The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Skunkworks > Handloading, Reloading, and Bullet Casting

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old February 12, 2018, 05:58 PM   #26
oley55
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 6, 2013
Location: JAX, FL
Posts: 241
Slamfire, with all that goop on the bullets I'd think you would create hydraulic rings in the barrel.
__________________
“Some people spend an entire lifetime wondering if they made a difference in the world. But, the Marines don't have that problem.” ― Ronald Reagan
oley55 is offline  
Old February 12, 2018, 07:17 PM   #27
Yosemite Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2017
Posts: 456
Quote:
I thought your prior problems were the result of bad gunsmithing. The symptoms looked like over pressure, but the sticky bolt was because the lugs weren't cut straight.
I don't think that was the case now. The bases of those cases expanded .003" just ahead of the rim from .467" to .470". The velocity was recorded at 2611 fps. My cases that were fired Yesterday with 54.5 grains of the same powder, bullet and brass volume seated at .010" off the lands at 2676 fps measure .468" in diameter just ahead of the rim.
Yosemite Steve is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 01:01 PM   #28
Unclenick
Staff
 
Join Date: March 4, 2005
Location: Ohio
Posts: 14,590
GeauxTide,

Go back up to my post #14, and follow the second link to read how CHE (Case Head Expansion) corresponds to pressure. It is remarkably inconsistent even with cases all from the same lot and with the same load history.
__________________
Gunsite Orange Hat Family Member
CMP Certified GSM Master Instructor
NRA Certified Rifle Instructor
NRA Benefactor Member and Golden Eagle
Unclenick is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 01:16 PM   #29
Stats Shooter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 26, 2016
Location: Mississippi
Posts: 1,520
Quote:
Go back up to my post #14, and follow the second link to read how CHE (Case Head Expansion) corresponds to pressure. It is remarkably inconsistent even with cases all from the same lot and with the same load history
Reading primers, casehead/extractor groove expansion, extractor marks and many more, are a bit like reading tea leaves. At the margins there is simply a lot of variability....too much to say 0.001 vs 0.0015" growth means max pressure. Or that flat primers always means "insert meaning here".
By the time they are definitive, you are probably well over max.

I had some over pressure going on a month or so ago and the casehead grew by 0.015 and was stuck. That's definitive. But there were other signs as well like the primer falling out.

We do what we can without fancy pressure equipment, but I wouldn't put a lot of faith in any one observation.
Stats Shooter is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 02:35 PM   #30
GeauxTide
Senior Member
 
Join Date: April 20, 2009
Location: Helena, AL
Posts: 3,710
Unclenick, you always provide a wealth of excellent information. I agree that it's like reading tea leaves, Stats, but it's given me a successful frame of reference over the years.
GeauxTide is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 02:58 PM   #31
Yosemite Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2017
Posts: 456
Unclenick, I agree. Your advice is always useful and factual. Thanks for all you do! That said, my little expansion was not too significant.
Yosemite Steve is offline  
Old February 13, 2018, 03:15 PM   #32
Yosemite Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2017
Posts: 456
Ok, you guys can laugh at me now. HiBC, I think, was correct in his previous analysis. Only one lug was touching the reciever after the gunsmith jammed the bolt head on. What I thought was considerable expansion was not.

My chamber did NOT expand.
My powder was NOT wonkey.
My gunsmith was CERTAINLY incompetant.
Yosemite Steve is offline  
Old February 14, 2018, 09:01 AM   #33
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Slamfire, with all that goop on the bullets I'd think you would create hydraulic rings in the barrel.
I am not seeing it. The practice of greasing bullet was standard practice in the days of cupro nickel bullet jackets. In fact, based on what is in print, you were a rube if you did not grease your bullets. This article by Major Brookhart is excellent in explaining the reasons behind this practice:

Arms and the Man, scanned by Google books:

27 April 1918 Rifle Training in War, part 4 Major Smith Brookhart

Quote:
The use of greased bullets in rifle training is very desirable. There was a time when riflemen argued about the effect of grease upon the accuracy of the rifle but it long ago ended in favor of the grease.

The Winchester Company is now making all of its tests of both rifles and ammunition with greased bullets. When bullets were fired dry it was found the ammunition from the first loading machines would give the best velocity, with slightly reduced velocities apparent in the product of succeeding machines although fired from the same rifle. After they began greasing the bullets the velocity held even and steady. The results from the last machines were just as good as the first. It is true the velocity of greased bullets is higher, but it is even. They all go the same, providing they are greased about the same. It was claimed that grease in the chamber caused the primers to blow uot but that is a mistake. There is a higher pressure caused by the more perfect sealing of the bore when grease is used, but the pressure is not increased enough to blow out a properly seated primer.

The greatest benefit of the greased bullet is its effect upon the life of the rifle. In tests a few year ago all of the rifles which figured in the trials were worn out and lost their accuracy under three thousand round when fired with dry bullets. Those fired with greased bullets held their accuracy from 6700 to 7200 rounds. Accuracy as used here must not be confounded with “serviceable” as applied to the ordnance tests. These rifles showed no loss of accuracy until they had fired the above number of rounds and without the grease they showed loss of accuracy upon firing less than half the number. If the use of grease ill double the life of a rifle, it is very important.

Grease also prevents metal fouling and prevents acid fouling for the powder. It is a fine perserative for the bore of the rifle, but it has some disadvantages. As generally used it is dierty and disagreeable to handle. If mixed with sand and dirt it is very injurious to the rifle. It must e kept clean and it must be applied evenly. A small amount on each bullet is sufficient. It causes a certain amount of smoke and that may prevent its use on the battle field and especially by snipers. Nevertheless, it protects the rifle and ought to be used during the training period. If a bad quality of grease is used it causes carbon fouling.

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 the 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.

It would save many million of dollars lost in worn out rifles if-

The War Department would prohibit the use of the solutions and instead-
Issue the beeswax, Carnauba wax and petrolatum compound for greasing bullets.

It would increase the efficiency of men in rifle practice.

It would make rifle cleaning easy and preserve the rifle.

The president of the National Rifle Association now has a rifle that has fired over 7000 rounds of greased bullets and is still at its best for accuracy It has never been treated with the solutions.
I pondered why Major Brookhart took the time and effort to defend greasing his bullets, and I think it has to do with a Hoax perputrated by the Army Ordnance Department. The Army had built over 1,000,000 rifles in Arsenals without temperature gages. Heat was judged by the eye, except for rear sight springs, where there was a pyrometer. Otherwise when ever metal was heated, eye balls were the gage. Now let us understand who is running these Arsenals: Army Officers. The Army is responsible for funding and management of their Arsenals, and any bad product that gets shipped is the fault of Army Ordnance Officers.

Rifles were blowing up in the field because human eye balls are unable to judge heat precisely enough to prevent steel from being burnt. In 1927 and Army Board determined that 1/3 of all low number receivers would blow up in over pressure conditions. Some of these receivers would shatter if dropped on a concrete floor.

The Army is no different from any other large organization. It is grandiose, self centered, self absorbed, does not have guilt or shame, never admits when it is wrong, always blames others for its failures, and you can only have a master/slave relationship with it. It is also highly manipulative. The Army never admitted that it made bad rifles. We know these low number receivers were issued all the way through WW2 and today, these things are still blowing up in shooter's faces:



But, at the time they were being made, and decades after, the Army found a way to pass the blame. The Army claimed greased bullets were the problem. You can see the logic, perfect rifles, perfect ammunition, so it has to be the grease. I think Major Brookhart is reacting to pervasive Army Ordnance disinformation on greased bullets, because in his experience, and in the experience of thousands of shooters, grease was beneficial. He did not know, as no one outside of the Army Ordnance Bureau knew, and no one outside of the Army Ordnance Bureau would know till after 1948, just what a mess the Army Arsenals were in, and the level, quantity, and how structurally deficient the rifles they were shoveling out from 1906 to 1918. The production lines were in such a mess that Springfield Armory was shut down for at least a month, in the middle of a shooting war. This is very serious, could have affected National Security, and very embarrassing, but I have not found a peep in the popular press at the time, nor until Hatcher publishes the numbers in 1948.

But, the Hoax created by the Army Ordnance Bureau over 100 years ago is foundational to many of the belief systems in the American Shooting society.

At least some are trying to address this, even though they don't know where the lie started

The myth of over lubrication

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9bOT_d60LM
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; February 14, 2018 at 09:07 AM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 06:53 AM   #34
hooligan1
Senior Member
 
Join Date: July 18, 2010
Location: Independence Missouri
Posts: 4,274
Slamfire, when you test ammo, do you grease your bullets and if so what effective have you seen on velocity and performance?
Also Im extremely interested in the types of grease you use, and what you've found to work best.
__________________
Thanks for coming!
hooligan1 is online now  
Old February 17, 2018, 01:57 PM   #35
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Slamfire, when you test ammo, do you grease your bullets and if so what effective have you seen on velocity and performance?
Also Im extremely interested in the types of grease you use, and what you've found to work best.
Because of the silly six picture limit on this forum, I am going to have to break this up into several posts:

I have fired cartridges lubricated with RCBS water soluble lube, Imperial sizing wax, Johnson Paste Wax, Hornady One shot, Lee sizing lube, Lubriplate AA130, Lubriplate 105, rifle grease, axle grease, 10W-30 oil, pull wax, Mink shoe oil, Vaseline, hair gels. Unlike industrial/automotive oils and greases, hair gels don't have nasty additives and wash off easily. Industrial/automotive products are not intended for contact with skin, if you really look at them. Hair gels are combinations of Vaseline (petroleum jelly) and lanolin. Hair gels are semi hard, easy to apply. I do believe that heavily greased bullets do reduce jacket fouling. After firing, my cases are perfectly fireformed to the chamber and stress free. Absolutely no sidewall stretch at all. I also detect sticky bolt lift earlier in developing loads. When I get home, I size the cases as they came out of the chamber so these hair gels are quite lubricative.

I conducted an test over three years ago to determine the effect of gross amount of grease on bullets. This was to test the Army theory that grease pinched the case necks.

Greased Rounds Test in 45/70 and 30-06

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


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

grease in chamber from greased rounds

Code:
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





Greased bullets before and after firing



Initial rounds gave spurious reading across the chronograph 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

Code:
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,




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


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.




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 case head. The whole combustion event is faster than human perception, thus is 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.

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

Last edited by Slamfire; February 17, 2018 at 02:06 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 01:59 PM   #36
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Grease is squeezed into the action areas making for a very messy rifle.






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




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.

A tray of fired, ungreased 45-70’s on right, greased fired 45-70 on left.

Ungreased on left, greased on right


First round in trapdoor on the left, amount of grease squeezed into action after firing many rounds on the right.



For several decades, I have been skeptical of Hatcher’s/Army claims of combustion pressure increases due to greased bullets, greased cases. Nothing to date has really convinced me that their blaming greased bullets for blown rifles was anything but an Army cover up of structurally weak 03 receivers and poorly made US Army ammunition.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; February 18, 2018 at 02:13 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 02:02 PM   #37
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
I started shooting NRA across the course service rifle just after the Garand had left the scene, but before the AR15 replaced the M1a on the firing line. Basically, once the AMU started winning the Service Rifle Championship, with their NM M16’s, which was around 1995, the AR15 disappeared quickly from the firing line. It is my recollection that 1996 was the last time the Marine Corp Rifle Team used the M14 as an across the course service rifle. In 1997 the Marines all had match M16’s. This is over 20 years ago and so the memory of the M1a as a match rifle is probably fading, and so were its peculiarities as to ammunition and case life.

At the time, experienced shooters recommended that cases would last only four or five reloads, which is about 5 to 6 firings, and to discard the cases before the case heads came off in the rifle. They would show me their cases, some I would take home, section them, see for myself how much severe case head stretch had developed. Garands and M1a’s are hard on brass:




I met a Distinguished HM who was shooting lubricated cases in his M1a. He left the RCBS case lube on his cases, never tumbled the lube off, and he said he could take a set of brass all shooting season. He was a gunsmith and a shooter who had won every XTC medal you could get, with lubricated cases, so his credibility was high. Like others I had read Hatcher’s Notebook and its warnings about greased bullets, and of course read all the gloom and doom predictions from in print gunwriters about oil/grease on cases, but here was something that was clearly working out differently from the prognostications of the authority figures.

In time I determined that the Distinguished HM was 100% correct, and the greased bullet/case fears were baseless.

Cost is an important consideration to me. There are those to whom case life and case cost are irrelevant, but few people got to retire with footlockers of free military brass. I have noticed that new “bargain” 308 Win is priced $22.00 for twenty rounds, so brass has become even more expensive over the years. While I cannot speak for others, but for me, saving money is important: the cost of replacing cases after five firings is significant, especially if you are shooting an M1a to earn the Distinguished Rifleman’s Badge . Being able to amortized the cost of a set of brass, 10 or even 20 firings, results in considerable cost savings over tossing the brass after five firings.

Brass life in a bolt rifle can be orders of magnitude higher than what a gas gunner can expect. Bolt rifles are easy on brass, less scratches and dents, and the brass is not stretched on extraction because the bolt is opened after chamber pressure is zero. The primary cause of case head separations in a bolt gun is due to excessive set back of the shoulder during resizing. Cases are really meant to stretch once, and not more than 0.006”, which is the average distance between “Go” and “No Go” on a headspace gage. If cases stretch more than that, depending on a number of variables, cases will break.

Garands and M1a’s, are much harder on brass than bolt rifles. Gas guns are very hard on brass because they unlock while there is still pressure within the barrel. Col Chin, in his Machine Gun series, https://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/index.html calls this the residual blow back effect. Unlocking while there still is pressure in the barrel pressure is deliberate, engineered into the timing of the mechanism, and adds to reliable function of the mechanism. The residual blow back effect will pop the case out of the chamber as long as barrel pressures are low, less than 650 psia, and if case to chamber friction is low. However, since the case is moving, with the insides pressurized, this also has the effect of stretching the case. Hatcher explained, in Army Ordnance Magazine, March-April 1933, how cases stretch and why lubrication is essential in retarded blow back mechanisms:


Automatic Firearms, Mechanical Principles used in the various types, by J. S. Hatcher. Chief Smalls Arms Division Washington DC.

Retarded Blow-back Mechanism………………………..

There is one queer thing, however, that is common to almost all blow-back and retarded blow-back guns, and that is that there is a tendency to rupture the cartridges unless they are lubricated. This is because the moment the explosion occurs the thin front end of the cartridge case swells up from the internal pressure and tightly grips the walls of the chamber. Cartridge cases are made with a strong solid brass head a thick wall near the rear end, but the wall tapers in thickness until the front end is quiet thin so that it will expand under pressure of the explosion and seal the chamber against the escape of gas to the rear. When the gun is fired the thin front section expands as intended and tightly grips the walls of the chamber, while the thick rear portion does not expand enough to produce serious friction. The same pressure that operates to expand the walls of the case laterally, also pushes back with the force of fifty thousand pounds to the square inch on the head of the cartridge, and the whole cartridge being made of elastic brass stretches to the rear and , in effect, give the breech block a sharp blow with starts it backward. The front end of the cartridge being tightly held by the friction against the walls of the chamber, and the rear end being free to move back in this manner under the internal pressure, either one of two things will happen. In the first case, the breech block and the head of the cartridge may continue to move back, tearing the cartridge in two and leaving the front end tightly stuck in the chamber; or, if the breech block is sufficiently retarded so that it does not allow a very violent backward motion, the result may simply be that the breech block moves back a short distance and the jerk of the extractor on the cartridge case stops it, and the gun will not operate.

However this difficultly can be overcome entirely by lubricating the cartridges in some way. In the Schwarzlose machine gun there is a little pump installed in the mechanism which squirts a single drop of oil into the chamber each time the breech block goes back. In the Thompson Auto-rifle there are oil-soaked pads in the magazine which contains the cartridges. In the Pedersen semiautomatic rifle the lubrication is taken care of by coating the cartridges with a light film of wax.

Blish Principle….There is no doubt that this mechanism can be made to operate as described, provided the cartridge are lubricated, …. That this type of mechanism actually opens while there is still considerable pressure in the cartridge case is evident from the fact that the gun does not operate satisfactorily unless the cartridges are lubricated.


While neither the Garand or M1a are retarded blowback actions, cases are still stretched by the residual blow back effect engineered in these mechanisms. This pressure curve is of the Garand gas system. Do notice that unlock is complete when pressures are 600 psia. The case is being extracted for a distance of half inches before pressure is zero.




These cases were fired lubricated with Johnson Paste wax, as can be seen with the case gage, the shoulders have moved, as the case moved, during extraction. These cases were sized between the Go and No Go of this gage, and yet, because they were pulled out of the chamber during the residual blow back period, the case shoulders moved forward to fill the void. If these cases had not been lubricated, instead of the shoulder folding out to the contours of the chamber, the case sidewalls would have been stretched, damaging the case and leading to case head separations.





Case life is not a concern of the military, they don’t expect Soldiers to reload their ammunition, but for civilian shooters desiring to maximum the case life of a round fired in a gas gun, case life can be greatly extended by the practice of cartridge lubrication. Case lubrication will prevent the case neck and shoulders from adhering to the chamber, so that when the case is extracted under pressure, case sidewalls are not stretched. I am of the opinion that lubricated cases will improve extraction reliability because pressure is not zero, some part of the case is being dragged against the chamber. This is the primary reason M16’s have “extractor lift”. The case drags in the chamber and follows off the bolt face. Increasing case to chamber friction always reduces extraction reliability. Lessening case to chamber friction always improves extraction reliability.






The first picture above showing case head stretch are typical dry cases fired in a M1a or a Garand. Those were from a shooting bud and they were five times fired. Scratches are from a bent paperclip inserted in the case mouth, I was trying to find the side with the deepest stretch ring.









When I resized my cases, I size the cases to gage minimum or if the brass is to be fired in only one M1a, I sometimes push the shoulder back 0.003” from the chamber headspace. It turns out, it is easier just to size to gage minimum. Primarily I use RCBS water soluble case lube, because the stuff sizes well and is easy to wash off in soap and water. I size my gas gun cases in small base dies. I set up the dies with cartridge headspace gages.



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

Last edited by Slamfire; February 17, 2018 at 02:28 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 02:05 PM   #38
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Most of rounds I fired I coated with Johnson Paste wax. I believe the hard, durable wax in Johnson Paste wax is ceresin wax, the same wax that John Pedersen used in his wax coating of the 276 Pedersen rifle:


Patented Nov. 4, 1930
PATENT OFFICE JOHN DOUGLAS PEDERSEN, OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS

http://www.google.com/patents/US1780566

In the preparation of cartridges having metal cases for storage and for use, it has been found desirable to apply to said metal case a relatively thin coating of some protective substance which will preserve said metal case for comparatively long periods of time against-deterioration, such as season cracking. In the present invention, the material for said coating has been so chosen as to perform the additional function of acting as a lubricant for the case of the cartridge, both for facilitating introduction into the chamber of the gun and the extraction thereof after firing. The most suitable wax which I have found for this purpose and which I at present prefer is ceresin, a refined product of ozokerite; but I wish it to be understood that other waxes having similar qualities may exist which might serve equally well. Some of the desirable features of ceresin are that it is hard and non-tacky at ordinary temperatures having a melting point somewhere between 140 and 176 Fahrenheit. It is smooth and glassy when hard and does not gather dirt or dust. However, when the ceresin on the cartridges is melted in the chamber of a gun, it becomes a lubricant.

Other lubricating waxes have been employed for coating cartridges, and the method most generally pursued for applying said coating to the cartridge case has been to prepare a heated bath of a solution of the wax in a suitable solvent, dip the cartridges therein so that a film of the solution will adhere thereto, and finally withdraw the cartridges to permit the solvent to evaporate from the coating film. This former process is comparatively slow and has been found lacking in several important respects.







Even though it was a time consuming process, for match ammunition, I preferred coating my match cartridges with Johnson paste wax. And was for precisely the same reasons as John Pedersen gave: It is smooth and glassy when hard and does not gather dirt or dust If you have ever shot in an XTC rifle match, you are on the field all day. None of the ranges I shot had running water, for bathrooms: you went around the berm. Because I could not wash, I preferred to not have industrial or automotive greases all over my hands. Another thing in XTC matches, you don’t get a lunch break. You munch on whatever you brought in the few minutes of between relays and preparation periods. I did not want to be eating axle grease with my sandwich. So, for match ammunition, I preferred Johnson paste wax.

At Camp Perry in cold weather I had bolt over rides with some of my Johnson paste waxed rounds during a rapid fire stage. This stopped when I polished the rounds with a rag. Previous to that I shot the rounds with swirls and gobs of paste wax but evidentially that caused sluggish round rise in the magazine in cold weather. From then on I polished my rapid fire rounds and have never had a bolt close on an empty chamber even in rapid fires sequences in snow. For slow fire rounds, I left the gobs of wax alone.

With a 168 SMK/Hornady/Speer/Nosler match I used 41.5 grains IMR 4895 or AA2495 whatever was cheaper. I shot estate sale IMR 4895, I shot 32 pounds of AA2495 through my M1a. AA2495 is a copy of IMR 4895 and the Chinese made version I bought shot exceptionally well. I cut loads, sometimes by half a grain in 90 + weather, but of the brass sectioned below, most of the time I shot a 168 Match with 41.5 grains AA2495/IMR 4895. I also shot 175 SMK’s with 41.0 to 41.5 grains IMR 4895/AA2495. These are hot loads, especially 41.5 grs IMR 4895 and I used them at 600/1000 yards.

Since earning my Distinguished Rifleman Badge I have been loading lighter loads out to 300 yards. I look to push a 168 Match to just 2550 fps, such as the surplus powder load I developed. At 600 yards I still bump up loads to 41.5 grains IMR 4895. Velocities of my loads are below These velocities were all measured in a Douglas barreled M1a with lubricated cases. While velocity is not a direct measure of pressure, if pressures were high, and dangerous, as claimed by Hatcherites, then I ought to see abnormal velocities with lubricated cases.

Code:
 168 Nosler  41.0 Military Surplus MSG 4895 IMI Match CCI 200  OAL 2.750"
	 	 
21 June 2008 T =  85  °F	
		
Ave Vel =	2552	
Std Dev =	11	
ES =	27	
High =	2565	
Low =	2538	
N =	5	

168 Nosler Match 41.0 AA2495 LC72 WLR	OAL	2.8		
29-Apr-04	T= 78 ° F
	 					
Ave Vel =	2517						
Std Dev =	21						
ES =	68					 	
Low =	2486					 	
High =	2554						
N =	17		 				
							
168 gr Sierra Match 41.5 gr AA2520  LC Mixed  WLR OAL 2.800		
22-Apr-99 T = 75- 80°F	
						
Ave Vel =	2601						
Std Dev =	14						
ES =	38						
Low =	2584						
High =	2622						
N =	10						
					
175 gr Sierra Match 41.5 gr AA2495 LC87 W/W OAL 2.800
29-Jun-96
			
Ave Vel =	2579		
Std Dev =	13		
ES =	40		
Low =	2564		
High =	2604		
N =	10		

174 FMJBT 40.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 	OAL 2.800" 
	 		
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F			
				
Ave Vel =	2524			
Std Dev =	36			
ES =	90			
High =	2587			
Low =	2497			
N =	5			
				
				
174 FMJBT 41.0 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR 	OAL 2.800" 
	 		
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F			
				
Ave Vel =	2594			
Std Dev =	14			
ES =	30			
High =	2609			
Low =	2579			
N =	5			

174 FMJBT 41.5 grs H4895 wtd, lot 4501 LC mixed WLR OAL 2.800"
	 		
18 May 2008 T =  71 °F			
				
Ave Vel =	2593			
Std Dev =	15			
ES =	42			
High =	2613			
Low =	2571			
N =	5
I don’t like the feel of greasy cases and if I had time between matches I washed the cases to remove the RCBS lube, primed them clean, loaded them with powder and bullet, and after that, applied paste wax. If I did not have time I fired the cases just as they came out of the die, minus whatever RCBS lube which was lost in handling. I never had a primer dud, even though I primed hundreds of cases that had a RCBS lube coating. I ran a number of experiments with various lubes. Leaving thick coatings of heavy greases is objectionable as grease particles are blown into the air, some out of the action, some out of the barrel. I had 1000 rounds of 7.62 CAVIM and I fired most of them in a FAL. FAL’s are very hard on brass and I had this stick wax, so I experimented with the stick wax. Stick wax is tenuous grease used to lubricate saw teeth. It really sticks to stuff. I dropped lumps of stick wax in a plastic bag with handfuls of CAVIM and shook vigorously. Both case and bullets were unevenly coated with globs of stick wax. When I fired this stuff it was as if a grease bomb went off. The mechanism became coated in stick wax, and I was coated in stick wax. My shooting glasses had to be frequently cleaned, my hands were greasy, my clothes were greasy, overall, it was messy. Because it was so messy, I later spent hours wiping the cases to reduce the amount of stick wax covering the cases. This was better, but I still had stick wax over my hands, clothes, and the stuff does not wash off easily. Stick wax does exactly what it is supposed to do: stick to the surface.

Some of the lubes I tried include Imperial sizing wax, Mink Oil shoe polish, Hornady Unique case lube, Lee lube, wire pulling wax, lubriplate greases and many combinations of axle grease and wheel bearing greases. I oiled cases with automotive oil. I will never again use stick wax. I never ever had issues with case damage or unusual case damage such as “serrations” as one Hatcherite claimed would happen with Imperial sizing wax. Any one claiming such nonsense has to be confabulating experiences from their own fantasy land of physics.

After much testing , I came to the decision that I preferred dry coatings. Even so, with RCBS water soluble, after all the handling that occurs with trimming, priming, dumping the powder , seating the bullet, the amount of RCBS case lube left on the case does not leave objectionable residue in the mechanism or eyeglasses.

The picture below are of sectioned cases, R stands for reloaded, R5 five times reloaded, etc, all of these cases the shoulder was set back about 0.003” and the cases fired in my M1a. I do not visually see any evidence of case wall thinning from those cases reloaded 5 times (6 times fired) , R18, or R22. As long as the case is not excessively stretched during firing or extraction, there is no reason for the sidewalls to thin.













My basic conclusion is that if cartridge brass does not failure through case neck cracks, body splits, and you have not stretched them so they develop case head separations, you can load them until the primer pockets get too large. I quit shooting these cases because it became easy to insert the primers in the pocket. Loose primer pockets will release primers when the round is fed into the chamber. I have had jams due to loose primers in a number of semi automatic mechanisms. I had lots of jams in my 45 ACP M1911’s due to range pickup AMERC brass. AMERC brass was some of the worst I ever used, oversized primer pockets were just one issue, and I had primers come out of primed AMERC cases as they were fed into the chamber.

I found that I needed to periodically ream the primer pockets: the pockets became shallow. Don’t know why unless the primer pocket collapses over time. As incidental contact with the primer can cause a slamfire or an out of battery slamfire, keeping the primer below the case head is a safety critical issue.


I believe that lubricated cases will produce more consistent accuracy than dry cases. Chambers foul and they foul unevenly. I am of the opinion that irregular binding occurs when cases adhere to the chamber. Lubricated cases evenly transfer the thrust to the locking mechanism. For their roller bolt rifles, which use gas lubrication to break case friction, HK used to make a statement to that effect on their web page. I don’t think it is any coincidence that all match 22lr ammunition is liberally greased from rim to bullet tip. I am also of the opinion that all semi automatic mechanisms eject more reliably if the case to chamber friction is reduced. While the M1a has been developed to an accurate service rifle, I believe any inaccuracy due to case friction is in the noise level for this mechanism.

I can say I earned my Distinguished Rifleman’s Badge and won a Regional Gold with lubricated cases in the M1A. My accuracy and function with lubricated cases was more than acceptable. My case life was orders of magnitude greater than those who fired dry cases, so I saved money. That has to mean something. I shot two barrels out on one M1a, all with lubricated cases. I did not notice any unusual wear patterns on the bolt, operating rod, receiver.



__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 02:14 PM   #39
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
I have been lubricating cases at the range when I don’t have time the night before to apply Johnson paste wax. All of the shooting pictures were taken at CMP Talladega where I can shoot out to 600 yards.
This is my 300 H&H Magnum, cases are hideously expensive


The base to shoulder distance is not controlled for belted magnums and many shooters experience a short case life with belted magnums because of this. I however, fire form these $2.00 + cases by lubricating them. All that is needed is a very light coating of lubricant. In this case, Beeswax Hair gel. This was cheap, smelled nice, and washed off later.





Greased cases shoot well at 100 yards, and that is the actual velocity with greased bullets and cases.



Shoot well out to 300 yards, these are the impacts from the greasy cases above
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; February 18, 2018 at 02:16 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 02:23 PM   #40
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
This is an exceptionally accurate pre WW2, first year production M70. It is in “God’s caliber”: 30-06. LOL. I am very proud to own this rifle and that I bedded it, and it shoots well afterward! Will miracles never cease!



Greased bullets at 300 yards



First shot, cold bore, greased bullet and case, using previous zero from 300 yards.



A six hundred yard group with this rifle. I did have cracked case necks from the old ammunition, so that has to be the reason for the eight ring shot. Or maybe, I yanked it. I prefer the first excuse to the second reason.



This was shooting ammunition I had loaded in the late 80’s. I am trying to shoot up as much of this stuff as I can, because I did not know, decades ago, that gun powder deteriorates. After firing, maybe 90% of the cases experienced case neck cracks. This was also the first time I attempted to shoot at 600 yards with this rifle, and it took 11 shots to get in the ten ring. Believe no one who, without a previous zero at distance, thinks they can dial in some book values and hit the middle first shot, at 600 yards. So, I ran out of ammunition and decided to take a nice picture of the shots that were in the ten ring.

__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 07:35 PM   #41
Yosemite Steve
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 27, 2017
Posts: 456
When your gun starts to heat up does it begin to drip grease? This is very unorthodox... to me... but it's interesting! When people think outside the box great things can happen so I really admire that you have done this. I would bet that you have received a lot of criticism for it. If the proof is in the pudding, that is what counts. Thanks for sharing all of this!
Yosemite Steve is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 08:23 PM   #42
Pathfinder45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 7, 2008
Posts: 2,475
Slamfire, you've gone way beyond some of my experiments. Thanks for the R&D. Have you done any of this involving 30-30 in a lever-gun?
Pathfinder45 is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 10:09 PM   #43
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
When your gun starts to heat up does it begin to drip grease? This is very unorthodox... to me... but it's interesting! When people think outside the box great things can happen so I really admire that you have done this. I would bet that you have received a lot of criticism for it. If the proof is in the pudding, that is what counts. Thanks for sharing all of this!
I don’t want to get it that hot! I used to rapid fire 8mm surplus out of a Mauser 98K. I burnt that stuff up, stripper clip loading the rifle, till the rifle got objectionably hot. Once the thing was hot enough, I would pull the bolt out, point the muzzle at the ground, and pour water down the barrel! The barrel was hot enough to boil water, into steam, blowing out of the action like a geyser, getting all over me. But, pour long enough, and the barrel cooled. However, you get a firearm that hot, one little touch on the rear sight, with was as hot as the barrel, and I would get a burn.

I recommend keeping your rifles cool. And dry. It was always a mess tearing the rifle down to wipe off water.

Now, I have not invented anything, instead I am recovering history. What I am doing was very common in the US prior to the 1921 Tin Can ammunition cover up, after which, the Army banned the use of greased bullets in NRA matches. The Army issued ammunition which the bullets had a thick coat of tin. Townsend Whelen developed the coating and claimed it prevented fouling. It did not. Not only that, the tin cold soldered to the case necks of the cartridges and positively created a bore obstruction and blew up rifles before the National Matches, during the National Matches, and after the National Matches. Instead of acknowledging that the Army had made and issued dangerous ammunition, the Army lied, claiming the ammunition was absolutely safe, and blamed the shooters:

Courtesy Google Books:

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 “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.

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.


If you have ever read Hatcher’s Notebook, he never mentioned this lie,did he?

The use of greased bullets was still very common outside of the US, as evidenced in this article:

Chronicle Newspaper, 13 Feb 1930 Adelaide Australia

http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/article/90100747

Rifle Shooting

GREASED BULLETS

Opinion is so divided on the question of the benefits of using greased, bullets that riflemen would be well advised to give the practice a thorough try-out to ascertain if their present method of shooting is giving the best results. This advice applies to those using a lot of lubricant, those using a little, and those who do not use any. There are prominent riflemen who pile the lubricant on the bullet and get good scores; there are others who have been equally as free with the grease and have got very bad scores; and naturally the two parties hold very different opinions on the subject. The greasing of bullets was introduced in an attempt to prevent the nickel of the bullet adhering to the surface of the inside of the barrel when firing was being carried out. The theory that a lubricant would prevent the two metals “sticking” appears quite in order, but this prevention had to be carried out without any loss of the rifle's accuracy. It was here that the trouble occurred as it was found that as soon as the heat of the barrel turned the grease to oil, which worked into the chamber of the barrel, the bullets began to fly high, as is the case when water gets into the chamber. * The riflemen who had scores spoilt in this manner immediately discarded the use of the lubricant, preferring to chance the nickel trouble as the lesser of the two evils. But, seeing that other men used lets of grease and continued to get good scores, the question arose as to whether the state of the rifling of the barrel should not be taken into consideration with the grease question. Men with new Enfield barrels which have sharp lands, bandied the greased bullets better than those with Metford barrels, which have shallow round lands. This implies that worn barrels do not handle greased bullets as well as the new. One good shot recently was having a run of poor scores. His rifle picked up nickel, so he always used greased bullets. He decided to discontinue the use of the grease, and his scores immediately improved several points. Two other big shots had the same experience. It is possible that had they experimented with reduced amounts of lubricant they might have discovered that they could use a certain amount and get good scores, and at the same time keep the nickel down. There can be little doubt that less lubricant could be used with advantage in the summer, owing to it melting more quickly than in the winter. Rifle men should not only experiment with the quantity to be used but also with the kind, there being several different brands in use.

* note: the Lee Enfield action is very flexible and changes in breech friction create a point of impact change)

And then, there is this:


This history has been forgotten by the shooting community, and it was deliberate, in my opinion.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 17, 2018, 10:31 PM   #44
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Slamfire, you've gone way beyond some of my experiments. Thanks for the R&D. Have you done any of this involving 30-30 in a lever-gun?
Yes I have, and as usual, posted pictures! Which are in these threads, along with the rationale of why I fire form new 30-30 cases with a grease coating on the outside.

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...54&postcount=9

https://thefiringline.com/forums/sho...9&postcount=15

I do want to point out, the excessive amounts of grease you see in many of my pictures is there so the camera can see the grease. You only need as much grease on the case as you would have on the case when you size it on your press. Some of the 30-30 pictures, you can’t see the grease layer, but it is there. I just dappled grease on the case, rolled the case around, spread it out from bullet to base. The guy I learned this from, he was a M1a shooter and he never tumbled his fired cases. He picked them up after each relay, took them home, rolled them around in a towel saturated with RCBS water soluble, sized the cases, primed them, dumped powder and seated the bullets, without removing the case lubricant. I handled his fired cases and they felt slightly greasy. That was enough to break the friction between case and chamber.

A Bullseye bud of mine, in Vietnam he and his band of US Army pirates stole an Oerlikon 20mm machine cannon from the Air Force. Which they bolted to the deck of their armored barge. This machine cannon used pre greased ammunition in WW2, Korea. 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



Well this was messy and you had to pre grease the ammunition, so some time in the 1950’s an oiler was added on the top of the Oerlikon. My Bud said “it did not put much oil on the round”. He and his river pirate buds really appreciated the Oerlikon. He told me of coming around the bend and taking rifle fire from the tree line. Well that's the exact situation why they liberated that Oerlikon from the USAF, they returned fire, 20 mm cannon shells at 700 rounds per minute. Bud claimed, shrubbery, branches, trees would explode and fall, and then the woods got awfully quite afterwards.

If he had one of these, I am certain he would have used it:

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

Last edited by Slamfire; February 17, 2018 at 10:37 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

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 05:41 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2018 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Contact Us
Page generated in 0.11654 seconds with 11 queries