Confusion on LN 03's

[swampyankee]

I have read all the warnings on shooting LN receivers. I understand that the receiver may handle a pressure round, but it is the way the receiver handles a case head separation or other cartridge related problem that will cause a KaBoom.
The question I am wondering is if the Krags were heat treated the same way, why do we not hear about Krag receivers blowing up or shattering when hit with a hammer. Wouldn't a case head separation blow them up.
Inquiring minds want to know.

[Rick the Librarian]

Krag ammunition created much less pressure - that was one reason the M1903 was developed.

[swampyankee]

Krag ammunition created much less pressure - that was one reason the M1903 was developed.
So if I reload my LN 03's with 30-06 at 30-40 Krag pressure levels, they are safe to shoot?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

LN 03's are safe to shoot with the ammo for which they were designed. We have a LN 03 hunting rifle in our family that has been used for over seventy years with commercial ammo with no issues. The kids fight over who gets to use it. Five generations so far.

jt

[Ketoujin]

Hi All,

Well, at the risk of sounding like an outright apologist for LN '03's let me preface my comments by first stating that I, myself, err on the side of "better safe than sorry" and wouldn't shoot a LN despite that fact that the likelihood of a catastrophic failure would be low, especially with mild hand-loads.

I would like to add however, in the vein of Marine A5 Sniper's comment, that a man in my local community bought a LN '03 in the 1950's - an SA with a 1905-built receiver. He, like so many did at that time, had the gun sporterized and carried it on board the USS Wahoo II submarine on which he was a part of the engine room crew from roughly 1956-1961 or so. (Incidentally, his XO was William Crowe would later reach Flag Rank and become the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff immediately preceding Colin Powell in the post. My local contact remembered that XO Crowe was often seasick.....this on the part of a submariner!) On arrival in Yokosuka, Japan he swapped the cut-down issue "S" stock for a finely-carved sporter stock made "on the economy" by a Japanese carpenter. During several subsequent cruises throughout the Pacific and adjoining seas and oceans, my contact had several opportunities to fire his personal rifle when the boat was surfaced and during the required periods of small arms firing and practice when the weather and ocean conditions cooperated. He fired the Navy issue M2 ball kept aboard ship for use in the BAR's kept in the small arms locker in his '03 with no problems.

Just another LN anecdote I found interesting.....although I myself am far more cautious....which I suppose I could put down to temperament.

Best,

Gunnar

[Parashooter]

To answer the question specifically, the design of the Krag's chamber, breech, and cartridge is very different from that of the M1903. The Krag cartridge is rimmed, lacking the deep groove ahead of the rim needed to enable extraction with a "rimless" cartridge like the one used in the '03. As a consequence of this, the Krag cartridge seats fully into the chamber and the bolt face completely surrounds the rim. This leaves virtually none of the brass cartridge case exposed and helps ensure that even if the case should fail, little or no gas can escape. In addition, the Krag's breeching system provides that any gas which does escape from a failed cartridge is vented directly to the atmosphere where it can dissipate.

In the Model 1903, the cartridge enters the chamber only as far as the front edge of the extractor groove, leaving significantly more of the brass case exposed. The bolt face flange is also partially cut away to provide controlled feed, leaving more brass exposed. Furthermore, any gas escaping from a failed cartridge is not vented directly outside but enters the semi-enclosed space encompassed by the receiver ring, where it is offered a substantial area to damage the surrounding steel.

http://i44.tinypic.com/ofy2jr.jpg
Yellow dotted line shows how far cartridge enters chambers of US M1903 and Krag rifles. Green line indicates extent of .30 Army ("30/40") solid web as compared to that of several .30/06 cases.

In summary, while the M1903 has a stronger locking arrangement, the Krag has a more robust breeching arrangement to mitigate damage from a failed cartridge case. Consequently, the Krag's integrity is significantly less dependent on strong and resilient materials than is its successor.

[Rick the Librarian]

Thanks for the detailed explanation, Parashooter, I knew the answer was a lot more "complicated".

[kragluver]

Excellent post Para! I knew about the bolt design comparisons but I had never seen the explanation showing cutaways of the cartridge heads. Most excellent. I'll have to file this one away...

[blackhawknj]

IMHO Hatcher's Notebook is THE source to read regarding the LN Springfield question.
He found the bad vintages were from 1906 and 1911 IIRC. Both the steel and the manufacturing processes were improved and the decision was made in the late 1920s to eventually withdraw the LNs from service, due to the tight defense budgets of those years that was not implemented.

[rcmkhm]

Very good post from Para. To expand on what he wrote, General Julian Hatcher was in charge of the investigation of the receiver failures in 1917 and he noted that the cartridge cases on the .30-06 round projected out the rear of the chamber a distance of from 0.146" to 0.1485", a distance of about 1/8" where the pressure during ignition was held in only by the brass. Anecdotal evidence seems to indicate that the softer brass composition used in cartridges being hurriedly manufactured for WWI, coupled with a decidedly more brittle steel in the single heat treated receivers, caused the known failures when the exposed portion of the cartridge that Para mentions ruptured in an area outside of the walls of the breech, which then caused lateral pressure against the sides of the receiver that were never designed to handle it. The reported cases of failures were, however, statistically very small and there were still reported failures of high serial number receivers into the late 1920s. Presumably, if the soft brass ammo from WWI had been exhausted around that time, that might explain why the number of reported receiver failures stops. Heck, those old LSN rifles never seemed to bother the Marines and they had no reported issues with later manufactured ball ammo.

[ClaudeH]

I wish someone else would either document this or refute it because my books are packed away too far to even find right now and I don't have the time to do a tabulation. That said...

My impression from Brophy was that there was a time period when there was more or less a spike in LN failures and that time period more or less coincided with the experimental tin-plated bullets from Frankfort (?) Arsenal which were primarily match (?) rounds. It was found that this ammo created an electro-chemical weld of the bullet to the cartridge case which created immense pressures.

This ammo also caused globular tin fouling of the barrels whcih some target shooters attempted to alleviete by dipping the exposed portion of the bullet into grease. This was very risky because grease in the chamber neck can prevent the neck from properly expanding when fired, again creating immense pressures.

The combination of factors could cause doubly immense pressures.

My impression was that if you removed the failures occurring about the time this ammo and greasing practice were wreaking havoc, the remaining failures were just about statistically insignificant.

Now I know that there have been additional failures over the years and that knowledgeable people have found receivers so brittle they shatter when dropped or struck witha hammer, so I certainly am not about to say that shooting LN receivers is safe. But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing.

But that's just me. Does anyone have a comment on the timeline of failures versus the tin-plated bullets?

[Johnny P]

The failures of the high number 1903's were nothing like the catastrophic failures of the single heat treatment receivers. On the high number rifles the receivers remained intact.

Hatcher recorded only those failures that he could document. Serial number 609 is in the SRS data as having failed in February of 1918 while in possession of the Navy, but is not recorded in Hatcher's data.

[JimF]

. . . . . . But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing. . . . .

I agree . . . .

Furthermore, for SA receivers, it was the ORDNANCE DEPT. that ARBITRARILY selected the "magic" serial number of 800,000 as the "line of demarcation" as to double-heat-treated receivers . . . . NOT Springfield Armory!!

Springfield Armory put the switch to DHT receivers at BETWEEN #750,000 and #780,000!

Now, who are you going to believe . . . . Ordnance people?

Or the people that MADE the bolts/receivers!! --Jim

[jgaynor]

I wish someone else would either document this or refute it because my books are packed away too far to even find right now and I don't have the time to do a tabulation. That said...

My impression from Brophy was that there was a time period when there was more or less a spike in LN failures and that time period more or less coincided with the experimental tin-plated bullets from Frankfort (?) Arsenal which were primarily match (?) rounds. It was found that this ammo created an electro-chemical weld of the bullet to the cartridge case which created immense pressures.

This ammo also caused globular tin fouling of the barrels whcih some target shooters attempted to alleviete by dipping the exposed portion of the bullet into grease. This was very risky because grease in the chamber neck can prevent the neck from properly expanding when fired, again creating immense pressures.

The combination of factors could cause doubly immense pressures.

My impression was that if you removed the failures occurring about the time this ammo and greasing practice were wreaking havoc, the remaining failures were just about statistically insignificant.

Now I know that there have been additional failures over the years and that knowledgeable people have found receivers so brittle they shatter when dropped or struck witha hammer, so I certainly am not about to say that shooting LN receivers is safe. But I suspect the fear of firing them is overblown and that prudent behaviors such as testing your receiver with a hammer and shooting only reloads put up in brass proven not to have case-head voids and flaws should greatly minimalize the risk for occasional firing.

But that's just me. Does anyone have a comment on the timeline of failures versus the tin-plated bullets?

Tin plated ammunition was introduced in 1921 as a possible means of reducing copper fouling in the barrels.
The decision to change the production process for SA produced M1903 rifles was undertaken a few years earlier during WW1.

I believe the tin plated ammunition was limited to National Match Cartridges so the scope of the problem was self limiting. However, Claude you do reason correctly. If you had the incredible bad luck to encounter a low numbered rifle with a "burned" receiver and fire a tin plated cartridge there probably would be a higher than normal chance of a blowup.

Of the 60 odd accidents recorded in the Hatcher data most occurred during the 20's with ordinary .30 cal Ball. The decision to halt rifle production and redesign the manufacturing process, in the middle of a war, based on a handful of accidents required a real pair of brass ones on the part of the responsible ordnance officials. What we don't know (or at least what I don't know) is what percentage of rifles were blown up during proof testing.

Regards,

Jim

[Crashyoung]

I shoot my LN 03 with all kinds of commercial and my own reloaded cartridges.

Two things cause the failures, bad brass, and obstructed barrels.
While I shoot my 1913, You should read http://m1903.com/03rcvrfail/
and make up your own mind about shooting it or not.

Also look up balloon head cartridge.

[PhillipM]

IMHO Hatcher's Notebook is THE source to read regarding the LN Springfield question.
He found the bad vintages were from 1906 and 1911 IIRC. Both the steel and the manufacturing processes were improved and the decision was made in the late 1920s to eventually withdraw the LNs from service, due to the tight defense budgets of those years that was not implemented.

This is not accurate, the board investigating the low numbers recommended withdrawing them but ordnance deferred making a decision.

Some have opined that SA didn't have much to do to keep the doors open in this timeframe and declaring the national arsenal's rifles unsafe and therefore needing new ones was a political move.

[chuckindenver]

low number 1903s should not be fired with live ammo... telling anyone to do so, is not a wise idea...

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

low number 1903s should not be fired with live ammo... telling anyone to do so, is not a wise idea...

The Marines fought through WWI with LN 03's. They didn't complain - ever.

jt

[rcmkhm]

Jim, regarding the tin plated ammunition. It was supposed to reduce copper fouling so was the problem that it had more of a tendency to "bind up" somewhere down the barrel creating abnormal pressure? I've never even seen a tin plated round. What did the round look like and was it marked on the bottom of the case? Also, I've looked online and couldn't find anything on reported incidents of failures during WWI in France. Anyone ever hear of that? I suspect that the censors wouldn't have wanted that reported to the folks back home even if it did happen. Chip

[PhillipM]

rcmkhm,

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_f1TTfqxVUw4/S71p3mjzNSI/AAAAAAAABFI/lI01GZxGaRc/s1600/nmbullets_003.JPG

Here is an excellent write up by Hap Rocketto

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/07/history-national-match-ammunition.html

...and another by Ray Meketa

http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2010/04/history-us-national-match-ammunition.html

[chuckindenver]

Marines wont sue...joe internet will...you can count on it...
and again./.
SHT 1903s dont fail out of the blue... its how they handle a failure
in the last 15 years...iv seen and shared more then a few weapons that have suffered case head failures...
yea... i shoot mine...but only with mondern factory ammo.. but i would never recomend anyone ever doing so...ever..
these are 100 year old rifles, and anything can fail, and will fail...

[jgaynor]

Jim, regarding the tin plated ammunition. It was supposed to reduce copper fouling so was the problem that it had more of a tendency to "bind up" somewhere down the barrel creating abnormal pressure? I've never even seen a tin plated round. What did the round look like and was it marked on the bottom of the case? Also, I've looked online and couldn't find anything on reported incidents of failures during WWI in France. Anyone ever hear of that? I suspect that the censors wouldn't have wanted that reported to the folks back home even if it did happen. Chip

The copper fouling from the cupronickle jackets tended to build up in the bore where it was a problem for competitiive shooters to remove. The tin plated bullets had a tendency to react with the brass case effectively soldering the bullet to the case. This prevented the bullet from moving at the moment of discharge and resulted in a pressure spike when chamber pressures were the highest.

The most dangerous riflles were ones made under tthe old single heat treat process that happened to have the receiver forgings overeated or "burned' in the forging process. This was a fairly early step in the production process. When forgeings were initially heated the correct temperature (color) was judged by eye. In a very small percentage the color was misjudged resulting in the abnormally weak receivers. The actual heat treatment was done later in the production process with the receiver forgings being packed in charcoal filled containers and placed in an industrial oven. During the actual heat treating it was not possible to observe the receivers but by that point the damage, if any, was already done. As has been said poorly made cartridge cases were also a factor and in about four (4) instances 8MM Mauser rounds were fired

The immdiate fix was to install pyrometers (temperature gauges) and remove the human element from the forging process. Also the entire manufacturing process was changed first to the so-called Double Heat Treatment process which resulted in a receiver which was substantially stronger than the old method and enabled most rifles to survive a bad round of ammunition (soft headed cartridge case). Later still the material used for receivers was switched to nickle steel alloy which was stronger still. It's important to note that the change in the production process was undertaken based on a virtual handful of in service blow-ups. Most of the failures occurred after WW1 when surplus ammo was being used up in training. Statistically the likelyhood of encountering a burned receiver was and is small. BUT! we know the Hatcher data is not the universe of receiver failures, There have been a number of reports of individuals doing things like dropping a low number receiver on a concrete floor and having it shatter. We also don't know how many, if any blew up during proof firing. Every rifle that blew up in service (the Hatcher data - which stops in 1929) successfully passed proof firing and some were in use for as much as 12 years before they cut loose.

I believe a burned receiver is beyond repair and is effectively "unsafe at any speed". Ordnance further decided that re-heat treating low number receivers was not feasible hence the decision to keep them for war reseerve

Bottom line what some one armed with the facts chooses to do themselves is their own business. But the ordnance dept, many sanctioning organizations (CMP), gun dealers and the like, who may bear some liability for any accidents on their watch, have recommended against firing low number rifles.

Shooting hand loads may offer some protection however that largely depends on the cases, how many times they have been reloaded and if they have been full length reisized. I ahev only experienced one case head separation. It was in an 03-A3. Don't recall all the details but at tthe time i was using one of the little Lee Loaders which typically had sort of wimpy powder charges. The effect of the gas was kind of like getting slapped in the face with a pair of gloves. So proceed with caution.

Hope this helps. The full story is spelled out in Hatchers Note Book but it takes careful reading of about three separate sections of that book to get the whole picture.

Regards,

Jim

[jgaynor]

Marines wont sue...joe internet will...you can count on it...
and again./.
SHT 1903s dont fail out of the blue... its how they handle a failure
in the last 15 years...iv seen and shared more then a few weapons that have suffered case head failures...
yea... i shoot mine...but only with mondern factory ammo.. but i would never recomend anyone ever doing so...ever..
these are 100 year old rifles, and anything can fail, and will fail...

+1 words to the wise :icon_salut:

[PhillipM]

The copper fouling from the cupronickle jackets tended to build up in the bore where it was a problem for competitiive shooters to remove. The tin plated bullets had a tendency to react with the brass case effectively soldering the bullet to the case. This prevented the bullet from moving at the moment of discharge and resulted in a pressure spike when chamber pressures were the highest.

...

They thought bullets soldering themselves to the case caused high pressure, but in reality the shooters were still using grease on the bullets.

From the little used home page, our site's founder on the subject.

http://www.jouster.com/sea_stories/when_the_tin_can_changed_history.pdf

"
Just when the problem of the lumpy metal fouling seemed to be solved, a new problem
surfaced with the tin plating. When a new lot of ammunition is produced, it is usually put
under the microscope and carefully examined for any abnormalities. While checking the
weight of the powder charges, it was necessary to pull a few bullets. Normal bullets pull at
around 50 - 60 pounds of exerted pressure, but these puppies proved almost impossible to
pull using normal methods. The effort necessary to pull the new bullets ran from between 300
to 600 pounds! Needless to say, this would raise the chamber pressure to disastrous limits.

Actual firing of the ammunition however, showed normal chamber pressures. It was finally
decided that the bullets were "cold soldering" themselves into the neck of the cartridge cases.
This unexpected phenomena was causing the extreme effort necessary to extract them using
a bullet pulling machine. When fired however, the neck of the case would apparently expand
against the neck of the chamber thus breaking the seal of the inadvertent solder job. Once
broken free by case neck expansion the projectile was free to be launched without raising the
chamber pressure. Everyone breathed a sigh of relief. Better that they should have
considered the contrariness of the old time shooter. "

[rcmkhm]

Thanks, Phil, for the articles. The 2nd article seems to indicate that greasing the bullets (which was unauthorized it says) to eliminate fouling was the real culprit. What did the greasing do to increase pressure if you know? I couldn't quite figure that out from the article. Which leads to another question - does the throat erosion in a 1903 affect the pressure and, if so, does anyone know of a 1903 throat erosion gauge? I've read that the CMP ones, for example, are designed specifically for the M1 Garand, but I'm not 100% sure. Chip

[PhillipM]

Thanks, Phil, for the articles. The 2nd article seems to indicate that greasing the bullets (which was unauthorized it says) to eliminate fouling was the real culprit. What did the greasing do to increase pressure if you know? I couldn't quite figure that out from the article. Which leads to another question - does the throat erosion in a 1903 affect the pressure and, if so, does anyone know of a 1903 throat erosion gauge? I've read that the CMP ones, for example, are designed specifically for the M1 Garand, but I'm not 100% sure. Chip

The grease around the neck prevented the case from expanding and releasing the cold soldered bullet. The last article mentions finding a fired bullet with the neck of the case still attached downrange!

Rapid fire causes throat erosion and with a bolt gun that's just about a non issue. If you just have to have one Standard parts sells a 1903 TE gauge. The M1 gauge works if the barrel is off the receiver or if it has a right side gas escape hole it can be read through there with a lot of difficulty.

https://www.standardpartsllc.com/productcart/pc/viewPrd.asp?idproduct=88&idcategory=14

https://www.standardpartsllc.com/productcart/pc/catalog/g-sp0007.jpg

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

IMHO Hatcher's Notebook is THE source to read regarding the LN Springfield question.
He found the bad vintages were from 1906 and 1911 IIRC. Both the steel and the manufacturing processes were improved and the decision was made in the late 1920s to eventually withdraw the LNs from service, due to the tight defense budgets of those years that was not implemented.

You might want to read the official ordnance reports Hatcher referenced and compare them to his report. I tried to post a table of all known (from ordnance reports and SRS) failures but it looks like crap when posted. I could only find 157 reported failures, and only 92 of those suffered receiver damage. Many of the causes of receiver failures would have damaged modern receivers. If someone can explain how to post an Excel database, I will post it for all to see.

Rick, one of the failures was a Philippine rifle. :-)

jt

[Crashyoung]

low number 1903s should not be fired with live ammo... telling anyone to do so, is not a wise idea...

I agree, especially with the litigation possibilities...

But I still shoot mine.

[slamfire]

From 1906 to 1918 the Army had a systemic quality control failure at their Arsenals, over 1 million single heat treat receivers were made and these receivers were so structurally weak they literally exploded in front of shooters. Instead of admitting that their rifles were weak, recalling them and fixing the problem, the Army blamed the practice of greasing bullets. The logic was, there was nothing wrong with the rifles or ammunition. The rifles could not be blowing up due to faulty design, manufacture so it had to be a practice of the shooters. No one outside of the Ordnance Department knew how dangerously weak were single heat treat receivers, because the true extent of the problem was kept out of the public domain. The Army Ordnance Department knowingly issued defective single heat treat rifles to civilians and service men even after an Army Board, in 1927, recommended destroying all 1000000 single heat treat receivers. Since all shooters were greasing bullets the Army pointed fingers at grease and greased chambers claiming that created pressure problems and that was the cause of rifle blowups.

When you get to 1920 the Army is experimenting with a tin coating as a means to eliminate jacket fouling. The Army conducted high level meetings with people as high as the Assistant Secretary of War on the choice and testing of ammunition for the 1921 National Matches. The Army also conducted highly publicized tests of Army ammunition versus commercial offerings, and the Army ammunition was selected by an Army board. No doubt the commercial firms who donated ammunition must have felt there was bias in the selection, whether there was or not.

Pressure problems were not immediately identified with the tin coated bullets because it took time for the tin to flow into the brass case necks. As many people know, tin and copper form a lower energy, stable compound called bronze. Nature will always go the to lowest energy level, the term for this is “cold welding”

Cold welding, the joining of materials without the use of heat, can be accomplished simply by pressing them together. Surfaces have to be well prepared, and pressure sufficient to produce 35 to 90 percent deformation at the joint is necessary, depending on the material. Lapped joints in sheets and cold-butt welding of wires constitute the major applications of this technique.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/125142/cold-welding

This phenomena was not well understood at the time.

This ammunition is issued in quantity at the 1921 National Matches and rifles start blowing up. Rifles blew up at the Wakefield match prior to the NM matches and it was reported in the Arms and the Man of the time, that the tin coated bullets fouled just as badly as the copper jacketed ones. Of course the blowups were all due to the bore obstruction created by cold welding of the bullet to the case neck and it got worse in time. According to the Arms and Man magazine, at Camp Perry, two rifles experienced “blow backs”, which as I could tell was the complete fracture of the receiver ring. This was highly embarrassing as this entire process had very high visibility at the time because the Army’s ammunition testing was in print, the Army bragged about how their ammunition had beat out commercially made ammunition. Commercial manufactures would not have been amused to find that their donated ammunition lost out in Army tests, to Army ammunition that just happened to blow up Army rifles. They might have had a legitimate compliant about the partiality of Army testing, never mind the technical competence of Army Ordnance staff.

There must have been enough complaints about the ammunition that months later the Army issued a position in the Arms and Man claiming that the Tin Can ammunition was perfectly safe and that all the problems that happened in the National Matches were all to user misconduct. That is, the use of greased bullets. So understand, in 1918 the Army put out a statement, in print, that the 03 was perfectly safe, it did not blow up at a greater frequency than any other rifle. And after the 1921 National Matches the Army also put a statement that the tin can ammunition was perfectly safe.

These statements were false. The Swiss, for example, had been using greased bullets since the 1880’s, the Army knew about it, and the Swiss used greased bullets for another 60 years without any issues other than sticky extraction in cold weather. Apparently the grease froze in the chamber high in those Swiss Alps, making extraction difficult in extreme cold. Had nothing to do with increased pressures.

The Swiss had zero problems for over a century because the Swiss, unlike the US Army, built high quality rifles and did not knowingly issue structurally deficient rifles to troops, and therefore did not have to create a coverup, when those rifles Kaboom’d. One Dope Bag article (70's or 80's) in the American Rifleman identified five nations that used greased bullets in their small arms. I don't remember the date but I do remember Austro-Hungarians and the article did not mention the Swiss.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/IMG_1567.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/IMG_1567.jpg.html)

I have reviewed all the Arms and the Man that I can find, from 1901 past 1921, and no where in print have I found anything to indicate that there is a manufacturing problem with 03 rifles. The Army does not talk about it, there is no reference to single heat treatment versus double heat treatment, and I don't know just when that came out in the public domain. I think it was in the 1930's way after the Army Board recommended scrapping all one million single heat treat rifles.

In fact, they were selling the things and extolling the perfection of manufacture in 1919!

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/1919ManatArmsPreWarM1903BW_zps76aac00f.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/1919ManatArmsPreWarM1903BW_zps76aac00f.jpg.html)


The authority of General Hatcher and the US Army is so high that people today do not question the contradictions that are obvious when you closely examine the evidence. That is, the entire problems with the tin can ammunition were due to the tin creating a bore obstruction. And that single heat treat rifles were blowing up all around, had been blowing up since they were made, and instead of the Army acknowledging that they built structurally deficient rifles, the Army blamed grease.


http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?p=5574915#post5574915


I saw an incident back in the '60's on the firing line in a match to a guy a target or two away from me.

Someone had loaded some ammo for their M1903 based long range rifle, fired the first sighter, hollered very loud at the extra loud report. He had to beat the bolt open with a hammer to open it and eject the case and there was no neck on it. Peak pressure pushed case head brass near 1/16th inch back into bolt face cutouts. Primer cup had flowed well out of the pocket and onto the case head.

Subsequent checks of the cases showed dissimilar metal bonding and very well 'glued' the bullets to the case mouths of some of the rounds.

This is one reason arsenals put a sealant between case neck and bullets. When the case is sized and ready for bullet seating, a thin film of asphaltum's smeared around the case neck which is 1 or 2 thousandths bigger than bullet diameter. Then the bullet's seated and the case mouth's crimped into the bullet's cannelure. So says an engineer at Lake City arsenal when I asked about this stuff after seeing the results of that bonded bullet take the case neck out of the barrel with it. Sometimes ammo's stored for many years before it's used by military forces; it has to be reliable and without bullets bonding to case necks.

Best way to prevent it with handloads is don't get the bullet jackets and case mouths squeaky clean and bullets seated with a lot of neck tension where the metals are pressed together very hard. A bit of powder residue's fine and it will not effect accuracy. A single pass with a bore brush in fired case mouths removed enough for normal cleaning but the tiny amount left usually prevents bonding for several years


I shot up a a case, about 1000 rounds of Iraqi 303 Ball, that severly copper fouled the barrel. It took weeks of soaking with Sweets and other bore cleaners to reduce the lumpy fouling. Then I started greasing my bullets. No pressure problems and no fouling. Greasing bullets was very common all the way up to 1921 and is frequently talked about in the Arms and the Man magazine of the period.

Incidentally, billions of rounds of greased ammunition were fired by US forces in WW2 and up to Korea. This greased ammunition was also used by the British in their Spitfires. Greased ammunition was used by a lot of nations but the practice faded as grease lubrication was replaced by fluted chambers.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

..... And that single heat treat rifles were blowing up all around, had been blowing up since they were made, and instead of the Army acknowledging that they built structurally deficient rifles, the Army blamed grease....

A total of 92 known reported damaged 1903 receivers is "blowing up all around"? Got any idea how many hundreds thousands of rounds, maybe millions, were fired in LN 03's in WWI and WWII? The facts do not support your statement. The ordnance reports I read do not blame greased bullets.

jt

[slamfire]

..... And that single heat treat rifles were blowing up all around, had been blowing up since they were made, and instead of the Army acknowledging that they built structurally deficient rifles, the Army blamed grease....

A total of 92 known reported damaged 1903 receivers is "blowing up all around"? Got any idea how many hundreds thousands of rounds, maybe millions, were fired in LN 03's in WWI and WWII? The facts do not support your statement. The ordnance reports I read do not blame greased bullets.

I assume your number came from Hatcher's Notebook, a list which starts in 1917 and ends 1927. (I am working off on memory on the dates) There were low number 03's that blew before the records start, I know of a few from the early Arms and the Man. There are people who have kept track of the number of blown 03's that have been reported on the web, and there are double heat treat receivers in that mix. And, Hatcher's list ends in 1927 or thereabouts and there are known low numbers that blew up in service after the list. Just search the Springfield Armory website and you will find pictures. Hatcher's database is not a complete record and anyone making conclusions based on it are being optimistic to say the least.

What you also don't know, is the "the number". That board that recommended scrapping what was close to a half a billion dollars (today's money) of low number 03's wrote a report and in it, was "the number". For the report to be useful as a decision paper it had to have "the number" in order for decision makers to have all the data. "The number" was the estimate of the number of structurally deficient receivers in service. Hatcher never released that number, did he?, but it had to be big. It was big enough that the Army decided to scrap all million 03's when they eventually came into rebuild.

Now, in my opinion, that is an immoral decision. They knew by keeping these rifles in service until such time they wore out, or blew up, that the ones that blew up would injure Soldiers, Sailors, and Marines, and yet, the life or health of a Service man was worth less than a $40.00 rifle.

The fact that the Army did decide to scrap a half a billion dollars of rifles shows they did consider the number large enough to be a real problem.

However, if you want to shoot your low number receiver, go ahead. You may have one of the "good ones". If your low number does not blow up on you, then you made the correct decision. If it does, then you made a poor decision. After all these don't come with a warranty and there is no one to sue to collect medical expenses.

Now in my opinion, instead of asking people to prove these rifles are "unsafe", given that the blow up of one of these involves permanent injury, the burden of proof ought to be on those advocating the use. You should prove these are "safe" to use. Given that the Army decided to scrap all these rifles, why then are they "safe"?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Have you seen me advocate their use?

jt

[PhillipM]

Given that the Army decided to scrap all these rifles, why then are they "safe"?

Frankford Arsenal 1925...Scrap them all, they are dangerous! Springfield Armory 1926 they are dangerous if there is an overpressure event or if there is excessive headspace. The Board recommended that the receivers be withdrawn from service and scrapped.

After considering the proceedings of the Board, the Chief of Field Service, Brigadier General Samuel Hof, on February 7, 1928, made the following recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance, which was approved as a policy:

"Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of theses early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifles from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."

Only low number rifles in need of repair were recommended to be scrapped. All others were fit for combat use as official policy of the United States Army.

[PhillipM]

From 1906 to 1918 the Army had a systemic quality control failure at their Arsenals, ...

I'm glad serial number 36018 I own made in 1904 is outside your window of failure.

[Johnny P]

The same brittle receivers, the same soft ammunition, and not a reported receiver failure in the trenches of France?

[jgaynor]

You might want to read the official ordnance reports Hatcher referenced and compare them to his report. I tried to post a table of all known (from ordnance reports and SRS) failures but it looks like crap when posted. I could only find 157 reported failures, and only 92 of those suffered receiver damage. Many of the causes of receiver failures would have damaged modern receivers. If someone can explain how to post an Excel database, I will post it for all to see.

Rick, one of the failures was a Philippine rifle. :-)

jt

Jim, if you can get your graph on a single page.
1. Print it
2. Scan the file saving it as a .jpg (make sure the file size does not violate any attachment limits of this forum)
3. Post using "Go Advanced & Manage Attachments"

Alternatively save it to a service like photobucket and post the link.

Esentially you are just taking a picture of the graph and dealing with it like any photo.

Regards,

Jim

I used this technique to post the following graph five or six years ago. Its based on the Hatcher data for SA only. It shows failures as a percentage of the total manufactured. if i get motivated i will try to display the dates of the accidents. For a rough average calulations just add 12 years to the date of manufacture
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/jgaynor/BurstRcvrGraph.jpg

[ClaudeH]

Jim, if you can get your graph on a single page.
1. Print it
2. Scan the file saving it as a .jpg (make sure the file size does not violate any attachment limits of this forum)
3. Post using "Go Advanced & Manage Attachments"

Alternatively save it to a service like photobucket and post the link.

Esentially you are just taking a picture of the graph and dealing with it like any photo.

Regards,

Jim

I used this technique to post the following graph five or six years ago. Its based on the Hatcher data for SA only. It shows failures as a percentage of the total manufactured. if i get motivated i will try to display the dates of the accidents. For a rough average calulations just add 12 years to the date of manufacture
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v21/jgaynor/BurstRcvrGraph.jpg

Also, if you have Adobe (not acrobat) or another .pdf print utility like deskpdf, you can just print the spreadsheet as a pdf in the first place.

[ClaudeH]

As for grease in the chamber neck, Mr. Wizard on the TV program of my youth, Mr. Wizard's Science Secrets demonstrated an interesting experiment involving the difficulty of quickly displacing a fluid - even as thin as air. He put a wooden yardstick on a table extending about halfway off the side, covered it with a single sheet of newspaper, illustrated how easily you could raise the sheet of newspaper >slowly< by pressing the protruding end of the yardstick, and then gave the end of the yardstick a sudden slap and broke it in half without disturbing the sheet of newspaper.

I believe grease in the chamber neck set up the same effect. It was too viscuous to suddely be displaced out of the chamber neck by the otherwise expanding case neck and and behaved the same as an overly long case neck jammed into the leade - it created an overpressure event. If, indeed, it was only the ability of the case neck to break the solder joint by expanding away from the bullet, and if the chamber neck was clogged with grease and preventing that case neck expansion, I think an incredible over-pressure event could occur.

I don't think those >wax< wads at the neck of Swiss ammo represent the same hazard. That wax is relatively hard and probably vaporizes in the heat of firing, leaving no significant residue- just like with wax-coated moly-plated bullets. Also, that wax ring is far more carefully placed than the grease on a bullet that is just informally shoved into a container of grease. That would grease the entire bullet and undoubtedly grease up the chamber neck, but the wax ring is already being mostly centered in the chamber neck by the uncoated forward portion of the bullet.

[Parashooter]

I wouldn't make too much of the Swiss GP11 sealant/lube as a point of comparison with greased 30/06. The usual 7.5x55 chamber is cut about 1mm longer than the maximum cartridge length, giving a space for the sealant/lube to occupy without constricting neck expansion.

http://i51.tinypic.com/4kuu1d.jpg

CIP specs for the 7.5x55 Swiss give a maximum cartridge length of 55.60mm and a minimum chamber length of 56.35mm, a 0.75mm difference. (The Swiss military model 1911 and 1931 chambers I've measured are consistently a bit longer.) For comparison, CIP "30-06 Spring." specs (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page111.pdf) are 63.35 cartridge maxi and 63.55 chamber mini - just 0.2mm difference.

http://i55.tinypic.com/x0s0fn.jpg

[slamfire]

I wouldn't make too much of the Swiss GP11 sealant/lube as a point of comparison with greased 30/06. The usual 7.5x55 chamber is cut about 1mm longer than the maximum cartridge length, giving a space for the sealant/lube to occupy without constricting neck expansion.


CIP specs for the 7.5x55 Swiss give a maximum cartridge length of 55.60mm and a minimum chamber length of 56.35mm, a 0.75mm difference. (The Swiss military model 1911 and 1931 chambers I've measured are consistently a bit longer.) For comparison, CIP "30-06 Spring." specs (http://www.cip-bobp.org/homologation/uploads/tdcc/tab-i/tabical-en-page111.pdf) are 63.35 cartridge maxi and 63.55 chamber mini - just 0.2mm difference.


There is a difference but, unless you know original design intent, you don’t know why the Swiss cut their chambers a little longer. Maybe it is was due to grease clearance, mud clearance, or something else.
But I am not worried due to the number of 303 British, 308 cartridges that I have fired with greased bullets and greased cases.

The Royal Society has the right idea: Their motto is to “accept nothing on authority.” Knowledge is to be based on observations/tests in the physical world, and if authority conflicts with these observations, then authority is wrong. There has always been a continuing fight against dogma created by authority figures.

Based on my observations greased bullets, greased cases do not raise pressures. Grease does not pinch the bullet in the case neck, and I believe it is because as pressure builds in a case the neck starts expanding from behind the bullet, rolling forward toward the case mouth until the bullet is released. This has the effect of moving the grease, grease may be “incompressible” but it is not immovable.

I fired over 1000 rounds of greased 303 British and I greased the heck out of 308 Cavim. I had a case of the stuff, maybe 1500 rounds, currently the brass fills two complete 50 caliber ammunition cans. I wanted to fire the stuff in my FAL, I did not want the cases to stretch, so I put ammunition in plastic bags, dropped in tablespoons worth (actually fingerdips) of Casteroil stick wax in the bags and shook the stuff. Stick wax was a bad idea. Stick wax http://www.freemansupply.com/CastrolIloformStic.htm is tenacious stuff, it is meant to stick to saw blades as they cut through metal or ceramic. Casteroil stick wax is very thick and did not apply smoothly. After shaking in a bag, I had huge clumps of stick wax all over the ammunition. When I loaded and fired the stuff a mist of stick wax formed in the air. The rifle was coated, my clothes were coated, my glasses were coated, and the stuff does not wash off in plain water. But something interesting happened. I was able to open the gas system in my FAL by more than a couple of clicks and still have reliable function. For those who don’t have a FAL, you adjust the cycling by bleeding off gas until the bolt is no longer held by the follower. Then you add a click or two. I was able to verify that lubricated ammunition reduced breech friction significantly, and by increasing the gas bleed, made the rifle cycle smoother and with less banging and slamming.

Still, the plume of stick wax was objectionable and I ended up wiping down the cases. I left stick wax on, but not in the thick, clumpy quantities. The cases were covered from head to toe with a thin coating of stick wax, and I shot them that way. Shot them in bolt rifles, M1a’s, FAL’s, anything of mine that was in 308.

Since I don’t have copper fouling problems with modern jacketed bullets I don’t have to grease my bullets, but I lubricate my cases and have not encountered any pressure issues. I have shot out two barrels on one M1a, another on another, shot out match 308 barrels, one AR15 barrel, no problems.

Those who have the energy to go page by page from every Arms and the Man at Google books, such as I, will find that pre WW1, greasing bullets was the norm. Shooters are bragging about the accuracy, about shooting 3000, 7000 greased rounds without bore fouling or cleaning. There are actually pictures of greasing devices, for clubs! However I notice a tension in the articles of shooters: while they don’t see evidence of harm in their own rifles and ammunition, yet rifles are blowing up and behind the scenes the Ordnance Department must be claiming the blow up’s are due to grease. Not until 1918 does the Army actually put out a statement in print that Army rifles do not blow up more frequently than any other rifle and when an 03 blows up, it is due to shooter stupidity. Incidentally, this is after the production of single heat treat receivers is discontinued. No one outside of the Ordnance Department is aware of the dangerously defective rifles the Army is manufacturing, issuing and selling, and the Army is not telling.

[slamfire]

The same brittle receivers, the same soft ammunition, and not a reported receiver failure in the trenches of France?

Your post raises two issues: What was the primary rifle in France? Based on what I have seen and read, only the Marines carried the 03 into Europe, the US Army carried the M1917. I am aware, from American Rifleman articles, that Regular Army Units were relieved of their 03's and given M1917's before shipping across. This was how 03 serial number one was found, the Private who had the rifle did not want to give it up, he created enough of a fuss that his unique rifle was identified to authority. I would like someone to give number of the actual 03’s that were in Europe.

And I believe this why not a word of the defective single heat treat rifles appears in print, or in a whisper, during WW1 or years after. If an adult had been in charge of the War Department and found that all of those one million 03’s made to date were suspect, the correct decision would have been to stop wasting money, stop production, and use M1917’s. There were over two million M1917’s made, more than enough to arm the AEF, the rifle was 100% successful as a combat rifle, and it was a more advanced combat rifle than the 03. However, the M1917 was made outside the Government Arsenal system. The Army wanted to keep their Arsenal lines going and they liked the 03.

The second question is how did Hatcher get these safety reports? Safety incident reports are not released to the public or to anyone in the Army. Only Safety investigators and law enforcement have access. That is why you cannot find anything about Army accidents, incidents, etc, in the public domain. The only reports you will find are those that are so scandalous that they make the evening news. Following your logic, since there are zero reports, there are no accidents, now, or then. To pry anything out, you need to get a lawyer and work a FOIA. Good luck on finding an accident report database from 1917.

[slamfire]

After considering the proceedings of the Board, the Chief of Field Service, Brigadier General Samuel Hof, on February 7, 1928, made the following recommendation of the Chief of Ordnance, which was approved as a policy:

"Our ammunition is getting worse and accidents may be somewhat more frequent. On the other hand, some of theses early rifles have been in use for many years and undoubtedly some of them have worn out several barrels. I do not think the occasion merits the withdrawal of the rifles of low numbers in the hands of troops until the rifle is otherwise unserviceable. On the other hand, I do not think we are justified in issuing such rifles from our establishments. I recommend that we instruct our Ordnance establishments to no longer issue rifles with these questionable receivers, that such rifles be set aside and considered as a war reserve and the question of the ultimate replacement of the receivers be deferred. When rifles are turned in from the troops for repair the receivers having these low numbers should be scrapped."

Only low number rifles in need of repair were recommended to be scrapped. All others were fit for combat use as official policy of the United States Army.

At the time, it would have been the low cost solution for the Army. The Army did not have to go to Capital Hill at a time when Congress was funding, essentially nothing, for National Defense, and beg for money. Times were mean back then. There were no social services, no food stamps, no welfare. If you were not working, you were not eating Typically an industrial worker received a lump sum, if that, for an on the job injury. The worker went home, never drew a paycheck, was a burden on his family. Then, injuries were handled similar to College Sports today; the College is only responsible for stabilizing the injured student. Once the student is able to walk and talk, he is discharged from the hospital. If he can’t play, he loses his scholarship and goes home. If he requires long term continuing medical care, it is on his dime. Prior to WW1 this was the same in the military . But, after WW1 any injured Soldier/Sailor/Marine could fight the precursors to the VA to get benefits.

http://www.va.gov/opa/publications/archives/docs/history_in_brief.pdf “The Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 authorized the establishment of an independent agency, the Federal Board for Vocational Education. Under the new law, any honorably discharged disabled veteran of World War I was eligible for vocational rehabilitation training. Those incapable of carrying on a gainful occupation were also eligible for special maintenance allowances. The Bureau of War Risk Insurance was responsible for screening veterans for eligibility. A 1919 law fixed responsibility for medical care of veterans with Public Health Service, transferred a number of military hospitals to Public Health Service.”

However, the funding for Rehabilitation did not come out of the Army Budget. Therefore injuring Soldier/Sailors/Marines was the low cost solution. It cost the services nothing but short term medical care.


So, is this Official Policy moral, or immoral?

[Crashyoung]

Getting somewhat back on track, is there a possibility that
the cartridges were to blame, and politics were causing the
reporting to be blamed on the receivers?

I have seen pictures of the failures, and in some cases, the
cone of the barrel was sheered off by the failure. The barrels
and cartridges were never questioned in the failures, just the
receivers.

Another factor pointing at the cartridge is the fact the rifle
was provided with a case extractor. How many times in recent
history has anyone here had to extract a case that had ripped
apart in the chamber?

The cartridge design began with a longer case length than what
was standardized later. Could the wrong cartridge cases have been
issued or sold to the surplus market, and been the real cause
of the failures?

In some cases, the failure was blamed on a barrel obstruction.
Most of the reported obstructions could cause a catastrophic
cartridge failure, but what if the case was too long, and the
shooter forced the bolt closed, ramming the tip of the case
into the leede? Would the pinching of the bullet be enough to
cause an excess pressure event resulting in the cartridge to
rupture?

Being in service so long, the early number receivers should
have failed more often, if the receiver was the only cause of
the failure. Being weak or subject of fracture isn't the prime
reason a receiver would fail. Many people have shown the
early number receivers withstood many overloaded 'proof'
loads without incident, but no one ever tried over length
cartridges.

Case length is one of the things I always double check when
reloading. Modern factory cases that I have used have never
been too long, unless fired and resized a few times.

This isn't an excuse to grab the first low number rifle and
start shooting it. I would caution anyone to have the rifle
inspected before using it.
My latest acquisition was magnafluxed before I used it.
If I had access to X-ray inspection, I might just have that
done, just to 'see' what my receiver looks like!

I also visually inspect the barrel before shooting, as I have
found it better to be safe than sorry!

[slamfire]

Early ammunition had its problems too. There is no doubt, as I have read the period comments, that ammunition of the period was highly variable in quality, and did not get better with age. This is also a self inflicted wound by the Army, they bought all this stuff, certifying when they bought it that the ammunition was made to standard. Under the rush of wartime production, a lot of substandard stuff was shipped. This is true for any war, you just have to read the accounts of the people who were there.

Even in peacetime, period production philosophy was quite different from today. They stuck Quality Inspectors at the end of the lines and it was their job to sort out the good from the bad. This philosophy extended to the 70's, a GM executive famously said (in answer to poor GM cars) that "manufacturing made it, marketing sold it and customer service made it work". GM almost went bankrupt when American's discovered cheap, reliable, Japanese cars.

No one should think for a moment that the process control of the period had any sophistication. Pyrometers should have been used at Springfield Armory in the forge rooms, and they were not, but then, pyrometers were new in 1901. The excuse given at the time for bursting 03 receivers was "too much case hardening". And that could have been one cause. All of this makes me believe that the WW1 era Arsenals were ships that leaked in a lot of seams. The metal used in 03 barrels was just as primitive, I have seen a number of 03 blow up pictures where the barrel gave way. Cartridges were also made under primitive process controls, a bad cartridge gives way and the metal of the receiver or barrel does not have the margin to hold up. But since the quality was so variable, maybe the next one would.

People today have no sense of history and no sense of the technology of the period. They project back today's technology and expect things 100 years ago to be the same as today. Well it was not. The good old days were rotten.

[firstflabn]

Great powers of concentration you have. Once the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1918 gets mentioned, I can hardly think of anything else.

[kragluver]

It is not true to state that only the Marines carried '03's in France. M1917s armed roughly 2/3 - 3/4 of the AEF. The rest were armed with '03s. Generally speaking, the regular Army units kept their 1903s. Gaurd and National Army (i.e., draftees) units were equipped with '17s. This is not an across the board true statement, but generally so.

My G-grandfather served in the 6th Division - Regular Army from 1913 until 1919. I have photos that he took of his buddies in France. They are holding 1903s. All pictures I've ever seen of the 1st Division at the time (of which there are quite a few) show them with '03s.

Chances are there were receiver failures in France during combat operations. They were very likely not well documented. Today they would have been. The US had roughly 330,000 casualties in roughly 5.5 months of hard combat (June 1919 until Nov 11) - that's 60,000 men per month. I don't think they paid much attention to what was probably a small number of receiver failures.

I'm of the opinion that if you truly want to shoot a LN '03, test it yourself first by whacking the receiver hard with a hammer. If it shatters - you shouldn't shoot it. If it doesn't - you might be okay. (That last was said tongue in cheek.) My point is that not many of us would risk whacking our fine collectable 1903 with a hammer - it might break - which is just the point!

[Kurt]

Slamfire, Just want to say, excellent points and a reality check included.

Kurt

[kragluver]

Slamfire - your mention of ships reminds me.... current thinking on the Titanic disaster is... wait for it... brittle steel in the rivets used to fasten the hull plates! Instead of taking the bending when striking the iceberg, rivets shattered unzipping a very large seam - much larger than should have occurred in the collision. Those rivets were heated cherry red before being installed - no process control in the heating.

The bottom line is that the need for steel process controls were learned through some very hard, painful lessons in the early years.

[PhillipM]

There is a difference but, unless you know original design intent, you don’t know why the Swiss cut their chambers a little longer. Maybe it is was due to grease clearance, mud clearance, or something else.
But I am not worried due to the number of 303 British, 308 cartridges that I have fired with greased bullets and greased cases.

The Royal Society has the right idea: Their motto is to “accept nothing on authority.” Knowledge is to be based on observations/tests in the physical world, and if authority conflicts with these observations, then authority is wrong. There has always been a continuing fight against dogma created by authority figures.

Based on my observations greased bullets, greased cases do not raise pressures. Grease does not pinch the bullet in the case neck, and I believe it is because as pressure builds in a case the neck starts expanding from behind the bullet, rolling forward toward the case mouth until the bullet is released. This has the effect of moving the grease, grease may be “incompressible” but it is not immovable.

I fired over 1000 rounds of greased 303 British and I greased the heck out of 308 Cavim. I had a case of the stuff, maybe 1500 rounds, currently the brass fills two complete 50 caliber ammunition cans. I wanted to fire the stuff in my FAL, I did not want the cases to stretch, so I put ammunition in plastic bags, dropped in tablespoons worth (actually fingerdips) of Casteroil stick wax in the bags and shook the stuff. Stick wax was a bad idea. Stick wax http://www.freemansupply.com/CastrolIloformStic.htm is tenacious stuff, it is meant to stick to saw blades as they cut through metal or ceramic. Casteroil stick wax is very thick and did not apply smoothly. After shaking in a bag, I had huge clumps of stick wax all over the ammunition. When I loaded and fired the stuff a mist of stick wax formed in the air. The rifle was coated, my clothes were coated, my glasses were coated, and the stuff does not wash off in plain water. But something interesting happened. I was able to open the gas system in my FAL by more than a couple of clicks and still have reliable function. For those who don’t have a FAL, you adjust the cycling by bleeding off gas until the bolt is no longer held by the follower. Then you add a click or two. I was able to verify that lubricated ammunition reduced breech friction significantly, and by increasing the gas bleed, made the rifle cycle smoother and with less banging and slamming.

Still, the plume of stick wax was objectionable and I ended up wiping down the cases. I left stick wax on, but not in the thick, clumpy quantities. The cases were covered from head to toe with a thin coating of stick wax, and I shot them that way. Shot them in bolt rifles, M1a’s, FAL’s, anything of mine that was in 308.

Since I don’t have copper fouling problems with modern jacketed bullets I don’t have to grease my bullets, but I lubricate my cases and have not encountered any pressure issues. I have shot out two barrels on one M1a, another on another, shot out match 308 barrels, one AR15 barrel, no problems.

Those who have the energy to go page by page from every Arms and the Man at Google books, such as I, will find that pre WW1, greasing bullets was the norm. Shooters are bragging about the accuracy, about shooting 3000, 7000 greased rounds without bore fouling or cleaning. There are actually pictures of greasing devices, for clubs! However I notice a tension in the articles of shooters: while they don’t see evidence of harm in their own rifles and ammunition, yet rifles are blowing up and behind the scenes the Ordnance Department must be claiming the blow up’s are due to grease. Not until 1918 does the Army actually put out a statement in print that Army rifles do not blow up more frequently than any other rifle and when an 03 blows up, it is due to shooter stupidity. Incidentally, this is after the production of single heat treat receivers is discontinued. No one outside of the Ordnance Department is aware of the dangerously defective rifles the Army is manufacturing, issuing and selling, and the Army is not telling.

The blowups referenced by Dick Culver were from shooting greased TIN CAN ammo issued in the 1921 national matches that had cold soldered itself to the neck, not greasing any other 30-06 cartridge. I'm glad you know more than Springfield and Frankford arsenals combined when it comes to greased tin can bullets.


"Frankford and Springfield found that the incompressible grease would not allow the neck of the case to expand and release the bullet from the "cold solder job" in the neck of the case. Greasing the bullets had the potential of creating an explosive situation..."

"Human nature being what it is, many continued to lubricate the new ammunition causing
several wrecked rifles. In every instance, the cause was traced to the prohibited use of
grease on the ammunition. At least one projectile was found downrange with the neck of the
cartridge case still firmly attached to the bullet and exhibiting rifling marks on the brass. The
probable chamber pressure of that round can only be imagined."

http://www.jouster.com/sea_stories/when_the_tin_can_changed_history.pdf

[slamfire]

1. The blowups referenced by Dick Culver were from shooting greased TIN CAN ammo issued in the 1921 national matches that had cold soldered itself to the neck, not greasing any other 30-06 cartridge. I'm glad you know more than Springfield and Frankford arsenals combined when it comes to greased tin can bullets.


"Frankford and Springfield found that the incompressible grease would not allow the neck of the case to expand and release the bullet from the "cold solder job" in the neck of the case. Greasing the bullets had the potential of creating an explosive situation..."

"Human nature being what it is, many continued to lubricate the new ammunition causing
several wrecked rifles. In every instance, the cause was traced to the prohibited use of
grease on the ammunition. At least one projectile was found downrange with the neck of the
cartridge case still firmly attached to the bullet and exhibiting rifling marks on the brass. The
probable chamber pressure of that round can only be imagined."

http://www.jouster.com/sea_stories/w...ed_history.pdf

Unfortunately what you reference only shows the distorting effect when authority figures initiate and perpetuate an Ordnance Department coverup.

This is the official in print version:

Arms and the Man, Editorial by Brig-Gen Fred H. Phillips, Jr, Secretary NRA

1921 The National Match Ammunition

Use of the national Match ammunition through the Camp Perry shooting season has amply demonstrated that, in the hands of intelligent rifleman, the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe.

The fact that the National Matches closed without recording one serious accident in connection with the use of this ammunition seems to be a final and clinching argument, that when properly handled, no disastrous results may be expect. The only instance of rifles having been damaged-there were two out of the thousand-odd in use that suffered from “blow back”-were cause the presence of grease in excessive quantity and were the result of the shooter’s own carelessness. Fortunately the men who experience the blow backs were only superficially hurt. The lesion, however, in connection with the blow backs was plain.

Anyone who wants to go page by page through the Arms and the Man magazines, like I have, on Google Books, can read it for themselves.

IF the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe. is not a BALD FACE LIE by an active duty Army General, in print, in a national periodical, representing the Army's position in this matter, then I don't know what a lie is. :protest:

At some level we have to believe authority figures, no human knows it all . So I understand why people who don’t have enough of a background to recognize this as a cover up believe Hatcher's misdirection and General Phillip's lie. Given the gabbling through the decades the US shooting flock considers Hatcher's misdirection gospel, basic to their life, the foundation of their existence and meaning, (maybe over the top on that) but the whole problem of the tin can ammunition was the tin bonding to the case neck, creating a bore obstruction, and had nothing to do with grease.

And in that, I do know more than all of Frankfort Arsenal, Springfield Arsenal, and Dick Culver combined on greased bullets and the tin can ammunition.

However, Hatcher is more interesting. He had all the information, he was a participant in everything, he saw the greased Swiss bullets when he competed on the US rifle team in Switzerland , he went through WW2 as Chief of Ordnance and built over 100,000 20mm oerlikon autocannons that used greased ammunition, and yet, when it comes to greased ammunition and his book, it is all bad. Interesting to me, previous to the publication of Hatcher’s Notebook was Major Earl Naramore’s 1937 Book Handloading. http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ClassicWorks/handloaders_manual%20-%20naramore%20-%201943.pdf . In the 1920’s , Major Naramore is a frequent contributor to Arms and the Man. He is a true expert ballistician, a truthful man, and I expect his 1937 book was written close to or after his retirement. And this is what Major Naramore says about the tin can ammunition:

Page 159

The ammunition made a Frankford Arsenal for the 1921 National Matches had bullets heavily plated with tin. This ammunition was satisfactory when first loaded. Tin has an affinity for brass and in this ammunition the tin combined with the insides of the case necks, forming a union between the bullet and the case just as though the bullets were soldered in place. This union is so strong that it is impossible to extract the bullets and if the ammunition is fired, dangerous pressures will develop. Most of this lot of ammunition, the only one so loaded, has been shot or destroyed, but anyone running across any of it should destroy it or preserve it only as a curiosity in the development of ammunition It should under no circumstances be fired. The marking on the case heads is, F.A. 21-R

What I find remarkable is that Hatcher, writing his book in 1947, did not acknowledge this and yet Hatcher was the illustrator of Naramore's book Handloading!!!. Instead, in his book, Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher discards all evidence that bonding between the bullet and case as the cause of the blowups, and repeats all the old, false, misleading theories about grease pinching the bullets.

Want to speculate about his motives?



I'm of the opinion that if you truly want to shoot a LN '03, test it yourself first by whacking the receiver hard with a hammer. If it shatters - you shouldn't shoot it. If it doesn't - you might be okay. (That last was said tongue in cheek.) My point is that not many of us would risk whacking our fine collectable 1903 with a hammer - it might break - which is just the point!

I agree on that. That is exactly what Hugh Douglas did and wrote about it in the May-June 1985 issue of Rifle Magazine. He took five or six low number 03 receivers, held them in his hand, and with the nylon faced hammer in his other hand, hit them. They all shattered either through the receiver ring, the right receiver rail, or the rear receiver ring. All of them. And he shattered a double heat treat too!!

In another forum, a poster said that the Marine Corp sorted out their "good" from "bad" single heat treat receivers by hitting them with hammers. Those that broke, well it does not take an Einstein to figure they were bad.

I think the hammer test a good idea. Hit that single heat treat receiver and make it ring. If it breaks, post the pictures.

This one came cracked from the CMP:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/LowNumberM1903Receivercrack.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/LowNumberM1903Receivercrack.jpg.html)

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Your post raises two issues: What was the primary rifle in France? Based on what I have seen and read, only the Marines carried the 03 into Europe, the US Army carried the M1917. I am aware, from American Rifleman articles, that Regular Army Units were relieved of their 03's and given M1917's before shipping across. This was how 03 serial number one was found, the Private who had the rifle did not want to give it up, he created enough of a fuss that his unique rifle was identified to authority. I would like someone to give number of the actual 03’s that were in Europe. ...

Not true. The National Guard units, like the 166th, 167th, and 168th Regiments, all used their 1903's. My grandfather, 167th Regiment, used a 1903. The Divisions mobilized the earliest all used 1903's. At the end of the war, there were about 800,00 1903's in France, although the exact number is unknown. .

The SA SN 1 rifle was confiscated in France, not America. The rifle was issued to Pvt. Frank C. Lynaugh of Haverhill, Maine, and it was confiscated from him, over his objection, in the theater of operations of the 49th Infantry while in France and sent back to the States.

jt

[PhillipM]

Unfortunately what you reference only shows the distorting effect when authority figures initiate and perpetuate an Ordnance Department coverup.

This is the official in print version:

Arms and the Man, Editorial by Brig-Gen Fred H. Phillips, Jr, Secretary NRA

1921 The National Match Ammunition

Use of the national Match ammunition through the Camp Perry shooting season has amply demonstrated that, in the hands of intelligent rifleman, the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe.

The fact that the National Matches closed without recording one serious accident in connection with the use of this ammunition seems to be a final and clinching argument, that when properly handled, no disastrous results may be expect. The only instance of rifles having been damaged-there were two out of the thousand-odd in use that suffered from “blow back”-were cause the presence of grease in excessive quantity and were the result of the shooter’s own carelessness. Fortunately the men who experience the blow backs were only superficially hurt. The lesion, however, in connection with the blow backs was plain.

Anyone who wants to go page by page through the Arms and the Man magazines, like I have, on Google Books, can read it for themselves.

IF the “tin can” cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe. is not a BALD FACE LIE by an active duty Army General, in print, in a national periodical, representing the Army's position in this matter, then I don't know what a lie is. :protest:

At some level we have to believe authority figures, no human knows it all . So I understand why people who don’t have enough of a background to recognize this as a cover up believe Hatcher's misdirection and General Phillip's lie. Given the gabbling through the decades the US shooting flock considers Hatcher's misdirection gospel, basic to their life, the foundation of their existence and meaning, (maybe over the top on that) but the whole problem of the tin can ammunition was the tin bonding to the case neck, creating a bore obstruction, and had nothing to do with grease.

And in that, I do know more than all of Frankfort Arsenal, Springfield Arsenal, and Dick Culver combined on greased bullets and the tin can ammunition.

However, Hatcher is more interesting. He had all the information, he was a participant in everything, he saw the greased Swiss bullets when he competed on the US rifle team in Switzerland , he went through WW2 as Chief of Ordnance and built over 100,000 20mm oerlikon autocannons that used greased ammunition, and yet, when it comes to greased ammunition and his book, it is all bad. Interesting to me, previous to the publication of Hatcher’s Notebook was Major Earl Naramore’s 1937 Book Handloading. http://www.castpics.net/subsite2/ClassicWorks/handloaders_manual%20-%20naramore%20-%201943.pdf . In the 1920’s , Major Naramore is a frequent contributor to Arms and the Man. He is a true expert ballistician, a truthful man, and I expect his 1937 book was written close to or after his retirement. And this is what Major Naramore says about the tin can ammunition:

Page 159

The ammunition made a Frankford Arsenal for the 1921 National Matches had bullets heavily plated with tin. This ammunition was satisfactory when first loaded. Tin has an affinity for brass and in this ammunition the tin combined with the insides of the case necks, forming a union between the bullet and the case just as though the bullets were soldered in place. This union is so strong that it is impossible to extract the bullets and if the ammunition is fired, dangerous pressures will develop. Most of this lot of ammunition, the only one so loaded, has been shot or destroyed, but anyone running across any of it should destroy it or preserve it only as a curiosity in the development of ammunition It should under no circumstances be fired. The marking on the case heads is, F.A. 21-R

What I find remarkable is that Hatcher, writing his book in 1947, did not acknowledge this and yet Hatcher was the illustrator of Naramore's book Handloading!!!. Instead, in his book, Hatcher's Notebook, Hatcher discards all evidence that bonding between the bullet and case as the cause of the blowups, and repeats all the old, false, misleading theories about grease pinching the bullets.

Want to speculate about his motives?




I agree on that. That is exactly what Hugh Douglas did and wrote about it in the May-June 1985 issue of Rifle Magazine. He took five or six low number 03 receivers, held them in his hand, and with the nylon faced hammer in his other hand, hit them. They all shattered either through the receiver ring, the right receiver rail, or the rear receiver ring. All of them. And he shattered a double heat treat too!!

In another forum, a poster said that the Marine Corp sorted out their "good" from "bad" single heat treat receivers by hitting them with hammers. Those that broke, well it does not take an Einstein to figure they were bad.

I think the hammer test a good idea. Hit that single heat treat receiver and make it ring. If it breaks, post the pictures.

This one came cracked from the CMP:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/M1903/LowNumberM1903Receivercrack.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/M1903/LowNumberM1903Receivercrack.jpg.html)

Did Major Naramore personally try to pull tin can ammo? Was he at the 1921 National Matches? Did he measure pressures? Is there any evidence he even held one of those rounds in his hand? Does he cite any source?

Major Culver had a primary witness to the events at the 1921 matches, his own father.

As for WWI documentation of rifle failures, it's hard to prove a negative, but I will say there's much documentation about the failure of the Chauchat and none on the Springfield.

[slamfire]

Did Major Naramore personally try to pull tin can ammo? Was he at the 1921 National Matches? Did he measure pressures? Is there any evidence he even held one of those rounds in his hand? Does he cite any source?

Phillip: Download Naramore's book using the URL I provided. Also, find his technical articles in the Mans and the Arm magazine. The Ordnance Department no longer has experts of his qualifications and experience, they all went away after the Arsenal system was destroyed by Robert Strange McNamara. Well maybe it was inevitable, due to the Government's policy of predatory economic rationalism.

However, that if that is not enough, epoxy or soft solder a rifle bullet to a case neck, and fire it. Tell us what happens.


Quote Originally Posted by slamfire View Post



Not true. The National Guard units, like the 166th, 167th, and 168th Regiments, all used their 1903's. My grandfather, 167th Regiment, used a 1903. The Divisions mobilized the earliest all used 1903's. At the end of the war, there were about 800,00 1903's in France, although the exact number is unknown. .


Good to know, though I don't think it was best policy to support two battle rifles at the same time, but the war was short enough and they did it.

[ClaudeH]

Slamfire, Why do you insist on calling the Swiss rifle round and the 20 mm shell 'greased", and also your references to "greasing" your own ammo.

The Swiss round has a >wax< ring at the mouth of the neck. It is not smeary so as to coat the chamber neck and it leaves no significant residue when fired.

The 20 mm shell may be >lubricated< and that may be the correct term for your loads. They are not thick with smeary grease.

It is understood that properly lubricated casings are not a danger. It is not understood that shoving a round into a grease-loaded chamber neck is not dangerous.

Much of what you have written here is very interesting and illuminating, but you seem to be obfuscating with the above.

[ncblksmth1]

Thats a lot of heady reading. So Whats the conclusion?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

....Good to know, though I don't think it was best policy to support two battle rifles at the same time, but the war was short enough and they did it.

FYI: They had a huge rebuild facility in France (AEF), and tens of thousands of 03's were rebuilt in country. Many were disassembled and shipped home as such. I have pictures of the facility in operation somewhere around here. Many key SA and RIA operational personnel were transferred overseas to oversee the operation.

jt

[firstflabn]

FYI: They had a huge rebuild facility in France (AEF), and tens of thousands of 03's were rebuilt in country. Many were disassembled and shipped home as such.


Jim, you may have seen it here:

http://freepages.military.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~cacunithistories/Mehun%20ORS.html

Lots and lots of interesting beans to count in this detailed history of ordnance on the job in France.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Thanks, firstflabn.

jt

[slamfire]

Slamfire, Why do you insist on calling the Swiss rifle round and the 20 mm shell 'greased", and also your references to "greasing" your own ammo.

The Swiss round has a >wax< ring at the mouth of the neck. It is not smeary so as to coat the chamber neck and it leaves no significant residue when fired.

The 20 mm shell may be >lubricated< and that may be the correct term for your loads. They are not thick with smeary grease.


A tribologist might have a fit based on what I am going to say, but this document is useful for understanding greases, EM 1110-2-1424 Lubricants and Hydraulic Fluids http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/Portals/76/Publications/EngineerManuals/EM_1110-2-1424.pdf

and the definition of grease in chapter 5 is:

Grease is a semifluid to solid mixture of a fluid lubricant, a thickener, and additives. The fluid lubricant that performs the actual lubrication can be petroleum (mineral) oil, synthetic oil, or vegetable oil. The thickener gives grease is characteristic consistency and is sometimes thought of as a “three dimensional” fibrous network” or “sponge” that holds the oil in place.

I have been using the term grease in a very generic fashion. As we all know greases vary in consistency, from very “hard” grease to “soft” greases. Center fire bullet lubes are hard, unless I put a heater under my bullet lubricator modern bullet lubes won’t flow, but I consider bullet lubes “greases”. Under the temperatures and pressures of center fire smokeless cartridges our modern lubes work very well, but if you have ever used them in black powder firearms, modern hard lubes are inadequate. For black powder bullets you must use a softer grease or the barrel will foul after a couple of shots. The hard greases used for center fire bullets are convenient, they don’t smear easily, don’t attract dirt as rapidly as the softer bullet lubes, and are less messy to handle. However, even though the hard bullet lubes won't work for black powder, the softer blackpowder lubes have worked well with my smokeless loads. Obviously the Swiss found a combination of lubricant and thickener that worked well in issue ammunition. While soft greases are messy to use and messy to handle they were used by competitive shooters. The Swiss bullet grease ring is a “hard grease”, but under the temperatures and pressures that occur in a rifle chamber, that waxy grease ring will melt and there is no doubt that it works without leaving grease in the chamber. I believe the mix of beeswax, carnauba wax, and oil, used by Major Smith Brookhart to be a similar hard grease. If you notice the bullet lubricant he recommends requires planning: you have to mix the stuff, melt it, and apply it before the match.

Rifle Training in War, part 4 Major Smith Brookhart, Arms and the Man 1918 (available on Google Books)

Mobilubricant, Polarine, cup grease, or Keystone Journal grease may be used by putting the point of each bullet in the grease or by rubbing it over the bullets on a whole clup. Blue ointment used in the same way makes an excellent bullet grease. The best plan is a compound of 40% beeswax and 40% Carnauba wax and 20% Petrolatum. This must be melted and the bullets must be warmed and dipped into it. If the bullets are cold they take too much. They can be warmed with hot water. This compound hardens, is clean and easy to handle. When fired it leaves a trace of smoke along the entire course of the bullet, but that is no disadvantage in training. The great riflemen of the United States have nearly all used greased bullets during the last half dozen years.


Metal fouling is also entirely prevented by the use of greased bullets.

The rifle is preserved and its life prolonged by the use of greased bullets.

The use of grease is fool proof.

The only possible injuries that can result from its use arise when sand or dirt becomes mixed with and scratch the bore or when grease closes up the bore and bursts the barrel.

Both are easily avoided.

The writer has ample proof of these conclusions. He has commanded riflemen when they won world championships with rifles that had been fired more than 3000 times without any cleaning whatever. But every bullet had been greased. One of these rifles that had fired over 3300 rounds without cleaning the bore, showed signs of loss in accuracy at 1000 yards the day before the Palma match in 1912. The bore was wiped out and a collection of hard baked carbon fouling was found near the muzzle. This was removed with a steel brush and next day that rifle put on 216 points out of a possible 225 at 800, 900, and 1000 yards. This was the second score in the team that made the world’s record in the Palma match-and the man who made 217 also greased his bullets. This rifle fired 3300 rounds before cleaning of any kind was necessary, and then was only because of a carbon fouling which was easily removed. There was no acid reaction. Since that date other riflemen have won the Herrick, the Wimbledon, the Marine Corps and the Regimental Championship with the same treatment of their rifles. These are the greatest test of accuracy in the United States. The failure to clean the ordinary fouling from the rifle daily, was no advantage. Neither did it cause any injury. A better way would be to wipe it out and oil, but the burned grease is a protection and not an injury to the bore.

Smeary, soft greases were used, all of the greases mentioned by Major Brookhart are soft automotive greases, the grease kits that were taken to the line used soft greases, and soft greases have been used by International Shooters for decades after WW2.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/MobileandNevernickelgreasePJOHare_zps089a5ecd.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/MobileandNevernickelgreasePJOHare_zps089a5ecd.jpg. html)


The use of greases, oils, and “waxes” to provide cartridge lubrication was well known to designers prior to WW2. Melvin Johnson, the inventor of the Johnson rifle, was aware of the use of these in small arms:

Army Ordnance Oct 1936: What Price Automatic?, by Melvin M. Johnson, Jr.

Several methods have been devised to retard the unlocking of the block or bolt mechanically. The most appealing point in such a system is consolidation of the “automatic” parts in the breech. However, there is one serious difficulty. The conventional cartridge case does not lend itself to such a system unless adequate lubrication is provided, such as grease or wax or oil on the cases or in the chamber. Thus, the Schwarzlose machine gun has an automatic oil pump: the caliber 30 Thompson rifle (not the caliber 45 T.S.-M.G.) had oil pad in the magazine, and special “wax” was needed on the cases designed to be used in the Pedersen rifle.

The memory of these items has been totally forgotten, it is if after WW2 the collective American shooting community took a drill to their foreheads and through the holes they created, sucked out half their brains. This willful ignorance I blame on one book: Hatcher’s Notebook. Hatcher’s Notebook has a section about greased bullets. The section claims greased bullets are dangerous to shoot, they dangerously raising pressures, “increasing bolt thrust” and blowing up 03 rifles. This, of course, is the Army coverup for the blow up’s for those single heat treat 03’s. The Army had made over 1 million 03’s, many of them are so structurally deficient that just hitting a low number receiver with a nylon hammer will cause the thing to shatter into pieces. Bullets of the period fouled something awful and shooters greased the heck out of their bullets. Instead of acknowledging the defective rifles and the defective ammunition they made, the Army blamed the shooter practice of greasing bullets. Hatcher’s prestige is such that the shooting community takes his continuation of this cover up as gospel. The fundamental belief is that Hatcher and the Ordnance Department are infallible and honest brokers without an agenda. But they are not. Anyone who has ever worked with the military knows the first thing they do about scandal is to deign and perform a coverup. Unfortunately the section on greased bullets, pages 335-343, is a Black Hole of BS and those who live within it ignore the earlier sections in Hatcher’s Notebook (page 153) where oiled cases and waxed cases where used and ignore the historical evidence which shows that prior to chamber flutes greased/oiled/waxed cases were very common.

It did not help things that Hatcher’s Notebook cost about $20.00. The book was cheap, has gone through 20 plus editions. Real design books, such as Chin’s Machine Gun series were expensive and were hard to find. I paid $85.00 for Vol 1 and $125.00 for Vol 4, was happy to pay that much when I found them. Today, I have seen prices $400.00 and up for the hardcover . You can download the electronic versions at http://www.milsurps.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13 but people don’t read books anymore, even if they are free. There are very few good books on the principals of firearms, another is “Brassey’s Small Arms” by DF Allsop & M A Toomey, but again, limited quantities and ridiculous prices for the hardcover versions. These books explain the history, which is filled with greased and oiled cartridges, but ever since Hatcher’s Notebook came out, those who might have a memory of this historical period and understand why these things existed have been shouted down by the Hatcherites.

You will find Hatcherites accept contradictory concepts: that fluted chambers break the friction between case and chamber, are necessary for proper function in roller bolts, and yet, believe that greased or oiled cartridges, which accomplish the same thing, are dangerous. A number don’t believe that lessening the friction between case and chamber is a good thing, will improve function reliability, because they have been told so many times that the “case must grip the chamber walls”.

These flutes work by floating the upper 2/3’s of the case off the chamber wall, the back third provides the gas seal. This is another issue with Hatcherites, they believe the case is a structural element, that it must carry load or the mechanism will break. This is false and is only a concern if the action is structurally deficient, such as low number 03 receivers. And there, since the things are unpredictable weak, nothing should be fired in them at all. However, since the Army put the nonsensical concern that grease “increases bolt thrust” in the public domain you know they were aware that their rifles were structurally deficient. A properly designed mechanism is designed to carry the full load of the entire cartridge thrust, plus some margin, and a properly built mechanism will carry that load. Any designer who creates a structure that is weaker than the maximum design load is a fool and charlatan.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/FlutedChamber.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/FlutedChamber.jpg.html)

The Hispano-Oerlikon was a blow back cannon, used by the Navy from WW2 all the way through Vietnam. One reference states that 150,000 of the things were made and were in service during WW2. The WW2 era cannons required greased ammunition. Greasing the rounds was a bother, post WW2 an automatic oiler was added, but the historical record of grease use still exists. This grease had to be a “soft” grease.

You can see at exactly 2:14 on this WW2 video a Sailor’s hand painting grease on the 20 mm ammunition loading machine for the Oerlikon anti aircraft machine guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ


Figure from The Machine Gun Vol V Hispano-Oerlikon page 358

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-%28by-George-M.-Chinn%29


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Hispano-OerlikonMachineGunVol5page358_zps75046bd9.png (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Hispano-OerlikonMachineGunVol5page358_zps75046bd9.png.html )


There were problems if the grease film was inadequate:

http://hnsa.org/doc/gun20mm/part4.htm


ORDNANCE PAMPHLET NO. 911 March 1943

GREASING AMMUNITION

All 20 mm. A.A. Mark 2 and Mark 4 ammunition MUST BE COMPLETELY COVERED WITH A LIGHT COAT OF MINERAL GREASE BEFORE BEING LOADED INTO THE MAGAZINE.

The ammunition is usually packed greased. However, this grease tends to dry off. Whether cartridges are packed greased or not, they should be regreased before loading the magazine.

NOTE-A small amount of mineral grease, applied shortly before firing, to the cartridge case that is visible in the magazine mouthpiece, will assist in preventing a jam in the gun barrel.

Dry ammunition or ammunition with insufficient grease will jam in the gun chamber when fired and extraction will be very difficult, if not impossible. See Page 110 for use of torn cartridge extractor.

When authorities lie, this creates issues for those who believe in the infallibility of the source, and thus believe the lie. The warning about not to remove the grease from the 20mm ammunition had to be there, as I believe those who had believed the Army warnings about greases were wiping the grease off the 20mm cartridges. As these machine cannon were used in many applications, such as protecting Naval ships from Japanese torpedo bombers, removing the grease from the rounds would have caused a jam, and thusly a ship, from PT boat to Aircraft carrier could have been lost.

While I believe in controlling cartridge headspace through the sizing die and cartridge headspace gages, a heavy lubricant may protect the case from excess headspace:

The Machine Gun, Vol 1 LTC Chinn, 20mm Hispano-Suiza page 589

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?r=347-The-Machine-Gun-%28by-George-M.-Chinn%29


Thus the most vital measurement (headspace) in any automatic weapon was governed by chance in this instance.

An unfortunate discovery was that chamber errors in the gun could be corrected for the moment covering the ammunition case with a heavy lubricant. If the chamber was oversize, it served as a fluid fit to make up the deficiency and, if unsafe headspace existed that would result in case rupture if ammunition was fired dry, then the lubricant allowed the cartridge case to slip back at the start of pressure build up, to take up the slack between the breech lock and the breech lock key. Had this method of “quick fix” not been possible, the Navy would have long ago recognized the seriousness of the situation. In fact, this inexcusable method of correction was in use so long that it was becoming accepted as a satisfactory solution of a necessary nuisance.

As I stated earlier, when authorities lie, this has a confusing, distorting effect on those who do not know enough to challenge the lie. I think this is illustrative,

TM 9-1904 Ammunition Inspection Guide 2 Mar 1944 Page 232

Handling cartridges.

After a box of ammunition has been opened and the cartridges removed, the primer should be protected from blows by sharp instruments as such a blow might explode the cartridges. Ammunition should be protected from mud, sand, dirt, and water.

If it gets wet or dirty, it should be wiped off at once. Verdigris or light corrosion should be wiped off. However, cartridges should not be polished to make them look better or brighter. The use of abrasives is forbidden. If a cartridge case becomes so corroded that a perceptible amount of metal is eaten away, it is dangerous to fire and should not be used.

The use of oil on cartridge cases is prohibited. Greasing or oiling cartridges used in machine guns and automatic arms cause the collection of dust and other abrasives which are injurious. Grease or oil on cartridge cases or on the walls of the chamber in nonautomatic rifles creates excessive and hazardous pressure on the rifle bolt. When there is oil on the cartridge case, there is no adhesion of the case to the chamber. When the case expands upon firing, the case slips back, and the bolt receives a greater rearward thrust. An apparent exception exists in the case of lead bullets. However, only the bullet is waxed or greased as issued. Ammunition should not be exposed

If you notice, the author accepts the idea that grease or oil in non automatic rifles, that is bolt rifles, creates a dangerous condition, but not in automatic rifles. This is of course, derived from the Army coverup of 1921, but at the same time, there are over 150,000 20mm anti aircraft cannon in use at this time period, and the author has to be aware of this. Like the author of this TM, there are many today who would not see or understand the inconsistency or contradictions. An authority figure has told them (1944) that greases and oils are dangerous in bolt rifles, but the evidence before their eyes that automatic mechanisms require this lubrication. Since Hatcher and the Ordnance Department are infallible, mentally, the way they would reconcile this contradiction would be to accept it: there must be one set of physical laws and mechanics in the universe for bolt rifles, and another for automatic weapons. But, this is nonsense, there is only one set of physical laws in the universe, the laws apply equally to bolt rifles and automatic weapons. If this is not clear, maybe a simple example will help. According to this manual, if I shoot greased/oiled cartridges in my M1a, a semi automatic rifle, this is perfectly safe. However if I reach up and turn off the gas system, making the rifle non automatic, something where I have to manually manipulate the bolt, then the same greased or oiled cartridges are dangerous. This is, of course, total non sense.

[slamfire]

Double post, erased.

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Nice presentation, Slamfire. I was wondering if anyone was going to post Brookhart's dissertation.

jt