classification when we shifted to the AR......the more ergonomic platform makes that much of a difference!

If I may slide into "Coach Mode". With NOTHING pejorative intended.....the "problem" isn't with your loads, it's with your positions! The Garand in particular is brutally unforgiving of positional defects...that you are ending up looking like you've been in a bar-fight is a clear indicator that there's something wrong with your "rifle-shooter interface"....something more than a change in loads is going to completely correct. You need to accept the fact that the AR, and to a degree, your 6.5 (I've shot one several times.....it's a LOT like shooting an AR, and absolutely NOTHING like shooting a "Big-30") have let you acquire some bad habits that the Garand is simply exposing. Get back to basics.....analyze your position....are you "locking in", or are you "sloppy? Are you RELIGIOUSLY setting your NPOA before you start the string, or are you attempting to "muscle" your way around an NPOA "defect" (a .30 cal will expose this little positional faux pas glaringly in your rapids where it won't even bother you in an AR!)? All a lighter load in your Garand will do is (maybe) spackle over the defects that are the source of your problem...but they won't truly fix anything!

[Maury Krupp]

With either IMR/H4895 or IMR4064 I've never had any issues with the Sierra 175MK in an M1.

I did have major issues with it when paired with VV N140. Which was too bad as N140 is a great (if expensive and sometimes hard to find) powder.

If the Hornady or other bullet will work where a Sierra won't that's worth knowing.

If you're getting bruised by your M1 then that is a position/spot-weld defect. You should recoil and roll with the rifle as one.

As far as lighter bullets being a band-aid I think that's only partly true. I can and have shot some good rapid strings with the 168s but I've shot more with the 125s and 135s. Yes, like the ratgun the lighter bullets can let you get away with things you shouldn't. But the bottom line is they're simply easier to shoot, easier on the shooter, and they get the job done. Every nail doesn't need to be driven with a 16lb sledge.

Or to paraphrase John when it comes to results: "The target doesn't care what weight bullet is punching the hole" :bootyshake:

Maury

[John Kepler]

.

As far as lighter bullets being a band-aid I think that's only partly true. I can and have shot some good rapid strings with the 168s but I've shot more with the 125s and 135s. Yes, like the ratgun the lighter bullets can let you get away with things you shouldn't. But the bottom line is they're simply easier to shoot, easier on the shooter, and they get the job done. Every nail doesn't need to be driven with a 16lb sledge.

Or to paraphrase John when it comes to results: "The target doesn't care what weight bullet is punching the hole" :bootyshake:

Maury

Absolutely....but then Maury, I've watched you shoot more than once and you have near textbook position! I didn't say it wouldn't make a difference, but that it wasn't the majority of the problem....some rather obvious positional defects are! That, and I am ALWAYS reluctant to ascribe a "hardware" solution to a problem that is far more likely, completely, and durably to be solved by "software".....and someone getting pasted by a rifle has a lot more wrong with the "software" than a "hardware" solution of a lighter weight bullet is going to fix! That nagging pain in your left shoulder and the sweats isn't always something you can fix with Bengay and a fan! Fix the underlying "software" problem.....then mess with "hardware" if you still need the fine tuning. YMMV!

Oh....and one little admission of bias. As Maury can tell anyone....I'm a rather large person and recoil has never been a huge issue for me.

[Amanda4461]

Well daggone, here I was looking for a light-kicking cure to my Garanditis:-)
No doubt, my hold is not perfect. I am the one who shoots in a t-shirt. I don't use a shooting coat, cause I hate the sweats I get in the 100F Texas sun. I do use the 1903 sling and a nice glove. Recoil probably isn't the reason I have problems with rapid-fire sitting, since it doesn't bother my off-hand or prone. Too much belly makes it hard to breath in rapid. I am really just looking for something that will let me shoot a lot more practice at 200 yards without kicking my face black and blue. I tend to crawl up on the rear peep and get as good a sight picture as I can. M-1 is much harder to get away with that than the AR, but I am old-fashioned and prefer the old wood rifles. If a 125 to 155 grain bullet is accurate enough at 200 yards to hold the ten-ring, I can shoot a hundred at a session and maybe not be too beat up.
Thanks for the ideas!
Amanda

[Parashooter]

http://www.sierrabullets.com/bulletart/2110.gif

Don't overlook the little Sierra 110-grain HP #2110 - even less recoil than the 125's, low price, and usually groups just fine for 200-yard work.

[Parashooter]

. . . For whatever reason, the Sierra 175 ball has a HUGE barrel bearing area, and the smart money says this is why you get pressure signs in a Garand. . .but it's hard to beat a Sierra 168 MatchKing for just about anything except Long Range.

A little checking seems to show that the Sierra 175 and 168 are virtually identical forward of the boattail junction. If there's a significant difference in bearing surface, I can't find it in those I have on hand.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2cqf94z.jpg

[John Kepler]

Point being? Oh.....and I can see a difference in bearing area in YOUR pictures....and that's just with a plain old Mk.I Eyeball. FWIW, the issue is more a case of loading and resistance to acceleration. When you want to, check the 175 against a 178 A-Max.....then shoot it. That's when you find out that Sierra doesn't have all the answers.

BTW.....you still shooting molys?

[Parashooter]

Point being? Oh.....and I can see a difference in bearing area in YOUR pictures....and that's just with a plain old Mk.I Eyeball. FWIW, the issue is more a case of loading and resistance to acceleration.

BTW.....you still shooting molys?

Here's some help for those Mk.I eyeballs and my crummy photo -

http://i50.tinypic.com/14l4n5g.jpg
Earlier photo zoomed in on tail end of bearing surface.

Near as I can tell from eyeballing and measuring these things up close and personal, there is no significant difference in bearing surface between the two. (Definitely not more than .020".) Now you tell us, "the issue is more a case of loading and resistance to acceleration." Previously it was, "the Sierra 175 ball has a HUGE barrel bearing area, and the smart money says this is why you get pressure signs in a Garand." Oh well, what was it Emerson said about hobgoblins?:icon_rolleyes:

I stopped beating myself up with .30 calibers at long-range eons ago (after collecting an unexpected Palma pin with a service mousegun the first year they were allowed at Perry) - but still have a few dozen of those moly-coated 175's gathering dust.

[PhillipM]

I tried the 125 TNT's and may need to do it again since my position and scores have improved. I just couldn't get good accuracy with them until they were driven near max loads and at that point they kicked as hard as anything else.

I've gone through 600 or so of the Nosler 155 custom competitions and have had the highest scores with this bullet and most of my matches are shot at 200.

For sitting undo your pants and loosen your belt, just not enough for your pants to fall off when commanded to rise.

Everyone else posting above has much more experience shooting Garands than I do, but I am in the silver medal range now.

BTW 155's are in stock at Midway by the 1000 as of right now. I just ordered a box, $247 to my door.

[Amanda4461]

Phillip,
Thanks for the loosen the belt idea. definitely don't want to subject the folks behind the line to my tighty-whiteys! Unfortunately, as soon as I read this, I tried Midway. They are out already, so I put a notify-me in for the 155gr Nosler. Hopefully, I won't have to stuff the case full of 4064 to get them accurate in my rifle.
Amanda

[Phil McGrath]

Here's some help for those Mk.I eyeballs and my crummy photo -

http://i50.tinypic.com/14l4n5g.jpg
Earlier photo zoomed in on tail end of bearing surface.

Near as I can tell from eyeballing and measuring these things up close and personal, there is no significant difference in bearing surface between the two. (Definitely not more than .020".) Now you tell us, "the issue is more a case of loading and resistance to acceleration." Previously it was, "the Sierra 175 ball has a HUGE barrel bearing area, and the smart money says this is why you get pressure signs in a Garand." Oh well, what was it Emerson said about hobgoblins?:icon_rolleyes:

I stopped beating myself up with .30 calibers at long-range eons ago (after collecting an unexpected Palma pin with a service mousegun the first year they were allowed at Perry) - but still have a few dozen of those moly-coated 175's gathering dust.

The 168SMK has a bearing lenth of .370 and a BT angle of 12*

The 175SMK has a bearing lenth of .390 and a BT angle of 9*

[Parashooter]

You might want to re-check those bearing lengths. .470/.490" would seem about right, at least for the .300"+ surface.

http://i46.tinypic.com/2cqf94z.jpg

[George in NH]

Amanda,
I would offer that you try the Sierra 150 gr. match king, if it is still available. Although the Palma bullet may cost less as it seems to be less popular. Also, wearing a medium weight sweat shirt under any reasonable shooting coat will be a great aid in maintaining a proper position. Sure, you will perspire but that is the reason for the sweat shirt, to keep sweat from the shooting coat and launder the sweat shirt. Try not to wear jeans while shooting. They can be too restrictive in position. I also unfasten the top button of my trousers when sitting. HTH :)

[slamfire]

I shot 168's all the way back to 600 yards. It was nice just to have one type of ammunition to fool with. Sometimes I would use 175's at 600, when I shot Garands at 1000 yards, 168's would tumble, the 175's would not.

I had buds who shot 125's at 200, they shot wonderfully and had less recoil.