[Jim Bridger]

We ran test on Garand M1 Rifles in ths 1960s. The last 2 rifles were fired to measure stresses in steel actions. One was a SPFLD and one H&R boih exploded beyond anyrepair. If you exceed the 50,000 PSI pressure's in a Garand pray??

 

[airground]

We ran test on Garand M1 Rifles in ths 1960s. The last 2 rifles were fired to measure stresses in steel actions. One was a SPFLD and one H&R boih exploded beyond anyrepair. If you exceed the 50,000 PSI pressure's in a Garand pray??

Who is "we"?

What were the rifles tested with?

By 50,000 you mean in copper units of pressure.
Which is actually SAAMI spec.


And no... exceeding that isn't recommended...but it has built in safety margins in case there are issues with ammo that exceeds SAAMI spec.

 

[PaleHawkDown]

We ran test on Garand M1 Rifles in ths 1960s. The last 2 rifles were fired to measure stresses in steel actions. One was a SPFLD and one H&R boih exploded beyond anyrepair. If you exceed the 50,000 PSI pressure's in a Garand pray??

You mean using actual "mass produced by the lowest bidder, during war-time, and probably well-used" parts (as opposed to fancy test rigs built with new and inspected like-new parts from a 21st Century, well-lawyered, private company (CMP)) blow up? Say it ain't so? Why, I just heard about a recent test has clearly proved decades of well-noted personal and professional experience debunked.

 

[airground]

You mean using actual "mass produced by the lowest bidder, during war-time, and probably well-used" parts (as opposed to fancy test rigs built with new and inspected like-new parts from a 21st Century, well-lawyered, private company (CMP)) blow up? Say it ain't so? Why, I just heard about a recent test has clearly proved decades of well-noted personal and professional experience debunked.

Test rifle was a CMP "service grade".

Do you have any links to this decades of personal/professional experience that debunks pressure test data?

 

[PowderMonkey]

PaleHawkDown- What is this "conceding my point", that you speak of? Any damned fool would know that M1 and M2 ammunition has historically been used in the M1 Garand, and we won a war....using THIS ammunition. There were NO widespread failures of these ammunition types being used in the M1 Garand. THEREFORE, BY CHARACTERIZING HISTORICAL LOTS OF M1 AND M2 AMMUNITION (and earlier Caliber 30), any damned fool would recognize that we likewise validated that the M1 Garand SYSTEM has digested these pressures over 70 years....admirably. The testing FURTHER validated that "Modern day" 30-06 ammunition of both "hunting" and "M1" type, when manufactured to SAAMI pressures (60,000 psi piezo conformal), fall within the historical variability of witnessed M1 and M2 ammunition pressures...in both chamber and port.

YOU, potentially being LESS than "any damned fool", may not recognize the modern-day measurements and characterizations of these various ammunition lots as being of historical significance, ESPECIALLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE VALIDATION OF THE M1 GARAND FIREARM.

Now, perhaps it's PaleHawkDown's intent to build or find an M-1 Garand of poor provenance? And....you want the assurances from ME that YOU can shoot "modern-day" 30-06 Springfield ammunition in it? Is that your point? Do you want some unequivocal assurances that there's SOME KIND of 30-06 ammunition out there that'll surely shoot safely in ALL "worn-out" M1 Garands? And you seem to think that IF "Ken Johnson" states that a certain ammunition shoots to "SAAMI Standards", but yet....some "worn out" gun can't handle "SAAMI standard" pressures, that "Ken Johnson" should be liable for anything that happens to some poor fool who shoots a "worn out" gun? The logical question to you PaleHawkDown is simple: "What is your spectrum of firearm acceptability? When would YOU define a firearm as safe or unsafe to fire?"

I maintain this: The M1 Garand, as a system, and when "in spec", is a ROBUST firearm. As a system, it'll absolutely feed and fire 30-06 Springfield ammunition, made to SAAMI specifications in dimension and pressure. We know this by witnessing the physical and ballistic characteristics of historical M1 Garand ammunition, ammunition dating fully back to 1927. We ALSO witnessed many lots of modern-day ammunition, produced by SAAMI member companies. When modern day ammunition is manufactured to SAAMI specifications in dimensions and pressure, the internal ballistic characteristics do NOT exceed those witnessed or anticipated in M1 and M2 30-06 Springfield (or Caliber 30) military ammunition. AND....even when pressure is taken to an extreme of acceptability for SAAMI, as with "the blue pill" ammunition, we could not break or damage an M-1 Garand (after 200 rounds). Likewise, all these firearms MUST have fired "Proof Rounds" through them, before being sent into service. The Proof Round, merely from a commercial standpoint, exceeds 78,000 psi. And....as far as I know, EACH M1 Garand issued survived this brutal test. That ought to be proof enough....but perhaps not for you.

 

[PowderMonkey]

We ran test on Garand M1 Rifles in ths 1960s. The last 2 rifles were fired to measure stresses in steel actions. One was a SPFLD and one H&R boih exploded beyond anyrepair. If you exceed the 50,000 PSI pressure's in a Garand pray??

Jim....JIm. Jim. This post of yours is...devoid of any measurable limit... Of any semblance of meaningfulness.....of any scientific or anecdotal value.

You say that you exceeded 50,000 psi, and guns exploded? Mkay.....it's pretty obvious that you don't know BY HOW MUCH you exceeded the 50,000 psi (actually CUP, given that it was in the 1960's....)

Jim- Have you got any other valuable information that you can share? Where did they "explode"? WHAT pressure was utilized? Were these M1 Garands proof-fired before the catastrophic event?

 

[PaleHawkDown]

PaleHawkDown- What is this "conceding my point", that you speak of? Any damned fool would know that M1 and M2 ammunition has historically been used in the M1 Garand, and we won a war....using THIS ammunition. There were NO widespread failures of these ammunition types being used in the M1 Garand. THEREFORE, BY CHARACTERIZING HISTORICAL LOTS OF M1 AND M2 AMMUNITION (and earlier Caliber 30), any damned fool would recognize that we likewise validated that the M1 Garand SYSTEM has digested these pressures over 70 years....admirably. The testing FURTHER validated that "Modern day" 30-06 ammunition of both "hunting" and "M1" type, when manufactured to SAAMI pressures (60,000 psi piezo conformal), fall within the historical variability of witnessed M1 and M2 ammunition pressures...in both chamber and port.

YOU, potentially being LESS than "any damned fool", may not recognize the modern-day measurements and characterizations of these various ammunition lots as being of historical significance, ESPECIALLY FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE VALIDATION OF THE M1 GARAND FIREARM.

Now, perhaps it's PaleHawkDown's intent to build or find an M-1 Garand of poor provenance? And....you want the assurances from ME that YOU can shoot "modern-day" 30-06 Springfield ammunition in it? Is that your point? Do you want some unequivocal assurances that there's SOME KIND of 30-06 ammunition out there that'll surely shoot safely in ALL "worn-out" M1 Garands? And you seem to think that IF "Ken Johnson" states that a certain ammunition shoots to "SAAMI Standards", but yet....some "worn out" gun can't handle "SAAMI standard" pressures, that "Ken Johnson" should be liable for anything that happens to some poor fool who shoots a "worn out" gun? The logical question to you PaleHawkDown is simple: "What is your spectrum of firearm acceptability? When would YOU define a firearm as safe or unsafe to fire?"

I maintain this: The M1 Garand, as a system, and when "in spec", is a ROBUST firearm. As a system, it'll absolutely feed and fire 30-06 Springfield ammunition, made to SAAMI specifications in dimension and pressure. We know this by witnessing the physical and ballistic characteristics of historical M1 Garand ammunition, ammunition dating fully back to 1927. We ALSO witnessed many lots of modern-day ammunition, produced by SAAMI member companies. When modern day ammunition is manufactured to SAAMI specifications in dimensions and pressure, the internal ballistic characteristics do NOT exceed those witnessed or anticipated in M1 and M2 30-06 Springfield (or Caliber 30) military ammunition. AND....even when pressure is taken to an extreme of acceptability for SAAMI, as with "the blue pill" ammunition, we could not break or damage an M-1 Garand (after 200 rounds). Likewise, all these firearms MUST have fired "Proof Rounds" through them, before being sent into service. The Proof Round, merely from a commercial standpoint, exceeds 78,000 psi. And....as far as I know, EACH M1 Garand issued survived this brutal test. That ought to be proof enough....but perhaps not for you.

Look, I already thanked you,l and you already conceeded that you only tested a newly built gun, using parts newly inspectetd from CMP, and therefore have a sample size of barely one for the "Garand" as fielded. You admitted this was a test of ammo to see if it could blow up a sample size of one.

I told you I was done arguing. Now there are multiple of you trolling, getting your panties in a twist, and insulting people.

By the way, thanks for the personal insult, Moderators just love that. It is a shame you result to insults when someone questions your limited, and therefore inconclusive, data. Most of us are adults here, and try not to attack the person.

Does Graf & Sons, or one of your other vendors, know you insult their customers when they ask questions? Never mind, don't answer that as I really do not want to interact with you any more.

 

[airground]

Look, I already thanked you,l and you already conceeded that you only tested a newly built gun, using parts newly inspectetd from CMP, and therefore have a sample size of barely one for the "Garand" as fielded. You admitted this was a test of ammo to see if it could blow up a sample size of one.

I told you I was done arguing. Now there are multiple of you trolling, getting your panties in a twist, and insulting people.

By the way, thanks for the personal insult, Moderators just love that. It is a shame you result to insults when someone questions your limited, and therefore inconclusive, data. Most of us are adults here, and try not to attack the person.

Does Graf & Sons, or one of your other vendors, know you insult their customers when they ask questions? Never mind, don't answer that as I really do not want to interact with you any more.

You certainly like making up crap.

You were already told it was a service grade CMP rifle. NOT a new built rifle.

If you don't understand this then no one can help you.

Basically....

"Stop lying".

 

[PaleHawkDown]

CMP South was literally the next city over from me most of my life. Their employees shop with me, some are related to me, we are members of the same shooting clubs, Lodges and go to the same gun shows.

The CMP is the largest employer of "Gun guys" in this half of the state. Have you ever actually been there? Talked to the gunsmiths?

CMP does not get complete Garands very often, and when they do, they completely tear them apart, inspect them, and replace anything suspect.

Unless you used a "collectors grade" rifle, you essentially tested a new rifle. Rack grade and service grade are usually parts guns, with inspected, and often new/unissued parts. You can call Anniston CMP here, (256) 835-8455 , and ask them yourself since you seem to think everything I say is wrong.

They would be happy to tell you you are incorrect.

In fact, just reading their "Service Grade" specs should give you a clue that it might not be a historical build:
"Service Grade Rifles will show less wear and a better cosmetic appearance than a Field or Rack Grade. Cosmetic condition will be good to very good. Rifle finish may vary, exhibiting normal wear and/or color variation among the metal parts. May have some visible pitting, frosting, or other minor cosmetic deformity on the metal parts. Stock sets may consist of any species of wood (or combination thereof); and could exhibit dents, dings, scratches, and/or structurally insignificant cracks. New production, commercial stock sets may be used, and will likely exhibit signs of wear and prior use. Bores will be bright, and free of any major defect that would be visible to the naked eye. The exterior circumference of the barrel crown may be nicked, dented, or dinged, but such deformity will not extend into the bore. Service Grade muzzles will gauge “3 or less” and the throat erosion will gauge less than 5. A reasonable allowance for gauge tolerances will be afforded.


Manufacturer selection guarantees only that the receiver was produced by the manufacturer listed. The barrel, receiver, and other parts may have been produced by other manufacturers; and may also be of commercial origin with original, re-parkerized, or other commercial finish."


This means that while your rifle MAY contain GI parts, it is just as likely to be a hodgepodge of unissued and new commercial parts. I'm sure when you ordered it, though, you requested, and were granted, all USGI parts. Oh wait, one of your test barrels was commercial, so you didn't even care about this in your testing.


I, sir, am not the one to be found lying here. I did not post the detailess, inconclusive "study". I didn't try to convince people to blow up their guns. I have not insulted you, or the intelligence or honesty of anyone on this forum. Also note, this is your second personal insult against me.

Mr. Bridger privately sent me his "study" and there were the usual things that one would expect to see in a study: multiple guns, controls, and testing parameters, for example. I hope he will post it here, but sadly, most on this forum have less of a tolerance for dealing with people like you on here.

 

[PowderMonkey]

PaleHawkDown- I am TRULY trying to understand your point of view. It seems to me, your following statement MAY shed light (to me) on your point of view:

"Look, I already thanked you,l and you already conceeded that you only tested a newly built gun, using parts newly inspectetd from CMP, and therefore have a sample size of barely one for the "Garand" as fielded. You admitted this was a test of ammo to see if it could blow up a sample size of one."

So, it seems that you believe my entire study was to attempt to destroy an M-1 Garand (my SINGLE M-1 Garand). And being that I DIDN'T destroy a sample size of "1-firearm", you feel I therefore mistakenly state that the M1 Garand system is capable of handling SAAMI "modern day" pressures. Stated another way (me attempting to understand your point of view...), you feel that had I used controls/parameters, etc on a spectrum of RIFLES in various conditions, and fired SAAMI "modern day pressures" through that broad array of firearms, THEN.....my test would have been more valid in your eyes. Am I at least on the correct path with your objection to my study?

Truly....I'm offering an olive branch. This is not some kind of trickery on my part. Please, if you don't mind, reply?

 

[airground]

CMP South was literally the next city over from me most of my life. Their employees shop with me, some are related to me, we are members of the same shooting clubs, Lodges and go to the same gun shows.

The CMP is the largest employer of "Gun guys" in this half of the state. Have you ever actually been there? Talked to the gunsmiths?

CMP does not get complete Garands very often, and when they do, they completely tear them apart, inspect them, and replace anything suspect.

Unless you used a "collectors grade" rifle, you essentially tested a new rifle. Rack grade and service grade are usually parts guns, with inspected, and often new/unissued parts. You can call Anniston CMP here, (256) 835-8455 , and ask them yourself since you seem to think everything I say is wrong.

They would be happy to tell you you are incorrect.

In fact, just reading their "Service Grade" specs should give you a clue that it might not be a historical build:
"Service Grade Rifles will show less wear and a better cosmetic appearance than a Field or Rack Grade. Cosmetic condition will be good to very good. Rifle finish may vary, exhibiting normal wear and/or color variation among the metal parts. May have some visible pitting, frosting, or other minor cosmetic deformity on the metal parts. Stock sets may consist of any species of wood (or combination thereof); and could exhibit dents, dings, scratches, and/or structurally insignificant cracks. New production, commercial stock sets may be used, and will likely exhibit signs of wear and prior use. Bores will be bright, and free of any major defect that would be visible to the naked eye. The exterior circumference of the barrel crown may be nicked, dented, or dinged, but such deformity will not extend into the bore. Service Grade muzzles will gauge “3 or less” and the throat erosion will gauge less than 5. A reasonable allowance for gauge tolerances will be afforded.


Manufacturer selection guarantees only that the receiver was produced by the manufacturer listed. The barrel, receiver, and other parts may have been produced by other manufacturers; and may also be of commercial origin with original, re-parkerized, or other commercial finish."


This means that while your rifle MAY contain GI parts, it is just as likely to be a hodgepodge of unissued and new commercial parts. I'm sure when you ordered it, though, you requested, and were granted, all USGI parts. Oh wait, one of your test barrels was commercial, so you didn't even care about this in your testing.


I, sir, am not the one to be found lying here. I did not post the detailess, inconclusive "study". I didn't try to convince people to blow up their guns. I have not insulted you, or the intelligence or honesty of anyone on this forum. Also note, this is your second personal insult against me.

Mr. Bridger privately sent me his "study" and there were the usual things that one would expect to see in a study: multiple guns, controls, and testing parameters, for example. I hope he will post it here, but sadly, most on this forum have less of a tolerance for dealing with people like you on here.

Would you care for me to (again) tell you where you are incorrect in this post? I've been a GCA member nearly 25 years now and I DO know how the CMP works and YES they USUALLY get complete rifles...OFTEN.

Your continued insistence we used a brand new built rifle from the CMP is inaccurate and you have repeatedly been told so. The only thing NEW in the rifle is the oprod spring and a fresh coat of grease in the required locations. Other than that is a USGI rifle with used parts. It is not NEW in any way shape or form. It passes all USGI gages and is 100% in spec and serviceable for issue to troops if needed.

I don't need to call Anniston for anything as I am fully aware how they operate there.

 

[chrisleete1]

I'm going to stick with surplus ball and new PPU made for the Garand. My SAKO is much better suited for huntingt and the ammunition loaded for hunting, and is certainly much more accurate.

 

[PaleHawkDown]

Would you care for me to (again) tell you where you are incorrect in this post? I've been a GCA member nearly 25 years now and I DO know how the CMP works and YES they USUALLY get complete rifles...OFTEN.

Your continued insistence we used a brand new built rifle from the CMP is inaccurate and you have repeatedly been told so. The only thing NEW in the rifle is the oprod spring and a fresh coat of grease in the required locations. Other than that is a USGI rifle with used parts. It is not NEW in any way shape or form. It passes all USGI gages and is 100% in spec and serviceable for issue to troops if needed.

I don't need to call Anniston for anything as I am fully aware how they operate there.

 

[airground]

View attachment 207821

And now you have resorted to childish meme responses since you are unable to have a rational conversation like an adult. Especially when your errors were pointed out to you.

 

[PaleHawkDown]

Well, an adult conversation sailed when you started insulting people and acting like a petulant brat when your errors were pointed out, and then trying to shift blame and discredit other people without addressing your "study"s flaws.

Since you have proven that your only response will be to deflect, insult, and provide no value to a conversation, and you argue against a person who has cited sources by effectively saying "nuh uh, I'm smarter", you deserve nothing more than silly memes. Grow up and,

 

[airground]

Well, an adult conversation sailed when you started insulting people and acting like a petulant brat when your errors were pointed out, and then trying to shift blame and discredit other people without addressing your "study"s flaws.

Since you have proven that your only response will be to deflect, insult, and provide no value to a conversation, and you argue against a person who has cited sources by effectively saying "nuh uh, I'm smarter", you deserve nothing more than silly memes. Grow up and,

View attachment 207824

You haven't pointed out any errors and you were even corrected by me and my partner regarding the testing process.

Matter of fact I'll address your incorrect claims about the garand in another thread tonight.

 

[Ranger4]

Just for grins let's talk about what is an expert opinion or expert study on technical matters. In a court, federal or state, an expert may introduce a scientific study into evidence if certain conditions are met. One of those conditions is that the study has been peer reviewed. We have all heard that term, what does it mean with respect to a document purporting to prove something scientifically. It means everything. That study must at a minimum be reviewed in all aspects and agreed upon by other scientific organizations involved in the same science.

I have studied extensively in some areas, and I have testified in federal courts as an expert in some areas. That is based upon certain education, experience and training. But if I want to use the data or experiments that I have performed as an expert document, that document must be rigidly analyzed to see if it is flawed in anyway.

Before my details of a study could even be considered by a court or a jury, that research in it's entirety must be peer reviewed and that is the missing link in this short study presented.

Federal Courts have ruled that peer review or the study methodology must meet the Daubert standard, the name of the case that created that standard. Others have already stated this. But it seems to have gone over people's head who do not understand what is accepted as fact and what some new report claims to be fact, that is not difficult. Most people thought the earth was flat until some new guys proved it was not. The new guys, Johnson claims to have a SAAMI affiliated lab, please provide a link from SAAMI showing their affiliation. But it really has nothing to do with SAMMI, they do not establish the parameters of any particular firearm design.

Nobody on this forum appears to have recognized this Mr Johnson as a ballistician but it does not matter. His work is presented as scientific on a subject that has differing opinions by others dealing with the same scientfic issue. One might postulate, that there is an old wives tale that commercial ammunition is perfectly fine to fire in vintage M1 Garands, others might postulate to the opposite. Johnson says the old wives tales is that it is unsafe.

Then there is the CPM, the guys whose duty is to rebuild and dispose of them for collectors and shooters. They are the governmental authority on items within their control. Government agencies are often wrong. But a common rule of law is very simple. Agency rules and policies and positions on any matter are presumed valid and correct under the law until a court court says they are wrong.

SAAMI for example is just a club made up of members of companies that invent, produce and sell ammo. Their members just come up with standards that promote uniformity and safety.

That said, if CPM says it is unsafe to fire commercial ammo in a vintage Garand, and SAMMI says it is safe, who is correct? By law in a court of law, CPM wins. But then again science could go either way and change that validity.

So, along comes this Mr. Johnson presents his proposed ballistics testing to support his belief that all commercial 30-06 labelled ammo is safe in vintage Garands.

His charts are instantly suspect from my own database. Simple things, like is this PSI or CUP. Every chart must be labeled.
What was the elevation and the temperature? And most important, were all such rounds fired at the same temperature?

Where are the drawings and specs of the test chambers and barrels, he states they were SAAMI approved but no drawing and no certification by the barrel maker.

How much lead was cut into the test barrel chamber?

So this document to be considered credible must first pass the Daubert methodology standard. This is critical to whether the ballistic data is accepted in courts of law or in the community of ballistic science.

The weakness I see in this report is it is just that, two guys tested a bunch of ammo in a test project Garand and compiled a loose but long list of data. The problem is they postulate is that commercial 30-06 ammo is safe to shoot in vintage M1 Garands.

The problem here is the data is data, it is never been peer reviewed and accepted as valid by other scientific groups. Until he obtains the approval of established ballistic labs, his study is not valid and his premise is unproven. Simple as that. Creating a thread on a forum and hawking his data is great. But please have the courtesy to recognize that is proves nothing to the world at large. No court anywhere would take the data and words presented here as evidence of anything, no court would even look at it, because without peer review it does not meet the most basic level of scientific validity and reliability.

So, it is a nice start if he has closely documented things like the temperature and elevation of his testing and has calibrating his measurement devices. Saying he is using SAAMI specs really does not matter, as long as his procedure is correct.

For a 5 year period I taught at a university both undergraduate and graduate courses. An assigned project is not complete, until it is complete. Peer review is the minimal approval. Until Mr. Johnson reaches out to established scientific organizations or publications and obtains approval that is testing was done in a manner accepted in the industry to prove his theory, it is just that. In incomplete research project.

Maybe said a simpler way, you cannot prove a scientific fact by self certification. Data is data, data is not proof. Peer review or acceptance by expert ballistics labs, is what would make this data valid.

Arguing about some unknown new lab's work does not prove anything. Ironically, the guy said he was going to write a book on the subject but did not. If he had written a book proclaiming the same theory and included his data into that book, he might could have gained acceptance into the ballistic community who might have approved his work and it time it might have gained de-facto acceptance of validity. There is a legal way for that to happen.

But as it stands, this data and your arguments prove only one thing. You believe his data proves that his report proves the CPM recommendations are just an old wives tail. That does not prove anything to anyone else, just talk and argument.

And in the big scheme of things nobody really cares.

 

[airground]

His charts are instantly suspect from my own database. Simple things, like is this PSI or CUP. Every chart must be labeled.
What was the elevation and the temperature? And most important, were all such rounds fired at the same temperature?

Where are the drawings and specs of the test chambers and barrels, he states they were SAAMI approved but no drawing and no certification by the barrel maker.

How much lead was cut into the test barrel chamber?

The weakness I see in this report is it is just that, two guys tested a bunch of ammo in a test project Garand and compiled a loose but long list of data. The problem is they postulate is that commercial 30-06 ammo is safe to shoot in vintage M1 Garands.

The problem here is the data is data, it is never been peer reviewed and accepted as valid by other scientific groups. Until he obtains the approval of established ballistic labs, his study is not valid and his premise is unproven. Simple as that. Creating a thread on a forum and hawking his data is great. But please have the courtesy to recognize that is proves nothing to the world at large. No court anywhere would take the data and words presented here as evidence of anything, no court would even look at it, because without peer review it does not meet the most basic level of scientific validity and reliability.

So, it is a nice start if he has closely documented things like the temperature and elevation of his testing and has calibrating his measurement devices. Saying he is using SAAMI specs really does not matter, as long as his procedure is correct.

For a 5 year period I taught at a university both undergraduate and graduate courses. An assigned project is not complete, until it is complete. Peer review is the minimal approval. Until Mr. Johnson reaches out to established scientific organizations or publications and obtains approval that is testing was done in a manner accepted in the industry to prove his theory, it is just that. In incomplete research project.

Maybe said a simpler way, you cannot prove a scientific fact by self certification. Data is data, data is not proof. Peer review or acceptance by expert ballistics labs, is what would make this data valid.

Arguing about some unknown new lab's work does not prove anything. Ironically, the guy said he was going to write a book on the subject but did not. If he had written a book proclaiming the same theory and included his data into that book, he might could have gained acceptance into the ballistic community who might have approved his work and it time it might have gained de-facto acceptance of validity. There is a legal way for that to happen.

But as it stands, this data and your arguments prove only one thing. You believe his data proves that his report proves the CPM recommendations are just an old wives tail. That does not prove anything to anyone else, just talk and argument.

And in the big scheme of things nobody really cares.

Without hitting everyone of your comments point by point...(mainly because the answers are already provided if you go back and read from the beginning.) I'll just answer a few thigs.

The book hasn't been written because some people (like us) have jobs and then we test in our free time. Will the book get written...someday. That's why Ken said he reluctantly is releasing the raw data now instead of waiting who knows how long on the book.

Next you keep spouting off about govt agencies are presumed correct.

One problem with that is the Civilian Marksmanship Program is not a govt. agency they are civilian.
Secondly for you to be as educated as you claim , you are still saying "CPM" and I know I have corrected you at least once on that already. For you to continuously mislabel them makes me question your actual experience with them and/or garands. Since you are posting here I guess I'm doing what you stated and am "peer reviewing" your claims. So far they are not being well substantiated.

You are the second poster to claim you have done "tests" (Jim Bridger) or have a "database" of info which puts these test in question.
Yet neither one of you have presented such data...even when asked... (Jim)

So to get this thread on track....do YOU or any other poster have DATA that supports YOUR claim?


Finally, you sure type a lot for someone who doesn't really care. But several posters here already said thanks so that proves another thing you said wrong...as they do..."care".

SO...seriously ask legit questions or provide legit data that supports your claims we all would appreciate it.

 

[Jim Bridger]

The progress in ammunition development and the Garand steel are in conflict on this forum. You may choose your path?

 

[airground]

The progress in ammunition development and the Garand steel are in conflict on this forum. You may choose your path?

Tell you what Jim...

This topic is on ammo...so begin your ammo discussion and you maybe start a new topic based on garand steel so we don't muddy the waters.