M14 Forum


Hornady Tech response to ammo question

This is a discussion on Hornady Tech response to ammo question within the Ammunition forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; So.....I was interested in some non-FMJ self defense and hunting ammo to stock up for use in my M1A's (one 22", one 18"). So I ...


Go Back   M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Ammunition


Like Tree7Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Moderator Tools Display Modes

Old May 25th, 2012, 03:44 PM   #1
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
Hornady Tech response to ammo question

So.....I was interested in some non-FMJ self defense and hunting ammo to stock up for use in my M1A's (one 22", one 18"). So I emailed Hornady for a list of any ammo that might be acceptable that was not match or fmj and here is the response I got:

"Von, it is my understanding that the M1A has a shorter operating system than the Garand, so bending the operating rod is not a concern like it is with the M1 Garand. With that said, any one of our offerings for the 308 Winchester should work well in your M1A. The only exception being the Superformance ammunition, and that only applies if your barrel is shorter than 20”. Thanks!"

Now I actually saw a response similar to this on a recent post from one of our members, and I was wondering if we could get a guru to once and for all state if the M1A can handle any ammo, more than the Garand but not "any", or only the same ammo, or nobody has actually tested one to destruction/bent op rod so we don't really know.

Thanks
Von

vgodenwa is offline  
Remove Ads
Old May 26th, 2012, 11:23 AM   #2
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
RAMMAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 7,001

Awards Showcase

As in many cases with corporations and politicians, they didn't provide you with any data so nothing exact can be gleaned from their non-answer. But I did a little digging on my own and have found some information, as crude as it is I wouldn't call it conclusive but it might help shed some light on the topic.

http://www.hornady.com/ammunition/su...rated-firearms

Quotes from their web site
Quote:
both Superformance and standard propellants provide an equally powerful “push” applied to the base of the bullet, but with Superformance propellants, the “push” is applied for a longer period of time.
Quote:
in gas operated/gas piston semi-automatic or select fire guns, rifle length gas systems with 20 inch or longer barrel lengths are best for reliable firing and extraction. Any other configuration, particularly shorter barrels/gas systems are best served with the installation of an adjustable gas system, ESPECIALLY if a suppressor is to be installed.
They go on to explain that their Superformance ammo has about the same peak pressure but the pressure stays high longer than most other powders. The longer that the pressure stays high, the faster the bullets will go. They claim that the pressure returns to normal before the gases reach the gas port on most standard rifle length barrels. In one image they imply that the pressures are back to normal at slightly more than the 14" from the breach.


Here is the important point. According to the drawing on page 267,in Jerry Kuhnhausen's book "The U.S. .30 Caliber Gas Operated Service Rifles", the gas port is 13.992" from the breach. As a side note, the port location is the same on all three Springfield barrel variants, the 16.25",18", and the 22". So this information should apply to all of the Springfield M1A rifles.

Now comparing the two dimensions is difficult because Hornady doesn't provide actual data, just rough drawings. But in an effort to make a better comparison I blew up their drawing of the pressure/distance curve to see where the pressure returns to normal along the length of the barrel.


It looks to me like the pressure is returning to normal at just about 14.25" from the breach. So the best I can say is that somewhere around the 14" mark the pressure "seems" to be normal in comparison to most other common powders. But there is a possibility that the pressure is still slightly higher at the M1A's gas port than I would prefer. Now that's not saying that the rifle can't shoot the ammo, the M1A can handle pressures that are far higher than most people realize, but doing so will shorten the life of the rifle and might result in the eventual catastrophic failure of the weapon. I might be tempted to use the ammo for a couple of shots during hunting season but I wont be using it regularly.


Last edited by RAMMAC; May 26th, 2012 at 11:52 AM.
RAMMAC is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 12:19 PM   #3
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
Thanks a lot!!!
That is very interesting because I don't have to shoot super performance, just regular with the hunting bullets. It is interesting that the curves equal so soon. I would have assumed it was more like 20", not 14".
You don't have a pressure curve of the NATO medium burn M1 Garand powders vs the slower sporting powders (but not superperformance) plotted over barrel length do you???
Von

PS: I have emails in to Springfield Armory and Fulton Armory. Maybe we will figure this out.

vgodenwa is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 01:23 PM   #4
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
RAMMAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 7,001

Awards Showcase

I can produce calculated pressure/length curves with my QuickLOAD software but I have to know what powder was used. I do this quite often when developing my hand loads just to monitor the port pressures.

The only thing I can do with commercial and military ammo is to estimate what powder was used based on the known muzzled velocity, barrel length, and ammo configuration. Tell me the specific ammo you are interested and include any information about what barrel rifle was used to develop the muzzled velocity data and I can see what I can do.

Thanks from Swamp Rat
RAMMAC is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 02:43 PM   #5
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
The Nato load is easy. Try a standard one like this:

168 Sierra Match King
41.5 gr H4895
IMI case
CCI Br2 primer
2.800" OAL
about 2550fps from 22" barrel

The problem is the factory load.
I'm willing to shoot a couple of loads out of my rifle just for velocity info.
But I won't know the powder which gives the burn rate.
There is a narrow window for approved Garand loads.
The manufacturers have found they can get more speed by using slower powder and more speed can improve performance and sells more bullets.
I want you to run a hot load through the program that is outside the Garand parameters, but is not in the Superperformance/light magnum/high energy class.
I will look for a factory load where the powder is published, but I won't have any to shoot, so you will have to use the factory specs for the program.
I have some Federal TRU 150 Nosler Ballistic Tip and some Federal 180 Power Shock on the shelf we can chrono w/o the actual powder burn rate.
We may just have to use a published handload from a manual that publishes the barrel length for our other load.
Von

vgodenwa is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 03:03 PM   #6
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
RAMMAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 7,001

Awards Showcase

I'm not qualified to speak about the Garand, I don't own one and I haven't tested any loads for them, but I can tell you that almost any commercial load will work just fine in the M1A. The discussion about commercial vs. military chamber pressures is an old wive's tale and it isn't true. Both kinds of ammo produce pressures that are very similar. As long as you keep the bullet weight to no more than 180 grains and the the cartridge isn't a magnum class load the M1A will not be damaged.

Regardless, I'll be happy to run any numbers that you are interested in. I'll run the info you have already posted. I do have a copy of the Army's TM for small arms specs so I can run those numbers too.

Thanks from Bamban

Last edited by RAMMAC; May 26th, 2012 at 07:33 PM.
RAMMAC is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 04:31 PM   #7
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
Your pressure curve is not labeled, but I found some data that claims that the port pressure should be 12,000 psi and that H4895 is the ideal powder. Do we know the pressure of the above charts at 14" barrel length??

vgodenwa is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 07:30 PM   #8
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
RAMMAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 7,001

Awards Showcase

The port pressure of the M14 rifle was supposed to be 12,500 PSI plus or minus 2,000 PSI so the range is supposed to be from 10,500 - 14,500 PSI.

We have no pressure data from Hornady so all we can do is guess based on what we do know. I can use their advertised data for muzzle velocity and use that as a way to estimate the pressure at the barrel's gas port.

But none of this is exact, it is all based on our best guess. The original military data on chamber pressures was originally developed using the old Copper Crusher method and I don't know if the port pressure info I have is a true PSI value or the old CUP values that were mislabeled as PSI (the military called the 50,000 value for chamber pressure PSI when it was actually a CUP value).

My QuickLOAD software will give me an approximate pressure value at any point along the length of the barrel. Unfortunately I have only been able to validate that the estimated chamber pressures are accurate. I don't know how accurate the estimates are at any other place along the barrel's length.

When QuickLOAD estimates the pressure at the gas port it's always about 1000 PSI higher than what I would expect. I don't know if that is due to errors in the data, a lack of precision in the computer graphics, or a misunderstanding in where the port pressure should be measured from (farther along the barrel or maybe at the gas cylinder rather than the barrel?). As a result, my intention is to subtract 1000 PSI from the estimated pressures. So while the numbers might look right I can only say that they are relative to each other and that they may not reflect the actual safe pressure range that the rifle was designed to work within. I can set a baseline to compare against using known military loads. I'll use the military M59 and M80 ball ammo as a basis of comparison since the rifle was actually designed to be used with bullets in this weight range.

From the Army's tech manual TM-43-0001-27 Small Caliber Ammunition Data Sheets.

M59 Ball
46gr of WC846 (used BL-C2 as a supstitute)
150.5gr bullet (used a 150gr Sierra FMJ and modified the length and weight of the bullet to match the military bullet)
2750 FPS muzzle velocity (78 feet from the muzzle)
50,000 PSI chamber pressure

QuickLOAD predicts
2775 FPS Muzzle Velocity
(QuickLOAD's estimate is calculated at the muzzle vs. the military's specification at 78 feet from the muzzle, this is within 1 fps of the corrected velocity that JBM's web site calculated, the corrected velocity is the calculated speed of the military's bullet at the muzzle)
53,144 PSI Chamber Pressure
(which is more realistic, the military used 50,000 PSI for all their cartridges as a default value, it never reflected actual measured values and it was actually a CUP value, not a PSI measurement)
15,291 PSI Port Pressure
(this is the actual estimated pressure, I did not subtract 1,000 PSI)
M80 Ball
46gr of WC846 (used BL-C2 as a supstitute)
146gr bullet (used a 150gr Sierra FMJ and modified the length and weight of the bullet to match the military bullet)
2750 FPS muzzle velocity (78 feet from the muzzle)
50,000 PSI chamber pressure

QuickLOAD predicts
2714 FPS Muzzle Velocity
(QuickLOAD's estimate is calculated at the muzzle vs. the military's specification at 78 feet from the muzzle, this is within 60 fps of the corrected velocity that JBM's web site calculated, the corrected velocity is the calculated speed of the military's bullet at the muzzle)
45,760 PSI Chamber Pressure
(which is more realistic, the military used 50,000 PSI for all their cartridges as a default value, it never reflected actual measured values and it was actually a CUP value, not a PSI measurement)
15,291 PSI Port Pressure
(this is the actual estimated pressure, I did not subtract 1,000 PSI)
These two military loads demonstrate several things.
First, that the military specification of 50,000 PSI is bogus. These two cartridges are specified as having the same amount of powder and case volume but with different bullet weights. There is no way that they could have the same chamber pressure or muzzle velocity, it's a physical impossibility.

Second, at first glance the speeds seem backwards, the same amount of powder in the same sized case and the lighter bullet is going slower, but it's accurate. The lighter bullet used less space inside the case and that means that the powder had more room to expand. The result is less chamber pressure, and less chamber pressure leads to lower muzzle velocity.

Third, the port pressures are the same. This proves that since the same powder was used in both cartridges the pressure/time curve was the same. In other words, since we used the same powder and the same powder charge weight, the pressure at the port was the same regardless of the bullet weight.

Finally, since both port pressures are 15,291 PSI my modification of subtracting 1,000 PSI would put them in the safe port pressure range and since these port pressure numbers are associated to actual military cartridges, I think that my modified pressure values will provide a reasonably accurate way of comparing port pressures.

Sorry for the long winded post but we needed to set some reasonable reference in order to get valid comparisons. And I had to explain how I was doing that so that you wouldn't be misled as to what the numbers meant or how I got them.

So, let the fun begin. What cartridges do you want me to run the numbers for? I assume that the one you already posted is one of them so I'll provide that data first and then wait for your response.

168 Sierra Match King
41.5 gr H4895
IMI case
CCI Br2 primer
2.800" OAL
about 2550fps from 22" barrel

I'm not sure what volume an IMI case has so used 56.0 grains of water. That created a match between the QuickLOAD's estimated muzzle velocity and the one you listed.

QuikLOAD's estimates
2551 fps
47,445 PSI (chamber pressure)
13,639 PSI (port pressure after subtracting 1,000 PSI)

So this load actually has less port pressure than the M80, 146gr load.


Last edited by RAMMAC; May 26th, 2012 at 09:02 PM.
RAMMAC is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 08:54 PM   #9
Lifer
 
charlesPOSTLEwade's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Location: shiloh,il
Posts: 3,624
RAMMAC
I do so enjoy reading your Post. Although and I admit Most of it is well over my Head :)
As far as Reloading Data Goes you are the Man
Thank you

charlesPOSTLEwade is offline  
Old May 26th, 2012, 08:57 PM   #10
Dodgin' The Reaper
 
RAMMAC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Western U.S.
Posts: 7,001

Awards Showcase

Sorry about that, I hate it when I talk over people, I love the technical side of this stuff but when I post it I sure do try to make it understandable.

If you are interested in stuff I've posted and it doesn't make any sense please say so, I'll be more than glad to try to reword things. Sometimes I use a lot more words than were necessary.

RAMMAC is offline  
Old May 27th, 2012, 02:24 PM   #11
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
OK, I don't know if you can use any of this not knowing the powder, but here we go. If you can use or plot anything from this, especially port pressure, please do.

First of all, Reloading manual loads: I looked in the LEE reloading book which is a collection of all published reloading data. I assumed I could just pick a load out of the top of the list that would have a powder and velocity way outside of the Garand system loads. This did not prove to be true. I could pick a velocity that was outside the parameters, but not a powder - the top loads were recommended powders!! I ASSUME that the velocities (for example 150gr bullet to over 2900 fps) came because the pressures of different loads edged into the 60K psi levels. SOOOOO, maybe this whole fight all along has been that the NATO loads are spec'd to cap at about 50K psi, and sporting loads go to 60K??????

Anyway, my loads: Springfield Armory M1A Loaded 22"
Conditions: 93 degrees, 37% humidity, velocity taken at 10 feet

Winchester white box 147gr fmj 1. 2789 2. 2766 3. 2824

Federal TRU 150gr Ballistic Tip 1. 2772 2. 2777 3. 2807

Federal 180gr Power Shok SP 1. 2530 2. 2501 3. 2530

Remington UMC 150gr FMJ 1. 2754 2. 2721 3. 2715

Barrel cooled with water

Federal American Eagle 168gr SMK marked "for M1A" 1. 2564 2. 2569 3. 2599

Federal Gold Medal 7.62X51 175gr SMK 1. 2564 2. 2554 3. 2544

Federal white box 7.62x51 149gr FMJ 1. 2699 2. 2710 3. 2704

Old Winchester 150gr Power Point 1. 2699 2. 2721 3. 2693


NEW GUN: Browning Micro Hunter A-Bolt 20"

Winchester White Box 147gr FMJ (control) 1. 2726 2. 2710 3. 2732

Hornady Light Magnum 165gr BTSP 1. 2645 2. 2688 3. 2682

Hornady Light Magnum 150gr SST 1. 2873 2. 2861 3. 2867

That ought to keep you busy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Thanks from m14nm
vgodenwa is offline  
Old May 27th, 2012, 02:30 PM   #12
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Gloster, MS
Posts: 12
Quote:
Originally Posted by RAMMAC View Post
168 Sierra Match King
41.5 gr H4895
IMI case
CCI Br2 primer
2.800" OAL
about 2550fps from 22" barrel

I'm not sure what volume an IMI case has so used 56.0 grains of water. That created a match between the QuickLOAD's estimated muzzle velocity and the one you listed.

QuikLOAD's estimates
2551 fps
47,445 PSI (chamber pressure)
13,639 PSI (port pressure after subtracting 1,000 PSI)

So this load actually has less port pressure than the M80, 146gr load.

This is to be expected. The load is a standard DCM type load for us to use as a baseline.

vgodenwa is offline  
Old May 27th, 2012, 05:30 PM   #13
Platoon Commander
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: South
Posts: 442
Decades ago an attempt to answer this sort of question was made in the American Rifleman. And their answer is going to be just as disappointing now as then.

It depends.

Port pressure is everything for the dynamics of these rifles. While a M14 system is somewhat self compensating, due to the cutoff feature, the NRA experts could not give a total thumbs up on heavier bullets or slower powders.

The risk is all on you. And basically, I would not experiment. It is your rifle but these are expensive to fix.

The M14 operating rod is much improved over the Garand, it is shorter and much thicker for a couple of things. It is less likely to bend in normal use, but having had an off center guide rod on a rifle that came from Nolan’s shop, I can tell you, the things will bend.

Another issue which will fall out when using inappropriate ammunition is malfunctions. If the bolt is cycling too fast, the rifle will have malfunctions. Maybe failures to feed, maybe other stuff. The 2001 Garand match ammunition was Federal Ammunition loaded to commercial pressures and velocities. The stuff clocked around 2900 fps . Not only where there lots of slamfires, due to soft federal primers, but there were lots of malfunctions. Ones I had not seen before. The retired Marine shooter on my point, his like new Garand jumped the clip in rapid fire. The clip jumped out of the magazine well, before the magazine was empty, and jammed his rifle. The old Devil Dog was so disgusted he pulled it out and tossed it on the ground.

The biggest problem that I can see for using over pressure ammunition in Garands/M1a’s is cracking due to cumulative impacts on the receiver heel . These mechanisms use the receiver heel as a buffer. The bolt rebounds off the receiver heel and it is a impact load. Given enough hard impacts, cracks develop either in the sidewalls or right at the curve of the receiver heel. The receiver sidewalls are not thick enough to have an infinite fatique lifetime. Accelerate that bolt due to over pressure ammunition, well, would you please post the picture so I can have a picture of a cracked M1a receiver?

These are all Garand receivers, the first one cracked due to blank ammunition being fired in the receiver.





This one was on Gunbroker without any explanation.





Greek HXP 69 cracked this receiver.



slamfire1 is offline  
Old May 27th, 2012, 06:12 PM   #14
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO CALIF
Posts: 1,145
I have both a socom and a mini-g (16" barrel garand in 308)... in my search on the "bent oprod" subject one of the main differences between the m14 and the garand is that the gas system of the m14 has a bleed off port whereas the garand does not. Essentially firing the same round in both rifles, the m14 would reduce the pressure as the piston passes the gas port and the garand would not. Installing a Schuster valve in the garand provided some insurance against high pressure loads by providing a means of adjusting the pressure. I am not sure exactly how....its is either by increasing the piston chamber volume or by providing a bleed off port. It's been a while but since I installed the Schuster valve. The net of it is: to install a schuster valve to insurance against high pressure loads in a garand whether in 308 or 30 06 caliber. This is a layperson answer as I understood it when I was investigating buying mini-g.

Mocos is offline  
Old May 27th, 2012, 06:25 PM   #15
Old Salt
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: SAN FRANCISCO CALIF
Posts: 1,145
Quote:
Originally Posted by slamfire1 View Post
Decades ago an attempt to answer this sort of question was made in the American Rifleman. And their answer is going to be just as disappointing now as then.

It depends.

Port pressure is everything for the dynamics of these rifles. While a M14 system is somewhat self compensating, due to the cutoff feature, the NRA experts could not give a total thumbs up on heavier bullets or slower powders.

The risk is all on you. And basically, I would not experiment. It is your rifle but these are expensive to fix.

The M14 operating rod is much improved over the Garand, it is shorter and much thicker for a couple of things. It is less likely to bend in normal use, but having had an off center guide rod on a rifle that came from Nolan’s shop, I can tell you, the things will bend.

Another issue which will fall out when using inappropriate ammunition is malfunctions. If the bolt is cycling too fast, the rifle will have malfunctions. Maybe failures to feed, maybe other stuff. The 2001 Garand match ammunition was Federal Ammunition loaded to commercial pressures and velocities. The stuff clocked around 2900 fps . Not only where there lots of slamfires, due to soft federal primers, but there were lots of malfunctions. Ones I had not seen before. The retired Marine shooter on my point, his like new Garand jumped the clip in rapid fire. The clip jumped out of the magazine well, before the magazine was empty, and jammed his rifle. The old Devil Dog was so disgusted he pulled it out and tossed it on the ground.

The biggest problem that I can see for using over pressure ammunition in Garands/M1a’s is cracking due to cumulative impacts on the receiver heel . These mechanisms use the receiver heel as a buffer. The bolt rebounds off the receiver heel and it is a impact load. Given enough hard impacts, cracks develop either in the sidewalls or right at the curve of the receiver heel. The receiver sidewalls are not thick enough to have an infinite fatique lifetime. Accelerate that bolt due to over pressure ammunition, well, would you please post the picture so I can have a picture of a cracked M1a receiver?

These are all Garand receivers, the first one cracked due to blank ammunition being fired in the receiver.





This one was on Gunbroker without any explanation.





Greek HXP 69 cracked this receiver.


I've read that this is typical when the blank adapter is not used...do you know if an adapter was used in any of the examples shown?

Mocos is offline  
Reply

  M14 Forum > M14 M1A Forum > Ammunition



Search tags for this page
150 grain winchester ballistic tip
,
americanhunter.org/hornady response.
,
americanhunter.org/hornadyreaponds
,
americanhunter.org/hornadyrespondsl
,
americanhunter.org/hornnadyresponds
,

americanrifleman.org/hornadyresponds

,
hornady sst in the m1 garand
,

hornady superformance and bent op rod

,

port pressure h4895 150 smk

,

superformance

,

superformance 7.62x51 load data

,

www.americanrifleman.org/horndyresponds

Click on a term to search for related topics.

Moderator Tools
Display Modes


Similar M14 Forum Discussions
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Two Ammo Vendors Speak-out On Prices & Availability 411man Ammunition 35 January 20th, 2014 04:32 PM
Ammo Box for reloaded ammo question 82nd ABN Ammunition 16 September 21st, 2010 11:01 AM
Spanish Ammo Question Trutracer Ammunition 6 August 26th, 2010 03:18 PM
Dumb Question - Garand Ammo... Quirt Evans Ammunition 5 July 7th, 2008 02:37 PM
newbie intro & ammo question maddie The M14 6 June 13th, 2004 07:00 PM



Top Gun Sites Top Sites List