Grease groove in WWII .303 bullets important or not ?

I use to salvage bullets from (corrosive primed/cordite loaded) WWII ammo before handloading them with modern primers and powder. However, I tumble pulled bullets prior to handloading until they come out shiny. However, I've noticed that the original bullets carry a grease groove which is also cleaned out during tumbling ; then, after being sorted in weight lots, they shoot quite accurately on top of N140/40.0, though. Am I wrong in tumbling the bullets and should I preserve the greased groove ?

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

The cannelure is not a grease groove. It's there to aid guide the crimping.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RobSmith

The cannelure is not a grease groove. It's there to aid guide the crimping.

---

It's still filled with grease, though...

I think what you're seeing isn't grease but a sealer to make them waterproof. Most if not all factory loaded military ammo will be sealed.

True, it could be sealing wax indeed. Then, I guess it's of no importance in reloads whether bullets are tumble cleaned or not ?

No it's not important. It may increase the accuracy of the bullet a little bit without the sealant on them.

It's more like a tar coat to seal. I used brake cleaner sprayed on them and then polished them in a big towel before using them. All the tar coat came off.

It is grease . Since the Enfield was a low powered action they did everything they could to get more velocity and keep pressure down . An undersized bore riding bullet , slick jacket material , and a lubed bullet . It is not a sealer , that is why there is a grease Groove .

Comment. Never seen any military or commercial jacketed bullet requiring grease; crimping cannelure yes. Never knew the Enfield was a low powered action either, or about the "undersized bore riding bullet". Could you provide some facts on this please.

The Enfield bolt locks by the middle of the bolt on the receiver bridge , it has no locking lugs . The proof would be looking at it . And no the little lug ion the rear of the bolt is not a locking lug , it is a cocking assist .The proof would be reading the original patent description . . The Enfield was originally a black powder action , was later used with low pressure cordite and it was not even cleared for Nitro powder except for war emergency . Read original British military ammo test reports .The groove dia is around .314 on the average with a .3095 dia bullet . Again the proof would be measuring real rifles and bullets . Bore riding was used my all militaries in their early small bore rifles . Again just look . I have a vast collection of original ammo and the crimp is not at that groove and the grooves are all full of grease . Again for proof just use your eyes .

It's not grease. BAR has it right in that it's a tar based sealer.

bob q, you contradict yourself in the first sentence of post #10. I'd suggest you have a good long look at the bolt and body locking lugs and recesses in your rifle/s. I've never seen an Enfield bolt without locking lugs. If you have one like that, I'd caution you about firing it! Working pressures are around 45,000 psi in .303 and 50,000 in 7.62 NATO. That's not exactly what I'd call low powered either.

We agree to differ.

I fail to see that the lack of many locking lugs indicates "low power". That is a perception. In my opinion many of the other statements too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

It is grease .

---

That's fine, you're entitled to your opinion. Even when the facts are wrong. It's your opinion.

By the way, the crimp is mid neck, not at the mouth. You can see it on any of them. All military ammo has this type of sealant...and none of them need a bullet lube.

IIRC the cannelure was filled with grease as a sealant. Post WW2 the bullet was redesigned without groove and had a crimping cannelure for the end of the ctg neck to crimp to.
Always thought that when fitting a LE bolt both locking lugs were supposed to bear on the body.

All my Enfield's lock on rear right hand side of the receiver , just like a 71 Mauser . Yes I have cut the rear cocking lug off a bolt . It made no difference on firing , but it made working the bolt very hard . I guess Lee did know how his own design worked since he called it a cocking assist lug in his patent drawings . .303 was the lowest power ammo used by major militaries . The British military wanted to replace the Enfield with a Mauser because of the weak action . The British use replaceable bolt head of different lengths to keep rifles in service because the actions stretch and the bolt body compacts . That action movement is what causes the cases to want to separate at the head . All my original .303 bullets have a blue - green grease on them . None of my original WWI era German , Italian , Austrian ammo has Anything on the bullets . I do find it hard to believe you people do not know any of this , it is common knowledge , I am sorry to have upset you with it .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

IIRC the cannelure was filled with grease as a sealant.

---

Yes, with tar as a sealant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

All my Enfield's lock on rear right hand side of the receiver , just like a 71 Mauser . Yes I have cut the rear cocking lug off a bolt . It made no difference on firing , but it made working the bolt very hard .

---

It appears you'd be the wrong one to shoot beside...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bob q

I do find it hard to believe you people do not know any of this , it is common knowledge , I am sorry to have upset you with it .

---

We're not upset, you're just wrong, sounds like a bit of trolling...

From 1909 Armourers Handbook amended 1915 states that proper fitted and numbered bolt must be used otherwise uneven bearing will cause shots to disperse right or left.
From "Textbook of Small Arms 1929" states that British service cartridges are treated with beeswax as a lube and sealant. Beeswax not tar. Post war made design of bullet was changed to eliminate large cannelure and sealant was changed to a tar like substance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

that British service cartridges are treated

---

Yes they are. Check your terminology...the cartridge...

Anyway, you two can have fun with your greased bullets.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Yes they are. Check your terminology...the cartridge...

Anyway, you two can have fun with your greased bullets.

---

OK again from "Text Book of Small Arms 1929" "the bullets are first lubricated before loading in a machine in which a disc runs in a bath of melted BEESWAX and deposits the WAX in the bullet cannelure." Again wax not tar.
Wax was replaced by tar post 1945 but the bullet in the op would have been waxed.
BAR can you back your assertion with documents?

I confirm. My pulled bullets cannelure are filled with a greenish wax/grease and the cases were headstamped MJ VII 1942, CP VII 43 and CP VII 44.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

BAR can you back your assertion with documents?

---

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...

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.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

For those who have actually to disassembled a ctg and post their findings I thank you.

---

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 bob q

All my Enfield's lock on rear right hand side of the receiver , just like a 71 Mauser . Yes I have cut the rear cocking lug off a bolt . It made no difference on firing , but it made working the bolt very hard . I guess Lee did know how his own design worked since he called it a cocking assist lug in his patent drawings . .303 was the lowest power ammo used by major militaries . The British military wanted to replace the Enfield with a Mauser because of the weak action . The British use replaceable bolt head of different lengths to keep rifles in service because the actions stretch and the bolt body compacts . That action movement is what causes the cases to want to separate at the head . All my original .303 bullets have a blue - green grease on them . None of my original WWI era German , Italian , Austrian ammo has Anything on the bullets . I do find it hard to believe you people do not know any of this , it is common knowledge , I am sorry to have upset you with it .

---

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.

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.)

The 1879 Remington Lee, in .45-70 has the "second locking lug", opposite the big one on the right side of the bolt body, just like later Lee Enfields.

Lee's slightly later 1885 pattern is likewise equipped and has a number of features, some carried over from another earlier Lee, the 1882, that went on to feature on the Lee Metford and subsequent derivatives.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rcathey

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?

---

That's right...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

That's right...

---

Glad to see that you agree that the bullet in the op would have had beeswax in the cannelure.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by green

the bullet in the op would have had beeswax

---

That's not quite where this thing went. Nor was it what was said. Don't put words in my mouth. Nor will I argue with you about it.

"...to get more velocity and keep pressure down..." Grease doesn't do any of that. It's just a sealer. And that particular ammo is ancient. That's cordite. Not that it'll affect the bullet in any way.
"...middle of the bolt on the receiver bridge..." That long thing on the side of the bolt body is the locking lug. Bolt, Stripped | Gun Parts Corp.
"... groove dia. is around .314..." That'd be a nearly shot out barrel with a groove diameter of .314". And .3095" is not the bullet diameter. .311" is.

Line diagram explaining how the Lee-Enfield bolt locking lugs engage in the receiver

.303 is the nominal BORE diameter, just like .30" is the nominal BORE diameter of the .30-06.

The ancient Russian Mosin Nagant was called the "Three Line Rifle". Why?

Because a "Line" is an ancient Russian unit of measure that just happens to be pretty much exactly one tenth of an inch. Thus, a .30 Cal. BUT the GROOVE diameters is where it gets messy or interesting, as you prefer.

As per OFFICIAL specifications and drawings, specifically Drawing A. 658, derived from Spec. S.A.I.D 13186, .303 barrels on the SMLE / No1 Mk 111*, had a closely defined BORE diameter of .301" to .304". However, the depth of the rifling, which was cut by multiple passes of a single-tooth cutter, could run from 0.005" to 0.008" in depth, from that nominal bore size.

Therefore, if you had a gauged and accepted blank that measured MAX .304" that went to rifling, it could end up with a groove diameter of 0.320" and STILL be within "tolerances.

The trick was that the bore AND groove had to be VERY consistent, from end to end.

EXCEPT in the early SMLEs where a whole regime of "creative' lapping went on to supposedly "taper" the bore diameter OUTWARDS towards the muzzle to try to achieve "long" Lee Enfield velocities with Mk6 ammo. All of that nonsense was supposed to have gone out the window with the advent of Mk7 ammo.

HOWEVER I have several "New, in bag" Lithgow HEAVY barrels that clearly (by measurement) have been factory-lapped at the muzzle to the point that there is a tiny, but measurable "belling" of the bore.

With a solidly-constructed bullet like the cupro-nickel-jacketed Mk6, there was NO way that the bullet was ever going to fully "blow-out" to a groove diameter of .320". With the lighter-jacketed, higher-velocity Mk. 7, there MAY have been some "setting up" of the base of the bullet, but it was still essentially a "bore-rider".

To take Bruce's post one unrelated step further. If the bullet 'rides the bore' and doesn't upset much being jacketed, there is some blow past in the grooves? Thus explaining why military 303 bullets are flat base and boat tail bullets don't work that well - longer bearing surface allows more consistency in the blow past?

The substance in the cannelure of UK SAA is either bitumen or luting and the purpose is to seal the case. The cannelure also serves to lock the core into the jacket. Lubrication is not required on a metal patched bullet. Lubrication is really only required in black powder guns to control fouling. It's use has been extended to lead bulleted smokeless projectiles as it does assist in controlling leading..

UK/Commonwealth Luting is green and looks like greengage jam to those of a certain age and background. It is used on a wide range of ammunition to seal threaded joints such as fuzes and primers. It has to be formulated to be free of contaminants which might react with the other components of the ammunition. It is issued in handy 2lb tins; the majority being used for jolly japes by the Ammo Techs..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Daan Kemp

To take Bruce's post one unrelated step further. If the bullet 'rides the bore' and doesn't upset much being jacketed, there is some blow past in the grooves? Thus explaining why military 303 bullets are flat base and boat tail bullets don't work that well - longer bearing surface allows more consistency in the blow past?

---

Nope.. the copper in a jacket is foil thick and the bullet upsets into the bore if it is set up properly. There is always some blow past on ignition until the projectile seats in the commencement of the rifling. You get an effect something like a sink plug settling in a full basin with the water rushing past the edges.. the gas flow is at its maximum at this point which can strip material off the bullet and erode the bore. This is why rifles wear from the breech forward, and the source of leading/coppering/nickeling.. the metal gets sprayed down the barrel and then gets ironed into the bore by the projectile..

Boat tailing has very little effect in the bore.. in fact boat tailing is only of use at the very end of the trajectory when the velocity drops below sonic. At this point the boat tail reduces the drag and extends the range of the projectile.. for a .303 this is well over 1000m so I would not worry about it.

Its a bit off track but on the subject of blow-by it is only fractional in the scheme of firing a round in this clip we can see the blow-by exit first and has almost dispersed when the projectile exits followed by the longer lasting jet of gases from the ignition of the powder also visible are un-burnt powder grains/flakes.
Super slow-motion video of bullets leaving a handgun - YouTube

Furthermore, Gale McMillan of McMillan barrels fame, made the valuable point that forming a boat-tail actually added another potential source of static eccentricity and thus a potential source of greater precession, especially at shorter ranges.

For decades, pretty much every bench-rest record was shot with very carefully formed, flat-based bullets. The nano-seconds of exposure of a boat-tail, to erupting muzzle-blast, has the potential to induce "wobble" and greater precession. The gyroscopic spin of the bullet will iron that out in a few hundred yards, as long as the boat-tail is PERFECTLY concentric to the rest of the bullet.

The Mk8 .303 was not introduced so the average Tommy / Digger could head-shoot the Hun at 1000 yards with a bog-standard SMLE / No.4. It was to extend the effective beaten zone capability of the Vickers (on a tripod) and Bren guns. Getting caught in a shower of subsonic Mk8 bullets at 2000 yards would not be a pleasant experience.

As for increased throat erosion, swapping a barrel on a Vickers or Bren is a "user" task, performed during brief halts in firing, as opposed to the field workshop nature of a rifle re-barreling.

With Vickers being deployed in "teams" drawn from a specialist Platoon,or even a machine-gun battalion, a "solo" gun is an aberration. With six or more guns on a fire task, one could always be "off-line" for a barrel swap, stoppage clearance, parts replacement, a quick clean and re-oil, re-laying, or whatever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

The Mk8 .303 was not introduced so the average Tommy / Digger could head-shoot the Hun at 1000 yards with a bog-standard SMLE / No.4. It was to extend the effective beaten zone capability of the Vickers (on a tripod) and Bren guns. Getting caught in a shower of subsonic Mk8 bullets at 2000 yards would not be a pleasant experience.

As for increased throat erosion, swapping a barrel on a Vickers or Bren is a "user" task, performed during brief halts in firing, as opposed to the field workshop nature of a rifle re-barreling.

With Vickers being deployed in "teams" drawn from a specialist Platoon,or even a machine-gun battalion, a "solo" gun is an aberration. With six or more guns on a fire task, one could always be "off-line" for a barrel swap, stoppage clearance, parts replacement, a quick clean and re-oil, re-laying, or whatever.

---

G'day Bruce..

Wholly agree with your post, although swapping out barrels on a Vickers and a Bren were really for different reasons.. The Vickers barrel reciprocates through a stuffing box gland on the water jacket that needs to be repacked after continual shooting. This I would think is the main reason for breaking down a gun, which was, as you say, a crew responsibility. The reason for swapping barrels on the Bren was to allow them to cool, which was not an issue with the water cooled Vickers. In both cases, barrels were subject to Periodic REME/RAEME Inspection when they would be guaged and condemned if out of limits... I'm sure Peter Laidler could confirm..!

Throat erosion is a real problem in high velocity guns and is mainly caused by the peak gas flows just as the projectile seats in the rifling.. the original MAG/GPMG had a sustained fire barrel with a stellite liner at the end of the chamber to counter this, but they had great problems getting it to stay in place...

Thanks, BombDoc.

Only saw a Vickers barrel swap in a workshop, once; long ago and far away.

I spent a lot of time both firing and fixing the good-old M-60, which also had / has a "Stellite" insert. The REALLY flogged out ones that were used to make "Blank Firing" barrels, usually had quite good-looking throats / leades, (Stellite), but were often virtual smooth-bores beyond that; NOT to be used for overhead live fire. Talk about getting your money's worth out of a barrel!

Never saw a liner come loose. There is a small gap between the stellite bit and the nominally hard-chromed remainder of the bore. I figured that this was to allow for a difference in the expansion characteristics of the two materials.

When we had to "de-mil" M-60 barrels, the liner was a challenge; the gas-axe just bounced off and the "drop-saw" with the nastiest abrasive wheel was not terrible effective. One trick was to cut around the circumference, down to the liner, and then attempt to shatter it by bashing it with a BIG hammer. Eventually, it was decided that if the locking collar was destroyed and the barrel forward of the stellite cut into short pieces, it could be considered "innocuous" enough to go in the "controlled scrap" bin. If that stuff ever went near a smelter, the stellite could have been a cause of annoyance to the operator.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

There is a small gap between the stellite bit and the nominally hard-chromed remainder of the bore.

---

According to the stories, this was a spot for corrosion in the barrels and would rust between the stellite liner and the barrel steel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

When we had to "de-mil" M-60 barrels, the liner was a challenge;

---

Interesting...

Stellite is interesting stuff. It is primarily an alloy of cobalt and chromium and usually contains tungsten and / or molybdenum and a small amount of carbon.

Stellite drill bits are often used for drilling materials with a hardness above 50RC.

The trick is that the drill bit is used "lightly" at first, to HEAT the material surface and disrupt the hard crystal structure, then more pressure is applied to cut to depth.

Set-up must be absolutely rigid, just as for Carbide tooling.

These are not your Grand-dad's high-carbon twist drills, though they have been around for decades.

The subsequent tapping of threads into Stellite-drilled holes in those hard Eddystone breech-rings, is another matter.

Given the physical characteristics of Stellite, forming the barrel "inserts" would be an interesting process.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bruce_in_Oz

Stellite is interesting stuff.

---

I'd been aware of it for decades too, I was issued an M60 back in '77 and therefore heard things when they were spoken about it. The Russians had used nickel liners, about indestructible but the cost was prohibitive. I'd also heard the corrosion around the liner was a problem...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

The Russians had used nickel liners, about indestructible but the cost was prohibitive.

---

I know Ivan is deeply into chroming barrels, but never heard of nickel lining... not pure nickel surely? Usually the problem is getting the nickel from jackets off the bore..!

The problem with Stellite is getting it to stick to things...! It will be interesting to see if there are any new developments in this area with quite a number of now materials such as cubic boron coming on the scene.. forming/machining is always a problem..

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bombdoc

Ivan is deeply into chroming barrels, but never heard of nickel lining... not pure nickel surely

---

I can only relate what was told. You probably have a better suggestion, I knew about their chroming everything, bolt face, piston head, barrels... But at the time we were told nickel. Could be far fetched...story probably had no substance.

The chrome isn't magic though, one young soldier of mine returned from Afghanistan and told me he'd examined AKs that you couldn't see through the barrel because of rust...I'd have loved to seen that. Must have been Mujahideen leftovers...

I wonder what improvements they made to the making of the barrel as the presenter says it is good for 15,000 rounds before changing, still an 850 round single pull continuous burst from the M-60 E-4 is not bad without a single hicup!
M60E4 - 850 rounds in continuous belt - YouTube

[QUOTE=CINDERS;421244]an 850 round single pull continuous burst /QUOTE]

NOW THAT is the definition of a "Yippee shoot!" :rofl:

The old "Pig" has come a long way since the late 1950's.

Not bad for a gun which is basically a glorified Lewis mechanism, with a dodgy, simplified MG-42 feed mech. strapped on top and a variation of the old Hotchkiss gas system.....

The RAF Chinooks in Afg had an M60 bolted to the tailgate, which I understand were the only M60s in UK hands. The RAF insisted that this was because the MAG/GPMG were not type approved for use with a Wokka, (and of course they HAVE to be different..)

I had a major strop with the squadron regarding the ammunition on the M60 which sat in an open can at the side of the mounting. I was curious to see what the batch date was and pulled the top of the belt out the can, and the rest followed in a single rusty lump.. with a couple of inches of water in the bottom of the can! Apparently it is not the practice of the air gunners in the RAF to clean or check their guns and ammunition.. that is the job of the ground armourers. This comes from the days of WW2 when the air crews would just dump their stuff on the pan and walk away for eggs and bacon..

I pointed out to the crew that it was not the armorers that would suffer if they had unserviceable ammunition and got attacked!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by harry mac

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.

---

I had another look at that bullet today, and I have to correct myself. It did not have the pitch sealant, just the wax in the groove.