303 Brit brass, preferences?

[Dutchman]

FYI - re: oiling full power ammunition

The Swedish m/41 sniper cartridge, "Skarp patron m/94 m/41 prickskytte", proved itself so superior to the old patron m/94 that the Swedish military introduced the new m/41 cartridge for general use in all 6.5x55 small arms.

The problem arose with the patron m/41 in that the burn rate of the powder was not completely compatible with the direct gas impingement of the Ljungman, which lacked any gas regulator of any sort. The patron m/41 powder burn rate was too slow. What that meant was the pressure at the point of the gas port was still too high and could cause problems with extraction, which we've seen in both Ljungmans and Hakims, in the form of the extractor ripping open the case rim while the case was still in the chamber... the result was usually destruction of the stock and magazine.

The Swedish military, in their great wisdom, simply ordered the soldiers to oil their ammunition to facilitate extraction.

Dutch

[3006guns]

Well, hey while we're at it..............how about all those zinger recoil operated machine guns that required oiling the ammo, such as the early Nambu, Schwartloz (sp) to prevent ripping the extracted case in two?

I'll still shoot mine dry...............

[Multigunner]

When pressures are as high as between case wall and chamber wall few lubricants can maintain any significant lubricant effect, Very special formulations are required for effective lubrication under such pressures. Bullet lubes are suited to high pressures.
Lathered on grease or cases dripping with oil would of course maintain a temporary fluid barrier between case and chamber. Water which has little measurable lubricating effect will produce much the same increase in bolt thrust as would oil under the same circumstances.

The British regulations of musketry describe "oiling in the service manner" as simply wiping the ammunition clean with a flannel cloth with oil on it, the ammunition set aside to dry, resulting in a micro thin dry to the touch barrier against corrosion and a surface not conducive to accumulation of mud, dirt, or sand, and which water would not cling to. The chargers were also oiled in the same manner to avoid rust freezing the rounds in place.

Bores and chambers were kept well oiled until immediately before a battle, and then the only oil removal was simply pulling a dry flannel patch through from breech to muzzle, no solvents involved.
So in service the SMLE was no more oil free than the average sporting rifle.
Since primers were staked there was no cushioning effect of the primer as there would be for sporting ammo or reloads.
A thin film of protective oil, allowed to dry in place would not cause any significant increase in bolt thrust. Protective oils generally dry to a laquer like finish, very thin of course, with no noticable change in the surface quality of the item applied to.
If slathered on in a layer too thick to dry completely thats another matter.

If bores were left dry of all oil for any length of time in humid weather they rust beyond redemption in a short time, especially since boiling water was part of the cleaning process.
Instructions in manuals of the time say that if you can not oil the bore after cleaning you'd do better not to clean it at all.

Cleaning the chamber of residual oil with mineral spirits was suggested for the target range, to avoid excessive shift in elevation on the first few shots, not due to any expectation of excessive bolt thrust due to a thin dried protective film.
Simply running a dry patch through the bore was considered enough to remove any excessive remnants of the standard bore preservative "Russian Petroleum" and rifles left in racks for long periods might have mineral jelly in the bore which should be cleared by running a few patches through before issued. Red Mineral Jelly for areas under handguards and white (possibly yellow) for the bore and action IIRC.

If you feel that a solvent is necessary to remove traces of bullet lube, by all means use it.

I usually polish my cases by hand after resizing using a very fine abrasive such as white emery in an alcohol carriers, then clean all residue away with an alcohol soaked cloth followed by a wipe with WD40 or liquid wrench penetrating oil, which is then wiped with a dry cloth. Ammo looks as fresh ten years later as the day it was reloaded, and never oily to the touch even minutes later much less days later.

My No.1 has an extremely smooth chamber, not mirror polished but simply slick as a ribbon, no oil or lube needed to reduce stress on the case, no annular rings to promote separation.

[Multigunner]

If anyones interested heres what Regulations for musketry 1915 says about oiling the bore.

4. Oil. — No oil other than Russian petroleum should be
allowed to remain in the bore. The function of this oil is
to cover the bore with a waterproof film, and thus prevent
moisture attacking the steel and forming rust. It must be
well worked into the flannelette with the fingers, otherwise
it will be scraped off by the breech end of the barrel.
When paraffin has been used, all traces of it should be
removed thoroughly, and the bore coated with Russian
petroleum, for paraffin, though an efficient agent for
removing rust, does not prevent its formation.

3. Daily Cleaning. — The outside of the rifle will be cleaned
daily, and ail parts of the action wiped with an oiiy rag.
The bore of the rifle will always be left oily, but once a
week this oil will be removed and the bore relubricated.
In the case of rifles that have once become rusty, the bore
vidli be wiped out with flannelette and reoiled daily, and it
will, in addition, be cleaned once a week with the gauze on
the pull-through. The gauze is to be packed as already
stated, so as to fit the bore tightly.

4. Cleaning before Firing. — (i) The action will be wiped
with an oily rag, and all traces of oil will be removed from
the bore and chamber by the use of a pull-through which
has no gauze on it.

(note no mention of any form of solvent, just wiped clean, not chemically clean}

(ii) Caution. — Neither the cartridge nor the chamber of
the rifle are on any account to be oiled before loading, nor
is any other form of lubricant to be used with a view to
facilitate the extraction of the empty case. Such a pro-
cedure greatly increases the thrust on the bolt-head due to
the explosion of the charge, and is liable to injure the rifle.

The action body and bolt on the otherhand.

(iv) Caution. — The instructions regarding the use of an
oily rag for cleaning the bolts and bodies will not apply in
dusty countries, where all parts of the action will he kept dry
and clean.

So in arid regions the bolt is left unlubricated to avoid accumulation of dust or sand.

16. Effect of Oily Barrel. — The first round fired from an
oily barrel is liable to follow an erratic course, the rifle
throwing sometimes high, sometimes low, and at other
times to the right or left. A dry rag should therefore be
passed through the bore before practice is commenced.

Just run a dry patch through it.

In the Preface
"NOTES ON EXPERIENCE GAINED AT THE
FRONT "

By General Sir O'MooRii Creagh, V.C.

(iii) A large number of cases have occurred of rifles be-
coming unserviceable from the following causes :

{a) Mud in the lock, owing to the rifle being rested on a
wet parapet, or dropped on wet ground. The remedy for
this is to cover the bolt with a cloth wrapper or an old sock
whenever the rifle is not in use, and to place canvas on the
parapet. The protecting material can be pulled back when
it is required to use the rifle.

{b) Muddy ammunition, resulting in mud in the chamber.



PREFACE xiii

The remedy for this is to prohibit ammunition being put on
the ground, and to provide boxes or tins in which to place
the ammunition. It is a good plan to rub over the ammuni-
tion with an oily rag.

(c) Mud in the muzzle, owing to rifles being pushed into
the sides of trenches. The only remedy is to see that rifles
are clear before firing.

{d) Sticking of cartridges, owing to dirt in the chamber or
magazine. If the chamber be not kept free from dirt, the
cartridge case may jam and extraction become difficult.
Similarly the magazine must be kept clean and oiled, other-
wise the platform will not work freely.

(e) Rust in the lock, and insufficient oiling

Free Downloads here
http://www.archive.org/details/musketry30322car00sola

[303Guy]

I'm listening! Lots of interesting info. I still have many questions though. Like why, if the bolt face thrust is raised by 50%, are there never any shiny spots on the case head? If the pressure is being raised dangerously, why is there no primer flatening or cratering. Why is there no case head expansion? And why is there no case elongation and stiff bolt lift? And in an old Lee Enfield, why is there no bolt set-back? And surely erratic bolt face thrust would affect accuracy? Mine always shot accurately.

Many Lee Enfields have developed excess headspace and those were supposedly shot with dry, standard MkVII ammo.

I accept that oil between the case and chamber can and probably does do scary things - like detonating. But a thin film of lube that is still there after firing? (A thick film dissappears - mostly!) Pressure testing has shown that the presence of oil on a case increases chamber pressure by a small amount. It does not change the pressure curve. Changing brands of cases will have a greater effect due to case volume differences. Just so many unanswered questions! More info would be appreciated.

By the way, PMP cases have an internal volume far smaller than PPU. They weigh 206.5gr and 184gr respectively.

A question was asked on the quality of Norma brass. I still have some from 25/30 years ago. Nothing wrong with Norma brass.

[sheepdog]

Presently, Lapua makes the best rifle brass. 303 might be odd for them, however. ... felix

Not always so. In fact the 54r, very similar size to the 303, was reviewed on 54r's site with this eval:

"About 25% of the cases burned through the side wall upon firing and the accuracy was not what it should be as seen on the targets at the bottom of the page. Several bullets were pulled and corrosion was found on the bullet bases as well as the inside walls of the cases which have a green tint to them."

As always buyer beware but yes as a general rule Lapua makes very good brass. But I'd put Norma above them.

[sundog]

Biged, if that is a depiction of a .303 chamber, you'd better get the right bolt head and tighten things up a little. Too, in a typical .303 chamber the neck portion of the chamber will not be tight enough to support the case coaxially to the bore - it will lay down - unless you use a larger boolit to fill it up. It also shows what appears to be a full powder charge.

I am not aware of any 'case lubing myths' on the internet of which you speak.

Dry firing a case to demonstrate firing pin pressure is not the same thing as fire forming a case with a charge, with or without filler or bullet.

[sheepdog]

Anyone who doesn't think lube in your chamber is a dangerous thing let me introduce you to my friend Mr Hydraulic Pressure.

See my friend Mr Pressure will not give. If you push, even with thousands of pounds of pressure really fast he push pushes along with you. Hes really helpful with jacks and elevators and the like but not so much with guns.

[Multigunner]

I'm listening! Lots of interesting info. I still have many questions though. Like why, if the bolt face thrust is raised by 50%, are there never any shiny spots on the case head? If the pressure is being raised dangerously, why is there no primer flatening or cratering. Why is there no case head expansion? And why is there no case elongation and stiff bolt lift? And in an old Lee Enfield, why is there no bolt set-back? And surely erratic bolt face thrust would affect accuracy? Mine always shot accurately.

Many Lee Enfields have developed excess headspace and those were supposedly shot with dry, standard MkVII ammo.

Actually a minimal setback effect is part of the final proof test, since they could not get the lugs to bear perfectly evenly by stoning alone the oiled proof load served to set the lugs, evening out the bearing surfaces.
Theres a proof test of the barrel before its installed on an action body, then two rounds for the completed action, one dry one oiled. Thats three proof cartridges used per rifle.

I've run across several No.1 rifles with visible setback and bulging of the bolt lugs, the locking recesses are more substantial so they seldom show visible setback.
The more stress an action body is put to the greater will be the inclination of the action body locking surfaces. The bolt will usually match that inclination unless its a unfitted replacement. The inclination is usually so small as to be undetectable to the eye.
Nothing to worry about there unless the inclination is extreme. Its one reason the bolts are so easy to operate.

The Enfield bolt is subject to compression, and wear of the mating surfaces of bolthead and body. I believe most instances of excessive headspace were due to unathorized use of MkVIIIz ammunition coupled with poor maintenance and heavy fouling. Unavoidable firing in rain or after the rifle got dunked crossing streams is another factor.
Theres no way of knowing if the boltheads of most rifles were original to a rifle or switched out at a later date, to bring a more favored rifle to a tighter fit.
It was common practice to use boltheads savalged from unservicable rifles to bring good rifles back to spec, with new replacement boltheads used only if necessary.
In a way this was a good idea, the salvaged bolthead had been proven under pressure.
A replacement Bolt head would be more likely to have an undetected defect than a well used BH that passed inspection.

Boltheads were at one time made of maleable cast iron, No.37 Gun Iron, a high compressive strength white cast iron. Actually well suited to the purpose, but subject to defects in manufacture if wartime rush was a factor.

I've noted signs of compression on many bolt heads, the standard steel versions,at the interface between bolt head and bolt body, a displacement at the edge, often unequal, often more on one side than the other.

Due to sand and grit a loose headgap would allow cartridges to chamber under harsh conditions, The wide variance in cartridge dimensions was another factor, also dented cases, etc. Being able to stuff a muddy, bent, or corroded cartridge in the breech doesn't mean its always a wise idea to fire it. But if thats all you had and you had no choice but to give it a go you'd roll the dice. With luck the worst would be you'd miss and be left with the action jammed shut, or the case left jammed in the chamber till it could be dislodged with a cleaning rod, "which you have not got" as the old WW1 poem about the MkIII* goes.
The bolt can warp or sidewalls spred making the rifle an unrepairable reminder of folly.
If luck runs against you there are recorded incidents of the right sidewall being broken away and the bolt blown out to severely injure the shooter, or the case blown out at the base to shatter the bolthead sending high velocity fragments to injure or kill the shooter or bystanders.
I've found it odd that some who claim that the Enfield can't be blown up except by handloads would in the next breath urge others to use 60-70 year old milsurp ammo of unknown history, and that showing verdigris , dents, etc, and also recommend use of MkVIIIZ ammunition, which both British and Australians proscribed for use in the No.1 and allowed its use in the No.4 only if no other ammo was available .
So far the only cratered primers I've had,( other than my one and only slight overload due to using the wrong bullet over an otherwise safe charge, no damage done fortunately, a heads up I needed), were from MkVIIIZ equivalent FN 1950's ammunition.


Properly cleaned and lubed the Enfield bolts and action body would last tens of thousands of firings without undue wear, but most were not used under the optimal conditions of a rifle range, so a great many became badly worn within months of combat duty under harsh conditions, and required adjustments and replacement bolts etc.
A numbered bolt is no garantee that its the original bolt, replacement bolts would be numbered to the receiver after fitting and testfiring.

[robertbank]

Canuck Bob get friendly with some Rangers. The IVI brass is about as good as it gets. If you need .303 Brass PM me and maybe we can work something out. As an aside what did you pay for your Ruger. I missed the thread on gunnutz and forget who brought them in and what they are selling for. Love to have one.

Take Care

Bob

[StarMetal]

Canuck Bob get friendly with some Rangers. The IVI brass is about as good as it gets. If you need .303 Brass PM me and maybe we can work something out. As an aside what did you pay for your Ruger. I missed the thread on gunnutz and forget who brought them in and what they are selling for. Love to have one.

Take Care

Bob

Bob,

You're so right. Long ago I got some IVI 308 brass. Asked BruceB about it. He goes "oh, that's Canadian brass and about the best there is and just about indestructible. That's an understatement, the stuff is great and I don't see LC holding a candle to it. So if that 303 is the same it's got to be among the best.

[quasi]

IVI is made in the old Dominion-C.I.L. Plant. I have some Ranger discard .303 brass, it is exactly the same weight as the old Dominion brass. I have a few thousand 7.62 Nato IVI brass, it is tough stuff, and lasts a long time even in my M-14's .

[Multigunner]

They say that Canadian manufacture .303 was always of higher quality than other military grade ammo.
They held strictly to the original specs.
Its one reason the ross rifles failed in WW1. Those rifles had a tight chamber that worked fine so long as the ammo was within the specs, but British supplied ammo was often far out of spec.

Tolerances got so loose that the RAC and later RAF had to examine and mark for their own use lots of ammo within specifications to avoid jammed guns in combat, the origin of green cross, green spot, and red spot ammo. That being how ammo cases would be marked. Snipers apparently liked to raid the flying corps stash to get the best ammo.
The RAF finally independently contracted for its ammo from the best manufacturers.

[Canuck Bob]

I won't be lubing mine for what its worth, never have and never will. However I've had a real eyeopener on the headspace issues on some fine old rifles. I would do whatever it takes to fireform my brass on first firing. Wow weedwhacker cord or o-rings between your rim and chamber!

[Canuck Bob]

No luck on the email yet. Thanks for the note.

[walltube]

the info on fire forming new, unfired .303B cases in the SMLE using an "o" ring to 'zero headspace' the rim (flange). This method should work equally well with fresh 7.62x54R brass in the various Moisin-Nagant 91 type rifles as well.

An Eddystone P14 with its Mauser style action may well get a chance to fire form some R-P brass ala "The Ring" in its chamber this coming Sunday. Saturday night's foam will encourage No. 1 son to 'O-Ring' his Savage SMLE this Sunday as well...

Y.T.,
Harold

[303Guy]

As per usual, this has turned into a really interesting thread! (A bit off topic - appologies, that was my doing!)

Multigunner, my uncle was a WWII armourer in Tabruk (he escaped when Tabruk fell, by taking a vehicle and heading into the dessert, off the beaten track). We spent hours talking about the war, guns and the Lee Enfield (he went on to become a gunsmith). 'Meeting' you is a real pleasure. You are a mine-field of knowledge! (I have long wanted hear about blown Lee Enfields - my uncle did tell me of how they fail. One often hears of blown Mausers but never Lee Enfields).

P.S. I am giving this 'lubing' of cartridges a serious rethink!

[Multigunner]

Enfield are strong enough for the intended pressure levels, but they are not idiot proof, when they were a major issue military rifle the professional armies tried to be sure that every rifleman was educated in the proper use of the rifle and care of rifle and ammo. I don't think anyone in the UK forces had any illusions of invincibility. They knew the rifles must be kept free of mud and at at least reasonably protected from rain and dust, thats what the action cover was for. The earlier LE rifles had a sheet metal reciprocating action cover for that purpose.

Glamorising the Enfield may lead to serious situations in the future. The British NRA has made an effort to head off problems before they get out of hand by setting limits on ammunition types and requiring reproof for higher pressures, and repeating the admonitions against firing wet or oiled cartridges. The reaction among those with unrealistic beliefs about the rifle has been amazing.

[303Guy]

It seems that mauser type actions can fail catastrophically without killing or injuring the shooter. I've have heard of one LE that unhooked and bent the bolt with only brass fragments hitting the shooter. I suppose the LE failures would have occured mostly in the military so one would not readily hear about it. But someone must have info and pictures of blown LE's - civilian type blow-ups. I am given to believe that Arisaka's were rediculously strong.

[Multigunner]

It seems that mauser type actions can fail catastrophically without killing or injuring the shooter. I've have heard of one LE that unhooked and bent the bolt with only brass fragments hitting the shooter. I suppose the LE failures would have occured mostly in the military so one would not readily hear about it. But someone must have info and pictures of blown LE's - civilian type blow-ups. I am given to believe that Arisaka's were rediculously strong.

The only fatalities from Lee Enfield Kabooms I've found out about so far were those involving shattered or blown out boltheads. Some other bolt head failures were potentially fatal, such as a Range officer in Canada around 1908 who got a bolthead blown completely through his neck, he was not the shooter , the shooter apparently escaped injury.
Of the Enfield failures listed in the Ross Rifle debates in the Canadian Hose of Commons, I can remember only one which was blamed on the ammunition, that involving a "riflelite" propellant. All others used fresh Canadian manufacture Service Ball manufactured strictly to British specification.
One fatality is mentioned in the debates but the victim's name is not given. You'll find in British publications of the 19th and early 20th century that names were often not given even in news stories or official records without express permission.

A motion in Parlement to award funds to a British Non Com who'd been severely injured by failure at the range of the right sidewall of an Enfield was the first I'd heard of a sidewall breaking away. I'd really like to see a photo of that action and a detailed examination of the fracture lines.
Luckily the Non Com was expected to recover from his injuries but unlikely to be able to return to duty for six months or so. The money was to tide his family over.

I looked long and hard for information on the metalurgy of the Enfield and only in the last few months have those with access to old records begun to post official specifications for alloys used to construct the SMLE.
Near as my sources have determined The action body was as I'd suspected made of a Nickel Steel alloy similar to that used for the M1917, but with a slightly lower Ni content range. Those whose alloy is at the top end of the Ni content are almost indentical to the alloy used for the M1917, those at the lower end contain significantly less Nickel than M1917 receivers at the lowest allowable percentage.
The result would be that all else being equal some SMLE receivers are far stronger than others.

When the UK Police contracted for the Envoy rifles these were assembled using parts strenuously tested, and its said far more parts went to the scrap bin than reached the assembly line.
Early production L42 rifles palmed off on the police were too often judged to be dangerously unsafe to fire.
I've seen demilled L42 rifles for sale on UK sites, I suspect these were condemned due to some sort of damage not detectable to the naked eye.
I've also noted that among collectors those most vocal in defense of using high pressure 7.62 ammunition in converted No.4 rifles are also those who are most perturbed by any alteration of the rifles, even replacement of damaged or worn parts.
They seem to have a blind eye when such a radical alteration as rebarreling to 7.62 is mentioned.

I think most on this board recognize that failures of abused rifles, or those subjected to overloads aren't a condemnation of the rifle in general.
Every action type has its limitations.
The 1895 Winchester handled WW1 era .30-06 just fine, but did not always hold up well to post WW1 .30-06 ammunition.
If someone owned a Model 95 that held up just fine to modern ammunition, I would not consider that to be proof that every other example of the rifle could handle the same pressures, or that warnings against use of higher pressure ammo had no basis in fact.

According to the Preface of Major Reynolds book on the Enfield ,around the time the Enfield first became obsolete, There was a "slaughter" of Ministry of Defence records on the development of the Enfield along with many older records. No one seems to have had much interest in looking for any accident reports that may have been in files at the time.
His book does have some information on testing under extreme conditions , bore obstructions, etc.

The only solid records of action failures I've found are in records of the British Parlement and Canadian House of Commons. There are occasional mentions of action failures in articles on civilian matches at Bisley, but no details which might settle questions.

During WW1 enough rifles were rendered all but unserviceable that they created a new category, the EY (safe with ball ammo in emergency situations) and relegated these to use as grenade launchers.
Its not uncommon for EY marked actions to show up, the owner having no idea that his rifle was considered only good for limited emergency use, or that the bore likely had been subjected to extended use with grenade launching blanks.