"Garand Load" concept disproved?

Jeremy2171

New member
Finally got my ballistician to do a comment about our testing various different milsurp and commercial ammo in/for the garand to disprove the longstanding M2 ball only myth.

His comments are below...

Let's not forget this is in a properly greased rifle and an oprod spring at least 19.5" long
-------
Ken Johnson
Shooters World Propellants
Prospector Training, LLC

I....have been meaning to write a book about this. From my earliest days of being a DCM shooter of M1 Garands on the weekends, to being mentored by old Marines, to being an AMU shooter, to working in Technical Services and Research and Development at St. Marks Powder.....to eventually owning and operating my own internal ballistics laboratory....I have heard of the "theory" of the bent-op rod in the M-1 Garand.

...in the early 2000's, I befriended OLD engineers from Rock Island, Winchester, CCI, and other government and industry locations. NONE of them could confirm "the theory". NONE of them had ever SEEN a bent op-rod. Despite all the parroting, the claims, the "assurances" from crusty old M-1 Garand shooters....even the oft quoted "This ammo is MADE for the M-1 Garand".....

So, being in the position of owning a SAAMI member laboratory, and having every means to run a thorough test....I did.

There are a LOT of nuances involved in ballistic testing. And honestly, if you REALLY want to challenge me on knowledge....bring your lunch. So, I'm not going to get into the "50,000 psi discussion". You quote that in an argument, and you clearly are an arm-chair Ballistician, without modern day knowledge. Study up.

Just a few Cliff notes, before I do the data-dump: I made a "blue pill" load, that approximated the current "Maximum Probable Sample Mean" for 30-06 Springfield SAAMI ammunition. This is the HIGHEST "production" pressure, as statistically suggested within SAAMI documentation for piezo transducer testing. That pressure (MPSM) is 63,800 psi. Note: Max Average Pressure (MAP) for 30-06 Springfield is listed at 60,000 psi Piezo...The intent of this portion of the exercise was to attempt to maximize PORT pressure, while keeping CHAMBER pressure within the realm of "safe limits". Surely, all would agree that IF chamber pressure were pushed FAR above "normal limits"....any damned fool could break a gun, in any number of places.

Back to the maximization of PORT pressures, just to drive the point home: The intent was to find ANY combination of projectile and propellant that would MAXIMIZE port pressure, while keeping inside "reasonably safe" SAAMI chamber pressures. Some would believe it would be "heavy bullet"....and some would believe it would be "slow powder". Well....I ran that experiment for days...turns out a little 130 grain bullet, with 70 (SEVENTY) grains of a fairly slow propellant DID maximize port pressure. Higher than any heavy bullet did....

A formal test barrel was fabricated by SATERN barrels, conforming to the min-spec dimensions of a 30-06 government test barrel chamber, bore cross-section, and port location from the muzzle. While not a "SAAMI" test barrel (but rather conforming to government drawings), it met the intent of the program. Using this test barrel, I created the "blue pill"....and tested ALL ammunition lots of both government and commercial 30-06 ammunition.

Surely some here will reference a group of gentlemen who DID instrument a true M-1 Garand with a piezo transducer TO THE GAS PORT CYLINDER of an M-1 Garand. And...they reported pressure results. Mmmmmyep. Good for them. I did that too. But I did not report those numbers, as there is NO standardized method or equipment to test/capture those numbers. Suffice it to say, that when taking into account PV=nRT, any VARIANCE IN VOLUME of the cylinder will drastically affect the recorded pressure output. Thus, the gas-port cylinder test is inherently flawed, when compared to standard industry methods. MY pressure output numbers utilized industry-standard methods, whereby the pressure is read DIRECTLY at the location of the port (as-per EPVAT modern day methodology), with no associated "free volume" to dampen the output results.

An M-1 Garand rifle was purchased from CMP, with both a "service" grade barrel, as well as a new Criterion barrel...several trigger groups, several op-rods...all with the intent to destroy this firearm by shooting the "blue pill" through it repeatedly.

Findings:

Folks have claimed (totally incorrectly) that heavy bullets....or slow powders....or SAAMI MAP pressures....will doom your M-1 Garand to certain destruction. Folks- I have passed my results to other SAAMI member laboratories, and major ammunition manufacturers. All of them have told me that they've never witnessed ANYONE ELSE, EVER test this system so exhaustively.

The "Blue Pill" load did NOT destroy any part of the M-1 Garand. I've fired in excess of 200 "Blue Pill" rounds through it (along with every other type of commercial and government ammunition), and there remains NO sign of fatigue, or of failure to feed/fire/extract. I have also fired hundreds of rounds of 200+ grain projectiles through this rifle. NO PROBLEM, if the load is kept to SAAMI pressures.

The M-1 Garand is a ROBUST firearm design, able to digest standard SAAMI modern-day ammunition, of any make, and any components, when loaded to SAAMI standard pressures.

I have long offered a bounty for a bent or broken op-rod. I NEED to examine one...but no-one has ever EVER claimed to have had one. The constraints: It must have bent or broken with a load that conforms to SAAMI chamber pressures. The op-rod must be of original non-altered condition (before it was bent). If a hand-load, I must be provided the reloading recipe.

Despite my better judgement, the attachment provides EVERYONE my raw data, proving the extent of the testing across the ocean of time, disparity of manufacturers, and methods of pressure generation. Everything herein is fired out of the pressure barrel, using modern day piezo electric transducers of industry standard, filtered low-pass Bessel active at 20kHz, the transducers and charge amps all calibrated with a dead-weight tester.

UPDATE #1
(From Ken)
Folks- PowderMonkey here again (Ken Johnson of Prospector Training, LLC). We found the attached results sheet containing more data than before. I attach it here, for historical perusal. Should anyone wish to use this information for commercial purposes, I ask (kindly) that they contribute to making me whole. I may be found on the internet, or in Crawfordville, FL.

Jeremy Cheek and I performed this testing at the laboratory. We utilized many of his M1 and M2 lots, dating all the way back to...1927! He freely donated this ammunition, so that others might be able to better understand the TRUTH of the M1 Garand, ammunition loaded and certified for the weapon (over many years), as well as modern day alternatives.

Link to raw data.

https://pink-nonna-70.tiiny.site
 
Last edited:
So this passage was written by a ballistician friend of the op? I thought it was by a member who used to be active here. He always started with "I'm the only one who knows" or something to that effect. [emoji6].

There are 2 points I can make out of the speech; max port pressure he found didn't happen with the heaviest bullet, and port pressure over 50k psi didn't damage an M1 rifle during his tests.

Point 1 is pertinent to general internal ballistics. Slow powder and/or heavy bullet can lead to high (not necessarily max) port pressure. This statement may be over simplified, but it is correct. He experiment didn't disprove it, but rather expanded it. Light bullet and a lot of medium charge can also cause high port pressure. I don't know the others, but it was my understanding from day one I loaded for M1. Forget the bullet and powder. It is the port pressure and dwell time that matters. I have loaded with heavy bullets. No problem with proper powder charge.

Point 2 could be the "meat". 50k psi doesn't damage the rifle. Again it was my understanding from day one. 50k psi is just an general guidance. The rifle doesn't need pressure this high. Going over it does buy you anything but it can damage things. The damage doesn't have to be immediate.

I may not sound very agreeing to the author of the said passage. But I do share part of his sentiment (if I under the passage correctly). M1 rifle is regarded as a very good war implement. But it does come across, at least to me, as delicate and finicky. Perhaps it is more rugged than what people have thought? There is no reason to push it though. I have better tools for the job. The rifle has done plenty. He deserves a better life in retirement.

-TL the ballistician not

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
Last edited:
Point 1... Max port pressure was achieved.... Max port pressure wasn't dangerous.

Point 2
50k psi is a red Herring and not relevant to the topic.
 
Are you a fan of Mythbusters?? Because you seem to be operating the same
general way.

Am not disputing the accuracy or validity of your tests, only that I feel that the conclusion that bent/damaged op rods do not happen, because you couldn't get it to happen using SAAMI or Govt Spec ammo, even "blue pill" loads is not conclusive that it cannot, or will not happen if other, non spec ammo is used.

Yes, the hype is overblown, and somewhat factually incorrect, and you are entirely right to say it will not happen with the proper ammunition. But that is not the same as saying it cannot happen, handloaders can blow up/damage anything, with the "wrong for the application" of components.
 
The ballistician tried really hard to come up with a load with the highest port pressure which is very high. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, any load safe for the chamber can exceed that pressure. He fired that load on his M1s and no damages to the op rod was found. Therefore, it is highly likely, if not 100% certain, that an M1 will blow up before the op rod is bent.

I guess that's the conclusion.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
The ballistician tried really hard to come up with a load with the highest port pressure which is very high. It is very unlikely, if not impossible, any load safe for the chamber can exceed that pressure. He fired that load on his M1s and no damages to the op rod was found. Therefore, it is highly likely, if not 100% certain, that an M1 will blow up before the op rod is bent.

I guess that's the conclusion.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
I'd try reading it all again.

You missed everything about a pressure test barrel etc.
 
I'd try reading it all again.

You missed everything about a pressure test barrel etc.
His method measured the pressure right at the port, instead of inside the gas cylinder. The barrel had minimum chamber. It is along the line of max port pressure in worst-case scenario, which any other safe loads can't get close. Right? I didn't miss that.

Did I understand his claim correctly? If the rifle doesn't blow up, the op rod won't bend.

-TL

Sent from my SM-N960U using Tapatalk
 
next to impossible to prove a negative. it only takes one positive to make a the prof look like an idiot. but! i think it is safe to assume that the tester/s did a through job at trying to prove that the op rod is not the weak link in the system, which it was thought to be.
 
mantra

I have heard the mantra concerning high port pressure and the M1 rifle since I started loading for the M1 about 30 years ago. Heavy bullets and slow powders were to be avoided! Modern sporting ammo was to be avoided. Additionally, the Speer manuals always indicated rifles with powders with suitable burn rates for service rifles, ie, M1 and M14/M1A. More recently, was it Hornady (?) that marked a line of ammo "suitable" ammo intended for the Garand, implying (in my mind anyhow) that sporting ammo was indeed not appropriate in the M1?

Am I reading OP correctly in that most of that is now hoopla, according to the "ballistician".

While sounding a bit high toned, the research at casual glance to my simple mind, seems thorough.
 
bamaranger yeah that's how i read it too.

"prove that the op rod is not the weak link"

and there has never been another suposed weak link, which would cause one to avoid slow powders with heavy bullets, or sporting loads.

so yeah.
 
Frame fatigue and damage (rear of the frame) is another thing explicitly advanced as to why too-high op-rod speed, is bad for the M1 rifle. This work does not address that.

For my part, I find that buying and installing ported gas plugs is so very inexpensive and easy. I further observe that the rifles operate perfectly with my handloads of various types with the ported plug in place. Thus, it seems pointless for me to consider this limited work.
 
Frame fatigue and damage (rear of the frame) is another thing explicitly advanced as to why too-high op-rod speed, is bad for the M1 rifle. This work does not address that.

Actually it does. The research is based off the pressure of milspec ammo compared to commercial ammo.

Those pressures are basically the same... therefore oprod velocity is the same.
 
Back
Top