Varget for the Garand?

[Ironbutt]

A few weeks ago I read in CMP's reloading section that some members had good luck using Varget for the Garand. Their site's been down for a couple days, so I can't find it now.

IMR 4895 is considered the first choice, but I always keep Varget on hand for the 223 & 308, so I'd like to use that if possible. The common consensus is to use 4895 or slower burning powders for the Garand, at a 1-2 grain reduced load to keep from bending the op rod.

I'm thinking 45-46 grains of Varget with Sierra 168 HPBT should work.

[mike_556]

I've never tried Varget for the Garand--I always stick with safe loads with 4895 as I don't want to chance bending the op-rod---it's not worth it to me...Unless those guys are using adjustable Schuster plugs??

[jumbopanda]

My roommate reloads for his Garand using 46gr (if I remember correctly) of Varget with a 150gr bullet.

[Ironbutt]

I've never tried Varget for the Garand--I always stick with safe loads with 4895 as I don't want to chance bending the op-rod---it's not worth it to me...Unless those guys are using adjustable Schuster plugs??

Yeah, what the hell! I'll just bite the bullet & get some 4895 & be done with it.

[mike_556]

Yeah, what the hell! I'll just bite the bullet & get some 4895 & be done with it.

Reminds me I've got to get some more IMR 4895:( Used the last of it last night and have only some pulldown 4895 left......

[PatEgan]

I wouldn't bother with anything else but 4895 or 4064.
Pat

[rdc0000]

Everyone is saying Varget is safe for an M1. You might want to take a look at

http://www.loaddata.com/members/search_detail.cfm?MetallicID=1697

Also, a quick phone call to Hodgdon will tell. Burn chart for your reference

87 Hodgdon H4895
88 VihtaVuori N530
89 IMR, Co IMR 4895
90 VihtaVuori N135
91 Alliant Reloder 12
92 Accurate Arms 2495BR
93 IMR, Co IMR 4064
94 NORMA 202
95 Accurate Arms 4064
96 Accurate Arms 2520
97 Alliant Reloder 15
98 VihtaVuori N140
99 Hodgdon VARGET
100 IMR, Co IMR 4320
101 Winchester 748
102 Hodgdon BL-C(2)

[762xIan]

4895 or 4064 are your best bets, I know it's a pain, I also wish there was ONE POWDER that worked in everything.:(

That being said, I have used Varget for my Garands in the past with no ill effects. The general consensus is about half the folks say its OK, the other half saying not worth the risk and you may be giving up some accuracy to "make it" work.

The Hornady handbook does have a section specifically for Garand reloading and has Varget listed as a powder for many loads for their bullets from 150-178 grains.

I pretty much stick to 4895 myself anymore.

[spdldr]

A few weeks ago I read in CMP's reloading section that some members had good luck using Varget for the Garand. Their site's been down for a couple days, so I can't find it now.

IMR 4895 is considered the first choice, but I always keep Varget on hand for the 223 & 308, so I'd like to use that if possible. The common consensus is to use 4895 or slower burning powders for the Garand, at a 1-2 grain reduced load to keep from bending the op rod.

I'm thinking 45-46 grains of Varget with Sierra 168 HPBT should work.

You should not use a very slow burning powder such as 4831 because it has been known to break the rear of the receiver.

[kettle]

This is about the most concise explanation of powder selection for reloading .30-06 for the Garand I’ve found.

I got it here: http://parallaxscurioandrelicfirearmsforums.yuku.com/topic/34007 a little more than half way down.

One of the problems with the internet is that erroneous or incomplete information sometimes gets circulated and accepted to the point that it overpowers the truth.

In the case of M1 rifle port pressure, the erroneous information is that port pressure is primarily related to powder burning rate and bullet weight. The truth is that these are merely secondary factors. M1 port pressure is most closely related to gas volume, which is directly related to powder charge weight. Burning rate and bullet weight of course have a direct influence on PEAK pressure, but this occurs long before the bullet gets to the gas port.

With light bullets, we normally use faster powders for best performance since the relative ease with which the bullet starts to move means we can use a fairly large charge of fast powder without excessive peak pressure. With heavy bullets that take longer to accelerate, charge tables tell us the slower powders will give the highest velocity with the lowest peak pressure.

The M1 rifle's gas system was designed for the port pressures generated by the volume of gas produced by a charge of about 44 to 50 grains of powder behind a 173-grain bullet at 2640 fps (M1 Ball). It also happened to work just fine with about the same charge using 150-grain bullets at about 2800 fps (M2 Ball). The burning rate that gives these velocities to these bullets is about that we find in IMR 4895 and 4064. If we use a slower powder, say 4350, we find the appropriate charge for these velocities is heavier - about 55 grains for the 173 and 58 for the 150. Such heavier charges naturally generate a larger volume of gas, but at a slower rate that keeps peak pressure in normal limits. Given that the volume of the cartridge case and bore (up to the gas port) is a fixed quantity, the larger volume of gas necessarily translates to higher pressure at the gas port.

Conversely, if we stick with 4895 but change to a 110-grain bullet, we can stuff in some 54 grains of powder at normal pressure, for a much higher velocity. Again, the heavier charge generates more volume of gas and gives high port pressure. With 200-grain bullets, on the other hand, we can get good performance with 45-50 grain charges of slightly slower powders like 4320 or 4350, giving the same gas volume and consequently appropriate port pressure.

A lot of people who haven't well understood the role of gas volume have focused on burning rate or bullet weight instead - and that's what gets them into logical difficulty. It's very true that an optimum load of the slow powders with 150-180 grain bullets will give excessive M1 port pressure, and also true that the usual best bolt-gun loads of the really slow numbers (like 4831) with 200+ grain bullets will also give excess port pressure. What's missing in the logic is that it's neither the powder burning rate nor the bullet weight that's the problem's root cause - but rather the charge weight (mass, to be more accurate) and consequent gas volume.

It's unfortunate this mistaken (or just incomplete) logic has been so widely publicized, since knowing the whole story really makes powder selection much easier. Regardless of bullet weight, powder charges below 50 grains will generally give appropriate M1 port pressure (or less). Between 50 and 52 grains is marginal. Over 52 grains risks damage to the operating rod. Of course powders must be chosen that will also yield acceptable peak pressure and velocity. (50 grains of 4227 will still make a mess - thanks to excessive peak pressure - but the port pressure would be near normal.)

There are certainly exceptions to this basic rule. Different powder compositions give off different volumes of gas for a given charge weight. But if we stick to the commonly-available rifle powders now on the market, there is surprisingly little variation in the mass/gas relationship and we're not likely to get in trouble with excess port pressure if we choose a published load using less than 50 grains of a powder that gives acceptable performance with our chosen bullet weight.

I urge anyone finding this concept difficult to stick to their existing guidelines. After all, there's little to be lost by limiting one's bullet and powder choices to the accepted standards - 150-180 grain bullets and powders close to 4895's burning rate.