WCC 45 M2 ball ammo

[colt100]

A friend had a family member pass and he found quite a few M1 garand clips full of ammo and loose assorted 30-06 ammo. The family didn't want the ammo and just wanted to "get rid of it" so my friend grabbed it and gave it to me. He doesn't shoot 30-06 so he has no use for it.

Anyway, he gave me 47 clips of ammo that mostly turned out to be WCC 45 ammo. The story was that the ammo was had been sitting in a basement for decades. Some of the ammo was sticky and corroded and I tumbled and culled the bad rounds. I just got around to pulling the corroded ammo to recover the bullets/powder to load into different cases and to make sure the powder was still good.

Since I was pulling this ammo anyway, I thought that I would weigh the charges to see what charge weights they used in this ammo during war time.

The powder was a short cut extruded powder that looked like IMR 4895. The powder smelled nice and fresh. The bullets had tar like sealant on the base and also in the necks so they did not appear to be reloads.

Here is the powder weights I got:

53.2
53.5
53.5
52.7
52.6
52.2
53.2
53.2
53.0
53.3
53.1
53.3
53.0
52.6

What surprised me was how high the charges were. There is no way I could ever load that high with new powder and not be over max. This lot of powder must have been on the slow side.

I just recently worked up some reloads with IMR 4064, which in my experience, has produced the same velocity as one less gr of 4895. 50 grs of 4064 (or about 49 of 4895) was getting me 2845 FPS at about 10 feet from the muzzle with a 155 gr Nosler CC bullet. I had better results from a lower charge @ 2750 FPS, but worked up to 50 grs to see what velocity/accuracy would be.

I couldn't imagine what several more grs of powder would do so don't try and replicate these loads!

Maybe next week, I'll be able to get out and shoot some of the ammo to see what it is doing velocity wise.

Just thought that I would share what I found.

[George Lingo]

Military surplus 4895 powder from ww2 varied a great deal from lot to lot.The lot used in your ammo was fine ,hoiwever another lot of surplus 4895 may show high pressure with that amount of 4895.I once came across a old American Rifleman magazine form 1949 or 1950 which warned about the various burning rates of Surplus 4895 powder.

[colt100]

Wouldn't a high charge of powder like seen here indicate that this lot was rather slow burning? Possibly slower then IMR 4064?

[joem]

That stuff is most likely corrosive.

[musketshooter]

War powder was bought by the train car load and loading data was established for each lot. Different ammo plants received various lots of powder and charge may vary several grains even though it is techincally 4985.

[colt100]

War powder was bought by the train car load and loading data was established for each lot. Different ammo plants received various lots of powder and charge may vary several grains even though it is techincally 4985.

Yes, but even though it is technically 4895, what I'm getting at is that if such a high charge was required to get the bullet up to M2 specs, wouldn't that indicate that the powder was actually slower burning then todays 4895 or even 4064?

[Tuna]

If it were slower then 4064 it would no longer be 4895. It may be slower then todays 4895 but not by a lot. The load you have is what it took to get to the M2 specs and still have the correct port pressure in an M1.

[colt100]

Well, I having a hard time understanding that such a large powder charge would still be 4895 ( at least at todays standards). My understanding that the more powder (charge weight) that is needed to get the bullet up to spec, the slower burning the powder is. Hence 4064 is slower then 4895 as it takes about a grain (in my experience) to get the same velocity.

Now, with reguard to this post, if some batches of 4895 took from 50 grs to 53 grs of powder to reach velocity, I would conclude that those powders actually have a slower burning rate of todays 4895, maybe something along the lines of . It would be even slower then todays 4064. For my reloaded ammo, it seems that whatever powder fills the case the most is normally more accurate (IMO), hence why I prefer todays 4064 over 4895. I get better results accuracy wise with powders that fill the case to capacity or as much as possibly, generally.

I looked at a burn rate chart and some reloading info for 30-06 and 150's and find that H380 seems to have specs like this powder, 53 grs will yeild about 2800 from the muzzle. Not trying to be a butt head but could you explain why a larger charge of (old stock) 4895 wouldn't have the same burn rate as something like today's H380? I'm haveing a hard time understanding the science behind this.

[Tuna]

It is not the amount of powder in a case that is the measurement you can go by. It is the pressure generated in the chamber and in the M1, the pressure at the port that counts. The burn rate of any powder is different from lot to lot within a set standard for that powder. To get the proper pressure range from lot to lot the powder is tested and the amount of this lot is so many grains to get proper pressures for the M2 ball rounds. Each powder is different from another. Just because H380 may produce the same velosity as IMR 4895 at the same amount of powder the H380 may produce twice the port pressure and that could damage an M1 or it may not produce enough pressure to operate the action. Remember the M2 round was set for the M1 as the standard and all other USGI 30-06 ammo from WW2 onward followed after that.

[colt100]

Ok, so if I'm understanding you right, you can make a powder more bulky and still have the same pressure? If that is the case, why don't they make 4895 in a more bulkier form in order to fill the 30-06 case more completely? I would think that there would be a market for different "bulks" of the same burn rate of powder is some calibers to either be able to use them due to limited case capacity or like in the garand, to be able to more completely fill the case to make ignition more consistent (no primer up or down issues).

I have never heard of being able to change the bulk of a powder and it still have the same burn rate. Most of the time, when you go to a "slower" powder, it is more bulky and a faster powder is less bulky. Hence why I am having a hard time understanding this issue.

I know that some lots of a powder have different burn rates, which to me would indicate that the powder, even if it is 4895, could have similar burn rates of other canister grade powders close to 4895 on the burn rate chart. As long as the powder had a burn rate in the accepted specs in terms of port pressure and chamber pressure (which several powders do), I could understand the lot to lot variation as the powder met specs but might burn like 4064 for example.

In the example of the H380 powder, H380 shows 9700 less PSI at the 53 gr charge then a 50 gr charge of 4895 with the same bullet. The 4895 is pushing the bullet at about 2850 when the H380 is 2789 at the 53 gr charge. The port pressure is most likely higher with the H380 and might not be garand safe but I'm just trying to show a point to how I understand powder burn rates.

I'm just trying to understand.

[emmagee1917]

Nowdays you can do more with the make-up of the coating on the grains to affect burn rates than the difference you could do on size and shapes.
Chris