Please explain 'match' brass

2

2wheelwander

New member
I've just acquired a used M1A Super Match. McMillan stock/Douglas stainless steel barrel. Which means now I've got a reason to get serious about bench shooting.

Now, I get consistency and match grade projectiles. But what makes brass match grade and why would Lake City not be a good contender? I've joined the m1a/m14 forum which has been helpful but didn't find the answer to this question.

I'm not ready to drop the $$ Lapua wants for their brass, so I want good bang for the buck. I'm a decent shot but know I probably won't know the difference in headstamps, but this issue is bugging me. Want to do it right.

Recommendations?
 
Like they would tell you on the M14 forum. Buy a box of Federal Match ammo. Shoot those and see how they do. See if you can get handloads to match the accuracy. You an even use the brass. Its a Rabbit hole. Clean primer pockets every time? Uniform flash holes? Neck turn inside or outside?

Enjoy the rifle. I had a Garand. 2 moa was good for it, with handloads, I could get 1.5 moa on a good day. It was not a NM. Its worse with my M1A because its got a worn throat. If I load longer than the magazine will take, it shoots pretty good. Cheap wally World FMH shoots 5" @ 100 yards. Good hand loads 2".

David
 
Match grade brass is typically more uniform in dimension and metal properties

In the heyday of 7.62 NATO best quality match grade M14, M1A and M1 service rifles used in competition, best accuracy happened with new, unprepped cases. Reloading fired cases from them tested 1/2 to 1 MOA bigger groups compared to 1/2 to 2/3 MOA through 600 yards with new cases. Rebulleting M118 match or M80 service ammo with Sierra or Lapua match bullets worked well.

Their bolt faces were never squared up like bolt action match rifles were. Those out of square bolt faces made fired case heads out of square and when reloaded, their high point hit the bolt face off center causing the barrel muzzle axis to point different directions. The US Army Reserve Team proved this in good tests in the 1970's. I, too, learned this back then.

If best accuracy is your objective with an M1A match rifle, you have to use new cases. Or get a new bolt with squared face headspaced to 1.630 inch.

Then use bullets whose diameter is at least 3 to 4 ten-thousandths bigger than barrel groove diameter.
 
Last edited:
Mine is a CMP version, I am sure yours will do far better. Lots of stuff on M1A forum.

Do you have an accuracy goal?

David
 
I expect to get ~ 1/1.25 MOA without much effort. My goal is repeatable sub MOA on good days.

Am I asking too much? I know these are based on battle rifles and not high end bolt actions, but I feel if I do my part and feed it what it likes, a rifle Springfield puts an MSRP of $3800 on had better show outstanding accuracy?

I'm new to the M1A game. Always wanted one and got and great deal on this one. If this doesn't do what I expect (ruling out failed accuracy is not my fault) I'll sell this and get a traditional LRB build and be happy.
 
I'll whole heartedly agree with Bart B on this.

Pretty much "Match" anything, will require the most consistant of whatever your looking at.
Weight & concentricity for bullets, weight, volume, concentricity for cases, etc...

Not like slapping a "tactical" sticker on it and jacking the price up.
Match shooters will try things out. And if it's not up to par, word will spread fast.
 
Take a look at this thread.

https://m14forum.com/accuracy/446993-entries-100yd-1-dot-challenge.html
Post 6 25, 28 and 63.

It might help with your question.

I like my M1A. A customer walked into my shop asking me if I wanted to buy a 600 yard rifle. I looked at, it had all the stuff with it. There was a 3/4" 5 shot group included with load data from the owner before this guy. $1,000. I traded for some work.

After a while I figured out it would not hit a jeep hubcap at 600 yards, but would hit the jeep. The test target was a joke. It would shoot OK with top quality bullets. It needed bedding, the action was loose in the stock. I bought an acrangel stock for less than the price of bedding it. It shot much better. I shot a few military matches with it and will continue to shoot 3 position matches with it. I do well in them. It has a lot of class in its walnut stock. With the 20 round magazine in it, I can hold it offhand and shoot it well.

I have a Remington 700 VL in 22-250 for bench shooting.

The gun is a blast and a lot to learn about shooting it. Keep the front bag as close to the magazine as you can. Forget using a Bipod.

David
 
Last edited:
Things to do to the M1A for improved accuracy:

* plug the NM rear sight aperture with plastic steel then drill it out to .040 to .045 inch to sharpen the front sight appearance improving sight picture. Done right, the hood will still make half MOA elevation changes.

* use an aperture front sight with a .080 inch insert.

* fill the buttstock rear holes with lead shot to add weight.

* load single rounds then don't touch the op rod anywhere. Let it go into battery all by itself chambering each round the same.

* keep the trigger pulled full back stopped until the rifle quits moving from recoil. No flicking fingers off the lever as you sense the rifle firing.

Most folks get better service rifle accuracy tests shooting slung up in prone with bags under front hand and stock toe.
 
Last edited:
David R - I've been looking over that thread quite a bit. Also the sticky giving recipes for various loads the 4895 seems to be the go to powder. Being a newbie my posts are still help in purgatory for review for now. That forum isn't as active as thefiringline but lots of invaluable info for a guy like me.

Bart - I'm really surprised at the recommendation of an .080" insert up front. Seems counterintuitive? My stock doesn't have a hole in the butt, solid fiberglass. The rest makes sense and I'll use it, but I'm not going to modify my rear peep just yet ;)

Big question, I'm under the impression that breaking the firearm apart from the bedded stock is considered a no-no? I want to do a thorough cleaning (but leaving the flash suppressor on). I won't be breaking it down daily, but is there a danger of accuracy suffering from doing this?
 
You will gradually loosen the bedding fit breaking it down too often. The main reason I've found for doing it if oil gets into it. That needs to be removed with alcohol or mineral spirits and allowed to try. When the gun is in a carrying case and for storage, releasing the trigger guard to eliminate the constant compression is used with wood stocks so they don't get loose from that. With a synthetic, though, it probably isn't necessary.

For brass, two things are helpful. Brass with a hard head will better resist rim bending during extraction. If the gun is timed well or has an adjustable gas port valve, that you've tweaked to minimize case tossing, that may not be an issue. But if you want hard heads, LC and ADG are the best. ADG is expensive like Lapua, but remarkable for capacity consistency. The only plus to Lapua or Norma over these cases is more consistent case neck runout, but you can get that from the LC and ADG if you use an outside neck turning tool. Just note that it may make no measurable difference if you just get the bullets seated straight, so don't assume you need to get that gear initially.

Also, you can get a Neco gauge or other tools that will measure case runout properties and simply selecting new cases that are above average.

I got lucky in that my M1A happens to have a good, square bolt face. I've checked runout of it fired case head faces by sticking them in a Wilson trimmer case holder and reversing them and touching them with the trim cutter. It marks them evenly all over. It won't evenly mark cases ejected by other guns that I've checked. True to Bart's comments, it shoots about 0.7 moa in slinged-up prone with either new or reloaded brass it had fired previously.

There is nothing to stop you from truing and M1A bolt face an lapping it to the receiver lugs if you know how, or having it done by a gunsmith if you don't. This will allow accurate reloads.
 
2wheelwander said:
Bart - I'm really surprised at the recommendation of an .080" insert up front. Seems counterintuitive?
Click to expand...
Aperture front sights can be aligned more precisely on the center of round target bullseye than post front sights.

Note you have to consciously center the front sight in the rear sight for best accuracy. Ignoring the century-old myth that aiming eye's automatically align them is a step forward to best accuracy
 
Aperture front sight

The aperture front is indeed more precise, but is not legal for service rifle competition.
My M1A was built to USMC NM specs by a Marine Armorer in 1991. It averages .75 MOA with proper match ammo.
 
I just ran 5 rounds through her. Couldn't wait any longer. There was grease where grease should be so I had at it. ~100yards away shooting down hill, resting my elbow on my smoker, standing, shooting at an 8" gong. Got it 4/5 shooting casual.

I'm very happy right now!

Ordered 250 cases of LC brass and Sierra 168 gr 2200. Gotta get the IMR powder this week. Feels like Christmas morning!
 
It's funny that the rules now allow a 4.5X 30 mm scope sight, but still require a post front sight for iron sight shooting. It's probably an artifact of the military not having aperture front sights.

I'll point out that while IMR4895 has become a popular standard, a lot of folks like IMR4064 better, despite it being harder to meter. Federal, which has done lots of testing of powders for accuracy, uses IMR4064 in its GM308M with the 168-grain SMK.
 
Enjoy, please let us know how it works out. Just thinking, I bought an 8 lb jug of pulldown 4895. Its long gone. :)

David
 
I just bought a keg of CFE223 and could use it, but i'll get the hotter powder for this one. It'd be like putting 87 octane in a new Porsche.
 
Extruded stick powders have produced best 308 Win accuracy for decades.

IMR4895 or Varget for 150 to 160 grain bullets, IMR4064 for 165 to 190's.
 
Last edited:
I was just loading some 308. I trimmed all the brass, primed it and was charging cases. I am uising 115 grain cast coated bullets and 12 grains of Unique. This is shot in a bolt action rifle. It works.

I zero the scale with the empty case. Charge it and put it back on the scale to check the charge. Everything was fine. I was using FC cases. Weight varied by no more than 2 grains either way. I was thinking this is good compared to the 222 I was loading last week. Then I found a case 21 grains lighter. It was a winchester, Sure as can be, I could pick out the winchesters by the scale, I put them off to the side and did 6 of them last. Cases varied by plus or minus 10 grains. So to answer the original question, FC is better than WW.

These are cases from buying the Federal Gold Medal Match ammo for my M1A.

David
 
I shoot LC in mine but once I burn through it, I’ll probably go with Laura since it’s so hard these days to unfired LC.

Mine will do ten round groups consistently inside 1.5moa. With 5rd groups sub MoA groups are fairly common. Most of my ammo I load on a Dillon 550.

I shoot a lot of Speer tnt bullets. Worth trying but sometimes they don’t agree with the 1:10” barrel. I shoot mostly IMR4895 and 4064. I like Varget but so does everyone else and availability is frequently poor.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top