-=> Moondog wrote to Weatherman <=-
> -=> Gamgee wrote to Dumas Walker <=-
>
> DW> I think that because I would want one I could shoot without
> DW> worrying about something happening to it, while I also admire
> DW> them for the history element.
>
> Ga> Good points. Just as an FYI, they do make special ammo just for
> Ga> an "original" (or partly original such as one from the CMP), which
> Ga> is slightly less "hot" than current commercial .30-06 ammo. I
> Ga> don't think there are any safety issues with an older one if you
> Ga> are careful to use that type of ammo.
>
> I've read on the interweb that commercial ammo with bullet weights of 150
> grains or less (although Hornady has a 168 grain load that is Garand friendl
> is suitable for feeding to your Garand. I have purchased quite a bit of M2
> equivalent ammo from
http://www.ammogarand.com and had good results with it.
> They are also a good source for bandoleers, en bloc clips, slings and some
> other odds and ends M1.
>
> Regards,
> -==*>Weatherman<*==-
Mo> Bullet weight makes no diffeernce. It's the powder charge that
Mo> determines the
Mo> pressure. 147-150 grain fmj is standard combat bullet, and some
Mo> allied nations produced tons of it at the mil spec "Garand friendly"
Mo> pressure.
I see, so the inertial mass makes no difference in the chamber pressure profile
nor does the bearing surface of the heavier weight bullet. You've an amazing
grasp of physics. Guess all my reloading manuals showing reduced powder loads
for heavier weight bullets are no good and should be thrown out the window. As
I understand it, the issue is not the actual peak chamber pressure, but rather
when it occurs in relati