The Brits. & others who made the Lee enfield rifles coated some cases with lube so bolt thrust would be increased in order for the lugs to take set. They issued specific instructions that under no circumstances should oily or wet cases be used except in emergency situations. I have read about the 03's - mostly the early ones some were brittle & were ticking time bombs while others blamed the blow ups on failed cases. In either event I would conclude that a dry chamber, dry cases would be much more desirable. I have no way of measuring bolt thrust, but I assume a oiled case/chamber would increase bolt thrust to a point which would be detrimental to many hp rifles. HP rifles were never intended to be fired with wet/oily chambers as we all know. Some of the stronger actions will hold for a while, but I would think sooner or later the lugs/recess will give way with catastrophic results.
Proof testing is not well understood in the US. In fact, American's think of proof testing as a destructive test, when it is a 30% over test. This confused thinking also comes from Hatcher's Notebook. The Army had low number 03's blowing up in the field, and in the factory. Instead of figuring out why they were producing bad product, the Army simply increased the proof pressures at the end of the production, thereby blowing up even more rifles! Instead of fixing their production line, finding the production problems that created the bad rifles, they did the lazy man's way of punting a problem down the field. They knew that some defective product would pass the higher proof test, and that these defective rifles would blow up in the field. They did it anyway and Hatcher spun this as a success. Mechanical equipment does not have the healing capacities of organic beings. Defective product does not get better with time. Hatcher's Notebook created some very confused thinking in American minds, and you see many posters who after reading Hatcher's Notebook, have the impression that the purpose of proof is to blow up guns. It sure would not make sense to tool up a factory, hire all the people, simply to blow up good product before it is shipped to the customer.
I have a book on European proof marks and proofing standards and it was years before I read the thing. US manufacturer's do not have to proof their actions, they can ship firearms without ever firing the things. Europe has centuries of proof houses and so they have different standards. In every test on European proof testing, and for example NATO EPVAT testing,
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO_EPVAT_testing cartridges are oiled prior to proof testing.There is no technical justification for firing dry cartridges in dry chambers because the adhesion of cartridge to chamber results in an under loading of the locking mechanism. Proof test houses have their reputation on line, not the manufacturer's, and for them to have a valid proof test, which loads the mechanism to the full 130% of the proof cartridge, they have to lube the cases. American's generally don't understand this because Hatcherism is the pre dominate religion in the American shooting society. Like I said earlier, it is physically incoherent.
Proof testing is more than just firing an overpressure cartridge as a test of structural goodness. Proof testers also gage dimensions and verify function of the firearm. If the thing is not 100%, they won't it to pass proof tests. Americans just think of Proof as a kaboom test, but it is more complicated.
The most common reason reloaders over load the action, is by adding too much powder in the case.I have seen a lot of denial about this aspect of shooting. Many shooters are regularly shooting loads that run in the 70,000 to 80,000 psia range. You cannot convince shooters to cut their loads. All the time at the range, I see guys with function issues directly related to the amount of powder in their reloads. You cannot convince these guys that the pressure problems they encounter have everything to do with the amount of powder in the case. They always come up with excuses about primers, bullets, cases, never the powder amount. At the same time, while they are shooting over proof pressure rounds, they are shrieking about lubricated cases. In fact, if they do get lube on their cases, the action will lock up. Not because the lube caused pressure, but because the case is now free to press fully against the locking mechanism, revealing over pressure loads, whereas with the dry case and dry chamber, the over pressure symptoms were disguised.
Confirmation bias requires you to ignore this, to keep consistent with your inconsistent physical world. And you are doing a good job. If rifles were not designed to fire oiled cartridges than they were also not designed to fire neck sized cases. As I explained previously, neck sized cases don't carry load. I am embarrassed to say, I did not realize this until I read Jim Boatwright's papers at The Well guided bullet.
http://www.thewellguidedbullet.com/. But, Professor Boatwright is correct, a neck sized (interference fit case) does not carry load. Now where is the out rage about neck sizing?
Damn the manufacturers of neck sizing dies, they are peddling dangerous product!!!.
There ought to be demonstrations, pitch fork and firebrands, where is the Society to Ban Neck sizing!!!
Also, you will find ways to "hand wave" away the early semi automatic and fully automatic rifles that used greased cartridges. Mauser's very first semi automatic/full automatic rifle, the M1916 required greased cartridges. Swedish soldier's were instructed to grease the cartridges on their Lundgren rifles. And the Pedersen rifle, used wax. You will find a way to dismiss this also:
http://www.google.com/patents/US1780566
Patented Nov. 4, 1930 PATENT OFFICE JOHN DOUGLAS PEDERSEN, OF SPRINGFIELD, MASSACHUSETTS 11,0 Drawing.
This invention relates to a process for coating cartridges and more particularly the affixing of a coating of hard wax to the metal case of a cartridge; and the object of the invention is to provide a method whereby cartridges may be coated with great uniformity with an extremely thin film, and also whereby a relatively large number of cartridges may be coated in a short time and at small cost.
In the preparation of cartridges having metal cases for storage and for use, it has been found desirable to apply to said metal case a relatively thin coating of some protective substance which will preserve said metal case for comparatively long periods of time against-deterioration, such as season cracking. In the present invention, the material for said coating has been so chosen as to perform the additional function of acting as a lubricant for the case of the cartridge, both for facilitating introduction into the chamber of the gun and the extraction thereof after firing. The most suitable wax which I have found for this purpose and which I at present prefer is ceresin, a refined product of ozokerite; but I wish it to be understood that other waxes having similar qualities may exist which might serve equally well. Some of the desirable features of ceresin are that it is hard and non-tacky at ordinary temperatures having a melting point somewhere between 140 and 176 Fahrenheit. It is smooth and glassy when hard and does not gather dirt or dust. However, when the ceresin on the cartridges is melted in the chamber of a gun, it becomes a lubricant.
Other lubricating waxes have been employed for coating cartridges, and the method most generally pursued for applying said coating to the cartridge case has been to prepare a heated bath of a solution of the wax in a suitable solvent, dip the cartridges therein so that a film of the solution will adhere thereto, and finally withdraw the cartridges to permit the solvent to evaporate from the coating film. This former process is comparatively slow and has been found lacking in several important respects.
But I will ask, why is Pedersen going through the trouble of patenting a process you think is dangerous? What I have found with Hatcherites, is that they dismiss wax as a lubricant. Wax is not oil or grease, therefore, it is not a lubricant, or as "bad" a lubricant as oil and grease. Their mental gyrations confabulate incoherent physical universes.
A common mental error found in many is the idea that their rifle was intended to last forever. Your rifle was never designed to fire forever. It was designed to a load and a number of load cycles. Determining duty cycle can be very complex. However for something like a garage door torsion spring, it is easy to specify. The average garage door torsion spring lasts about 10,000 cycles and then it breaks. If you pick the torsion spring specified for your door weight, and lift the door around three times a day, the spring will last ten years, plus or minus. However, if you pick an undersized spring, wind it tight, it will lift the door, but its lifetime will be very short. If you pick a humongous spring, your door may hit the space station on its way out of the solar system.
So many people live in this world, never understanding that the human created physical structures you see were designed by someone. All those buildings you drive by, the vehicles you drive in, these were all designed by a human to a load and a duty cycle. At least the ones built by a professional who is liable if they collapse! I would say that 99.9999999% of people think all these things were "born", endowed by their creator, through miraculous supernatural processes, with all the structure needed to survive and endure. But it is not so.
In print gun writers are such idiots that they cannot conceive of asking the advertisers they serve, questions such as, "how many rounds was the firearm designed to shoot?". And I think, shooters really don't want to know. Shooters, like home owners, want to believe that both their firearms and their torsion springs will last forever. After all, we are going to last forever, right? And since we are immortal, we expect our guns, our ammunition, our material items to last forever with us. We don't want to read anything that does not confirm these beliefs.
