M14 Forum banner

101 - 111 of 111 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
So, you are stating that they will selectively tailor a propellant to specific bullets, but will not do the same for ammunition and weapons?

If you can select a propellant type that is less erosive, but has a slightly higher muzzle pressure and isn't quite as accurate, you would not load that in belts? Or, if you have a lot of ammunition that has a higher than desired muzzle pressure, you would load that in clips for M1s?

I have provided the evidence and the reasoning behind it, but feel free to believe what you want.

Again you aren't proving anything.

Your chart shows both types of M2 ball loaded with the same revision number of powder. Hence it's the same. M2 ball is still M2 ball.

Considering we don't the difference in the various revision numbers..we can only speculate.

However considering all the different cartridges you listed are "different" the powder charge will also be different.


But anyways you have drifted way of the OP original question.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Gentlemen,
The following is from TM 43-0001-27 titled "Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition" as of April1994 regarding M2 ball

"Use: Machine Guns, Caliber .30, M37, M1919A4 and M1919A6; and Rifle, Caliber .30, M1. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel or unarmored targets".
The only cartridge listed for a specific weapon is M72 Match.


John
Correct because M2 ball is M2 ball ... period
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,800 Posts
Again you aren't proving anything.

Your chart shows both types of M2 ball loaded with the same revision number of powder. Hence it's the same. M2 ball is still M2 ball.

Considering we don't the difference in the various revision numbers..we can only speculate.

However considering all the different cartridges you listed are "different" the powder charge will also be different.


But anyways you have drifted way of the OP original question.
Fact - the drawing for Cartridge, Caliber .30 Ball, M2 lists several propellants, some of which are known to be problematic with the Garand, such as IMR 4350, which you didn't what to talk about, because it contradicts your position.

Fact - alternate propellants were used in the loading of M2 Ball, so as to maximize industrial output during wartime.

Fact - there are several reports (from the Caliber .30 era) on dropping the requirement to keep rifle and machine gun ammunition the same, because they aren't, and haven't been exactly the some for a while.

Fact - M1919s work better with higher muzzle pressures than the Garand due to the nature of the recoil booster.

Fact - it is going to be a extremely rare occasion that Garands will use ammunition that is not clipped.

Fact - propellants are tailored to bullets.

The following are assertions based on the facts:

1) Because M2 Ball can be loaded with propellants known to be problematic with the Garand, ammunition loaded with this propellant would be packaged in such a way to make its use in the Garand unlikely (MG belts, or boxed).

2) Because tailoring propellants to bullets optimized performance of the bullets was/is common, a similar tailoring of ammunition to weapons would be desirable, if such segregation could be easily accomplished, which it is, because Garands cannot use ammunition not loaded in clips, and loading clips in the field is impractical.

3) Other ammunition (7.62mm and 5.56mm) is segregated by intended use so as to optimize performance, therefore, M2 Ball was also optimized and segregated.

Gentlemen,
The following is from TM 43-0001-27 titled "Army Ammunition Data Sheets Small Caliber Ammunition" as of April1994 regarding M2 ball

"Use: Machine Guns, Caliber .30, M37, M1919A4 and M1919A6; and Rifle, Caliber .30, M1. The cartridge is intended for use against personnel or unarmored targets".
The only cartridge listed for a specific weapon is M72 Match.

John
Yes, and under M80, you will also find a long list of compatible weapons, however, as I have stated, M80 ball packaged in belts is not the same as M80 Ball packaged loose or in clips, it no longer even uses the same propellant. M80 packaged in belts uses WC846C the "C" means extra calcium carbonate, which is not used in clipped or boxed as the extra calcium carbonate fouls the gas tube of the M110.

TM 43-0001-27 is a 10,000 foot overview of small arms ammunition, it does not get into the finer details of manufacture, sorting, or lot assignment. Using it as a reference on such details on how ammunition is made is like trying to figure out how to make smokeless powder by quoting Safety Data Sheet for it.

You will also note that TM 43-0001-27 only lists IMR 4895 as the propellant for most of the Caliber .30 sub-types, which in 1994 (the date of the publication) was the sole type used. However, the drawing does list others, so it is not the end-all, be-all source of information.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,800 Posts
Again you aren't proving anything.

Your chart shows both types of M2 ball loaded with the same revision number of powder. Hence it's the same. M2 ball is still M2 ball.

Considering we don't the difference in the various revision numbers..we can only speculate.

However considering all the different cartridges you listed are "different" the powder charge will also be different.


But anyways you have drifted way of the OP original question.
You obviously cannot read an engineering drawing, the revision letter goes in the upper right-hand corner of the drawing sheet.

It is not a revision number, it is a dash number.

A dash variant is slight change the the base part number, for example, a drawing of a screw might list several dash number variants for different lengths.

IMR 4895, part number 10534789-2 is a slightly different formulation of the base part number 10534789, while still staying within the broad limits of what is specified.

You might have actually understood this had you bothered to read the post, rather than trying to find a reason to discount it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
Fact - the drawing for Cartridge, Caliber .30 Ball, M2 lists several propellants, some of which are known to be problematic with the Garand, such as IMR 4350, which you didn't what to talk about, because it contradicts your position.
Please show us when M2 ball was loaded with IMR4350.

Fact - alternate propellants were used in the loading of M2 Ball, so as to maximize industrial output during wartime.
Never said it wasn't

Fact - there are several reports (from the Caliber .30 era) on dropping the requirement to keep rifle and machine gun ammunition the same, because they aren't, and haven't been exactly the some for a while.
We are back to M2 ball is M2 ball again.... please show us where M2 linked isn't the same as M2 boxed.

Fact - M1919s work better with higher muzzle pressures than the Garand due to the nature of the recoil booster.
Actually that can be a problem in the 1919 with higher muzzle pressures. And ironically the CMP sold delinked M2 ball from LC69 for garand use...and it's substandard and some of the weakest M2 ball out there and causes cycling issues in garands with marginal gas systems. According to your claims this "machinegun" ammo should have more "muzzle pressure" for 1919s that could potentially be dangerous to garands...but instead it's quite the opposite...and rather weak.
Fact - it is going to be a extremely rare occasion that Garands will use ammunition that is not clipped.
except in the millions of it sold by the Army and CMP to everyday shooters...so not really rare at all.
Fact - propellants are tailored to bullets.
maybe...but powders are tailored to specific loadings...that why M2 152gr projectiles get one loading while 165gr AP gets a different one etc.

The following are assertions based on the facts:

1) Because M2 Ball can be loaded with propellants known to be problematic with the Garand, ammunition loaded with this propellant would be packaged in such a way to make its use in the Garand unlikely (MG belts, or boxed).
If you make an M2 ball loading with a propellant that is dangerous to a weapon system that can fire that M2 ball..then you CHANGE the nomenclature to M3 ball for example. To specifically AVOID any issues with using the wrong ammo in the wrong gun. Horrible assertion...

2) Because tailoring propellants to bullets optimized performance of the bullets was/is common, a similar tailoring of ammunition to weapons would be desirable, if such segregation could be easily accomplished, which it is, because Garands cannot use ammunition not loaded in clips, and loading clips in the field is impractical.
Lol..false.
3) Other ammunition (7.62mm and 5.56mm) is segregated by intended use so as to optimize performance, therefore, M2 Ball was also optimized and segregated.
and yet still fully interchangeable in any of the respective weapon systems.

Yes, and under M80, you will also find a long list of compatible weapons, however, as I have stated, M80 ball packaged in belts is not the same as M80 Ball packaged loose or in clips, it no longer even uses the same propellant. M80 packaged in belts uses WC846C the "C" means extra calcium carbonate, which is not used in clipped or boxed as the extra calcium carbonate fouls the gas tube of the M110.
neat but doesn't change the fact that it's still interchangeable in weapons that can fire M80. Even though if you have an M110 the chances you will ever delink M80 and actually shoot that garbage is VERY unlikely...BUT in a combat situation I can understand it. And it will work long enough to get you out of the situation until you can properly clean your weapon at a later time.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
You obviously cannot read an engineering drawing, the revision letter goes in the upper right-hand corner of the drawing sheet.

It is not a revision number, it is a dash number.

A dash variant is slight change the the base part number, for example, a drawing of a screw might list several dash number variants for different lengths.

IMR 4895, part number 10534789-2 is a slightly different formulation of the base part number 10534789, while still staying within the broad limits of what is specified.

You might have actually understood this had you bothered to read the post, rather than trying to find a reason to discount it.
My my..awful condescending this morning...

And yes when talking about parts its a revision number since a slight change has been made to the the base part. Such as -12 or -19 garand bolts.

And again you have taken a simple question about ammo from the OP and gone of on a long meandering side trail thats not really relevant or helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,524 Posts
Fact - the drawing for Cartridge, Caliber .30 Ball, M2 lists several propellants, some of which are known to be problematic with the Garand, such as IMR 4350, which you didn't what to talk about, because it contradicts your position.
Your whole argument could be resolved by showing a copy of the drawing for the M2 Ball ammo containing the list of powders used for that cartridge.

So far all you've proven is that,
IMR 4895 is used in several different cartridges

not that the M2 Ball cartridge uses several different powders or different amounts of powder.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeremy2171

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,524 Posts
I don't see it as "egging it on" since, from what I've read, it hasn't been proven that more than one powder was used in the M2 Ball ammo, I'm sure that it was, at least during the development phases of the cartridge, but I haven't seen any proof that the final version of the M2 Ball used more than one powder type.

The image that was posted was the spec sheet for IMR 4895 part number 10534789. In the associated drawings they show that the version used for M2 Ball was 10534789-2
438029


The exact same part number (-2) is used for the 30 Ball M2 OVHD F Application. From what has been said, that tells me that the very same powder load was used on both M2 cartridges. Both cartridges use part no. 10534789-2 as their specified powder. It's entirely possible that if you find the spec sheet for some other powder that they would list the .30 BALL M2 as an application but we don't see that proof. It would be much easier to see who is correct if we saw a final drawing for the M2 Ball cartridge that listed the powders that were applicable for the cartridge.

Note that the part number for the CRTG, CAL .30 BALL M2 is partially obscurred due to the poor copy avialbable but the military specs require that the part number not have a space in it and therefore there must be a dash between the maon part number and the 2.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, I'm just summarizing what I see, until the image of the IMR 4895 spec sheet was posted both parties were just posting their personal opinions, not proofs. Personally I'd love to get my hands on the cartridge prints for the all of the .30 Cal ammo for the Garand, M14, and .45 ammo for the 1911 pistol. Feel free to post them if you've got them, I'll make a copy in a heart beat.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jeremy2171

·
Registered
Joined
·
310 Posts
I don't see it as "egging it on" since, from what I've read, it hasn't been proven that more than one powder was used in the M2 Ball ammo, I'm sure that it was, at least during the development phases of the cartridge, but I haven't seen any proof that the final version of the M2 Ball used more than one powder type.

The image that was posted was the spec sheet for IMR 4895 part number 10534789. In the associated drawings they show that the version used for M2 Ball was 10534789-2
View attachment 438029

The exact same part number (-2) is used for the 30 Ball M2 OVHD F Application. From what has been said, that tells me that the very same powder load was used on both M2 cartridges. Both cartridges use part no. 10534789-2 as their specified powder. It's entirely possible that if you find the spec sheet for some other powder that they would list the .30 BALL M2 as an application but we don't see that proof. It would be much easier to see who is correct if we saw a final drawing for the M2 Ball cartridge that listed the powders that were applicable for the cartridge.

Note that the part number for the CRTG, CAL .30 BALL M2 is partially obscurred due to the poor copy avialbable but the military specs require that the part number not have a space in it and therefore there must be a dash between the maon part number and the 2.

I'm not taking sides on this issue, I'm just summarizing what I see, until the image of the IMR 4895 spec sheet was posted both parties were just posting their personal opinions, not proofs. Personally I'd love to get my hands on the cartridge prints for the all of the .30 Cal ammo for the Garand, M14, and .45 ammo for the 1911 pistol. Feel free to post them if you've got them, I'll make a copy in a heart beat.
I'd like to see the difference in the 4895 variations. But we already know for a fact that M2 ball was loaded with 4895 and WC852 ball propellant for a large part of it's production. Were other powders used early on...most definitely especially when it was then still the "new" M1906 before being renamed then finally had the MV upped to ~2800fps from the M1906 2700fps.

But if we are going down that road I suggest a new thread is started as it really doesn't belong on "is this ammo safe" thread.
 
101 - 111 of 111 Posts
Top