Reloading 303 british for no4 enfield

[Slamfire]

However, lubing up max pressure cartridges is also a way to simulate the bolt thrust effects of a proof load, and I'm not a fan of giving firearms a steady diet of proof loads.

Unless you are firing proof pressure loads, you will not be loading the system to proof pressure levels. Newton's laws are still in effect, for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction. If this was not so, if the energy output of a lubricated cartridge exceeded the energy input, humanity could solve instantly the energy problems of the world. Vast perpetual motion machines could be created, producing infinite amounts of free energy, cleaning the atmosphere of pollutants, feeding the entire planet, we would be well on our way to a new utopian society.

Virtually every time I mention my use of lubricated cartridges, or I recommend lubricating cartridges, I get a knee jerk "Oh my God!" reaction. Then I am constantly reminded that lubricated cartridges are used in the British or European proof tests, with the assumption that lubricating cartridges has to be dangerous because the purpose of proof testing is to blow up the mechanism. The second part of the sentence is the story that people create in their minds, and after, I believe, reading Hatcher's Notebook. Hatcher mentions that the early single heat treat 03's were blowing up in the field, so Springfield Armory increased the proof pressures, to blow up more 03's before they got out the door. * Somehow people contort this section into a belief that the purpose of proof is to blow up rifles and that lubricating cartridges helps that process. Nothing is further from the truth. Unless the cartridge is lubricated the locking mechanism is not fully loaded, due to parasitic friction between the case body and the chamber. Therefore any proof tests with dry cartridges and dry chambers are technically unjustifiable as the locking mechanism is not as uniformly loaded as the chamber. This is recognized in NATO EPVAT testing. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing NATO EPVAT testing specifically calls out the testing of firearms with an oiled proof load as the final test.

The typical proof test is conducted 30% over standard pressures. Unless pressures are proof level, you will not experience proof test loads on the locking mechanism, barrel, or case regardless if the case is dry or lubricated. Anyone concerned about pressures and loads should reduce the powder charges in their cartridges for reducing the amount of propellant in the cartridge case is the simplest, most sure, the absolute most positive means of reducing combustion pressures.

* I do not agree with or validate the Army's solution, instead what this shows is what dysfunctional and blame shifting organizations the Army ran at Springfield Armory and Rock Island Armory. Both of these Arsenals were aware that they were building defective product, and instead of investigating why they were building defective rifles, and fixing the production problem, they simply upped the proof test pressures at the end of the production line. The end effect was to blow up more rifles at the end of the production line. But, in adopting this "solution" the Army Ordnance Department fully understood and accepted that some defective product would pass the factory proof test only to blow up in the field when the substandard part reached its fatigue life. A fatigue life that was dramatically less than a good part. When one of these rifles blew up in the field the Army blamed "greased chambers", because at the time, shooters were greasing their bullets to prevent bullet fouling. These Army Ordnance coverup's work because no matter how incompetent and stupid the Army Ordnance Bureau might be, the General Shooting public is vastly more incompetent, stupid and gullible. So the Army Ordnance Department coverup has remained in, and believed as Gospel by the American shooting community.

[F. Guffey]

When one of these rifles blew up in the field the Army blamed "greased chambers", because at the time, shooters were greasing their bullets to prevent bullet fouling. These Army Ordnance coverup's work because no matter how incompetent and stupid the Army Ordnance Bureau might be, the General Shooting public is vastly more incompetent, stupid and gullible. So the Army Ordnance Department coverup has remained in, and believed as Gospel by the American shooting community.

That is not true, they greased their bullets in an effort to cut down on labor required to clean their barrel. In the early fifties reloaders were reminded cleaning the barrel when using old military surplus ammo can be difficult with no mention of slide and glide shooting. And then slide and glide shooting made another appearance. A few on reloading forums thought it was the greatest thing since shirt pocket when forming cases. I have always been a form first and then fire shooter.

After that came bench resters, most claim they are reloaders; being impressionable they took to slide and glide shooting. One of the ugliest threads on any reloading forum was about slide and glide shooting on a bench rester forum. The thread went for 60 + pages, the anti grease your bullet member kicked the bench resters in all 7 knees. After that he owned them.

F. Guffey

[Slamfire]

That is not true, they greased their bullets in an effort to cut down on labor required to clean their barrel.

And the reason it took so much labor to clean their barrels is because the bullets fouled.

One of the ugliest threads on any reloading forum was about slide and glide shooting on a bench rester forum. The thread went for 60 + pages, the anti grease your bullet member kicked the bench resters in all 7 knees. After that he owned them.

Obtuse as always, what thread?, who is your Champion?, who is your Savior?

I am aware of two World Champion Benchrest shooters who lubricate their cases when they fire form. What qualifications do you have to compare with World Champions?

[F. Guffey]

I am aware of two World Champion Benchrest shooters who lubricate their cases when they fire form. What qualifications do you have to compare with World Champions

I do not care if all of them grease their bullets, if they can not form cases before firing form them when they fire the cases; that makes them fire forming case formers. When it comes to skill some have it, some don't. There are those that are infatuated with greasing their bullets, I believe it is a bad habit.

And then there is that part about having nothing between the case and chamber but air, not a lot if air, just a little and I want the air to be clean.

There was no continuation of lubing bullets, again the early reloading manuals cautioned shooters about shooting surplus ammo and they identified the cu·pro·nick·el bullet as being a problem and they did not suggest a reloader lube their bullets. They did suggest methods and techniques for cleaning barrels.

F. Guffey

[Slamfire]

I do not care if all of them grease their bullets, if they can not form cases before firing form them when they fire the cases; that makes them fire forming case formers. When it comes to skill some have it, some don't. There are those that are infatuated with greasing their bullets, I believe it is a bad habit.

The thing is about champions is that they have developed their craft through proven techniques, and are as such, reliable authorities.

And of course, observations in the real world. I consider this the Golden Standard: does the theory fit with observations in the real world. If authority contradicts observations in the real world, then authority is wrong.

So, whose advice am I going to follow, a World Champion's, or yours? And if observations in the real world validate their advice, and not yours, why should I follow your advice?

[Jim Watson]

Any lubrication on the cartridge (which is why match loads for Enfields perform different in the rain) will change that equation.

I had an old article about that. Since it is rather hard to count on doing anything in England without having to do it in the rain, shooters formed the habit of "shooting wet." If it wasn't raining on their rifle and ammo, they dipped each cartridge in water. Zero was stable.
There were great alarms raised on the basis of oiled cartridge proof testing. But almost buried near the end of the article was the conclusion based on controlled testing and careful computation, that "shooting wet" did NOT lead to broken rifles.

[F. Guffey]

So, whose advice am I going to follow, a World Champion's, or yours? And if observations in the real world validate their advice, and not yours, why should I follow your advice?

You have heroes? Good, I am not that conceited. I built a rifle and was on my way to shooting up 4 boxes of ammo and on the 74th round, I told the new owner the 74th round was going to be absolute zero; it was and then I moved over and gave him the last 5 rounds. The new owner put the last 5 rounds through the same hole. I had absolutely no interest in putting 5 rounds thorough one hole. That was years ago, last month he sent me a picture of a deer he shot with a bow. Last week I got another picture of a deer that was shot with a rifle I did not recognize so I called him. the deer was shot by his son with a rifle I build chambered to 7mm57. I asked if they zeroed the rifle and he said he did. And then I had to ask about what ammo was he using and he said they were using the ammo I loaded for the rifle. And then I had to ask about the target. He sounded like Gunny Ermey, they were in Ohio; seems it is fashionable to shoot horse apples there, he claimed they killed ever Bodark apple they set up. And then I had to ask about the 30/30 Marlin 366; same thing, the Marlin is tough on horse apples.

F. Guffey

[Slamfire]

I had an old article about that. Since it is rather hard to count on doing anything in England without having to do it in the rain, shooters formed the habit of "shooting wet." If it wasn't raining on their rifle and ammo, they dipped each cartridge in water. Zero was stable.

There were great alarms raised on the basis of oiled cartridge proof testing. But almost buried near the end of the article was the conclusion based on controlled testing and careful computation, that "shooting wet" did NOT lead to broken rifles.

I find your post very interesting and directly applicable to this discussion. Of course the designers of the Lee Enfield assumed that their rifle would be shot in the rain, they never, ever, assumed the cartridge was to carry any load, and therefore they designed the action to take the full thrust of the cartridge, rain or shine. As long as pressures were held to British service rifle limits, which was around 44,000 CUP, both the ammunition and rifle were perfectly safe to shoot in the deserts, or in the rainy tropics. Since this combination was extensively tested in wet, muddy, nasty Flanders, it ought to be obvious that the Lee Enfield can be fired in the rain with wet cartridges.

Hatcherism assumes the cartridge case is strong and the action is weak. This of course is non sense. Quarter hard brass yeilds around 42,000 pounds per square inch, but case sidewalls are not one inch thick. The case sidewall of a 30-06 at its thickest point is 0.032" and tapers down to 0.010". Now, even very weak, un heat treated steels have a yield around 50,000 to 60,000 pounds per square inch, and if heat treated, you would expect much higher strengths.


I took a look at the various heat treatments in Hatcher's Notebook and then looked up the expected material properties of heat treated billets from Matweb:


Receivers and bolts of Remington 03’s made out of 8620 steel
Material WD 8620
Treatment: Normalize before machining. Carburize .009” to .015”: oil quench. Temper at 350 F for 1 hour at heat.
Hardness Rockwell D62 to D70 on side rail.

Matweb:

Specific conditions for property data below: Single quenched and tempered: carburized at 925°C (1700°F) for 8 hrs., pot cooled, reheated to 845°C (1550°F), quenched in agitated oil, 150°C (300°F) temper. 1.9 mm case depth. Core properties.


Tensile Strength, Ultimate 189000 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 149800 psi
Elongation at Break 11.5 % in 50 mm.
Reduction of Area 51.6 %
Modulus of Elasticity 29700 ksi
Typical for steel
Bulk Modulus 20300 ksi
Typical for steel



M1 Garand made from WD 8620
Material: WD 8620
Treatment: Carburize .012” to .018” at 1600 F. Oil quench temper 1 hour at 480 F. Rockwell D59 to D67

Matweb:

AISI 8620 Steel, Direct quenched from pot: carburized at 925°C (1700°F) for 8 hrs., quenched in agitated oil, 230°C (450°F) temper. Core properties.

Hardness, Vickers 661 Converted from Rockwell C hardness.
Tensile Strength, Ultimate 181000 psi
Tensile Strength, Yield 134000 psi
Elongation at Break 12.8 % in 50 mm.
Reduction of Area 50.6 %
Modulus of Elasticity 29700 ksi
Typical for steel
Bulk Modulus 20300 ksi
Typical for steels
Poissons Ratio 0.29 Calculated
Machinability 65 % hot rolled and cold drawn. Based on 100% machinability for AISI 1212 steel.
Shear Modulus 11600 ksi


Of course no action I have ever held used one square inch square sized locking lugs or receiver seats, but those lugs are closer to 1/2" thick, and when you compare the load it takes to shear through bolt lugs, compared to the shear through the brass sidewalls of a cartridge case, Hatcherism and Hatcherites become even more laughable.

The action supports the case as much as possible, because, it turns out the action is far stronger than the case and it also turns out, the action is there to support the case, not the other way around. Hatcherites can't seem to get that in their head.

Something about apples? Shooting apples, is that the intellectual foundation for Hatcherism?

[F. Guffey]

Hatcherism assumes the cartridge case is strong and the action is weak. This of course is non sense. Quarter hard brass yeilds around 42,000 pounds per square inch, but case sidewalls are not one inch thick. The case sidewall of a 30-06 at its thickest point is 0.032" and tapers down to 0.010". Now, even very weak, un heat treated steels have a yield around 50,000 to 60,000 pounds per square inch, and if heat treated, you would expect much higher strengths.

You should avoid making this stuff up. The case head is solid, I have never been able to get reloaders to measure case head thickness from the cup above the web to the case head; so, you will have to take my word for it but I have case heads with a thickness of .200" to .250" thick. Again, I can not talk a reloader into measuring before and again after but with factory loads I can manage to increase the diameter of the case head .00025" each firing. Some reloaders claim they expand the case head .002" per firing and no one is alarmed. And then there is case head protrusion and unsupported case head.

There are rifles that were suspect, I purchased 5 rifles that were sold as suspect, when I tested them I was accused of getting into some risky stuff by those that I respect. Anyhow; if anything failed it would have been the case. It would have come under the heading of case head failure. I have crushed case heads but when testing a rifle I use cases with thick case heads. After that there is a chance the case head suffers cat·a·stroph·ic failure. And then there are those that claim it must have been a double charge.

And then? I have two bolts that failed, one with the lugs sheared off and one with cracked lugs. Both were in Mausers with the third lug on the bolt. Without guessing I concluded not all Mauser bolts can be opened up for all magnums

I have a friend that went to his range to test a new rifle build; he loaded one round, pulled the trigger and then walked toward his target to retrieve his barrel.


F. Guffey

[Jimro]

I had an old article about that. Since it is rather hard to count on doing anything in England without having to do it in the rain, shooters formed the habit of "shooting wet." If it wasn't raining on their rifle and ammo, they dipped each cartridge in water. Zero was stable.
There were great alarms raised on the basis of oiled cartridge proof testing. But almost buried near the end of the article was the conclusion based on controlled testing and careful computation, that "shooting wet" did NOT lead to broken rifles.

I didn't say it lead to broken rifles, I apologize if I didn't make that clear. As I understand it, shooting in the rain generally lead to slightly degraded accuracy, at least based on what I've been told by fullbore competitors from New Zealand and Australia.

Firing in the rain will generally give a more "random" amount of water on the brass, which is won't compress between the brass and chamber walls, which effectively if slightly changes the pressure curve of the cartridge. A uniform amount of fluid should give you a uniform amount of change to the pressure curve. Whether or not the zero stays stable probably has much more to do with shooting from a rest or shooting off the shoulder like fullbore competitors do. Changes to internal ballistics always show up more on humans than on rests.

The rather "open top" of the Enfield rifle (or Mauser, or 1903, or Garand) compared to the closed top an AR-15 is probably one reason why the AR has surpassed the older rifles in terms of high scores on the Service Rifle line (in addition to lower recoil).

More specifically with Enfields, with their roomy chambers, the addition of a fluid can really change the way coefficient of friction, which can change HOW the brass stretches which can change the harmonics (ie hitting the barrel with a different hammer), which if it isn't consistent between shots can reduce accuracy, especially from the shoulder.

To sum up: random amounts of water induce randomness, not broken rifles.

Jimro

[F. Guffey]

T.O'Heir --
You are correct, the 303 does not head space off
of the shoulder
BUT
Maintaining the shoulder length will prolong case life,
moving the shoulder way back each time you size the
case, will cause it to fail ( just as brasscollector has found )
Following the directions that came with the die will
move the shoulder way back

So shoulder set back is revelent and matters in the 303

This is one reason many people only neck size the 303 case
( so they do not move the shoulder )

Reminds me of 'The twilight zone'; we weren't there, we don't know. But in the beginning they had little to no interest in what happened ahead of the rim. By design the case filled the chamber, the chamber sealed and the bullet left the barrel. Not much difference with the belted case. The belt held the case to the rear and the case body filled the chamber. They were not concerned with what happen to the case and they knew the shoulder on the case did not move forward when the case filled the chamber, had the shoulder moved; that is too complicated; reloaders believe they have mastered moving the shoulder.

F. Guffey