Greased Bullets

[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]

J.B.:

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.

[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