Hornady 150 FMJ BT 30 Caliber for a Garand

[baddarryl]

Hi all. These look good. Do they cycle in your Garands?

https://www.armorally.com/shop/horna...bt-30-caliber/

[105kw]

Worked well in my M-1, I used BallC2. I can't remember the load, but it was in an NRA book on shooting and loading for the Garand.

[burrhead]

Should be fine. The most accurate load I've found for my Garand is a Hornady150gr Inter-Loc with mild load of H4895.

[JustJake]

Hi all. These look good. Do they cycle in your Garands?
https://www.armorally.com/shop/horna...bt-30-caliber/

Should be fine.

Hornady's Service Rifle load data shows a lot of Varget loads ....for the 150gn bullet as well as others, like the 168gn Match bullet.

Service Rifle pros prefer Varget due to it being less temperature sensitive.

[Bart B.]

Too bad the government ballistic experts in the early 1900's didn't think the 30 caliber service rifle's 10 inch twist barrels was too fast for best accuracy. By the early 1950's, they did and the cartridge that replaced it shot the same bullets 100 fps slower in 12 inch twist barrels more accurate.

[Reloadron]

They work fine in my Garand and M1A rifles. The Hornady 9th Edition gives good load data for service rifle loads including the M1 Garand. Varget and H4895 will get you up to about 2600 FPS which is fine. You want faster look at other powders like H335, AA2495, AA2520, VihtaVouri N135. Anyway the 150 grain Hornady 150 grain FMJ stuff shoots just fine in a M1 Garand and about any other service rifle I have shot them in.

Ron

[44 AMP]

Too bad the government ballistic experts in the early 1900's didn't think the 30 caliber service rifle's 10 inch twist barrels was too fast for best accuracy.

Were they even looking for "best accuracy??" I don't think so. I think it was more likely a case of "this works well enough" and not a "we need to use the best"... also, I think, was the fact that "we already have these and make these, and we don't need to change anything (that costs money)

Remember that the Krag, the .30-03 and the original .30-06 were all used with heavier than 150gr bullets. When the 150s proved their value and became the general use bullet weight the twist stayed the same as they shot "well enough" for service use, and the heavier weights were still in service, too.

[Jim Watson]

the original .30-06 were all used with heavier than 150gr bullets.

Not exactly. The original .30-06 came about when the Army wanted to go from the .30-03's 220 gr roundnose to a 150 gr spitzer like the Germans had. The '06 didn't get a heavier GI bullet until the 173 gr M1 boattail of about 1925 and went back to 150 ca 1940.

12 inch twist barrels more accurate.

There is a story that once upon a time, spot checking of service rifles and full testing of match and sporter Springfields started showing better accuracy. It turned out that a mechanic had put the wrong sine bar in the rifling machine and it was delivering an 11 inch twist. So what did management do? Told him to put the 10" bar back in to meet specifications.

But it sticks in my head that Harry Pope made Krag barrels with an 8" twist and they were found accurate at the time.

[Dave P]

Those were fantasstic 100-200 yard bullets --- esp when they were less than a dime each.

20 cents each -- I am not so sure ...

[HiBC]

I could be wrong but I have some vague memory the 30-06 173 gr boat tails were a "problem" because they were not contained within the downrange beaten danger zones in place on the military base firing ranges.
The 150 gr bullets required less real estate.
That might be barncarpet. I don't know for sure.

[Reloadron]

HiBC:

I could be wrong but I have some vague memory the 30-06 173 gr boat tails were a "problem" because they were not contained within the downrange beaten danger zones in place on the military base firing ranges.
The 150 gr bullets required less real estate.
That might be barncarpet. I don't know for sure.

Not sure what a downrange beaten danger zone is but when shooting matches at Camp Perry the issue 30-06 Caliber .30 Match stuff was 173 grain bullets. That was M72 GI match ammunition. I have heard of the term being used with regard to machine gun fire and pretty sure in the world of machine gun fire it turns up. I just never heard of it being used with regard to a standard GI (military base) firing range as to standard rifles. Beats the heck outta me.

Ron

[44 AMP]

Told him to put the 10" bar back in to meet specifications.

Totally believable.

Once again, there's a point here. And that point is, that while we, as thinking individuals recognize and want the best we can get, the organizations that make up every government and many corporate administrations, don't want that.

Never forget that they are looking out for what the people in those groups consider in their personal best interest, not what is in our best interests.

History is rife with examples, if you just look.

[kraigwy]

Not sure what a downrange beaten danger zone is

]

Its no more then the depth of the range safety zones. Some ranges are shorter (depth wise] making it more dangerous with the extend distance the 173s shot.

[Reloadron]

Thanks for sharing that.


Ron

[HiBC]

Once again, there's a point here. And that point is, that while we, as thinking individuals recognize and want the best we can get, the organizations that make up every government and many corporate administrations, don't want that.

The R+D of a project will come up with the approved design specs fpr a project.
So there will be a drawing with specs and tolerances.
I the case of the rifle,the Fed Gov says "I will pay X $ for this barrel" 10 in twist.
If I make 11 in twist barrels,they are non conforming . Without a signed off.approved variance,they are scrap. Its not a sandwich shop. The only good barrel is a barrel that meets the customer defined specs.

The accuracy change can be noted,tested,studied. There can be an engineering change.The new drawing might say "1 in 11 twist" All is well.

Thats how its done. Making parts to print is not moronic. For those who test barrel accuracy to note performance improvement due to the non conformance,test and verify it is called "Continuous Improvement" That can be evolution. Generally Management must make the call to prioritize a project to study it.

Yes,I read J. Edwards Deming "Out of the Crisis"

And I have made a lot of parts to meet print specs. Machinists who put their own spin on parts are called "unemployed machinists"

[Reloadron]

Yes,I read J. Edwards Deming "Out of the Crisis"

Actually your narrative is exactly how it works in manufacturing. Wasn't it W Edwards Deming?

Been over 8 years since I retired and everything in the above post rings true. Memories of the plant floor.

As a side note the standing joke on military contract screw ups was MIL-T-FD41 (Make It Like The Friggin Drawing For Once).

Incidentally the plant I worked it was the same plant where the US Rifle M14 were produced by TRW here in Cleveland (Euclid), Ohio. Before my time but the old test range was still there when I got there.

There was little to no room for scrap and or rework. Parts either comply to specifications called out in the drawing or someone has some explaining to do.

Ron

[Jim Watson]

I could be wrong but I have some vague memory the 30-06 173 gr boat tails were a "problem" because they were not contained within the downrange beaten danger zones in place on the military base firing ranges.

Yes. I have shot on a range like that. There was not a big berm behind the targets, just a lot of empty woods. You could see the nice level line where bullets passing through the targets had clipped the treetops off.

The other version is that the heavier bullets had objectionably heavy recoil and they went back to 150s for less kick. Which sounds a little weak, considering all the 165 gr armor piercing that was being shot.

[44 AMP]

The other version is that the heavier bullets had objectionably heavy recoil and they went back to 150s for less kick. Which sounds a little weak, considering all the 165 gr armor piercing that was being shot.

Both reasons sound "a bit weak" to me. Especially the first one about the heavy bullet overshooting the impact area.

The bullet might well have been "a problem" on certain ranges, but I cannot conceive of the US military changing the bullet weight of the ammo for that reason alone. Its just not the way they do things. IF SOME of their ranges have a problem with the ammo, they will restrict use of the ammo on THOSE ranges, they won't spend the effort (and MONEY) to change the bullet.

Likewise, I doubt complaints about "heavy recoil" were a factor, either. First of all, because (really want to shout here...) It's a .30-06! there isn't that much difference in the recoil! Quit whining, shut up and soldier!, Soldier!
(aka "continue to march!!!")

The one case I know of where the Army did change the bullet, AND powder charge due to "recoil" was the .45-70. But, they didn't change it for everyone! The original load was .45-70-500, a 500gr bullet and 70gr powder. What is reported in the histories is that they changed because of complaints of heavy recoil, BUT, personally I think the reason was something else, and the recoil level was simply an acceptable "excuse" to put in the histories.

They changed the load to a 405gr bullet and lightened the powder charge in the ammo used by the Cavalry. Only the Cavalry, they kept the 500gr bullet load in the Infantry ammunition! Over time, the 405gr load became the more popular and became the civilian commercial standard weight.

If you look at the larger picture, in the era when we went to the 150gr bullet, the major European nations were also changing to lighter bullets. The British, Germans and Russians all went to lighter bullets around that time. And, if you look enough you'll see that while the lighter bullets do have advantages, and the idea was to replace the heavy bullet loads, they never really did. IN anyone's army. BOTH classes of bullets were used in service, together, through WWII, and some are still in use today.

[HiBC]

Both reasons sound "a bit weak" to me. Especially the first one about the heavy bullet overshooting the impact area.

As I said, I do not claim it as fact. I don't know.
At the start of WW2 recruits were training with brooms rather than rifles.
It might be ranges that were adequate with 30-40 Krag and 30-03 may not have been adequate with the unprecedented ballistic efficiency of the 30-06 173 gr boat tail load.

We do get amazed by some of the "solutions" for military problems. Like the early M-16 decision to use the wrong powder.

I don't know that the ballistics of the 173 gr boat tail 30-06 round were "Dumbed down" to fit the safety parameters used to lay out ranges on military bases throughout the country. I do not pretend to know.

I can imagine changing the projectile to a less combat effective one being preferred to the red tape and administrative difficulties of redesigning the ranges. Especially if they have to fit the reservations already in existence.
Training troops may have won out over reworking ranges.

Who knows? I don't.

[44 AMP]

I can imagine changing the projectile to a less combat effective one being preferred to the red tape and administrative difficulties of redesigning the ranges. Especially if they have to fit the reservations already in existence.

I can see today's Army having to deal with the red tape but the Army of the early 1900s didn't worry about things like that. First off, most of the rules and regulations about ranges didn't exist back then, and second, in those days, what the Army did on Army bases was the Army's business, and no one else's!

Even after the creation of the EPA (1970) there was a long time when its authority did not extend to Federal installations. Today, it does, but back in the days of the .30-06 no one cared about such minor things.

[HiBC]

44AMP:
So far,we have been working with opinions. So I did a little research.
I would directly cut and paste,but I understand that can be a copyright issue.

If you go to the article,check the "History" topic,move down to the last paragraph that begins with "Wartime production was about...." and read till he topic changes to "Weapons"

The article specifically addresses the problem of the 178 gr boat tail having a max range of over 5000 yds and overshooting ranges. The bullet /load was redesigned for approx 3600 yd max range to solve the problem.

This is given as the reason for the redesign/switch from " Ball M1 " to Ball M-2" approx 1938.

https://military.wikia.org/wiki/.30-06_Springfield

[Metal god]

Ok how in the heck does a bullet or round in general out shoot a range ? This on face value is absurd . Last I check the bullet starts dropping the second it leaves the bore . The entire package ( gun , cartridge and shooter ) may be able to over shoot the range but to say the “bullet” is the problem is not reasonable to me .

I shoot at a 300yd range a lot and the burm is the mountain. I can aim higher and over shoot the mountain, so that must be because of the bullets I’m using

[HiBC]

Ok how in the heck does a bullet or round in general out shoot a range ? This on face value is absurd . Last I check the bullet starts dropping the second it leaves the bore . The entire package ( gun , cartridge and shooter ) may be able to over shoot the range but to say the “bullet” is the problem is not reasonable to me .

I suspect you did not read the article I linked. There is always someone who does not get the memo. It lays out the history of the 30-06and why there was a change from the M1 round to the M-2 round about 1938. Your question would be answered .

But just for you,I'll try.

OK,Metalgod. You have a plot of real estate,a military reservation of a few,or several,square miles of land.

On that reservation,you must lay out barracks,a PX,a movie theatre,a hospital,parade ground,drill fields,an obstacle course,etc. And a rifle range. Or two.
The arrow to "Downrange" either points toward the interior of the reservation,or the boundary of the reservation.

There may not be a mountain. It might be Ft Riley Kansas.

Now,you,the Main Honcho in Charge, are given the specification the max range of a particular cartridge is 3700 yds. Certified,tested, you can count on it. Great!!

You lay out the base so the obstacle course is 4200 yds down range of the firing line. Thats 500 yds extra safety zone. Fine!! Everything is beautiful!!

But then there are wars and technical developments. A better loading is developed. The ballistic coefficient of the bullet improves from .415 to .625.

Cool!! Establish ballistic advantage!!

So,one fine training day,there is rangefire!! Teach those recruits to shoot!!

And another group of troops is running the obstacle course.

OOPS! The new ammo has a max range of 5000 yards. Three troops running the obstacle course are hit. One dies.

This issue could affect a number of bases across the USA.

The Rape of Nanking is going on. Hitler is on the rise. Troops need training.

What do you do? One option is to go back to a trajectory (bullet) that remained in the range safety zone.

Its not a perfect description of what happened,but if you WANT to understand,it will do,

[Metal god]

Ok that makes more sense , it’s NOT that the bullet over shot the range it was they needed to modify a round for the surroundings . Meaning the bullet was not the problem but rather the solution . Maybe a distinction without a difference but my guess is there were several possible remedies and they just chose changing the bullet as the one they went with .