The o-ring method of fire forming case to extend their life

OK - I will apologise for starting a new thread on this but I just couldn't figure out which of the fifteen thousand and twenty three existing discussions that lead into this to comment on. :confused:

I just took my new to me No4 Mk1 to the range and put 40 rounds of PPU ammo through it, placing an o-ring on each case. My question is should I be concerned about how tight the bolt is to lock, when chambering the round? Whilst I didn't have to stand on it, it was firmer than I would have expected.

I haven't had a chance to reload these cases and try the 'fit' yet and probably won't for a few weeks.

If your headspace is good; why do you think you need to put an o ring on the case? Have you checked the head space?
PPU is good brass so will reload well in a rifle that is within proper specification i.e. it passes the Field Gauge.
My understanding of the O-ring method was that it's was for rifles which have excessive head space; that probably should not be fired!

Your just crushing the rubber. No big deal.

When you fire a new case for the first time, use an improvised spacer ahead of the rim - anything from a precision metal washer to dental floss can work to hold the the cartridge head firmly against the bolt face and eliminate or reduce stretch even if head clearance is significant. . . Such techniques are useful only if the rifle has excess headspace. With normal headspace, initial stretch isn't enough to worry about.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...spacers2-1.jpg

The O ring is used to centre the case in a generous sized chamber for its first firing. It has nothing what so ever to do with headspace. ENFIELDS headspace on the rim not the shoulder. If used as QUOTED case head separation will occur.

There are two issues in play here.

1. if the actual headspace, (distance between breeching face on the barrel and the front of the bolthead) is excessive, there are several serious problems with the rifle in question.

2. If the headspace is marginal AND the chamber is "overly generous", blowing the case shoulder forward MAY enable you to "headspace" on the case shoulder.

However:

A. The case of standard .303 brass is VERY thin at the neck / shoulder region. Even in "robust" cases like the 7.62 NATO it is not very substantial and thus it "flows" and distorts during forming, firing and resizing.

B. When ANY case if fired, the FIRST thing that happens is that the primer will "back out'. This is more noticeable on rimless than rimmed cases.

Actually, the primer is first "punched in" by the striker: when it ignites, it pushes the case forward and at the same time tries to back out of the primer pocket. This initial "blowing forward" of the case results in the shoulder being pushed back, thus INCREASING the nominal "headspace". Upon ignition of the propellant charge, the case expands in all directions, forcing the head BACK against the bolt face and the shoulder forward. In a PROPERLY set up combination of ammo and chamber, these moves are measured in the thousandths of an inch, but they HAPPEN.

To give you some idea, size a rimless case so that the rifle bolt will JUST close in a particular chamber. Seat a primer as normal.

Fire the action and extract the case. What you will find is that the primer is protruding sightly above the case head. What this means is the tiny amount of power in the primer has driven the case forward and thus driven the shoulder BACK. DO NOT use these "test" cases in subsequent full-power loads unless you reform the neck / shoulder junction to provide "proper" cartridge headspace.

I have a K-98 on my workbench at the moment that has such excessive headspace that ignition, even given the substantial retention of the big extractor, is marginal, to say the least. When it fires, the shoulder is blown forward AND there is slight primer protrusion. It is a "Russian" rework and essentially needs to be stripped, have the bolt seating gauged and then probably re-barreled. It appears from the (occasional) fired case that, not only is it not the original barrel, but "someone" has freshened up the chamber a bit too enthusiastically.

The much steeper taper on the .303 case vs. the 7.92 x 57 is also a factor; "straighter" cases "stick" to the chamber walls a bit better than ones tapered like the .303.

All of this primer movement is the reason for the heavy crimping found on military issue ammo. Errant primers are likely to cause interesting functional variations / stoppages in Maxim / Vickers / Browning type guns.

Without making a mountain out of a mole hill. Again, your just crushing the rubber O-ring. Not a big deal, been there done that.

I once believed that business about the .303 shoulder being too insubstantial to resist deformation on firing. Then I decided to test the idea. Doesn't seem to be true. Here's another bit from "Headspace 101 . . . " -

Quote:

---

To demonstrate how we can control head clearance using only the shoulder, I filed off the rim of a once-fired Remington .303 case. After adding an extractor groove to fit a Mauser-size shellholder, I neck-sized, reloaded and fired this case 19 more times.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...imless20-1.jpg

The load was a 180-grain jacketed soft-point over a lightly-compressed charge of IMR 4350 (giving an average velocity of 2310 fps for the 19 shots and listed at just under 39,000 CUP in my IMR data booklet). The test rifle was a 1943 Lithgow S.M.L.E. Mk.III*. 20 shots was enough for a practical test, I sectioned the case to examine the web/body junction area where thinning normally occurs.

https://www.milsurps.com/images/impo...mlesssec-1.jpg
This case, fired 19 times with no rim, has not stretched or thinned at all. I'm sure it could have continued for at least another 20 of these moderate loads.

It's clear to me that the .303's shoulder, alone without help from the normal rim, is entirely adequate to maintain "headspace" when sized in a way that preserves the shoulder location. Those handloaders who experience poor case life with neck-sized handloads should look for other factors to explain premature case failures.

---

My go to work rifle is a No5 which has a generous chamber. Cases fired in this rifle will not chamber into my No4 T , No1Mk3HT or my No3 T even though the headspace is tighter than some of them. I have had case head separation in this No5 never in the others. The cause of the separation was poor quality under sized brass as of new first firing in a generous chamber. Cases fired in any of the Ts will chamber in the No5 without resizing. The size of the chamber and non military quality brass (the metal) and SAAMI size (case size) are the problem not Head space.

I usually don't bother with the o ring trick, but it does help when needed. (Usually used with the first firing of 6,5 Japanese. Chambers on these are "generous" and the rim isn't!)

Saying that 6.5 Jap chambers are "generous", is generous in itself.

Whilst they are not even remotely "Bench-Rest" standard, they worked pretty well for "government work".

If you are prepared to do a bit of fiddling with reloading dies and start with GOOD brass (Norma springs to mind, IF you can find it), you will get "reasonable" life from your cases.

All of which is slightly academic. The original users were not exactly obsessive about recovering their brass on the battlefield and then studiously reloading it. The cartridge case did its job of keeping the powder dry and the components together in a handy, weather-resistant package until the moment of discharge, after which it was usually flung unceremoniously into the wild, blue, (green, or brown), yonder.

This applies to pretty much ALL service ammo in the last century or so, with only a few countries "economizing" by reloading their cases, usually just ONCE.

ANY ordnance system using Mercuric-based primers would be running a serious risk of a LOT of case failures on second or subsequent reloads, or even just cracking "in the packet", just as Lee Enfield "enthusiasts" have endured for decades.

Thanks to everyone who have responded. However, I am going to have to read through these again, as I am somewhat confused. My understanding from what I had read was that this was a good idea to extend the life of the case, with subsequent neck sizing only between reloads (using the same rifle of course). I had assumed that I was just compressing the rubber and I don't have access to the necessary gauges. However, my understanding was that this was less of a consideration.

Mayhem, you have it right. Use the O-rings, expect the extra resistance as you close the bolt, subsequently only neck size. It all helps, you're on the right track.

Interesting experiment with the "rimless" .303.

I saw a couple built on P-14 rifles and using M-17 bolts and some magazine components, many years ago. The sages at the time of this "fashion" reckoned the old SMLE was not up to the task of stiff loads in this modified cartridge; more likely they would simply not feed from the magazine reliably nor extract consistently because of the altered case geometry.

History repeats.

Back in the 1950s, here in Oz, there was an abundance of .303 ammo AND "souvenired" rifles from all sorts of interesting places.

A moderately popular conversion was done to Jap. Type 99 7.7 rifles which, conveniently, use the same (roughly) bore dimensions as .303.

Two approaches:

1. Open out the bolt face for the .303 rim, sleeve the chamber and cut a new .303 shaped chamber. Crude, and feed from the mag was "marginal".

2. Get a bit "Gucci" and turn the case heads down to "rimless" dimensions to more-or-less match the 7.7 bolt face and sleeve / recut the chamber as before.

Had an uncle with a specimen of version 1, even fired it with a bunch of FN .303 ball ammo. Mostly functional, but a bit long in its original trim to be a handy-dandy "farm gun", which is what he used it for. I guess he reckoned that, having relieved some unfortunate Japanese soldier of his burden, he may as well tuck it in his big box of military engineering equipment, along with sundry bayonets and a couple of 6.5 Jap carbines, and see if he could get his "momentos" home: he did.

I heartily concur that the relatively tiny .303 shoulder is adequate for "headspacing". The problems arise because of "variations", (some of them "after-market" / "custom"), in the chamber dimensions.

If you can arrange for your cases to "fire-form" ONCE to a specific chamber and to then NOT over-work them by full-length sizing back to CIP / SAAMI / "Mil" spec, you will extract greater life from the increasingly expensive brass.

Of course, this approach may mean having distinctly separate ammo for each of several .303 rifles. Not a huge challenge for the organized person.

Mayhem... There are other considerations to keep in mind. Yes, the o ring method will centralise your cases in the chamber so they will blow out evenly all round, and then, with the cases headspacing on the shoulder and neck sizing only, they will last longer. Well on the way to maximise brass life.
Bear in mind the earlier comments about brass flow. If your loads are anything above mild, your cases will lengthen with firing. You must trim to length every reload. They can lengthen into the leade and crimp the projectile on chambering, causing increases in pressure when firing.
The other thing is the cases will still stretch and eventually (i found two neck sizings on MkVII equivalent loads to be normal) the cases will have resistance when closing the bolt. Then you need to have an adjustable FLR die to set a thou or three shorter to relieve the load on the locking lugs during closing. Then you can neck size and length trim for another two or so before bumping the shoulders back a minimal amount again.

I have cases that have done 7 or 8 reloads to MkVII spec without any signs of failure.

Thanks to all that have responded. I will certainly be checking the length of the cases between loads.