In order to participate in the GunBroker Member forums, you must be logged in with your GunBroker.com account. Click the sign-in button at the top right of the forums page to get connected.
military loads
badlandsbutch
Member Posts: 188 ✭✭✭
Does anyone have a copy of an old American Rifleman article titled "Military Shoot alikes"? or any load data to duplicate military loads. 5.56, 7.62, 0'6, .45, 9mm, .30 carbine.
Comments
.
M193 ball(55 gr FMJ) came out of an M16A1 @ 3250 FPS.
I have used 26 grs of IMR4895 to duplicate this load. In Winchester brass this is a pretty hot load. If you used Milsurp brass reduce that a little and work up. There is plenty of brass there to handle a hot load.
M855 (62 gr FMJ, AP?) This is pushed from a standard M16A2 @3100 FPS.
I haven't attempted to duplicate this load.
Not sure of the nomenclature but 68-69Gr. match ammunition is allowed and loaded to 3000 FPS from an M16A2. To duplicate this load I use 24.5 or 25 gr. of 4895.
M80 Ball(7.62 Nato) as fired from an M-14(M1A Springfield) is listed as a 147 FMJ pushed out to 2800 FPS. (Other NATO specs allow 144 and 146 gr. projectiles). I have chrono'd several varieties of NATO ammo through my CETME and gotten mid-27's to just over 2800
To duplicate this I used 50 gr. of 4350 or 45gr. of 4895. Many other loads will get you in the ballpark.
note: I duplicated this with a 24" bolt action rifle, I don't reload for the CETME (20" barrel).
M118 Special ball- 173 gr. bullet pushed out to 2550 from a bolt action M40 or M24 rifle. I have used 42 gr. of 4895 and 42 gr. of Varget ( a little fast) and 44 gr. of VV-N140 and 48 gr. of W760 to duplicate this load.
30-06(7.62X63 NATO)
For WWII, velocities had to be restricted so that it could work in the M1 Garand, but remember consistency is more important than velocity. It's not a big push to duplicate this.
M2 ball, 150 gr. FMJ. pushed from an M1 Garand at 2750 FPS. I have duplicated this load using 47 grs. IMR 4894 and 55 grs. of IMR4350. Both of these are on the low end of what a 30-06 will do but functionality is paramount in combat.
Critical note: I duplicated this with a 22" barreled bolt action rifle Not an M1 rifle. You must use a load of fast to medium burning powder for use in an M1 Rifle.
For the 45 ACP:
The standard load as I have known it is a 230 gr. FMJ pushed out to 830 FPS. To duplicate that I use 5 grs. of Bullseye. I haven't used Unique but people tell me they get great results using it also.
We returned to the .45 caliber after the disastrous attempt at keeping pistol weight and recoil down when we went to the .38(.355 or 9mm by any other name). What was found in the Philipines was that a .38 does not stop someone like the .45 will.
Now for the crappy rounds.
9mm -Cheesy little buyoff by someone in Congress that felt we needed to make THE SAME mistake we made 110 years ago at the expense of U.S. Servicemans lives.
A 110 gr. bullet pushed out to 1300 FPS...(thats if your wonderful P.O.S. Berretta slide doesn't come flying back at you). I don't reload this round and can't(won't bother)to duplicate it.
30 Carbine.-never reloaded for it and it doesn't matter. The weapon and round are inneffective past 50 meters....if your rifle shoots accurately beyond that good for you. You'd be better off with a baseball sized rock...I read that in an Army manual somewhere.
Hope the information I could give helped -Good luck
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
You are correct that it was never written in a manual. That is a sarcastic remark to keep someone looking forever about how to shoot an M-1 Carbine better. Read or practice it isn't going to happen. I was just going off on the decision to 1. accept the M-1 carbine as a leaders weapon. and 2. accept the 9mm in place of the .45 ACP. Ordnance-wise I think these were two huge mistakes that we have made in our military history.
The M-1 carbine never materialized into what it was idealized for. The round doesn't have the power and the rifle never had any kind of usable accuracy. It might be able to keep the enemy's head down long enough for you to run to the rear and grab a real weapon. It is only a collectors item because it served in WWII not because it was outstanding. The ones I've shot weigh nearly as much as a composite stocked M-14....with about 1/10th of the accuracy and even less range. Granted the rounds are lighter. I stand corrected about the M-1 Carbine...you would need a medium sized pile of baseball sized rocks to be more effective than with one. I'll stand by my guns, you can stand with this one.
When I went to Grenada in 1983 and in all the times I trained with 9mm I used 110 gr. round nose bullets pushed at 1300 fps. The standard load you speak of using 124 grs. may be the standard today but not when I was in. As the 9mm was being tested many reports were coming back from training areas about the slide stop breaking and the slide coming back at the shooter. This was happening with the intended load of that time. This was happening when a full magazine was shot through the pistol in rapid fire. Browning had a much more usable Hi-power model as did Ruger. But we didn't go with American made( Browning to be made in Utah). Granted, if you could use expanding LE rounds the 9mm would be more effective, but you can't. We are limited by the Hague Convention treaty that we signed in 1907(not the one in 1899, we didn't sign it) that says we wouldn't use bullets that could cause undue suffering. Remember, the use of a pistol is a last ditch effort to stop the enemy. A .355 bullet doesn't do that at lower velocities. A .45 will do it clear down to 450 fps. My point was we had a very good pistol platform to use and why we went back to something that failed 110 years ago and then gave us no clear advantage to the one in place is beyond me. We got no weight savings we got reduced stopping power so that now we have to teach our pistol shooters to focus on and hit their target twice. Again, I will stand by my gun choices and you can stand by yours. I know that when our people went in the caves at Bora Bora they were horsetrading like hell to get a .45 and dump their 9mms. That's the rest of my story.
I don't like the 9mm as a miltary weapon nor the .30 cal carbine. While they have both served I don't think either did with distinction. And to say they do well is not the truth.
I certainly hope too that it is no secret about me that having served in a frontline combat unit that I will always feel concerned that we give our troops, all of them, the best equipment we can. "Heroizing" a piece of equipment that had serious deficiencies leads our 'future designers' to think we had something good when we didn't. That may be a base reason why I am so adamantly against saying the M-1 carbine or the return to the 9mm are good choices.
-thank you for your responses though.
We have the second amendment so that all the rest are secure....UNK>
Another problem is the bullet shape/MV/weight, it really makes ricochet a dangerous problem. It has enough energy to travel a long way after bouncing off a semi-hard surface. But not enough to self distruct the bullet when hitting it. You now have a deformed projectile flying off to who knows where and who know how far to contend with.
I have a fairly complete list of military loads for most of the cartridges that the modern U.S. forces have shot. It is in an Excel file if your computer can handle that. Let me know by *e-mail* and I'll send it off. These files don't lend themselves to posting with this forum software and nothing lines up right.
Best.