![]() |
| |||||||
| Modern A place to discuss Vietnam through present. |
![]() |
| | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| | #226 | |
| Banned Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Pine Mountain Lake, California
Posts: 981
| Quote:
I would venture to say that les qualifies as a "force of nature", IMO. | |
| | |
| | #227 |
| aka Dickcheese ![]() Join Date: Apr 2005 Location: Washington State
Posts: 13,386
| As TheLancasterKicksAss (Lanc) once said, he is the forum's Morale Officer.
__________________ "Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the [U.S.] Marines don't have that problem." -- Ronald Reagan Master of Duplicate Posts |
| | |
| | #228 |
| Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: Louisville, KY
Posts: 83
| The reason for limiting a .30/06's 150 grain bullet to 2700 fps was to keep recoil down for inexperienced draftee soldiers who were complaining about the kick. The Garand was designed for ammunition loaded with 172 grain bullets, but those had to be discontinued because of the range limitations on some National Guard ranges. The 172 grain ammo was too long-ranged and often escaped the shorter National Guard ranges, causing complaints among the populace. All this is according to General Hatcher's "Book of the Garand". Hatcher was in charge of the Springfield Armory and was the Ordnance Corp at the time of the adoption of the Garand. The 150 grain load was basically a reduced load that was safe for the range parameters at that time. 150 grain .30/06 can be loaded to 3100fps safely in a good bolt action rifle, but that overworks the operating rod of the Garand rifle, quickly putting them out of service. |
| | |
| | #229 |
| Senior Member Join Date: Feb 2005
Posts: 6,114
| Roger that glennasher. The 8x57mm JS can be loaded to safely fire a 150 gr bullet at 3,100 fps as-well, but that's really the maximum with such a light projectile, and the 30.06 can actually go a little faster with bullets in that weight class. It is with heavier bullets of 185 gr or more that the 8x57mm JS is faster than the 30.06.
__________________ ![]() It was like being pushed by an Angel! - Adolf Galland I'm an educated engineer, so I love being technical and appraising of great inventions. So if you think I am being biased about something: Tell me! Then you'll probably find out that I am not |
| | |
| | #230 | |
| Junior Member Join Date: Aug 2008 Location: Oklahoma
Posts: 5
| Quote:
| |
| | |
| | #231 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
The one that didn't make the list is my personal favorite - the AR-18/10. I have all the semi auto stuff mentioned including M-14/M1A and it would be my second favorite except for the way the damn thing rode in full auto. The AR-10 is the one rifle I would pick if only had time for one. Last edited by drgondog; 08-03-2008 at 12:30 PM. | |
| | |
| | #232 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
Do you have a set of ballistic tables for the 8x57 JS in a 24" barrel? And, in the discussion of 'safely fire', what pressures are you loading to? I generally stick to 55,000 psi although all my bolt actions will easily exceed that. Last edited by drgondog; 08-03-2008 at 12:19 PM. | |
| | |
| | #233 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
You really don't want to fire commercial 30-06 ammo in an M-1. All the load tables that display "M-1" loads are lower in powder loads at max than the "commercial 30-06" max loads. At one time I had a Browning BAR (rifle, not the 20# varmint) and loaded it with the same loads as the M-1. If you check Hornady, as an example - the M-1 is loaded to 2750 (Max) with 155gr and 2700 (max) with 168 gr from a 24" M-1. The next set of tables for 30-06 is 3000 (Max) for the 155 and 2900 with 168 gr from a 23 1/2" bbl. These figures will vary slightly from one reloading manual to another but consistent with loading differences. That same manual has for the 8x57 JS, the following Max loads for a 24" barrel on M98 action. 150 gr 2800fps 170 gr 2700fps 220 gr 2300fps - (the comparable 30-06 max for the slightly shorter 23.5 barrel = 2500fps) The rule of thumb for the slow burning powders is an extra 50fps per extra inch of barrel. Last edited by drgondog; 08-03-2008 at 12:41 PM. | |
| | |
| | #234 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
I do like the FN600/Sako action better than the M98 with clip cut out as they're stiffer. I have several in the 700 action but none above 30 cal. Lots of 'improvements' to the M98/FN but still the same great design. | |
| | |
| | #235 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
"Potent" is a hard term to understand but propellant burn characteristics would make it easier to understand what the real potential is in comparison to the modern propellants. The pressure experience is dominantly a function of cartridge design, quantity of powder and burn rate (as you well know). Having said that the only difference between the LW and the infantry round had to be the powder - primer wouldn't make significant difference. Using the US as a contrast - the equivalent discussion is between the A/C load for the M1919 Browning versus the 03 springfield with a commercial round, not an M-1 round which had to be loaded for reduced pressures as a semi auto. The aircraft round was loaded to max pressures (I am looking for the load now) and troops were warned to not use it - even in the 03 which was a Mauser 98 basically. | |
| | |
| | #236 | |
| Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: oregon
Posts: 3,944
| Quote:
Another possible cause is a 'short' drop of powder (yes, not enough) from the reloading machines. This is an odd example but has been encountered by reloaders using reduced charges to 'blow out' a shoulder for a wildcat cartridge... still don't know why 'detonation' rather than 'burn' occurs | |
| | |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |