Greased Bullets

[slamfire]

Like many here, I have a copy of Hatcher’s Notebook, it is a valuable reference, and have read a number of its sections many times. However, I no longer consider Hatcher an infallible source, this is primarily due to his write up on grease, greased bullets, and the tin can ammunition.

If you read his chapter on Gun Corrosion, in which is the Tin Can ammunition experience, there are two points on which I strongly disagree. It has to do with the practice of greasing bullets to prevent cupro nickel jacket fouling and pressures. Hatcher states that “1, Grease increased the bolt thrust dangerously; and, 2, as if that weren’t enough, grease increased the chamber pressure dangerously”

His, or should I say the Army’s explanation for the second point, is that grease in the chamber pinches the case neck and thus prevents expansion of the case neck, thus dangerously raising pressures.

I decided to test this to see if greasing bullets would “dangerously” increase pressures. To do this, I decided to shoot heavily greased bullets, chronograph and photograph the before and after results. I used a load which literally millions of rounds were fired in competition: a 168 Match, 47.0 grains IMR 4895, LC cases.

These rounds were fired as sighting shots, to zero rifle. Bullets and chamber absolutely free from grease.

30-06 M98 Match Rifle 26" 1-10 Wilson Barrel



168 gr Nosler Match 47.0 IMR 4895 thrown lot L7926 LC53 WLR (brass) OAL 3.30"

13 Aug 2014 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel =2619 2640
Std Dev =29 2618
ES = 72 2572
High =2644 2622
Low = 2572 2644
N = 5

I subsequently shot a group which the bullets were not greased, but there was most certainly some grease residue left in the chamber from previous rounds. Note primer change.


168 gr Nosler Match 47.0 IMR 4895 thrown lot L7926 FA60 CCI #34 OAL 3.30"

grease in chamber from greased rounds

13 Aug 2014 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel =2691 2662 2672
Std Dev =30 2698 2742
ES = 81 2661
High =2742 2718
Low = 2661 2687
N = 7

Group Size: 9 rounds on target. 89-4X on MR 31 target

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06TargetUnGreasedBullets_zps027a6c71.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06TargetUnGreasedBullets_zps027a6c71.jpg.html)


Greased bullets before and after firing


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06greasedfiredandunfired_zps1f8007e9.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06greasedfiredandunfired_zps1f8007e9.jpg.html)

Initial rounds gave spurious reading across the chronograph, of which I wish they could have been true, for my chronograph was providing readings of 3000 fps. Velocities this high would be incredible for this load and bullet. If it had been real, and without pressure signs, the next thing I would have done was test the combination at long range. If the accuracy stayed excellent, if I could get 400 fps more velocity just by greasing the bullet, it would have been my secret. But I suspected instrumentation error and that is what it turned out to be. I moved the chronograph two feet + further from the muzzle and continued with my testing. On previous shooting sessions , when the chronograph was too close to the muzzle, or shooting magnum cartridges, or black powder, gunpowder residue crossed over the screens and created physically impossible velocity readings or displays of “err1”. As an example, I had to move my chronograph out to around 20 -25 yards to get any black powder musket velocities. The amount of powder residue blown out of the musket caused instrumentation error. For this test, I believe a mass of grease, or grease plume, created sensor error. This is why the number of shots on the targets do not correspond with the numbers in the chronograph data.


168 gr Nosler Match 47.0 IMR 4895 thrown lot L7926 FA/LC cases WLR (brass) OAL 3.30"

Greased to case shoulders by dip and twist with Lubriplate AA130

13 Aug 2014 T = 80 °F

Ave Vel =2650 2658 2675
Std Dev =16 2669 2642
ES = 46 2636 2629
High =2675 2642
Low = 2629 2645
N = 8

Shot #5: grease beyond case shoulder, Shot #8 very heavily greased,

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06TargetGreasedBullets_zps2b829093.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/30-06TargetGreasedBullets_zps2b829093.jpg.html)

Shot #8, “Big Grease” before and after firing

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/BigGreasebeforeandafter_zpsb304fec9.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/BigGreasebeforeandafter_zpsb304fec9.jpg.html)

At 100 yards I am of the opinion that the grease on the bullets did not cause any difference in accuracy or velocity and I did not observe any pressure indications.

Hatcher repeated an Army theory that greased bullets “dangerously” raised pressures because grease is incompressible, and that grease around the case neck “pinched” the case neck. This claim was made prior to the 1921 National Matches. While higher pressures should always give higher velocities, given that PV = nRT, pressure increases due to a thin grease layer do not follow a power law unless the volume is decreased exponentially. Without pressure measuring capabilities the only means I have of estimating pressure are inferences created after reviewing velocities, primer indications, (blown, leaking, primers, expanded primer pockets), and sticky bolt lift. I encountered none of these in any of my testing. It is possible that had I plugged the bore with grease, creating a bore obstruction, I would have experienced high pressure indications, but even so, given the huge mass of Lubriplate AA130 I put on the cartridges, if the Army’s claims were true about bullet pinching, I should have replicated the pressure problems. But I did not and I never have. This is not the first time I have shot greased cases, just the first time I have photographed greased cases, and it is the first time I have chronographed greased bullets. If, as the Army claimed, the case necks were prevented from expanding I should be able to measure this. I have measured the diameter of case necks, after firing with grease coatings, and the differences in diameter between dry and greased is within my measuring capabilities. I can’t measure a difference.

Primers of fired, greased rounds. Primers are rounded and show no evidence of pressure indications.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/Fired30-06greasedrounds_zps57f7c3b7.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/Fired30-06greasedrounds_zps57f7c3b7.jpg.html)


I would expect slightly higher velocities for the greased bullets, because ammunition technicians told me that in their laboratories they measured higher velocities at the same pressures for moly bullets. But given the small sample size in my shot strings, I can’t prove that one way or another. I look at the slight differences in velocities that I had for dry chamber, slightly greasy chamber, and greased chamber, as being all within the three sigma limits of what I would expect for that cartridge with that charge. That is, I don’t believe there is any significant velocity difference between any of my data strings, even though there are differences in the averages, but those are what you would normally see in velocity/pressure variations within the total population. So, based on velocities, I don’t see any evidence that grease on the case neck “pinches” the bullet.

What is totally wrong about the Army theory on “pinching” is the assumption that grease is immovable. Grease may be incompressible, but it is certainly not immovable. Under pressure, grease will flow. If it did not wheel bearings would have trouble rotating. With small arms cartridges the grease will flow because of the differences in metal thickness from the front and back of the case. Cases are thin at the front and thicken towards the back. The whole combustion event is faster than human perception, thus it seems instantaneous, but it is not. Combustion pressures take a finite amount of time to climb to maximum pressure. It can be assumed at each moment in time, the pressure within the whole case is the same, but of course, as time increases, the pressures increase. As pressures increase, the thinner parts of the case expand first, and as pressures increase more, the thicker sections expand last. This has the effect of squeezing the grease, some into the throat, and some out the action. I tried measuring the OD of the case mouths, to measure film thickness, and the layer is so thin, I can’t measure a significant difference with my measuring equipment. Between dry and lubricated cases, the case mouth expansion measurements are indistinguishable.

As can be seen in these pictures, the huge excesses of grease that I applied are squeezed out back of the case, filling the extractor groove in the process.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF068530-06Greasedfiredrounds_zps039569f2.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF068530-06Greasedfiredrounds_zps039569f2.jpg.html)

Grease is squeezed into the action areas making for a very messy rifle.


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF069430-06Wherethegreasegoes_zps38e26eef.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF069430-06Wherethegreasegoes_zps38e26eef.jpg.html)

I pictured this same phenomena with my 1873 Trapdoor. Here are 45/70 cases heavily greased after dipping and twisting.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF0660Greased4570_zps752acc67.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF0660Greased4570_zps752acc67.jpg.html)

The first cartridge to be fired is in the left picture, and a greased, fired case is in the right. Notice how much grease is in the action after a number of these heavily greased rounds have been fired.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/45-70Trapdoorfirstshotandlater_zpsf6dac6e7.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/45-70Trapdoorfirstshotandlater_zpsf6dac6e7.jpg.html)
A tray of fired, ungreased 45-70’s on right, greased fired 45-70 on left.

Ungreased on left, greased on right

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF06714570ungreasedonleftgreasedonright_zps9dc26 975.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Case%20Lubrication/Greased%20bullets%20test/DSCF06714570ungreasedonleftgreasedonright_zps9dc26 975.jpg.html)

For several decades, I have been skeptical of Hatcher’s/Army claims of combustion pressure increases due to greased bullets, greased cases. Since 2013, I have been able to review the popular press articles, written by the Army, from 1920/1921 on grease and articles in previous years. I am convinced the Army had been misdirecting the iproblems of structurally weak 03 receivers, along with poorly made US Army ammunition, onto grease. This all came to a head in 1920/21 when the Army, having thought it had a fix for cupro-nickel fouling, decided to eliminate greased bullets to eliminate dirt scratches on loaner rifles. However, the tin can ammunition was a total failure, because the bullet cold soldered itself to the case neck, creating a serious and dangerous bore obstruction. The Army blamed the grease and never acknowledged it was the tin, or the rifles. Based on the information I have found, and the tests I have made, it is so surprising that in 1947, Hatcher is repeating junk science from a 1921 cover up. It is also so surprising, that the American shooting community unreservedly accepts Hatcher’s account.

[mhb]

that MG Hatcher was directly involved in small arms programs and ammunition developments throughout the 1903 era, and beyond.
He eventually rose to be Chief of Field Ordnance, in WW2.
He was not given to guesswork or repetition of rumor.
All of his statements on the topic of grease and the tin-can ammunition problem were based on direct observation and instrumented tests, using all the resources available to Ordnance at the time.
There is no need for grease on modern small arms ammunition, but, if you wish to re-visit the issue, it would be necessary for you to actually measure breech pressures and bolt thrust directly, as Ordnance did, to produce valid data.

mhb - Mike

[John Beard]

Your tests are absolutely meaningless with respect to measuring chamber pressure and bolt thrust. Your assertion that "higher pressures should always give higher velocities" is patently untrue in this case. You fail to consider that you are dealing with a fixed amount of propellant. I can create a bore obstruction and cause extremely high pressure, but get zero velocity! :D

J.B. :hello:

[raymeketa]

Slam fire

Your mini article was an interesting read. Obviously, you put a lot of time and effort into your tests. Thank you for sharing it.

Unfortunately, I have to take issue with you on three key points. Briefly, they are:

First, your character slam of General Hatcher really had nothing to do with the technical aspects of your tests. By doing so you gave the impression that he was the target of your tests and that you started with a pre-established conclusion.

Second, since you limited your tests to one rifle, one load, your conclusions were anecdotal at best. While anecdotal evidence may make good reading it is hardly the basis for drawing any conclusions whatsoever.

Finally, your conclusion that the real culprit was the 1921 "tin can" ammunition, is your opinion, not a fact. You presented nothing in the way of evidence to support your opinion.

[slamfire]

I would simply remind you that MG Hatcher was directly involved in small arms programs and ammunition developments throughout the 1903 era, and beyond.
He eventually rose to be Chief of Field Ordnance, in WW2.
He was not given to guesswork or repetition of rumor.
All of his statements on the topic of grease and the tin-can ammunition problem were based on direct observation and instrumented tests, using all the resources available to Ordnance at the time.

Basically, your post is an appeal to authority. Hatcher’s authority is such that he is taken for an infallible, inerrant source. It is very human to appeal to authorities, no one can know everything about everything, at some point we all rely on experts. But, as Wiki has shown, experts are not infallible, inerrant, they have their bias, their knowledge gaps, experts are in fact, human with human imperfections.

I think it is totally amazing that Hatcher writes what he does and yet he was the Head of Ordnance during WW2. He had access to the interiority of the Ordnance military industrial complex. He had authority over all the test labs, test facilities, even equipment manufacturers, which is of course, why his authority is so high among the shooting community. We don’t know all of what Hatcher knew. We would not know what we know about the single heat treat 03’s, the blow up lists, the development of the Garand, and many other things if he did not write about them. In so many instances Hatcher is the sole and primary source. And yet, knowing what he actually did know, knowing what his associates knew, knowing what he therefore should have seen, I find his section on grease bullets and the tin can ammunition extraordinary. How could he not have known that what he was writing was bunk?

For many things, we only know what Hatcher tells us. If your universe is based solely on Hatcher, your education only what Hatcher told you, and you know nothing else, you live in a very compact, but misleading universe.

I like the statement of the Royal Society which says, basically, “Take nothing on Authority”. Science / knowledge should be based on observations in the physical universe, if the observations conflict with authority, authority is wrong.


There is no need for grease on modern small arms ammunition, but, if you wish to re-visit the issue, it would be necessary for you to actually measure breech pressures and bolt thrust directly, as Ordnance did, to produce valid data.

Google Books has brought forth a wealth of information that was buried for decades, and I found what I consider the absolute best pressure test data in the public domain for greased bullets. And it turns out to be prior to the 1921 National Matches

Arms and the Man, “Grease” by Capt Edward C. Crossman


Frankfort Arsenal Tests 1919

Velocities and pressures of five round of standard Dry Ammunition

Pressure Velocity
Average 48710 CUP 2641
Std Deviation 1047 49
Extreme Spread 2300 114
Low 47,250 2556
High 49,550 2670
N 5 5

Velocity Pressure CUP
2644 47,950
2667 49,550
2667 49,300
2556 49,500
2670 47,250


Bullet Twirled to the neck in a can of grease

Pressure Velocity
Average 49103 CUP 2684
Std Deviation 2255 37
Extreme Spread 8600 153
Low 45,500 2629
High 54,100 2782
N 20 20

Velocity Pressure CUP
2680 47,000
2735 50,100
2649 47,900
2688 45,500
2660 49,500
2635 47,750
2699 48,650
2700 49,450
2696 47,600
2642 47,050
2661 46,650
2703 49,850
2675 48,750
2715 52,300
2708 51,250
2656 47,800
2782 54,100
2676 48,900
2629 48,450
2696 53,500


Thin coat on bullet

Pressure CUP Velocity
Average 49065 2683
Std Deviation 1203 22
Extreme Spread 3450 58
Low 47,650 2655
High 51,100 2713
N 10 10



Velocity Pressure CUP


2660 48,400
2681 47,650
2655 49,100
2699 51,050
2678 48,450
2667 48,250
2713 51,100
2713 49,500
2663 47,950
2703 49,200

Crossman had been collecting his data prior to the decision of March 1921 Arms and Ammunition Board to “prohibit the use of any lubricant applies to the exterior of the loaded round…and to discourage as much as possible the use of grease at the National Matches.” At this ammunition board, both “Hatcher and Whelen were designated to get up a pamphlet on the grease habit and its evils, and how the unfortunate victim of the habit may cure himself.”, but Crossman gets his article out first. If you read Crossman’s article, you will see what legalistic arguments he makes to prove the evils of grease, but this data is the best I have seen on pressures and greased bullets.

Something that has to be understood is that the pressure measuring equipment of the period worked by crushing copper discs and the slightest change in friction in the mechanism could give erroneous results. I think this is why Frankford Arsenal tested 20 rounds of “dip and twist” because they did not believe their results, and kept testing, because they were expecting higher pressures. Because this data was produced years prior to the order to “discourage as much as possible the use of grease at the National Matches”, I believe this is the best data set released to the public.

It is my opinion, given the sample sizes, and the differences between the means, etc, that there is no significant difference between the pressures or velocities of any of these populations. Bolt thrust is a separate discussion, but one highly dependent on the issue of whether greased bullets, greased cases, oiled bullets, oiled cases, lubricated bullets, lubricated cases, raise pressure. Bolt thrust is something I want to table for later, even though it is integral to the whole coverup.


Your tests are absolutely meaningless with respect to measuring chamber pressure and bolt thrust. Your assertion that "higher pressures should always give higher velocities" is patently untrue in this case. You fail to consider that you are dealing with a fixed amount of propellant. I can create a bore obstruction and cause extremely high pressure, but get zero velocity!

John: I am not trying to make a grenade. Completely plugging the bore up, thereby limiting the volume, and preventing bullet escape, will create very high pressures, for the same fixed amount of propellant, than what would happen if the bullet left the barrel. The ideal gas law works fine with ideal gases, of course when dealing with real gases and real situations, the ideal gas law is only an approximation of reality, but still, it is close.

If I was pinching the case neck, or reducing the volume by filling chamber voids with grease, then I should, by PV=nRT see some sort of pressure increase. I cannot say I have seen velocity changes, over my screens, between “light” and “heavy” cases, because I never ran that test, but I have seen pressure indications when loads developed in “light” cases were used in “heavy” cases. I developed some 1000 yard 308 loads with 190 SMK’s 42.0 grs IMR 4064, Fed primers in Fed cases which averaged 155 to 160 grains. This is a maximum load, shoots great, case life is on the order of five reloads before the primer pockets open up. Now, I have substituted LC brass, which averages 177 grains, same everything else, and had blown or leaking primers. My conclusion is, that the heavier LC case has less internal volume, because externally, it is the same size, and therefore the pressure indications I see, are due to less internal case volume. It is possible the LC cases are made out of depleted uranium, and that is why they are heavier, but I don’t think that is the reason for the weight differences.

Hatcher says in his Notebook: “ However, if the bullet had been dipped in grease, this generally meant that the neck of the cartridge was greasy too. The space between the neck of the case and the neck of the chamber was filled with an incompressible substance, and the first moderate rise in pressure found it impossible to expand the neck and release the bullet. Thus the powder was strongly confined right at the beginning of its ignition, and accordingly the pressure rose disastrously”

So, the question I have, if this is true, and it is independent of the bullet jacket material, given the globs of grease I put on these cartridges, why don’t I experience high pressure indications?


First, your character slam of General Hatcher really had nothing to do with the technical aspects of your tests. By doing so you gave the impression that he was the target of your tests and that you started with a pre-established conclusion.

This will work out in time. Since Hatcher’s Notebook is the ground zero for all the concerns expressed in the American shooting community about greased bullets, lubricated cases, oiled cases, oiled bullets, lubricated bullets, lubricated cases, he is the windmill against which to tilt. .


Second, since you limited your tests to one rifle, one load, your conclusions were anecdotal at best. While anecdotal evidence may make good reading it is hardly the basis for drawing any conclusions whatsoever.

Grease was used in the early days of smokeless ammunition because bullets copper fouled something awful. Back in the 80’s I bought a case of Iraqi 303 British ball ammunition, the stuff was head stamped in the 1960’s. This is one round, horribly corroded and I pulled the bullet to examine the cordite.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Old%20Gunpowder/Picture010Iraqi303Ball_zpsc6dde8db.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Old%20Gunpowder/Picture010Iraqi303Ball_zpsc6dde8db.jpg.html)

This ammunition copper fouled to an unbelievable extent. It was as bad as any leading I have ever had with cast bullets in magnum handguns. Peering down the tube, I saw big lumpy sections and shadows. Point of impact changed as the barrel fouled. Copper bristle brushed, stainless tornado brushes had little impact on the fouling. I recall it took about six weeks of soaking with bore cleaners before the lumpiness began to diminish. I tried every bore cleaner I had, Sweets was the most aggressive of the copper removers, but still, it took weeks of soaking with Sweets to make a dent in the copper fouling.

I decided that there had to be a better way, and I decided to take the risk of coating these bullets in grease. I forget what grease I used, it was either Quaker State Wheel bearing grease, or Outboard Motor grease in a tube. I do remember carefully coating the bullets of the first rounds, worrying that my rifle was going to blow in front of my face. But nothing of the sort occurred with my Lee Enfield. I observed no bullet fouling and the barrel cleaned up quickly. As I shot through the lot, I got sloppier and sloppier in greasing the bullets. Initially I applied just a small coat on the bullet, which then became grease up to the case shoulder, and finally, I put the rounds in a plastic bag, dropped lumps of grease inside, shook the whole bunch to evenly coat the rounds. No copper fouling and no pressure problems traceable to the grease.

After this experience I began to wonder about Hatcher’s doom and gloom prognostications. It is difficult to ignore authority and believe the evidence before your eyes, some people can never get beyond their faith in authority, no matter what the evidence shows in the physical world. Even so, there was this niggling doubt that somehow, somewhere, Hatcher had to be right. For at the time, I believed in the infallibility of Hatcher and the US Army.

Now I don’t.

Greased and oiled ammunition were used in a lot of weapons. The American shooting community does not know their history. But Hatcher would have, he lived it.

[mhb]

I have never been overly-impressed with 'authority', per-se. If ever you accumulate as much experience as MG Hatcher did, and the (deserved) reputation for truthfulness he holds, perhaps you will write a book (or a fraction of the number he authored) - which future scoffers will undoubtedly attempt to pick apart.
But I do give due respect to technical expertise which I believe/know to be solidly grounded in experience and physical law. All of Hatcher's statements on the topic of greased ammunition/bullets I hold to be correct on these bases.
The problem he addressed specifically was the trouble caused by the use of grease on the 1921NM (Tin Can) ammunition, with tin-plated bullets. The rules for the 1921 matches prohibited the use of grease on the issued ammunition - some competitors thought they knew better and ran into difficulties which caused the ammunition to be withdrawn.
Not only was the 1921 ammunition assembled with tin-plated bullets, it was loaded to higher-than standard pressures. As it happens, I have a full clip of this ammunition, with the data card which came with each bandoleer thereof - though I do not doubt that the 'cold-soldering' occurred (running bullet pull-out up to over 700 pounds), all of the five rounds I have exhibit cracked necks, and the bullets may be easily removed with the fingers.
As to metal fouling: the problem which FA attempted to solve by tin-plating the bullet was cupro-nickel fouling (the 170 grain FB bullet was CN-jacketed), and it was not until gilding metal was adopted for bullet jackets that the lumpy metal fouling was no longer a significant problem. The British and Commonwealth countries continued to use CN jackets for a much longer period, and, even though the lower average MV of the .303 ball ammunition did not usually give the severe problems encountered with the original 1906 ball (and early match) rounds, they were not unaware of, or unaffected by it, and used ammonia-based cleaners and abrasives to deal with it, just as the American riflemen did.
Your results will only be significant in 'de-bunking' MG Hatcher's testimony when and if you properly instrument your tests to measure breech pressures and figure-out a way to measure bolt thrust - while using a moderately tenacious petroleum-based grease such as the Mobillubricant which was the rifleman's standby in the CN-jacketed bullet era.
FWIW, I find your use of the term 'coverup' to be an unwarranted and unjust attempt to cast aspersions on those whose opinions and work you obviously do not respect, in an effort to add undeserved and unearned weight to yours. Your blanket statement that American riflemen are unaware of significant historical facts is ridiculous on its face (the participants in this forum and others like it render it demonstrably untrue), and adds nothing to your argument.
Meanwhile, anyone reading this exchange who has not already formed an (informed) opinion would be well-advised to obtain and read (carefully) a copy of MG Hatcher's excellent book.

mhb - Mike


Basically, your post is an appeal to authority. Hatcher’s authority is such that he is taken for an infallible, inerrant source. It is very human to appeal to authorities, no one can know everything about everything, at some point we all rely on experts. But, as Wiki has shown, experts are not infallible, inerrant, they have their bias, their knowledge gaps, experts are in fact, human with human imperfections.
.

[raymeketa]

Hatcher and Whelen attributed the problems with the "tin can" cartridges to a combination of the bullets and grease. Without the grease, the ammo shot very well, better than previous Match cartridges, if you believe the reports. There was no cold soldering of the bullet and case as long as the chamber allowed for the necessary neck expansion to release the bullet. Pulling one of the bullets with a kinetic or mechanical puller is very different than firing it in a rifle chamber.

slamfire, if you want to do a real analysis, how about duplicating the conditions as they existed in 1921. Tin some bullets, load them to the same ballistics as the 1921 match ammo. Attach one of the modern pressure measuring devices. Fire them in several different M1903 rifles, grease and ungreased. Report the results. Those would be results that I'd be interested in seeing.

[mhb]

Hatcher specifically reported that the bullets 'seemed to be' cold-soldered into the case necks, and that this resulted in increased bullet pull-out running up to over 700 lbs (about 10 times the normal pull), which broke the testing machine.
This condition, per-se, would not necessarily result in dangerous pressures when shot dry, as directed, since normal bullet start pressure is considered to be ca. 3KPSI, and the bullet would likely be released by the time this pressure was reached, or soon thereafter.
When the grease obstructed bullet release by preventing the neck from expanding normally, however, pressures ran to the excessive, and Hatcher also reported that at least one bullet was picked-up downrange with the case neck still attached to it...
I do believe that the ammunition shot very well, under the prescribed (grease-free) conditions, as considerable testing was done in its development, and that it would have helped with the problem it was designed to mitigate (cupro-nickel fouling), while also eliminating the utility of, or need for, grease on the bullet.

mhb - Mike

[QUOTE=raymeketa;384725]Hatcher and Whelen attributed the problems with the "tin can" cartridges to a combination of the bullets and grease. Without the grease, the ammo shot very well, better than previous Match cartridges, if you believe the reports. There was no cold soldering of the bullet and case as long as the chamber allowed for the necessary neck expansion to release the bullet. Pulling one of the bullets with a kinetic or mechanical puller is very different than firing it in a rifle chamber.

/QUOTE]

[slamfire]

The problem he addressed specifically was the trouble caused by the use of grease on the 1921NM (Tin Can) ammunition, with tin-plated bullets.

Wrong. The warnings were based on tests of 1920 NM match ammunition. The 1920 NM was not tin plated but the Army reported excessive pressures and dangerous bolt thrust with cupro nickel bullets.

I have reviewed the results of the Army tests, and they are all over the place. It is like they picked favorites, the inconsistency between lubricants is beyond puzzling. All of the lubricants they used are probably different from what can be purchased today, except one: Vaseline. According the Army, vaseline is a sure killer. Their pressure data is off the charts with Vaseline. I have not tried vaseline, I might. I have liberally coated 308 cartridges with stick wax. That is a most tenuous lubricant, it is used on saw teeth to prevent clogging. I took gobs of that, dropped it in a bag and shook it up with Cavim. Fired almost 1000 rounds that way, rounds covered unevenly with stick wax. The air and gun were full of grease, no pressure problems.

So why, am I not experiencing any pressure problems?


some competitors thought they knew better and ran into difficulties which caused the ammunition to be withdrawn.

Did someone put on an endless loop of Hatcherisms? Is all I am going to read is parrotting of Hatcher's Notebook? If all you know is Hatcher, it is a small box to live in. Before the National Matches it is reported in the Arms and the Man, by a competitor at the Wakefield Matches, that the tin can ammunition fouls, was harder to clean out, and it was blowing up rifles. These guys were cleaning their rifle chambers with gasoline, because they believed the warnings about lubrication, and yet, rifles are blowing.

15 August 1921 Man at Arms At Wakefield by Kendrick Scofield

The second outstanding fact is that although the tinned bullet was designed to eliminate metal fouling, the bores of rifles through with the Frankford 170-grain load has been fired not only take on a light deposit of tin, but collect bumpy deposits very similar to those encountered in a barrel fouled with cupro-nickle, and which when treated with ammonia dope, give the old familiar blue reaction.

The third, and by far the most important fact, is that in the new Frankford Arsenal load, the limit of safety seems to have been very nearly reached whenever the bullet is lubricated or whenever there is the slightest oil in or about the chamber or bolt, and the only safe way to shoot it is not only to shoot all bullets dry but to see that chamber and bolt are also dry even if cleaning them with gasoline has to be resorted to- before firing.

Both deliberate tests and observation from the actual use of this ammunition at Wakefield has proved to the satisfaction of more than a hundred experienced marksmen that a single drop of oil, boiling out of the bolt, when the rifle heats up, may lead to at least a blown out primer, if nothing worse; and the four or five rifles which have burst on the firing line, because of greased chambers, and which caused more or less serious injury to two men, have given ample actual evidence of the danger which lurks in a round of this ammunition coupled with a drop of grease.

The riflemen at Wakefield also have found the problem of cleaning the fouling which is resulting from the 170 grain bullet not nearly so simple as first expected. The tin deposit on the bore which follows the use of this ammunition, naturally does not respond to recognized solvents. So long as the deposit does not give way before energetic scratch-brushing. When it is of the lumpy variety, it partially succumbs to ammonia dope, giving the blue reaction, which lead those who have encountered it to believe that when the tin deposit becomes lumpy, the lumps scratch through the tin plating on the bullet jacket, and accumulate cupro nickle underneath from the underlying jacket.

If you are a competitor, and you have spent every weekend, all year, getting out of bed early, pulling targets in heat and snow, and you are doing this to win, you are not going to let a little tin fouling ruin your score. You are going to do what you have been doing for a decade or more, grease your bullets and put them in the X ring.

The Army's official position after the National matches, is that the tin can ammunition is absolutely safe!

1 Oct 1921 Arms and the Man, Editorial by Brig-Gen Fred H. Phillips, Jr, Secretary NRA

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 so called tin can cartridge may be regarded as absolutely safe. :eusa_liar:

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 backs" were caused by 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 lesson, however, in connection with the blow backs was plain.

The high degree of accuracy attained in the manufacture of this ammunition cannot be question. It is without a doubt the finest machine-made product that has ever been turned out.

The high quality of this ammunition, together with the remarkable accuracy properties of the new type of National Match rifle will do a very great deal toward promoting the art of marksmanship.

Whether the new "tin can" type ammunition may be regarded as a suitable service load for use by troops in the field is a matter for later an more mature determination. But little more could be expected in accuracy and wind bucking qualities from a strictly machine-made product than that exhibited by this year's tin-plated ball cartridges.

Do you think Hatcher, being a regular contributor to the magazine, might have read that? This is one of these things he just had to know, and yet, he did not mention it.

Seeming you are so knowledgeable, just when, did the Army ever announce to the world that they were wrong? That the actual problem with the tin can ammunition was due to cold soldering between the bullet and case neck? I have not found this, maybe you have.

Until that official Army announcement is found, I consider this a cover up.


slamfire, if you want to do a real analysis, how about duplicating the conditions as they existed in 1921. Tin some bullets, load them to the same ballistics as the 1921 match ammo. Attach one of the modern pressure measuring devices. Fire them in several different M1903 rifles, grease and ungreased. Report the results. Those would be results that I'd be interested in seeing.

Would you be the one holding the rifle?

[mhb]

You win...
What, exactly, your victory accomplishes, I don't know.
You have launched yourself on a crusade to demonstrate something that is no longer of vital interest to riflemen, the basic issues having been resolved decades ago.
No one uses (or needs to use) grease on rifle ammunition.
The Army never used, or intended to use, tin-plated bullets for standard ball ammunition, and tried the experiment strictly for match shooting.
Shortly thereafter (1924-'25), the M1 ball ammunition was adopted with gilding metal jackets on the BT bullet (subsequently standard jacket material for rifle ammunition), and the only later use for tin was as a wash on early lots of M2 ball, to resemble the original 1906 loading, and make it easier to distinguish the M2 load from the M1. When the M2 ball was standardized, the GM jacket was no longer tin-washed.
If you feel a need to 'de-bunk' the honest efforts of early experts, such as MG Hatcher, that would seem to say more about you than them.
And, FWIW, I've shot both greased and waxed ammunition - in my Vickers-Pedersen .276, which DOES require lubricated ammunition, as no standard U.S. military small arm ever has.
Do what you think best - but I don't expect you'll change history, or the minds of those who care about the issue - and understand it.

mhb - Mike

[slamfire]

Oh damn, I had so much more material to discuss on greased bullets and from the historical record, just when these guys knew something, and what they said. It becomes clear that millions of greased bullets were fired by American shooters prior to 1920, there are all sorts of articles on bullet lubes, results, etc, all favorable, and yet, in the back ground, there is this tension. Low number 03’s are bursting, bursting with US Government ammunition, and the Ordnance department is not acknowledging that they have a rifle problem. I am of the opinion that when low number 03’s burst, and since everyone was using grease, the Ordnance Department blamed grease. The Army is not telling anyone about their defective rifles, but they knew.

If greased bullets don’t raise pressures, than why is increased bolt thrust a problem? It is only a problem if the rifle is defectively designed or defectively built. To read in the planning minutes for the 1921 matches, that increased bolt thrust was the cause that tipped the debate the balance in favor of those who wanted to get rid of grease, that tells me, everyone there knew the Army had 1 million defective rifles in inventory. Incidentally, Hatcher was in that meeting, and Hatcher knew. If Hatcher knew, all the decision makers should have known. In the mean time, shooters are banging away with structurally defective rifles and people were permanently injured with the things.

If to be moral is to do no harm, than by this standard, these guys were immoral. :63:

I wanted to know why I could shoot greased or lubricated cases and not have problems. I have been shooting lubricated cases in my Garands and M1a’s for a couple of decades now. This was suggested to me by a Distinguished HM gunsmith. My knee jerk reaction was to call him nuts, everyone knew that leaving case lube on cases was dangerous. But, this guy was, and he was taking cases an entire season without any case head separations.

The financial advantages of being able to shoot 30-06 or 308 brass twenty times in a gas gun, when conventional practice with dry cases, is five reloads, should be obvious. If no one has noticed, cartridge brass gets much more expensive over time.

So, here was this issue, highest authority and conventional wisdom of the masses said this was dangerous, that pressures should have been raised to astronomical levels, and yet, I was not seeing it. Granted, I was not greasing bullets, but I was greasing/lubricating cases. It was just until recently that I decided to test the assertion that greased bullets pinch bullets. I have not found any indications of that in my testing.

The more I shoot, the more I realize that I want as little case friction between my cases and chamber. First and foremost, I want my cases to last forever. I think my 300 H&H Magnum cases are over a $1.00 apiece, maybe $2.00 apiece, I don’t want case head separations in a few reloads. Lubricating the cases, (I have used tins of Johnson Paste wax, applied with the fingers and buffed with a rag) has given me incredible case life in gas guns and now, bolt rifles. When I am lazy or pressed for time I have applied oils, greases, or just left the lube on, but that stuff attracts dirt. Secondly, I want to know just when I hit a maximum load: I don’t want case to chamber friction disguising a maximum load. I want the bolt fully loaded and I want sticky bolt lift when I hit a max load. People develop loads with dry cases in dry chambers and they are very surprised when the slightest bit of oil, water gets on their cases and they have over pressure indications. Breaking the friction between case and chamber just shows that their loads were over pressure from the get go. I don’t trust primer indications, but at least when I lube the cases I see the transition from rounded to flat primers, something that is usually disguised by dry cases in dry chambers. I found early on that if I lubed my 308 cases in my M1a, I got rounded primers, but the same load in dry cases gave flat primers. Based on the precepts of Hatcher, that should not happen. :icon_scratch: Now I develop my loads with lubed cases and I look for that primer transition and I look for hard bolt lift, and I am very sure when I see these signs I am at a max load.

I am also of the opinion that eliminating case binding increases accuracy. Your rifle, your action was designed to withstand the full case head thrust, having an inconsistent case head thrust, due to variable case to chamber friction, is just going to load the action inconsistently. That is just another variable that you can eliminate, or reduce its effect. Match 22LR ammunition is greased so heavily that it feels like the rounds were rolled in bacon fat. I don’t believe this an accident: I believe the heavy grease layer was found to be necessary for the best accuracy, and it helps extraction function.

But beside the practical advantages, is an outrage that an Army coverup has totally shaped the thinking and behavior of the American shooting community for almost a century. Based on what these authority figures knew, and when they knew it, it is inconceivable that they did not know what they were teaching us was false. Any discussion on this results in a repeating loop of Hatcherisms, as if the shooting community has turned into a bunch of parrots. "Nullius in verba" , that sure does not describe shooters.

[joem]

"everyone knew that leaving case lube on cases was dangerous."

I don't know if it's dangerous or not but case lube sure does hold dirt and crud and make the cases quit stickey and I don't like that. So I tunble clean all my cases before loading.

[John Beard]

I take no position on greased bullets or tin can ammunition at this time. But I do know that your somehow equating muzzle velocity with peak chamber pressure is not valid. A modest bore restriction, for example, can substantially raise chamber pressure, but will not necessarily result in higher muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity is governed primarily by the amount (and type) of propellant, not peak chamber pressure. Bullseye powder, for example, can create very high chamber pressure, but actually produce lower muzzle velocity.

J.B.

[slamfire]

John: I am not using Bullseye, nor am I shooting extremely fast burning powder whose ability to expand, and push the bullet, has been exhausted. Nor am I firing this cartridge in a short barreled firearm, where the expansion of the gunpowder has been exhausted.

For most of your statements, I would like to see some test data.

Like this one, do you have any data?


A modest bore restriction, for example, can substantially raise chamber pressure, but will not necessarily result in higher muzzle velocity.


Muzzle velocity is governed primarily by the amount (and type) of propellant, not peak chamber pressure

John: Muzzle velocity is a very complicated subject, but given the same burn rate propellant, the more you add, the more velocity you get, and the more pressure you get. If you want to compare extremes, such as pistol powder in a cannon barrel, the pressure rise would be fast, but the volume of gas produced would be such that the cannon ball might roll out of the tube.

I have always associated high pressures with higher velocities, all things being equal. The slope of the curve for pressures is an exponential function, so pressures could double or triple, but I don’t know just how much velocities would increase.


Bullseye powder, for example, can create very high chamber pressure, but actually produce lower muzzle velocity.

That is an interesting statement John, and one I am certain you mean in comparison with other powders. What I have seen with Bullseye, is that you increase the charge, which increases the pressure, the velocities increase. That is, in a pistol, never tried it in a rifle. I also have never chronographed deliberate blowup loads. I would be very interested in seeing velocities of bullets in a deliberate blow up test. This could be done simply, I am not going to try, but it would be easy to chronograph a blowup load of Bullseye and see if it produces more or less velocity than a standard load with Bullseye. I predict the test would have a higher velocity, but how much, I don’t know.

But here is Townsend Whelens statements on greased chambers, chamber volumes, and pressures. This is in his 1945 book “Small Arms Design”

Cartridges should never be greased or oiled, and the bullets should never be greased. Grease on the cartridge or in the chamber creates excessive and hazardous pressure. It operates to reduce the size of the chamber and thus increases the density of loading and the pressure. Also there is no adhesion of the case in the chamber, and when fired the case slips back easily and the bolt head receivers a greater rearward thrust. This does not apply to rim fire cartridges.

Most folks would accept that at face value, but I don’t accept that there is a different set of laws in the universe for rimfire cartridges than for centerfire. :eusa_liar:

But here it is, grease in the chamber reduces chamber volume, and that increases pressures. He does not say how much pressure, but the assumption is that it is a lot of pressure or it would not be excessive and hazardous. I would have to look, but doesn't Hatcher say the same thing? And even if, (ridiculous case) the pressures were increased by a factor of 16, and there were absolutely no velocity changes, I should have seen indications of pressure in bolt lift, case head expansion, primer indication (blown or leaking). These are all crude, but real, evidences of pressure. Now maybe I am wrong on this, maybe it is possible to have hard bolt lift, when before there was none, case head expansion, when before there was none, blown or leaking primers, when before there were none, without excessive pressures, and I would like to know, how that is possible?

Maybe these are in fact, indications of low pressure?:icon_scratch:


http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/AMULongRangeBrassDSCN6661.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/AMULongRangeBrassDSCN6661.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Reloading/Buldged45ACPcase1.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Reloading/Buldged45ACPcase1.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Blowups/Scharch223Rembrassblownoutnearcaseh.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Blowups/Scharch223Rembrassblownoutnearcaseh.jpg.html)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v479/SlamFire/Blowups/300WinMagcaseoverloaded.jpg (http://smg.photobucket.com/user/SlamFire/media/Blowups/300WinMagcaseoverloaded.jpg.html)

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Interesting discussion. I may point out that there are numerous errors in Hatcher's work. Don't believe me? Compare his tables of cause of failure to the actual lab results he references. A very competent and arguably one of the best gunsmiths that ever lived, Parker Otto Ackley, did his own blowup tests of various receivers. The results were very surprising, to say the least. The old SHT receivers did way better than expected. As to bolt thrust, his repeated firing of a lever action rifle as he cut away various bolt retainment portions of the rifle to the point there were none, and the rifle fired without the bolt opening, is one of the best demonstrations of why case/wall grip are important that I have ever seen.

All other conditions being the same, as pressure increases, velocity does increase to the physical limits of the system/bullet (not linear). Imposing additional frictional resistance on one system and not another is comparing apples to oranges.

Now if you really want to get into physics to the wall, explain why reduced loads occasionally blow up rifles. Now that is a provocative subject if ever there was one.

Slamfire, I noticed the errors in Hatcher's work years ago. I got the same reaction as did you, when I pointed out same. Good work, and thanks for posting it. I do suspect your bolt thrust increased significantly.

There is a product on the market called Gun Juice, and it WILL increase velocity and increase barrel life significantly. Beware, when used, your bullet impact point will rise way more than you would expect. I had to replace the front sight on a Marlin 38-55 after Gun Juicing the barrel to get back in the black at 100 yds due to a near 300 fps increase in MV. Accuracy did not change.

jt

[JOHN COOK]

First of all I am not a chemist or an expert on ammo. How ever I was told by the gunsmith that built me a 25:06 ( when it was a wildcat) to use 48 grains of 4831. I did as he suggested and was a little nervous that the cartridge was almost completely full. STOPPED !!! called him and ask was I doing something wrong ? He told me to dump the powder out and weigh it again, I did as was told and it came out 48 grains. He told that it was correct. I asked if I could reduce the amount of powder where it wouldn't kick me to hard. THAT WAS 49 YEARS AGO. He ripped me a new one and explained to me why I shouldn't.

I was told that by reducing the charge that when the round was loaded and horizontal it left a void over the powder from the primer up to where the bullet was seated. When fired you have a lot of gas created because more powder was exposed thus creating more pressure. Told me that when a correct round is fired most of the powder is spent before bullet enters rifling. Expansion that occurs in a reduced round is gas and a lot of it and could do some damage He called it SEE secondary explosion effect. I was told alwys to SEE if I had the correct charge before seating a bullet.

My two cents, never reduced a recommended load ..

I ain't going to argue this point, just something I remembered and will not get into PI88 contest about it.

john

[John Beard]

Perhaps we agree to disagree.

J.B.

[Dollar Bill]

With all due respect to the OP and his "tests", it is well known and proven that oiled or greased cartridges significanty increase bolt head thrust. That is why the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms up to the current NATO standard from the AC/225 Army Armaments Group require proof testing of all weapons with one proof round dry and one proof round oiled: the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges..

That's a fact proven by actual measurements of case head thrust.

[slamfire]

With all due respect to the OP and his "tests", it is well known and proven that oiled or greased cartridges significanty increase bolt head thrust. That is why the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms up to the current NATO standard from the AC/225 Army Armaments Group require proof testing of all weapons with one proof round dry and one proof round oiled: the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges..

That's a fact proven by actual measurements of case head thrust

Excellent point, and one I do not disagree with, though the data I have seen on bolt thrust of oiled 223 cases indicate more bolt thrust with oiled cases than dry cases, but oiled cases do not reach the 100% value based on a calculation of maximum bore pressure times case OD. There are always inefficiencies in any process, has something to do with entropy. Before someone jumps in on this, oiled case thrust is more than the ID times maximum bore pressure, so the correct way to calculate loads, is by OD time bore pressure.

So, what loads are firearm locking mechanisms designed to support? Let’s say maximum oiled/greased bolt thrust is 100 pies in the sky, (PITS) based on max bore pressure times case head diameter *. Here though, a pressure limit has to be set. If the pressure limit is 50,000 psia, and the actual pressures of ammunition turn out to be 60,000 psia, 70,000 psia, 80,000 psia, bolt thrust would obviously be above spec. For this ridiculous case, let’s say the over pressure loads are 110, 120 and 130, PITS, obviously more than design load of 100 PITS. So, there has to be agreement between firearm designers and ammunition makers for pressure standards. In the US this organization is called SAAMI. But, in this pretend world, what load would you use, as the lead designer for the latest boom stick? Do you design your locking mechanism to support 100, or 90, or 50 PITS?

Does it make sense to design a locking mechanism that will fail, at loads less than the maximum rated load?

So, what loads are the locking mechanisms designed to hold?

I contend that as long as the locking mechanism is designed to support the maximum load of a case, ignoring any case friction, then greased/oiled cases that are within pressure specs, do not create a load above design limits. And that any designer who designs a locking mechanism to fail, at loads below the maximum load, is a negligent designer. And any manufacturer that builds weapons, which fail at loads below the maximum case, is a negligent manufacturer.

What is your opinion on this?


the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges

In which case, we now come to the link between the Army warnings about “increased bolt thrust” and low number 03’s. 1) Did the Army design the 03 Springfield to fail at a load less than the maximum theoretical load of a 30-06 cartridge? 2) Or, did the Army build rifles that would break at loads less than the maximum theoretical load of a 30-06 cartridge? 3) Or was it combination of both? 4) Is it possible that the Army actually knew of the 1,000,000 rifles in inventory, all Army made, some in use, and that the Army knew that a percentage of these were structurally deficient? 5) Is it possible that the Army knew that any bolt thrust, not just "increased bolt thrust", would cause some of these rifles to fail? And yet, you know, they issued these rifles to troops, National Match competitors, and sold these rifles to civilians. 6) When the occasional structurally deficient rifle breaks and injures someone, is that Army negligence? 7) And, just what is the Army telling the world when one of these rifles break? 8) Does the Army accept responsibility and assign blame for low number 03 Springfield failures on itself? 9) Is the Army being honest about the reasons for rifle failures? 10) And when does the Army fess up and tell the world about the extent of their defective inventory?

* Assuming not a rebated case head or rimmed case head. In that instance, load would calculated from the maximum diameter of the case.

[slamfire]

My answers to these questions:

1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) User induced failure.
8) Never found an official response, therefore: No
9) No
10) Never found an official response, therefore: Never.

[John Beard]

Slamfire,

You are certainly entitled to pose and answer your own questions. But your questions and answers, unfortunately, are so heavily prejudiced that your credibility suffers.

J.B.

[mhb]

It became obvious fairly early in the life of this thread that the OP has an agenda (not a worthy or admirable one, in my opinion), and wishes to stir-up controversy where none is required or justified.
As is usual in such cases, he has succeeded only in throwing considerable heat and no real light on the topics he has chosen to ride as a hobby horse - on the road to nowhere.
All that the rest of us (those who participate in this and similar fora to share knowledge and experience, rather than indulge in a penchant for verbal pyrotechnics) need do in this, or any like case is ... ignore it. The OP isn't interested in any dissenting opinion or free, honest discussion - he has already classified any such as due to ignorance or excessive respect for established authority.
Which is why, at this point, and for the last time in this one-sided and valueless 'discussion', I make this my final obiter dictum.

mhb - Mike

[John Beard]

mhb,

Thanks for your reply!

I concur. That's why I kept my comments brief and to the point. I felt obliged, however, to respond lest silence be misinterpreted as concurrence.

Thanks again for your reply!

J.B.

[Kurt]

mhb,

Thanks for your reply!

I concur. That's why I kept my comments brief and to the point. I felt obliged, however, to respond lest silence be misinterpreted as concurrence.

Thanks again for your reply!

J.B.

I would only add a couple things, first, I'm saving all my grease for Obama care as I see no valid reason to even visit the issue. Secondly, your last comment post (21) would have been welcome back 19 posts. :1948:

[fguffey]

Like many here, I have a copy of Hatcher’s Notebook, it is a valuable reference, and have read a number of its sections many times. However, I no longer consider Hatcher an infallible source, this is primarily due to his write up on grease, greased bullets, and the tin can ammunition.
.


His, or should I say the Army’s explanation for the second point, is that grease in the chamber pinches the case neck and thus prevents expansion of the case neck, thus dangerously raising pressures.

Hatcher was correct; I do not want anything between the chamber and case but air. When it comes to air I choose not to have a lot of it. For me it has to do with things that flow. Air is a fluid, air flows; grease is a fluid and grease flows but the difference between air and grease is air can be compressed, grease can not be compressed. I understand that means nothing to most but it makes Hatcher look good. Because; if I greased my cases I would increase pressure because the grease can not get out of the way fast enough for the case to expand. So grease changes factors; Hatcher understood.

There was an effort on this forum to introduce greasing your cases as a means of fire forming a case, I labeled the effort 'slide and glide' case forming. It was bench resters, I thought if they were bench resters they should be able to form their cases and then fire instead of firing to form.

F. Guffey

1. When the debate is lost, slander becomes the tool of the loser, Socrates

[Randy A]

"Form their cases and then fire instead of firing to form"

fguffy,
You made this same remark on the sticky bolt post and I'm puzzled. Sizing a case down to smaller dimensions is one thing, but to go from a standard case to improved or say a Hornet to a K Hornet how is it you propose to do this without fire forming?

[fguffey]

"Form their cases and then fire instead of firing to form"

fguffy,
You made this same remark on the sticky bolt post and I'm puzzled. Sizing a case down to smaller dimensions is one thing, but to go from a standard case to improved or say a Hornet to a K Hornet how is it you propose to do this without fire forming?


Randy, explain to me what it is that you do not understand. I know there is no learning curve to fire forming; chamber a round then pull the trigger. I have fired ammo in chambers knowing the ammo did not fit. I have fired cases in chambers with .127” clearance meaning the case was .127” shorter from the shoulder to the case head than the chamber when measured from the shoulder of the chamber to the bolt face.

I have also formed cases to off set the length of the chamber; meaning I reduced the clearance to .002” before firing.

F. Guffey

[fguffey]

Randy, my favorite case is a case that is too long from the shoulder to the case head to chamber. One option is Cylinder Brass from R-P. Cylinder brass from R-P is straight wall 35 Whelen cases that are 2.650 long. How can a case former miss, and then there is the 280 Remington cases, from the shoulder to the case head it is .051” longer than the 30/06 and is .041” longer in length.

And then there are rifles with trashy old chambers. There was a time I would go to the firing range to purchase fired cases. I would measure the length of the cases first; I was looking for cases that had been fired in rifles with long chambers.

F. Guffey