Machine gun Oiler ?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Renton83

Member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
89
Location
Vancouver, Canada
I love watching forgotten weapons on YouTube and I notice that most older light and heavy machine guns used a Oiler that lubed the cartridges. I’ve been trying to figure out why that was needed and why it’s not used anymore. It doesn’t seem to have much written about it but the people here are always very knowledgeable I found.
 
From my limited knowledge on the subject it was for blowback and delayed-blowback actions to ease shell extraction. As the cycle is quite violent and fast with them, without oiling the cartridge you risk the extractor ripping the cartridge base, broken extractors, or case head separation in the chamber as the cycle starts while there is still high pressure in the barrel and thus the case is gripping the chamber walls. Similar in idea, but different in execution, are the HK fluted chambers on their roller delayed (delayed-blowback) actions.

On a modern, gas operated machine gun (or any other gas operated weapon) cartridge lubrication is not really needed because one can precisely time the cycle and not to worry about early bolt opening. Same is true actually for all locked breech firearms - locking the breech allows you for proper timing (if you know what you are doing that is...).
 
Last edited:
The Pedersen Rifle (a competitor to the Garand) was a delayed blowback on the Schwartzlose Principle (a knuckle joint action, like the Luger pistol.) It had oilers and was unable to handle a full power .30-06 round -- which is why the .276 Pedersen was designed. MacArthur thankfully put a stop to that nonsense.
 
Yup, it was a fix for the designs and engineering of the time.
Now it's accomplished through different engineering, better materials, and more precise timing.
 
Mr Maxim and Mr Browning designed recoil operated machine guns that needed no oiling.
Interesting that while the gas operated Hothkiss guns needed no lube, the Japanese knockoffs did.

Vern, I recall that the Pedersen took ammo with a dry wax applied at the factory, no oiler required on the gun.

MacArthur wasn't so darned smart. Weapons development was in a state of flux. The Japanese and the Italians confirmed him by increasing infantry rifle caliber from 6.5mm to .30, the Japs partly successful, the Italian program a flop. But then the Germans and Russians soon started the stampede to the less powerful assault rifle.
Sticking with .30 was largely economic. Lots of guns, ammo, and production capacity left from the Great War.
 
Vern, I recall that the Pedersen took ammo with a dry wax applied at the factory, no oiler required on the gun.
That is correct, Jim It was hard and dry to the touch. If you dropped a round in dirt or sand, it did not stick to the round. But it was still a coating, and not impervious to rough handling. Probably the third strike against it was the fact that its manufacture required one extra step
 
I'm surprised. I knew the WWII Japanese used oilers, but thought they were the only ones. I stand corrected.
BTW, if you are not in a combat environment the rules change. I've watched machine gun shooters at Knob Creek MG Range spray WD40 on belts before shooting. I guess that beats various jam failures.
I have belts of 50BMG AP which were Talon factory reloads and I can feel the lube (grease maybe) that was applied by the factory. The grease at leaset helps me de-link the ammo for my single shot rifle.
 
Mr Maxim and Mr Browning designed recoil operated machine guns that needed no oiling.
Interesting that while the gas operated Hothkiss guns needed no lube, the Japanese knockoffs did.

Vern, I recall that the Pedersen took ammo with a dry wax applied at the factory, no oiler required on the gun.
There was in fact such ammo -- but originally the Pedersen needed an oiler, and the rifle never reached the state where we can know how it would have faired without an oiler.
 
Chinn's series on the Machine Gun free to download at Hyper books: http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USN/ref/MG/ gives the historical account, and in Vol IV, the operating necessity for oilers.

IYKqBZA.jpg

General Hatcher, of all people, provides a pretty good explanation here:

Army Ordnance Magazine, March-April 1933

Automatic Firearms, Mechanical Principles used in the various types, by J. S. Hatcher. Chief Smalls Arms Division Washington DC.

Retarded Blow-back Mechanism………………………..

There is one queer thing, however, that is common to almost all blow-back and retarded blow-back guns, and that is that there is a tendency to rupture the cartridges unless they are lubricated. This is because the moment the explosion occurs the thin front end of the cartridge case swells up from the internal pressure and tightly grips the walls of the chamber. Cartridge cases are made with a strong solid brass head a thick wall near the rear end, but the wall tapers in thickness until the front end is quiet thin so that it will expand under pressure of the explosion and seal the chamber against the escape of gas to the rear. When the gun is fired the thin front section expands as intended and tightly grips the walls of the chamber, while the thick rear portion does not expand enough to produce serious friction. The same pressure that operates to expand the walls of the case laterally, also pushes back with the force of fifty thousand pounds to the square inch on the head of the cartridge, and the whole cartridge being made of elastic brass stretches to the rear and , in effect, give the breech block a sharp blow with starts it backward. The front end of the cartridge being tightly held by the friction against the walls of the chamber, and the rear end being free to move back in this manner under the internal pressure, either one of two things will happen. In the first case, the breech block and the head of the cartridge may continue to move back, tearing the cartridge in two and leaving the front end tightly stuck in the chamber; or, if the breech block is sufficiently retarded so that it does not allow a very violent backward motion, the result may simply be that the breech block moves back a short distance and the jerk of the extractor on the cartridge case stops it, and the gun will not operate.

However this difficultly can be overcome entirely by lubricating the cartridges in some way. In the Schwarzlose machine gun there is a little pump installed in the mechanism which squirts a single drop of oil into the chamber each time the breech block goes back. In the Thompson Auto-rifle there are oil-soaked pads in the magazine which contains the cartridges. In the Pedersen semiautomatic rifle the lubrication is taken care of by coating the cartridges with a light film of wax.

Blish Principle….There is no doubt that this mechanism can be made to operate as described, provided the cartridge are lubricated, …. That this type of mechanism actually opens while there is still considerable pressure in the cartridge case is evident from the fact that the gun does not operate satisfactorily unless the cartridges are lubricated.

Thompson Sub-Machine Gun: … Owing to the low pressure involved in the pistol cartridge, it is not necessary to lubricate the case.

“Blow-Forward” Mechanism: We have seen above (blowback mechanism) that some method must be provided to hold the breech block against the barrel when the gun is fired, because otherwise the pressure of the powder gas pushing back on the cartridge case would drive the breech block back away from the barrel and let the cartridge out while the explosion was going on. With the blow-back gun the breech block is allowed to move in this manner, but is made heavy enough so that the movement does not occur too quickly.

Instead of allowing the breech block to move back, it would be quite possible to attach the stock and the frame-work of the gun firmly to the breech block and then allow the barrel to move forward when the gun is fired instead of allowing the breech block to move back. Several automatic pistols, notably the Schwarzlose, have been constructed on this principle.

In 1917 an inventor appeared at Springfield Armory with a machine gun made to fire the Krag army cartridge, having the framework of the gun solidly fixed and the barrel loosely mounted so that it could move forward against the action of a spring when the gun was fired. This gun operated, but it was necessary to grease the cartridge case to prevent the front part of the case, expanded by the pressure, from sticking to the barrel as it moved forward.

One trouble with this system is that it greatly accentuates the recoil. The normal tendency of the explosion in the cartridge case is to push the bullet in one direction and the cartridge and breech block in the other. When there is no provision for locking the breech block to the barrel but instead it is attached to the framework and stock of the gun, and the barrel left loose, it is obvious that the explosion drives not only the breech block but the stock to which it is attached back against the shooter’s shoulder with a considerable amount of violence.

This inventor had besides his machine gun, a semiautomatic shoulder rifle built on this principle, though the mechanism was only crudely worked out. He demonstrated this gun by firing a number of shots with it and then allowed the Armory officials to fire it. I fired one or two shots with it and the kick was so terrific that I felt as though a mule had landed on of his hind feet on my shoulder. I seemed to be kicked back two or three feet from where I was standing and tears actually ran out of my eyes from the blow, which marvel as to how the inventor, who was a frail, pathetic looking man, managed to shoot it without any signs of discomfort. After showing his model he returned to a nearby factory to complete the mechanism but a few days later we were distressed to learn that he had taken his new gun and deliberately blown his head off with it. Probably the kick was too much for him after all.

Melvin Johnson was selling a short recoil mechanism, so he is not a supporter of retarded blowbacks as evidenced in this excerpt from his article:

Army Ordnance Oct 1936 What Price Automatic?, by Melvin M. Johnson, Jr.

Several methods have been devised to retard the unlocking of the block or bolt mechanically. The most appealing point in such a system is consolidation of the “automatic” parts in the breech. However, there is one serious difficulty. The conventional cartridge case does not lend itself to such a system unless adequate lubrication is provided, such as grease or wax or oil on the cases or in the chamber. Thus, the Schwarzlose machine gun has an automatic oil pump: the caliber 30 Thompson rifle (not the caliber 45 T.S.-M.G.) had oil pad in the magazine, and special “wax” was needed on the cases designed to be used in the Pedersen rifle.

Chinn shows a number of different oiler mechanisms, all used at one time on a fielded weapon:

NezaqkA.jpg
aGutQAV.jpg

The important question of why oilers is something buried in history and basically forgotten. I hope I am on the right track when I say that mechanisms that used oilers were cheaper to make, had less parts, and had a higher firing rate. I believe these to be true, but I don't have cost data on any historical machine gun, nor a part count. Firing rate data is around and what historical data I have found really does not support my argument that delayed or retarded blow back weapons had a higher cyclic rate. Except for the MG 42, which has a cyclic rate of 1200 rpm, most light or heavy machine guns, be they gas, short recoil, retarded, or delayed blowback are 400 to 600 rpm. However, a blow back weapon does not have a rotating bolt, so the time of rotation is eliminated, does not have a tilting bolt, so the time of unlock is eliminated. The Germans developed one of the finest short recoil machine guns, the MG 42, and to speed things up, they used roller bolts and a recoil intensifier to get the speed up.

Just found this presentation, and it is worth looking at:

https://www.slideshare.net/SpeedyPunjabi/cycle-of-operations-small-arms


The fastest pre WW2 machine cannon was the Oerlikon mechanism. The Oerlikon was a 20mm machine cannon, an advanced primer ignition delayed blowback, and was used on everything. It was the most popular machine cannon during WW2. It was used on planes, trains, ships, fixed installations, everything. The Germans, the British, the Japanese all used the Oerlikon or a a version of the Oerlikon.

w0cxiVk.jpg

JjqJ8oQ.jpg

9TkFcWD.jpg

The WW2 version did not have an oiler, ammunition had to be pre greased.
elX1w4E.jpg

The Oerlikon and similiar versions fired around 700 rpm, which is one heck of a lot, considering the that the gun is shooting 20mm shells. The desired rate was 1000 fps, based on calculations of shooting down planes, but, they never got there.

cDobHO5.jpg



We do know that post WW2, the major emphasis on the evolution of machine cannon, was to get the firing rate up. Planes were moving too quickly to get sufficient mass on target to destroy a jet.The Navy did run a development program to get the speed of the Oerlikon up. They tried teflon coated ammunition, chamber flutes, etc: Excerpts from a post WW2 report:


A LABORATORY INVESTIGATION OF CARTRIDGE LUBRICANTS FOR 20MM F.A.T.-16 STEEL CARTRIDGES


In the past decade tests at the Naval Proving Ground had always demonstrated that waxed ammunition was unsatisfactory. Also, it was known that the Army and Air Force had frequently encountered storage and service problems caused by the use of wax on 20MM brass ammunition. Therefore, naval procurement of Army manufactured M21A1 brass ammunition had excluded wax coatings for 20MM cartridge lubrication. Since early in the Korean War it has been naval practice to oil cartridges just prior to use '(reference -(a)).

Research at this Laboratory on dry film lubricants for cartridges, began in September 1950. In references (b) and (c), were listed the guides which were to be used in determining the value of a dry lubricant coating for ammunition.

The most important conclusion of that investigation was that a thin film of polytetrafluoroethylene (Teflon) was the most satisfactory dry lubricant coating for cartridges. This conclusion was confirmed in the NRL reports of references (d), (e), (f), (g), (h), (i), and (J).


In the past either ceresin wax or microcrystalline wax had been used by the Army as cartridge lubricants. Ammunition storage difficulties with ceresin wax films led the Frankford Arsenal to use a higher melting point microcrystalline wax as an outer coat over the "Case-Cote" varnish.

After the Frankford Arsenal learned of the NRL work with Teflon coatings for cartridges, an Army Ordnance project was established at the Proctor Electric Company to put Teflon coatings on the steel F.A.T.-16 cartridges manufactured there. However, certain difficulties arose in obtaining good corrosion resistance with Teflon, apparently due to the manufacturing methods used.

Since the use of light oil coatings over Teflon-coated guns has a beneficial effect on rate of fire, it was necessary to repeat the firing tests previously performed on all test ammunition. This resulted in a significant increase in the rates of fire. Thus, oiled brass cartridges averaged 789 rpm, oiled bare steel cartridges averaged 789 rpm, "Case-Cote" wax-lubricated cartridges averaged 820 rpm and Teflon-coated cartridges 810 rpm. However, it should be noted that these high rates of fire are not obtainable on a bare steel gun with oil. It was reported in reference (1) that oil on a Teflon coated gun with properly lubricated ammunition usually produces rates of fire 40-75 rpm higher than normal

The Navy did get rid of pre greasing ammunition for the Oerlikon, by adding an oiler on the thing. I have a shooting bud, an Army Vietnam Veteran, he and his river pirates stole an Oerlikon from the USAF, along with a pallet load of ammunition, and bolted the thing to the deck of their armored river barge. He said that their Oerlkon used an oiler. He said, they would come around the bend, take some small arms fire, and return fire with the Oerlikon. Trees, branches, etc would fall down in the impact area, and the jungle would become very quite for awhile. They loved the thing.

Eventually what replaced a single barrel Oerlikon were the various versions of the Gatling gun.

erCVjCS.jpg

UdnR7SN.jpg

With electrical power, the firing rate could go up to 6000 rpm.

What replaced oilers are chamber flutes.

PB9SaEH.jpg

I found a reference to the Italians using chamber flutes in the FIAT-Revelli Modello 1935" This machine gun eliminated the oiler used in the model of 1914 with a fluted chamber. The most commonly encountered weapons with chamber flutes are the HK91 series of rifles, and HK roller bolt weapons in general.

pktSrUt.jpg

dvT8W5U.jpg

4jWTQi7.jpg

Breaking the friction between case and chamber improves extraction and function reliability in all weapons. It is interesting to see chamber flutes being used to improve the reliablity of AR15 type weapons. This is XTRAN technology, a shallow chamber flute, used on an AR15 weapon:

plsI3qv.jpg

becun7t.jpg

AMdm7G1.jpg
 
Last edited:
I had a P7 that striped brass with flute soot.
Interesting that the 1970s Graygun that made the P7 into a racegun had a smooth chamber for 9mm Major.

A friend has a M41 .22 that is only reliable with a drop of oil on the top round of each magazine. Mine does fine with dry CCI.

Plastic cases of developmental telescoped cartridges are likely somewhat lubricious, relative to metal, at least.
 
Last edited:
Wow the people here really know they’re stuff. I wonder if the oiling is also needed because of the intense heat and expansion a machine gun chamber is subjected to. I also know that machine gun ammo is often loaded quite hot so it would have higher pressure. I know because sometimes surplus 8mm Mauser that was intended for machine gun use shows up and if used in a bolt action wears out the barrel quite quickly and causes other issues. So does the M2 50cal require lube then? Far as I know it doesn’t
 
In a normal situation, case heads separate in the M249 when the chamber pressure reaches 90,000 PSI. Normal M855 has a chamber pressure closer to 70,000 PSI when the propellant is heated to 160 degrees, the typical temperature of a M249 barrel after firing a few rounds, which eliminated temperature as the primary factor in these case failures. The next idea was that excessive lube was affecting the headspace and compressing the cartridge, but it was determined that if enough lube was involved to affect headspace then the bolt would fail to lock and the firing pin would not strike the primer.

The author of this is so incompetent he does not know he is incompetent.

This is based on an Army coverup of long standing. Blaming oil and grease for Army Ordnance incompetence is story that goes back 100 years, if not more, and it is a tale that twists and turns as the Army Ordnance Bureau bends it to the needs of the day.

Over 100 years ago the bullet jackets used in service rifle ammunition fouled something awful. Removing cupro nickel fouling is extremely difficult. I had cupro nickel fouling with Iraqi 303 Ball, and after three weeks of soaking with Sweets, I got the lumps to smooth out, but not disappear. Cupro nickel fouling is extremely hard to remove and it ruins accuracy. Period shooters found that dipping bullets in grease absolutely, positively stopped cupro nickel fouling. This is an ad from the era, selling axle grease in a tin, for shooters to dip their bullets.

aYarnP3.jpg

I have duplicated the same with modern greases and hair gels, just to see what happens.

WYu3fXJ.jpg

gVfDIiq.jpg


At the same time as all of this, the US Army is making 1,000,000 low number Springfields in factories that don’t have temperature gages. The only pyrometer at Springfield Armory is used for making springs. No where else in the factory is their evidence of temperature gages. This is particularly important in the forge shop where workers are paid piece rate. Being paid piece rate, the workers had a perverse financial incentive to heat billets extra hot, in order to stamp them out faster. When factory owners create financial incentives for the workers to produce junk, guess what what makes it to final inspection? Currently there is a TV program called “Forged in Fire”, and you regularly see skilled knifemakers over heat their billets as they attempt to forge a knife blade against time. I don’t know a n episode where you don’t see gaps in forge welds, delaminations, cracks, burnt steel. Based on late 1920’s tests, about 33% of the Army low number receivers are structurally deficient , due to poor steel, forge shop burning, and over heating during heat treatment. I have read a 1917 Watertown Arsenal report, rifles were going out the door whose receivers were never heat treated. Springfield Armory was a ship that leaked through every seam.

The Army never admitted any fault. Like all large organizations the Army never admits fault, is highly manipulative, grandiose, self centered, egotistical, no guilt, no shame, is amoral, considers its work force disposable, and you can only have a master/slave relationship with it.

So, whenever a low number Springfield 03 blew up with service rifle ammunition, the Army did not accept that there was something wrong with their rifles or the ammunition, it had to be something the user was doing. That something was greased bullets. The Army claimed that grease got in the chamber and caused increased bolt thrust. And then, the increased bolt thrust caused the receivers to fail. Many of these low number Springfields are so brittle that they will shatter if dropped on a concrete floor, they are dangerous with issue ammunition, the increased bolt thrust argument is a red herring. Ignored by believers, is the number of foreign countries who issued ammunition with greased bullets. I have found that Austrian steel jacketed bullets were greased, Italian steel jacket, Russian steel jacket, and if you have ever shot any, Swiss ammunition was issued with greased bullets up through 1978.

42rIE1G.jpg

nvm0dMv.jpg

The pre WW1 Army coverup of the problems of low number receivers is still believed today, and, it is the foundational basis for cover-ups later.

I should say, based on the history of all the weapons that used greased and oiled ammunition, that you would expect claims that oil or grease on ammunition causing high pressures would be viewed skeptically. But what you do find, is that “Hatcherites” are so ignorant of the design and history of firearms, that they are easily manipulated into thinking that F = MA and F ≠ MA. Well of course, F = MA all the way down to the sub atomic level.

Now as for the current cover up, expressed by Foghorn in his piece, the Army was conducting a first article test of a SAWS and its ammunition at 160 degrees °F and experienced over pressure conditions. They did experience overpressure conditions, blown case heads, etc. The Army Ordnance Corp blamed all the problems on oil. You can find a presentation on this, it is titled:

Lubrication’s Contribution to Cartridge Case Failure

www.dtic.mil/ndia/2011ballistics/11826.pdf

During a U.S. Army test, 5.56mm NATO case ruptures were experienced when firing the M249 in the hot, 160 deg °F (conditioned) environment.

M249 normally creates more case deformation than M16/M4
Hot, 160 degree (Higher Pressures, different mechanical fits than at ambient temperatures)
Low round count barrels
Weapon was recently cleaned and lubricated
Failures always occurred within the first 10 rounds of the ammunition belts
Case bulging frequently observed in rounds preceding ruptured rounds on the belt
Noticeably shorter cartridge shoulder neck length in ruptured cases
Failures of this type are not occurring when firing the same ammunition from the M16/M4


The main question, the primary question of this, is “why are they testing ground equipment in an operational configuration at 160 °F?” . One of the first issues I am going to put out there is that the tests the Army conducted on the SAWS and its ammunition exceed operational environmental requirements given in AR 70-38 and Mil Std 810. I would like to know why the Aberdeen testers were testing outside of Army requirements. You have to read the presentation carefully before this becomes obvious, but the Army heated both the weapon and its ammunition to 160 °F and fired the SAWS fully automatic at that temperature. This operational testing at this high temperature is fundamental to my contention that the high pressures that resulted from firing ammunition and weapons at 160 °F are the primary reason for their weapon malfunctions. I would be interested to hear from an Army Acquisition person for their reasons why the Army heated both the machine gun and ammunition to 160 °F and operationally tested the two at 160 °F?.

Chirp, chirp, chirp.

It used to be that ground equipment met an -40 F to 125 °F operational temperature environment. That operation temperature range for ground based equipment goes back decades, and it worked extremely well.

I examined Mil Std 810 G for the current high temperature test requirements. Table C-I. Summary of climatic conditions and daily cycles of temperature, solar radiation, and relative humidity shows the highest operational temperatures expected of a weapon system in a hot/dry climate to be 120 °F. These numbers change over the decades, someone bumps it up to 125 °F, another bumps them down to 120 °F. The highest storage temperatures are 160 °F, at which the weapon system is either stored, in transit, but not being used. I would consider shooting a machine gun to be an operational event, not a storage event.

Anyone who thinks humans can function in a 160 °F environment is woefully ignorant of the limits of human survival. There are very good reasons why ground equipment operational limits are 125 °F, not 160 °F. And, I challenge anyone, to run around in MOP IV battle gear, in 125 °F and see how far they can run with a full equipment load, before dying of heat stroke!.

VZnoWUk.png

A storage limit of 160 °F is reasonable, given that ISO shelters get very hot. Weapons and their ammunition have to survive transportation. But, the Army was testing its SAWS and its ammunition at maximum storage temperature conditions well above their own operational requirements. Ammunition has to meet a 125 °F operational requirement, and a 160° F storage requirement. But the gun, and the ammunition are not to be fired at 160°F, any weapon or ammunition heated to 160 °F has to be cooled down to 125 °F because the high temperature range is the safe storage requirement. Does anyone want ammunition self igniting at 160° F? Incidentally, my water heater has a warning label that 150 °F water will cause scalding. Who the heck is going to be handling 150 °F ammunition and a 150 °F weapon?

What is interesting is that the Army seems not know that heating cartridges raised pressures. They sure as heck did not know that heating the 5.56 cartridge to 160 °F dramatically raised pressures.

They also did not examine their specifications.

MIL-C-9963F MILITARY SPECIFICATION CARTRIDGE, 5.56MM, BALL, M193 15 October 1976

3.7 Chamber pressure.
3.7.1 Measurement by copper-crush cylinder.-The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall not exceed 52,000 pounds per square inch (PSI). The average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall not exceed 58,000 PSI.

3.7.2 Measurement by piezoelectric transducer.-The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall not exceed 55,000 PSI. The average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall not exceed 61,000 PSI.

3.8 port pressure.
3.8.1 Measurement by copper-crush cylinder. -The average port pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall be 15,000 PSI ± 2000 PSI,

3.8.2 Measurement by piezoelectric transducer. -The average port pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F, shall be 14,400 PSI ± 2000 PSI.

3.9 Temperature stability.-When the sample cartridges are subjected to the following storage conditions, the average velocity shall not decrease by more than 250 ft/sec and the average chamber pressure by either method used in 3.7 shall not increase by more than 5000 PSI. the average port pressure by either method used in 3.8 shall neither Also , increase nor decrease by more than 2000 PSI with respect to the average velocity, chamber pressure and port pressure of the sample cartridges of the same lot, conditioned at 70° ± 2°F for a minimum of twenty minutes. Any increases in velocity and decreases in chamber pressure of the sample cartridges under these temperature conditions are acceptable.

3.9 (Cont’d) Stored at 125° ± 2°F for not less than one hour and fired at that temperature. Stored at -65° ± 5°F for not less than one hour and fired at that temperature.


MILITARY SPECIFICATION
CARTRIDGE 5.56MM, BALL, M855 MIL-C-63989A October 1984


3.7 Chamber pressure. The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70±2°F shall not exceed 55,000 psi. Neither the chamber pressure of an individual sample test cartridge or the average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall exceed 61,000 psi.

3.8 Port pressure. The mean port pressure minus three standard deviations shall not be less than 13,000 psi for sample cartridges conditioned to 70° ±2°F.

3.10 Temperature stability. The action time, pressure and velocity of sample cartridges conditioned and fired at the temperature extreme specified below shall be in accordance with the following requirements.

a. Conditioned at 125° + 2°F for not less than one hour and fired at that temperature.

b. Conditioned at -65° + 2°F for not less than one hour and fired at that temperature.

3.10.2 Chamber pressure. The average chamber pressure shall not vary from the average chamber pressure of the sample test cartridges conditioned to 70± 2°F by more than 5,000 psi Any decrease in chamber pressure is acceptable.

3.10.3 Port pressure. The average port pressure shall not vary by more than 2,000 psi from the average port pressure of the sample cartridges of the same lot conditioned at 70 + 2°F, but not to be less than 12,000 psi

3.12 Function and casualty. The cartridges shall function without casualty at ambient temperature and under the temperature conditions specified below in both the M249 machine gun and M16A2 rifle and

a. Conditioned at 125° ±2°F for not less than one hour and fired at that temperature

b. Conditioned at -65° ±2°F for not less than one hours and fired at that temperature.


]MIL-C-70460A
CARTRIDGE, 5.56mm, BALL, (HEAVY BULLET) REFERENCE 1984


1984 version3.7 Chamber pressure. The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 ± 2 ºF shall not exceed 55,000 psi. Neither the chamber pressure of an individual sample test cartridge or the average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall exceed 61,000 psi. The standard deviation shall not exceed 1900 psi.

3.7 Chamber pressure. The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees F, shall not exceed 58,700 psi. Neither the chamber pressure of an individual sample test cartridge nor the average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall exceed 64,700 psi.

3.8 Port pressure. The mean port pressure minus three standard deviations shall not be less than 15,600 psi for sample cartridges conditioned at 70 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees F.

MIL-C-70460 CARTRIDGE, 5.56mm, BALL, (HEAVY BULLET)

1995 Changes: Delete in its entirety and substitute the following:

3.7 Chamber pressure
The average chamber pressure of the sample cartridges, conditioned at 70 degrees plus or minus 2 degrees F, shall not exceed 58,700 psi. Neither the chamber pressure of an individual sample test cartridge nor the average chamber pressure plus three standard deviations of chamber pressure shall exceed 64,700 psi.

In none of the specifications on the web, is ammunition or weapons tested in an operational condition at 160 °F, and yet the Army Ordnance Department is doing that. There is no reason given, but I believe that the real reason is Army Ordnance Bureau incompetence. The more you study these guys, the more it is revealed, they don't know what they are doing.

Anyone remember the Jlens blimp? This was a look down, radar equipped blimp stationed at Aberdeen Maryland. The complete Army report has not been released, but the thing got loose, dragging its mile long mooring line and knocking out power to 30,000 people in Pennsylvania. Reports are the thing climbed to 16,000 feet, and could have taken out a commercial airplane, before it came down low enough to the earth, to be shot up by Police with shotguns. The full report will never be released, but one item of interest was that the blimp did have an automatic deflation device, one that would have activated by altitude had it been working. But, some Government worker forgot to put in the batteries!.

151028-runaway-blimp-jsw-04-504p_23e14fad38e56591b88360a09d7be657.fit-560w.jpg

It looks small in the picture but it is larger than the Goodyear blimp.

For sure, they don’t know their own environmental requirements as given in AR 70-38 and Mil Std 810, they don’t know their ammunition requirements and are testing both the gun and the ammunition beyond spec. Foghorn claims there is some normal cartridge pressure at 160 °F, but there is not. The highest pressure requirement the ammunition has to meet is at 125 °F. Firing ammunition at 160 °F is firing ammunition beyond its temperature specification and the pressures can be anything. Foghorn does not understand this, but then, what about the Army Ordnance Department? We see, the Army Ordnance Department is not admitting fault, are they? If you examine the presentation, just how many of the pressure problems they encounter do they attributed to temperature, and how much to oil? I would say, about 0% to temperature and 100% to oil. I am going to claim, that if they had tested oiled ammunition at 125 °F and sprayed the weapon down with oil, at °F, both should have passed, because that is the spec, at least for the ammunition. It would have been a severe test, because it would have been at the operational limits of both the weapon and the ammunition, but they should have passed. I can’t find a SAWS spec, the presentation does not reference it, and I don’t think the Army has the spec or knows who has the spec. If they Army knew what the SAWS specification and requirements were, those numbers should have been in the presentation. The lack of either shows me, they lost the spec. They don't know what they have.

But, blaming oil got the monkey off their back, right? Everyone believes that oil or grease dangerously raises pressures, right? Everyone has believed this for over 100 years, all the way back to the low number M1903 Springfields. All you have to do, is blame oil and the public accepts it. This is a great “get out of jail” card. Hillary should have blamed her email problems on oil, the public would have accepted it. She might be President today. Just blame oil.
 
Last edited:
I had an article describing how the British went through the same thing with "shooting wet."
Since it rains a good deal in the British Isles, and it is not possible to keep your stuff dry at Bisley, shooters noticed and allowed for changes in zero with wet versus dry cartridges and chambers. Some smart chap concluded that it would be simpler just to use one list of sight settings and commenced dipping his .303 cartridges in a can of water on clear days. The rest soon picked up the habit. The alarmists worried about increased bolt thrust with water lubricating and restricting the chambers (QV British axial pressure gauges.) But a MoD study found that shooting wet was not responsible for broken receivers.
 
1) You are a twenty to thirty years behind in quoting ammunition specifications.
MIL-DTL-9963G, with amend 2, dtd Apr 2013
MIL-DTL-63989D, with amend 3, dtd May 2014
MIL-C-70460A, Notice 3, dtd Oct 2013

2) Why did you bother with quoting the Reference Cartridge specification? Those cartridges are only used for calibrating test equipment.

The very first paragraph:
1.1 Scope. This specification covers a Cartridge, 5.56MM, Ball, (Heavy Bullet) Reference to be used for calibrating, proof testing, and inspecting equipment for the performance tests of the Cartridge, 5.56mm, Ball, M855, and Cartridge, 5.56mm, Tracer, M856.
 
Last edited:
Your link doesn't lead anywhere:
This XML file does not appear to have any style information associated with it. The document tree is shown below.
<Error><Code>BlobNotFound</Code><Message>The specified blob does not exist.
RequestId:24644171-c01e-0088-3713-082149000000
Time:2018-06-19T21:22:47.5510798Z</Message></Error>
How about just posting the Accession Number, you know, the number that starts with "AD"?

...they don’t know their own environmental requirements as given in AR 70-38 and Mil Std 810...
Hmmmmm....Please point out the Chapter and paragrph of MIL-STD-810 that specifies the "maximum" and "minimum" environment for equipment?

MIL-STD-810 is a test standard for environmental engineering considerations and laboratory test, in short, is a guidebook on HOW to test, not WHAT to test.

You might have known this had you read the very first paragraph in the book:
This standard contains materiel acquisition program planning and engineering direction for considering the influences what environmental stresses have on materiel throughout all phases of its service life. It is important to note that this document does not impose design or test specifications. Rather, it describes the environmental tailoring process that results in realistic materiel designs and test methods based on materiel system performance requirements.
[my emphasis]

AR70-38 is also more of a "how to", rather that a "what to" manual, but is does lay down some suggestions on your TYPICAL environments, but....

. . . it is also apparent that you didn't read it to carefully, either:
1–2. Applicability.
a. This regulation applies to....
.
.
.
d. It defines the climatic conditions materiel may be exposed to and gives guidance in the selection of appropriate
test levels for some test procedures. It does not define test procedures, because there may be valid reasons for
performing tests under conditions that are not entirely realistic
.
[again, my emphasis]

I'll bet if you bother to read the background information in the report (we can't see) you'll find a particular set of circumstances that lead to the choice of test conditions....
 
2) Why did you bother with quoting the Reference Cartridge specification? Those cartridges are only used for calibrating test equipment.

I totally agree, I was copying and pasting and copied information, and did not notice that the calibration cartridge, Mil DTL-70460, is only used at 70 F, so good catch.

1) You are a twenty to thirty years behind in quoting ammunition specifications.
MIL-DTL-9963G, with amend 2, dtd Apr 2013
MIL-DTL-63989D, with amend 3, dtd May 2014
MIL-C-70460A, Notice 3, dtd Oct 2013

Well, I did go to quick assist, but you know, as an example, MIL-DTL-63989 is up to rev E, but, the Government has taken all the specs later than Rev D out of the public domain.

http://quicksearch.dla.mil/qsDocDetails.aspx?ident_number=31482

Even so, if you know your specifications, what counts is not the specification of today, but the specification that was in effect. This presentation was made in 2011, so these events had to have been around 2010, and of course, with ammunition made to the specifications at or before 2010.


How about just posting the Accession Number, you know, the number that starts with "AD"?

It was on the unclassified, public, side of DTIC and now it is gone. Just finished a search with Google and Bing, and of DTIC, can't find it. The link is busted, so the Army must have removed the document! I wonder if it was me, I am starting to feel bad about this, did I raise enough fuss and feathers, that the Army removed this document?

If you are Government, then perhaps you can look within your Global and find Mark Minisi, get his DSN number (remember when it was Autovon?) and give him a call. If he is gone, within his office, you should be able to find someone from Picatinny who remembers this. These are the title blocks he used on his presentations:

MARK MINISI US ARMY RDECOM- ARDEC SMALL CALIBER AMMUNI TION TECHNOLOGY BRANCH,

Presented to: NDIA, International Ballistics Symposium Presented by: Mark Minisi, RDAR-MEM-I, Picatinny Arsenal NJ Presented at: Miami, Fl. Date: SEP 2011

What was released to the public was a power point presentation, obviously more work had been done behind the scenes. But if you are Government, maybe the presentation, and the backup materials are on the Government only side of DTIC. Let us know.

Chapter and paragrph of MIL-STD-810 that specifies the "maximum" and "minimum" environment for equipment?

MIL-STD-810 is a test standard for environmental engineering considerations and laboratory test, in short, is a guidebook on HOW to test, not WHAT to test.

You might have known this had you read the very first paragraph in the book:

AR70-38 is also more of a "how to", rather that a "what to" manual, but is does lay down some suggestions on your TYPICAL environments, but....


A couple of things, tailoring and all those weasel words about policy documents being guides, those are something that came in with a vengeance after Gansler. You remember Acquisition Streamlining and Dr. Jacques Gansler? Dr Gansler the Under Secretary of Defense implemented some very big changes in how the Government buys stuff. It used to be, the Government was expected to be the experts and know what it wanted. Gansler specifically stated that the Contractors were the experts, and that is why those weasel words about “guides”, “suggestions”, got into everything. If you have not noticed, not a lot of Product Specs left anymore, it is all “Performance Specs”. Since the Government procurement personnel are officially recognized as dummies, at best, they can offer suggestions, that no one has to follow if they don’t want to. After all, while Government personnel are probably nice people and all, they really are not the experts, and we don’t want them giving directions about things they really don’t understand. Current policy is, that it is better if those knowledgeable Contractors determine what should be done, because they are so much smarter than their Government counterparts. The Government has gone from “Do” to “Howdy Doody Do”.

Now the SAWS was a 1970’s procurement, and I have not researched the Mil Std 810 revisions from that time, but I can tell you, back then, no one thought of fighting a war at 160 °F. In fact, we were mostly worried about a thousand big badda booms and a possible land war at -40 ° F. If you are old enough, you might remember just who we were concerned about, and my, haven’t things just come around full circle?

And if you are Government, how about being a dear and pretty, pretty please, tell us what is the title, number, and date of the SAWS A spec. This is such a pretty please, what are the temperature environmental requirements that the SAWS was required to met.? Specifically for this discussion, what are the operating and storage temperature requirements that the SAWS has to meet. And if cartridge pressure requirements are not within the spec, there might just be a statement that says “Has to use 855 ball ammo”, then the rev number for the ammunition spec that the SAWS was supposed to use. This information would really clear up some of the gaps I have about the study. And for everyone who is interested, this would be very helpful, all things considered.

And if you contact Mark Minisi, you can ask him why were they testing the SAWS and ball ammunition at 160 F. I want to know, maybe I am all wrong about this. However, I did not find a stated reason within the powerpoint presentation, but I did find a statement elsewhere that said the SAWS was tested at Aberdeen with its ammunition at 160 °F. But, no reason, just was. Never mind the policy statements, because if you find Mr. Minisi, you should be able to find the actual SAWS environmental requirements and clear up what performance requirements the SAWS was supposed to meet. Those policy statements, they are conjectures on what environmental requirements were most likely leveled on the SAWS, but, you might be able to find out what the SAWS was actually contracted to meet. That would be incredibly helpful.


And all those ammunition specs I posted, you should be able to down load the latest, Government and Contractor only reversions, and then, you can tell us, what the current section 3.0 requirements are for maximum and minimum storage and operating temperatures and pressures are. This would be so helpful, what about helping a bud?
 
Last edited:
Now the SAWS was a 1970’s procurement, and I have not researched the Mil Std 810 revisions from that time, but I can tell you, back then, no one thought of fighting a war at 160 °F. In fact, we were mostly worried about a thousand big badda booms and a possible land war at -40 ° F. If you are old enough, you might remember just who we were concerned about, and my, haven’t things just come around full circle?

Well, hate to tell you but your “telling” is dead wrong! Testing at 160° F during the late 1970s and early 1980s, was done is if was deemed necssary. In fact, the following passage talks about how and why to test at 160° temperatures: MIL-STD-810. Amusingly, it comes from the very book you said does not call for it:

HIGH TEMPERATURE.

PURPOSE. The high temperature test is conducted to determine the resistance of aerospace and ground equipment to elevated temperatures that may be encountered during service life either in storage without protective, packaging or under service conditions. In equipment, high temperature conditions may cause the permanent set of packings and gaskets. Binding of parts may also result in items of complex construction due to differential expansion of dissimilar metals. Rubber, plastic, and plywood may tend to discolor, crack, bulge, check or craze. Closure and sealing strips may partially melt and adhere to contacting parts. The minimum temperature of 62°C (125°F) is established as representing the maximum temperature of the ambient air. The temperature of 71°C (160°F) results from the addition of 19.4°C or 35°F due to solar radiation and the higher temperatures are those resulting from the operation or confinement within cases or enclosures of equipment which generate heat as a by-product.
So, you see that 125° F was the MINIMUM temperature for high temperature operation of equipment. 160° F was not then nor is it now considered an “abnormal” temperature to test at, even for operation.

For example, you have an M249 loaded with a box of M855/M856 sitting in the sun at providing overwatch support at check point on a nice sunny hot day in the desert.
Specialist Schmuckaleli, manning the MG point is (reasonably) comfortable under the shade of the camouflage netting, but the M249 and its ammo box are in the direct sun-light.

So, when Johnny Jihadist and his buddies try to charge the check point and Schmuckaleli employs the M249 to repel the attack, what temperature are the rounds being pulled into it? Are we hoping the ammo isn’t 160° F, or do we ensure that even if they are 160° F, Schmuckaleli’s M249 will not suffer a malfunction, just when its needed.

Another example in the M240C, as mounted in the M2/M3 BFV. In this vehicle, the coaxial machine gun is actually outside the fighting compartment, but still inside the protective armor box of the turret. (It is done that way to eliminate gun gas from accumulating in the fighting compartment.) Being remotely fired, it is very likely in extremely hot climates the MG compartment reach temperatures of 160° F or more. I believe the LAV-25 has a similar set up. There are many other examples, the commander’s M2 HB and the loader’s M240C on the M1, etc . . .

A couple of things, tailoring and all those weasel words about policy documents being guides, those are something that came in with a vengeance after Gansler. You remember Acquisition Streamlining and Dr. Jacques Gansler
Sorry, From MIL-STD-810, dtd 14 June 1962, the very first issue the first two paragraphs:

1.1 PURPOSE. This standard establishes uniform methods for environmental tests for determining the resistance of aerospace and ground equipment to the deleterious effects of natural and induced environments peculiar to military operations. The test methods contained herein are intended to specify suitable conditions obtainable in the laboratory which give test results similar to actual service conditions, to obtain reproducibility of the results of tests, and to serve as a guide for those engaged in preparing the environmental test portions of detail specifications. THIS STANDARD IS INTENDED FOR NEW ENGINEERING AND DESIGN. IT SHOULD NOT BE APPLIED IN RETROSPECT.
1.2 APPLICATION OF TEST METHODS. The test methods contained in this standard apply broadly to all items of aerospace and ground equipment, except air frames and primary power plants, and generally represent the extreme conditions which usually constitute the minimum acceptable conditions. WHEN IT IS KNOWN THAT THE EQUIPMENT WILL ENCOUNTER CONDITIONS MORE SEVERE OR LESS SEVERE THAN THE ENVIRONMENTAL LEVELS STATED HEREIN, THE TEST MAY BE MODIFIED BY THE DETAIL SPECIFICATION.
MIL-STD-810 has always given the tester some amount of leeway in designing tests, less so with the first edition. And, if you read the editions as they came out you would have seen a gradual easing away from cook-book testing to tailored testing. So the change was a gradual one.

It used to be, the Government was expected to be the experts and know what it wanted. Gansler specifically stated that the Contractors were the experts, and that is why those weasel words about “guides”, “suggestions”, got into everything. If you have not noticed, not a lot of Product Specs left anymore, it is all “Performance Specs”. Since the Government procurement personnel are officially recognized as dummies, at best, they can offer suggestions, that no one has to follow if they don’t want to. After all, while Government personnel are probably nice people and all, they really are not the experts, and we don’t want them giving directions about things they really don’t understand. Current policy is, that it is better if those knowledgeable Contractors determine what should be done, because they are so much smarter than their Government counterparts. The Government has gone from “Do” to “Howdy Doody Do”.
As to your comments above.

1) They are not all “performance specifications”, most all specifications cataloged are still “detail specification”. And, your comments show that you have little understanding the difference and why the two types exist.

If I need a cleaning agent for by computer screen, do I need to specify the chemicals in it? How it is to be mixed? No.

I just need to specify that it cleans, and does not damage my computer screen. That is a “performance specification”. It just defines what “dirt” is and tell you to provide something that removes it, as well as other “performance” aspects, like it must be non-poisonous, or not melt plastic.

“Detail specifications” never when away. Many specifications that were overly restrictive were converted to performance specifications. For example, the specification for the USMC dress blue jacket in 1972, not only told you what material to make the coat out of, it was literally a set of instructions on how to construct a coat.

An excerpt for MIL-C-19516G, Coat, Man’s, Polyester/Wool, Gabardine; Blue.
[step] 49. Join facing to left front.
Finished appearance. The facing shall be uniformly joined to the left front without twists, gathers, puckers, or pleats.

a. Position the left front to the front facing (face to face) with the waist line seam of the front in line with the notch on the facing and with the front piped edge approximately 3/8 inch from the front raw edge of facing. Mark along the top and bottom edge of facing.

b. Lap the front edge of the left front on the outside of the left front on the outside of the facing at the marks and join the front to the facing is close as possible to, but not on top of, the stitching joining the piping to the front. The stitching shall extend from the top to bottom edge of the coat front only. Trim excess facing material where necessary
.
.
.
f. Remove basting on left front, open up facing and front and stitch left front 3/16 inch from edge of scarlet piping.

g. Press the front edge smooth and flat with a heated pressing iron, or pressing machine, removing the fullness.
.
.
.
There are 160 pages of detailed instructions on how to make a man’s coat. You can actually learn how to be a tailor reading those specifications. Do you need to explain in that level of detail to a professional garment manufacturer to get a well-made coat? No, the specification just needs to detail what quality material you need in what quality garment you need out, and what areas to inspect to quality. The drawings (patterns in this case) will take care of the rest of it.

These overly descriptive, unnecessary specifications are the one that fell by the way side.

The second point you erroneously state is: “they can offer suggestions, that no one has to follow if they don’t want to”. Wrong!
As to procurement acceptance testing, the USG representative has the final approval of the test plan. Many times they do not actually write the test plan. There just aren’t enough Government engineers to do that level of work, but they do more than offer “guidelines” or make “suggestions”, they approve the plan, if they feel something has been omitted, or the criteria are too weak, they can direct the contractor change the plan (or insist on design changes if it does not meet the test goals).

Contrary to your assertion, when these changes to the standards like -810 came out, it was understood that USG reps had to be smarter than before, not dumber. Before in the old -810, if you wanted to be lazy, you could just accept the test procedures as laid out, cook-book style in the 810, and not think at all about your specific need and requirement. In some cases over-testing things that weren’t really necessary, and costing more money that necessary, or missing important factors that require higher standards. Now, you are lead to think about what it is that really needs testing.

Oh, and by the way, the 2008 edition of MIL-STD-810 still has all the test procedures the original version did back in 1962. It just also has a much larger first couple of chapters that tell you how to find the “real important” things to test to.

You are certainly very passionate about this, but your lack of research into the primary documents (the specifications, standards, and complete test reports) is made evident by your bias in your writing.
 
as a side note, I had 500 rounds of Wolf 223 in a rifle that would not fire them without horrible extraction. This was a (windham) Bushmaster barrel, NATO chamber, chrome lined. The ammo was too low in pressure to seal and shot soot through the chamber and glued the case in. It would jam up every six or so rounds. These chronoed at around 2600 FPS from a 16", and were very light recoiling. The cases were rough, green paint. I figured it was worth a try to oil them up, not as a lube, but as a barrier to the gas, and to help seal. In that particular combination, the rifle fired well enough without jamming that I bought another 500. Then at some point they started their "polymer coated" campaign, and the oil stopped working. I hear they load them hot enough to seal the chamber nowadays.
 
Well, I found the Power Point presentation here: {http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/1006032.pdf}, it starts on page 60 of the PDF.

Your greasing up a handful of cartridges and shooting them, and proclaiming “My gun didn’t blow up there is nothing unsafe about greasing cartridges!” is borderline irresponsible. And, as some sort of proof that ARL doesn't know about weapons and their design, laughable.

First, I assume you have some way to show us that all their numerical modeling is flawed, or that the empirical evidence presented is wrong or faked. Especially, that nice pair of graphs on page 72 from two separate tests showing an increase. Or even on a more basic level, why would they want to lie about it? To protect the reputation of a guy that's been dead 55 years, and not really well known outside of the shooting community?

But, let’s break it down:

If you reduce the friction between two objects trying to slide past each other, the retarding force goes down. That ought to be a “no-brainer”. So . . . .

1) When you fire a cartridge the chamber pressure will try and force the case out the back of the chamber, but the case stays in place due the action of the locking lugs and the frictional drag between the case wall and the chamber wall.

2) The pressure in the chamber will produce an extremely high force pressing the case wall outward to the inside of the chamber.

3) The retarding frictional drag will be the coefficient of sliding friction (μ) times the force expanding the case minus the elastic tendencies of the case.

4) The load on the locking lugs is the chamber pressure times the area of the inside back of the case, minus the retarding frictional drag.

5) Lubrication will reduce the coefficient of friction.

Therefore, in should be obvious to the most unlearned in physics that a reduction in the coefficient friction, i.e., lubricating either the chamber or the cartridge, will increase the load on the locking system.

Now, had you actually read the presentation, you would have read that lubrication was not the sole cause on the case rupture, remember the M16s did not have this problem when fired under the same conditions.

To summarize:

- High temperatures increased peak chamber pressures, to an estimated 72,000 psi.
- Lubrication reduced case-to chamber friction and increased bolt loading by approximately 30% to 50%.
- Cartridge head support for the M249 is not as rigid as the M16, leading to brass flow.

***

Now let us look at your “refutation” of the receiver failures noted in Hatcher’s Notebook”:

You assert that the only reason the M1903 noted failed was because of the poor heat treatment and the grease had nothing to do with it. And that they never admitted it.

The evidence shows a very different picture.

1) They did admit to it, the whole bit in Hatcher’s book details how he discovered it and how he reported it and the, to use a modern term, “risk assessment” of that quality lapse. (But, we have seen that actually reading what is written is not your strong point. You’d rather spout what you think and not what the evidence tells you).

2) How many receivers actually failed in service? There were 57 reported failures. Out of 1,085,507 receivers made before the heat treatment changed, that is a failure rate of five one-thousandths of a percent. Assuming they were off by a factor of 10, that is still low enough that removal from service, even in peacetime, is not warranted.

Now you stated:

. . . whenever a low number Springfield 03 blew up with service rifle ammunition, the Army did not accept that there was something wrong with their rifles or the ammunition, it had to be something the user was doing. That something was greased bullets. The Army claimed that grease got in the chamber and caused increased bolt thrust. And then, the increased bolt thrust caused the receivers to fail. Many of these low number Springfields are so brittle that they will shatter if dropped on a concrete floor, they are dangerous with issue ammunition, the increased bolt thrust argument is a red herring.

More fiction espoused.

1) They broke when dropped on the floor really? Please cite the source for that titbit. Yet only 57 where reported as failing.

2) More:
- Do you know what the headspace was in these greased rifles was? NO.
- Do you know if any of these were modified is some way or another? NO.
- Do you know how many rounds they fired with greased rounds? NO.
- Do you know the ambient temperature on the day they failed? NO.
- Do you know if the ammunition was placed in the direct sunlight or kept in the shade? NO.
- Do you know anything at all about the propellant used, sensitivity to heat, age, or typical chamber pressure for that lot? NO.

Yet you know better that Hatcher, who had access to almost all of that information. Is it not probable that Hatcher, the guy that exposed the problem and had access to all the evidence that you can only guess at, figured, just as he relates in his book, that a combination of lubrication (increased bolt load), headspace (causing a shock load on the receiver), and a burnt receiver (brittle), all contributed to the failure?

You have your opinion and are willing to bend facts, misinterpret data, call well documented research a sham, or a cover-up, and call people that have both access to more information and have a better understanding of the problem “incompetent”, even though the evidence they present is far more "competent” and reasoned than yours.

You have presented, not even an experiment but an anecdote about greased cartridge. You put grease and hair gel on some cases and shot them.

Did you:

- Measure the bolt thrust with and without grease?
- Establish the lubricity of the various greases and oils?
- Establish the baseline chamber pressure?
- Establish the actual yield load the rifle in question can stand before failure?
- Compare the design yield load to the actual load with, and without, grease?
- Measure the headspace before and after a few thousands rounds?
- Anything resembling a scientific test?

Your kind of “proof” is dangerous. You present it as fact, when it nothing more than your opinion, a tale, and a lot of misrepresentation.

***

BACK TO THE TOPIC:

Is lubrication of cartridge a dangerous thing?

Well, that depends. If the weapon is design to use lubricated ammunition then it is definitely not a problem, if it was not designed to use lubricated ammunition then – maybe.

-You see from the presentation, that the M249 can suffer case ruptures at extremely high temperatures with lubricated ammunition.

-A modern, well made bolt action rifle that uses belted cases, probably not at all, they are made with a more than ample safety factor.

-An AR-15, maybe. While the Army noted that they did not get case ruptures, the M16 has had cracked bolt lugs at round counts as low as 2400 and lug loss at as low as 6,000. This indicates that the bolt strength is marginal, adding additional loading on the lugs may be asking for trouble. I would advise against it.

-Something else? That depends, maybe, maybe not. But remember – a risk not taken is a problem avoided.
 
Last edited:
You know what I love, Slamfire ?
I love the fact that most EVERYbody says they want brightly-polished chambers, and mirror-polished/tumbled cases. uber super Dooper clean.
And nobody... but NOBODY... bothers to put 2 + 2 together to equal near ZERO friction coefficient as the result.

Yup, a little residual case lube is Terrible...just AWFUL... fatally DANGEROUS ...and will cause guns to blow up.


Right.




.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top