Greased Bullets

[slamfire]

Oh damn, I had so much more material to discuss on greased bullets and from the historical record, just when these guys knew something, and what they said. It becomes clear that millions of greased bullets were fired by American shooters prior to 1920, there are all sorts of articles on bullet lubes, results, etc, all favorable, and yet, in the back ground, there is this tension. Low number 03’s are bursting, bursting with US Government ammunition, and the Ordnance department is not acknowledging that they have a rifle problem. I am of the opinion that when low number 03’s burst, and since everyone was using grease, the Ordnance Department blamed grease. The Army is not telling anyone about their defective rifles, but they knew.

If greased bullets don’t raise pressures, than why is increased bolt thrust a problem? It is only a problem if the rifle is defectively designed or defectively built. To read in the planning minutes for the 1921 matches, that increased bolt thrust was the cause that tipped the debate the balance in favor of those who wanted to get rid of grease, that tells me, everyone there knew the Army had 1 million defective rifles in inventory. Incidentally, Hatcher was in that meeting, and Hatcher knew. If Hatcher knew, all the decision makers should have known. In the mean time, shooters are banging away with structurally defective rifles and people were permanently injured with the things.

If to be moral is to do no harm, than by this standard, these guys were immoral.

I wanted to know why I could shoot greased or lubricated cases and not have problems. I have been shooting lubricated cases in my Garands and M1a’s for a couple of decades now. This was suggested to me by a Distinguished HM gunsmith. My knee jerk reaction was to call him nuts, everyone knew that leaving case lube on cases was dangerous. But, this guy was, and he was taking cases an entire season without any case head separations.

The financial advantages of being able to shoot 30-06 or 308 brass twenty times in a gas gun, when conventional practice with dry cases, is five reloads, should be obvious. If no one has noticed, cartridge brass gets much more expensive over time.

So, here was this issue, highest authority and conventional wisdom of the masses said this was dangerous, that pressures should have been raised to astronomical levels, and yet, I was not seeing it. Granted, I was not greasing bullets, but I was greasing/lubricating cases. It was just until recently that I decided to test the assertion that greased bullets pinch bullets. I have not found any indications of that in my testing.

The more I shoot, the more I realize that I want as little case friction between my cases and chamber. First and foremost, I want my cases to last forever. I think my 300 H&H Magnum cases are over a $1.00 apiece, maybe $2.00 apiece, I don’t want case head separations in a few reloads. Lubricating the cases, (I have used tins of Johnson Paste wax, applied with the fingers and buffed with a rag) has given me incredible case life in gas guns and now, bolt rifles. When I am lazy or pressed for time I have applied oils, greases, or just left the lube on, but that stuff attracts dirt. Secondly, I want to know just when I hit a maximum load: I don’t want case to chamber friction disguising a maximum load. I want the bolt fully loaded and I want sticky bolt lift when I hit a max load. People develop loads with dry cases in dry chambers and they are very surprised when the slightest bit of oil, water gets on their cases and they have over pressure indications. Breaking the friction between case and chamber just shows that their loads were over pressure from the get go. I don’t trust primer indications, but at least when I lube the cases I see the transition from rounded to flat primers, something that is usually disguised by dry cases in dry chambers. I found early on that if I lubed my 308 cases in my M1a, I got rounded primers, but the same load in dry cases gave flat primers. Based on the precepts of Hatcher, that should not happen. Now I develop my loads with lubed cases and I look for that primer transition and I look for hard bolt lift, and I am very sure when I see these signs I am at a max load.

I am also of the opinion that eliminating case binding increases accuracy. Your rifle, your action was designed to withstand the full case head thrust, having an inconsistent case head thrust, due to variable case to chamber friction, is just going to load the action inconsistently. That is just another variable that you can eliminate, or reduce its effect. Match 22LR ammunition is greased so heavily that it feels like the rounds were rolled in bacon fat. I don’t believe this an accident: I believe the heavy grease layer was found to be necessary for the best accuracy, and it helps extraction function.

But beside the practical advantages, is an outrage that an Army coverup has totally shaped the thinking and behavior of the American shooting community for almost a century. Based on what these authority figures knew, and when they knew it, it is inconceivable that they did not know what they were teaching us was false. Any discussion on this results in a repeating loop of Hatcherisms, as if the shooting community has turned into a bunch of parrots. "Nullius in verba" , that sure does not describe shooters.

[joem]

"everyone knew that leaving case lube on cases was dangerous."

I don't know if it's dangerous or not but case lube sure does hold dirt and crud and make the cases quit stickey and I don't like that. So I tunble clean all my cases before loading.

[John Beard]

I take no position on greased bullets or tin can ammunition at this time. But I do know that your somehow equating muzzle velocity with peak chamber pressure is not valid. A modest bore restriction, for example, can substantially raise chamber pressure, but will not necessarily result in higher muzzle velocity. Muzzle velocity is governed primarily by the amount (and type) of propellant, not peak chamber pressure. Bullseye powder, for example, can create very high chamber pressure, but actually produce lower muzzle velocity.

J.B.

[slamfire]

John: I am not using Bullseye, nor am I shooting extremely fast burning powder whose ability to expand, and push the bullet, has been exhausted. Nor am I firing this cartridge in a short barreled firearm, where the expansion of the gunpowder has been exhausted.

For most of your statements, I would like to see some test data.

Like this one, do you have any data?

A modest bore restriction, for example, can substantially raise chamber pressure, but will not necessarily result in higher muzzle velocity.

Muzzle velocity is governed primarily by the amount (and type) of propellant, not peak chamber pressure

John: Muzzle velocity is a very complicated subject, but given the same burn rate propellant, the more you add, the more velocity you get, and the more pressure you get. If you want to compare extremes, such as pistol powder in a cannon barrel, the pressure rise would be fast, but the volume of gas produced would be such that the cannon ball might roll out of the tube.

I have always associated high pressures with higher velocities, all things being equal. The slope of the curve for pressures is an exponential function, so pressures could double or triple, but I don’t know just how much velocities would increase.

Bullseye powder, for example, can create very high chamber pressure, but actually produce lower muzzle velocity.

That is an interesting statement John, and one I am certain you mean in comparison with other powders. What I have seen with Bullseye, is that you increase the charge, which increases the pressure, the velocities increase. That is, in a pistol, never tried it in a rifle. I also have never chronographed deliberate blowup loads. I would be very interested in seeing velocities of bullets in a deliberate blow up test. This could be done simply, I am not going to try, but it would be easy to chronograph a blowup load of Bullseye and see if it produces more or less velocity than a standard load with Bullseye. I predict the test would have a higher velocity, but how much, I don’t know.

But here is Townsend Whelens statements on greased chambers, chamber volumes, and pressures. This is in his 1945 book “Small Arms Design”

Cartridges should never be greased or oiled, and the bullets should never be greased. Grease on the cartridge or in the chamber creates excessive and hazardous pressure. It operates to reduce the size of the chamber and thus increases the density of loading and the pressure. Also there is no adhesion of the case in the chamber, and when fired the case slips back easily and the bolt head receivers a greater rearward thrust. This does not apply to rim fire cartridges.

Most folks would accept that at face value, but I don’t accept that there is a different set of laws in the universe for rimfire cartridges than for centerfire.

But here it is, grease in the chamber reduces chamber volume, and that increases pressures. He does not say how much pressure, but the assumption is that it is a lot of pressure or it would not be excessive and hazardous. I would have to look, but doesn't Hatcher say the same thing? And even if, (ridiculous case) the pressures were increased by a factor of 16, and there were absolutely no velocity changes, I should have seen indications of pressure in bolt lift, case head expansion, primer indication (blown or leaking). These are all crude, but real, evidences of pressure. Now maybe I am wrong on this, maybe it is possible to have hard bolt lift, when before there was none, case head expansion, when before there was none, blown or leaking primers, when before there were none, without excessive pressures, and I would like to know, how that is possible?

Maybe these are in fact, indications of low pressure?

[Marine A5 Sniper Rifle]

Interesting discussion. I may point out that there are numerous errors in Hatcher's work. Don't believe me? Compare his tables of cause of failure to the actual lab results he references. A very competent and arguably one of the best gunsmiths that ever lived, Parker Otto Ackley, did his own blowup tests of various receivers. The results were very surprising, to say the least. The old SHT receivers did way better than expected. As to bolt thrust, his repeated firing of a lever action rifle as he cut away various bolt retainment portions of the rifle to the point there were none, and the rifle fired without the bolt opening, is one of the best demonstrations of why case/wall grip are important that I have ever seen.

All other conditions being the same, as pressure increases, velocity does increase to the physical limits of the system/bullet (not linear). Imposing additional frictional resistance on one system and not another is comparing apples to oranges.

Now if you really want to get into physics to the wall, explain why reduced loads occasionally blow up rifles. Now that is a provocative subject if ever there was one.

Slamfire, I noticed the errors in Hatcher's work years ago. I got the same reaction as did you, when I pointed out same. Good work, and thanks for posting it. I do suspect your bolt thrust increased significantly.

There is a product on the market called Gun Juice, and it WILL increase velocity and increase barrel life significantly. Beware, when used, your bullet impact point will rise way more than you would expect. I had to replace the front sight on a Marlin 38-55 after Gun Juicing the barrel to get back in the black at 100 yds due to a near 300 fps increase in MV. Accuracy did not change.

jt

[JOHN COOK]

First of all I am not a chemist or an expert on ammo. How ever I was told by the gunsmith that built me a 25:06 ( when it was a wildcat) to use 48 grains of 4831. I did as he suggested and was a little nervous that the cartridge was almost completely full. STOPPED !!! called him and ask was I doing something wrong ? He told me to dump the powder out and weigh it again, I did as was told and it came out 48 grains. He told that it was correct. I asked if I could reduce the amount of powder where it wouldn't kick me to hard. THAT WAS 49 YEARS AGO. He ripped me a new one and explained to me why I shouldn't.

I was told that by reducing the charge that when the round was loaded and horizontal it left a void over the powder from the primer up to where the bullet was seated. When fired you have a lot of gas created because more powder was exposed thus creating more pressure. Told me that when a correct round is fired most of the powder is spent before bullet enters rifling. Expansion that occurs in a reduced round is gas and a lot of it and could do some damage He called it SEE secondary explosion effect. I was told alwys to SEE if I had the correct charge before seating a bullet.

My two cents, never reduced a recommended load ..

I ain't going to argue this point, just something I remembered and will not get into PI88 contest about it.

john

[John Beard]

Perhaps we agree to disagree.

J.B.

[Dollar Bill]

With all due respect to the OP and his "tests", it is well known and proven that oiled or greased cartridges significanty increase bolt head thrust. That is why the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms up to the current NATO standard from the AC/225 Army Armaments Group require proof testing of all weapons with one proof round dry and one proof round oiled: the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges..

That's a fact proven by actual measurements of case head thrust.

[slamfire]

With all due respect to the OP and his "tests", it is well known and proven that oiled or greased cartridges significanty increase bolt head thrust. That is why the 1929 British Textbook of Small Arms up to the current NATO standard from the AC/225 Army Armaments Group require proof testing of all weapons with one proof round dry and one proof round oiled: the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges..

That's a fact proven by actual measurements of case head thrust

Excellent point, and one I do not disagree with, though the data I have seen on bolt thrust of oiled 223 cases indicate more bolt thrust with oiled cases than dry cases, but oiled cases do not reach the 100% value based on a calculation of maximum bore pressure times case OD. There are always inefficiencies in any process, has something to do with entropy. Before someone jumps in on this, oiled case thrust is more than the ID times maximum bore pressure, so the correct way to calculate loads, is by OD time bore pressure.

So, what loads are firearm locking mechanisms designed to support? Let’s say maximum oiled/greased bolt thrust is 100 pies in the sky, (PITS) based on max bore pressure times case head diameter *. Here though, a pressure limit has to be set. If the pressure limit is 50,000 psia, and the actual pressures of ammunition turn out to be 60,000 psia, 70,000 psia, 80,000 psia, bolt thrust would obviously be above spec. For this ridiculous case, let’s say the over pressure loads are 110, 120 and 130, PITS, obviously more than design load of 100 PITS. So, there has to be agreement between firearm designers and ammunition makers for pressure standards. In the US this organization is called SAAMI. But, in this pretend world, what load would you use, as the lead designer for the latest boom stick? Do you design your locking mechanism to support 100, or 90, or 50 PITS?

Does it make sense to design a locking mechanism that will fail, at loads less than the maximum rated load?

So, what loads are the locking mechanisms designed to hold?

I contend that as long as the locking mechanism is designed to support the maximum load of a case, ignoring any case friction, then greased/oiled cases that are within pressure specs, do not create a load above design limits. And that any designer who designs a locking mechanism to fail, at loads below the maximum load, is a negligent designer. And any manufacturer that builds weapons, which fail at loads below the maximum case, is a negligent manufacturer.

What is your opinion on this?

the oil can increase case head thrust up to 100% and military weapons must be able to withstand the increased thrust due to wet or oily cartridges

In which case, we now come to the link between the Army warnings about “increased bolt thrust” and low number 03’s. 1) Did the Army design the 03 Springfield to fail at a load less than the maximum theoretical load of a 30-06 cartridge? 2) Or, did the Army build rifles that would break at loads less than the maximum theoretical load of a 30-06 cartridge? 3) Or was it combination of both? 4) Is it possible that the Army actually knew of the 1,000,000 rifles in inventory, all Army made, some in use, and that the Army knew that a percentage of these were structurally deficient? 5) Is it possible that the Army knew that any bolt thrust, not just "increased bolt thrust", would cause some of these rifles to fail? And yet, you know, they issued these rifles to troops, National Match competitors, and sold these rifles to civilians. 6) When the occasional structurally deficient rifle breaks and injures someone, is that Army negligence? 7) And, just what is the Army telling the world when one of these rifles break? 8) Does the Army accept responsibility and assign blame for low number 03 Springfield failures on itself? 9) Is the Army being honest about the reasons for rifle failures? 10) And when does the Army fess up and tell the world about the extent of their defective inventory?

* Assuming not a rebated case head or rimmed case head. In that instance, load would calculated from the maximum diameter of the case.

[slamfire]

My answers to these questions:

1) No
2) Yes
3) No
4) Yes
5) Yes
6) Yes
7) User induced failure.
8) Never found an official response, therefore: No
9) No
10) Never found an official response, therefore: Never.