1941 Winchester .303

Picked up 3 100 round units from sgammo.

Each unit of 100 is 5 boxes, plastic wrapped. All from the same lot and with one box open, other 4 with intact seal.

2 lots dated December, one October in my order. All rounds externally clean in the open boxes.

Pulled 2 rounds from each open box.

October and Dec #1 have ball powder. Powder flows freely, some internal staining on brass but not enough to make me scrap the case. About 44 grains.

Dec. #2 has stick powder, about 39 grains. Kitchen clean on the inside.

I'll give all of these lots a chance to go bang once the weather turns. The bullets are definitely good but the crimp is heavy so preferably they can shoot from the cases they are already in.

The primers have always and still might be the problem, hang fires... Hopefully you get good results. I used to take them all, change the primers and then there was no issue. Even though the powder is 80 odd years old and has degraded some without showing signs, the primers are the usual issue. Let us know...

Yes that too is a possibility....pull the bullets, swap primers and dump the powder back in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Picked up 3 100 round units from sgammo.

Each unit of 100 is 5 boxes, plastic wrapped. All from the same lot and with one box open, other 4 with intact seal.

2 lots dated December, one October in my order. All rounds externally clean in the open boxes.

Pulled 2 rounds from each open box.

October and Dec #1 have ball powder. Powder flows freely, some internal staining on brass but not enough to make me scrap the case. About 44 grains.

Dec. #2 has stick powder, about 39 grains. Kitchen clean on the inside.

I'll give all of these lots a chance to go bang once the weather turns. The bullets are definitely good but the crimp is heavy so preferably they can shoot from the cases they are already in.

---

From 1941 Winchester had big quality problems with 303 manufacture, It got so bad that the ammunition was banned from use in aircraft and some batches were so poor that they were not even issued to active Infantry, and instead, consigned to 'practice use only'.

The problem was a lack of 'dimensional' quality control resulting in jamming.

No serious problem if you are just 'at the range' but when being shot at it could be quite inportant to be able to fire back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

the ammunition was banned from use in aircraft

---

So the marking of "Not for use in aircraft"...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

From 1941 Winchester had big quality problems with 303 manufacture, It got so bad that the ammunition was banned from use in aircraft and some batches were so poor that they were not even issued to active Infantry, and instead, consigned to 'practice use only'.

The problem was a lack of 'dimensional' quality control resulting in jamming.

No serious problem if you are just 'at the range' but when being shot at it could be quite inportant to be able to fire back.

---

Between it being American ammo (inferior by birth, naturally) and fired in rifles that had seen too much Cordite, the Winchester ammo had zero chance on the reputation front.

Except that there are the reports that operators of No. 4 Mk. 1 (T) rifles preferred it. Reasonable to assume they were more discriminating in their choice of ammunition from the start.

https://youtu.be/HbIcYcUJCpg?si=Or14fUADCOTtkF53

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Between it being American ammo (inferior by birth, naturally) and fired in rifles that had seen too much Cordite, the Winchester ammo had zero chance on the reputation front.

---

The problem was not the accuracy, but the inconstant sizing and quality control of the cases which jammed in the breech and could not be ejected - not easy to rectify when your guns were out on the wings.
Nothing to do with being US produced or cordite eroded barrels.


it was even worse in WW1 as the Butler Cartridge Company (later to become Winchester) and who supplied some 50% of all US supplied 303 was decalared as 'unusable' and sentenced for 'use at home only', and, cost Britain 25% more that home produced 303.
Eventually all of the contracts were cancelled.


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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve762

- Gave some of this brass to a reloader who said he only got a few reloading out of it in rifles. Seems to have thinner wall thickness than UK brass. When used in a Lewis Gun (US legal) he only got one reloading out of it. Greek, Winchester, FC brass gave 2-4 reloadings in the Lewis Gun.

---

That is interesting that even it those early days Winchester brass was (apprears to be) thinner than British 'mil-spec'


Photo comparing a modern Win and 'mil-spec' case wall thicknesses ;



Photo from Ed Horton

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Yes that too is a possibility....pull the bullets, swap primers and dump the powder back in.

---

Given the rounds will be Berdan primed is this even a possibility?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Given the rounds will be Berdan primed is this even a possibility?

---

Not using those cases. I would use a boxer primed case if they were berdan and use the powder and bullets. I had substantial brass. If they were berdan they may be corrosive primed as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Given the rounds will be Berdan primed is this even a possibility?

---

These are Boxer primed with a 4-stab crimp.

I think I will bang a primer on bright steel to check if corrosive. Assuming it goes bang, of course. :)

Then reload the case.

---------- Post added at 10:30 AM ---------- Previous post was at 10:24 AM ----------

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve762

- The following opinion is not aimed at TOGOR.
IMHO: Some thought should be given to preserving WWII Small Arms ammunition. In a way we are eliminating our history by shooting up any old cartridge we can lay our hands on. Time is passing fast. When I was in High School in the late 60's the American Civil War was just over 100 years in the past. Compare that to WWII which ended 80 years ago - soon to be 100 years. We should see to it that WWII era and even Korean, Viet Nam era ammunition is preserved by current day shooters and collectors for future generations to ponder and collect. I know that billions of rounds were made for the wars of the 20th century. Saving even a few loose rounds now will make this history common place instead of rare in the future.

---

I'm with you. I'll save a few of these boxes, just as I have saved other boxes from WW2

I am lucky to have at the moment 3 original full boxes of German SmKH 8mm ammo, of the 3 different bullet colors. And I have sealed full cartons of US Cal .30 AP M2 from the 9 plants that produced such cartons during the war. Plus a few sealed boxes of Ball M1 and other odds and ends.

From what I can tell, the chemistry within those cases hasn't betrayed me yet. But this isn't black powder so eventually these rounds will go to heck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve762

Question: Is commercial .303 from the UK and Common Wealth countries thin compared to that countries .303 military?

---

In the UK I think the most common, non US, commercial 303 is Prvi Partisan (PPU) which is manufactured generally to the mil-spec, and that is not just wall-thickness, but rim thickmess as well.
The mil-spec for rim thickness is 0.064" max, 0.058" min, however SAAMI specify 0.064 and 0.054" min.

Much of the US 303 appears to be manufactured to SAAMI standards and towards the 'bottom end' of the dimensions - in fact some of it would be rejected if the mil-specs were applied.

The difference between the two (in the picture) would increase the 'effective headspace' by about 5 thou.
I wonder how many thousands of tons of brass are saved by manufacturing to minimum tolerance - built to a price !

A photo of Winchester 303 compared to PPU

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

Photo from Ed Horton

Thanks for the info on rim specs.

Now that name is a blast from the past.......great for an argument was Ed Horton.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve762

Thanks for the info on rim specs.

---

Here are the full (mil) dimensions of the 303 cartridge and the chamber



https://www.milsurps.com/



And, for comparison the SAAMI drawings :


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

Banged off 3 primers on bright steel. LC 11 7.62 and a WW2 Polte 8mm as controls, with a Win 41 to test. Those Win 1941 primers are HARD.

Dry air this time of year, might take awhile.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

Given the rounds will be Berdan primed is this even a possibility?

---

Yes, SB there are a couple of companies that make Berdan to Boxer conversion kits. https://22lrreloader.com/products/be...reign-domestic is one that I use.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Here are the full (mil) dimensions of the 303 cartridge and the chamber







And, for comparison the SAAMI drawings :


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

---

it seems as if the mil drawing has not come over :

Attachment 138415

Here's a box of the Winchester Red label .303 for synchronised guns!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 30Three

Attachment 138415

Here's a box of the Winchester Red label .303 for synchronised guns!

---

But it was 'last resort' ammunition and only to be used in an emergency ;

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Dry air this time of year, might take awhile.

---

Honestly, I wouldn't worry about it. My main issue was hangfires. If they fire then just clean as for corrosive and go on...

So those primers were HARD!

I had no problem getting a LC 308 and German Polte primer to pop, in the case, by whacking on the back of an M1903 bolt with a rubber mallet (mainspring removed). Those are both military cases for MG use. Not soft Federal primers.

For this .303 I was using a spare k98k firing pin and a rough jig to align everything. 2X harder strike force and just a modest dent. Finally had to deprime the case and just smash the primer on the steel.

It had a healthy bang and looks eager to rust. So we know that. But I am thinking with primers this hard, FTFs could be mechanical in some guns.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

FTFs could be mechanical in some guns.

---

And have been. Again a primer problem that can be avoided by repriming.

My question becomes is this what the customer wanted? Would assume so. Only to find that rifles with tired springs experienced no joy perhaps, and hence the reputation?

We will see if they go bang as-is first before swapping primers. Looking for rounds that can shoot well in a wartime expedient '42 Maltby with a short throat but that awful 2-groove barrel.

Maaaaybe let some fly in my all-original (T) but inclined to approach that one carefully as it is worth a real penny. Hand loads into Prvi brass.

What's wrong with a two-groove barrel? Is it rusty or shot out? If it isn't, and passes the gauging standards, it should perform every bit as well as a five or six groove barrel. They wouldn't have been adopted if they performed worse than other barrels. The same holds true for the 1903A3 Springfield and other military rifles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

What's wrong with a two-groove barrel? Is it rusty or shot out? If it isn't, and passes the gauging standards, it should perform every bit as well as a five or six groove barrel. They wouldn't have been adopted if they performed worse than other barrels. The same holds true for the 1903A3 Springfield and other military rifles.

---

Two skinny channels into which jacket material has to move in order for meaningful twist to impart upon the projectile. With BT bullets, there is insufficient contact area for that to happen. One has to have bullets that are both flat base AND open base to hope for meaningful engagement.

These Winchester bullets have that which is why I bought this ammo.

I have some modern 180gr SP with a flat (but closed) base. I will also see how they do.

In an 03A3 the groove/land ratio is about 50/50. In the No. 4 2-groove it is about 10/90.

The No.4 5-groove rifling also appears about 50/50.

It was a wartime expedient so I'm not hating on the production people. It was on the winning end of the war and did its part. But that doesn't make the No. 4 2 groove a great performer in 2025.

On the plus side it's a fun challenge to overcome the various obstacles.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

One has to have bullets that are both flat base AND open base to hope for meaningful engagement.

---

But that WAS the bullet design at the time. They didn't consider us 80 odd years onward.

Mk.8z ammo with the 174 grain boat tail projectile was produced for the Vickers MMG. As BAR says, rifles were designed around the Mk.7 flat base projectile. Many rifles with otherwise excellent barrels regardless of the groove count that have seen a diet of cordite loaded Mk.7 won't stabilize boat tail projectiles. Unless you're shooting a fresh, out of the wrap, 1955 Fazakerley No.4 or an SMLE of No.4 rifle rebarreled with a new military or commercial barrel, boat tail projectiles like the Sierra Matchking are a waste of money. They are worth a try as every barrel is different but the 180 grain Pro Hunter is a much better option as well as other manufacturers flat base hunting bullets. I know this doesn't help our brothers in the UK and elsewhere around the globe as they aren't allowed to use hunting ammo for target shooting. Unfortunately, the cheapest loaded FMJ fodder for range time these days is Czech S&B and Croatian PPU. Both are loaded to Mk.8z spec with boat tail projectiles so it's MG ammo. I don't know why companies like Winchester or Remington don't offer new cartridges built to Mk.7z specification. I know I'm repeating myself here but it's not like they don't know how or haven't got the machinery. Both companies have been loading .303 British ammo since the First World War. Maybe there isn't enough demand in their eyes. I see these problems so much that I find that to be strange. If someone would produce quality Mk.7z ammo at a reasonable price, I'd think it would be flying off the shelves by the case. Just my two cents having worked on these rifles a bit in the past 30 years.

How does one properly sight in for hunting unless one shoots those hunting rounds at targets? This makes no objective sense, but that's par for the course with firearms laws.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

How does one properly sight in for hunting

---

Choose something else to hunt with...simple...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Choose something else to hunt with...simple...

---

Radical concept....one should be able to put enough practice rounds through a firearm used for hunting to establish proficiency, on the reasoning that good shot placement leads to cleaner, more humane kills. And that it isn't up to the government to decide the round count.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

one should be able to put enough practice rounds through a firearm used for hunting

---

Yes, OK...but not if it's not going to be suitable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by browningautorifle

Yes, OK...but not if it's not going to be suitable.

---

Point taken.

Specifically, .303 appears a perfectly good hunting cartridge. But maybe some ranges see that lead tip and it ends any nuanced discussion. Arguing with the range never works.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

I know this doesn't help our brothers in the UK and elsewhere around the globe as they aren't allowed to use hunting ammo for target shooting.

---

At the range I used to be a member of we could use 'hunting ammunition' (soft point) at the range for the purpose of zeroing.

Looking at the Bisley rules they appear to allow 'unlimited' use of plain 'lead'.

Is this diferent to your understanding of the UK situation ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

At the range I used to be a member of we could use 'hunting ammunition' (soft point) at the range for the purpose of zeroing.

Looking at the Bisley rules they appear to allow 'unlimited' use of plain 'lead'.

Is this diferent to your understanding of the UK situation ?

---

I think Brian is referring to the time when expanding ammunition was moved to section 5, (only a UK government could be so stupid!) from memory this was rescinded back in 2017?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Strangely Brown

I think Brian is referring to the time when expanding ammunition was moved to section 5, (only a UK government could be so stupid!) from memory this was rescinded back in 2017?

---

That's going back a few years,

Yes, it was in the 2017 Firearms Act amendments that the expaning ammunition restriction was repealed ;

Section 129. Controls on ammunition which expands on impact
45. Section 129 of the 2017 Act amends subsection 5(1A)(f) of the 1968 Act to remove the prohibition on ammunition which incorporates a missile designed or adapted to expand on impact (‘expanding ammunition’) in respect of rifle ammunition only.
46. Section 5 of the 1968 Act specifically prohibits the possession, purchase or acquisition, and sale or transfer of expanding ammunition without the authority of the Secretary of State in England and Wales, or Scottish Ministers in Scotland.
47. Under section 5A(4) of the 1968 Act, an exemption from the general prohibition of expanding ammunition is made for the following purposes:
• the lawful shooting of deer; • the shooting of vermin or other wildlife in land management; • the humane killing of animals; and, • the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans.
48. To date, the police include a condition on certificates as required to give effect to this.



In fact, looking back to my 2019 FAC one of the conditions stated :

"The 308/7.62mm rifle and the .303/7.7mm rifles and ammunition shall be used for shooting Deer and other lawful quarry, for zeroing on ranges, and on land over which the holder has lawful authority to shoot.................."

My 2014 FAC has the same clause and then goes on to add :

"The certificate holder may possess, purchase or acquire expanding ammunition, or the missiles of such ammunition, in the calibres authorised by this certificate and use only in connection with :
a) the lawful shooting of deer
b) the shooting of vermin or, in connection with the management of any estate, other wildlife
c) the humane killing of animals
d) the shooting of animals for the protection of other animals or humans"

Maybe both I, and the range were at fault (at that time) using expanding ammunition for Zeroing.

It was 2013 when I tried to get Sierra bullets to produce a Mk.7 equivalent projectile and failed miserably. The reason being the school shooting in CT that put Sierra in a mad dash to produce all the 5.56 and 7.62 they could because of the Obama administration threats to the industry. I realize that the design wouldn't necessarily be true to the open base and internal differences but at least a .311 FMJ with a flat base. The intention was to export some to the UK and other Commonwealth countries with shooters in need. I was told after their mad rush of production when I inquired again that if I wanted to pony up the cash for a million-round run, they might consider it.

Some years ago (I reckon it'd be around the turn of the century) Kynamco / Kynoch did a run of Mk7 but with NC so it would be Mk7Z in reality.
Unfortunately being S&B brass meant it was not reloadable.

I still have a few boxes tucked away.

Apologies for the quality of the sectioning - its not a bad job for an angle grinder, a rusty hacksaw and a big hammer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

Some years ago (I reckon it'd be around the turn of the century) Kynamco / Kynoch did a run of Mk7 but with NC so it would be Mk7Z in reality.
Unfortunately being S&B brass meant it was not reloadable.

I still have a few boxes tucked away.

Apologies for the quality of the sectioning - its not a bad job for an angle grinder, a rusty hacksaw and a big hammer.

---

Says "boxer"...?

togor
The problem was the brass not the Boxer bit.
I have had case head separation on first time fired new brass from a well known manufacturer i now refuse to have in my reloading room.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Says "boxer"...?

---

You have obviously never reloaded S&B 303 brass.

We had a competition at the club to see who could get the most reloads out of it - the record was 3 (a total of 4 firings) the majority failed on firing the 1st reload.

If the powder still smells "sweet" an flows freely when decanting from the cases, it is probably OK. Any hint of "acidic / tangy smell or "clumping" of the granules usually means it is "off"

If in doubt, decant the propellant, (it makes a handy fertilizer in the garden), remove the BOXER primers with one of the dedicated "de-prime only" tools. The original bullets and cases can be tarted up in the rotary yumbler and put back to good use with fresh primers and powder.

If you ere contemplating doing such salvage on BERDAN-primed ammo, it is a bit more complicated. Before you even startrt, confirm your source of replacement primers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

You have obviously never reloaded S&B 303 brass.
We had a competition at the club to see who could get the most reloads out of it - the record was 3 (a total of 4 firings) the majority failed on firing the 1st reload.

---

About 5 years ago I was firing next to a friend who had 6 case separations on the trot with S&B brass; he had apparently been unaware of its reputation!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

You have obviously never reloaded S&B 303 brass.

We had a competition at the club to see who could get the most reloads out of it - the record was 3 (a total of 4 firings) the majority failed on firing the 1st reload.

---

Right....that way...I get you.

Not unlike Federal brass here in the US.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Right....that way...I get you.

Not unlike Federal brass here in the US.

---

I refer you to posts #8 & #12 in this thread.

Comparisons of Winchester and Mil spec (PPU manufactured) brass.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

I refer you to posts #8 & #12 in this thread.

Comparisons of Winchester and Mil spec (PPU manufactured) brass.

---

Seems to me a longer bolt head would be just the ticket for those too-skinny Winchester rims!

:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Seems to me a longer bolt head would be just the ticket for those too-skinny Winchester rims!

:)

---

With that sort of thinking you'd need to keep a box full of bolt heads in your range bag and fit a different one for each brand / lot that you use.
The problem of minimising your bolt head using 'thin rims' is that when you do use some mil-spec ammo you won't be able to close the bolt.

Still wont stop the case head separation, the cases are undersized and or made with a poor quality brass.
Togor some of us have been dealing with this problem for 40 years or longer. It is not a new issue. Reloading the 303 and its derivatives has different issues to any other case i know and i reload for more than a few in both camps rimmed rear lockers and rimless front and rear lockers.

Might have thought the :) would have signalled the light humor.

Maybe Enfields aren't funny?

I look forward to shooting these, when the weather warms up. See what they can do.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Might have thought the would have signalled the light humor.

---

Well yes, but these guys are tryin' to tell you something. You seem to be side stepping them so they keep going.

The problem with '303 case-head separations may not all be down to rim thickness.

.303 headspaces on the RIM, not the case shoulder , like sensible rimless cartridges..

Your "surp-mil .303 rifle has had its chamber "refreshed, (to clean up roughness , the brass at the front end will expand more than usual. Depending of the "annealing", if you full-length size your brass for optimal feeding, that could be a LOT of metal fatigue going on there... The usual manifestations, in order of "annoyance" being: cracked necks, blown shoulders and case separations.

Forty to fifty thousand PSI exerts a LOT of encouragement for the brass to "flow".

Likewise, squeezing it all back to SAAMI dimensions in your trusty Rockchucker, makes the brass flow inwards AND forward. (Hence, why experienced / well-trained reloaders TRIM their rifle brass, especially)

IF you have ONE.303 rifle, use the neck-sizer die and the full-length die, . And an annealer. The FLS die is used to do a "general" resizing. It is backed off a few turns. Then the neck-sizer is adjusted slowly until the empty, sized brass JUST drops smoothly into the chamber.

Trim and inside chamfer as desired / needed.

If you have a bunch of different models and conditions of rifle, you have two basic options:

"Custom" case processing for each rifle, or, "universal" sizing (one size fits all), and buy bulk brass when it turns up on "special" sale.

And DO NOT use boat-tailed bullets in ANY .303 Lee-Enfield, Ross or P-14.

Or, buy an Ishapore 2A1 and enjoy shooting without fretting about all that brass management,

Once fired cases are now shoulder spaced which is why you only use Lee neck size die. FLS die return the case close to being to small hence case head separation.
Trimming for length is reduced to a maybe some time down the track. Annealing stops the neck splits and shoulder cracks. The better the brass quality the longer the life.
I do use open based boat tailed projectiles. I have bullet making gear and a nib that turns Mk8 type projectiles into Mk7 projectiles. Just think outside the box.
No to the 2a1 Indian because they are proofed only to 144gn projectiles which are a little hard to find as a NATO loading. These rifles are NOT 308 compatible.
Just like the L42a1 is not 308 compatible only use 144gn NATO load they are a 303 conversion to the NATO load which is at the outer limits of their strength.
The civvie No4 target rifle conversions are the same and have been banned from use from target shooting in most Commonwealth countries.
If you want to continnue shooting these old girls do so just do your home work down load the ammo to the original spec and use dies and projectiles to help do this even if the only option is hard cast to fit the bore.
There is no real reason why they cant be fired for another 100yrs if looked after today. They aren't made any more so look after them.

An animated 'gif' produced some years ago by forum member Parashooter, showing why / how a sloppy head space COULD cause separations, particularly when combined with thin wall (SAAMI) cases.




Your headspace could be in spec at 70 thou, but using a thin rimmed case of (say) 58 thou means you have a 12 tho 'head clearance' allowing the case to stretch by 12 thou, and the weakest part (just above the web) goes 'pop'.

For me it is an excellent learning aid.

Prbably mangled my description of the "right-sizing" caper.


Yes, neck size for heck "grip" and shoulder contact.. The partial use of the FLS die (not touching the shoulder area, is to just reduce the case body (tapered) diameter for a close fit (not "tight) . Yes, it is essentially "headspacing" to the shoulder, a la rimless cases. If, like me, you only have ONE rifle in that calibre, it is no great challenge to build "matching" ammo. If you are dedicated lucky enough to have a whole fleet of them and you want to shoot most / all of them, have fun..

Related: who sells the "base bumping" gear?

I have almost a thousand thousand Mk 8 bullets that need "rectification".

The nib was made in house. The bullet forming dies are Corbin.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alan de Enfield

An animated 'gif' produced some years ago by forum member Parashooter, showing why / how a sloppy head space COULD cause separations, particularly when combined with thin wall (SAAMI) cases.




Your headspace could be in spec at 70 thou, but using a thin rimmed case of (say) 58 thou means you have a 12 tho 'head clearance' allowing the case to stretch by 12 thou, and the weakest part (just above the web) goes 'pop'.

For me it is an excellent learning aid.

---

And of course the case is often is not fully enclosed in the chamber when ignition occurs; the amount of unsupported case wall at the base in such instances is more like the final position shown in the GIF.

And just off hand I suspect that larger chambers in conjunction with excessive heads space are even more prone to this kind of separation as the farther the case has to expand before chamber wall adhesion takes effect the longer the rearmost portions of the case are exposed to the full(?) pressure of the charge.

yes Surpmil.
With good quality metal Brass in large chambers case head separation is not an issue at first firings. With poor metal quality brass in tight chambers case head separation still occurs at first firings.
Good quality brass is a deep golden colour almost brown, the poorer the quality the lighter and whiter the colour of the metal. As in all things man made there are exceptions the colour can be right but the malleability is not.
The British Military Brass specs had to cover these issues. I have NEVER had a case head separation using military ammo in any military 303. All case head separations have been CIVVIE brass

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Brian Dick

Unless you're shooting a fresh, out of the wrap, 1955 Fazakerley No.4 or an SMLE of No.4 rifle rebarreled with a new military or commercial barrel, boat tail projectiles like the Sierra Matchking are a waste of money.

---

I guess my rifles didn't get that memo. My LB and a couple of other Lee Enfields I own absolutely love 174 gr. SMK and LeHigh Defense 150 gr. boat-tailed bullets with their used barrels. I too tried the 180 gr. Pro hunter along with a dozen other bullets and only one outshot the SMK or the LeHigh incrementally and that was the flat based Hornady SST 150 gr. Can we all finally agree that Enfield rifling may not have been designed to work with boat-tail bullets but with a little patience and load development will shoot them just fine?
I fully agree that any company that recreates the Mk 7 round won't be able to keep up with demand but I've gotten by for 40 years now handloading the .303 British with good results.

Sapper 740
Its not the rifling its the erosion caused by the cordite which open based projectiles hide by bumping out to seal the barrel then sizing back down whilst moving down the barrel.
I am a F Class shooter ( 30 06 AI ) and have had a barrel fail on me when the gas beat the projectile to the rifling leaving the projectile pushing molten metal out the muzzle. The accuracy went south very quickly. 12 shots fired in that detail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bindi2

Sapper 740
Its not the rifling its the erosion caused by the cordite which open based projectiles hide by bumping out to seal the barrel then sizing back down whilst moving down the barrel.
I am a F Class shooter ( 30 06 AI ) and have had a barrel fail on me when the gas beat the projectile to the rifling leaving the projectile pushing molten metal out the muzzle. The accuracy went south very quickly. 12 shots fired in that detail.

---

I have posted this before. But I'll post it again .....................


Use of Cordite in Rifles

'Regulations For Army Ordnance Services', Vol.3, Pam.11A (1949) comments:-


USE OF .303-IN CORDITE AND N.C. AMMUNITION

1. The action of Cordite propellant in the barrel of a .303-in. weapon is quite different from that of N.C. propellant.
Cordite gives a rapid build-up of pressure with great heat, leading to pitting and erosion of the chamber end of the barrel.
N.C., however, gives a more gradual build-up of pressure with less heat, and this in turn gives uniformity of barrel wear from chamber to muzzle, the amount of pitting and erosion being greatly reduced.

2. With Cordite propellant, set-up of the bullet is most pronounced and even when the chamber end of the barrel is well worn, the muzzle end still has sufficient rifling left to impart the necessary spin. As the wear advances up the barrel, so the accuracy of the weapon is progressively reduced.
With an N.C. propellant, set-up of the bullet is slow and by no means so pronounced, due to the more gradual building up of pressure. The barrel retains its original accuracy until wear reaches a critical stage, when a sudden falling off in accuracy occurs.

3. It can be seen by comparison with the effects of barrel wear that to use N.C. ammunition in a barrel which has fired Cordite will give serious inaccuracy in flight, whereas the use of Cordite ammunition in a barrel which has fired N.C. gives good accuracy, but serious changed the wear pattern of the barrel.
In the first case, i.e. a weapon which has fired Cordite ammunition the barrel will be eroded and fissured in the first few inches up from the chamber, the part in which obturation should occur. The poor set-up of the bullet, in the N.C. cartridge is not sufficient to give good gas sealing in such a barrel and the bullet does not, therefore, receive the maximum impulse. The resultant loss in velocity and instability due to lack of spin lead to a high degree of inaccuracy.
In the second case, Cordite ammunition fired from a barrel which shows uniformity of wear from firing N.C. ammunition, has an adequate reserve of set-up that ensures full gas sealing, with satisfactory velocity and spin. Unless the barrel wear is in a advanced stage due to firing a large number of N.C. rounds, there will be no immediate appreciable loss in accuracy. Furthermore, the decline in accuracy for Cordite ammunition will follow the normal gradual fall-off experience in weapons firing Cordite alone, as the wear at C of R progresses.

4. Trials have proved that even if only a few rounds of Cordite ammunition are fired from an "N.C." barrel, the ensuing accuracy life when N.C. is subsequently fired is reduced considerably. The occasional and restricted use of N.C. in a "Cordite" barrel will however, have little effect on its ensuing accuracy life for Cordite, although naturally the fire of N.C. will not be very accurate.

5. The effect of wear of barrels can be determined by firing shots through a paper screen at 100 yards. If, on examination of the screen, all shot holes are not perfectly round, then the barrel is no longer fit for use.
The danger lies in the fact that bullets fired erratically from badly worn barrels may overcome their instability in flight and take up a steady flight in the direction in which they happen to be pointing, with short-ranging and disastrous results if used for overhead fire. Except under these conditions of long-range firing there is no risk involved, though in normal range firing inaccurate fire will result.

6. The following instructions regarding the use of .303-in ammunition have been issued to users and are governed by stocks and types of ammunition and weapons in current use:-

(a) .303 in. Vickers M.G.s in M.G. Bns.

(i)Mk.8z only will be used for overhead firing.
(ii) Mixed belts, i.e. Ball, Tracer, A.P., etc., will NOT be used.
(iii) Any barrel which has fired Cordite ammunition will NOT be used for N.C.; barrels will be stamped “7” on the trunnion block and returned to R.A.O.C. through normal channels.
(iv) Barrel life for N.C. will be assessed by unit armourers using the appropriate gauges.

(b) .303 in. Vickers M.G.s in A.F.V.s.

Here the overhead fire problem is not considered; the range is usually less than is the case with ground M.G.s. tracer ammunition is required as an aid to fire control, and prolonged fire programmes are not envisaged. Special mixed belts of Mk.8z and Tracer are provided in boxes clearly marked “For use in A.F.V.s only”. The reduced life of the barrels is accepted.

(c) Light M.G.s.

Cordite ammunition normally will be used. N.C. ammunition, however, gives a relatively small flash at night and if the Bren is being used for a special purpose, e.g., on a patrol, its use is permitted.

(d) Rifles.

N.C. ammunition will not be used in rifles except in such circumstances as quoted in para. “(c)”
above, if necessity should arise.

7. Belt packed S.A.A. for M.G.s is packed in boxes which are clearly marked with labels or stenciling indicating its proper use. It will never be de-belted and used for practice purposes in L.M.G.s or rifles.

8. It must be noted that the above restrictions apply only to ammunition fired from British weapons. All American ammunition is N.C. loaded and their weapons are designed to fire it satisfactorily.

Cordite as a rifle propellant was a bad idea, and unnecessary. Are those who decided this lost in obscurity or do names live on so they can receive the ridicule that is their due?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Cordite as a rifle propellant was a bad idea, and unnecessary.

---

It certainly is, its bad enough trying to get a lead bullet going, let alone a rifle !!!!!

Well my shooting bolt head is assembled, ammunition ready. Just need a bit of time and decent weather.

NOS bolt head assembly is.... interesting but uneventful.

Cordite seems like a bad idea in hindsight but at the time it was the next step in evolution of propellants.
BP, guncotton for artillery, cordite for small arms, nitro cellulose.
Being a target shooter from the Cordite days to a NC target shooter today i don't see any difference in the erosion of barrels.
The primers used today are far away much more user friendly. The saying cleanliness is next to godliness is not true anymore. Corrosion is not the problem.
What i do see is the waste of barrels because of the use of closed base projectiles when open base projectiles will continue to be accurate.

Found this. No doubt some of you knew this fellow.

History of the .303 British Calibre Service Ammunition Round

Short service history with BP before Cordite comes along, but Nitrocellulose is right there too. Given reason per the history was Cordite being superior in warmer climates (Empire business)

Real reason would look to be more about having a home grown solution, regardless of other considerations.

History of Cordite Production

Open base, flat base projectiles hard to come by for this caliber. Why I stocked up a bit on this WW2 Winchester ammo, for the "missiles".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

Found this. No doubt some of you knew this fellow.

History of the .303 British Calibre Service Ammunition Round

Short service history with BP before Cordite comes along, but Nitrocellulose is right there too. Given reason per the history was Cordite being superior in warmer climates (Empire business)

Real reason would look to be more about having a home grown solution, regardless of other considerations.

History of Cordite Production

---

Having looked at the propellant, you may find the history of the bullet itself of interest ;

It does go into some detail about wound profiles of various 'Mk' of the 303.

Warning graphic descriptions[/B]

Example :

Major Mathias, RAMC, who inspected the battlefield after Omdurman, observed a young man, who had been struck twice by a Mark IV bullet,
He had a bullet wound of the left leg above the knee. The wound entrance was clean-cut and very small. The projectile had struck the femur, just above the internal condyle; the whole of the lower end of this bone, and upper end of the tibi, were shattered to pieces, the knee joint being completely disorganised.
He had also been wounded in the right shoulder...The whole of the shoulder joint and scapular were shattered to pieces. In neither case was there any sign of a wound of exit.

I'm so happy I don't live in the UK. With our new President, things have been getting better here every day. Hallelujah!

Who can't enjoy a US President with an inability tell ally from an enemy? Fun for the whole family!

Back to bullets...yes the original "Dum Dum".
It's ban being the one meaningful development out of the various disarmament conferences so popular before the Great War. Also why shot placement is so important in ethical hunting.

M-16s earned a bad reputation when they entered Vietnam service but that FMJ 55 gr. bullet left severe wounds from fragmenting at impact. The SS109 projectile was invented to better penetrate Soviet winter uniforms, but a sturdier bullet imparted less grievous wounds.

Is someone that takes advantage of you your freind? Maybe, but there is nothing wrong with putting a stop to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by scharfschutzen63

Is someone that takes advantage of you your freind? Maybe, but there is nothing wrong with putting a stop to it.

---

These vague generalities are an outrage! Completely agree.

Have you anything to add about the topic of .303 ammunition?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by togor

The SS109 projectile was invented to better penetrate Soviet winter uniforms, but a sturdier bullet imparted less grievous wounds.

---

Shades of producing the No.4 spike bayonet to better penetrate Chinese troops winter clothing.

Let's please stay on track and keep politics a breakfast table discussion and not a Milsurps discussion. :thup:

Not too sure about the "winter uniform" penetration bit. It take a LOT of cotton fabric and goose feathers to stop a bullet, even a pistol-calibre one. I recall that some lads set up cardboard "figures" swathed in half a welfare-store's worth of clothing and with blocks of Ballistic gel behind, to test this story. M-1 Carbine bullets fired at reasonable close-quarter battle ranges, flew through the frocks and drilled deeply into the Gel..

That the soviets were steadily introducing body armour on an expanding scale by the late 1960s was well known.

"SS109" is a composite cored bullet, not unlike a scaled-down .303 Mk7, but with a boat-tail.

The earlier M-193 55gn BTFMJ was designed back i the late 1950s. From a the original 1:14" twist barrels it performed well on "tissue". It would perform a 180 degree turn after striking "muscle tissues" and internal organs and sometimes continue to exit base-first. However, it appears to have been a little "unstable" in flight at Arctic-grade temperatures, so the rifling was adjusted to 1:12" twist. . "Field" results revealed a change in terminal performance; the "more stable' bullet apparently took a little longer to "tumble" in tissue, often drilling all the way through before starting to go wayward.. Sometimes, however, the M-192 bullet would break in two, with both fragments charting completely different courses.

SS109 was derived from a LOT of experiments with "heavier" (up to 77grain) bullets for extended range performance. This was primarily aimed at the new "Light Support Weapon" market.

SS109 and its "clones" will happily stabilize from a 20 inch barrel with a 1:10" twist. So, why the 1:7" twist as "NATO Standard"?


TRACER bullets. to obtain a useful "burn time" fir a tracer bullet in a bullet of such dinky diameter, tha answer was a LONGER bullet. This needed a 1:7" twist to stabilize it.. See also dinky short barrels which produce lower velocoies and thus LOWER spin-rates

At the rotational velocities of the SS109 / M855, etc bullet, terminal ballistics get "interesting". Shortly after impact, the bullet starts to tumble as it transits into a denser medium. The two-piece core can be "disrupted" and the bullet breaks into several separate "fragments. Supplementary, at short-ish ranges, the bullet will still be precessing (wobbling around the nominal trajectory) after it has just left the muzzle. Thus, it will be less-than-perfectly stabilized. We have been down this stability discussion route a few times in the last few years..

One of the reasons for the initial instability is that SS109, like .303Mk 7, is BASE HEAVY.

The old "wisdom" of .303 being "humane" and drilling neat holes is only partly true, and then, only in some circumstances..

If said bullet slips through a light-weight uniform and a few inches of muscle tissue, so far so good.

If the next order of business is striking a material like BONE, things change, rapidly. Think "thigh wounds"; big, meaty target, with a big BONE in the middles. A bullet striking that femur WILL shatter it. Two things:

When that bone is violently broken, the leg ceases to be a "strut", holding up half of the body's weight.two ends of sharp, fractured bone start "wandering about" . Adjacent to said damaged bone is the famous Femoral Artery.. Get a hole in that and you are in serious trouble. Holes may be generated by the slicing action of the shattered bone ends or by "secondary missiles", blasted off the parent bone by the bullet impact.

"Only a flesh wound"? It ain't like he movies .Ask your friendly First-Aid instructor about putting an improvised tourniquet on a "leaking", upper thigh wound.

Various wound profiles :

So back to the 1941 Win .303. Fired some of the "black label" stuff. Function was fine, if powder a bit dirty (judging from residue and volume of smoke per shot).

Primers are hard and I think this accounts for some leakage. Leakage is annoying and so the ability to screw on a "shooting". bolt head is handy. CCI #34 primers in a few of the cases (with same powder) sealed right as a drum. Cases themselves are right at .060" on the rim, and the cases were not too blown out.

If one doesn't mind the soot then I'd say swapping primers is the ticket and reuse the original powder. But I have the option of 41 gr. of BLC-2.