Re-barreling question: Why?

I'm going to be giving a small presentation on early 20th century rifles in a couple of months and have one nagging question I don't have the answer for and I expect someone may ask.

Why is it that US rifles as a general rule have had their barrels replaced at least once in their service life? I know it's not all but in comparison to other nations, it seems to be a very high ratio.

I can think of several possibilities but I'd rather not guess, these being inferior metal, increased marksmanship training, hotter round in the 30-06, poor maintenance, longer service life, higher replacement standards, beneficial government contracts or a combination of any or all.

Or it could be something even simpler, that when other nations replaced their barrels, they didn't date them making an obvious contrast and thus not noticeable.

Maybe it had something to do with steel cleaning rods and over cleaning?

Primers

Primers in that they were "hot" and burning out the chamber end or corrosive and not cleaned properly afterwards? The over cleaning is a possibility but everyone else had to clean their rifles too and were using corrosive primers.

Corrosive primers rusted the barrels out faster. The weapons were used for their intended purpose and not left to sit. When something like that happens the weapon's cosmetics come second to function. Sure, when possible the weapon would be examined and serviced but to an infantryman if your weapon works perfectly you don't mess with it. Therefore, the erosion and rusting in the barrels happened. They simply couldn't clean as often as needed to avoid rust. It only takes a few hours for corrosive primers to act. The effects are damning. Sometimes cleaning could not be affected for days. Plus hundreds of rounds at a time add up to barrel wear. This is secondary when the desruction of axis or communist powers is the goal.

Jim,

Thanks for your response and I understand what you are saying but what made the US rifles different from those of other nations. They too were being used yet don't show the wear that cause the barrels to be replaced. Most that I've encountered anyway, still have their original barrels and as far as I know, their ammo was corrosive as well.

Japan chromed their barrels, some of them anyway so that explains theirs, but the Soviets didn't and after reading about what their soldiers went through and the lack of concern they had for the soldiers themselves, let alone the rifles, cleaning them just doesn't seem like it would have been a high priority. Maybe it was, maybe they held the rifles in higher esteem than the soldiers. The Germans I would expect were probably drilled pretty heavily in cleaning their rifles.

EVERYONE teaches cleaning to the max degree. It's a religion. I think the US troops used far more ammo, at a greater frequency and had a perhaps harder push than others. They had more soldiers involved than most countries. The US kept most of the weapons at war's end, others may have destroyed the ones that were excess. I'd destroy the ones that were a bit worn. Yes, primers at the time were supposed to be corrosive but Canada changed over somewhere in there and the US continued for some time. I can't speak for Russia or Germany or Japan because their weapons are of minimum interest to me and I don't consume them with the same interest. I have seen weapons in shabby shape from ALL countries.

I know there's others here that are more informed on this ammo VS barrel steel question, and I'm waiting for them to wade in. I must assure you that inferior barrel steel isn't it though.

The Garands would have punched out a lot more ammo with heavier loads that's for sure. Germany and Japan upgraded their rifles after WWI, Italy turned theirs into a shorter version so length of service for them vs the 03, 91-30 and the SMLE aren't very comparable. So length of use and number of rounds fired along with vigorous cleaning would be the most likely culprit?

There's more. The weapons we now see are probably used by at least four other governments between Korea and now. They had less strict standards for ammo and cleaning I'll bet. Yes, the high concentration of ammo and use over cleaning and time tells on barrel material.

Now, where ARE those other people I was counting on in this discussion?

It's not fair to compare the Springfields and Garands to the axis powers' rifles, nor the Soviet turnbolts. Mostly because they weren't used after their respective wars to any great degree. SMLEs are generally rebuilt and very often rebarreled much like their US counterparts. No.4 rifles as well, but to a somewhat lesser degree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jmoore

It's not fair to compare the Springfields and Garands to the axis powers' rifles, nor the Soviet turnbolts. Mostly because they weren't used after their respective wars to any great degree. SMLEs are generally rebuilt and very often rebarreled much like their US counterparts. No.4 rifles as well, but to a somewhat lesser degree.

---

I use the comparison simply to get to an answer which you guys are giving. It's not metal quality or the primers themselves so much, just that they were used much more extensively over their lifespan. That makes perfect sense. I'm not familiar with the British rebarreling situation. I have three and they all appear to have original barrels but I wouldn't know what to look for to be sure. My 1917 Eddystone has been rebarreled but my 03A3 has not. I don't own a Garand but almost every one I've seen has been rebarreled as have most of the Springfields and 1917's I've run across.

In the early days of the corrosive primer, the actual cause of rust was not well understood. Many nostrums were created to correct the problem and some, containng water worked. British "SaftiPast" come to mind. Excessive cleaning may have been a cause, since the shooter was directed to clean the rifle diligently for three days after firing. Cleaned with the ineffective nostrums and well oiled, the rifle would appear to be clean and a coating of oil would be applied. The rust would form under the oil. It was not until 1922 that the Huff report provided the real answer and solution. The problem was that the rifle could be cleaned in a dry spell (less than 50% humidity) and would appear to have been cleaned sucessfully. It was then put in storage and a high humidity day would occur and the rifle would rust. Having fired many rounds of corrosive ammo I can tell you that, even with dilligent cleaning, the rifles would develop a "pepery" bore. I always carried a container of water and cleqned my barrels at the end of each day. Many shooters were nor comfortable in using water on firarms though it was quite common in htye black powder days. It was felt by many teams that cleaning the bore caused a change in zero for the first shot. Many teams did not clean their rifles during a multiday match which was fired with "no sighters". Again, I believe that US forces used their rifles mor often than did many of the foreign countries.
With the periodic inspections the barrels would be replaced.
JMO

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Aragorn243

I use the comparison simply to get to an answer which you guys are giving. It's not metal quality or the primers themselves so much, just that they were used much more extensively over their lifespan. That makes perfect sense. I'm not familiar with the British rebarreling situation. I have three and they all appear to have original barrels but I wouldn't know what to look for to be sure. My 1917 Eddystone has been rebarreled but my 03A3 has not. I don't own a Garand but almost every one I've seen has been rebarreled as have most of the Springfields and 1917's I've run across.

---

Extensively would be the clue. The US, the commonwealth, and Italy all continued to use the same rifles from WWI until the 1930s. The Italians completely reconfigured many of their rifles to shorter patterns. The US had need of reedily available WWI vintage bolt rifles until there were enough Garands to go around in WWII. Same for the SMLE and No.4. Post WWII the M1 coninued in use until the 1960s.

Conversely, German rifles largely did not continue in service Post WWI except for a very smll number as allowed by the Versailles Treaty. Japanese and German rifles post WWII saw no further use by their home countries to any extent. So no need for massive rebuild programs.

There are a few other points to consider also.

British rifles used Enfield rifling: 5 grooves, lands and grooves equal width, grooves comparatively deep. It lasted very well under most conditions and the barrels had an unusually long service life. A test reported in the TEXT BOOK OF SMALL ARMS - 1909 details a trial with an Enfield barrel using Mark VI ammunition loaded with Cordite Mark I; this was identical to the Mark II ammunition which burned the barrels out of the Lee-Metfords in short order. They got 12,000 rounds through the rifle before they decided that the barrel was 'done'. The solution to their 'problem' was to develop and adopt Cordite MD-T 5-2 which was FAR less erosive. So how long would a Lee-Enfield barrel actually last?

Certainly it would last more than the 3,000 rounds which Hatcher stated was the course for a barrel in a Springfield. Springfield barrels (and later M-1 barrels) were rifled with 4 grooves with very wide grooves and very narrow lands, much as in Mauser practice, but they were not rifled as deeply as an Enfield barrel. And the Americans persisted in using their horridly-corrosive FA-70 primer until 1954, which was about 20 years after the commercial makers had switched over to noncorrosive caps. Add Ammonia Dope to this and you are staring Trouble right n the eye.

Canada began switching over to noncorrosive primers during the Second World War. Dominion Arsenals (the Government plant) kept making their big Berdan primers to the British specifications, but ammunition loaded by the Dominion Cartridge Company was 100% noncorrosive and non-mercuric. When the big Defence Industries plant was set up it was centred on supervisory staff from the DC Co.... and all of the DI ammunition used NCNM primers.

Germany had it the easiest, their primers coming from RWS and being the standard ROSTFREI type: noncorrosive, exactly as they had been during the previous War.

Japan rifled their barrels by the Metford system but with FOUR grooves only: from the muzzle, the bore looks like a rounded square. It was deep and the bullet was not of great diameter, so the bullet spun whether it wanted to or not.

Italy still was using the Carcano with its gain-twist rifling (except for the Model 41) and its WIDE lands and DEEP grooves.

Japan and Italy both used the lowest-pressure ammunition of the Second War, followed up the scale by the British, then the Germans and finally the Americans, right at the top. And along with the PRESSURE went the HEAT.

I think that if it is looked at carefully, one will find something pretty close to a correlation between HEAT and PRESSURE as limiting factors on the life of a barrel. Throw shallow grooves and narrow lands into the pot, and you have a recipe for American barrels lasting 3,000 rounds while everybody else's lasted much longer.

I'm heading down into the basement now while you guys are picking up your rocks to throw.

.

What you say makes sense. I noticed the shallower rifling in my 1917 with a 2 groove barrel. Bore passes the bullet test with ease but it simply looks worn when it probably is not, just when compared to the deeper rifling of other nations.

So Germany in WWII was using non-corrosive primers?

Japan also chromed a lot of their bores so that would lessen the impact of the corrosive primers.

It would seem on the low side for a barrel to only last 3000 rounds, that's probably my biggest question to your explanation.

I'm just using General Hatcher's figure for that 3000 rounds. Springfields are a bit scarce up here and I have never been able to afford one.

Last nice one I saw had 4 figures asking on its tag.

So I use books.

Also, two other things. (1) Standards differ. A barrel which looks fine to me might be 'done' for you. Hatcher himself was a serious competitive shooter and that crowd demands perfection. I shot with guys, many years ago, who scrapped barrels that I would have called 'new'. (2) When you consider velocity, heat of combustion, nickelling, Ammonia Dope and corrosive primers all at the same time, I really pity the poor old Springfield!
.

BTW, original rifling on the Model 1917 was Enfield pattern. I have 3 of them, one sportered and the others original; all have original barrels and shoot well.

This newfangled '5R' rifling is supposed to be the cat's meow; basically it's just right-hand Enfield. It is accurate and one of its claims to fame is that it really lasts well.

Hope this helps.
.