Posted on 04/22/2017 7:47:35 AM PDT by rktman
Here is one similar to that which I had previously read, and it too claims they used leftover powder from World War II.
http://smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1735
Here is another.
I've read several articles that allege the jamming problem was the result of using left over World War II powder, though I haven't been able to find the one I read years ago with the exact particulars I have mentioned.
In any case, I will keep in mind what you have told me for future reference. Again, thank you for advising me on this issue.
“...what I had read is being repeated in various online articles on the subject.
Here is one similar to that which I had previously read, and it too claims they used leftover powder from World War II. ...
... several articles that allege the jamming problem was the result of using left over World War II powder, ...”
My thanks to DiogenesLamp for courtesy and graciousness in replying.
Not sure who Christopher Bartocci and Lawrence Hadzima are, but neither writes like they have any familiarity with the engineering principles involved, nor the chemical properties of initiators or propellants, nor testing requirements nor processes, nor the relevant regulations, nor the organizational politics and bureaucratic rivalries - those between factions inside the Dept of the Army, and between the Army Dept and other service departments.
I do possess such familiarity - or a portion of it, at least. I spent 29 years in uniform, 13 of them in staff billets responsible for operational testing of various weapons systems: was privileged to work with every US armed service dept, numerous agencies outside DoD, and a number of Allied countries. We worked with every technical specialty in every armed service - extensively, intensively, repeatedly.
After surviving a couple seasons of planning, coordinating, scheduling, conducting, recording, analyzing, reporting on, and summarizing operational tests, one cannot help but develop a feel for who knows stuff and who doesn’t, merely by reading what they write.
Authors Bartocci and Hadzima don’t know much.
Unfortunately - as DiogenesLamp noted - much material, learned-sounding but erroneous, makes its way onto internet sites, then gets repeated as if it were Absolute Truth.
Author Bartocci is mistaken in claiming ball powder possesses “different burning properties” compared to IMR powder. They are both the same stuff: nitrocellulose. He was correct in pointing out that early loadings of ball powder in 5.56mm rounds caused higher port pressure and thus a higher cyclic rate, but gets the cause backwards: the ball powder (with a “sharper”, more precisely an earlier, pressure curve) did burn more quickly.
Burn rate of smokeless propellants is controlled by the size and shape of the granules (some call them “kernels”), and to a lesser extent by applied coatings (more important in artillery).
Author Hadzima claims ball propellant for 5.56mm small arms cartridges was “manufactured” from “ a huge surplus of old artillery powder.” Can’t be done directly: powder granules for artillery must be much larger to burn correctly in much larger-bore, longer-barreled guns. Many such granules would not fit into the mouth of a 5.56mm cartridge; in guns of very large bore, granules can be several times the size of the entire 5.56mm round.
There is some indication in the testimony cited by author Hadzima that Eugene Stoner made an error (or, at least, the testimony was transcribed inaccurately: he states that ball propellant burned more cleanly than IMR, then states the opposite. Do a text search on “bullet:” it’s the first to come up.
Sounds like Winchester did not want to make the effort.
It might interest forum members to learn that in the 1950s, Winchester was owned by Olin - the foremost producer of ball powders. Remington was owned by DuPont - the foremost producer of IMR powders.
There are many other errors of concept and detail, I wish to avoid boring the rest of the forum. I freely admit that my qualifications are not verifiable here; forum members must examine the details, verify them independently, and make their own judgments.
Again, thanks for the reply. I will henceforth consider you to be the more authoritative voice on this topic. It is good to find someone who can explain things in a manner that makes sense, and likewise in a manner that has the ring of truth to it.
There is a lot of crap floating around the internet and sometimes it is difficult to ascertain what is real and what isn't if you are not an expert on the particular subject matter.
That was one of the most information-dense posts I read read on FR in recent memory.
Thank you for all the great info.
You were assigned an M3 in 1985?
That’s nuts! Is there an M3 I’m not familiar with?
“...There is a lot of crap floating around the internet ...” [DiogenesLamp, post 43]
“... one of the most information-dense posts I read read on FR in recent memory. ...” [T-Bone Texan, post 44]
My thanks for such courtesy in replies.
The stuff floating around isn’t limited to the internet. One must be wary; I’d hasten to say that forum members ought not take my comments as authoritative. Finding out for oneself can lead to fewer errors.
Distressingly, the Army cannot point to a great legacy when it comes to operational testing. Dates back into the 1860s, and there are hints that problems were arising before 1820.
Not limited to small arms either: they purchased air defense missile systems in the 1950s, but consciously bypassed support equipment and recommended procedures for calibration of sensors and site intercomm gear. Led to inadvertent launch of a live missile from a site in New Jersey. The rails weren’t in launch position and the missile shot along US 1 for some distance, at the altitude of a few feet.
By the 1980s, it was obvious that the M1911 pistol was on its last legs (in terms of supportability ... last contract let during WWII, last frame deliveries in the 1950s). After the messes induced by Army Ordnance and contending factions inside the department, the other departments in DoD got together, and insisted unanimously that operational testing and selection activities for any new standard handgun be taken out of the Army’s hands ... the Joint Services Small Arms Assessment Program (JSSAP) which ultimately led to the adoption of the Beretta 92SBF as US Handgun, M9 was placed in the hands of USAF, and the actual work was accomplished by USAF’s Weapons Lab at Eglin AFB in Florida.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.