[Jeremy2171]

Getting so hot under the collar is a sure sign that you're afraid of people who disagree with you. If there are facts, please state them. Federal and the CMP are better advice for me than a free one on the internet.

"Hot" under the collar?? Hardly.. I'm not afraid of people of who disagree with me either. I do chuckle at people who continue to believe myths when science says otherwise.

Lowest milsurp port pressure is ~8350psi
Highest milsurp port pressure is ~10900psi

FGMM is ~9200psi

Your PPU and S&B "garand safe " ammo...are both over 10000psi...

So "garand safe" ammo is harder on the system than FGMM is.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Did you even watch the video?

Yeah...thats why I can say it's junk. Those two don't have a clue what they are talking about and used some poorly done test to "prove" a myth.

Part 2 directly replicates then debunks the "test" in the inrange video.

 

[MikeM0331]

Yeah...thats why I can say it's junk. Those two don't have a clue what they are talking about and used some poorly done test to "prove" a myth.

Part 2 directly replicates then debunks the "test" in the inrange video.

Interesting. I’m fairly new to the M1. So I’m not entrenched either way on this debate.

 

[czielsdorf]

"Hot" under the collar?? Hardly.. I'm not afraid of people of who disagree with me either. I do chuckle at people who continue to believe myths when science says otherwise.

Lowest milsurp port pressure is ~8350psi
Highest milsurp port pressure is ~10900psi

FGMM is ~9200psi

Your PPU and S&B "garand safe " ammo...are both over 10000psi...

So "garand safe" ammo is harder on the system than FGMM is.

I'd be interested to read the data on the Oort pressure numbers you have. Where can I get it?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

 

[Ridgerunner79]

Refer to my last sentence above.

I’m going to have to go with Jeremy on this one. What exactly is Federal’s reasoning on this?

I find that most companies, when going into questionable territory of any kind, will say”no” to avoid any possible risk of liability. It doesn’t mean they’ve tested anything or know what they’re taking about. They just don’t want to condone something and get sued later for the recommendation. Hardly Federal’s opinion, as it were.

 

[WaM14gunner]

I’m going to have to go with Jeremy on this one. What exactly is Federal’s reasoning on this?

I find that most companies, when going into questionable territory of any kind, will say”no” to avoid any possible risk of liability. It doesn’t mean they’ve tested anything or know what they’re taking about. They just don’t want to condone something and get sued later for the recommendation. Hardly Federal’s opinion, as it were.

Thats certainly possible. I cannot confirm their reasoning, only my own. Whatever similar to IMR4350 powder they use 54 grs of in that load would be considered by most M1 shooters since time began to be too much of a too slow powder.
Powders any slower than about IMR4320 or Varget are about the slowest one would normally use in these rifles, and not 54 grs of it.
As Pete might say, "to each his own".
I will continue to save the FGM load for my bolt rifles where it shoots great and there is no worry of eventual bending of the op rod.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Thats certainly possible. I cannot confirm their reasoning, only my own. Whatever similar to IMR4350 powder they use 54 grs of in that load would be considered by most M1 shooters since time began to be too much of a too slow powder.
Powders any slower than about IMR4320 or Varget are about the slowest one would normally use in these rifles, and not 54 grs of it.
As Pete might say, "to each his own".
I will continue to save the FGM load for my bolt rifles where it shoots great and there is no worry of eventual bending of the op rod.

No worry of bending the oprod if you keep the oprod cam properly greased and the rifle properly lubricated.

 

[WaM14gunner]

No worry of bending the oprod if you keep the oprod cam properly greased and the rifle properly lubricated.

So you have said. Many others have said differently.

 

[Jeremy2171]

So you have said. Many others have said differently.

Those others don't understand physics apparently.

 

[TCAF]

Jeremy, please enlighten us with your credentials where you tout your vast knowledge in this area but make these claims without any real facts or data. You speak a good game but haven't backed up these claims without any hard data other than your verbiage that I have read. I, for one am very curious as to where you have derived this knowledge and your credentials in doing so.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Jeremy, please enlighten us with your credentials where you tout your vast knowledge in this area but make these claims without any real facts or data. You speak a good game but haven't backed up these claims without any hard data other than your verbiage that I have read. I, for one am very curious as to where you have derived this knowledge and your credentials in doing so.

30+ years of owning collecting and building garands.

Since all the hullabaloo over "M2 ball only" videos or you have to use a "gas plug" (which are only on gas trap garands) to shoot commercial ammo claims. There has become a whole uninformed generation of garand owner's who think the rifle is overly fragile and sensitive to it's ammunition.

Facts do not support this. Testing already shows this a myth and that commercial ammo operates at the same pressure as milsurp ammo.

Not sure why you say there are no real facts or data.... I've already posted facts and data.

 

[TCAF]

Ok what testing? Document and provide a link please? What about pressure curves in relation to burn rates? All of us not agreeing with you are just asking you to provide cold, hard evidence of these tests, lab reports, and data which you purport that you have done, seen, or have access to. You have not done that. You've thrown out some numbers regarding pressures which may or may not be valid/correct regarding the Garand, and which I have not the time nor the interest in tracking down to validate YOUR claims.

Sorry, but your claim of "30+ years of collecting and building Garands" doesn't cut it for me. Now if you told me you worked for SA or HRA or Winchester back in the day and we tested commercial ammo in this lab under these conditions and found it safe and here are the links to the data, I'd be more inclined to trust what you have to say. However, until you can definitively prove to me that commercial ammo is a viable option with VALID and DOCCUMENTED data, I will not only stick to proven M2 ball or reload my own ammo with known safe powders that are KNOWN not to hurt anything.

Also, the arrogance and condescending tone you use really doesn't help your case. Just an FYI.

 

[Jeremy2171]

Ok what testing? Document and provide a link please? What about pressure curves in relation to burn rates? All of us not agreeing with you are just asking you to provide cold, hard evidence of these tests, lab reports, and data which you purport that you have done, seen, or have access to. You have not done that. You've thrown out some numbers regarding pressures which may or may not be valid/correct regarding the Garand, and which I have not the time nor the interest in tracking down to validate YOUR claims.

Sorry, but your claim of "30+ years of collecting and building Garands" doesn't cut it for me. Now if you told me you worked for SA or HRA or Winchester back in the day and we tested commercial ammo in this lab under these conditions and found it safe and here are the links to the data, I'd be more inclined to trust what you have to say. However, until you can definitively prove to me that commercial ammo is a viable option with VALID and DOCCUMENTED data, I will not only stick to proven M2 ball or reload my own ammo with known safe powders that are KNOWN not to hurt anything.

Also, the arrogance and condescending tone you use really doesn't help your case. Just an FYI.

If you scroll up you will see some data...

The pressures are correct for a garand since it was done in a SAAMI test barrel machined to garand minimum tolerance. Transducer we're placed in the normal SAAMI position for chamber pressure and at the exact location on the gas port. Secondly a test rig was built similar to the garand gear rig to test cylinder pressure.

Those rough numbers were posted above. Currently a second round of tests is getting ready to happen in the next week or two with lots more commercial ammo to narrow down their operating range. But so far there has been none that are different than milsurp ammo.

So when this final round of ammo is tested we are crunching numbers and compiling it into use friendly article for public consumption.

You are getting the sneak peak initial results that shows its not a concern that some have tried to make it out to be.

The test primarily focuses on commercial ammo but some handloads were done with some slower powders for comparison. Unfortunately the current supply situation has limited our availability to shoot all the slow powders with heavy bullets we wanted. Maybe at another time there will be a more detailed test done focusing on loading with slow powders....but unfortunately not right now.

Wait until you see how the "garand safe" ammo is harder on your rifle...or least has more port pressure than most commercial ammo.

 

[WaM14gunner]

Those others don't understand physics apparently.

I will stick with the conventional thinking on this. You shoot what you like in your M1's, and I will do the same.

 

[TCAF]

If you scroll up you will see some data...

The pressures are correct for a garand since it was done in a SAAMI test barrel machined to garand minimum tolerance. Transducer we're placed in the normal SAAMI position for chamber pressure and at the exact location on the gas port. Secondly a test rig was built similar to the garand gear rig to test cylinder pressure.

Those rough numbers were posted above. Currently a second round of tests is getting ready to happen in the next week or two with lots more commercial ammo to narrow down their operating range. But so far there has been none that are different than milsurp ammo.

So when this final round of ammo is tested we are crunching numbers and compiling it into use friendly article for public consumption.

You are getting the sneak peak initial results that shows its not a concern that some have tried to make it out to be.

The test primarily focuses on commercial ammo but some handloads were done with some slower powders for comparison. Unfortunately the current supply situation has limited our availability to shoot all the slow powders with heavy bullets we wanted. Maybe at another time there will be a more detailed test done focusing on loading with slow powders....but unfortunately not right now.

Wait until you see how the "garand safe" ammo is harder on your rifle...or least has more port pressure than most commercial ammo.

WHERE and for WHOM are you doing these tests? This is still just a bunch of talk on your part. None of your "results" mean jack without documentation. You just want everyone to blindly believe YOUR word, which, I'm sorry I do NOT. Do you work as an engineer for an ammo company that does these so called "tests" in a certified lab, or are these 'tests" done in Billy Bob's garage after you've had a six pack? Talk is cheap, back it up with concrete substantiated data. The very fact that you won't do that makes me doubt you that much more.

 

[Jeremy2171]

I will stick with the conventional thinking on this. You shoot what you like in your M1's, and I will do the same.

pretty soon your conventional thinking will be a thing of the past.

 

[Jeremy2171]

WHERE and for WHOM are you doing these tests? This is still just a bunch of talk on your part. None of your "results" mean jack without documentation. You just want everyone to blindly believe YOUR word, which, I'm sorry I do NOT. Do you work as an engineer for an ammo company that does these so called "tests" in a certified lab, or are these 'tests" done in Billy Bob's garage after you've had a six pack? Talk is cheap, back it up with concrete substantiated data. The very fact that you won't do that makes me doubt you that much more.

Not really...NDA prevents me from saying specifics until the ballistician is done. The tests are being done in a certified SAAMI spec lab so the numbers are accurate. Doubt all you want but it looks like the last bit of ammo will be shot soon and then we will have a better image of what the commercial ammo pressure range looks like. And for giggles we are shooting 308/7.62 NATO just to put that old 308 is hotter than 7.62 myth to bed as well.

 

[WaM14gunner]

pretty soon your conventional thinking will be a thing of the past.

People been telling me that for years, dont mean jack.

 

[Jeremy2171]

People been telling me that for years, dont mean jack.

Cool

 

[leonardc]

When you're ready to make this public, will we be able to see this testing information in Garand Collectors Association Journal, CMP, or some other place?