|
Brass life expectancy ? |
Post Reply 
|
Page <123> |
| Author | ||||
SW28fan 
Special Member 
Donating Member Joined: July 02 2007 Location: Texas Status: Online Points: 3389 |
 Post Options
 Thanks(0)
 Quote Reply
 Posted: November 19 2013 at 8:06am |
|||
|
These things do happen. I am like Petes, happy to get 10 loads out of a case.
|
||||
|
Have a Nice Day
If already having a nice day please disregard |
||||
 |
||||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member 
Joined: December 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1047 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2013 at 9:08am |
|||
If you mean the sloppy 6 that looks like an 8 I spotted that. I didn't mention it because I wanted to see if you would spot it. I've seen that misread .084 thickness repeated on other sites. Look closer and you'll see its a six. Check the chamber specs on the SAID for the SMLE /no.1 rifle. Remember the SAID only shows the chamber so the lengths are from the rim to the reference points. The SAAMI drawing measures from the face of the case head. Add .064 to the SAID drawing lengths. We all know that milspec cases run to the max end of the spectrum, but that's not due to any planned increase in minimum external case dimensions. The thicker side walls were a deliberate measure not the external diameters. Enlarged chambers were to allow use of out of spec and damaged and/or dirty cartridges. Ask yourself why after going to a maximum chamber size to improve reliability in chambering they would then decide to reverse the result by going to a larger minimum case size? The British ended up accepting a lot of subcontracted stuff that was out of specification according to pre WW1 standards. A look at the acceptable tolerances of major bore diameter is a classic example. Variations in bullet diameters are another. The more machinery wears the closer the product gets to maximum tolerances. Mil spec .303 production was in the billions and from a wide field of manufacturers. They refurbish the machinery when it produces cases no longer within acceptable limits. If the customer is desperate they can even palm off out of specification cases. Refurbing case drawing and swaging machinery is very expensive and requires a lot of down time, so the vast majority of .303 milspec ammo has cases closer to the maximum dimensions. Modern sporting ammo cases can be kept in the middle of the tolerance range because there's no wartime production pressures, and these days the durability of the tools are much improved. Smaller in comparasion to does not mean "Undersized" so long as the smaller case remains within manufacturers tolerances. As for the enlarging reamer Doc AV disagrees with your claim An enlarging reamer was approved for widening the base of the SMLE chamber to .464. Lengthening reamers had also been used on the Ross rifle due to greatly out of specification shoulders. Both lengthening and enlarging reamers were used on the Ross, only the enlarging reamer was used on SMLE rifles. When the offending manufacturers (code QA,M.N and J) were identified and their production errors corrected there was no further need for enlarging SMLE chambers. The No.4 chambers were made looser from jump because they foresaw the same problems popping up again. Manufacturer QA made the worst cases
Ten reloads is not too bad. You can probably improve on that. Only cases I've lost since correcting headspace have been due to cuts in the neck from a rough feed lip. Primer pockets normally last for thirty or more reloadings if you take care in capping.
|
||||
|
||||
|
MaxP
Senior Member
Joined: March 21 2013 Location: Australia Status: Offline Points: 184 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2013 at 1:52pm |
|||
|
An observation... these posts are becoming reminiscent of a character who became known as googlesam on another highly respected forum. He almost singlehandedly brought that board down with relentless copy paste replies from dodgy references, usually skirting the issue and picking at posts to try to make a mountain out of a molehill. The fallout from which meant the loss of several very respected members before the offending person was dealt with.
Being in a position elsewhere to control such things from getting to that very sad point ever again, I will not involve myself in this type of discussion again out of respect for the harmony of this fine group, especially if it is with an un named person from an undisclosed location and with absolutely zero trackable credibility. (I may be wrong here, the person might be known personally to everyone...) Although I am a relative newcomer here, several members know me and my background, and I would think even more would know muffett.2008, a man I have great respect for. Mate, please don't think I am bailing out on this issue, but I can see no good coming from trying to discuss it further when the topic has been covered for the OP. Petes, if you have any more questions, only too happy to offer any experienced assistance I can. Regards, MaxP |
||||
|
||||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1047 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2013 at 7:34pm |
|||
|
Max your problem is blanket statements like this
Which goes contrary to the experience of every handloader who knows what he is doing. Damage done on first firing of a case due to excess headspace greatly shortens case life. The headspace specs for a new No.1 rifle don't exceed SAAMI maximum headspace limits. The military maximum headspace limits are for rifles worn by years of use or abuse. There are many available sources other than Mr Muffet, so others have information on enlarging of chambers that Muffet apparently does not. Muffet has produced some very useful information in the past, but seems not to understand what manufacturing tolerances mean, or that cartridge drawing machinery becomes worn when hard pressed to fill contracts. If Muffet can find a document saying that the cases for ball cartridges must meet a minimum specification for diameters and rim thickness that exceeds the minimum specifications of the SAAMI drawings I'd like to see it. My objection to characterizing U S manufacture .303 cases as "undersized" is because the British military never specified that all Ball cartridges had to have external dimensions at the maximum end of the manufacturers tolerances. A case is only undersized if its dimensions are below the established minimum dimensions. U S manufacture cases run to the middle ground of the SAAMI specs, not under those specified dimensions. My SMLE has a bore that by the SAID dimensions is undersized, but it slipped through anyway. I'm not at all displeased by that since it is still within the nominal dimensions for a .303 bore rather than the broad tolerances of acceptance used by the military. I'm also not at all displeased that my Savage chamber leaves shoulders that are indistinguishable from the shoulders of un fired cartridges. In that respect the chamber is probably much tighter than those of No.4 rifles of British manufacture and probably tighter than the vast majority of Savage chambers. You are correct in that a case fire formed to the chamber has a long life if neck sized only, but only if the case isn't damaged on first firing by formation of an annular ring due to stretching allowed by excess headspace. The O-ring and tape methods are extreme methods used to make up for excess headspace because headspace is in fact a factor. If you have a good supply of reloadable milspec cases that's fine, but if headspace is good then standard sporting ammunition cases will last just as long. Either will last only so long as the primer pocket remains tight and the case is not damaged in some other way. 30-35 reloadings is considered a reasonable maximum case life though some may exceed that. With good headspace you don't have to resort to extreme and very time consuming methods, and that is important to those who have less time to devote to making up for poor headspace by wrapping the case with tape or using rubber O-rings. Due to close head gap and chamber fit my reloads on cases from my Savage chamber freely in every SMLE or No.4 I've tried them in, that's important to me. My SMLE has more slack at the shoulder but otherwise the chamber is just fine for use with Remington cases, because the headspace is within the manufacturer's tolerances for a new rifle. If you have a rifle chambered for a rimless cartridge and it has a sloppy chamber and loose headspace, theres no O-ring that would help because without a rim to limit forwards movement the case moves forwards till stopped by the shoulder, and just as with a .303 with loose headspace an annular ring may form when the case walls grasp the chamber walls as the case head is forced back against the bolt face. To get around loose headspace with rimless cases you can go to extreme measures by necking up and then necking down to leave a shelf to contact the shoulder, the case can then be fire formed to match that particular chamber. Some like to seat a bullet far enough out so the bullet contacting the origin of rifling limits forwards movement during fire forming, but I don't consider that to be a proper method. Those are all extreme methods used to make up for loose headspace. If you have good headspace theres no need to go to such lengths. So your statement "Headspace has next to nothing to do with case life" is obviously wrong since by fire forming you are altering the case to "headspace" on the shoulder in the same manner as a rimless cartridge. Your fire formed case to chamber fit is of course individual to the rifle and not measurable by standard headspace gauges and is only done because headspace is a factor in case life. You aren't eliminating headspace from the situation you are shifting the point of reference from rim to shoulder. Should you fire the fireformed case in another rifle that as a deeper chamber shoulder then the limiting factor is once again the rim and the standard points of reference are the breech end of chamber and distance to bolt face. If that rifle has excess headspace you will be starting all over again.
|
||||
|
||||
|
petes
Groupie 
Joined: November 09 2013 Location: Uk Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 19 2013 at 11:59pm |
|||
|
Wow. So sorry . it looks like I have opened a huge can of worms here. never intended to cause a problem. but makes interesting reading.
Thanks for all the input guys. Pete |
||||
|
||||
|
hoadie
Moderator Group
Joined: March 16 2006 Location: Niagara/Canada Status: Offline Points: 9680 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 12:11am |
|||
|
As long a sit stays civil..
 (otherwise we let Tony loose!)  Hoadie |
||||
|
Loose wimmen tightened here
|
||||
|
||||
|
petes
Groupie
Joined: November 09 2013 Location: Uk Status: Offline Points: 45 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 12:17am |
|||
|
Always will be from me Hoadie
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shamu
Admin Group
Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 12:44am |
|||
|
I wish the link to Euroarms was in English! they appear to have a lot of great info on there.
As far as specs go, part of the problem is that there are several different specs depending on whose info & drawings you go with. FWIW here's my take. Headspace is the gap between the bolt face when closed & locked, & the breech-face. Depending on which set of specs you take it has a minimum of 0.064" (a SAAMI GO gauge) anything tighter than that & there is a possibility of the bolt not being able to cam down & lock with thick-rimmed ammo. & a maximum of 0.074" ( a"Field" gauge under SAAMI's system, or a wartime expedient "gauge, lee Enfield" under British MOD/WOPS) There is no No Go under MOD WOPS, just "too darn tight, refit the barrel" & "dont exceed this". Thats where some of the confusion comes from, 2 different systems using different terminology & in some cases different measurements as well. IN Europe there is yet another standard C.I.P. so it gets confusing easily. OK, now we've defined "headspace" lets look at the rest of the chamber, the case & the fitting of the 2 & how it relates to "headspace". Item 1: There is absolutely no standard or set of any measuring dies for the "generous chamber" issue. Does it exist? Sure in some (but not all) rifles it does. Item 2: If you don't first set headspace correctly there is no way to reference the rear of the case for any other consistent measurement that does not involve brass moving forward excessively & thinning till it ruptures. Item 3: Once you have headspace correctly adjusted you can look at how (& if) you need to make additional changes to get a better fit & so longer brass life. There are a few accepted ways & some others that have a great deal of controversy surrounding them. Neck sizing only is very popular. What happens is the case blows out to fit the chamber exactly when first fired. It drops back a minute amount as the pressure drops & that's all the "tolerance" that is needed, except in the neck where it has opened under pressure to release the bullet during firing. All the work is done only on that neck area hence the name. Less brass working = longer case life. Partial full length resizing is another technique. Here you use a normal full length resizing die, but you back it off to only just resize enough to fit the chamber. It works the brass more than neck only, but less than full length. Why would you work the brass any more than neck sizing's minimal approach? Because eventually the neck resized brass swells enough that you need to do a full length one & then start neck resizing only again. This is a change & the biggest aim in reloading is a lack of change. Partial full length has advantages of both consistency & minimal brass working. |
||||
|
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Shamu
Admin Group
Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 1:12am |
|||
|
"it looks like I have opened a huge can of worms here."
Not a problem, as long as it stays "perlite" from all the contributors. Every rifle has its "hot button" topics & with Enfields its headspace. God only knows why, probably because it is so non standard in its standards & partly because you can change it so easily, unlike *ahem* "certain other brands" As you say its produced a lot of good debate & varied info & that's what forums are for, debate & exposure to varying ideas. |
||||
|
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tony
Moderator Group
Moderator Joined: April 18 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3256 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 3:44am |
|||
I'm watching Hoadie! The "Rottie" is just sharpening the teeth. Headspace is the gap between the bolt face when closed & locked, & the breech-face Nope it's the space between some peoples ears and I'm NOT referring to hoadie or our Aussie friends who have contributed to the post! |
||||
|
Rottie (PitBulls dad.)
“If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons Born free taxed to death!!! |
||||
|
||||
|
Zed
Special Member
Donating Member Joined: May 01 2012 Location: France Status: Offline Points: 6460 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 4:56am |
|||
|
I have found this to be an extremely interesting read. Especially for someone like myself who is tiptoeing through the maze of info that is reloading the .303 British.
However I would respectfully suggest that a line is drawn under the occasional one-upmanship that can boil to the surface in threads such as this one. It spoils the atmosphere of what is probably the best Lee Enfield site around; and at the end of the day, we are all here because we love our Enfield's. Save the competition for the target range!
|
||||
|
It's nice to be important, but it's more important to be nice!
|
||||
|
||||
|
muffett.2008
Senior Member
Joined: December 09 2011 Location: scone. nsw Status: Offline Points: 751 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 5:17am |
|||
|
My apologies Shamu and Tony, there are just a couple of points I would like to clarify and then I will let this thread go.
1. The problems with the Ross have little bearing on the subject, being proven to be a rifle problem and not the ammunition. 2. The reamer alluded to by Doc.AV being used in SMLE's as opposed to the one used in the Ross was actually the reamer used to ensure clearance in the bolt channel of the receiver for rifles in use before 1916, after then the increase became a standard production one. The spiral reamer supplied to Armourers seated/centralised in the rear of the chamber and beside increasing the bolt channel, created a very slight bevel at the rear face of the chamber, it did not increase the chamber size. 3. NOMINAL in usage as a measurement means the tightest allowable, hence the nominal chamber of .457 measured at a set position within the hole, therefore chambers were and still are to be found with measurements that are greater than the minimum. 4. As machine tools wear, they become smaller, not larger. Therefore measurements become tighter, not looser. Regarding ammunition manufacture........well that's another ball game and I'm not going there. Just a snippet of useless information while I'm here, during the last war one of my Aunts worked on the assembly line at Orange in 1943, she started at Lithgow in 1937 and was an Parts Assembly worker, one of her jobs was standing at a bench all day sliding actions onto a mandrill to check fit.
If there was any bind then it was dropped onto another mandrill/reamer and given a couple of twists by hand, then checked again on the first test mandrill before throwing it into a separate bin to be later handfiled to relieve sharp edges. The filing was done using a half round file and was usually(her words) "rough as guts". Have a good one  |
||||
|
||||
|
Shamu
Admin Group
Logo Designer / Donating Member Joined: April 25 2007 Location: MD, USA. Status: Offline Points: 20510 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 5:19am |
|||
|
We'll just do it old style.
2 pairs of boxing gloves & lock 'em in a confined space till they "settle the differences", then they're allowed back out into polite society. |
||||
|
Don't shoot till you see the whites of their thighs. (Unofficial motto of the Royal Air Force)
|
||||
|
||||
|
Tony
Moderator Group
Moderator Joined: April 18 2006 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 3256 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 5:35am |
|||
|
Boxing gloves are for pansies. Lets have the old Cestus as used by gladiators!
 |
||||
|
Rottie (PitBulls dad.)
“If electricity comes from electrons, does morality come from morons Born free taxed to death!!! |
||||
|
||||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1047 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 8:47am |
|||
Doc said
The only SMLE rifles that required that the bolt channel be reamed were pre 1916 Lithgow rifles, not British made SMLE rifles. Lithgow had previously used minimum tolerance for the channel and maximum tolerance for the bolt body. Bolt to body side clearance has nothing to do with chamber size or head space. Also the Australian troops continued to used the Mk6 ammunition, lousy quality MkVII ammunition was not a factor in having those Lithgow actions reamed. The sand and dust of the Dardanelles campaign was the cause of those malfunctions. The lousy quality of the British MkVII ammunition produced by the factories Doc AV listed was the reason chambers of British and Canadian rifles were enlarged. The diameters of the chambers of Ross rifles were on the small side but the ridiculously out of specification shoulders of the defective ammo was the reason that ammo would not chamber. These same rifles had no such issues with Canadian manufacture ammo because it was within specification according to the original cartridge drawings.
That's why they replace cutting heads and reamers and why Enfield used profiling machinery that self adjusted for wear till the heads wore to the point they had to be replaced. Exteriors of action bodies were ground to shape using stone wheels guided by a stylus, the machinery self adjusting as the wheels wore down.When bearings wear any thing that is being drilled, bored or reamed suffers chatter and a wallowing effect that increases the size of the hole and usually increases taper. When a chamber wears it becomes larger. When a chamber cut to maximum tolerance becomes worn it exceeds that maximum tolerance.
Since the discussion degenerated because some here don't have a clue about how cartridge cases are made I'm not surprised. Brass case bodies are drawn and swaged not turned on a lathe. As the equipment becomes worn the diameters of the cases become larger, when rim swaging equipment becomes worn the rims become thicker , when the primer cup swaging tools become worn the primer cups become smaller and more shallow. When primer staking tools wear unevenly excess and uneven force to either side causes stress lines that can cause cracked case heads on firing. Same can happen with headstamping dies, the action of swaging then headstamping work hardens the rim, and if done un evenly can induce stress lines. If not done properly the rim may be too soft and be torn off by the extractor of an automatic weapon. Over worked machinery results in increasingly larger exterior case dimensions and if the machinery is not refurbed in a timely manner cases are likely be beyond maximum tolerances. |
||||
|
||||
|
LE Owner
Senior Member
Joined: December 04 2009 Status: Offline Points: 1047 |
Post Options
Thanks(0)
Quote Reply
Posted: November 20 2013 at 9:01am |
|||
There are also links to Armorers manuals and SAID drawings. http://www.euroarms.net/EFD/index_E.htmYou should have a translate this page feature somewhere on your browser. If not download and install Slimbrowser, it has a very simple and easy to find translation function. Its also a very easy to use browser that often works better than other browsers. |
||||
|
||||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <123> |
| Tweet |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
Topic Options