View Single Post
  #8  
Old 08-02-2019, 08:57 PM
jimthompson502002 jimthompson502002 is offline
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: La Crosse, Wisconsin
Posts: 2,794
Default Gun Comix

Quote:
Originally Posted by slipkid42 View Post
That is what is confusing to me as I thought it was M2 Ball for a Garand as well.

From the article:
"The Victory Series Ball M2 ammunition was loaded with 55.8 grains of a Ball powder. This is a bit perplexing to me, as GI Ball M2 ammo was normally loaded with 49 to 50 grains of an extruded improved military rifle (IMR) propellant. The period Lake City ammunition I shot for the comparison to Winchester's Victory ammunition was loaded with 46.8 grains of an extruded IMR-appearing propellant. This is very important, as the M1 Garand was not designed to run on the heavy charges of slow propellants that modern .30-'06 sporting ammo is loaded with. Modern loads run six to 10 grains higher with charge weights of much slower propellant, causing a much higher load on the M1 Garand's long operating rod and risks over-driving the action. The Victory load is not appropriate for use in an M1 Garand."
The statement is, to be kind, nebulous and meaningless.

When no effort has been made to determine the i.d. of the powder, let along the actual pressure parameters, in fact, we are reminded there are reasons most folks now call this publication GUN COMIX, and regard what they spew as low strata advisories.

What in the blue blazes is an "IMR-appearing" propellant? IMR and others produce all sorts of extruded powders, and the "eye test", to real ballisticians like Ackley and Grinnell, is frankly somewhat shy of comical. More germane: ball powders are particularly difficult to identify visually. These "conclusions" are "based" ( and that's stretching the bee-Jee-Zuss HELL out of whole idea of logic, frankly ) upon criteria that are nonsense.

There's way too much phony baloney cautionary advice about M1 fodder, especially powder and bullets, and way insufficient examination of genuine criteria, and this has gotten weirder and weirder as the time when it was issued and shot daily all over the world becomes distant. Testing matters. Performance matters. Chronography matters. Visual first impressions are almost entirely guesses, and while they might provide a lead or framework leading to some kind of information, they are neither conclusions nor hard evidence.

"Winchester", by the way, is not the old firm in New Haven that used to make lever action rifles. That firm folded its stateside tent after years of misery, and the name is now owned by Browning, who once in a while exploits it. This is Olin, who owns that ( the ammo and powder brands) venerable name, and while I am not one of their stronger advocates, this ammo shows all signs of being way milder, overall, than any M2 or equivalent I have fired. Olin took over the brand's ammo business, as I recall, five or more decades ago.

The Federal ammo is likewise far less likely to eventuate pressure incidents, and in fact at 100 meters shot more than a full inch BELOW other standard (actual issue or exact clone) M2 ball. This isn't a bad thing, by the way, since the rifle operates fine, and there's no particular need to hit paper especially hard to "kill" it. The milder loads reduce fatigue on rifle and shooter.

But sometimes, what passes for data is merely crackpot confabulations and foolish sidetracks.

By the way, the M1's conversion to caliber .30 U.S. Model of 1906 ammunition took place before M2 ball existed, when the standard projectiles were in the 173-grain range.

Last edited by jimthompson502002; 08-03-2019 at 12:11 PM. Reason: details
Reply With Quote