Lee Metford and black powder

To all collectors who don't shoot their rifles because they are antiques: please take a tranquilizer before reading further!

I would like to fire a Lee Metford No 1* with blackpowder, as originally intended. The typical reference inthe literature is that that the Metford rifling was discarded in favor of Enfield rifling because of the heavy wear experienced when the smokeless (cordite) powder was introduced. So that was the end of the story as far as Lee Enfield fans are concerned.

But the Metford rifling, like the Whitworth hexagonal profile, can work very well with black powder and semi-hard lead bullets (the exact hardness seems to be a trial-and-error parameter). I know that it is not possible (?) to get the original load of 71.5/75.5 gn into the case (L.o.C. 5883 is inconsistent, having 75.5 in the table, but 71.5 in the text). But about 45-50 gn of Swiss ought to fit, and that would be enough to propel a 180 gn bullet over 100 to 300 yards with acceptable ballistics. After all, 70 gn will boot a 520 gn bullet out of my 45-70 over 1000 yards. I'm not trying for a black powder varmint rifle!

So, has anyone tried it out?

Patrick

Long ago when black powder was cheap, I tried it in an SMLE with cast bullets. It went bang - but the fouling from the heavy charge with the relatively small bore and tight twist was horrendous. Expect acceptable accuracy only if you wipe after each shot, schutzen-style. Might be better with Metford rifling, of course.

Considering the high cost of black today, there's not much justification except a love of stink, smoke, and soot. Since can't easily duplicate the original solid-pellet charge, there's not even the ballistic-nostalgia value of faithful re-creation.

Just keep in mind that you will find it impossible to duplicate the BP load. The powder was in a COMPRESSED PELLET and loaded BEFORE the case was necked.

In any case the problem with metford rifling was not the rifling but rather the charge of cordite which burned hotter than modern powder, causing throat erosion in metford barrels.

Now even going further, The Cartridge SA Ball .303 inch Powder Mk1 was approved in Feb 1889.
The Cartridge SA Ball .303 inch powder MkII Was approved in July 1890

BUT the Cartridge SA Ball .303 inch Cordite Mk1 was approved in November 1891.

So given the rather brief use of Black Powder, it's hardly worth the effort.

Also at no time was anything other than a jacketed bullet used in the Lee Metford or Lee Enfield Rifle.

"It went bang - but the fouling from the heavy charge with the relatively small bore and tight twist was horrendous."

- And that is precisely what bothers me. I shoot BPCR in the sporting rifle class (e.g. Long Range Sharps), where you are allowed to wipe between shots, and in the military class (e.g. Mauser 1871 or Trapdoor), where wiping out is not allowed. The only way you can get through a military target is with a mightly wodge of lube between the bullet and the powder. This then also requires wads between bullet and lube, and lube and powder. So the available powder space rapidly disappears. The Martini-Henry used a very voluminous case, which is shown in section in, for instance, L.o.C. 5159. Unfortunately L.o.C. 5883 is not so informative. No drawing. No mention of wax or other lubrication.

As you have rightly observed, after the first blackpowder discharge, the subsequent bullets are not bore-riding but muck-riding. The purpose of the wax or other lubricant is to keep the fouling soft so that the next shot can push it out. The 70 gn charge in my Mauser 1871 requires about 0.5 cc of lube, otherwise fouling rapidly builds up to the level where you cannot feed the cartridge into the chamber. I would expect the 71 gn of powder in the 303 cartridge to require a similar quantity. And that would take up a good portion of the 303 case. Did they have a magic lube which only required microscopic quantities? If so, today's BP shooters would like to hear about it.

Does anyone know how the BP 303 cartridge was assembled in detail? Does anyone have an original? Or a detailed drawing? The drawing by B. Temple on P. 50 of"The Lee Enfield Story" shows a hole down the center line of the compressed BP load (thus taking up more space than would otherwise be required) but no lube wad.

Patrick

IF you're thinking black powder, there's no better place to go than talk to theses fine folks...
http://britishmilitariaforums.yuku.com/directory

"...a good portion of the .303 case..."

I didn't think you could get 71 grains of anything into a .303 case, but then I remembered what John said, that the original powder was in the form of a compressed pellet that was forced into the case before the case was necked. I don't think you could do it otherwise, even by compressing the charge, never a good idea.

Actually, the Lee Metford is just as strong as its successor Lee-Enfield and should accept any moderate load of smokeless powder. I wouldn't worry about erosion, since almost all modern rifle powders are single base nitrocellulose powder, not the old double base like cordite (in which the nitroglycerin was the component causing erosion). Not only that, but I doubt you plan to fire hundreds or thousands of rounds out of the old girl.

I don't know what powders are available to you, but any of the medium range powders, like 4350, 4320, 4064, 4895, or N202 or N204 should be OK with the right loads.

Jim

There was no need for a lube wad or grease cookie in the .303 since it used a jacketed bullet in all Marks (except for some of the short range practice loads that used 90 -120 gr. lead bullets). Copper, gilding metal, or cupronickle are all much harder than any powder fouling so the bullet would carry the fouling out with it.

I once loaded up some MkVII's with Pyrodex just for grins. They went bang, but the velocity was so low I never did find the target with the few rounds I had. I was a tad optimistic about the velocity I would get and set the sights too low. There was no powder fouling in the bore to speak of, but the cases were really crudded up. I gave Pyrodex P and CTG and GOEX Clear Shot with 205-gr. LGC's a short trial in a No.1 MkIII* and accuracy was nothing to write home about, with the best group being about 1.5" at 50 yds. Bullet size probably had a role here, since I only had 0.313" dia. bullets. 0.314" or larger would have been better. Pyrodex CTG was the winner, but not by much. Load development was simple: I filled the case with powder about half-way up the case neck and seated the bullet with a wax wad under it, compressing the powder (possibly getting too much compression). If I remember correctly, I got about 45 grains' mass (not volume) in the case. I used primed P.O.F. cases and some Remingtons with 9 1/2 Magnum primers.

I used Pyrodex and Clear Shot with 92- and 100-gr. lead semi-wadcutters to duplicate the gallery practice loads of the early 1900's and got reasonable accuracy at 50 yds: 2" or so for the best loads IF I ran a wet patch down the bore every five rounds to clear out the powder fouling. Since the originals were probably used at 25 yards or less and the Morris Aiming tube was supposed to put all its bullets in a 3-inch circle at 25 yards, I feel I was close to the performance of the originals.

If you load some up, let us know how they shoot.

The hole in the center of the compressed BP pellet served two very import purposes. First off if the compressed pellet were ignited at its base only without the hole to carry gases away from the base it would drive the pellet against the shoulder of the case and plug the chamber causing extremely high pressures and probably a blown out breech.
The hole also served in much the same way that similar holes in solid rocket motors work. The fuel burns from the inside out in a regular and even manner. Much more quickly than a rocket but applying the force of combustion more evenly than a charge of powder in grains.

You aren't likely to even approach the efficiency of the compressed pellet when using loose powder.

I've heard of attempts to duplicate the Velocity of the original load using BP in grains that ended badly. I don't remember the details though.

Also I've read that if the BP pellet became damaged there could be a blow out. I think this was when the earlier version pinned bolthead was in use. Still cracked or broken solid rocket motors made using BP have also been known to blow up a rocket.

The British had plenty of experiance with BP solid rocket motors, such as the Congreive artillery rocket which they had used for centuries in one form or another.

I remember a description of a fire at an ammunition dump and .303 casings zipping high in the night sky like little sky rockets, not sure if these were BP cartridges or cordite.

I haven't used CTG grade pyrodex, but I've found that pyrodex I've used in the .36 Navy revolver required compression to ignite properly. It also requires a hot cap.

The only BP cartridge loading I've done was .32 S&W, those rounds worked okay with regular small pistol primers.

Pyrodex can be very corrosive, and you should clean immediately after shooting and then clean again 24 hours later, otherwise rust can form even under oil. BP is much easier to deal with, and the Metford bore should be fairly easy to clean.

I dug out my notes (which I should have done initially) and found that the most powder I got into a Remington case was 40.0 grs. mass / 4.0 cc Lee dipper of Pyrodex CTG (Fg equiv.). COL was 2.985" with the 205-gr. LGC and the powder charge was compressed about 0.410". "Accuracy" was 4" at 50 yds. The most accurate load was 38.6 grs. of Pyrodex P with the same COL and it only gave a 2.5" group (4 in 1.25") at 50 yds. Loads of approximately 38.6 grs. mass / 50 grs. volume using P.O.F. primed cases and Pyrodex P gave 3.25" or 4.25" groups.

55 grs. volume of GOEX Clear Shot resulted in keyholing bullets, as did a duplex load of 0.3cc Pyrodex P and 3.7cc of CTG. Cases fired with the duplex load showed a stretch ring above the base, but the primers were not flattened. This was the only load that showed any pressure signs.

With the rear sight set at 300 yds, bullets landed about 3" above the aiming point.

I've also read of a person who got the whole 70 grains of powder in the case by brute force and wrote that the blast and recoil were tremendous. I think the charge probably detonated because the powder grains were crushed in loading. On a couple of the heavier loads, I could feel the charge pack solidly when I seated the bullets. I have read that hunting (sporting) cartridges for the Sharps rifles had compressed powder charges, while for target loads the bullet was seated to just touch the powder column and no compression was used.

The use of the wad over the cordite charge (both the cordite and the wad were loaded before the case was necked) was not for lubrication, but to reduce barrel erosion from the cordite. I admit I don't understand the process or why it worked, but apparently the British believed that it did.

Edited to add this quote from Text Book of Small Arms:

"The purpose of the wad is to provide some form of gas-tight seal as the bullet passes from the neck of the cartridge into the bore. In former times, wads were required to clean and in some cases lubricate the bore but since very little residue results from the combustion of modern smokeless powders, the role of the wad has changed with the propellent [sic]."

Jim