• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Fire forming question

  • Thread starter Thread starter bigedp51
  • Start date Start date
Why cant we all just get along.LOL I agree to diagree about oiling case's.You keep oiling them and I will shoot at another club.This isnt going anywhere and some of us just want the other guy to say uncle.It wont happen.We nongreasers are safe.If we cant make people see the truth or change their mind then so be it.Lets all be safe and move on to the sixth page.LOL
 
biged,I have one of the no1 mkII's still in the grease wrap.The one in your picture is perfect. Is it a no1 mkIII? It looks mint.I have a no1 mkIV that is matched including the magazine.I have 2 lithgows,1 unfired and the other barely fired.Gotta love them.
 
jonbearman said:
Why cant we all just get along.LOL I agree to diagree about oiling case's.You keep oiling them and I will shoot at another club.This isnt going anywhere and some of us just want the other guy to say uncle.It wont happen.We nongreasers are safe.If we cant make people see the truth or change their mind then so be it.Lets all be safe and move on to the sixth page.LOL
HEAR! HEAR!! I 2nd jonbearman!!!
 
If Remington considers it to be a big problem, I'm sure they would put it right up there with the top 10 safety commandments in their manual. In short, I think they conned you. You can post all the antique stuff you want about the crude Lee Enfield firearm, but I will continue to believe modern firearms will not be bothered in the least by lubrication on the case. Excessive lubrication in the barrel, yes a problem, but on the case NO.
 
And "NO" one, not a single person has ever produced "ANY" written information stating that it is a safe practice to lubricate "ANY" cartridge case made for the commercial market.

What the case greasers do not understand is a military rifle is built to withstand MORE abuse than a commercial rifle. And the United States Military tells you to NOT lube your ammo.

So PLEASE tell me the military has just conned us all. ::)

dontlube.jpg
 
jonbearman

Its a 1916 "virgin" overhauled in 1953 and all the parts are new except the receiver.

IMGP6638.jpg


IMGP6633.jpg


Do any of you bench rest shooters have problems with your barrels overheating when you fire long sustained bursts?

IMGP2207-1.jpg
 
no_grease_sm.gif


Greasers - 0
Non-greasers - 37

Its like a hornets net in here. ;D (six pages of aerial combat) ::)

Snoopy.jpg
 
Biged, if you had actually read the post where I had suggested reducing the headspace to eliminate the need to fireform and also reduce stretching in the web, (though I never suggested going so tight that factory ammo wouldn't chamber) I had actually offered to let you borrow the tools necessary
And since factory ammo is made to fit in every rifle within SAAMI spec, most is actually a bit smaller than minimum SAAMI headspace, so no issue there. I have even used factory ammo in my .222, which is a few thou under minimum SAAMI spec, it's just a very slight crush fit, almost perfect actually.

Excerpt from original post:
"Though if you asked, I am sure someone on the forum will have most of the tools necessary and may be close enough to assist you or let you borrow the tools to do it."

All you had to do was ask. Simple enough right? I would have been more than willing to stuff what you needed in a flat-rate box and send it on over.

You don't need to shoot benchrest to want an accurate rifle either. But the Steven's action, even though it is inexpensive, is an excellent platform to build a superbly accurate rifle on. You can even increase their accuracy by a substantial amount without spending a bunch of money either, all you need is to be handy with a few simple tools and have a little spare time.

Here are a few simple and inexpensive ways to make your Steven's more consistently accurate. I am not "telling you" that you "need to" or "have to" do this in any way. I am only giving you suggestions on how to make your Stevens more accurate without spending much money, "IF YOU WANT TO". You could make all these modifications for around $35, or a little more, depending on what route you take. But you will spend a bit more if you opt for the scope rings. They will all have an improvement on the consistency and accuracy of the rifle.


1) Reduce headspace to SAAMI minimum or slightly less (as small as possible while still allowing factory ammo to fit, you can even set it on a factory round as long as you remove the firing pin)

2) Bed the stock to the action with Devcon or other quality bedding compound (there are several tutorials online that show this in detail) Devcon comes in 2oz tubes for $9 from Midway, or you can buy 1lb for $36, enough to last forever; though it does have many other uses as well. There are bedding kits with all the supplies needed at $22 and up, or you could even use JB Weld, as that will work as well.

3) Bed the scope base to the action (eliminates any slop and assures a good fit) (use the same compound as you would for the action)

4) Lap the scope rings (eliminates any torquing on the scope tube which can cause problems with shifting zero, etc) Or use Burris Zee rings ($36), as they do the same thing and have a low cost as well.(best rings going in my opinion)

5) Make sure the fore-arm is not touching the barrel, clearance with a Dremel if necessary

6) Stiffen the fore-arm (cut out the "support ribs" in the barrel channel and epoxy in a piece of aluminum channel or 2 pieces of aluminum angle. HUGE improvement, makes the stock a lot stiffer, a must if shooting off a front bag or bipod) (angle or channel aluminum is available at Lowe's and Home Depot for short money)

7) Add a little weight to balance the rifle better. I found that my Stevens .308 was a bit heavy in the front, making it hard to shoot accurately off-hand. So I installed a tube in the butt to hold additional weight that I could also remove if I wanted.

I removed the butt plate, put an 8" long piece of 3/4" copper tube (capped on one end) into the butt and filled around it with spray foam, making sure the open end of the tube was about 1/8" from the open end of the stock so the butt plate will hold the cap on. Once the foam dries, trim the excess flat with the end of the stock with a razor or hacksaw blade Now I could fill the tube with lead shot until the rifle balanced. After I had the balance just right, I filled the tube with poly-fill to keep the shot from rattling around, slid a cap on the open end of the tube and replaced the butt plate. You could even substitute the tube for a mercury recoil reducer as well.

Another thing you could do to improve or change your rifle for short money, if you wanted to do so later on, is to look at the factory take-off stocks and barrels offered by Northland Shooter Supply. He often has Stevens and Savage Blued sporter barrels for $65 to $85, as well as Savage Accu-Stocks and other laminate and synthetic stocks as well.

He also offers Shilen, CBI and McGowen barrels, as well as Varmint and other contour Savage factory take-offs as well.

It's just another way option to improve your rifle, and will be cheaper than buying a complete rifle if you wanted to upgrade or just to have more options.
So if you wanted a .223 barrel to use when the .243 is too powerful, you could buy a $65 take-off and a $35 bolt head and be able to change calibers in about 5 minutes for a lot less than buying a whole rifle.
 
As far as the fire-forming issue goes, I can understand not wanting to lube the cases, and I am not going to pressure you to do so. I don't think anyone was trying to push it on you, they just didn't like that you were trying to lecture them on it. We are all adults here, and even though some don't agree with the actions of others, nobody needs to be lectured. So let's just try to move on from that, leave the lecturing in the past, and let everyone do whatever they do without passing judgment.
**********************************************************

Back to fire-forming and how to accomplish it with minimal stretching in the web area WITHOUT lubricating the cases.

This is my method for fire-forming surplus LC 5.56 brass that has been re-formed into .222.

I take Lyman's Turbo Brite, and using a case holder that goes in either an electric screwdriver or drill (Lee has one that is used with their trimmer, Sinclair offers one as well) or even holding the case by hand, polish the case to a high sheen with a dab of the polish on a cotton rag (T-shirt material works great). You can even use a bit of 0000 steel wool prior to applying the polish, as this will help remove any imperfections or other crap stuck on the brass.

The polish is intended to be used on cartridge brass in a tumbler and does not need to be removed before firing. But the brass will be very smooth and will flow and form in the chamber very nicely and will do so without any type of oil or lubricant. I have been doing this for some time, and it forms much better than un-polished brass does. Shoulder and neck junctions are very crisp, and I don't normally measure any thinning in the web.

By using polish on the cases, it eliminates any worry of oil on the brass or chance of it migrating into the barrel. The polish is designed to be used for exactly the purpose you are using it for, to polish cartridge brass. Polishing the cases by hand while spinning on a case holder produces a much nicer finish than is achieved by tumbling, and I feel it is much better for the task at hand as well. It seems to allow the brass to slip just enough in the chamber to form well and without stretching the web, but not so much as to allow excessive bolt thrust.

When I re-form .222 brass from once-fired surplus LC 5.56, I always polish them at the range right before I load and form them. For forming, I just reduce my normal accuracy load by .5gr and load as I normally would, .001 neck tension with the bullet seated long so they are fully seated when I chamber the round. I only single feed, so this is not an issue for me.

When I am fire-forming, all I am really doing is ironing out the shoulder, as it's usually slightly rounded from the forming process, and blowing the shoulder forward just a slight amount, maybe .001 or .002 at absolute maximum. When I am done, it's super crisp like it was formed with a chisel. I have moved shoulders forward as much as .004" with this method, though I used more neck tension and still had very good results as well.

You may want to run more neck tension as you need to move the shoulder a bit more than I normally do. And you will need to run full power loads as well, (above start, but not max) as reduced loads won't have enough pressure to form the shoulder properly. Basically, do a little load work up to see how much powder is required to get a crisp form on the shoulder.

H4895 would probably work well for case forming in the .243, as it's a reasonably fast powder (for the .243) and is suitable for bullets ranging from 60grs to 95grs.

H4895 is one of the best powders for reduced loads as well, and gives me excellent accuracy with cast bullets in my .308 and .30-06. (cast bullet loads are essentially reduced loads)

I hope this helps and will give you a solution that doesn't involve lubricating your cases. It works great for me, so I see no reason for it not to do the same for you.

And just to ease your mind a bit, I polish my .243, 7.62X54R, .308, 30-06, and .35 Whelen brass in the same way with the same polish, and have never had any issues in any of them. My 30-06 is a Remington 740 and the .35 Whelen is Remington 750 Carbine, both of which are semi auto and would likely have some kind of issue if they were subject to extreme bolt thrust. Not to mention the 740 is 56yrs old, supposedly has a receiver prone to stretching, and yet it still headspaces perfectly. I think if I was subjecting it to excessive bolt thrust that it would be showing some signs of wear by now, but it's still going strong and kills deer every year.

Now go out and form your brass!
 
Kenny474

I'm sorry if I offended you in any way, and I apologise here in front of your friends and shooting buddies. I'm not ready for any barrel nut activity (yet) I have only fired less than a box of 1982 dated reloads in it so far and the rifle is not even broken in yet.

It is only a low cost rifle that I heard good reports on and everyone at Savage Shooters forum is happy with the Stevens 200. Again I apoliogize Kenny474, as soon as oil and grease were mentioned here I went into my angry hostile aggressive mode.

As you can see below the rifle isn't ready for prime time, it has second hand rings, with a $90.00 Tasco scope and a custom bolt handle for speed shifting and burning rubber. I think I liked the 30 year old Bushnell Banner scope that was on it two days ago better BUT I have dreams of making head shots on ground hogs from three miles away. ::)

I have been informed by the boss to curb my spending because we are going on another cruise, so any $$$ mods right now are out of the question. We went on a Med cruise last year and in Pompei I got to go into a 2000 year old Roman bordello and didn't even get in trouble with the wife. ;D

IMGP7196.jpg


The "Other" subject.

Oiling and lubing cartridge cases is all over the internet forums and what these case greasers don't understand is milsurps are sold "as is" and by law no functional checks have to be performed.

This is a Malaysian marked No.5 Jungle Carbine as it was delivered by UPS. When the fore stock was removed look what was found below. This Enfield was returned to the distributor and the money refunded. Does this rifle look like anyone checked it over before it was sold. In the UK every time a rifle changes hands it must be inspected AND re-proofed, this is why the oiled proof cartridge is no longer being used in the UK because too much accumulated damage was being done during proof checking. (Bolt and bolt lug setback)


And we have idiots telling people to oil and grease their cartridges and young kids actually believe this garbage.
You case oilers and greasers need to rethink what you say in a open public forum.
(sorry Kenny474 I'm still in combat mode)

No5rust-1.jpg


No5rust-2.jpg
 
Sorry to poke this one more time, but some time ago there was a question on this forum about the pressure on the head of a 6.5-284 cartridge due to the reduced head diameter of this cartridge, and whether or not it could be reduced by going to a cartridge with less slope in the body and a sharper shoulder.

Without getting back into all the detail, I did some calculations based on 60,000 psi in the case. For this cartridge total potential bolt thrust worked out to be 7,500 lbs. If one assumed zero headspace and the case froze itself to the chamber (i.e. no lubrication/slip), the force in the brass worked out to be about 175 lbs and in the chamber steel 7,360 lbs. So the brass saved about 175 lbs of load on the bolt. I would suggest insignificant.

But, if you consider a case with headspace and that is sufficient to cause the brass in the area in front of the head to yield, then the thrust resisted by the brass yielding increases to 4,450 lbs, or over half the bolt load.

So what does that mean? If you headspace your cartridge close to zero, then it really does not matter if you lubricate your case or not. The cartridge brass does essentially nothing for you, and the bolt takes all the load.

But, on the other hand if you provide a generous headspace, and really don't care what happens to your case, then you can reduce your bolt thrust by over 50%.

Would someone designing a gun for a military action, assume that the brass would never be lubricated or reused, and take advantage of the brass stretching to reduce stress on the action/bolt, and scrimp on the design strength? Don't know.

But to the OP, I think you are in a "Catch 22" situation with your .243 Win. If you reduce your headspace to zero with a false shoulder, or jamming the bullet, then you will put full force on the bolt, just as if you lubricated the case.
 
RonAKA

Our opinions and our math calculations are meaningless, and are nothing more than pressure "estimates" (guesstimations) The British actually used copper crusher readings at the very rear of the cartridge case and these readings are "real life" pressure figures.

This British axial system of reading chamber pressure with an oiled cartridge was never used in the U.S. All American proofing and chamber pressure readings are "radial" readings and do not show actual bolt thrust. In the Enfield forums the British NRA is even questioning if some rifles should be shot in the rain because of the added bolt thrust and they are restricting curtain weight/pressure ammunition and custom non-standard barrels that do not conform to European CIP standards.

All of what we have discussed here is meaningless, our rifles are meant to have the case grip the chamber walls and deliver less force to the bolt face, end of story. We are told not to do lube our cases "period" and it isn't up to any group of people to decide the warnings and rules don't apply.

The British MOD proof standards are written below and British military small arms are still proofed with a oiled proof test cartridge today. These pressure figures with oiled cartridges are approaching twice normal bolt thrust readings. YOUR math doesn't matter, computer models don't matter because they are meaningless compared to actual readings at the rear of the cartridge case.

This is nothing different than comparing a standard passenger car engine that when properly maintained lasts 200,000 miles. Now take a racing cars engine that is pushed to the limits, burns exotic fuel and sometimes it doesn't last more that a few races before it has to be rebuilt.

MOD.jpg


A cartridge case acts like a shock absorber when it grips the chamber walls and the cartridge case takes the "punishment".
If the receiver and bolt turns red like the cartridge case below it is taking more punishment than it was designed normally to take. So why hammer the bolt and receiver if you do not have to.

f55-movie-dsf1.gif
 
Ron, you're on the right track. :)

Al Harral's work using the DYNA2D Finite Element Code 2-D tool (243 Winchester case) shows less than a 4% difference in bolt thrust from what we would consider a 'normal' chamber finish and a highly polished chamber with a lubed case. The lubed case is shown as line #6 in this chart from his site, with a .011 coefficient of friction (u). Of additional interest in the fact that even though a .011 (u) is shown on the model, he feels it's doubtfull it could ever get that low...due to the brass filling the microscopic imperfections in the chamber and the fact that the brass is itself is effectively in hydrostatic compression.

The bold number at the end of each line is the bolt thrust figure in lbs. This is a copy/paste from his work:


Estimated/Measured Coefficient of Friction (u) Comments Maximum Plastic Strain
(%) Cartridge Case Wall Radial Thinning (inch) Maximum Bolt Face Load (lbs)

0.55 Very rough chamber, rough reamer finish with tool marks 14.39 0.006054 4435

0.41/0.37 Rough chamber finish, 320 grit finish (200 grit) 13.42 0.006328 4386

0.35/0.29 Smooth chamber, 600 grit 12.87 0.006046 4639

0.25/0.27 Smooth chamber, crocus cloth or smoother 11.10 0.005415 4477

0.19/0.19 Polished chamber Flitz 9.69 0.004858 4565

0.11 Probably not possible: Polished chamber, polished brass with grease 7.92 0.004481 4787

0.01 Friction this low is probably not physically possible and would be dangerous 14.17 0.009328 (case head expansion that could cause the case head to rupture) 7656

0.00 If Case Head Separation (Hand calculation f = pressure * area) 8785

Good shootin'. -Al
 
AlNyhus

And while were quoting from Varmint Al please read the bottom of Coefficient of Friction "Eye Chart" in red letters. :o

AlNyhus it appears your on the wrong tract. ;D

Greasers - 0
Non-greasers - 42

friction.jpg
 
Please notice the bottom figure of 0.55 coefficient of friction for a "normal" chamber and the load on the bolt face is 2603 lbs

Now go to the very top where the oilers and greasers live because a thin film of oil or grease prevents the case from gripping the chamber walls :o Please notice the the load on the bolt face is 'NOW" 6775 lbs or "OVER" 50% greater bolt thrust.

snapshot36a.jpg


Now below we have a normal grease free chamber and the stress forces can clearly be seen. Guess what happens to the bolt lugs when you oil the cartridge case and the bolt thrust doubles on the bolt lugs and receiver. ;)

The color on the bolt lugs just went to "RED" indicating twice the bolt thrust and bolt lug load

Greasers - 0
Non-greasers - 101

max-effective-stress.png


Notice, no rifles were hurt or injured during the filming of this non-greasing posting. ::)
 
I have great respect for Varmint Al, and appreciate the contributions that he has made...but his out of chamber experiments, and calculations do not jibe with actual experience.

A few years ago, a friend had a problem with pressure signs, flattened primers, and ejector marks on the first two rounds fired after cleaning. The problem turned out to be that he was reusing a chamber swab, and it was leaving a slight film of oil in the chamber. When he changed his method of "drying" the chamber, the problem was resolved. This was not a one time thing. The problem had showed up every time. I should add that the BR case is probably the worst case for this happening since the length of the body is short, and the case head is one of the largest, for a case of that length. I do not think that longer cases, with the same head size, would be as prone to the problem.

Tests that are not identical to the situation being investigated may not adequately reproduce the condition being investigated, and calculations can suffer from the same problem, and in this case, they were not needed. Only one thing was changed, and the problem went away...sort of a "what are you going to believe, me, or your lyin' eyes?" situation.

I have great respect for the field of engineering, but if they could capture all of the variables in their calculations, there would be no need for test pilots.
 
Mr. BoydAllen

Lubing cartridge cases is getting out of hand and the people who are handing out this information do "NOT" have the test equipment to back up their "slippery" STP claims. ::)

snapshot25a.jpg


Believe it or not I also understand the people who "wisely" do "things" while enjoying their hobby of shooting. I also understand what Murphy's Law mixed with inexperience or stupidity can do.
 
Mr. BoydAllen

Varmint Al is testing the coefficient of friction of "DRY" chamber walls, he is NOT testing the effects of friction and different type lubricants. These web pages are being used as a crutch to stand on for lubricating cartridge cases where the laws of hydraulics apply, force, area, pressure. And when an aircraft hydraulic line lets loose you do not want to be standing close to where it happens.
 
If you reread the material that accompanied the chart that you copied and pasted into your earlier post, you will see that the .01 coefficient is listed as probably unattainable, and the coefficient listed for a polished chamber, and case, greased, was .1. I am not suggesting that numbers are not a good thing, or that computer simulations are generally invalid, just that both can misapplied and that in this case they may have been. If you are saying that calculations should trump what actually was observed to have happened, I think that you have fallen into a common trap. BTW, I don't believe that Al claimed that he actually measured bolt thrust. He did rather elaborate, out of chamber friction tests. Also, a little tip...when you appear lower the standard of a post to a personal attack on a poster that you disagree with, it may lead readers to the conclusion that you have become frustrated with your own inability to effectively argue your point, and therefore wish to create a diversion, by heating the situation with a insult. Depending on the sophistication of the reader, this may actually have an effect that is the opposite that was intended.
 
Mr. BoydAllen

Once you or anyone grasps the concept that the United States never used oiled or lubricated cartridge cases for pressure testing and the British did, then what I'm saying will make a little more sense.

Below are a few typos but the message is clear, I own a Indian made 7.62 Nato No.1 SMLE type Enfield made of more modern heat treated steels. Read what happened to No.1 Enfields designed to shoot the .303 cartridge that were designed for approximately 5,000 cup "LESS" operating pressures than the 7.62.

AustralianSMLEVari-2.jpg


AustralianSMLEVari-3.jpg


AustralianSMLEVari-3a.jpg
 

Upgrades & Donations

This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.


Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.

You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.


To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.

Forum statistics

Threads
165,791
Messages
2,203,214
Members
79,110
Latest member
miles813
Back
Top