Help with 06' reloads for a 1903 Springfield

[SpringOWeiler]

Happy Friday Everyone!
I'm in the process of reloading some 8mm Mauser and i'll be moving onto .30-06 in a couple of hours. I have 168gr Hdy FMJBT's and my goal is to produce a load that is "representative" of the factory elevation sights. It's just the 1903 model with windage adjustable rear sights. I have Varget, 4065, 4895, and 4350 on hand. Reloader 15 and 17 aswell.
Thanks!

[chris in va]

I only load '06 for my Garand, but it gets 47gr of 4895 under a 150gr FMJ, a standard Garand load.

[SpringOWeiler]

-1

[Mike / Tx]

I went with H-4895 for my 03A3 using the Remington 165gr bullets. I used some factory Rem loads as well as some surplus AP ammo I had, to work them into that range. The accuracy of the handloads is around 3/4 to 1" at 100yds, verses the 2 to 2 3/4" groups I got with the others.

I have the old manuals around here somewhere that pop got back in 62 when he purchased the rifles. If not mistaken the loads were listed using IMR4895 verses what I used. But I had 8# of the Hodgdon and only about 1/4# of the IMR so I went with the Hodgdon. My velocities from pop's rifle are in the 2700'ish range, but that is so dependent on barrel length and wear you just have to keep things in perspective. They are awesome rifles but not made for Weatherby pressures for sure. I simply wanted something I could use that would group well and I could hunt with.

I plan on trying to get something going with cast loads sometime this summer so the grandkids will have something to shoot that don't beat them up quite as much. Thinking hard on "The Load" as written up by Mr. Harris.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by SpringOWeiler

Happy Friday Everyone!
I'm in the process of reloading some 8mm Mauser and i'll be moving onto .30-06 in a couple of hours. I have 168gr Hdy FMJBT's and my goal is to produce a load that is "representative" of the factory elevation sights. It's just the 1903 model with windage adjustable rear sights. I have Varget, 4065, 4895, and 4350 on hand. Reloader 15 and 17 aswell.
Thanks!

1903 has rear sight adjustable both in windage and elevation, does it not? Mine does.

-TL

[musher]

I presume he wants the come-ups to match the markings.

[SpringOWeiler]

[I]I presume he wants the come-ups to match the markings.
-Exactly!
It's fine i'll just pull the accuracy load out of sierra.

I was trying to to avoid the confusion of which model it was. The 1903, not the 03A3. I believe they were optimized for different ammo. The 03A3 for the Garand 30-06 special and the 1903 more or less full power loads.

[RC20]

I am a bit confused but that happens often.

I think the only optimization on the listed guns would be the Garand and that only due to the need for good ejection and not bending or breaking the OP rod.

The 1903 itself never changed the barrel length of twist, so that all stayed the same. It started out with 220 gr bullets, went to 150s, then came out with 174(?) and back to 150s stateside but they simply used the 174 machine gun ammo in combat as its was both simpler and one of the more accurate rounds (said shooing was mostly done with Garand but a lot of 1903s and 1917 continued to serve).

I am sceptically that sights and wind age made that much difference at the ranges they shot them at (and I seem to remember there were mistakes in the tables as well). It seems like iron sights out at the long ranges you are going to wind up doing Kentucky wind-age anyway (and the 1917 didn't even try to adjust for any of that).

Frankly, once you hit the general velociyt I don't know it makes any differecne as new powders are not old powders and their are listed powedrs and loads that suit the Gaand and its partialre needs.

R17 has provne to work nicly in the 1917s and I had decetn results with it in a 1903 Sporter. The veloicy was a bit low per military at 2450, but it got 7 rounsd wihting 1 1/4. The others spread out from there but all 10 were inside of 1 3/4 (12 in all as I recall). That was with 50.5 gr and no optimizin done as it was my 1917 load and just tried it when I ran into problmes with my 4350 loads not hitting very well and my 4831 loads that were good this winter but poor in this shooting session.

[SpringOWeiler]

Thanks i'll give that load a try.

[RC20]

I think you will find it worth it. R17 is an interesting powder.

If you really want to ring out performance in an 06 it has the velocity cabable to do it but keeps the pressure down.

Its should not be confused with the R15 and R19 (both good powders). Its Swiss made as I recall and I think 15 and 19 are Sweden)

A completely different mfg, mix and approach with modern tuning of the characteristics.

Its not like its going to blow things away, but when you consider Ackly went to a lot of trouble and got maybe a few percents improvement out of his stuff at most, this is a better way without having to mess around with things (let alone the variety of takes on his stuff).

I don't know what the max upside is, I am guessing 5% for sure, maybe a bit better.

Not something I am after but the real long distance hot rod crowd is pushing it hard at the high end.

There are reports is is not temperature stable if you really push it, but I am not sure how reliable anything form that group that pushes they way past safe is anyway (or why you wold not go to a more appropriate cartridge for it). Kind of like the old days of trying to turn a Corvette into a dragster. It was a hot touring type for the twisties not a 1/4 miler.

I am only sorry I have not been able to get more.

[SpringOWeiler]

Yeah I'm not looking for max loads. I made a 3025fps load with the 168's using IMR4350. 1.25" at 100 yards but it spanked the living crap out of my evil roy target and the recoil made it quite unpleasant. I believe my Nosler manual has loading data for the 06 using reloader 17. I'm just aiming for mid 2700's with these loads. My 1903 is in excellent condition with a bright shiny bore from 42', and i would like to keep it that way.

I'm a collector before anything else, and I'm done with bleeding out every possible fps in my rifles.
Someone with quite a bit more experience and humbleness then me said if you have to run it at 110% to get what you want, than you need a bigger rifle.

[tangolima]

168gr going at 3000fps? Goodness that's beyond hot. It's crazy. Even your mid range load of 2700fps is mighty hot for 168gr.

-TL

[SpringOWeiler]

I got the load from a manual. Nosler pegs the max for a 168 in a .30-06 @ 3002fps with Reloader 22.

[A_Gamehog]

H4350 is the powder for that bullet. But don't expect "match grade" accuracy from std FMJ bullets.

[SpringOWeiler]

What velocity was the original military sights intended to correlate too. Is it the the same as the Garand; 147gr Flat Base FMJ around 2750fps? Or, was it the 175gr FMJBT's that the military had used prior?

I'm just looking for something around the ballpark. I would like to know the fps and preferably the bullet type. I don't want your load data, brag about elsewhere please. I have 5 reloading manuals, member of ammoguide which has about 1000 loads for .30-06, and probably around 300 other ones that I have made and chronyed on my own. I just never took the time to try matching it in the past.

If you don't know, feel free not to leave a comment about something that has nothing to do with what i asked.
Thank You

(tangolima)- goto hodgdon, or pick up your reloading manuals and look at the data for the 168 in .30-06. Even Sierra "EL Conservator" has the 06 loaded to 2900fps with a 168. Comments like that make you look like you shouldn't be on a reloading forum.

[tangolima]

SpringOWeiler,

My wording was a bit too hasty, partly because I was using my mobile device. It hurts your feeling. Please accept my apology.

I thought you were trying to match the military M1 / M2 balls spec. For that your load is definitely way too hot. Even for big game hunting 168gr bullet mostly stays below 2900fps. It did look it up on several manuals. Certainly you will find data that goes above that. It is your choice whether you want to go there.

If you find it useful, here are the specs of M1 / M2 balls. I believe 1903 was originally designed for M1 ball. It is quite likely that it has been re-sighted for M2 ball later on.

M1 ball, 174.5gr bullet weight, 2647fps muzzle velocity.
M2 ball, 152gr bullet weight, 2805fps muzzle velocity.

Thanks.

-TL

[willr]

Whar caught my eye was the mention of 8mm Mauser along with 30-06. It is easy to confuse the two -- they look very much alike. My recollection is that there was a great deal of damage caused by using one in the other. Be very careful.

willr

[SpringOWeiler]

Tangolima: Sorry I was in a poor attitude yesterday. Thanks that helps. I had all my sights bottomed out and couldn't get on target at 120 yards today. I'll try loading too those velocity's and hope it gets on.

Willr: I have 4 rifles in 8mm Mauser (K98,M48,M76,Rem700Classic) and have been reloading for it for 5 years along with .30-06. The differences are very obvious (6mm case length) noticeably fatter bullet on the 8mm.

[tangolima]

Originally Posted by SpringOWeiler

Tangolima: Sorry I was in a poor attitude yesterday. Thanks that helps. I had all my sights bottomed out and couldn't get on target at 120 yards today. I'll try loading too those velocity's and hope it gets on.

Willr: I have 4 rifles in 8mm Mauser (K98,M48,M76,Rem700Classic) and have been reloading for it for 5 years along with .30-06. The differences are very obvious (6mm case length) noticeably fatter bullet on the 8mm. Not everybody who joins a forum is a beginning reloader/shooter.

No problem at all. Glad I can help. Thanks.

-TL

[BOOMST1CK]

I have a 1917 eddystone I reload for using 48 gr of re-15 or imr 4064 with 150 gr hornadys bullets, about 2700 fps . I have some re-19 I really want to try with heavier bullets.

[SpringOWeiler]

I'm going to aim for 2700fps too see if it better matches the sights.

[SpringOWeiler]

BoomST1K: I tried the 175smk out of my 03 and they were too high to group. Had a opportunity to shoot a 1917 enfield and I felt if was an excellent and pleasurable rifle to shoot. Unfortunately I didn't get any data from my own handloads from it. My friend (308SNOB/GodsGiftToTheMarksmenshipWorld) felt they were too hot to put through that rifle.

[Jimro]

The sights on the 1903 were designed with a 500 yard battlesight zero in mind, with hold unders for closer ranges and holdovers for longer ranges.

This image is from a public domain source (military marksmanship manual).

It is not uncommon for 1903s to shoot very high at 100 yards because of this.

48 grains of IMR4064 under the 168gr HPBT is a good place to start, it's one of the NRA recommended Garand loads for competition.

Jimro

[SpringOWeiler]

I just printed out that guide , thanks for the submission. I unfortunately don't have 4064 (45-70) ate all of it. I'm planning on trying to relatively match the velocity with IMR4350. Sierra suggests 52.6 for 2700fps, which I'll aim for.