CMP Warning on Ammo

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • Wineman
    • Oct 2009
    • 141

    CMP Warning on Ammo

    Does anyone know if there had been an increase in accidents with"high pressure" ammo to cause the CMP to send out yesterday's warnings? I know that in the past, high number M1903's and all A3's had less of an issue due to the gas port restrictions on M1's. That said a M1903a3 and 180 grain Remington Core-Lokt is not a fun day of sighting in.

    Dave
  • SteveG_CT
    • Oct 2013
    • 148

    #2
    Originally posted by Wineman View Post
    Does anyone know if there had been an increase in accidents with"high pressure" ammo to cause the CMP to send out yesterday's warnings?
    I wondered the same when I got the e-mail. I suspect it may just be a response to a couple of recent threads here on the forum asking about whether modern ammo is safe to use.

    Comment

    • Fogtripper
      • Oct 2009
      • 3268

      #3
      Originally posted by Wineman View Post
      That said a M1903a3 and 180 grain Remington Core-Lokt is not a fun day of sighting in.
      Even M2 Ball in an 03 is punishing compared to an M1.

      Comment

      • Jeremy2171
        • Feb 2010
        • 1547

        #4
        Originally posted by Fogtripper View Post
        Even M2 Ball in an 03 is punishing compared to an M1.
        huh?
        Semper Fi....
        USMC ret
        07/02 SOT
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/2136477496677483/M1 Garand Collector Group
        https://www.facebook.com/groups/654109364964194/ CMP Travel Games FB Group

        Comment

        • moose
          • Feb 2012
          • 1347

          #5
          Funny they didn't even mention the 1917.
          US Nylon Field gear 1967 to 2005
          http://inrd.gotdns.com/alice

          Comment

          • TMB
            • Aug 2011
            • 175

            #6
            Originally posted by Fogtripper View Post
            Even M2 Ball in an 03 is punishing compared to an M1.
            03A3 is 1 1/2 pound lighter than the M1. I don't really find the recoil punishing but I'm used to 45/70 in a Ruger No.3.

            Comment

            • TMB
              • Aug 2011
              • 175

              #7
              Originally posted by moose View Post
              Funny they didn't even mention the 1917.
              Thought the 1917 is the strongest of the bunch.

              Comment

              • Fenris_Bane
                • Dec 2019
                • 91

                #8
                Originally posted by Wineman View Post
                Does anyone know if there had been an increase in accidents with"high pressure" ammo to cause the CMP to send out yesterday's warnings? I know that in the past, high number M1903's and all A3's had less of an issue due to the gas port restrictions on M1's. That said a M1903a3 and 180 grain Remington Core-Lokt is not a fun day of sighting in.

                Dave
                I while back there was a thread on the Garand forum about shooting Modern Ammo. I can't find the thread now. It appears to have been removed. There is opposing viewpoint about the safety of modern ammo loads. This e-mail may be the CMP's view on the mater.

                Comment

                • moose
                  • Feb 2012
                  • 1347

                  #9
                  Originally posted by TMB View Post
                  Thought the 1917 is the strongest of the bunch.
                  True, if you exploded one of those things, well.... that action is strong.

                  It’s been rechanbered for some stout cartridges at times.
                  US Nylon Field gear 1967 to 2005
                  http://inrd.gotdns.com/alice

                  Comment

                  • garandman2014
                    • May 2014
                    • 644

                    #10
                    M1 Garand Ammo (Another Opinion)

                    I take no stance on whether or not you should use any ammunition you are uncomfortable with. I first fired this amazing Cal 30 M1 in 1963 during a field day in high school for ROTC. I have had many opportunities since then and my experiences and opinions are the same as the author of this article.

                    In those years I have actually seen several firearms destroyed while shooting. Without exception, the cause was determined to be something other than factory loaded ammunition properly used. One shotgun was destroyed when a shooter fired a 12 ga gun with a 20 ga shell lodged in the barrel. Again, nothing wrong with the ammo.

                    Anyway, read the article and take away what you will. Better to have more information that less.

                    https://thegca.org/wp-content/upload...ts-vs-Myth.pdf

                    Comment

                    • Jeremy2171
                      • Feb 2010
                      • 1547

                      #11
                      Originally posted by Fenris_Bane View Post
                      I while back there was a thread on the Garand forum about shooting Modern Ammo. I can't find the thread now. It appears to have been removed. There is opposing viewpoint about the safety of modern ammo loads. This e-mail may be the CMP's view on the mater.
                      CMPs email basically stated any commercial SAAMI spec ammo was safe for the garand.
                      Semper Fi....
                      USMC ret
                      07/02 SOT
                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/2136477496677483/M1 Garand Collector Group
                      https://www.facebook.com/groups/654109364964194/ CMP Travel Games FB Group

                      Comment

                      • Raceman
                        • Jan 2021
                        • 9

                        #12
                        CMP Ammo Warning

                        I have M2 ammo that I bought at CMP about 8 years ago, including some armor piercing. I'm not clear whether it is OK to shoot in an M1 and 1903a3. They came out with the warning but have not said whether the ammo they sold is ok. Please advise.

                        Comment

                        • T38Carbine
                          • Feb 2010
                          • 5894

                          #13
                          Originally posted by Raceman View Post
                          I have M2 ammo that I bought at CMP about 8 years ago, including some armor piercing. I'm not clear whether it is OK to shoot in an M1 and 1903a3. They came out with the warning but have not said whether the ammo they sold is ok. Please advise.
                          If it’s surplus military ammo sold by the CMP, and marked M2 or M2 AP you’re good to go!!

                          Comment

                          • Jeremy2171
                            • Feb 2010
                            • 1547

                            #14
                            Originally posted by Raceman View Post
                            I have M2 ammo that I bought at CMP about 8 years ago, including some armor piercing. I'm not clear whether it is OK to shoot in an M1 and 1903a3. They came out with the warning but have not said whether the ammo they sold is ok. Please advise.
                            The warning basically said any commercial ammo made to SAAMI spec is fine.

                            Milsurp is fine as well.
                            Semper Fi....
                            USMC ret
                            07/02 SOT
                            https://www.facebook.com/groups/2136477496677483/M1 Garand Collector Group
                            https://www.facebook.com/groups/654109364964194/ CMP Travel Games FB Group

                            Comment

                            • Larry Gibson
                              • Mar 2018
                              • 3

                              #15
                              While I disagree with the CMP warning [because it is too simplistic, somewhat erroneous and can be misleading] it should have been more of a caution than a do not use warning especially with regard to the M1903 and the M1903A3 rifles. Also the article referred to above [https://thegca.org/wp-content/upload...s-vs-Myth.pdf] has several glaring omissions, generalizations along with several of the quoted velocities and pressures are suspect.

                              Let me explain. I have been pressure testing upwards of 14 years and have conducted over 3,000 test series of 38 different rifle and handgun cartridges. I primarily use the Oehler M43 PBL and am also working with a Pressure Trace System. I use SAAMI methods and standards in testing. The use of "reference" ammunition as per SAAMI guidelines is used to validate ("calibrate") each barrel initially and periodically and to obtain a correction factor as per SAAMI if necessary. Both use a strain gauge attached over the chamber to measure the "pressure". It is well proven the use of a strain gauge properly affixed in the same location as the transducer will give similar psi measurements. I affix the strain gauge over the chamber in the same location as SAAMI designates for the transducer.

                              Since the warning and general discussions revolve around milsurp and commercial ammunition 30-06 ammunition we should understand the difference between C.U.P. MAP (Maximum Average Pressure) and the PSI MAPs. SAAMI lists a MAP both for CUP measurement and Transducer measurement (PSI). For the 30-06 the SAMMI CUP MAP is 50,000 and for transducer PSI it is 60,000 PSI. Thus for this one cartridge we can safely assume that a CUP of 50,000 is the same pressure as the PSI measurement of 60,000.

                              Another point not often known is ammunition, both milsurp and commercial, are not loaded to the MAP pressure. They are loaded to velocity specification +/- (fps) while staying under the MAP for the cartridge. Thus, we may easily have a specific type of ammunition that is loaded with different lot or even a different type of powder that has more/less powder giving a slightly higher or lower psi at a given velocity level. This occurs with both milsurp and commercial ammunition.

                              Over the 14+ years I have I have been testing I have conducted numerous tests [velocity, pressure and other internal measurements] of numerous different lots (by headstamp and lot number) of military 30-06 ammunition and commercial 30-06 ammunition. What I have found:

                              Researching we find there were 6 different levels (types if you will) of U.S "M2 Ball" ammunition. There were 3 different levels of velocity that M2 Ball was loaded for the NG. Those have muzzle velocities close to 2700 fps (original M2), 2650 fps (2nd loading as requested by NG) and 2550 fps (3rd and last variant requested by the NG). The 2nd and 3rd variants were requested so the bullets would stay within the safety fans of numerous NG ranges. The 4th type of M2 Ball was the final version which was to have a muzzle velocity of 2800 - 2825 fps +/-. The 5th also is an "M2 Ball Alternative" which I believe is the precursor to the 4th version. There also is "M2 Ball AP" which is loaded to 2630 fps +/- using a 165 gr AP bullet.

                              I haven't been able to find anything to indicate which arsenals loaded what type of M2 Ball by year or lot number. However, I'm sure somewhere there is a record of it. Also note that such M2 Ball of all varieties were loaded with both extruded and ball powders.

                              The 30-06 test rifle is a bolt action with a 24" barrel with the chamber cut with a match reamer to minimum headspace.

                              A few test results of M2 Ball covering a broad range of years and arsenals;

                              Velocity is at muzzle and pressure is psi.

                              LC68 in M1 clips; 2655 fps, 44,400 psi

                              LC57; 2556 fps, 40,600 psi

                              SL52; 2801 fps, 50,000

                              SL53 (different lot than above); 2774 fps, 46,600 psi

                              TW42; 2565 fps, 43,300 psi

                              FA42; 2799 fps, 48,800 psi

                              DM42; 2821 fps, 51,000 psi

                              SL42 M2 Ball Alternate; 2879 fps, 53,000 psi
                              SL42 M2 Ball Alternate (different lot); 2895 fps, 54,000 psi

                              I was able to locate for testing some original M1 Ball;
                              FA28 M1 Ball; 2638 fps, 51,900 psi

                              I also had some LC M72 Match "White Box" and M72 loaded in M1 Clips.

                              LC 67 White Box; 2619 fps, 54,700 psi
                              LC68 in M1 Clips; 2556 fps, 50,400 psi

                              Testing 15 different commercial loadings (110 to 180 gr) manufactured over the last 40 - 50 + years produce pressures from 53,000 psi to 59,900 psi. The velocities were predictably higher with bullet weights equal to or close to the milsurp counterpart. One can see from these limited test results a trend. That being the higher end psi's of the milsurp ammunition just matched the low end of the commercial loads. All, both milsurp and commercial were still under the SAAMI MAP for the 30-06 cartridge. The psi difference, to me at least, is of little concern for use in the bolt action M1903, M1903A1, M1903A3 and the M1917s. My own M72 Match duplication load using the Sierra 175 MK over IMR4895 duplicates LC67 M72 velocity and pressure. I have found it quite safe and very accurate for use in my M1903A1 match rifle and several M1 Rifles.

                              However, for use in the M1 rifle I would not use any commercial ammunition not specifically made to US M2/M72 velocity/psi specifications. The author(s) may not have seen any bent M1 oprods but I have over the years. I would especially not use any "SuperPerformance", "Extended range" or "High Velocity" commercial 30-06 ammunition in M1 Rifles. Those types of ammunition all have less than 50,000 CUP or 60,000 psi which puts them under the SAAMI MAP and apparently is "ok" in the warning(?). However, the pressure traces clearly show a much higher muzzle exit pressure, ergo the potential for damage to the M1 oprod.

                              In my opinion the weight of the bullet is immaterial, especially if reloading. There are many proven match level loads using 175 - 180 gr bullets that are entirely safe for use in not only the bolt guns but also the M1 Rifle. Specifically to exclude the use of 175/178 match bullets for use in the M1 does the rifle and shooter a disservice, especially if shooting 500 - 1000 yards matches.

                              I don't know why CMP came out with the latest "warning" against using bullets over 174 gr and won't speculate. I just disagree, based on my own actual pressure measurements is all. Everyone is free to head the warning should they desire. Thus I am not recommending to anyone what to use or to disregard the "warning".

                              LMG
                              Last edited by Larry Gibson; 04-22-2021, 11:03 AM.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X