Physical evidence. Note everyone else has abandoned your fruitless argument, because they realise you can't be helped. I too join them. It's a sealant he sees...Quote:
Originally Posted by green
Printable View
Physical evidence. Note everyone else has abandoned your fruitless argument, because they realise you can't be helped. I too join them. It's a sealant he sees...Quote:
Originally Posted by green
I'm a bit lost here and I think it's a terminology issue.
Jim, are you saying "Yes, it's beeswax" and "No, it's not for lube it's for a sealant."
Am I following you right?
In which case, it's not an argument of tar vs. beeswax, it's an argument of lube vs. sealant. Right?
I think some interesting facts have been shared by everyone here for it to all get lost on a matter of terminology.
I just pulled a projectile from a 1941 DAC Canadian Mk.7 cartridge and sure enough, it has a greenish beeswax mix in the cannelure. I also pulled a post war Mk.8z round and it has the tar sealer. I'd guess that the beeswax mix was still considered a sealant and not a lubricant but I could be wrong. I always thought that lubricant in the bullet groove was from the cast lead bullet era but I'm no ammo expert by a long shot, (pardon the pun!).
Very interesting
Wonder what "power" other "major militaries" used if 303 was the lowest? Would be interesting to compare apples with apples, ie same year of manufacture standard military ammo, same weight bullet, pressure specs, etc.
I wonder who decided the Enfield is a weak action? Just because it isn't Mauser based? I know the Brits wanted to replace it, with the P14/17 being the eventual result. However, they never took it further after WWI.
Would be interesting to compare action length after similar shots fired, headspacing problems with the Mauser based actions, etc. Apples with apples. Seemed to work very well over 60 years of use.
Seems ammunition manufacturing changes over the years. What worked in WWI probably changed by WWII. My 303 cartridge knowledge starts with 1943 South African made, up to late seventies. Some 215gr made in 1926. No cannelure, no grease. However I don't profess to have one of every lot made by the various factories, we all know in Lee Enfield and 303 anything is possible.
If all this was common knowledge we wouldn't be having this discussion. Bob seems to have a lot to share, and I for one would like to hear more from him. I don't have to agree but I can learn.
Perhaps it was a groove for pig fat left over from the bygone days of fighting fuzzies someone forgot to tell the folks at Birmingham to remove it:D
I have pulled bullets on many .303" sevice ctgs from 1890s to mid 1940s manufacture and they all had grease/wax in the cannelure.
From "Text Book of Ammunition 1944" The War Office Feb 1944 page 4 "the beeswax or lanolin compositions used in the cannelure , and frequently referred to as lubricants, today serve the much more important purpose of waterproofing the round"
For those who have actually to disassembled a ctg and post their findings I thank you.
Some sort of seal inside the neck was essential because of the way the round was assembled.
I have posted the process in detail before, but unlike "modern" ammo, the bullet was inserted BEFORE the neck was fully formed.
The "British Way":
The Cordite propellant was inserted as a "bundle" and then topped with a "glaze-board" (fancy cardboard) disc, BEFORE the main body of the case was tapered.
The bullet was then 'dropped on top of that disc and THEN the case was necked.
Thus two things that caused later problems:
1. The neck was NOT annealed after forming (try annealing a cease full of propellant sometime). Therefore it retained all of the interesting stresses from that operation.
2. The neck could NEVER have the sort of "spring-grip" so familiar to modern hand-loaders, and thus required an additional method of sealing / "water-proofing" the complete cartridge.
The stab-crimps are a sort-of primitive form of "collet crimping".
This whole process was a hang-over from the days of the rolled-brass foil 577-450 Martini Henry cartridge. That beast was loaded with a solid, compressed pellet of black powder before the "bottle-neck" was formed.
Note that Mk7Z and Mk8Z did things differently, because of the granular propellant used.
U.S. contract .303, Boxer-primed and loaded with granular powders on high-speed machines, also had NO glaze-board disc; totally different method of "assembly". The Canadians did both "country" and "western". "Government" production was done British style, eg. DA/DAC, (Dominion Arsenals), whereas commercial contractors like Defence Industries, (DI), did it U.S. style. (Non-mercuric Boxer primers, granulated NC propellant and so on).
The ammo gurus will have more (and better) details.
Modern 5.56 NATO ammo also has a black "sealant" inside the neck.
Even the Norinco clone of 5.56 M-193 has this same sort of sealant. (And lacquer-sealed primer pockets.)
I've disassembled thousands with dates from single digits to recent IVI. And the thing is...this isn't worth arguing about any more. Some of you think these jacketed bullets are lubed...and that won't change. They aren't though.Quote:
Originally Posted by green
I have previously pulled quite a lot of post WW2 ammo and never seen any grease on the bullets. All, however had the tar/pitch sealant. Just the other week I pulled a bullet from a much earlier round of .303 and not only did it have the pich sealant, but the canelure was full of a blue grease. The round was a mis-fire, and the propellant was cordite, the bullet was silver coloured rather than copper jacketed.Quote:
Originally Posted by bob q
Okay we flogged the bees wax/tar to death to me it was a manufacturing process and was changed whether the intent was to have lubed bullets is an argument that can go on for ages.
What really concerns me is the removal of the said cocking assist lug from the bolt, ummm others may agree/disagree but the way I look at it that lug (The small one cut off by #15) is an integral part of the equal dispersion of the recoil forces applied to it upon firing (Helical lockup) which is why the contact with that lug is so important so the action is not overly stressed on one side. All of my Enfields lock up on the Rt rear side and the Left rear as well!
Sorry to say but you would not be allowed to shoot that rifle on our range if it was noticed the lug had been removed (Illegal mod) even if you were a licensed gunsmith or trained armourer you would be asked to pack it up and be content with throwing gravel at the target.
The Lee action in the early days of B.P loads perhaps may have been considered a low powered load but come the advent of cordite and the re-proofing requirements I would say the lee action is not low powered well put it this way if I balanced 42,000 lbs/sq inch on your nose you'd look very different.
Nope we are all entitled to opinions whether right or wrong don't matter as long as you can admit your wrong and I have been wrong at times and duly corrected but to modify a bolt then shoot it well I say those who are armourers here would be shaking their heads I know I am. (Pic showing the Mauser/Enfield Bolts.)