Sniper or infantry?
- Thread starter F23Blackwidow2
- Start date
F23Blackwidow2
New member
It seems the Garand is the winner. But let me dispell any doubts that I can own one in NY.
The En-Bloc clip is a 'clip', and considered an internal magazine; therefor, it is not included in the ban, although loading 8 rounds would be a illegal.
It is also considerned an antique, well, most of them are that old. 50 years old I think to be considered one.
I think that, given the unanimous decision, I will be saving for an M1.
And I will NOT pay for the firearm in a way that NY gets any cash.
Long live the 2nd!
The En-Bloc clip is a 'clip', and considered an internal magazine; therefor, it is not included in the ban, although loading 8 rounds would be a illegal.
It is also considerned an antique, well, most of them are that old. 50 years old I think to be considered one.
I think that, given the unanimous decision, I will be saving for an M1.
And I will NOT pay for the firearm in a way that NY gets any cash.
Long live the 2nd!
First of all this is untrue, magazines pruchased before Jan 2014 that hold more than seven but less than 11 rounds may be kept but may not be loaded with more than 7 rounds. Per the SAFE act hotline the Garand is perfectly fine and is not considered an "assault weapon" (god I hate that term). After Jan 2014 you will still be able to purchase high cap magazines as long as they are C&R (more than 50yrs old) and they must be registered with the NYSP.
Second to the OP: Garands from the CMP must now go through an FFL to NYS. I was pretty upset when I sent out my paperwork and a week later discovered that I now needed to go through an FFL. Make sure you send your FFL info with your order. I would still get the Garand if I were you and do it ASAP before the CMP runs out of them and you end up paying over inflated gun show prices. I don't imagine the CMP has that many left. I had to go with my second choice of rifle since they had sold out all of the Service Grade Sprigfields. Be advised the CMP back log is approximately 60 days per the nice girl at CMP Customer Service
Stu
The GI spec on 150gr ball ammo is 2750fps +/- 40fps. NOT 2900fps!
It also functions pretty well with GI spec 172gr match ammo @ 2640fps +/-...
It is designed to run on IMR single base powders in a fairly narrow pressure curve. Medium burning rate powers are fine. Slow powders can create a much higher gas port pressure. This causes the action to work more violently than intended, and damage can result. Bent op rods are the most common thing to go wrong, but not the only thing.
Commercial sporting ammo is loaded to the 2900+fps range (150gr), and is hotter than the GI spec ammo the Garand is intended for.
And, just FYI, when we say "bent op rod" we meant slightly bent out of spec. It seldom has any effect on the function of the Garand, but it does have an effect on the accuracy of the rifle. And not for the better.....
as to the idiocy that is the current NY law, I cannot and will not comment further...
Yup, youre right. I was discussing the .308 vs 7.62 thing in another thread, and had referenced the 30-06 in it, and in a hurry, grabbed the wrong number. My Lake City manual from July 1969 lists .30 M2 ball at 2740 +/- 30 for a 153 grain bullet @50000psi.
That said, the reason the 30-06 was in the discussion I was referring to, was the "pressure" thing that always gets beat to death with the .308/7.62. I think it the same vein, there is relevance here.
SAAMI lists pressure for the 30-06 at 60000psi (sound familiar) and, as I showed above, my LC manual lists it at 50000psi. Now, curiously, SAAMI lists the .308 at 62000psi, and LC the 7.62 at 50000psi. It looks like there is some confusion here when stating what the definition of psi "is". I wonder if Bill Clinton isnt involved here.
As I had pointed out in the other thread this was being discussed in, I had a conversation with Speer a few years back on another caliber and issue, and they told me that a bullet of equal or similar weight, driven at the same or similar pressures, should give the same basic velocity.
That appears to be holding out here, in both cases, and I found this looking into it a little deeper, and this fella seems to have the same thought, and seems to have done a little more in depth research ....
http://how-i-did-it.org/762vs308/chamber.html (30-06 is referenced here as well)
Now, after all that.
If what Speer is saying is correct, and if in fact, GI 30-06 and commercial 30-06 of similar weights are really very similar pressure wise once you get the indicator correct, I really dont see a problem here.Now, if you dont buy into all of that, and are just going to base it on velocity alone, I seriously doubt that they would design the M1's operating range with a margin of error in that was as narrow as 100fps, give or take.
Whatdaya think? Am I out there, or maybe not?
I would say, in the case of the M1, and a couple of other bolt guns, the clip is basically a magazine, since it has to remain in the gun, for the gun to function properly. An M1 without a clip, is no different than a mag fed gun, without the mag.
The only difference between it and a rifle with a detachable mag is, how the clip/mag is "detached". The M1 generally does it automatically, the others have a button or lever. Maybe they are looking at the others like switchblades. Buttons and levers are bad, and in reality, if buttons are the determining criteria, the M1 is screwed there too.
Now a "clip" in use in most other guns, is a "stripper" clip, and does not remain in the gun when the guns "magazine" is loaded from it.
And just to muddle the waters, what would happen if you removed the mag release tab from an M1A (or any of the others for that matter), and only loaded 7 rounds by hand, or with strippers through the guide, would it now be legal? Mmmm, I think it is on AR's in Cali, isnt it?
The whole thing is foolishness, and we all know it. We allow people to "make the rules", who have no idea as to what they are talking about, when it comes to what they are trying to regulate, and..... Oh, wait, never mind. They know exactly what they are doing. Its those of us who vote them in, and then dont run them out on a rail when they pull this crap, who are the dummies.
Not disagreeing with you on those points but, as others who live in NY and have called the Safe Act hotline have said, the Garand is considered legal as long as it only is loaded with 7 rounds just like I said in the beginning. I never claimed it made any sense but then none of these kinds of bans make any sense to me and I am sure not to you either. Like you said, people who have no clue what they are talking about are making the laws so were all screwed if we don't run em out of there.
I think you are missing something.
First off, modern computer tech allow for a much more precise pressure measurement than the old copper crusher measurement system. In fact, some loads that were measured as "safe" under the old systems are now considered over pressure using modern measurements.
Another thing is that the SAAMI specs are for commercial .30-06 ammo, not the GI ball. Yes, similar bullets at similar speeds will have similar pressures, but the SAAMI commercial ammo loaded to 2900+fps is NOT the same as the GI ball loaded to 2750fps. 50k pressure for GI ammo, 60K for faster commercial stuff sounds right to me.
Also, the same situation exists with the 7.62NATO/.308 Win. Commercial ammo is hotter, and loaded to higher pressures. Remember that the 7.62NATO was loaded to duplicate the GI .30-06 loading for velocity.
With the Garand, its not 100fps+/- that makes the difference, it is the pressure curve (pressure/time) and specifically gas port pressure. The rifle will work over a reasonable range of pressure & velocity combinations, BUT some of them will work the action more violently than intended, due to higher gas port pressure at the critical moment. Overall load pressure might be within allowable specs, but if the pressure at the port, at the critical time is too high, its hard on the gun.
Also remember that the Garand was designed to run on GI ammo, something with a specific set of specifications. The fact that it can operate a bit outside this range is nice, but was not something intended for in the design.
Think of it a little like a car engine (not a perfect analogy, but close). This engine is made to run on 87 octane gas. You can run it on 100 octane, for a while, but things are going to go wrong at a higher rate than when you run it on what it was made for. And if you put 150 octane in it, bad things are going to happen pretty quickly.
F23Blackwidow2
New member
The reason you should not use commerical ammo in a Garand without an adjustable gas plug is becasue the military powder burned faster, creating less pressure, and a shorter explosion. The commercial powder in todays cartriges uses slower burning powder, creating high pressures, and in some instances, the burning of powder almost half way up the barrel. This can cause an ossilation of pressure, that really screws with the op rod gas system. Of course, this is identical round to round, so it does not affect accuracy, but it can seriously damage the op rod.
And I have checked, a clip IS NOT considered a magazine, because it is ejected automatically when it is empty, it is fully inserted into the firearm, and it does not contain a spring.
Thank You,
Ken B.
And I have checked, a clip IS NOT considered a magazine, because it is ejected automatically when it is empty, it is fully inserted into the firearm, and it does not contain a spring.
Thank You,
Ken B.
I still dont buy that a 10000 psi difference between GI and commercial only offers a 100-150 fps gain. I think it would be more along the lines of something like 550 fps, which isnt what you see with the numbers given.
I think the link above sums thing up about as close as we're going to get, without someone actually doing some comparison testing on all, all on the same equipment.
I think the link above sums thing up about as close as we're going to get, without someone actually doing some comparison testing on all, all on the same equipment.
Last edited:
The arsenals and other military shops have used several makes and types of powders that are identical to canistered stuff civilian ammo makers used for both the .30-06 and 7.62 NATO rounds. To say nothing of the many thousands of rounds of commercial match ammo loaded on the same machines with the same commercially availabe components producing the same peak pressures as military ammo that was used in both M1 and M14/M1A rifles without any problems whatsoever. Especially the popular '50's and '60's Western Cartridge Company .30-06 match ammo with 180-gr. bullets seated in two different OAL's; long for single round loading and standard for clip fed ammo in rapid fire. While some commercial powders are slower than what military ammo uses, their peak pressures in the commercial ammo is no different than it was years earlier with faster powder. SAAMI's specs have not changed. And much commercial .308 Win. ammo's loaded today with the same powder as it was years ago and it's totally safe in 7.62 M1 and M14/M1A rifles. The military marksmanship teams handloaded many thousands of rounds of ammo with commercial powders (cases, bullets and primers, too) using the same charge weights as the arsenals did with the powder they bought from commercial companies. Their rifles did not have adjustable gas plugs. But the gas port in 7.62 NATO Garands was larger than the ones in .30-6 barrels; less port pressure from smaller powder charges.
Most rifle powder's not all consumed by burning until the last kernel's well down the barrel. Don't know if anybody's every measured it; it happens. With the M14's gas port about half the distance back from its muzzle than the M1's gas port is, there is no difference in powder residue in the gas systems of both.
Some clips have springs that hold the rounds in them but do not feed the ammo for loading; original Mauser, M1903 and M14 five-round ones as well as larger capacity ones for the 5.56 NATO rounds and the thousands of commercial ones used in bolt action box magazine repeating match rifles such as the Win. 70 and Rem 40XC having clip guides in their receiver bridges. None of these clips are fully inserted into the firearm's magazine; their bottom's about 1/8th inch clear of the magazine when its charged with live ammo.
Last edited:
AK103K, there's not a 10,000 psi difference between commercial and military ammo. It's about a 2,000 psi difference between averages for MIL SPEC and SAAMI standards.
There's typically at least a 4,000 psi spread across a given lot of ammo's peak pressure anyway; both 7.62 NATO and .30-06 ammo types. Even with that much spread in pressure, a muzzle velocity spread is often less than 30 to 40 fps for each one.
For testing with the same equipment, check out testing methods, pressure and velocity for both CUP and PSI systems in the following:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf
There's typically at least a 4,000 psi spread across a given lot of ammo's peak pressure anyway; both 7.62 NATO and .30-06 ammo types. Even with that much spread in pressure, a muzzle velocity spread is often less than 30 to 40 fps for each one.
For testing with the same equipment, check out testing methods, pressure and velocity for both CUP and PSI systems in the following:
http://www.saami.org/specifications_and_information/publications/download/206.pdf
Last edited:
44AMP, your comments:
Military small arms ammo's chronographed at 26 yards from the muzzle. Commercial SAAMI spec'd systems chronograph screens are set 5 yards downrange. There'll be a difference with the same barrel/ammo combination at those ranges to the screens used. And the military M2 ball ammo with 150 grain bullet was spec'd at 2850 fps, not 2750 fps, at 78 feet. Only about 50 fps faster than the 7.62 NATO bullet's velocity spec.
I think I've cautioned you before about getting these two systems mixed up and perpetuation of problems that causes.
...are not valid. Peak pressure in CUP system methods is 50,000 for MIL SPEC .30-06 ammo as well as SAAMI spec'd commercial ammo. In the other system for measuring pressre, PSI, the numbers for only commercial ammo's spec'd; 60,000 PSI. There is no MIL SPEC for .30-06 military ammo that I know of.
Military small arms ammo's chronographed at 26 yards from the muzzle. Commercial SAAMI spec'd systems chronograph screens are set 5 yards downrange. There'll be a difference with the same barrel/ammo combination at those ranges to the screens used. And the military M2 ball ammo with 150 grain bullet was spec'd at 2850 fps, not 2750 fps, at 78 feet. Only about 50 fps faster than the 7.62 NATO bullet's velocity spec.
I think I've cautioned you before about getting these two systems mixed up and perpetuation of problems that causes.
Last edited:
'Bart, thats what I was getting at. There are a lot of other people though, who believe the that there is. Im in your court, believing there is really little or no difference.
I have still yet to find any data showing a comparison between military and commercial ammo that was actually done on the same equipment, using the same method. The SAAMI page you referenced is in the link I posted above, and only deals with commercial ammo. If they also ran 7.52x51, or .30 M2 ball, or any of the other military rounds through their equipment, I missed it.
Since all the claims Ive seen state there is no direct conversion or equality of the different methods, whats needed to end the debate, is a straight up comparison of all of them, on the same equipment, using the same method. Until then, everything else is just speculation, no matter how compelling the argument.