The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Hide > The Art of the Rifle: Bolt, Lever, and Pump Action

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old September 11, 2012, 11:16 AM   #26
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,001
"The basic problem with the Army running tests to "prove" they were not at fault, and P. O Ackley running tests to "prove" that blowing out the shoulders reduces bolt thrust, is that neither were an independent tester and they simply tested until they proved the point they wanted to make."

OK.

Then let me ask you this.

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that Hatcher was lying?

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that the Army's manufacturing processes were 100% at fault?

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that civilian competitors greasing their bullets had no bearing at all on the subsequent rifle failures?
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 11, 2012, 03:43 PM   #27
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,093
Quote:
Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that Hatcher was lying?
I do not agree that Hatcher’s account is perfect and infallible. Someone pointing at Hatcher’s Notebook and claiming history happened exactly as Hatcher wrote, because it is in this book, is committing an error in circular logic. In 1947 Hatcher has just retired, looking forward to a long and happy association with former organization and he is absolutely not going to say anything in word or deed critical of the Army. So, he writes this account and shifts the problems away from Army Ordnance.

Nor would it help to point fingers at Townsend Whelen who, I think, was then a major figure employed by the NRA. Not wise to upset your future employers.

If you can’t see that, then that is OK.

Naramore’s account was written in 1937, Naramore is a contemporary of Hatcher, obviously a coworker/associate, Hatcher created the illustrations in Naramore’s book undoubtedly reviewing the text. I find it hard to believe that Hatcher was not part of the discussion and did not notice or remember the correct reason why tin can ammunition caused pressure problems.


Quote:
Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that civilian competitors greasing their bullets had no bearing at all on the subsequent rifle failures?
Where are the decades of failure reports? Failure reports before and after the 1921 incident. Competitors had been greasing their bullets long enough for aftermarket grease kits to be made. The British were greasing their bullets up to, at least the late 60’s. Their practice now, heck if I know. Where is the century of failure reports from the Swiss, Austrians, who used greased bullets, the Swiss for over a century?

Quote:
Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that the Army's manufacturing processes were 100% at fault?
You run into accounts in old American Rifleman magazines and in, surprising enough, Captain Herbert McBridge's articles in American Rifleman have incidental comments on the poor quality of WW1 ammunition. Hatcher’s own account of the single heat treat receiver ought to be a clue. A 03 receiver fragmented at a ammunition plant and there was "evidence that the heads of the cartridge cases had been soft", this incident started the investigation into the systemic production defects of the single heat treat receivers.

Of course, the late twenties decision of the Army to scrap all 1,056,506 single heat treat receivers ought to be a clue as to the quality of their manufacture. Out of a total of 1.8 million 03 receivers made to 1939 only 42% were considered safe enough to retain in service.

Asking for proof at 100% level is unreasonable and will never happen. President Kennedy was shot in 1963, there is not 100% agreement who did it. I have heard that only 30% or 50% of the American population believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, so we don’t have a census on the creation of the earth. When, as we all know, it was created 23 Oct 4004 BC. LOL.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; September 12, 2012 at 10:46 AM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old September 27, 2012, 07:38 PM   #28
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,093
Budda, budda, bingo, bullseye

A bud gave me a paper copy of A test of Rifle, caliber.22, AR15; Rifle, Lightweight Military, Caliber .224 and Pertinent Ammunition, Larry Moore, 3 Feb 1959 to examine. I can find the title of this document on the web, but not the text. I copied the data, to be found in the report , of the pressure and velocity of oiled and wet 224 rounds. You can find the velocity and pressure of the dry rounds in

TEST OF RIFLE, CALIBER .223, AR-15 Report No. DPS-96

Dates of Test: 21 September to 20 October 1960

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/245705.pdf

So, here we have pressure and velocity data showing that cases dipped in oil (and water!) do not cause pressures to increase.


__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; September 29, 2012 at 12:43 PM. Reason: toned down rant
Slamfire is offline  
Old September 28, 2012, 12:36 PM   #29
Mike Irwin
Staff
 
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 36,001
The major flaw in your conclusion is assuming that oil and the grease being used at the national matches would act the exact same way. I also see no indication that bolt thrust was also measured to see if it had increased.

Another aspect that you are apparently ignoring is that there were no known rifle failures at the matches where only the ammo was used with no added greasing of the cartridges.

As I have stated so several times, warnings were issued against use of grease with that particular ammo because the combination, but not one exclusive of the other were the cause of the problem.

If the amp were the ONLY cause of the problem, then there would have to have been other failures in addition to the ones where grease were used - there were, as far as I can tell, none reported.

Again I believe you are jumping too conclusions without sufficient backing to do so.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza

Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower.
Mike Irwin is offline  
Old September 29, 2012, 03:44 PM   #30
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 4,093
Quote:
The major flaw in your conclusion is assuming that oil and the grease being used at the national matches would act the exact same way.
Grease is oil in a thickner, oil is oil, what would make them act differently?

Quote:
I also see no indication that bolt thrust was also measured to see if it had increased.
What loads are bolts designed to carry? How does oil or grease change the load on the bolt? Does that load exceed design limits?

Quote:
Another aspect that you are apparently ignoring is that there were no known rifle failures at the matches where only the ammo was used with no added greasing of the cartridges.
Your only reference is Hatcher, and you are assuming that it is complete, objective, and honest. Something I do not believe. So, what were the rifle failures in the 1921 matches and where is that recorded? I have searched the only database we have, and there are no records of any overpressure rifle events during the 1921 matches. That is an interesting contradiction.

Quote:
If the amp were the ONLY cause of the problem, then there would have to have been other failures in addition to the ones where grease were used - there were, as far as I can tell, none reported.
I assume you meant tin when you typed “amp”. There are recorded overpressure events with the 1921 tin can ammunition, after grease had been banned, you just have to look.

Quote:
Again I believe you are jumping too conclusions without sufficient backing to do so.
1. I have shown that for decades other militaries used greased bullets without any ill effect.

2. I have shown that for decades after 1921, target shooters were using aftermarket devices to grease their bullets.

3. US competitors were greasing bullets for decades prior to 1921.

4. The vast majority of rifles on the firing line in 1921 were so defective that as a class, the US Army decided to scrap them.

5. Millions of moly lubed bullets have been fired down range without pressure problems.

6. I have shown that for decades there were fielded small arms systems that used oilers.

7. I have provided web sites were finite element analysis shows that lubricated rounds do not dangerously increase bolt thrust.

8. I have shown that it was standard practice in the US military to oil cannon rounds.

9. I have shown that lubricated small arms cases were evaluated in the 1950’s.

10. The Polsten cannon used greased rounds, so we know of at least one fielded system that used greased rounds.

11. I have shown that an Ordnance Corp Officer correctly identified, in print, the cause of high pressure in the tin can ammunition, prior to the publication of Hatcher’s Notebook. I have shown that Hatcher was the illustrator for the book.

12. I have shown data that wet rounds or oiled rounds do not increase combustion pressures.

I feel I am pretty firm grounds on this as I am not relying on the authority of one man, but rather my conclusions about lubricated cases and greased bullets came about as observations in the physical universe.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old September 30, 2012, 01:17 AM   #31
Big Shrek
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 6, 2009
Location: NorthWest Florida
Posts: 533
Kinda funny, if you use excessive gun-oil in a .22, the heat + pressure + oil = GLUE in a chamber and cause extraction problems...

Evidently it works the other way around in military full-auto applications...go figure!
__________________
Marlin Specialist
Calico Specialist
A gun should be a tool in the hands of a deadly weapon, not a deadly weapon in the hands of a tool.
Big Shrek is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:31 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2014 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.07834 seconds with 9 queries