My LC brass is sized, trimmed, and primed . I have IMR4895 and Hornady 150grn FMJ heads . Now I need a load for it all . The Hornady manual has a chapter on M1 loads but they are using non-military brass . I want to use my LC . I also have some H4895 but I'd like to use the IMR first .
Suggestions please .
Nick .

The only thing I would suggest is to use "small base" dies. Most semi-autos function better when the expanded base of fired brass is reduced to factory specs.

You do not need small base dies for your garand.

M1 load data (courtesy of NRA)

Sir, for GI .30 M2 and 7.62 brass, the rule of thumb is to subtract 2 grains from recommended loads for commercial brass.

For .30-'06 Garands, a common load for 150s in GI brass is 47.0 grains of IMR 4895. Be sure to work it up, though, don't just jump straight to it. I haven't used H4895, so haven't any info on that one other than that it's not the same as the IMR version, and the data are not interchangeable.

And no, you don't need small-base dies.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

A miltary barrel which has a generous chamber, don't require using small base dies. The SB dies will shorten the brass life quickly.

This is a great site for pistols/revolvers, the CMP forum is devoted to M1 Garand shooting and loads.

I agree with Ron H. 99.9%.
You may not need small base dies depending on which ones you are using.

Are your dies made by RCBS? RCBSs regular dies do not size the same as those from other manufacturers in that they are a little over minimum specs. If you are using dies from the other manufacturers they are the same as the small base dies from RCBS.

I just wanted to add that even if you are using regular RCBS dies, since you already have them and have some brass sized go ahead and load a few to make sure they work or not before you buy anything else.

I shot a Garand in NRA Highpower and used both H4895 and IMR 4895 at various times. I found my best accuracy was with loads that ran at about 2,550 and 2,600 fps.

That worked out to about three quarters of the maximum charges listed in my manuals.
Your mileage may vary, of course.
As stated above, working up to loads is important.

I use standard RCBS dies to load for my Garand with military brass and they work fine. I use IMR 4895 with 150 grain bullets. I worked up to 46 grains of IMR 4895 and settled on that because it shoots well and it's not hard on the rifle. Never had a function problem using these loads.

__________________
AL
Pax Per Potens

My Garand load is 150 grain bullet with 45 grains of H4895 in commercial brass. It shoots fine for me.

I load my LC brass with 46gr of IMR4895 with 147gr to 168gr projectiles. This way I don't have to play around with the meter. I have gone as low as 44gr which was pretty soft shooting but 46gr seems to give the best accuracy and allows the brass to last a little longer, I don't think the paper target can tell the difference.

+1 small base dies are for bolt guns. The small base dies work the brass to hard.Shortens case life.

Sir, plain ol' RCBS full-length resize dies have worked just fine for my Garands, including both as-issued rifles with GI .30 M2 barrels and heavy comp rifles with Obermeyer and Krieger .308 match barrels. I suppose you might need small-base dies if your rifle's chamber was cut incorrectly, but that would be a "work around" for an odd problem. Otherwise, the Garand does not require small-base dies.

I do prefer a Redding micrometer seating die for match loads, but that's an accuracy thing rather than a function thing.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

I usually try to make my posts as short as possible, sometimes it creates more confusion than it clears up.

RCBS makes "small base" dies in addition to their regular line of full length sizing dies for calibers that are popular in semi-auto firearms.

These small base dies are the same dimensionally as the dies made by other companies. They don't work the brass any more than dies made by Hornady, Lyman, Lee, Redding and etc.

Their regular full length dies are the odd ones. They are made to give the shooter an option between sizing their brass to minimum specs and not sizing the body at all with neck sizing only.

This makes the ammo more accurate by keeping the bullet more in line with the axis of the bore, but still allows the ammo to work in several firearms and does not restrict it to the one the brass was fireformed in as with neck sizing.

If you are using RCBSs regular full length sizing dies and are not experiencing any problems, don't do anything. Going to another sizing die will probably hurt accuracy. I'm not saying you can't go to another seating die, just keep using the sizing die as long as it works. You can try another to see if it gives better accuracy, but you can mix and match like Ron does.

If you are using RCBSs regular sizing dies and are experiencing problems with chambering, this is when you would either go to a RCBS small base die, or dies made by any other company as they are equivelent.

With military brass I charge 47.0gr IMR4895 or 46.4gr H4895. Both loads are similar and work well in several Garands they were shot from.

__________________
Freedom is never free!!
SWCA #3437

Someone (Mike Venturino?) did an article on military 30-06 ammo in a Handloader a couple years ago. He found that in THIS CALIBER, military brass and commercial brass have virtually no difference. Certainly no more than the variation that one would expect between different manufacturers or production lots. The caveat about mil. brass being thicker is much more correct for 223 vs. 5.56 and 308 vs. 7.62.

The factory load that got us through WWII and Korea was M-2 Ball, which was 50.0grs of IMR-4895, BUT, understand that they measured chamber pressure and had a velocity target of 2805 fps that they loaded to, so some lots were loaded with less powder and a few lots had more (but not much - the Garand's gas system shouldn't be forced to swallow the gas generated by more than 50.5grs of powder).

Most people these days consider that the newest of these original rifles are at least 40 years old and some (like one of mine) are up to 70 years old. Therefore, they load them down a little. Generally speaking, you'll find via google, the CMP website, here, or any other place you look at Garand loads, that 90% of the recommendations are between 46.0 to 48.0 grs of IMR 4895. These loads all generally function these old rifles just fine, and you're only losing a hundred FPS or so. (Still a powerful load - as good as a 308.)

Make sure you check the safe functioning of your rifle, lube it correctly, and it wouldn't hurt to replace the recoil spring, since there's no way to know how old / used it is.

I have a thousand prepped LC 55 brass sitting waiting to load too.

Sir, when I was shooting NRA high power (up to a few years ago) I weighed a lot of brass, and my experience differs from the article you cite.

All the R-P and Winchester commercial .30-'06 brass I weighed were invariably much lighter than LC, TW, and SL .30 M2 brass. Federal commercial .30-'06 brass did weigh essentially the same as USGI .30 M2. Unless the manual you're using specifies Federal brass (as Sierra Edition V does) or GI brass, it's wise to drop down 2 grains from the manual's recommended powder charges.

All the USGI 5.56 brass I checked (LC mostly) weighed essentially the same as Winchester and Federal commercial brass. Still wise to check brass weights and to work up loads carefully, but at the end of the process, the loads will probably end up pretty much the same.

The only commercial .308 brass I weighed was Federal, and it (like Federal commercial .30-'06) weighed essentially the same as its GI equivalent. I would not expect this result from other brands of commercial brass, though. When in doubt, check.

So, long story short: The caveat about military brass exists for a reason. It's not true in every single instance, but it's true in more than enough instances to warrant caution. Weigh the brass you're using and compare it to the brass specified in the manual. Don't just take someone else's word for it.

Hope this helps, and Semper Fi.

Ron H.

__________________
Wishin' don't make it so.

+1. The caveat that military brass has less capacity and charge weights should be reduced comes from the .308/7.62x51, and people just ASSUME that it applies to all military brass. In the case of the .30-06, it does not apply, since Federal .30-06 brass weighs more than military '06 brass. Lapua weighs the same as Lake City, and I use the same load in both of them.

Don

I've read "trusted" sources go both ways on the brass issue, some say reduce it by 1-2 grains, others don't feel it's needed.

I know most military brass is thicker in the web area for use in full auto weapons, but the .30-06 was designed for use in the 1903 Springfield and the autos came in later, so it's hard to say.

However, weighing isn't the best way to check it, in my opinion. Weighing is alright for brass of the same headstamp but what you are looking for is case capacity and weighing may not always give accurate results.

Actually you want to measure case capacity. Take a full length sized and trimmed case with a expended primer in it and fill with water, dump the water into your scale pan and weigh it a little math will give you your case capacity. This is the only way to measure case capacity, weighing the brass just tells you how much the selected piece of brass weighs.

I usually load 47 grns of 4895 in my Garand loads. This has been a safe load and about 3/4 the max in most reloading manuals. provides great accuracy and is easy on the rifle and brass.

Small base dies are not needed for anything but a tight chambered semi auto. For bolt action rifles all you need to do is neck size after the piece of brass has been fired in the intended rifles chamber. After 10 or so reloads of just neck sizing you may have to bump the shoulder back a couple thousandths. This will give the best brass life and usually the best accuracy.

__________________
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
RWVA Instructor

Mudcat makes an excellent point in that it is the case capacity that is the issue. Most people don't like or have a accurate-enough system to compare this meaningfully however, and when combined with the idea that if the brass were fired in the same chamber (thereby holding external dimensions to the same for both brands of brass), the internal capacity differences would be demonstrated by the variation in weight. I think Mudcat is trying to point out that this is not QUANTIFIABLE, because there can also be hardness and alloy variations that mean the same weight can actually have different volumes and vice versa, but in the end, if one finds a significant difference in case weights, it's a good idea to load the heavier case with a lighter charge. A chrono will tell you when you've found the right difference, because the velocities will be the same with a load developing the same pressure in cases with difference case volume. (Again, something more advanced / tedious than most people worry about...)

Ron,
I don't doubt your experience at all. I've never had any commercial 223 brass, so I bet you're right there, but I've also read that there has been significant differences in that caliber with case volume, so that's why I included it. I KNOW there have been severe case volume differences in 308. One time I got ahold of 1000 7.62mm brass that was manufactured for mini-guns for the USAF, and it had GREATLY reduced case volume. Upon sectioning one, it was incredible how thick the web and case walls were. Apparently mini-guns have severely unsupported/out-of-battery firing issues, and the brass is beefed up to compensate. It was totally useless for reloading, except for subsonic loads...

Most everyone here has posted with experience way beyond my own, but there's one thing I don't think I've seen mentioned. I keep seeing the recommendation to reduce powder charge by a grain or two, which is probably a good idea for 70+ year old chambers like my M-1, but as i understand it the issue is more of slow vs. fast burning powders. As I understand it, both the 4895s are the right burn rate, but slower burning powders sucha as the H and IMR-4831s are what really cause problems by allowing the build up of excessive pressure in the gas cylinders which produce more violent piston and bolt cycling which can even damage the frame. I believe the chambers are considered to be robust enough to take overcharge and that it's the gas cylinders and slow powders that can really cause issues. Just thought it should be mentioned if some had never heard it before, it's a CMP (and M-1) subject often discussed.

I see this on here a lot and it's just not true. A chronograph does not measure pressure and shouldn't be relied on to assume a load is safe or not. It doesn't work with cases that are the same and will be in more error with different case capacities. Chronographs do not tell you anything except velocity once the bullet has left the barrel.

4895 either IMR or Hodgdon is the best choice. To add what others have said DO NOT use benchrest primers as they tend to be a little softer and can lead to slam fires (ie a full auto M-1)...trust me on this.

I, and a lot of experts smarter than me, disagree with you. While you're assertion that the only thing a chrono is measuring is the speed of the bullet, there is a direct relationship between pressure and that speed, and if all other variables are isolated (in our case-the same), than velocity indicates pressure. The Chronograph is the single most available and useful indicator of loading within standards. (There are more expensive, less-commonly-owned by the hobby handloader tools, such as the Oehler Mod. 43 Personal Ballistics Laboratory with piezo-electric strain gauges.) This can be done most easily by comparing our handloads to "book" loads. If we're routinely getting 100-200fps more velocity out of a load than any of the load manuals note, barring a very unusual situation with the gun, there is excessive pressure going on. Several loading manuals and labs of bullet companies and powder companies who publish load data recommend using a chronograph thusly for the hobby handloader.

I should have been more clear in my assertion though. I should have said that with all other variables identical, except for case volume, if your loads are identical in velocity, you've found the difference in pressure due to case volume FOR THOSE SETS of components.

Now, taking your description of "A chronograph shouldn't be relied on to assume a load is safe or not;" I agree. One has to be scientific about it. By that I mean using the scientific method - only one variable at a time. If you use the same brand, type, and lot # (best out of the same box) of each component (primer, powder, bullet) and make no loading variations (OAL), and only vary the brass case, you'll soon learn the difference internal volume makes. Ken Waters did this many times in Handloader magazine and in his Pet Loads. Others have as well.

The issue is actually about port pressure AND gas volume. Port pressure controls the slam-bang (basically the speed/force that the action gets cycled at) while gas volume controls the distance that pressure is applied over.

Basically, the Garand's gas system was designed to work with the gas VOLUME generated by 44.0 to 50.0 grs of powder. (Doesn't matter what speed, in terms of VOLUME.) AND, the gas system was designed to work at a port pressure of (ideally) around 8000-10,000 psi. Now, looking at the grains of powder for the gas volume, and the burning speed that generates 8000-10,000 psi at the port, you'll start to see that theoretically, you can load something like 110gr bullets with 47 grs of really fast powder, or 200gr bullets with 48grs of really slow powder, because the pressure curves of the load happen to work out with the gas volume / port-pressure boundaries of the Garand. For MUCH more detailed information, look here:

http://www.jouster.com/forums/showth...n-Parashooter)

And, here: http://www.jouster.com/forums/showth...=7338#post7338

Ultimately, if the concepts are too head-scratchy (which they were for me the first 15 times or so I read and re-read that stuff), I'd stick with the recommended 48.0grs of 4895... There's absolutely nothing wrong with that load!

You, and your experts, can believe anything you want. While a chronograph may give an indication of a problem, it does not give pressure readings and any assumption that it can be relied upon to give any indication of what is really going on in the chamber is a big mistake.

Your remark about getting 100-200 fps more than a load source means you are getting more pressure is completley wrong and you, or your experts, have misread the publishers of the load data. Their equipment is only measuring maximum peak pressure in a prescribed area of the chamber, while the velocity of the bullet after it leaves the barrel is affected on well after that point and by other factors. In other words, even if you are getting 100-200 fps less then their data, you might still be getting way more pressure then they did, or you may get less pressure with more velocity.

A chronograph is the only way for the reloader to get any idea about what is going on with the pressure, short of a personal ballistics lab, that is why they reccommend using one. The velocity a bullet leaves the barrel with doesn't always change exponentially with the change in maximum pressure in the barrel, even though it sounds rational it's not. Very minimal changes in velocity have been recorded with huge increases in pressure, even with the same powders in the same cases.

Even if you do use a chronograph, it's really only good for comparing loads from a specific firearm. Comparing from one to another, or your firearm to a test firearm or universal receiver from a data source doesn't really tell you anything.

Well, some of my experts are the labs and reloading manual publishers...

You are right that variations can happen. It is possible to get to a max load before the velocity published in the manual, or to safely exceed published velocities in the manual. The key is one must look at the totallity of the information, and it is my bad that I wasn't more thorough in explaining this, when I was trying to be (too) brief in defending against your assertion that a chrono is no help in developing safe (below excessive pressure) loads.

In short, when one starts getting readings of FPS far above the quoted max in the loading manuals, you'd better be extra-careful about proceeding. That's an important use of the chrono to stay safe. (And yes, we can check similar loads in different manuals and see they get variations too, but the important point is: in this range of velocities -even the slowest one- someone got max pressures, so you'd better be careful.)

Secondly, when developing a load, use of a chrono can often show us the max performance area (which often corresponds to somewhere just under max pressures), because oftentimes with a change in powder, there is no, significantly smaller, or sometimes a reverse in velocity.

A chrono should never be used alone, and other pressure signs should be used as a guide as well. I recommend Ken Water's case-head-expansion measurement system, but it is not perfect either. Primer indications can often be false, especially when a gun has headspace issues, and in any event, they are not quantifiable. Sticky extraction is a solid indicator, except you've already exceeded max pressures by the time you get there. So, again, I assert, backed up by some load manuals and ballistic labs, that for the 95+% of handloaders who don't have access to a pressure measurement device, it's a help.

Originally Posted by MMA10mm
[/QUOTE]
Ron,
I don't doubt your experience at all. I've never had any commercial 223 brass, so I bet you're right there, but I've also read that there has been significant differences in that caliber with case volume, so that's why I included it. I KNOW there have been severe case volume differences in 308. One time I got ahold of 1000 7.62mm brass that was manufactured for mini-guns for the USAF, and it had GREATLY reduced case volume. Upon sectioning one, it was incredible how thick the web and case walls were. Apparently mini-guns have severely unsupported/out-of-battery firing issues, and the brass is beefed up to compensate. It was totally useless for reloading, except for subsonic loads...[/QUOTE]

FWIW

I was loading some near max loads for the .233 from the Hodgdon sight and found that I couldn't get the same amount of powder in the cases that was listed in the data. I contacted Hodgdon and talked with a Tech. The listed data was over flowing my cases.

I was concerned that It may have been a misprintl

He asked what brass I was using and I informed him I was using LC cases. His response was that they (Hodgdon) used Winchester brass to develope thier loads and that the Winchester case capacity was greater then the LC case.

Any doubt Call them yourself. I can only repeat what the Hodgdon Tech told me and my experience in trying to use that powder loading data into my LC cases.,

__________________
Semper FI

yep, that's my understanding too. I think it was the old Accurate Arms load guide that I saw the warning to reduce loads 10-20% for military brass in 5.56. I thought 20% was a little drastic, but I guess not! Reduced case capacity has a significant effect on pressures, so it's well worth heeding the warning.

I've never heard a ballastician make your claims, but I do have a couple of loading manuals on my shelf that do. And if these are the ones you are referring to, you are confusing the term "expert" with "uneducated guess". Not everyone that writes a book or an article is an expert, nor do they always know what they are talking about.

If you have several different loading manuals compare data between them and see how well they correlate. I've done it plenty of times and the numbers do not bear you out.

The problem with your hypothesis is that for your assertion to be correct, all the authors of the reloading manuals who claim this, plus the ballisticians who do, plus accepted other experts who make the point must all be wrong. I'd be careful about making too assertive of a point against that without much better data/arguments to back me up. (In fact, the most common point they make about "internet experts" is that none who post have ANY kind of filter, fact-checking, editor, references, sources, or qualifications for their assertions...)

I have at least 15 manuals plus innumerable guides/annual manuals plus all of Handloader magazine, and I've compiled abridged data for several calibers from across all these sources, and I can unequivocably say that the data backs up my point, once all the variables are factored in and any trend for variance from one (sometimes more) source(s) is found.

You made a straight-forward assertion based on the fact that you see the chrono as a limited-use instrument -- It tells us velocity and variations thereof within a shot-string. Seems simple and easy to verify, but the problem is you haven't explored the full extent of the possibilities.

What you did would be the same as saying, "a micrometer only measures precise, small distances, and you can't determine pressures by that." in a sense that's true, but Ken Water showed us a way to do just that. Now, will Waters case head expansion measurement system tell us that .Xxxx" of expansion equals ##,### psi? No, and no one said it would. But it will tell us when we are at or over the same pressures as the reference load(s). Same thing with the chrono. It won't let us extrapolate exact pressures, but no one said it would. The statement is that it is a useful and effective tool to guide us through the variations caused by different components and chamber/bores to stay on the safe side of pressures.

Don't agree? That's still fine, no one said you have to agree or use it, but that don't change the facts...

What I'm trying to figure out is who are all these experts? I have a ton of books too and I haven't seen you reference one of them, or name one of the experts you are talking about so I can pick the book or reference material out to read what you are talking about if I have the same copy.

As I said I have two sources that say to use a chronograph. One is the Lee manual and the other is in an article in Hodgdon #26, neither one is written by a ballistician. The article in Hodgdon #26 was about using a chrony for accuracy loading and made the statement that a chrony might show a problem, not that it will.

The problem with the chrony as a pressure gauge is that it doesn't give a reliable reading of where the pressure is, what the peak is, if there is a dangerous spike and etc. There are too many factors that can affect the velocity and it is very possible to have a spike that doesn't show over the chrony because the pressure curve was changed to the point that it made the velocity lower than a standard round. Wich is an open invitation to many reloaders to add a little powder, which is why some manuals such as Speer doesn't give pressure data.

I'm going to say that most of my manuals, books and other data sources don't even list pressure data so I'd really like to know which ones you are referring to. So far "they" have summed you up pretty well though.