Tuesday, June 16, 2015

And yet more tests of light stuff. Why?

Because I can.  So there.

Actually, part of this is also because of some oversights in the past on .303, so I put together some more which worked out as follows, all five-shots at 30 yards:
100-gr. SWC, unsized, over 3.2 grains Bullseye, OAL 2.64"

Same load with the bullet sized .314"
I'm calling that lateral spread my fault.  Take that out, really nothing to choose between them.

And that Lyman 115-grain spitzer, unsized, 3.0 Bullseye, OAL 2.73"
That was a surprise two ways.  One, I hadn't expected that smaller-diameter bullet to work well in this rifle.  Two, they would NOT feed from the magazine; they'd hang up just outside the mouth of the chamber.  So need to make one of these with the same OAL as the SWC loads, and see if it will feed; if it will, try five and see if that different length makes a difference.

The other was .30-06, with two differences: this rifle has a scope, and it's a M1 Garand.  Yes, you have to single-load them.  Wanted both to see how they'd shoot in it, and, it having a scope, might remove some of the human error involved in me and iron sights.  So, also five-shot groups at 30 yards,
.30-06, 100-grain SWC, unsized, over 3.2 grains Bullseye,
Not bad at all.  3.2 grains because I'd noticed in the 1903A3 it shot this bullet better with that charge than it did with 3.0.

.30-06, 155-grain spitzer, sized .311, 3.17" OAL
That's downright nice.

And the 160-grain spitzer, sized .311, over 3.0 Bullseye, 2.9" OAL
Also quite nice.

If needs be said, all these- out of the Enfield or M1- had basically zero recoil.  And afterward the bores are nice and shiny.  I'll try to break the M1 down later and look at the gas port(things like this would be a nice use for one of those inexpensive borescopes) to see if any signs of fouling; I doubt there is.

One more thing: I did manage to put a recoil pad on the project rifle, and tried a few rounds; HUGE difference, well worth doing.  I'll have more on that later.

No comments: