Perfect Union banner
41 - 53 of 53 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Jim, as a very new owner of a 1943 M1, I greatly appreciated the information you provided in both the GunDigest article and on this thread. Both were very informative and educational. Cheers!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Thanks, "montigre".

This is what happens when one researches things. The same is happening on some forums where I tried to help people. Did my homework many decades ago, contacting original sources, talking to manufacturer's staff, collated thousands of targets, run hundreds of thousands of experiment rounds, and tabulated them all, spent time and money running chemical testing on data, and so on.

But some jerk who has heard moronic crap at gun shows, lies and stereotypical projections from his buddies, and who claims to have "lots of experience" can flat out call the real researcher a "liar" and "wrong.

Asimov remarked on it long, long ago:

"There is a cult of ignorance in the United States, and there has always been. The strain of anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge."

― Isaac Asimov


What's ugly is, some of these dimwits manage to get published in important publications, often with totally unsupported tales, and they make assertions and establish LIES casually.

What ever happened to logic and hard research technique?

I find it remarkable how many phony-baloney "experts" on the web spew moronic nonsense, having never read a book or viewed specimens of the objects under discussion. These folks deal in lies, clichés, stereotypes, and b.s. And I do NOT mean "ballistic superfluities".

On the Internet, much hogwash is spewed!! Sadly, some, in grotesque ignorance, swallow every specious letter and syllable.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
4,076 Posts
Sounds good Jim. I've just logged a few hours of hogwash and moronic crap in combat with the rifle on my shoulder. Nothing close to the hours of research you have expended to grant US this emporium of intellectualism. :eek:

PS: Thank You Sir for your diligence. It had to take several years to amass and record all the data listed within your published works. Thanks for all the effort.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
FWIW i have lots of experience with the Garand and the M14 (M1a) having 4 Garands that i shoot and also a built M1a. Just my opinion but the .308 is a more accurate cartridge than the 30-06 in a bench rifle. With that said either cartridge is more accurate than the Garand or M14 platform. Practical accuracy is comparable between the 14 and Garand in service configurations.

There are two types of 308 Garands. Those that have had the camber sleeved and those that have been re-barreld. The sleeved guns tend to not shoot as well in my experience. The CMP sells 308 Garands as specials for competition shooters but the Navy did re-barrel some in the 50s and 60s.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Not really. "Service configuation" takes in a lot of territory. I've set up M1's without bedding that did SUB-MOA, and several of them are now in the hands of others. They weren't really "match" rifles, but they weren't "G.I.", either.

A return to original service condition is something most M1 users don't seem to understand. Old, sloppy stocks and wobbly gas cylinders CANNOT deliver very good reults.

Of course that won't equal a heavy barreled single shot that weighs twenty pounds, but no "sporting rifle" will stay with 'em.

Anyone shooting bushing-ed chambers now is a fool or worse. Real .308 barrels are all over the place. And many M1's were DELIVERED as 7.62x51mm. rifles, from the U.S. and from here. The first one I had showed a 1951 date. The 6 million HRA I had was NEVER in any other chambering, and NEVER had a sleeve.

It's in Duff, too, and Giacobbe had one about three serial numbers from mine. Ackley, the White lab researchers, and the entire U.S. military attested to the greater efficiency, consistency, and accuracy of the new round, in writing, fully documented, in thousands of well-known studies. Hot air does NOT constitute anything but b.s.

That's not just some jivea** internet crap. It's the result of sixty years of hard research, from Ackley to Antonelli, and not just unverified hot air. Fully verified and authenticated.

Beretta's M1's for their last export contracts were ALL in 7.62x51, and were never any other way.

By the way, my book is now available, signed, at $25 the pop.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
132 Posts
My M1 rifles are all .30-06 CMP Service Grades, w/ very good bores.

They generally shoot < 3 MOA w/ M2 Ball ammo, and a little better than that w/ the commercial (PPU) variety.

... more like < 2.5 MOA.

And, since the .308 round has no place in my ammo locker, and I don't compete for prizes?

The .308 round? Would be a trivial pursuit.




GR
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
40 Posts
Jim...please re-read what i said...I think you may be misunderstanding some of the points i made do the sloppiness of how i stated it. First...M1s were sleeved...and converted with 7.62x51 barrels. Hell...ive fired both variants. Ive owned 2 in 7.62x51 actually. First being a navy gun with a shot out barrel chambered in 7.62x51 that would key hole. The second being a CMP special with a Criterion barrel.

If any were delivered from either SA, HR, or IHC in 7.62x51 to the govt I'm unaware of it...but i suppose its possible. Id imagine that's a rare bird indeed.

Second...service configuration would mean an as issued gun. Ive never laid hands on a real M14 mind you (very few have) I'm talking reproduction M1a's. In my experience with standard grade SA inc. M1a's, Norincos etc and various garands from bring backs to CMP guns...they shoot about the same. Talking iron sights of course.

If you can routinely make sub MOA guns out of M1s, M14s or M1a's (and I'm not doubting you) you should go hang out with the M1A crowd. Ive got 4 grand + into a double lug LRB with a Kreiger barrel that won't do that in anyones hands and its bedded into a McM stock, has a unitized gas system...you name it. Had a NM SA inc that was about the same. You can walk into bass pro and buy a myriad of sporting rifles with sub moa guarantees on them for under $6 or $700...and they weigh under 8lbs.

The M1/M1a/M14/Ruger Mini is my favorite platform of all time. I love them...i love everything about them. But if anyone is being totally honest...accuracy and repeatability of said accuracy is not their strong point in the grand scheme of things. At least not when compared to bolt guns...or ARs to name a few.

Still my favorite platforms of all time. I target shoot with them, i hunt with them...heck I'm here reading about them.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
The empirical data counts.

Anecdotes don't.

My information is documented, verified, witnessed.

I can't reliably get MOA any more, but my moderately prepped rifles can and do. As my pulmonary rehabilitation re-establishes my strength and stability, though, that capability may return.

Several CMP owners have achieved that with even my "Tipo 2" rifles, properly relieved and adjusted. With heavies and laminated stocks, it's much easier.

Jim Brower and Hugh Sutherland are two folks who have such rifles I set up and adjusted.

There are dozens of others.

Indeed, during the continuing molycoated bullet studies, that was minimum standard.

It's documented and published and verified. Some fifty-seven shooters participated, witnessed, signed targets, and so on.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
"The writer nor the editor are awfully diligent. Eugene Stoner is referred to as “Gene Stone”

One letter??

That ridiculous. It's called a "typographical error" and it happens all the time to everyone. You might want to do some serious reading before spewing such specious and absurd, speculative malarkey.

And it might be prudent to be a little more careful insulting in ignorance those you do not even know..

With "auto correct", it's becoming even more common. Chances are real solid with any wordprocessing program, it'd happen to you, too. It wasn't that way in the original copy, by the way.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
8,376 Posts
I don't own any .308 Win rifle or a Garand but I'm 95% sure the '06 cartridge can be loaded with (and a Garand will safely fire at least some of those rounds so loaded) heavier grain weight slugs than the .308. just food for thought from me, I have access to a Garand and ball FMJ ammo if needed. very unlikely since I own the Mini and a 12 ga both good hunting/defense guns.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
110 Posts
Not really. When doing my molycoat workups, ran bullets through my .308 specimens up to and including 220 grains with no issues, PROVIDED the rifles were properly greased. Shooting at 1000 meters with 190-grain math bullets, vented gas and ran overloads. No issues.

I'd suggest reading THE ESSENTIAL M1 GARAND. Unlike the voodoo, hoodoo, doo-doo, and industrial histories, it deals with reality, facts, and practical matters. Even reading Roberts' old tracts, he doesn't even mention bullet weight. But both loading and overall preparation above about 180 grains requires discipline transient range blasters cannot seem to acquire or even understand.

But again, anyone who tries to do this casually with EITHER caliber is a fool. Has nothing to do with the cartridge, has to do with operating rod velocity and moment. And yes, a prime determinant of both is pressure, both at the chamber and at the port, as well as burn rate.

Let's don't forget, there's serious research behind my books, not just some g.d. idiot spewing nonsense. Sixty years of it, some very difficult.

By the way, one of the WORST choices for civilian rifles is "ball" ammo. The 1 turn in 10" standard rifling is too quick for the 147-152-grain bullets, and creates flyers over time. P.O. Ackely and H.P. White settled that with hard, empirical testing sixty years ago in major work done for N.R.A. publications. Now, "ball" won't damage anything, but the rifles have ALWAYS done better with heavier bullets. Always.
 
41 - 53 of 53 Posts
Top