Ammo for Rem M81

[Wyosmith]

Hello to all.
I just got a Remington M81 in 300 savage. I use 39 gr or 4064 and 150 grain bullets. Accuracy is quite good. I used 40.2 in my M99 and primers remain round and extraction is effortless. The 39 grain load is not hot at all.
But I have found that if I use the load with clean cases I have the rifle tear off the rim about 1 time in 5. If I lube the cases lightly, (just like I do before I size them) the rifle works flawlessly. The M8 and M81 are the old Browning long recoil actions and so the question I have is gun specific.

Anyone out there have a lot of experience with handloading for these guns?

I don't mind having the lubed cases, but I can't believe such lube is a requirement of the guns. They were quite popular in their day, and I have never heard of anyone needing to use a lube on the ammo. Perhaps a different powder?

The M8 was originally made in chamberings of 25 Rem, 30 Rem, 32 Rem, and 35 rem, all of which run at lower pressures then the 300 Savage, introduced in the M81 in 1941.

So any knowledge gained from experience would be appreciated here.
Thanks

[HiBC]

I have one in 300Savage that was given to me.It was pretty rough.I've scrounged some parts and its about ready for some shooting. Darn sights are all "collectors items" I need to get sights figured out.

But,I have not fired it yet.

I watched a youtube on a guy shooting one with 300 Savage "Superformance" ammo. He had some similar problems.

Hornady makes a 150 gr made just for the 300 sav. Its a 150 with a cannelure in the right place.Odds are the matched the jacket and hardness to the 300 Sav velocity reasonably well.

There are springs staged into the recoil sequence. Springs get old. Bummer there are no new parts. Old guns get parted out on e-bay.

I'll probably have to figure out the same problem.

On one hand,softer ignition and slower powder might make for a gentler initial recoil pulse,but quicker powder/shorter burn curve might let residual pressure drop a bit lower.
Maybe 4895 is just a touch quicker. Might be worth a try.

Using a chrono,for a given velocity range,you might find 4895 to be either better or worse than 4064.. Burn rate might be a thing.

I'd appreciate hearing your progress. I suppose I ought to get mine shooting. Plenty of powders in that burn range to try.

[T. O'Heir]

There's very limited(Max load of 40.0 only) .300 Savage data on Hodgdon's site. My old Lyman book, 23rd Edition, I think, has data. I'll PM it to you tomorrow.
I doubt there's anything special required to load for an 81. Just the usual FL resizing only, check case lengths and watch OAL's.

[RC20]

You don't say what cases, what primer and how many times the cases have been used.

Is the ripping off of the rim due to the case sticking? I know that sounds redundant maybe but you do not mention how hard to extract it is or is not. Just ripping off could mean they are cracking at the base and come out easily.

One wild idea is you just don't have enough powder and you are getting a too empty case affect (high pressures)

What to the primers look like? IMR or H or ? 4064?

Is there ejector wipe and other marks on the base?

[Wyosmith]

RC20, I have FC 308 cases reshaped, LC machine Gun brass, reshaped and also Winchester 300 savage brass with one box of Hornady 300 savage brass. None of them are any better or worse than any other.
I am using WW and CCI primers.
So I dismissed the idea that brass was a factor. I tried 180 grain loads this morning with H4895, but the accuracy was none too good. I did lube those cases and the rifle did fine.

[HiBC]

Its hard to draw conclusions from two changes at the same time. Which did what? The two changes were a 180 gr bullet and 4895.

I'd be curious how 4895 compares to 4064 with a 150 gr bullet and dry ammo.

Actually,H4895 vs Varget or RE-15 is a little wider spread.

My question is the needed cure in slowing the initial recoil impulse (slow powder) or is slow powder causing higher residual pressure at unlocking. The case still obturated and tight to the chamber.

Comparing faster vs slower powder with no other changes might offer a clue.

My totally untested hunch is that H4895 and the 150 gr bullet would be the greyhound I'd put $ 2.00 on.

But I never made money betting on dogs

My Nosler book for 150 gr bullets shows negligible difference in velocity between max loads of IMR 3031,IMR 4895,and IMR 4064. Viht N-140 and W748 were shown as slower yet. The 4895 was called the accuracy load.

So,you already know 4064 rips rims with the 150,and its moderately slow.

Nosler calls out 40 gr as max with IMR 4064.

Max load for 3031 (quickest powder shown) was 38 gr,for 2590 fps,which s 30 fps more than the max load of 40 gr 4064.
The start load of 3031 is 34 gr.

Across the board,38 gr of IMR 4895 or IMR 4064 or 36 gr of IMR 3031 gave 2450 to 2460 fps.

Between those powders,you get essentially identical velocity at 2 gr under max.

That's a pretty good "all other things being equal" experiment. Now I'm curious about the 3031,as quickest. Is that real available still?

Another thing to consider.....No problem making the 300 sav out of 308,its mostly a neck trim...but lets not forget military 7.62 brass has thicker walls and reduced case volume.
Factoring that in,your load of 39gr of 4064 vs book max (nosler) of 40 gr might show the military brass load being a bit hot.

Theburn chart I looked at showed IMR3031 to be # 98,and Hogdon Benchmark to be slightly slower at #102. I realize we don't jump to conclusions off burn charts,but I would not be afraid to sneak up on a Benchmark load with my chronograph,looking for about 2450 fps.with a 150 gr bullet. THAT IS NOT A PUBLISHED LOAD in the Nosler book.

[TX Nimrod]

This is typical for an auto rifle with a pitted or damaged chamber from corrosive ammo and/or poor maintenance. Difficult to see in an M81 but a chamber cast would show it.


The fact that they won’t extract without lube supports this theory, it is not the load. BTW, lubing the cases greatly increases the bolt thrust, which may cause battering damage in that ancient rifle.

Sadly the only remedy is to try to polish them out, a tough job on a Remington auto.


.

[AgedWarrior]

I am inclined to agree with Tx Nimrod about the potential for a rough chamber. But reviewing all that is said in the thread, I still wonder how difficult were the cases that tore the rims to remove? Did they come out fairly easy? And how did they look after you got them out? No abnormalities were mentioned, but were they rough or showing a friction/rub spot common to them all? Wyosmith, I really had to wonder why you went to the trouble to try different bullets and powder and then you still lubed the cases so you do not know if you still had the same problem you originally posted.

[HiBC]

TX,chamber finish certainly could be on the list of things to check.. Good observation.

I get the impression Mr Wyosmith has paid for the beans on his table working on rifles for some time. He might well have looked at the chamber.

If I take the forend off my 81,there is this lever thing hanging out of a bolt that holds two halves of the rifle together. Its a takedown thing. Do that,and you can look at the chamber pretty darn good.

Its certainly true that on an old gun,the chamber could have some "texture"

And,that texture can certainly cause difficult extraction.

I only know Wyosmith from this forum. I suspect he would not have started this thread if the rifle had a rough chamber.

A thing to remember about semi-autos,an early one,to boot,is that the timing of events can be critical.

Use heavy bullet ,slow powder warm hunting 30-06 loads in a Garand and you will hurt it. I don't know for sure,but this may be about "tuning the pulse"

Lets not forget the barrel recoils inside that fat shroud.There is a spring in there that is older than any of us. That spring resists/slows the unlocking impulse.. Springs get tired. Remington does not sell them.

Sometimes we have to accept the gun is what it is,and tune the ammo to make it run.

I've seen hot,zippy 7.62 NATO ammo that would stick in the chamber of an AR-10 T Armalite ,not a thing wrong with the chamber.
It was Portugese surplus battle ammo that COULD have been reject. It chrono'd 2900 fps. A mite hot.. The AR-10 did not like it....and it ran just fine in my FN-FAL. (STG 58)

There is a dance in a semi-auto,and the choreography has to be right.

My suspicion is the pressure curve is lasting too long.The recoil is unlocking the gun before the pressure has dropped sufficiently inside the brass case. The case is still gripping the chamber wall.
I would guess the case comes out easily once the pressure has vented.

But that's a lot of guessing. I was not there. I might be wrong.

4064 powder is a bit on the slow side. That's why I'm suggesting experimenting with quicker powder.

[Wyosmith]

Hi Guys.
Yes the chamber is already inspected and the polish is wonderful. So the 1st thing most of you thought of was also my 1st thought. NOPE! No pitting.

And HiBC is correct. I have a great deal of experience with rifles. I am a full time gunsmith and have been for several decades, so I thought of the simple things first, just like all of you did.

As an aside, the reason I used the lubed ammo with the 180s is simply this:
The bullets were Nosler Ballistic Tip Hunting, and the longer length of the plastic tipped bullet made me think they may not shoot all that well in the 1-12" twist at only about 2350 FPS because the R.P.S. may not be up to the task in that combination. So I fired the lubed ammo to test for for accuracy 1st. No sense in doing anything more if the ammo won't shoot well. I guessed right that time and got 6"-7" groups so I quit right there.

If I used the ammo with H4895 un-lubed and it shot as well as the 150s (about 2 MOA) I'd conclude powder selection was key. But being I got 6-7" at 100 yards I didn't care if it worked or not. Full function with 6-7 MOA is not an answer for me.

I have worked with the 300 Savage shell many times in the past and in some actions (mostly bolts) where you can run the velocity up to about 2500 FPS the accuracy was quite good, but in an older auto, with no new parts available, I would not want to run high pressure loads because I want to care for the old springs as long as possible. So that is the reason for trying lubed cases first ----even when changing the power. The gun must be accurate and if it worked but shot no better then a shotgun I am wasting my time.

Anyway...... back to the details.

I see the loads in the Nosler book showing 40gr of 4064 being their max, but in older manuals and with older powder (mine is over 25 years old) I see loads up to 42 grains. 40.2 shoots super well in my 99 Savage (about 1 MOA) and so I was hoping for similar results in the 81. Accuracy is not as good, at 2 MOA, but good enough for the task I'd use this rifle for. My 99 shoots just barely over 1 MOA with the same load, but it also has a very good peep sight and my 81 has issue bead and open blade. So the 81 may be as accurate as my 99, but I clearly am not as accurate with such coarse sights.

The NATO brass is indeed thicker. I didn't go through all the details above for space-sake, but I have worked up from as low as 36 grains of 4064 and also as low as 35 of H4895. The rims tearing off is not consistent. Some of my loads do it and others show no sign of abrupt extraction ------ with the rims looking perfect.
So this is a bit of a "head-scratcher".

I may try some 4350. I don't care much about velocity because as an iron-sighted gun I'd zero at 100 and probably never fire past 200 at deer or antelope with it. I have used 30-30s in the past and done fine, so any speed of 2300 or more is OK with me, as long as I can keep 5 shots "inside a chicken egg" at 100. All the rest is up to me.

I have scoped rifles with a LOT more range, so in those cases where I can't take the time to play around I'd just grab my 25-06 a 270 or my 300 mag anyway. The 81 is for my hunts where the hunting is FAR more important to me then the killing.

I will try some 4350 and some 3031. Or H380 may be worth some experimentation too. Those 3 powders are probably on the fast and slow extremes of what a 300 savage would use well. If I don't get a better result on either end of the scale I'll just assume the springs are now a bit weak, (over 70 years old) and have to resign myself to lubed cases. With my 39 grain load and lubed ammo I am getting 2 MOA right now, and perfect function.

Yes I know that it increases bolt thrust, but at lower pressures of a mid to low end load, that would not be a factor worth much worry.

[zeke]

From memory, and it ain't getting any better as i age. Had trouble with my M81 in 300 savage extracting/ejecting. Eventually i noticed a significant difference in case rim dia between some makes. The brand with the larger diameter did not give any trouble. Do not know if i wrote all that down, which brands i was using or if the ejector was worn.

[AgedWarrior]

Humble apologies Wyosmith. I understand your thinking now with lubing the 180’s. I have to admit, 4064 ought to perform reasonably well, and since you are getting that sort of accuracy with no indication of pressure issues, I would be inclined to wonder about the rifle. 3031 might be useful to try...4350 isn’t really premium in this role, but maybe worth the try. I am guessing you are not inclined to try 748 or N140?

[zeke]

Factory rounds from M81
Win 150 gn pp = 2443 fps
Fed 180 hydro shock = 2265 fps

Handloads,
Win brass, Fed 210, Hdy 150 sp, 41.0 gns 748 = 2480 fps, vg accuracy
Rem brass, Fed 210, Hdy 150 sp, 39.0 IMR-4064 = 2425 fps ex potential
39.5 IMR-4064 = 2450 fps
39.0 IMR-4895 = 2480 fps
39.5 IMR-4895= 2545 fps

[Wyosmith]

Yeah Zeke, I may try some 748 too. Not a bad idea.

[T. O'Heir]

I have no idea what Rx 11 is. It doesn't copy and paste well either.
Hornady brass runs $39.99 per 50 at Midway.

.300 Savage
Bullet Diameter: .308"
Max Case Length: 1.871"
Trim-to: 1.865"
Max OAL w. Bullet: 2.600"

'*' DENOTES COMPRESSED LOAD.
Velocity tested in a 22" Savage 99 with 1 in 12 rifling.

110 Grain Jacketed
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
IMR3031 38.0 2672 42.0 2967
IMR4895 41.0 2659 45.0* 2967
IMR4064 41.0 2624 45.0* 2890
IMR4320 42.0 2702 47.0* 3021
Ball C2 41.0 2695 45.0 2857
H380 41.0 2409 46.5* 2645
Rx 11 38.0 2624 42.0* 2849

Accuracy Load: IMR4320 46.0* 2960 FPS

130 Grain Jacketed
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
IMR3031 37.0 2525 41.0 2808
IMR4895 40.0 2564 44.0* 2801
IMR4064 40.0 2493 44.0* 2754
IMR4320 41.0 2544 46.0* 2857
Ball C2 40.0 2512 44.0 2672
H380 41.0 2320 46.5* 2538
Rx 11 37.0 2444 41.0 2680

Accuracy Load: IMR4320 46.0* 2857 FPS

150 Grain Jacketed
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
IMR3031 36.0 2433 40.0* 2695
IMR4895 37.0 2325 41.5* 2652
IMR4064 39.0 2439 43.0* 2666
IMR4320 40.0 2481 43.5* 2672
Ball C2 39.0 2358 43.0 2577
H380 41.0 2242 46.5* 2487
Rx 11 35.0 2369 39.5 2645

Accuracy Load: IMR4320 43.2 2659 FPS
Factory Duplication Load: IMR4320 43.2 2659 FPS

180 Grain Jacketed
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
IMR3031 33.0 2145 37.0* 2369
IMR4895 36.0 2197 40.0* 2427
IMR4064 36.0 2159 40.0* 2375
IMR4320 37.0 2192 41.0* 2439
Ball C2 36.0 2105 40.0 2325
H380 40.0 2132 45.0* 2336
Rx 11 31.0 2066 35.0 2262

Accuracy Load: IMR4895 38.0 2315 FPS
Factory Duplication Load: IMR4320 39.4 2336 FPS

118 Grain Cast w/ Gas Check
Lyman mold #311359 or
Lyman mold #311316 115 grain w/ Gas Check
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
Unique 9.0 1599 13.0 1976
2400 16.0 1800 19.0 2012
IMR4227 18.0 1805 22.0 2974
IMR4198 21.0 1851 25.0 2087

No Accurcy Load given.

155 Grain Cast w/ Gas Check
Lyman mold #311466
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
Unique 9.0 1412 13.0 1773
2400 18.0 1732 22.0 1976
IMR4227 18.0 1572 23.0 1926
IMR4198 24.0 1861 27.0 2070

Accuracy Load: 2400 20.0 1850 FPS

173 Grain Cast w/ Gas Check
Lyman mold #311291 or
Lyman mold #31141 176 grain w/ Gas Check
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
Unique 9.0 1362 12.0 1628
2400 17.0 1600 21.0 1908
IMR4227 17.0 1497 22.0 1868
IMR4198 22.0 1691 26.0 2000

Accuracy Load: IMR4227 22.0 1868 FPS

183 Grain Cast w/ Gas Check
Lyman mold #311407 or
Lyman mold #311332 183 grain w/ Gas Check
Powder Start Velocity Max. Velocity
Unique 8.0 1252 11.0 1508
2400 16.0 1515 20.0 1805
IMR4227 16.0 1457 21.0 1705
IMR4198 21.0 1655 25.0 1901

Accuracy Load: IMR4227 21.0 1706 FPS

[TX Nimrod]

Reloder 11 is an obsolete Hercules/Alliant powder, introduced around the same time as Reloder 7 and somewhat slower. It was discontinued around 1972.

I should have assumed that the OP had checked the chamber first given his handle. I don’t have anything for him which has not been mentioned above.

Yes the M81 is a takedown model. I was thinking of taking off the barrel jacket, a challenge without the correct tool.

.

[HiBC]

TX,I don't know what youtube has taken down or left up,but there were a few vids on teardown of the 81.The vid gave a source of the tools.
Nothing real fancy,a tapered dowel to help guide and stuff a spring,and a spanner similar to a choke tube wrench.I was easily able to make what I needed after watching the vid.

But FWIW,You do not have to take the shroud,bbl,etc down to do a takedown.

Its meant to be taken down for transport.

IIRC,clear the gun,remove the one forend screw,.Lock the bolt back. Undo the take down bolt. Then I think maybe its a quarter turn to separate the front group from the rear group.

I just remembered! Search "The Great Remington Model 8/81"

Or,trust this link

http://thegreatmodel8.remingtonsociety.com/

Several useful links there. Takedown vids,etc

[TX Nimrod]

Thanks HiBC, I do know that they are takedowns, just was thinking about the shroud for some odd reason. I had an M81 in .35 Rem years ago, as I recall I removed the forend and unscrewed a bolt which had a swivel arm attached, then pulled the barrel assembly out of the receiver. Or that’s what I remember anyway, only did it once.