Thanks for the detailed explanation! That's quite a lot to digest.
I've always treated Reloading manuals as a sort of bible; a long list of Do's and Don'ts that I've committed to memory. My view has been is that it's better to read what to avoid, and do so, than to learn what to avoid the hard way (through accidents).
Which is good advice and best practice. Unfortunately certain myths and legends get into the public culture, we accept them, and don’t even question why.
I had no idea the association of carrots and rabbits was a spoof of Clark Gable eating carrots in front of Claudette Colbert:
http://www.cracked.com/article_19527_5-ridiculous-animal-myths-that-you-probably-believe.html
The standing of Hatcher and Whelen were so high that no contemporary would dare challenge what they were saying. Even today people treat them as infallible Gods. Hatcher is the master of misdirection. Carefully read the lubricated bullet section in Hatcher’s Notebook. By word play and arrangement of facts, he manages to turn around a situation that is clearly the fault of the Ordnance Department, into one where the blame lands squarely on the civilians.
He also did that with the workers who did the forging of the single heat treat receivers. The problems with the single heat treat receivers were all the fault of the forgers, Army management was totally blameless, victims actually. Poor Army management, cowering in their offices afraid of the militant workers in the forge shop.
Notice when you read Hatcher, nothing, and I mean nothing, is ever the fault of the Army. Bad civilians, bad forgers, Good Army.
We know that whatever tests that Hatcher menitions in his book could not be true, or the Swiss would have had pressure problems for decades. I believe Col Whelen’s subordinates gave him the results he needed to blame shift the incident onto the civilian shooters and their grease pots.
The independence of testers is critical. When they are not independent, the results are always biased in favor of who is providing them their paychecks.
I think it is clear that the 1921 Tin Can ammo coverup is part of the DNA of the shooting community. No one questions it, it is accepted as fact, and it has been built on.
Dick Culver has written historical fiction on the Tin Can ammunition. Entertaining story, all built on a lie. This stuff gets repeated, amplified, accepted as fact, lies become the fabric, foundation, of a culture, a society.
http://www.odcmp.org/1101/can.pdf
Gas operated systems and bolt action, I just don't understand why one would want to lubricate, given that the firearms are already designed to function properly, and reliably, without it.
There were a number of very successful weapons that used oilers. Oilers were used from 1900 up to 1945.
This Japanese Nambu, that is an oiler on top.
Take a look at this web page. The Schwarlose used oilers.
http://www.gotavapen.se/gota/artiklar/utv_ksp58/ksp14/schwarzlose.htm
The Schwarzlose Machine Gun M1907 was an extremely simple mechanism compared to other famous designs like Maxims. It was easy to make and proved reliable. The designer had managed to solve the problem with a delayed blowback system. The problem is that the breech starts moving backwards immediately as the cartridge is fired. The gas pressure is still very high and the walls of the cartridge case are expanded towards the chamber, which will cause very high friction. At the same time the extractor starts pulling out the empty cartridge case. The problem was solved by using very strong recoil springs and recoil parts together with a very short barrel. When the bullet left the barrel the pressure dropped while the kinetic energy of the recoil parts continued to pull out the empty cartridge case and reload the gun. The Schwarzlose machine gun has a device for oiling each cartridge to ease the reloading cycle. On each stroke oil was squirted into the firing chamber to lubricate the incoming cartridge case
1912 some changes were made to the feed system and this change was called M1907/12. It had a straight top receiver and a simplified oil pad system instead of the pump mechanism. .
It actually took decades to eliminate oilers from automatic weapons. The Germans got the idea of flutes from the Russians, and bingo, no oilers needed.
The use of oilers has disappeared from living memory. But they were there.
I am using case lubrication on my Garand cases and M1a cases to extend case life. I got the idea from a Distinguished HM who found by leaving the RCBS case lube on his cases, he could take a set of cases an entire shooting season.
I took on set of LC 308 cases 22 reloads without a single case head separation.
I don’t like the greasy feel of RCBS case lube. If you drop one of those cases on the ground it collects dirt. When I have time I apply Johnson’s Paste wax with my fingers and buff the cases with a rag. This is very time consuming. But the wax works well and does not attract dirt.
Shot this group, prone with a sling, in a 100 yard reduced match, with my Garand and waxed cases. The cases were on their fourth reload. Shoots fine.
When I have had a quick turn around, I left the RCBS case lube on, trimmed, primed, dumped the powder, and shot the stuff.
Shot RCBS lubricated cases in a Garand Match. Shoots well in a rack grade Garand at 200 yards.
Certain mechanisms, the Garand and M1a are particularly hard on brass. It is “rule of thumb” not to take M1a brass more than five reloads. It is because the mechanism unlocks when there is residual pressure in the barrel and cases get stretched something severe.
These are not 308 cases but the internals of these sectioned cases look like what a dry 308 case would look like after five reloads in a M1a.
Without a pressing need (no direct benefit) for me, I don't see any compelling reason to start lubricating cases just in case they're right about the force aspect.
I would not be lubing my cases if 308 and 30-06 cases were cheap and lasted forever. It all comes down to cost for me. I want to extend the lifetime of my cases. I want to save money.