Grease groove in WWII .303 bullets important or not ?

[green]

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?

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.

[André]

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.

[browningautorifle]

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...

[rcathey]

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.

[Brian Dick]

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!).

[Daan Kemp]

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.

[BruceHMX]

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

[green]

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.

[browningautorifle]

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.

[Bruce_in_Oz]

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.)