Cases and Enfields and lube - Oh my!

[Surpmil]

I'm having visions of a appliance that holds a No4 action 'in battery' while a hydraulic piston with a projection the diameter of a bolt and a simple captive firing pin, that will precisely measure the rearward thrust generated by various cartridges, dry and lubricated...

It would be interesting to have exact figures, but of course that would only be half the equation

The other half being what the action can stand, both over the short and longer term.

Fortunately we have real world experience to substitute for such experimentation, and allowing for all the various loadings, every possible permutation of wet, oil, case lube, grease, wrong powders, over-charged cases etc. etc. in the hands of hundreds of thousands of shooters of all levels of skill or incompetency. Do we yet have a single catastrophic failure, after 60 odd years of trying?

Information

Warning: This is a relatively older thread This discussion is older than 360 days. Some information contained in it may no longer be current.

[jmoore]

I'm having visions of a appliance that holds a No4 action 'in battery' while a hydraulic piston with a projection the diameter of a bolt and a simple captive firing pin, that will precisely measure the rearward thrust generated by various cartridges, dry and lubricated...

Don't even need a No.4 action to do that test, if all you're trying to do is read the rearward thrust. The "device" would need a very fast pickup to read the peak load though, as it only lasts 0.001-0.002 seconds!

[Edward Horton]

Don't even need a No.4 action to do that test, if all you're trying to do is read the rearward thrust. The "device" would need a very fast pickup to read the peak load though, as it only lasts 0.001-0.002 seconds!

Or find a Excel program set up to give bolt thrust figures, you higher math types can take your shoes off if you run out of fingers and check these figures jmoore you should put in for leave and not cross check these figures at work and get paid for it.

From what I see the proof and bolt thrust figures are CIP pressure standards and not American SAAMI pressure standards.

[slamfire1]

The real question here is do we believe the testing done at Springfield Armory and Frankford Arsenal or do we believe the people who say its safe to grease your cases.

And don’t tell me what Dick Culver wrote here is garbage or doesn’t apply to this subject.

When the "Tin Can" Changed History
By Dick Culver

You are close to the ground zero myth of Lubricated cases. It all started in with tin can bullets issued in the 1921 National matches. Army Ordnance made ammunition with tin plated bullets, which were then fired in single heat treat receivers.

For decades previous shooters had been lubricating their bullets to reduce bore fouling. But suddenly, with the tin bullets, reports are coming out of busted rifles.

Remember Rule #2 of the Government: Avoid scandal. This ammunition was made by Ordnance, the unsafe at any speed single heat treat receivers were made by Army Ordnance, scandal was brewing and scandal will ruin careers. There were some highly placed people trying to find a non service culprit.

Retired head of Army Ordnace Major General J.S. Hatcher writes this up in one page of his book ‘Hatcher’s Notebook” almost 30 years after the events. Maybe forty years. This one page is Ground Zero of the myth.

In 1921, the Ordinance Department conducted experiments to prove that greased bullets caused the blowups. A reading of Hatcher’s book shows that the Ordinance Department totally ignored the cold soldering of the tin plated bullet to the brass case necks of the as a contributor.

Hatcher reported this uncritically. He totally ignored evidence that cold soldering was the primary problem. Remember reading his paragraph when a NCO showed him a case neck and shoulder attached to a tin can bullet? The whole of which had been fired in a rifle, and the case had ripped off below the shoulder. That should have been proof positive of cold soldering, that cold soldering was creating a bore obstruction. But to Hatcher, it was just proof of high pressure caused by those darn civilians greasing their bullets.

If you read “Handloader’s Manual”, published 1937, author Earl Naramore, page 158, you come across this section:

The ammunition made a Frankford Arsenal for the 1921 National Matches had bullets heavily plated with tin. This ammunition was satisfactory when first loaded. Tin has an affinity for brass and in this ammunition the tin combine with the insides of the case necks, forming a union between the bullet and the case just as though the bullets were soldered in place. This union is so strong that it is impossible to extract the bullets and if the ammunition is fired, dangerous pressures will develop. Most of this lot of ammunition, the only one so loaded, has been shot or destroyed, but anyone running across any of it should destroy it or preserve it only as a curiosity in the development of ammunition . It should be under no circumstances be fired. The markings on the case heads is, F.A. 21-R.

You would think Hatcher would have been aware of this, as on the frontpiece of the book, Lt Col. Julian S. Hatcher is given credit for the book sketches.!

At least five M1903’s were blown after the 1921 matches up with FA 21R. Three were double heat treat rifles and two were single heat treat. You would think Hatcher would have been aware of this as these incidents are recorded in his book!

We owe Hatcher a lot. However you do not get to be a Major General, and you don’t get free bee’s from your old organization , by pointing out the stupidity of the Army. In all of his writings, back to the 20’s, Hatcher is 100% pro Ordnance Department. Right or wrong, 100% positive about the Ordnance Department. He is never critical of it at all.

I would think that the millons of moly lube bullets fired quite safely sort of prove that the 1921 tests were bogus and Hatcher’s reporting that greased bullets were dangerous a consequence of selective memory.

So how did these high pressures get created? I believe it is due to instrumentation error and the lack of an independent tester.

Phil Sharpe, in his book Complete Guide to Handloading, discusses how friction sensitive was the period pressure testing equipment.

What I believe happened was that grease was blown around inside their copper crusher pressure testing equipment giving false readings. But the Ordnance testers were under pressure from their bosses to create favorable results, once they got the results they were looking for they went no further. The Army was able to blame the darned civilians, greased bullets were banned, and that was that.

I believe this is an example of what happens when you don’t have an independent tester. When organizations own the testers, the test individuals are under pressure to prove organizational theories. This is a problem common to Forensic crime labs which are particularly helpful in finding results favorable for their fellow law enforcement buddies.*

Everyone involved in these tests died decades ago. All we have are a few writings from dead people, and the expanded misguided theories of Gunwriters from the 60's, 70's, 80's, and 90's. These guys expanded greased bullets to greased anything.

Such as what Dick Culver is doing. Just repeating folk lore and myths around and around and around.

*
“Forensic science” is chock full of similar behaviors. These criminal investigators have sent hundred of thousands to prison, probably thousands to death row, based on nothing more than their community legends. For example, Bullet matching Weak Forensic Science Has High Cost | Amstat News, bullet matching | Center for Investigative Reporting and fire forensic evidence.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcont...n.3fec5f4.html
Cameron Todd Willingham, Texas, and the death penalty : The New Yorker
Man executed on disproved forensics - chicagotribune.com