Cases and Enfields and lube - Oh my!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by krinko

Wow, this is starting to look like Gunboards.
A rambling, pointless argument thread....
Classic.
Plus it has all the flavor and aroma of one of the famous Frumunda Cheeses we produce in the American Midwast during the summer.
Goes great with tea.
-----krinko

---

Rather than “cutting the cheese” Krinko and smelling up the posting further you could contribute to oiling and greasing cartridges debate and add your infinite wisdom on the subject.

The topic wasn’t “Cases and Enfields and Lubricating my Midwest Cheese”.

The topic wasn’t “How to insult the British”.

The real topic is should you oil or grease your cartridges and damage your Enfield with increased bolt thrust. ;)

And what we should remember is NO ONE can furnish ANY printed material from ANY reloading manual, H.P. White Laboratory or ammunition manufacture recommending adding ANY oil or grease to our chambers or cartridge cases before firing them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Patrick Chadwick

Thank you for your concern Harry, but I was in fact aware that the British Empire did have a role in both world wars. I was presenting the US isolationist "not our problem" point of view. The view of people who pretend that the nasty world out there is nothing to do with the land of apple pie.
Ignore the Cuban crisis (REMEMBER THE MAINE)
Ignore WW1 (REMEMBER THE LUSITANIA)
Ignore WW2 (REMEMBER PEARL HARBOR).
Ignore terrorism (REMEMBER 9/11).

And always that nasty world eventually penetrates the apple-pie somnolence with a terrible event that finally shakes an unprepared nation into action. I am well aware that such a simplistic judgement is unfair, but it is an unfair world that punishes lack of preparation. The positive side is that when the sleeping giant awakes it can be awesomely effective - the production of the P14 and M1917 in WW1 and the Liberty ships in WW2 were showpiece examples of what US private enterprise can do in an emergency.

Still, I say it again, if the US had had to rely exclusively on Springfield rifle production in WW1, then the US Expeditionary Force would have been fully armed and ready to go in about 1930.

Patrick

---

Had US industry not been already fully engaged in manufacturing the P-14 and Mosin Nagant rifles for the British and Russians those resoucres could have been used to manufacture Springfields enough to supply US forces. As it was Remington was near bankrupcy due to the British cancelling orders and the Russian capitulation.
A large number of those M1917 rifles were never issued as it was. They ended up in storage till WW2 when they were sent to Britian to arm the Home Guard and to China to Arm Chinese forces in the ICB theatre against the Japanese. Canadian long Branch No.4 Rifles didn't reach Chinese buyers till the last few months of the war. And probably never would have without American Gunmakers expertise and restructuring of the manufacturing processes for mass production.

Had the US been only concerned with helping the winning side the poor showing of the Allies in the first few years of WW2 would have been enough to prevent our entry as a combatant.
Thousands of US Citizens crossed the border to Join the Canadian army and air force, around six thousand later returned to the US to add what they'd learned to the knowledge base needed to fight the Axis forces and win.

Early on after Dec 7 US recruits often found themselves without even basic uniforms and arms, the US industries were working day and night to provide these to the British and other allies at the expense of our own forces. Many recruits were sent home for seven to eight months simply because there was not enough war materials to go around or training facilities for them.

At the same time our Merchant Marine forces had been taking extremely high casualties dodging U-Boats all the way while supplying the British with necessities their own colonies could no longer provide.

A friend was a Canadian Citizen, he is one of aproximately 40,000 Canadians who defied the laws against serving in the armed forces of another nation by joining the US Army to fight Communist agression in Southeast Asia.
Canada didn't send troops but had no problem with manufacturing Napalm and Agent Orange for US use.
India stayed on the sidelines during the Korean Conflict, to avoid stirring up hard feelings with the Red Chinese, little good that did them in the long run.

Every Nation puts its own interests ahead of all else, thats just the way the world works.


Now back to the M1917.
At one time it was considered as a replacement for the Springfield. There were problems with it though, the shape and positioning of the bolt handle proved extremely uncomfortable to most shooters.
The Nickel Alloy caused binding and gauling of the bolt.
The rifle was unweildy compared to the Springfield.

On the plus side those M1917 barrels produced with Enfield pattern rifling proved to last much longer as far as number of rounds fired. And it was suggested that US rifles adopt that rifling.

As it was advances in Autoloading rifles made further development of bolt action rifles unproductive.

The .303 cartridge was unsuited to autoloading infantry rifles, and Cordite erosion made its use in light auto rifles with high rates of fire unfeasible. Even the Browning Automatic Rifle, which was adapted to many different chamberings from 6.5mm to 8mm , was found to burn out its bore quickly when cordite was used, and barrel life was short. Only weapons with quick change barrels could use Cordite loaded ammunition effectively. Overheating due to high propellent temperatures, and hard carbon fouling from the Mineral Jelly in Cordite required redesign of several MGs that had operated perfectly with all other propellants in use at the time.
The BREN for example required that the gas port be moved 9 1/2 inches closer to the breech than the original Czech design which operated flawlessly with other propellants.
Near as I can tell there was never a sucessful autoloading Infantry rifle chambered in .303, though even the rimmed 7.62X54 R was adapted to several sucessful designs.

Aside from the BREN gun British Infantrymen entered WW2 no better armed than they'd been at the end of WW1, and were not much better equiped by the end of WW2.
Thats Inertia for you.

Another thing to consider on the original subject is that the point of imact WILL be different with a dry versus oily chamber. Dry is easier to maintain uniformly. (Temperature/humidity variations change bedding/POI but that's a whole other story)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Another thing to consider on the original subject is that the point of imact WILL be different with a dry versus oily chamber. Dry is easier to maintain uniformly. (Temperature/humidity variations change bedding/POI but that's a whole other story)

---

A good point. But maintaining a completely clean and dry chamber from shot to shot is unlikely, unless one cleaned with a solvent that removed all traces of oil between each and every shot.
I can't go along with lubricating cartridges , but the completely Dry Chamber isn't likely to be feasible. A chamber free of excess oil is feasible, all that takes is swabbing with a clean patch before shooting the first rounds of the day. Having a chamber free from excessive fouling is just a matter of regular cleaning. A well polished chamber is easier to clean.

A rough chamber collects fouling and is harder to clean.

If a chamber is really rough theres not much that can be done, removal of metal in an already loose military chamber could leave it dangerously over sized.

Best to clean the chamber throughly to see what you have before even begining reloading.
I've seen many that had a thick compressed buildup of hard fouling that to the naked eye looked no different than the normal surface of a chamber. Most of this sort of fouling collects in the neck and shoulder areas. When it extends into the body of the chamber grit can embedd in the fouling. I never use bore pastes until I'm certain all hard fouling is removed. Chamber brushes have little effect on very old fouling, I've made brass scrapers that do the job, and I've seen this fouling come out of necks in strips like shavings of black plastic, and graphite come away like pencil shavings.
.0000 steel wool will generally clean out the thinner fouling in the body and shoulder area. I never use any powered tools, hand turned tools only.
Steel wool doesn't cut or grind chamber steel, it burnishes, which is a better finish than a polished finish from even the mildest abrasives.

Once fired cases from the chambers of my rifles could pass for unfired cases.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

Another thing to consider on the original subject is that the point of imact WILL be different with a dry versus oily chamber. Dry is easier to maintain uniformly. (Temperature/humidity variations change bedding/POI but that's a whole other story)

---

If one is obsessed with the condition of the chamber of his rifle and insures that it is free of oil why is no mention is ever made of the condition of the ammunition.
Old arsenal produced ammo will have varying degrees of cleanliness from arsenal new, to tarnished and maybe slightly corroded. Then along comes Nigel the anal Enfield owner and polishes his brass to a 4Ra finish and fires the same in his rifle expecting exactly the same performance. I don't think that mechanical brakes work that way. Changing the surface texture modifies the coefficient of friction between the two surfaces.

>>>>And what we should remember is NO ONE can furnish ANY printed material from ANY reloading manual, H.P. White Laboratory or ammunition manufacture recommending adding ANY oil or grease to our chambers or cartridge cases before firing them.<<<<

It is industry standard practice to lubricate 22 LR ammunition at the factory.
This burned lubricant gets in to chambers and actions. It accepted to be part of the the product when you buy 22 LR. It is accepted that you have to clean a 22 from time to time to deal with build up of the residue.

"Aside from the BREN gun British Infantrymen entered WW2 no better armed than they'd been at the end of WW1, and were not much better equiped by the end of WW2.
Thats Inertia for you."

Yes, Alfred. And the Russians sent men into battle where they had to fight and find their own weapons. And the VietMinh were much worse equipped than US forces. And so it goes on.

Technology is not the defining element in any conflict. Until that is learned, you´ll just have to suffer many more embarrassing withdrawals and eventually be defeated as in VietNam, Somalia (and soon in Iraq and Afghanistan). As a small, imperialist nation, this was one of the first lessons we had to learn. Now it´s your turn. But then you know it all so much better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

"Aside from the BREN gun British Infantrymen entered WW2 no better armed than they'd been at the end of WW1, and were not much better equiped by the end of WW2.
Thats Inertia for you."

Yes, Alfred. And the Russians sent men into battle where they had to fight and find their own weapons. And the VietMinh were much worse equipped than US forces. And so it goes on.

Technology is not the defining element in any conflict. Until that is learned, you´ll just have to suffer many more embarrassing withdrawals and eventually be defeated as in VietNam, Somalia (and soon in Iraq and Afghanistan). As a small, imperialist nation, this was one of the first lessons we had to learn. Now it´s your turn. But then you know it all so much better.

---

It is interesting that you have not really learned it.
The Brits struggled to show up and maintain ships on station in the Falklands against a 3rd rate military. The loss of the Hermes would have flushed the entire Falkland campaign. Hardware and its application in combat can be key to a military campaign.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by villiers

"Aside from the BREN gun British Infantrymen entered WW2 no better armed than they'd been at the end of WW1, and were not much better equiped by the end of WW2.
Thats Inertia for you."

Yes, Alfred. And the Russians sent men into battle where they had to fight and find their own weapons. And the VietMinh were much worse equipped than US forces. And so it goes on.

---

The US didn't fight against the Vie Minh, that was the French. The US defeated the North Vietnamese in every major engagement though force of arms and better tactics. The North Vietnamese were only able to defeat the South Vietnamese aproximately two years after the last US Combat forces left because they had received the most modern up armored Soviet Armored Vehicles that could withstand the Anti Tank Weapons the South Vietnamese were using, and the Democratic controled congress refused to allow US Air power to turn the tide. Technology defeated the South Vietnamese just as Technology defeated the Viet Cong. The Viet Cong had been eliminated as a fighting force before the US pulled out, and remnants of the Red Chinese backed VC were later purged by the Russian backed North Vietnamese.

Politics can hamstring our forces in the field, but thats not a failure of either man or weaponry.

Quote:

---

Technology is not the defining element in any conflict.

---

Long Bow during the English wars against the French?
Our superior hull and mast construction during the War of 1812?
The list is mighty long of advances in technology turning the tide of a conflict.

Quote:

---

Until that is learned, you´ll just have to suffer many more embarrassing withdrawals and eventually be defeated as in VietNam, Somalia (and soon in Iraq and Afghanistan). As a small, imperialist nation, this was one of the first lessons we had to learn. Now it´s your turn. But then you know it all so much better.

---

The last sounds like wishful thinking on your part, exactly why is hard to fathom. Sounds like you've been reading too much drivel by Ward Churchill and Howard Zinn. Or perhaps you are an al-Queda or Baath Party sympathizer of some sort, like George Galloway.
Remember who the real enemies are, and the consequences of failure, before wishing defeat to the US.
The British lost their Empire, tough teat. If you want to walk down your own streets safe from Muslim Extremist death squads you best hope they are stopped where they are and don't spread their fanaticism any further into Europe than they already have.

And BTW
The Soviets fielded limited numbers of Semi Auto Infantry Rifles, that were effective enough that the Germans would use any they captured againast their former owners.
Advances in Soviet Aircraft Designs, cheap to manufacture but reliable automatic weapons, and vastly superior Tank Designs were the technological breakthroughs that allowed them to drive the Germans back in the end.
Superior technology of the German forces early in the war made their early victories against the Soviets a walk over, Marginally superior Soviet weaponry of later years made the German defeat a fore gone conclusion.

Friends, Romans and .. uuh...Forumers? (Weeell, the Romans used to hang out in the Forum) Stay cool! This Brit-Yank leg pulling can turn very sour when someone forgets to take it in the light-hearted spirit in which, I am sure, it was intended.

If I may, ever so cautiously, bring the theme back to the bad behavior of a lot of 303 cases in a lot of Enfields, I think it might be a good idea to step back and look at the problem from a different angle. The P14 is the only non-Enfield service rifle to have been chambered in .303. Apart from the Ross, that is (PLEASE don't shoot me if I'm wrong). Two questions could help us if anyone can answer them:

1) Were P14 rifles made with the same chamber dimensions as the Lee Enfields? I would presume yes, but I wouldn't bet my best rifle on it. If there is no documentation available, perhaps someone has a P14 and a Lee Enfield, and could make a chamber cast of both?

2) Do P14s also have the habit of generating split and torn cases?
The fact that I have never heard of it proves nothing. Someone with a P14 may know better.

A very pleasant Sunday to you all!

Patrick