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 2, 2014, 12:33 PM   #26
Jeff2131
Senior Member
 
Join Date: November 30, 2012
Location: Spring City, PA
Posts: 497
Thinking maybe a staff memeber should edit my original post to say...
"Thow these away, unless you know your stuff and can make use of them"
__________________
---I DON'T DIAL 911---
Jeff2131 is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 01:47 PM   #27
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
You should be able to edit your own post by clicking on the "EDIT" button in the bottom right hand corner.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 02:08 PM   #28
tobnpr
Senior Member
 
Join Date: August 1, 2010
Location: Tampa Bay
Posts: 4,556
Quote:
That fluting also weakened the case where they're at so they're not all that good for reloading.
I was wondering about that...
Given that there's no way a reloaded case would/could be "timed" so that it lined up exactly the same way entering the chamber, the thinner "grooves" would end up over the "lands" area. I would have suspected that 60 ksi of chamber pressure would be enough to force those areas back towards the chamber walls, and being thinner, a potential weak link.

But given the first hand accounts here, guess not?
__________________
Remington 700/Savage Rebarreling /Action Blueprinting
07 FFL /Mosin-Nagant Custom Shop/Bent Bolts
Genuine Cerakote Applicator
www.biggorillagunworks.com
tobnpr is offline  
Old February 2, 2014, 06:03 PM   #29
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
Meanwhile back in the real world................

Lets not forget the actual reason for, & function of, the flutes. Easing extraction by pumping high pressure gas between the chamber walls & the brass to ease the violent process.

Actually measure the "grooves" & "lands" of the fluting. Its minute. The aggressive extraction will do far more to shorten case life than the flutes. Either way you should get 3~4 loads out of any 1/2 way decent brass in a fluted chamber.
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 01:17 PM   #30
oldpapps
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 22, 2011
Location: Middle America
Posts: 518
Lot of good info above.

Boils down to this:
Fired in a fluted chambered weapon.
The flutes most likely weaken the brass.
Yes, they are a pain to load.

As for my view.
Many years ago a good friend had an H&K. He didn't load and gave me the few cases he picked up. Being the cheap tight-wad I am, I processed and loaded them.
I found that more than normal amounts of lube and making incremental sizing steps, re-lube in between, worked the best.
They must have worked OK, as I don't think I have any left and don't remember any problems.

Your choice, scrap them, load them or save them. I know what I did.

Load with care,

OSOK
oldpapps is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 03:42 PM   #31
jersurf101
Senior Member
 
Join Date: January 27, 2013
Location: Eastern NC
Posts: 553
I am sure the brass is weakened by the flutes but I only run 7.62 x 51(lake city mostly) in my CETME to reduce the possibility of case head separation. It also gives you more reloads than you might think as I don't push rounds for DRB rifles much over the minimum published data. That's just me and if you have a PTR clone .308 Win is what the rifle chambered for.

The biggest challenge is finding the brass 35 feet away
jersurf101 is offline  
Old February 3, 2014, 04:40 PM   #32
wogpotter
Senior Member
 
Join Date: September 27, 2004
Posts: 4,811
Quote:
The biggest challenge is finding the brass 35 feet away


"“Improvise, Adapt, Overcome”" Oorah!
__________________
Allan Quatermain: “Automatic rifles. Who in God's name has automatic rifles”?

Elderly Hunter: “That's dashed unsporting. Probably Belgium.”
wogpotter is offline  
Old February 4, 2014, 02:47 PM   #33
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
I had an H&K 91, and resized its fired brass the same as all my other .308 (full length) I cannot now remember if it took more effort but I never had a stuck case. The flutes on the brass (don't call them lands and grooves, that's confusing) don't go away when you resize them, but they do get "ironed out" some.

Fire the case again in a non fluted chamber and they nearly go away. You can still see the lines, but there is no practical effect that I have found.

Note that the roller lock system does NOT use the camming action found in all turning bolt head type actions. This is the primary extraction in those systems, and the roller lock doesn't have it. So they designed it to rely on gas pressure to, literally "blow" the brass loose.

The fluted chamber allows the brass to grip the chamber walls when the pressure is highest, reducing the thrust on the locking system, and also allows gas pressure to aid in "popping it loose" as the pressure decreases. Cases come "loose" at a higher pressure level than when a turning bolt system extracts the case.

HK's and similar pattern guns tend to whang the empty case off the rear end of the ejection port, leaving a rather deep, sharp dent. HK sells an "ejection port buffer", essentially a hard rubber block riveted to a spring steel clip that snaps over the receiver. I used one, and cases were still dented, but it was shallower, and didn't have the sharp "crease" at the bottom of the dent.

Quote:
(FWIW, the Tokarev semi-autos use the same system.)
FWIW, I have a 1942 production SVT 40 Tokarev, it does not have a fluted chamber.

If you are getting stuck cases resizing that brass, its not just because of the flutes.

I sold the HK 91 decades ago, but there are still some fluted cases floating around in my plinking brass stash. still working, just fine.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 9, 2014, 03:07 AM   #34
nemesiss45
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 6, 2014
Posts: 526
I got a batch of 7.62 brass from my dad and about 10% were fired through his hk91 and have fluting at least as bad as the original poster's image. I picked 3 of the more mild ones and tried to resize them, but with 1/2" left on the up stroke they stopped dead. it took me standing up and getting both arms onto the lever to get them back out. after that I decided I'd just chuck em.
nemesiss45 is offline  
Old February 9, 2014, 03:32 AM   #35
James K
Member In Memoriam
 
Join Date: March 17, 1999
Posts: 24,383
Slamfire ll, maybe not quite as you say about greased bullets. Greasing the bullets had nothing to do with blowing up SHT M1903's or anything else. If anything, greased bullets would reduce pressure.

But the shooters were not content with greasing bullets. They got carried away and heavily greased the case necks. The grease between the case neck and the chamber neck prevented the case neck from expanding and releasing the bullet. That was what raised pressures and caused problems. Firing such rounds in SHT rifles didn't help, of course, but there would have been high pressures and even blowups in any rifle.

That is the same thing that resulted in blown rifles when the Germans went from the .318" bullet in 8mm to the .323" bullet. The larger bullet round will chamber in unaltered older rifles but there will not be enough room for neck expansion; pressures will go sky high and a blowup is possible. The Germans converted older rifles, and it is often said that they "rebarrelled" or "rebored" them. They did neither; they simply ran a new size reamer into the chamber and expanded the chamber neck. Firing a .323" bullet down a .318" groove diameter barrel caused no problems at all. (Bore diameter for both is .311".)

Jim
James K is offline  
Old February 10, 2014, 06:12 PM   #36
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
Slamfire ll, maybe not quite as you say about greased bullets. Greasing the bullets had nothing to do with blowing up SHT M1903's or anything else. If anything, greased bullets would reduce pressure.
I agree, greased bullets would reduce pressure and I talked to Marine Corp Rifle Team ammunition technicians whw verified that moly lubed bullets reduce pressure. So, hopefully I don’t have to debate that greased bullets are not dangerous.


Quote:
But the shooters were not content with greasing bullets. They got carried away and heavily greased the case necks. The grease between the case neck and the chamber neck prevented the case neck from expanding and releasing the bullet. That was what raised pressures and caused problems.
Now here is the problem, your one and only source is Hatcher’s Notebook. The authority of Hatcher is high you don’t doubt a single word in that section, right? You met the man, you were charmed by him, he must be honest in all respects, everything he said has to be true, but, is the statement from his book true?

Progress is only made when dogma from authority figures is challenged. I like the motto of the Royal Society which says, essentially, accept nothing on authority. Science should be built on observations in this physical universe. This is the golden standard in my opinion, anything that cannot be replicated in experiment, or is contradicted by experiment, is false. Of course we all rely on trusted authorities in so many things, because we all don’t have time to test everything, and I will bring out a few of them, but most of all, I trust the evidence I see.

Last week I continued testing my Marlin 336, 30-30 Winchester, it has a 20” barrel. I am trying to find the best combination of accuracy and velocity with 170 gr Hornady FBFP bullets. My cases were fired lubricated. This is a practice of mine as I have found that dry cases will take the load off the bolt disguising the signs of excessive pressure. I want sticky extraction when I reach maximum loads. Most of the time I used a coating of Johnson paste wax, for this data I coated every loaded cartridge with Kiwi Mink Oil shoe polish. I completed coated each case by hand, applied lubricant as I would if I were preparing the case for the sizing die. Kiwi Mink oil provides almost effortless sizing, similar to Imperial Sizing Wax, so I was very sure that the full thrust of cartridge combustion would be applied to the bolt face.

If you were to examine these loads, I am almost three grains over maximum loads in reloading books, and yet, after testing for two months, this is what I found it takes to get the velocity to 2100 fps. Even though I am three grains over book max, and even though I completely greased the cases, I never had any sticky extraction issues. I was curious about the case neck expansion and I measured the interior of a couple of fired 30-30 cases and the interior diameter were 0.312”. Given that I was firing a 0.308” bullet, I don’t see any evidence of case neck pinching and the velocities don’t indicate excessive pressures.

Incidentally, these are the fine tuned loads, the best to date with this bullet.

Code:
Marlin 336 30-30 Win, 20 inch barrel. 

170 gr Hornady FBFP  34.0 grs AA2520 wtd lot 9595 W/W cases CCI200 OAL 2.550" 
			
 Feb 2014 T =  40 °F	
			
Ave Vel =	2117		
Std Dev =	24		
ES =	78		
High =	2148		
Low =	2070		
N =	10		

170 gr Hornady FBFP  33.0 grs N135 wtd lot 901/98 W/W cases CCI200 OAL 2.550" 
	
Feb 2014 T =  41 °F
	
Ave Vel =	2081
Std Dev =	8
ES =	23
High =	2091
Low =	2068
N =	10
	
	
	
170 gr Hornady FBFP  33.5 grs N135 wtd lot 901/98 W/W cases CCI200 OAL 2.550" 
	
Feb 2014 T =  41 °F
	
Ave Vel =	2126
Std Dev =	9
ES =	31
High =	2136
Low =	2105
N =	10
	
	
170 gr Hornady FBFP  35.5 grs IMR4064 wtd lot 2449 W/W cases CCI200 OAL 2.550" 
		
Feb 2014 T =  40 °F
		
Ave Vel =	2103	
Std Dev =	20	
ES =	64	
High =	2128	
Low =	2064	
N =	10	
		
170 gr Hornady FBFP  36.0 grs IMR4064 wtd lot 2449 W/W cases CCI200 OAL 2.550" 
		
Feb 2014 T =  40 °F
		
Ave Vel =	2135	
Std Dev =	21	
ES =	67	
High =	2180	
Low =	2113	
N =	10


As I wrote earlier, I do all my rifle load development with lubricated cases. I want a full bolt thrust so that over max loads are not disguised by case to chamber friction. Another benefit is that new cases are not overstretched during first firing. For this Marlin 336, I noticed that the factory new unfired cases all fell into my Wilson case gage to the proper depth. All new unfired rims were between “Go” and “No Go”. However, once fired cases averaged 0.017” above “No Go”! The grease coating I applied to my cases allowed the case to slide back to the bolt face without sidewall stretching. If I had not lubricated the cases I am confident I would have experienced case head separations if not on first firing, then only a couple of reloads later. Cases are not meant to stretch that much.

Now I know my experiences won't mean much to those who believe in the infallibility of Hatcher and the Ordnance Department, but the use of greases, oils, and “waxes” to provide cartridge lubrication was well known to designers prior to WW2. Melvin Johnson, the inventor of the Johnson rifle, was aware of the use of these in small arms:

Army Ordnance Oct 1936: What Price Automatic?, by Melvin M. Johnson, Jr.

Several methods have been devised to retard the unlocking of the block or bolt mechanically. The most appealing point in such a system is consolidation of the “automatic” parts in the breech. However, there is one serious difficulty. The conventional cartridge case does not lend itself to such a system unless adequate lubrication is provided, such as grease or wax or oil on the cases or in the chamber. Thus, the Schwarzlose machine gun has an automatic oil pump: the caliber 30 Thompson rifle (not the caliber 45 T.S.-M.G.) had oil pad in the magazine, and special “wax” was needed on the cases designed to be used in the Pedersen rifle.

The Hispano-Oerlikon was a blow back cannon, used by the Army and Navy from WW2 all the way through Vietnam. One reference states that 150,000 of the things were made and were in service during WW2. The WW2 era cannons required greased ammunition. Greasing the rounds was a bother, post WW2 an automatic oiler was added, but the historical record of grease use still exists. This grease had to be a “soft” grease.

You can see at exactly 2:14 on this WW2 video a Sailor’s hand painting grease on the 20 mm ammunition loading machine for the Oerlikon anti aircraft machine guns.

http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=9dR3h2HdnBQ


Figure from The Machine Gun Vol V Hispano-Oerlikon page 358

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?...ge-M.-Chinn%29





There were problems if the grease film was inadequate:

http://hnsa.org/doc/gun20mm/part4.htm


ORDNANCE PAMPHLET NO. 911 March 1943

GREASING AMMUNITION

All 20 mm. A.A. Mark 2 and Mark 4 ammunition MUST BE COMPLETELY COVERED WITH A LIGHT COAT OF MINERAL GREASE BEFORE BEING LOADED INTO THE MAGAZINE.

The ammunition is usually packed greased. However, this grease tends to dry off. Whether cartridges are packed greased or not, they should be regreased before loading the magazine.

NOTE-A small amount of mineral grease, applied shortly before firing, to the cartridge case that is visible in the magazine mouthpiece, will assist in preventing a jam in the gun barrel.

Dry ammunition or ammunition with insufficient grease will jam in the gun chamber when fired and extraction will be very difficult, if not impossible. See Page 110 for use of torn cartridge extractor
.

When authorities lie, this creates issues for those who believe in the infallibility of the source, and thus believe the lie. I believe the warning in the Navy manual not to remove the grease from the 20mm ammunition was there because those who had heard and believed the Army grease coverup were wiping the grease off the 20mm cartridges. As these machine cannon were used in many applications, such as protecting Naval ships from Japanese torpedo bombers, removing the grease from the rounds would have caused a jam, and thusly a ship, from PT boat to Aircraft carrier could have been lost.

While I believe in controlling cartridge headspace through the sizing die and cartridge headspace gages, as I mentioned in my 30-30 experiment, a heavy lubricant may protect the case from excess headspace:

The Machine Gun, Vol 1 LTC Chinn, 20mm Hispano-Suiza page 589

http://www.milsurps.com/content.php?...ge-M.-Chinn%29


Thus the most vital measurement (headspace) in any automatic weapon was governed by chance in this instance.

An unfortunate discovery was that chamber errors in the gun could be corrected for the moment covering the ammunition case with a heavy lubricant. If the chamber was oversize, it served as a fluid fit to make up the deficiency and, if unsafe headspace existed that would result in case rupture if ammunition was fired dry, then the lubricant allowed the cartridge case to slip back at the start of pressure build up, to take up the slack between the breech lock and the breech lock key. Had this method of “quick fix” not been possible, the Navy would have long ago recognized the seriousness of the situation. In fact, this inexcusable method of correction was in use so long that it was becoming accepted as a satisfactory solution of a necessary nuisance.


As I stated earlier, when authorities lie, this will create confusion and strange behaviors on those who do not know enough to challenge the lie. I think this is illustrative,

TM 9-1904 Ammunition Inspection Guide 2 Mar 1944 Page 232

Handling cartridges.

After a box of ammunition has been opened and the cartridges removed, the primer should be protected from blows by sharp instruments as such a blow might explode the cartridges. Ammunition should be protected from mud, sand, dirt, and water.

If it gets wet or dirty, it should be wiped off at once. Verdigris or light corrosion should be wiped off. However, cartridges should not be polished to make them look better or brighter. The use of abrasives is forbidden. If a cartridge case becomes so corroded that a perceptible amount of metal is eaten away, it is dangerous to fire and should not be used.

The use of oil on cartridge cases is prohibited. Greasing or oiling cartridges used in machine guns and automatic arms cause the collection of dust and other abrasives which are injurious. Grease or oil on cartridge cases or on the walls of the chamber in nonautomatic rifles creates excessive and hazardous pressure on the rifle bolt. When there is oil on the cartridge case, there is no adhesion of the case to the chamber. When the case expands upon firing, the case slips back, and the bolt receives a greater rearward thrust. An apparent exception exists in the case of lead bullets. However, only the bullet is waxed or greased as issued. Ammunition should not be exposed


If you notice, the author accepts the idea that greased or oiled cartridges in non automatic rifles, that is bolt rifles, create a dangerous condition, but not in automatic rifles. He had to been taught this, and it has to come from the Army coverup of their single heat treat receivers, but at the same time, in WW2, there are over 150,000 20mm anti aircraft cannon in use. These cannon were used in aircraft, ships, shore batteries and the author has to be aware of this. Like the author of this TM, there are many today who would not see the inconsistency and contradictions. A trusted authority figure told them that greases and oils are dangerous in bolt rifles, but the evidence before their eyes is that automatic mechanisms require this lubrication. Since Hatcher and the Ordnance Department are infallible, mentally, the way they would reconcile this contradiction would be to accept it: there must be one set of physical laws in the universe for bolt rifles, and another for automatic weapons. But, this is nonsense, there is only one set of physical laws in the universe, the laws apply equally to bolt rifles and automatic weapons.

If this is not clear, maybe a simple example will help. According to this manual, if I shoot greased/oiled cartridges in my M1a, a semi automatic rifle, this is perfectly safe. However if I reach up and turn off the gas system, making the rifle non automatic, something where I have to manually manipulate the bolt, then the same greased or oiled cartridges are dangerous. This is, of course, total non sense.

It is a historical fact that Hatcher was in charge of the Ordnance Department during WW2 and all of these 20mm cannons and ammunition, which required grease, were produced in massive quantities under his leadership. These cannons were used in Army fighter aircraft, used in British Spitfires, these cannons were used in many applications. He also was furnished a copy of Chin’s Machine Gun books, as stated in the foreword, and yet, in 1947, when he is writing Hatcher’s Notebook, greased rounds are bad, bad, bad.

It is important to understand that Hatcher and the US Army Ordnance are not infallible and both of them had/have agenda’s. I do not want to go too far down the path of incentives for Hatcher, but understand, once you retire from the Army, if you expose the agency to any sort of criticism or fault, you won’t be very successful lobbying the Army for business or favors. Hatcher portrays the Army in the image it sees in the mirror: Noble, wise, all knowledgeable, perfect in all aspects, and never at fault. Hatcher is the master of misdirection in this regard, and no one who ever reads his book ever catches the misdirection’s the first time.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; February 10, 2014 at 06:20 PM.
Slamfire is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 01:58 PM   #37
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,675
Very interesting read, Slamfire...
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old February 11, 2014, 02:35 PM   #38
jaguarxk120
Senior Member
 
Join Date: February 28, 2008
Location: Michigan
Posts: 2,618
If one reads to the end of the chapter about greased bullets in Hatchers Notebook you will find it was not the grease causing the problem. But the tin plated bullets and "new" case's. The case's were factory new and were like a new penny.

Over time the tin on the bullet pressure soldered the bullet to the case neck resulting in very high pressures up to and including the failure of the receiver or bolt. Hatcher also talked about recovering spent bullets with the case neck still attached. He also talked about bullet pull with the soldered bullets and case's.
jaguarxk120 is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 07:43 AM   #39
Rico567
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 19, 2005
Posts: 162
Way back in the day, I got a HK91 and 93 at a pretty good price. Both did this to the empties, so I decided to get rid of them and went with different rifles. By the time I sold them, the market for those things had gotten crazy, and I had no trouble selling them, buying new guns, and going on vacation, too.
__________________
"Dear reader, suppose you are a member of Congress. Now, further suppose you are an idiot. But I repeat myself."

- Mark Twain
Rico567 is offline  
Old February 12, 2014, 09:05 PM   #40
Slamfire
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 27, 2007
Posts: 5,261
Quote:
If one reads to the end of the chapter about greased bullets in Hatchers Notebook you will find it was not the grease causing the problem. But the tin plated bullets and "new" case's. The case's were factory new and were like a new penny.

Over time the tin on the bullet pressure soldered the bullet to the case neck resulting in very high pressures up to and including the failure of the receiver or bolt. Hatcher also talked about recovering spent bullets with the case neck still attached. He also talked about bullet pull with the soldered bullets and case's.
Yes, but.... the whole affair was a Charlie Foxtrot that went back years. First of all the Ordnance Department never came to terms over the 1 million defect single heat treats they made and in this period they are still in total denial. No one outside a very few, Hatcher being one of them, knew of the defective process controls that produced 1 million structurally deficient rifles. Hatcher is dismissive of the idea that single heat treats were blowing all around, but, I have a tiny insight from one Mans at Arms article that the things were blowing and many soldiers were being injured prior to WW1. I believe one 1918 article created another letter writing campaign to the Man at Arms, in which shooters reported their 03 Springfield's blowing up with issue ammunition. To address this blizzard of reports, an Army Brigadier General, put out an editorial in the Arms and Man in 1918, deigning that there was anything defective about 03’s. This was well after the 16 July 1917 incident at National Brass and Copper tube which two low number Springfields blew at the ammunition manufacturer. National Brass and Copper had skilled metallurgists who were able to counter all the self serving BS coming out of Springfield Armory and this forced the Army to examine and improve their process controls. This was the start of the so called “double heat treat” receivers. Incidentally, Hatcher was at ground zero for this and I am certain he read the Army denial in print. Either the Brigadier General who wrote the Army position on the “goodness” of Army 03’s had been kept in the dark by the Ordnance Department, which indicates this knowledge was being kept close hold, or he knew and covered up the faults of those early 03’s.

What I do believe is that the Ordnance Department was telling no one about their structurally deficient rifles, and blaming the practice of greasing bullets as the explanation for why these low number 03’s shattered. In 1920, a board got together to decide on the 1921 National Matches, Townsend Whelen and Hatcher were there, Major Whelen was bragging on about his tin coated bullet and how that would eliminate fouling. The chair of the Board was a Colonel, and there may have been more Colonels, but they decided to get the grease out of Army sponsored matches , not because of any fears that grease created excessive pressures, but primarily because they did not want dirt scratching their loaner rifles. Grease would attract dirt, dirt would scratch the heck out of the chambers and bores of Army loaner rifles, just that simple. I found it interesting that Townsend Whelen was actually a grease supporter, but the Colonels beat him down by making him admit that grease “would increase bolt thrust”. That one little statement from the meeting tells me the decision makers understood they had a serious problem with the low number rifles, though they were not telling the public or Army shooters about the problem. A properly designed and properly manufactured rifle should hold the full thrust of the cartridge, but, if you build a receiver that is so weak it will shatter if hit with a nylon faced hammer, then, you have a problem, and any bolt thrust is bad.

The Colonels told Townsend Whelen to write a pamphlet “proving the evils of grease”, and he went back to Frankford Arsenal and did just that. You have to understand that given human nature, users of loaner rifles were not going to stop using greased bullets unless they were convinced they might get hurt. As with rental cars, many people who rent cars abuse the things, at the end of the rental period they turn it in and if the damage they caused is not visible, who cares? Users would have to be convinced that grease was a safety issue and the article that Frankford published “proved” that in spades. In fact, in light of all the greased cartridges used before and later, I think the numbers they published are an example of what happens when the testers are not independent of the chain of command. If your Boss tells you to “prove” something, you better prove him right, or he will retaliate. You see this all the time, subordinates proving what authority wants to hear. (Weapons of mass destruction and Iraq anyone?) It was not science, but junk science.

So, in the mean time, the tin can ammunition is being tested and the tests are being made known to the public. The Army manufactured ammunition beat specially donated commercial ammunition. You just have to understand the advertizing value at the time of having your ammunition accepted and used at the National Matches. So, the Army tin can ammunition beat out all others, the Army brags about it, and off they go to the 1921 National Matches.

However, prior to Camp Perry, at the Wakefield matches, it is reported in the Arms and Man that the tin can bullet fouls just as badly, and the fouling is harder to remove than the cupro-nickel jacketed fouling. I am certain the word got around very quickly. If you have never experienced the sort of bullet fouling cupro-nickel produces you cannot imagine the zero changes and expansion of group size that occurs just after a few bullets go down the barrel. A competitive shooter wins by shooting the smallest group in the middle of the target, this was the National Matches, only comes around once a year, place high enough and you got your picture in the magazine, everyone who wanted to win was going to grease the heck out of their bullets, so they could shoot the smallest group and put them into the middle of the target.

But, given the amount of time between manufacture, the tin had cold welded itself to the case necks, creating a god awful bore obstruction, and rifles blew up.

This was highly embarrassing to the Army. Commercial manufacturers whose ammunition lost out to the Army ammunition could made a solid case about Army favoritism and Army incompetence as the “winning” Ordnance Department ammunition just happened to blow up rifles.

But the Army had a God send, they had this off the shelf “grease is bad” coverup they had prepared the year before. And they used it.

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.


This is the same BG who in 1918 claimed that 03’s were perfectly safe and here, in 1921, the Army’s official position is that the tin can ammunition is perfectly safe.

Hatcher knew of this, he was a contributor to the magazine, but he never mentions this boo-boo in his book, does he?. I am of the opinion he counted on the public memory fading on this, and so it has. This is an Army cover up plain and simple. The Army made defective rifles and ammunition and today, the public believes the coverup.
__________________
If I'm not shooting, I'm reloading.

Last edited by Slamfire; February 12, 2014 at 09:11 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 07:42 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.20108 seconds with 8 queries