Hi all. These look good. Do they cycle in your Garands?
https://www.armorally.com/shop/hornady-150-fmj-bt-30-caliber/
https://www.armorally.com/shop/hornady-150-fmj-bt-30-caliber/
Hornady 150 FMJ BT 30 Caliber for a Garand
- Thread starter baddarryl
- Start date
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.
Last edited:
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
Ron
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
The 150 gr bullets required less real estate.
That might be barncarpet. I don't know for sure.
HiBC:
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
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
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.
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"
Last edited:
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
New member
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.
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.
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.
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.