Elric
Well-Known Member
Folks, the Google OCR had some issues with the tables on the last two pages. I slowly cut n pasted, then edited the text on page ten. The OCR also skipped a line for each paragraph. I... Type... Slowly... Touch typing would have saved me YEARS of extra effort... I made no effort to recreate the text tables on pages 10 and 11, as they are too fiddley.
If anyone is actually interested in the Frankford Arsenal Mobilubricant test, it is in American Rifleman vol 69. In short, the use of grease increases pressure, using LOTS of grease significantly increases pressure. Thankfully, the period cupro-nickle jackets are long gone... BUT if you dig up a batch of FA 30-06 ammo from @1910, I'm not interested in finding out. Plus, I am not sure about the primers...
Grease or No Grease
American Rifleman, vol 55, no. 1, October 2, 1913, pages 3-4, 10-11
https://books.google.com/books?id=tZgwAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:4_nJVSo-51oC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi13MnzzsHYAhVI7mMKHWV1DlMQuwUIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Grease or No Grease&f=false
The modern military rifle, at any rate that specimen of it which we know as the "New Springfield" (United Slates Military Rifle, Model of 1903) has an accuracy life far greater than the large guns, and it should have a longer life; longer not only than its bigger brothers, the 14-inch cannon, but longer than that life now is.
Target range conditions tell us something of what we may expect a rifle to do under the circumstances of service, but not by any means all that we ought to know.
Where shooting men have been gathered together for the last five years there has ever been great discussion of metal fouling; of erosion, of accuracy and of accuracy life. The question of the value of a lubricant in adding to the endurance of a rifle has been well argued, but not so much has been printed upon the subject.
Arms And The Man counts itself fortunate in being able to present some highly interesting data in relation to grease or no grease. The comment, the tables and the diagram hereafter shown, have been prepared by or under the direction of Capt. D. C. McDougal, Marine Corps. Captain McDougal is not a stranger to the shooting world. He was for some years a valuable and highly capable shooting member of the strong Marine Corps Team; he was Captain of the Marine Corps Team of 1911 which won the National Team Match, and again headed the organization to represent his corps in the National Matches of this year. He is a well-informed and highly capable officer.
The test which he conducted involved the making of some hundreds of thousands of measurements: he kept a force of eight men busy for a period of four weeks measuring targets alone. The “grease" to ’which he refers, in other words, the lubricant employed, was mobilubricant. The labor was all performed with painstaking care and under competent supervision, of that we may be sure.
Captain McDougal’s conclusions upon this subject, with the evidence of which he offers to support his position, are bound to be of very great interest to the whole shooting world.
By D. C. McDougal, CAPT., MARINE Corps.
Some three years ago the practice of using a lubricant on the bullet to prevent metal fouling began to appear on the ranges, but was looked upon as being a freak innovation and did not become popular among the shooters of that year. It was acknowledged, however, that the use of grease did prevent metal fouling, but that its use caused wild shots and it was therefore unfitted for match work.
The following year a larger number were inclined to experiment with grease, and it was spoken of so favorably that I undertook two tests to ascertain its effect on the accuracy of the rifle as compared with the practice of "doping” after every range. These tests were made from a machine rest, but only one hundred rounds with each rifle was fired. The measurements of the targets were against the use of grease, and after the second test I was convinced that the use of grease produced one or two wild shots in every ten.
Last year the Inspector of Small Arms Practice wrote me at some length calling attention to the high scores being made in the matches by men who used grease entirely with little or no cleaning, Captain Wise, of Massachusetts, having followed this practice throughout in the Argentine matches and being high gun in these matches. It was suggested that a more complete test be made to definitely settle the question once for all.
Requisition was made for the necessary material for the test, and by January of this year the material was all received at Honolulu. Four selected match barrels were used and two machine rests of the latest pattern, Ordnance Department, and 26,000 rounds of Frankford Arsenal ammunition, lot 242. September 29, 1910: lot 295, May 14, 1911, and lot 280, May 24, 1911.
The machine rests were set up on the Fort Shafter range, Honolulu, at the 600-yard firing point, and on January 20 the test was commenced. The rifles were carefully examined and calibrated, as follows: Rifle 466646, .308; rifle 460926, .3077; rifle 465929, 3079; rifle 406607, .3081.
All four rifles were free from tool marks and without any imperfections, such as pockets or tight spots. Rifles 466646 and 460926 were selected to be shot with grease, and rifles 465920 and 460607 were selected to be shot dry and cleaned with ammonia dope after each target was made. It was decided to fire thirty shots on each target, as that was the number of rounds that would probably produce metal fouling, and it also gave about the maximum number of shots that could be conveniently measured, and would save the labor of frequently changing targets.
On the two machine rests a dry gun and a grease gun were sighted in together and when ready, both were fired as rapidly as possible until the thirty shots had been tired out of each. The rifles were then taken out of the machine rests, the targets changed, and the other pair of rifles were placed in the machine rests and sighted-in, the same procedure being followed as in the first pair. While this was being done the dry rifles were cooled, swabbed out with water and then cleaned out with ammonia dope so as to be ready to replace the rifles being shot in the machine rest.
It was observed that the first four hundred rounds fired gave groups much better than the grease rifle, and had the test been concluded at this point, the conclusion would have been that grease did not compare favorably with the rifle that was cleaned after every thirty-five rounds. However, at a point somewhere after four hundred rounds the grease rifle groups, which had been improving all the time, began to be smaller than the groups given by the dry rifle, and from this point on, in nearly every instance the grease rifles gave better groups than the dry rifles, the dry rifles showing a tendency to make larger groups as the test continued.
The rifles were calibrated after live hundred rounds were fired, the two dry rifles showing a slight tendency to bell at the muzzle. This was almost imperceptible, but it was there nevertheless. The grease rifles showed a smaller calibration than when the test commenced, both calibrating nearly .304, showing that the grease and residue had formed a hard, smooth lining, somewhat elastic, which was evenly distributed over the surface of the bore. Neither of these rifles had been cleaned in any manner, and while they showed a slight rusting after a damp night, the groups would he just as uniform at the beginning of the day's firing as at the end.
After a thousand rounds had been fired the dry rifles were found to be very badly belled, and a little gas cutting could be seen at the breech end. There was a tight spot about ten inches from the muzzle in each. The grease rifles had decreased in bore to .303, but a second calibrating bullet being pushed through showed a slight increase to .304, which was about as much as the soft lead slug would push out.
The test was continued from there on until 3,300 rounds had been fired, when the dry rifles were found to be making such large groups that the test for those two rifles was discontinued. The groups were so large and scattered that it was difficult to prevent losing one or two shots off the target, unless the rifles were carefully sighted-in to get the center of the shot group exactly in the center of the target.
The grease guns at this stage showed up as well, if not better, than at any point in the test, and it was decided then to carry on the test until the rifles using grease showed targets of the same size and patterns as the dry rifles had in 3,300 rounds. One grease rifle was cleaned and a few groups made with it cleaned, “doping" after each group to see the effect that cleaning would have on a rifle after using this number of rounds with the grease.
The groups given by this rifle were considerably larger than it had given before it had been cleaned, so much so as to show conclusively that its value as to accuracy had been ruined by the cleaning.
Two hundred rounds were then fired out of this rifle, with grease, as rapidly as possible, no measurements being taken, and then a series of targets were made to see if the rifle had regained any of its accuracy by the use of grease, after it had been cleaned. These groups showed that the lubricant did bring the barrel back and increase its accuracy, but it was never quite as good as it had been before it was cleaned.
Firing was continued with the rifle, using grease, that had not been cleaned, and the groups were consistent and uniform until 7,000 rounds had been fired. The groups then commenced to show an increase in size, which continued until 7,700 rounds had been fired, when the groups became of about the same size and pattern as the dry rifles had shown after the 3,300 rounds had been fired from them.
The test was here completed, it being conclusively shown that the use of grease had at least doubled the accurate life of the barrel, and that the groups given by the grease rifle, after four hundred rounds had been fired, were better than those given by the dry rifles. During the test several bad groups were made, which, upon investigation, were found to be caused by the loosening of the recoil plate screws on the machine rest and by the splitting of the stocks.
Another bad group was traced to a cracked trigger guard, and another group was caused by the breaking of both guard screws. These groups were included in the computations, as they were all found in the grease rifles, and if anything, I wished to make the test as hard as possible for the grease rifles so as to allow of no doubt by throwing out unfavorable groups.
In plotting these groups it will be noted that there are several sharp rises in the curves, which are due to the bad groups, caused by mechanical disturbances of the mount, and I do not believe would have been present had no accident happened to the machine rests or stocks.
Since making these tests I have been asked by several people why a third group of rifles had not been tried out, being cleaned with oil or "Hoppe," in the conventional manner, but not using ammonia dope, the cleaning to take place only after the day’s shooting was done.
The reason for not making this test was the fact that in 1908 a test of this character was made at Sea Girt, using one set of rifles that were cleaned with ammonia dope after each ten rounds, and a set of rifles that were not cleaned until after the day’s shooting was over, the test being competed in one day. These tests showed a slight increase in each group, made by the uncleaned rifles until a maximum group had been reached, the rifles then remaining uniform but giving larger groups than the rifles that were being doped after every target.
Of course, there has been some improvement in the primers since that time, and the metal fouling would not now be so troublesome as it was at that time; still the fact that metal fouling did give bad groups at that time made me believe that its presence in a rifle was not conducive to accuracy, and that the use of lubricant to prevent fouling, or frequent cleaning, to remove metal fouling, were the only two methods by which accurate shooting could be done, and that the question of testing uncleaned rifles did not enter into the proposition.
If I had to conduct the test over again I would include this feature also, so there could be no further grounds for doubt or argument.
In order to tabulate the results of the test, the mean of three targets was taken to obtain a one-hundred-shot group. This actually means that ninety shots were measured and an average of ten sighters for each three targets would bring this up to one hundred shots fired for each three targets made.
The following are the individual measurements of the targets, resolved into ninety shot groups, one hundred shots fired:
If anyone is actually interested in the Frankford Arsenal Mobilubricant test, it is in American Rifleman vol 69. In short, the use of grease increases pressure, using LOTS of grease significantly increases pressure. Thankfully, the period cupro-nickle jackets are long gone... BUT if you dig up a batch of FA 30-06 ammo from @1910, I'm not interested in finding out. Plus, I am not sure about the primers...
Grease or No Grease
American Rifleman, vol 55, no. 1, October 2, 1913, pages 3-4, 10-11
https://books.google.com/books?id=tZgwAQAAMAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=editions:4_nJVSo-51oC&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi13MnzzsHYAhVI7mMKHWV1DlMQuwUIPTAE#v=onepage&q=Grease or No Grease&f=false
The modern military rifle, at any rate that specimen of it which we know as the "New Springfield" (United Slates Military Rifle, Model of 1903) has an accuracy life far greater than the large guns, and it should have a longer life; longer not only than its bigger brothers, the 14-inch cannon, but longer than that life now is.
Target range conditions tell us something of what we may expect a rifle to do under the circumstances of service, but not by any means all that we ought to know.
Where shooting men have been gathered together for the last five years there has ever been great discussion of metal fouling; of erosion, of accuracy and of accuracy life. The question of the value of a lubricant in adding to the endurance of a rifle has been well argued, but not so much has been printed upon the subject.
Arms And The Man counts itself fortunate in being able to present some highly interesting data in relation to grease or no grease. The comment, the tables and the diagram hereafter shown, have been prepared by or under the direction of Capt. D. C. McDougal, Marine Corps. Captain McDougal is not a stranger to the shooting world. He was for some years a valuable and highly capable shooting member of the strong Marine Corps Team; he was Captain of the Marine Corps Team of 1911 which won the National Team Match, and again headed the organization to represent his corps in the National Matches of this year. He is a well-informed and highly capable officer.
The test which he conducted involved the making of some hundreds of thousands of measurements: he kept a force of eight men busy for a period of four weeks measuring targets alone. The “grease" to ’which he refers, in other words, the lubricant employed, was mobilubricant. The labor was all performed with painstaking care and under competent supervision, of that we may be sure.
Captain McDougal’s conclusions upon this subject, with the evidence of which he offers to support his position, are bound to be of very great interest to the whole shooting world.
By D. C. McDougal, CAPT., MARINE Corps.
Some three years ago the practice of using a lubricant on the bullet to prevent metal fouling began to appear on the ranges, but was looked upon as being a freak innovation and did not become popular among the shooters of that year. It was acknowledged, however, that the use of grease did prevent metal fouling, but that its use caused wild shots and it was therefore unfitted for match work.
The following year a larger number were inclined to experiment with grease, and it was spoken of so favorably that I undertook two tests to ascertain its effect on the accuracy of the rifle as compared with the practice of "doping” after every range. These tests were made from a machine rest, but only one hundred rounds with each rifle was fired. The measurements of the targets were against the use of grease, and after the second test I was convinced that the use of grease produced one or two wild shots in every ten.
Last year the Inspector of Small Arms Practice wrote me at some length calling attention to the high scores being made in the matches by men who used grease entirely with little or no cleaning, Captain Wise, of Massachusetts, having followed this practice throughout in the Argentine matches and being high gun in these matches. It was suggested that a more complete test be made to definitely settle the question once for all.
Requisition was made for the necessary material for the test, and by January of this year the material was all received at Honolulu. Four selected match barrels were used and two machine rests of the latest pattern, Ordnance Department, and 26,000 rounds of Frankford Arsenal ammunition, lot 242. September 29, 1910: lot 295, May 14, 1911, and lot 280, May 24, 1911.
The machine rests were set up on the Fort Shafter range, Honolulu, at the 600-yard firing point, and on January 20 the test was commenced. The rifles were carefully examined and calibrated, as follows: Rifle 466646, .308; rifle 460926, .3077; rifle 465929, 3079; rifle 406607, .3081.
All four rifles were free from tool marks and without any imperfections, such as pockets or tight spots. Rifles 466646 and 460926 were selected to be shot with grease, and rifles 465920 and 460607 were selected to be shot dry and cleaned with ammonia dope after each target was made. It was decided to fire thirty shots on each target, as that was the number of rounds that would probably produce metal fouling, and it also gave about the maximum number of shots that could be conveniently measured, and would save the labor of frequently changing targets.
On the two machine rests a dry gun and a grease gun were sighted in together and when ready, both were fired as rapidly as possible until the thirty shots had been tired out of each. The rifles were then taken out of the machine rests, the targets changed, and the other pair of rifles were placed in the machine rests and sighted-in, the same procedure being followed as in the first pair. While this was being done the dry rifles were cooled, swabbed out with water and then cleaned out with ammonia dope so as to be ready to replace the rifles being shot in the machine rest.
It was observed that the first four hundred rounds fired gave groups much better than the grease rifle, and had the test been concluded at this point, the conclusion would have been that grease did not compare favorably with the rifle that was cleaned after every thirty-five rounds. However, at a point somewhere after four hundred rounds the grease rifle groups, which had been improving all the time, began to be smaller than the groups given by the dry rifle, and from this point on, in nearly every instance the grease rifles gave better groups than the dry rifles, the dry rifles showing a tendency to make larger groups as the test continued.
The rifles were calibrated after live hundred rounds were fired, the two dry rifles showing a slight tendency to bell at the muzzle. This was almost imperceptible, but it was there nevertheless. The grease rifles showed a smaller calibration than when the test commenced, both calibrating nearly .304, showing that the grease and residue had formed a hard, smooth lining, somewhat elastic, which was evenly distributed over the surface of the bore. Neither of these rifles had been cleaned in any manner, and while they showed a slight rusting after a damp night, the groups would he just as uniform at the beginning of the day's firing as at the end.
After a thousand rounds had been fired the dry rifles were found to be very badly belled, and a little gas cutting could be seen at the breech end. There was a tight spot about ten inches from the muzzle in each. The grease rifles had decreased in bore to .303, but a second calibrating bullet being pushed through showed a slight increase to .304, which was about as much as the soft lead slug would push out.
The test was continued from there on until 3,300 rounds had been fired, when the dry rifles were found to be making such large groups that the test for those two rifles was discontinued. The groups were so large and scattered that it was difficult to prevent losing one or two shots off the target, unless the rifles were carefully sighted-in to get the center of the shot group exactly in the center of the target.
The grease guns at this stage showed up as well, if not better, than at any point in the test, and it was decided then to carry on the test until the rifles using grease showed targets of the same size and patterns as the dry rifles had in 3,300 rounds. One grease rifle was cleaned and a few groups made with it cleaned, “doping" after each group to see the effect that cleaning would have on a rifle after using this number of rounds with the grease.
The groups given by this rifle were considerably larger than it had given before it had been cleaned, so much so as to show conclusively that its value as to accuracy had been ruined by the cleaning.
Two hundred rounds were then fired out of this rifle, with grease, as rapidly as possible, no measurements being taken, and then a series of targets were made to see if the rifle had regained any of its accuracy by the use of grease, after it had been cleaned. These groups showed that the lubricant did bring the barrel back and increase its accuracy, but it was never quite as good as it had been before it was cleaned.
Firing was continued with the rifle, using grease, that had not been cleaned, and the groups were consistent and uniform until 7,000 rounds had been fired. The groups then commenced to show an increase in size, which continued until 7,700 rounds had been fired, when the groups became of about the same size and pattern as the dry rifles had shown after the 3,300 rounds had been fired from them.
The test was here completed, it being conclusively shown that the use of grease had at least doubled the accurate life of the barrel, and that the groups given by the grease rifle, after four hundred rounds had been fired, were better than those given by the dry rifles. During the test several bad groups were made, which, upon investigation, were found to be caused by the loosening of the recoil plate screws on the machine rest and by the splitting of the stocks.
Another bad group was traced to a cracked trigger guard, and another group was caused by the breaking of both guard screws. These groups were included in the computations, as they were all found in the grease rifles, and if anything, I wished to make the test as hard as possible for the grease rifles so as to allow of no doubt by throwing out unfavorable groups.
In plotting these groups it will be noted that there are several sharp rises in the curves, which are due to the bad groups, caused by mechanical disturbances of the mount, and I do not believe would have been present had no accident happened to the machine rests or stocks.
Since making these tests I have been asked by several people why a third group of rifles had not been tried out, being cleaned with oil or "Hoppe," in the conventional manner, but not using ammonia dope, the cleaning to take place only after the day’s shooting was done.
The reason for not making this test was the fact that in 1908 a test of this character was made at Sea Girt, using one set of rifles that were cleaned with ammonia dope after each ten rounds, and a set of rifles that were not cleaned until after the day’s shooting was over, the test being competed in one day. These tests showed a slight increase in each group, made by the uncleaned rifles until a maximum group had been reached, the rifles then remaining uniform but giving larger groups than the rifles that were being doped after every target.
Of course, there has been some improvement in the primers since that time, and the metal fouling would not now be so troublesome as it was at that time; still the fact that metal fouling did give bad groups at that time made me believe that its presence in a rifle was not conducive to accuracy, and that the use of lubricant to prevent fouling, or frequent cleaning, to remove metal fouling, were the only two methods by which accurate shooting could be done, and that the question of testing uncleaned rifles did not enter into the proposition.
If I had to conduct the test over again I would include this feature also, so there could be no further grounds for doubt or argument.
In order to tabulate the results of the test, the mean of three targets was taken to obtain a one-hundred-shot group. This actually means that ninety shots were measured and an average of ten sighters for each three targets would bring this up to one hundred shots fired for each three targets made.
The following are the individual measurements of the targets, resolved into ninety shot groups, one hundred shots fired:
Last edited:
