Burn rates. - Page 2 - M14 Forum

M14 Forum


Burn rates.

This is a discussion on Burn rates. within the Accuracy forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; JM,,, That method seems to be the way most of us do reasearch, don't no why, but I have the feeling you may think I'm ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Accuracy

14Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old February 12th, 2017, 05:24 AM   #16
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: kerrville. texas
Posts: 2,947
Thank you JM.

JM,,,

That method seems to be the way most of us do reasearch, don't no why, but I have the feeling you may think I'm intraping, I'm not. I apologize to you for giving that impression.

My purpose is to advise not using 4064 in a M1A that does not have a vented plug, do as you please. I am not going to elaborate, if any wish to invesstigate why I hold this poistion it would be far more convincing than my saying so..

Back to the Fed ammo you mentioned. I test fired a few boxes of it sometime back in a M1A and it was excellent.. However, that M1A had a head space of 1.631", The Match M14's mentioned had a head space of 1.635", wonder if that had anything to do with the damage?

Best regards, Art

art luppino is offline  
Remove Ads
Old February 12th, 2017, 05:48 AM   #17
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7
Burn Rates

This is the kind of crap that probably ran off Gus Fisher from this site!
Why can't this man's professional opinion be heard without smart ass
responses??

Bob4064 is offline  
Old February 12th, 2017, 06:38 AM   #18
Lifer
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: kerrville. texas
Posts: 2,947
Kind of you Bob..

Don't know why Gus left, fine person, he came along after my time and was the Head man in the RTE shop..

We cannot blame folks for questioning in today World that seems to have an ever growing mass of swindlers. It has always been my hope M1A owners investigate on their own, it's healthy, safer and produces far more meaningful material learning experiences.

This Membership has developed a keen interest in head space, both chamber and case, as it relates to the Win. .308 vs 7.62mm and the results of errors.. Powder selection is yet another factor...

Thank you for the support.. Art

Thanks from PublicSafety400
art luppino is offline  
 
Old February 12th, 2017, 07:28 AM   #19
Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: AlabamaUSA
Posts: 275
To the original post I would say this , I have only been shooting am m1a a short while but I ha e been shooting and realoading for decades . In the service rifle section of 9th edition of tne Hornady cartridge realoading manual page 422 ( 168gr.bthp,IMR 4064 42.6 gr.MAXIMUM load . Same book page 69 rule 9 NEVER start with maximum loads .Not that Art needs my help but he never said you can't use 4064 he said he had seen problems in match rifles . Obviously you can and some people do use 4064 and many other powders successfully in their rifles I would research the information carefully as I have found Mr Luppino to be an old school expert in the m14 type rifle I'm not saying he is right and another guy is wrong just saying his opinion counts a lot or should count a lot as he is a professional so as a wise man wrote stick with what you have seen not what you heard . We are talking about building ammunition that will be creating 10s of thousands of pounds of pressure within inches of your face and fireing it in a weapon that cost several hundred to several thousand dollars . Your money ,your face .

M14wannabe is offline  
Old February 12th, 2017, 07:31 AM   #20
Newbie
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Ohio
Posts: 7
Burn Rate

,,,,

Bob4064 is offline  
Old February 12th, 2017, 08:05 AM   #21
Lifer
 
JayKosta's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Endwell NY
Posts: 2,117
Art L,

Edit .... I neglected to mention that Art wrote "advise not using 4064 in a M1A that does not have a vented plug". NOT HAVING a vented plug is a key point ....


Are you recommending to not use 4064 even for low/medium MV loads, or not for more specific loads - such as heavier bullets and high MV for long range?

Certainly, just 'never using' 4064 for an M1a is the easy solution to never having problems with it, but is that seems like a drastic safety precaution to many people.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA


Last edited by JayKosta; February 12th, 2017 at 02:34 PM. Reason: clarification
JayKosta is offline  
Old February 12th, 2017, 08:13 AM   #22
Squad Leader
 
Join Date: Jan 2017
Location: AlabamaUSA
Posts: 275
Oh yea almost forgot burn rates and most things realoading are all relative to exact components ,rifles ,even temperature and humidity ,different batches of the same powder can have slightly different burn rates and those rates are measured in very exacting ways under very controlled conditions .I like jaycosta wrote don't pay much attention to burn rate charts unless I was working up a load from scratch and then just as a reference point for minimum loads and actually the bulkiness of a powder ( the amount of space a certain charge of powder takes up in a case ) is more important than the burn rate or maybe it isn't I don't know wait who am I what's my name where am I who are you ohh I have confused myself again .

M14wannabe is offline  
Old February 12th, 2017, 08:13 AM   #23
Old Salt
 
Thedutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: State bird: Loon
Posts: 1,811
Now I'm thinking(oh crap, I'm thinking again)..... if 4064 is bad, what about those who use Varget?

Honestly, I think med. loads are OK. Pushing the 600-800 max velocity with 4064's is the danger.
A vented plug relieves about 2500psi on average so reaching that 2600-2650 velocity with 4064 is....stress relieving.

I have been searching the interwebs for more information regarding this topic.
From Service rifle loads, to pet loads from the general public, to published loads by Federal. Conclusion, use at own risk, pay attn to pressure spikes. Get a chrono.
I still want more info on the topic though.

Dutch

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
Thedutchman is offline  
Old February 15th, 2017, 08:40 AM   #24
Newbie
 
djdc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Location: DFW
Posts: 2
I'm new here on this site and I'm new to reloading for a M1A. However, I'm not new to reloading.

This might help.... http://www.zediker.com/downloads/14_loading.pdf

I shot some 118 LR and some FGGM GM2 over a chrono and I got just over 2600fps for the 118LR and 2560ish for the GM2. Both produced good groups.

Using a 168 or 175gn SMK, I started at 39.0gn of IMR 4895 and slowly worked my way up to 40.5 gn and that produced 2550fps. For both bullets!

As a side note, I load for a M1 Garand. 47gn of IMR 4895 under a 168gn SMK = 2550fps. for my rifle and my powder/brass/primer combination.

Donny

Thanks from JEFFJP_N_JJ
djdc is offline  
Old February 15th, 2017, 10:21 PM   #25
Rifleman
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Bay Saint Louis,MS
Posts: 57
It seems I've read here somewhere some time ago about the military (can't remember which outfit) having issues with damage on their match grade M14 rifles when it came to the slower powders and heavy pills. They experimented with the slotted pistons, vented plugs and wound up ordering their match grade barrels without gas ports and drilling them their selves with a smaller size than the standard USGI print. Seems to me a lot of effort and thought went into reducing port pressures if there wasn't damage happening to their hand built rifles. I don't shoot my M1A as much as those teams do and I would imagine they had a few more case studies than I could ever muster. Best case scenario- anything heavier than 147gr bullet and anything slower than let's say 4895 and FPS on the upper end, well is just working things a little harder. Art, Ted, Tim, or Jon may be ones that can elaborate on that gas port and which outfit did that mod.

Temac is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 12:22 AM   #26
Super Moderator
 
Phil McGrath's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Silverdale, WA.
Posts: 7,470

Awards Showcase

Question

Hummmm... I was under the impression Varget was the evil powder for some folks.... IMR-4064 has been a long established accuracy powder staple for more years than I or Art have fingers and toe's so what's new now that makes 4064 so undesirable?

Phil McGrath is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 07:20 AM   #27
Old Salt
 
Thedutchman's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: State bird: Loon
Posts: 1,811
After reading the Burn Rates thread(this thread) and the other about Port Pressure, M118LR(supposedly loaded with 43 grains of RL15)
.....MIGHT...... be to hot for the M1A without a vented plug.
The same goes for MK316mod0 which is loaded with 41-43 grains of 4064.

After reading countless threads using the search button, a very many people still use slower powders(Varget/RL15) in their M14's(a lighter bullet was taken into account but some still used a 168-175 grainer).

In conclusion, we are back to reloading basics. Have the proper tools at your disposal(chrono), use proper loading techniques and please pay attn to those pressure signs.
Reading countless threads about MV,....the magic Number seems to be 2550ft/sec if one wants to stay a bit below that max pressure created by any number of Powders listed above.
2600-2650 seems to be the max MV when using the powders above...but a vented plug when approaching these max velocities is recommended.

I love this forum.

Dutch


Last edited by Thedutchman; February 16th, 2017 at 01:36 PM.
Thedutchman is offline  
Old February 16th, 2017, 08:50 AM   #28
Rifleman
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Bay Saint Louis,MS
Posts: 57
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phil McGrath View Post
Hummmm... I was under the impression Varget was the evil powder for some folks.... IMR-4064 has been a long established accuracy powder staple for more years than I or Art have fingers and toe's so what's new now that makes 4064 so undesirable?
I would never doubt 4064 has a accuracy advantage over let's say 4895 with the 168's or 175's. Never, because i've tried it with the heavier projectiles with accuracy success but, I don't think it's worth the added taxation on my rifle for the type of shooting I do. My rifle has a violent ejection and extraction process, most do. These guns are like us in the fact that they are born with a finite amount of heart beats, thats why I don't waste mine on exercise, LOL! I'm waiting on my vented plug as we speak, just because when I use anything other than 4895, my oprod is always on my mind. I,ve even tried the evil Varget just running ladder test across my chrono. I wasn't sure we wouldn't have Hillary and wanted to test some different powders in case I couldn't find my usual stuff. Funny thing is- the Varget gave me better accuracy, metered better(using Dillon measure),and had consistent FPS. I only made 5rnds. in each increment and never made enough to get to my 2600FPS goal with a 168, just short like 2580 something. If I could find a clean, temp stable ball powder or short cut tube powder in between 4895 and Varget I'd try it. We have some new stuff in the market now, just haven't heard much input about it.

Temac is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Accuracy

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Burn rates, want to be confused Baddog 0302 Ammunition 1 July 15th, 2013 10:34 AM
Powder burn rates angelonm Ammunition 2 January 23rd, 2012 12:49 AM
Powder Burn Rates & substitututes for 4895 gunny33 Ammunition 18 July 7th, 2011 07:31 AM
New powder burn rates geepee3 Ammunition 13 January 20th, 2011 06:16 AM
Burn rate chart differences kombayotch Ammunition 4 June 17th, 2005 06:12 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List