Krag Collectors Association Forum Archive
General >> Ammunition, reloading, shooting, etc >> Summary on W.A. .30
http://www.kragcollectorsassociation.org/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?num=1559934187

Message started by butlersrangers on Jun 7th, 2019 at 7:03pm

Title: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 7th, 2019 at 7:03pm
"Whistler and Aspinwall .30" was produced for use by Frankford Arsenal beginning in 1895.

W-A .30 became available commercially in 1898.

Hercules discontinued W-A .30 in 1930.

Although, other early 'smokeless' propellants were utilized in the evolution of the .30-40 (.30 Army) cartridge and in some government SAW ammunition contracts, W-A .30 was the 'work horse' propellant, during the pre-WW1 Krag era.

Circa 1900 graphic displays application of various Laflin & Rand Propellants.

1898 graphic totes use in Krag.
LnR1.jpg ( 167 KB | 0 Downloads )
LnR6a.jpg ( 107 KB | 0 Downloads )
LnR6b.jpg ( 180 KB | 0 Downloads )

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 7th, 2019 at 8:07pm
Three U.S. Patents, applied for in October, 1894, and granted to Whistler and Aspinwall in July, 1895.
WA_patent_909.jpg ( 261 KB | 0 Downloads )
WA_patent_910.jpg ( 358 KB | 0 Downloads )
WA_patent_910b.jpg ( 114 KB | 0 Downloads )
WA_patent_911.jpg ( 259 KB | 0 Downloads )

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 7th, 2019 at 11:27pm
'AFJuvat' kindly posted this link on another thread.

It takes you to a wonderful history of Laflin & Rand and the complicated relationships of our early 'smokeless' powder manufacturers.

Mr. Klaus Neuschaefer, the author, was very comprehensive and utilized great graphics.

  (You need to Login

A sample:
LnR5.jpg ( 86 KB | 0 Downloads )

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by psteinmayer on Jun 8th, 2019 at 2:32pm
Fascinating!  I'd be interested in knowing how Laflin & Rand transitioned through the years to other companies, and what became of the original W-A 30 (we know that IMR-4350 is as close as you can get now).

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Parashooter on Jun 8th, 2019 at 6:22pm

psteinmayer wrote on Jun 8th, 2019 at 2:32pm:
Fascinating!  I'd be interested in knowing how Laflin & Rand transitioned through the years to other companies, and what became of the original W-A 30 (we know that IMR-4350 is as close as you can get now).

I am dubious about the alleged near-equivalency of IMR4350 to W-A 30 for the basic reason that the normal charge of 34 grains* of the latter for an MV of ~2000fps in the Krag 30" rifle is significantly lighter than we need for the same velocity with 4350. The 34 grain charge indicates the burning rate of W-A 30 is closer to that found in today's IMR4895.

Data from Sierra manual -
.308 220 gr. RN
Cartridge OAL: 3.000"
Krag carbine, 22" barrel [so 1900 fps is equivalent to ~2000 fps in 30" rifle]

M.Vel - - - - - 1800 - - 1900      
IMR-3031      31.5      33.1
IMR-4895      32.0      34.1
IMR-4064      34.3      36.0      
IMR-4320      33.3      35.3      
IMR-4350      38.2      40.2
IMR-4831      40.1      42.3

* Source for 34-grain charge is reply #1 here -   (You need to Login

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 8th, 2019 at 6:36pm
Thanks, 'Parashooter'!

Any figures on chamber pressures with IMR-4895 and 220 grain projectiles?

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Parashooter on Jun 8th, 2019 at 7:00pm

butlersrangers wrote on Jun 8th, 2019 at 6:36pm:
. . . Any figures on chamber pressures with IMR-4895 and 220 grain projectiles?

No pressures from Sierra manual (testing done in 22" Krag, no pressure gun).

QuickLOAD gives estimates (in CIP piezo psi) -

Cartridge          : .30-40 Krag
Bullet             : .308, 220, Woodleigh FMJ 65
Cartridge O.A.L. L6: 3.089 inch or 78.46 mm
Barrel Length      : 22.0 inch or 558.8 mm
Powder             : IMR 4895

Predicted data by increasing and decreasing the given charge,
incremented in steps of 2.941% of nominal charge.
CAUTION: Figures exceed maximum and minimum recommended loads !

Step    Fill. Charge   Vel.  Energy   Pmax   Pmuz  Prop.Burnt B_Time
%       %    Grains   fps   ft.lbs    psi    psi      %        ms

-11.8   72    30.00   1837    1649   27694   6150     95.8    1.682
-08.8   75    31.00   1891    1747   29864   6369     96.8    1.631
-05.9   77    32.00   1945    1848   32192   6574     97.7    1.582
-02.9   80    33.00   1998    1950   34686   6765     98.5    1.535
+00.0   82    34.00   2051    2055   37364   6940     99.1    1.489

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Mike4MSU on Jun 8th, 2019 at 7:07pm
According to the 50th Lyman, there’s the following data on IMR4895:
F41E4F71-5DD4-455D-9D6E-CFA9D04E1678.jpeg ( 683 KB | 1 Download )

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Mike4MSU on Jun 8th, 2019 at 7:42pm
And here’s the Hornady 9th edition. While it doesn’t have IMR 4895, I do fin it interesting that it has very different Max loads for IMR 4350.
92A69323-A2B1-4156-B5FC-001DD2E88AB1.jpeg ( 636 KB | 3 Downloads )

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by psteinmayer on Jun 8th, 2019 at 11:01pm

Parashooter wrote on Jun 8th, 2019 at 6:22pm:
I am dubious about the alleged near-equivalency of IMR4350 to W-A 30 for the basic reason that the normal charge of 34 grains* of the latter for an MV of ~2000fps in the Krag 30" rifle is significantly lighter than we need for the same velocity with 4350. The 34 grain charge indicates the burning rate of W-A 30 is closer to that found in today's IMR4895.


Fascinating... because I've always believed (just my opinion though) that 4895 was very close to what is used in .30 Ball ammo, such as M2 Ball, etc.  Wasn't W-A 30 used right up through WW1 in 30-06 Ball?  I personally use H4895 in my Garand and 03A3 loads (not for the LR though). 

I guess it was just an assumption that I made about the 4350 because I believed the ballistics to be very similar (40 gr IMR-4350/220 RN) to the original .30 Army round... however, perhaps I'm wrong about that!  Maybe a lighter charge of 4895 might be more the way to go?  I dunno… anyway, I do ok with my current loads (the aforementioned 40 gr 4350).

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Parashooter on Jun 10th, 2019 at 5:05am
One has to remember that cost containment was often an important desision factor during the period before our government surrendered fiscal restraint in favor of campaign contributions from the military-industrial complex. In 189X, it may have seemed worthwhile to employ a powder that could offer the same performance with 34 grains as another that would take 40 grains. If both were priced the same by weight, the 18% cost difference could be significant.

Of course it's also true that IMR 4350 didn't appear on the market until 1940.

In today's context, it's sometimes worthwhile to compare load efficiency. For example, a 2000fps charge of 4895 under a 220-grain bullet burns about 98% in the 30" Krag barrel while enough 4350 to give the same velocity burns only about 88%. Personally, I don't like throwing unburnt powder out the muzzle if it can be avoided without sacrificing safety, reliability, velocity, accuracy, barrel life, etc.

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 10th, 2019 at 5:32am
FWIW - For many of us, IMR-4895 is a handy and more versatile propellant to serve our reloading needs than the more specialized IMR-4350.

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by psteinmayer on Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:39pm
Well, since I already work with H4895 and have a significant amount on hand, what would be the advantage, or disadvantage of the H over IMR?  I could load up some rounds with the 34 grains of H4895 and see how it compares to my current load.  I'm betting the barrel would be much easier to clean!  FWIW, I do think H4895 is a little more uniform and meters a little better than IMR 4895 (yes, I used to use it).

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Parashooter on Jun 10th, 2019 at 10:38pm

psteinmayer wrote on Jun 10th, 2019 at 9:39pm:
Well, since I already work with H4895 and have a significant amount on hand, what would be the advantage, or disadvantage of the H over IMR? . . .  I'm betting the barrel would be much easier to clean! . . .

Never having used H4895, I can't really say more than that most folks claim its performance is reasonably similar to IMR4895. Being that Hodgdon now owns the IMR brand, I wonder if there's any difference today except the label.

Cleaning unburnt granules out of a barrel is easy. Cleaning them out of the action of an autoloader is a pain in the butt. (Learned this playing with moderate charges of 4831 under cast bullets in an M1 rifle. Yuk!)

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 10th, 2019 at 11:07pm
I should not have been so specific. IMHO - Either 'flavor' of 4895 is a very versatile propellant, covering more applications than 4350.

I did not envision IMR-4895 or H-4895 as being safe propellants with 220 grain projectiles in the Krag. I thought pressures might be too high.

It would be interesting to see comparative results of 220 grain (projectile) loads using 4895 and 4350.

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by Parashooter on Jun 11th, 2019 at 4:32am

butlersrangers wrote on Jun 10th, 2019 at 11:07pm:
. . . It would be interesting to see comparative results of 220 grain (projectile) loads using 4895 and 4350.

See reply #7 of this topic, at least for charge/velocity/pressure.

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by butlersrangers on Jun 11th, 2019 at 5:06pm
I should have been more specific and said: comparing 'accuracy results' between loads using 220 grain projectiles and 4350 & 4895 propellants.

Title: Re: Summary on W.A. .30
Post by psteinmayer on Jun 11th, 2019 at 11:17pm
Well, I know how I can group off the bench with the 4350 loads.  I'm planning on heading to the range Sunday (Island Lake, Chuck) to work on my 03A3 LR ammo.  Perhaps I'll load up some rounds on Saturday and take my Krag too.  If they proved to be as accurate or better, then that's what I'll take to the Roosevelt Match too! 

By the way, I think there is a slight difference between IMR and H 4895s.  IMR granules are black, while H granules are more brownish in color.  Also, I think the H granules are more uniform in appearance too!  According to the burn rate chart I looked at, H4895 burns near the same rate as IMR 4064... which is slightly slower than IMR 4895.

Krag Collectors Association Forum Archive » Powered by YaBB 2.6.0!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2024. All Rights Reserved.