Oiling cartridge cases can be dangerous and other mishaps

[Mike Irwin]

"Millions of moly lubed bullets have been fired in rifle matches and never a pressure problem reported."

Do moly lubed bullets weld themselves into the case neck?

No.

Once again, I think you are either overlooking or ignoring critical items in the issue chain.

"Hatcher never blamed lubricated cartridges in service rifles, it was all about greased bullets."

WHEN IT WAS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH BULLETS THAT HAD BEEN COATED WITH TIN AND WHICH WERE WELDED INTO THE CASE NECK.

I'll repeat that because I'm not sure you're making that critical association...

WHEN IT WAS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH BULLETS THAT HAD BEEN COATED WITH TIN AND WHICH WERE WELDED INTO THE CASE NECK.


It was known that the bullets were welding into the case necks and were raising pressures.


"He personally shot or oversaw service rifles that had oiling pads or used microcrystalline wax as a cartridge lubricant. The most well known was the Pedersen rifle."

Yes. That the ONLY way the Pedersen rifle would function. Otherwise it ripped the heads off the cases because Pedersen neglected to recognize the need for a slow period of initial extraction.


And finally, once again, you are either missing or ignoring the differences in operating systems that we are talking about.

A bolt action mechanism takes the ENTIRE pressure cycle without movement.

A semi-automatic does not.

Thus their reaction to the pressure cycle is different and it cannot be said that if something happens in one system, it will happen in the other.

As I noted, I am away from home and I don't have access to my Hatcher's Notebook at the moment.

 

[Slamfire]

WHEN IT WAS DONE IN CONJUNCTION WITH BULLETS THAT HAD BEEN COATED WITH TIN AND WHICH WERE WELDED INTO THE CASE NECK.

You are going to need to provide more of an explaination on how that makes a difference to a bore obstruction.

A bolt action mechanism takes the ENTIRE pressure cycle without movement.

Ignoring dynamics and the lug, barrel, receiver response to strain, this is essentially correct.

A semi-automatic does not.

Thus their reaction to the pressure cycle is different and it cannot be said that if something happens in one system, it will happen in the other.

This is very general, and based on the general statement I disagree. The same laws of physics apply to all actions. Load is load, pressure is pressure, strain is strain, there are differences in speed of unlock, there are tremendous differences in the mechanisms of manual, revolver, gas and recoil operated actions but they all operate using the same laws of physics.

 

[Jim Watson]

The phenomena of greased ammunition and cold soldered bullets appear to be reasonable DIY studies. There are hobby level pressure gauges that could give some real information instead of debates over what Hatcher said and what Hatcher covered up and what the Swiss used to do.

But as long as we are in ancient history...
I had a report on the British practice of "shooting wet."
Target shooters in England found that their .303s would shoot to a different POI in the rain, which is a common condition in the British Isles. Obviously the rainwater was affecting internal ballistics and the vibration that the Enfields depend on to compensate. So they took to dipping their cartridges in water on fair days. Their thinking was that they could not keep their rifles and ammunition dry in the rain but they could wet their ammunition when it was not raining and thereby use the same zero.
The similarity to oiled proof test alarmed some but this author concluded it was not a source of "broken receivers."

I have another period source that might discuss greasing but it will take some digging.

I figure that the Japanese machine guns had oilers because they did not copy the French Hotchkiss closely enough to include primary extraction.

 

[Mike Irwin]

As I noted, I'm away from my books this week and won't be able to delve into this until at least this weekend.

But, P.O. Ackley did some testing with dry and oiled cases and recounted the results in his books using a lever-action rifle with excessive headspace.

He found that dry, the primer was backed out, the result of the case gripping the walls of the chamber.

When the cases were oiled, the primer was reseated in the case by the reward slip of the case AND the cases separated. (thanks for the info, Mal!)


"I figure that the Japanese machine guns had oilers because they did not copy the French Hotchkiss closely enough to include primary extraction."

Exactly, which is what I noted earlier. Lacking primary extraction, the guns would rip the heads off the cases during extraction.

The Italians, I believe with one of the Breda models, attempted to get away from the oiled cases by fluting the chambers so gas pressure would "float" the cases out during extraction, but it wasn't enough and they had to go back to oiled cases.

Once again, though, this scenario transpired only with automatic weapons.

 

[Slamfire]

I gave my opinion about P.O Ackley and his tests here:

http://thefiringline.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4926211&postcount=3

The basic problem with the Army running tests to "prove" they were not at fault, and P. O Ackley running tests to "prove" that blowing out the shoulders reduces bolt thrust, is that neither were an independent tester and they simply tested until they proved the point they wanted to make.

Ackley wanted to prove you could just pour on the coal and it was all OK because of the Ackley improved taper. While his cartridge taper test found a funny, it did not change the fact that the laws of physics remain the same. You increase combustion pressure you increase the stress on the action.

I have read anyone number of posts from people whose charge values hugely exceed that of reloading books, they claim, just like Ackley, from physical observations of sticking, bolt lift, primer condition, that everything is just fine. Physical observations are unreliable indications of combustion pressures.

I remember an article in the 90's, a pistol reloader was exceeding by a wide margin published data. His cases fell out of the cylinder, so he was theorizing that the more powder you put in, the less pressure you got. When his loads were pressure tested, they were above 80,000 psia.

 

[Mike Irwin]

"The basic problem with the Army running tests to "prove" they were not at fault, and P. O Ackley running tests to "prove" that blowing out the shoulders reduces bolt thrust, is that neither were an independent tester and they simply tested until they proved the point they wanted to make."

OK.

Then let me ask you this.

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that Hatcher was lying?

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that the Army's manufacturing processes were 100% at fault?

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that civilian competitors greasing their bullets had no bearing at all on the subsequent rifle failures?

 

[Slamfire]

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that Hatcher was lying?

I do not agree that Hatcher’s account is perfect and infallible. Someone pointing at Hatcher’s Notebook and claiming history happened exactly as Hatcher wrote, because it is in this book, is committing an error in circular logic. In 1947 Hatcher has just retired, looking forward to a long and happy association with former organization and he is absolutely not going to say anything in word or deed critical of the Army. So, he writes this account and shifts the problems away from Army Ordnance.

Nor would it help to point fingers at Townsend Whelen who, I think, was then a major figure employed by the NRA. Not wise to upset your future employers.

If you can’t see that, then that is OK.

Naramore’s account was written in 1937, Naramore is a contemporary of Hatcher, obviously a coworker/associate, Hatcher created the illustrations in Naramore’s book undoubtedly reviewing the text. I find it hard to believe that Hatcher was not part of the discussion and did not notice or remember the correct reason why tin can ammunition caused pressure problems.

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that civilian competitors greasing their bullets had no bearing at all on the subsequent rifle failures?

Where are the decades of failure reports? Failure reports before and after the 1921 incident. Competitors had been greasing their bullets long enough for aftermarket grease kits to be made. The British were greasing their bullets up to, at least the late 60’s. Their practice now, heck if I know. Where is the century of failure reports from the Swiss, Austrians, who used greased bullets, the Swiss for over a century?

Where is your body of independent testing that conclusively proves that the Army's manufacturing processes were 100% at fault?

You run into accounts in old American Rifleman magazines and in, surprising enough, Captain Herbert McBridge's articles in American Rifleman have incidental comments on the poor quality of WW1 ammunition. Hatcher’s own account of the single heat treat receiver ought to be a clue. A 03 receiver fragmented at a ammunition plant and there was "evidence that the heads of the cartridge cases had been soft", this incident started the investigation into the systemic production defects of the single heat treat receivers.

Of course, the late twenties decision of the Army to scrap all 1,056,506 single heat treat receivers ought to be a clue as to the quality of their manufacture. Out of a total of 1.8 million 03 receivers made to 1939 only 42% were considered safe enough to retain in service.

Asking for proof at 100% level is unreasonable and will never happen. President Kennedy was shot in 1963, there is not 100% agreement who did it. I have heard that only 30% or 50% of the American population believes that the world was created 6000 years ago, so we don’t have a census on the creation of the earth. When, as we all know, it was created 23 Oct 4004 BC. LOL.

 

[Slamfire]

Budda, budda, bingo, bullseye

A bud gave me a paper copy of A test of Rifle, caliber.22, AR15; Rifle, Lightweight Military, Caliber .224 and Pertinent Ammunition, Larry Moore, 3 Feb 1959 to examine. I can find the title of this document on the web, but not the text. I copied the data, to be found in the report , of the pressure and velocity of oiled and wet 224 rounds. You can find the velocity and pressure of the dry rounds in

TEST OF RIFLE, CALIBER .223, AR-15 Report No. DPS-96

Dates of Test: 21 September to 20 October 1960

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/245705.pdf

So, here we have pressure and velocity data showing that cases dipped in oil (and water!) do not cause pressures to increase.

 

[Mike Irwin]

The major flaw in your conclusion is assuming that oil and the grease being used at the national matches would act the exact same way. I also see no indication that bolt thrust was also measured to see if it had increased.

Another aspect that you are apparently ignoring is that there were no known rifle failures at the matches where only the ammo was used with no added greasing of the cartridges.

As I have stated so several times, warnings were issued against use of grease with that particular ammo because the combination, but not one exclusive of the other were the cause of the problem.

If the amp were the ONLY cause of the problem, then there would have to have been other failures in addition to the ones where grease were used - there were, as far as I can tell, none reported.

Again I believe you are jumping too conclusions without sufficient backing to do so.

 

[Slamfire]

The major flaw in your conclusion is assuming that oil and the grease being used at the national matches would act the exact same way.

Grease is oil in a thickner, oil is oil, what would make them act differently?

I also see no indication that bolt thrust was also measured to see if it had increased.

What loads are bolts designed to carry? How does oil or grease change the load on the bolt? Does that load exceed design limits?

Another aspect that you are apparently ignoring is that there were no known rifle failures at the matches where only the ammo was used with no added greasing of the cartridges.

Your only reference is Hatcher, and you are assuming that it is complete, objective, and honest. Something I do not believe. So, what were the rifle failures in the 1921 matches and where is that recorded? I have searched the only database we have, and there are no records of any overpressure rifle events during the 1921 matches. That is an interesting contradiction.

If the amp were the ONLY cause of the problem, then there would have to have been other failures in addition to the ones where grease were used - there were, as far as I can tell, none reported.

I assume you meant tin when you typed “amp”. There are recorded overpressure events with the 1921 tin can ammunition, after grease had been banned, you just have to look.

Again I believe you are jumping too conclusions without sufficient backing to do so.

1. I have shown that for decades other militaries used greased bullets without any ill effect.

2. I have shown that for decades after 1921, target shooters were using aftermarket devices to grease their bullets.

3. US competitors were greasing bullets for decades prior to 1921.

4. The vast majority of rifles on the firing line in 1921 were so defective that as a class, the US Army decided to scrap them.

5. Millions of moly lubed bullets have been fired down range without pressure problems.

6. I have shown that for decades there were fielded small arms systems that used oilers.

7. I have provided web sites were finite element analysis shows that lubricated rounds do not dangerously increase bolt thrust.

8. I have shown that it was standard practice in the US military to oil cannon rounds.

9. I have shown that lubricated small arms cases were evaluated in the 1950’s.

10. The Polsten cannon used greased rounds, so we know of at least one fielded system that used greased rounds.

11. I have shown that an Ordnance Corp Officer correctly identified, in print, the cause of high pressure in the tin can ammunition, prior to the publication of Hatcher’s Notebook. I have shown that Hatcher was the illustrator for the book.

12. I have shown data that wet rounds or oiled rounds do not increase combustion pressures.

I feel I am pretty firm grounds on this as I am not relying on the authority of one man, but rather my conclusions about lubricated cases and greased bullets came about as observations in the physical universe.

 

[Big Shrek]

Kinda funny, if you use excessive gun-oil in a .22, the heat + pressure + oil = GLUE in a chamber and cause extraction problems...

Evidently it works the other way around in military full-auto applications...go figure!