Go Back   CMP Forums > CMP Sales > M1 Carbine
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #11  
Old 09-08-2010, 08:07 AM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 796
Default

I wish all the data and info matched, even with Hodgdon internally in their own data and ball powder recommendations. The largest problem with carbine data is that you can find just about any load you wish to find. Whether they are any good or not, is another question. And watch out for the 20" test barrels versus actual carbines being fired for data. The carbines are slower in velocity for the same load.

Some months ago I made up test batches of WW296 loads with 110 grain FMJRN Remington bulk bullets from Midway using mixed cases and WSR primers. The amount of powder was other than 15.0 grains. I was interested in accuracy, action function, and point of aim/point of impact differences compared with the ancient WW data load of 15.0 grains.

WW296 loads using 14.85 grains, 14.75 grains, and 14.5 grains were fired. The accuracy was identical in terms of 10 shot group size. The action function was identical, i.e., zero malfunctions with hundreds of rounds. The point of impact/point of aim was identical at 200 yards, or close enough I could not tell there was a difference in group centers for 10 shot groups for the 14.85 and 14.75 grain loads. It is possible the 14.5 grain load was lower by an inch or two, but I am not sure.

The "feeling" of the carbines was that the action was being functioned crisply and operating correctly. Brass was ejected normally and to the same locations. The sounds were the same shot to shot and load to load.

WW296 loads using 14.0 grains were also fired simply because some guys say they use them. I stopped shooting the test batch within the first few targets because the actions were being operated sluggishly with one shot and crisply with the next shot. The sounds were different one shot to another. With plugs and muffs both, differences in sound were apparent with what was getting through the hearing protection. The WSR primers were not consistently lighting the WW296 where there was extra room in the case as a guess.

The WW296 14.5 grain loading seems perfectly adequate, but then again it was my carbines firing it, not yours, so who can say with your gun. I recommend nothing. The above is simply a report of what seems to work and not work. (Yeah, slickie lawyer talk.)
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-08-2010, 10:29 AM
Harleygaz Harleygaz is offline
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 23
Default

I'm picking up some 110gr FMJRN today So I'll try a few varied loads with H110 and CCI Sr primers based on the Hornady manual and see how they work out.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 01-04-2011, 11:32 PM
Feinwerk Feinwerk is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Colorado
Posts: 9
Default

Are cast bullets usable in the M1 carbine? I have heard opinions both ways. At 2000fps, I would think that they would lead, absent a gas check.
Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-05-2011, 10:54 AM
Sport45 Sport45 is offline
 
Join Date: Jun 2010
Posts: 201
Default

I have a quick stock cleaning question. The wood from our carbine would bleed oil every time it was in the sun. I've had it (just the wood) in a garbage bag full of driveway oil-sorbant in the attic for a little over a month.

If the oil is through bleeding, what's the best way to clean it up without removing 60+ years of character? Should it be rubbed with mineral spirits or just BLO?

I stripped my HRA Garand Stock with boiling water (before I knew better) and finished with Minwax Tung Oil Finish. It looks good, but certainly lost some character.

Last edited by Sport45; 03-07-2011 at 11:20 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 04-06-2011, 11:30 PM
njl00 njl00 is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 168
Default

.Steve., you appear to have posted that in your test loads with W296 you used standard small rifle primers. My Speer #14 manual says to use magnum primers with this powder for reliable ignition. Perhaps that would have made a difference in your testing of 14.0gr?

I recently did test loads of 14.0, 14.3, 14.5, 14.7, and 15.0gr of H110 with CCI magnum primers, and the 14.0gr load was more consistent (both in POI and FPS) and a bit higher velocity than the Aguila I bought from CMP. 14.5 wasn't bad either though...target looks almost exactly like the 14gr one.

i.e. Aguila 1796-1939 1856avg
14.0gr H110 1857-1933 1886avg
14.5gr H110 1908-1948 1928avg

I'm probably going to load more at 14gr and see how they go. If I can get more or less the same performance (punching paper) using less powder, why use more?
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 01-15-2012, 03:19 PM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 796
Default 14.5 to 15.0 a Good Range

Hi Guys,

Been a while. Dialup with an ancient computer.

I am happy sticking to WW296 loads in the 14.5 grains minimum to 15.0 grains maximum loadings with 110 FMJ RN. I think that range stays within the safest recommendations.

I note that your 14.5 grains loading picks up 42fps over the 14.0 grains loading. The 14.5 grains loading is closer to the USGI velocity. I would stick with the 14.5 grains.

As to primers, standard small rifle versus magnum small rifle, Speer does in fact still recommend magnum in their loading data with WW296/H110. The other manual publishers are happy with standard small rifle primers. Between the two, using WW296/H110, it probably makes minimal difference until you are out in the very cold of winter. With a full charge of WW296, I have never had ignition problems with standard small rifle primers.

The thing to avoid is substituting small PISTOL primers just because you have them in stock. A better reloading practice is to stick to small rifle primers in a small rifle cartridge. It may seem obvious, but it comes up sometimes. The main differences are that the small rifle primer has a hotter flame and a stronger primer cup material, both of which you want for .30 Carbine reloads.

.Steve.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 08-20-2015, 09:13 PM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 796
Default

The "Carbine Shooting With Accuracy" page has been properly identified by URL in the beginning of the sticky.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 12-11-2015, 08:32 PM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 796
Default

Accuracy article being moved to its own sticky. 3-10-16.

Note the new Aguila data in the main post. 1994 Avg. Looks like they speeded it up to USGI spec finally.

Last edited by .Steve.; 03-10-2016 at 04:09 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 04-04-2016, 08:36 AM
.Steve. .Steve. is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 796
Default

There is some Chinese CORROSIVE primed Carbine LC52 marked ammo sometimes seen. The below bolded text is borrowed from Sunray in the ammo forum.

The Chinese faked the LC52 head stamp but used a different thinner font, clear instead of red primer sealer, and the extraction groove looks different. LC has red sealer and thicker letters. Mainly Chinese LC52 is easy to tell by its Berdan primer which has two flash holes off center if you pull a bullet.

There are big, clear, pictures of the Chinese(Berdan primed) and U.S. ammo here. Bit more than half way down. The Chinese bullet isn't shaped the same and they used a clear primer sealant vs red. Slightly different head stamp font too.

http://iaaforum.org/forum3/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=6994
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 04-04-2016, 08:33 PM
K31Schmidt K31Schmidt is offline
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Alabama
Posts: 705
Default

Oh yes, and don't pick that crap up on the firing line. Buddy of mine had the 52 LC and some one next to us had the Chinese 52. It got mixed in and I punched a hole in one decapping it. They look the same when sorting through brass.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:45 AM.