Confusion on LN 03's

[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/w...ed_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.

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/Cla...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:

[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.

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/Cla...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:

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.a...hun%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.m...110-2-1424.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.




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.



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?...ge-M.-Chinn%29





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?...ge-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.