'The 1911- Myths, Lies And Fallacies' - Patrick Sweeney
- Thread starter Sharps '74
- Start date
Next "myth" ....
"Long links tighten groups and increase accuracy".
"Yes, they do - sometimes - but they do so at great potential cost. I've lost count of the number of times I've had people suggest , recommend or use this method. The problems are few, but significant; the link is not designed for this stress. And there is only so much room in the frame. The link was not designed to prop up the barrel, only to pull it down out of the slide.
If you ask the link to be a wedge, you'll find it peening or breaking on you. As for room, when the barrel comes down out of the slide, it has to go somewhere. If the link is too long, the barrel hits the rear of the frame recess before it clears the slide. Only bad things can happen then.
One bad thing is that barrel hits hard and soon peens or breaks off the lower lugs. The other is that the slide has to force the barrel out of the way. Trapped between the frame and the slide, the load on the barrel then gets concentrated on the tops off the locking lugs. Those will soon chip or roll over and possibly damage the slide.
Your long link "solution" could end up costing you a new barrel, or a new barrel and slide - an expensive "fix" to poor accuracy."
I remember when this was a current "solution" to get a beat up surplus 1911 to group better. A few tried it on their commercial models as well. It quickly became one of those "everyone knows" things that became fact. It did generate some shop time for 'smiths that relied on "American Handgunner" and other publications for the latest hot tips on accurizing the 1911. I take the "If'n it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.
Recently I read something to the effect that in pistol designs with two locking lugs, only ONE actually takes the strain, the other merely a "slave" lug. There is a new design on the market that puts this theory to the test. Time will tell the story on this innovation .....
"Long links tighten groups and increase accuracy".
"Yes, they do - sometimes - but they do so at great potential cost. I've lost count of the number of times I've had people suggest , recommend or use this method. The problems are few, but significant; the link is not designed for this stress. And there is only so much room in the frame. The link was not designed to prop up the barrel, only to pull it down out of the slide.
If you ask the link to be a wedge, you'll find it peening or breaking on you. As for room, when the barrel comes down out of the slide, it has to go somewhere. If the link is too long, the barrel hits the rear of the frame recess before it clears the slide. Only bad things can happen then.
One bad thing is that barrel hits hard and soon peens or breaks off the lower lugs. The other is that the slide has to force the barrel out of the way. Trapped between the frame and the slide, the load on the barrel then gets concentrated on the tops off the locking lugs. Those will soon chip or roll over and possibly damage the slide.
Your long link "solution" could end up costing you a new barrel, or a new barrel and slide - an expensive "fix" to poor accuracy."
I remember when this was a current "solution" to get a beat up surplus 1911 to group better. A few tried it on their commercial models as well. It quickly became one of those "everyone knows" things that became fact. It did generate some shop time for 'smiths that relied on "American Handgunner" and other publications for the latest hot tips on accurizing the 1911. I take the "If'n it ain't broke, don't fix it" approach.
Recently I read something to the effect that in pistol designs with two locking lugs, only ONE actually takes the strain, the other merely a "slave" lug. There is a new design on the market that puts this theory to the test. Time will tell the story on this innovation .....
Next, but not last of the 1911 "myths" .....
"The Army wanted the .45 to knock down Moros in the Philippines"
"Oh, puh-leeze! Yes, the Army was not at all happy with the performance of the .38 Colt during the Philippine Insurrection. (My grandfather was there. He dies before I could hear any stories about it.) The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/.9mm pistol? Cavalry.
A century ago, the cavalry was the prestige branch of the service. It was what Delta, Rangers, Recon and Spec Ops are today. If you wanted to be "somebody" in the Army, you had to command a cavalry troop. And the biggest problem any cavalry unit would face was .... cavalry. Stopping a man was one thing, but getting a horse to quit was something else.
Ever wonder why the Thompson-LaGarde tests were conducted on cattle and not goats? Because everyone involved was more interested in what handguns (the premier arm of the service) would do to horses. Oh yes, they tested on cadavers, but the live subjects had weights starting at 1,200 pounds. It wasn't 140 lb Moros they were worried about, but 1,400 pound chargers.
Stop the horse and you stop the charge."
Like many of you, I grew up hearing the story of how the US Army dug their Colt SAAa out of storage, shortened the 7-1/2" barrels to the 5-1/2" "Artillery" length and issued them in the Philippines. This to stop the Moros who might be hopped up on drugs and not just patriotic zeal to resist the invaders. This is widely and oft repeated in gun magazines for the Cowboy Action types who once shot .44s and .45s in their game, but now almost exclusively shoot .38 Spl. and even lower powered calibres if they want to win. After all, no horses to drop in CAS.
In other words - full circle. Ironic, isn't it?
One has to wonder just what cavalry the US Army expected to fight at that time. The Indian Wars were all over, where the US Army fought "the finest light cavalry in the world", according to General Custer. European cavalry had always relied on small calibre revolvers and pistols once the era of single shot, muzzle loading "horse pistols" was over. Perhaps European cavalry horses were easier to drop than their American counterparts?
"The Army wanted the .45 to knock down Moros in the Philippines"
"Oh, puh-leeze! Yes, the Army was not at all happy with the performance of the .38 Colt during the Philippine Insurrection. (My grandfather was there. He dies before I could hear any stories about it.) The real reason we got a .45 and not a .38/.9mm pistol? Cavalry.
A century ago, the cavalry was the prestige branch of the service. It was what Delta, Rangers, Recon and Spec Ops are today. If you wanted to be "somebody" in the Army, you had to command a cavalry troop. And the biggest problem any cavalry unit would face was .... cavalry. Stopping a man was one thing, but getting a horse to quit was something else.
Ever wonder why the Thompson-LaGarde tests were conducted on cattle and not goats? Because everyone involved was more interested in what handguns (the premier arm of the service) would do to horses. Oh yes, they tested on cadavers, but the live subjects had weights starting at 1,200 pounds. It wasn't 140 lb Moros they were worried about, but 1,400 pound chargers.
Stop the horse and you stop the charge."
Like many of you, I grew up hearing the story of how the US Army dug their Colt SAAa out of storage, shortened the 7-1/2" barrels to the 5-1/2" "Artillery" length and issued them in the Philippines. This to stop the Moros who might be hopped up on drugs and not just patriotic zeal to resist the invaders. This is widely and oft repeated in gun magazines for the Cowboy Action types who once shot .44s and .45s in their game, but now almost exclusively shoot .38 Spl. and even lower powered calibres if they want to win. After all, no horses to drop in CAS.
In other words - full circle. Ironic, isn't it?
One has to wonder just what cavalry the US Army expected to fight at that time. The Indian Wars were all over, where the US Army fought "the finest light cavalry in the world", according to General Custer. European cavalry had always relied on small calibre revolvers and pistols once the era of single shot, muzzle loading "horse pistols" was over. Perhaps European cavalry horses were easier to drop than their American counterparts?
Shooting right-hand-only, it's possible to induce some thumb drag, although at the probable cost of slide-serration rash and maybe even getting nibbled by the safety notch. Or the index finger can drag under the ejection opening looking like it's still in the usual safety position while firing with the second finger as one does for volley fire with a Lee Enfield. But an alert RO should spot you doing that!
That ain't gonna happen if the RO wants to be able to take advantage of the "alibi" himself when he's shooting! One RO giving range commands is not going to be in a position to see what every shooter is doing during a course of fire.
The practice was adopted to give shooters an excuse for a poor shot.
The practice was adopted to give shooters an excuse for a poor shot.
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
If the hammer half #### notch breaks, or the sear breaks, the gun could discharge, don't you think?
Grip safety prevents the trigger from moving back to engage the sear. Would it prevent an AD if pistol was dropped on its hammer?
Only one way to really find out, if you're that keen on knowing. Try it. Got some extra parts you can play with?
The half #### notch is there in the event that the hammer slips while hammer cocking as a Cavalry man would do, running the hammer on his boot or part of the horse's tack. That is why European cavalry went for ring hammers.
The expression "going off half cocked" describes the scenario you describe.
As I understand the mechanics of the 1911, the grip safety makes it impossible for the sear to be tripped until it is depressed. That is why many choose not to disable the grip safety by pinning. However, the original design did not include a grip safety. It was added at the request of the US Army.
***EDIT ***
"Forgotten Weapons" covers this rather well in the video entitled: "How the 1911 got it's safeties - and why the early models had none".
The half #### notch is there in the event that the hammer slips while hammer cocking as a Cavalry man would do, running the hammer on his boot or part of the horse's tack. That is why European cavalry went for ring hammers.
The expression "going off half cocked" describes the scenario you describe.
As I understand the mechanics of the 1911, the grip safety makes it impossible for the sear to be tripped until it is depressed. That is why many choose not to disable the grip safety by pinning. However, the original design did not include a grip safety. It was added at the request of the US Army.
***EDIT ***
"Forgotten Weapons" covers this rather well in the video entitled: "How the 1911 got it's safeties - and why the early models had none".
Last edited:
So much for Sweeney's "myths, lies and fallacies" re: the 1911. Moving on, this time the reference being "Hatcher's Notebook", the iconic book by Major General Julian S. Hatcher, Chief of the Machine Gun And Small Arms Section, Engineering Division, Ordnance during WWI, OIC Frankford Small Arms Ammunition Plant, head Honcho at Springfield Armory, author of several books on small arms etc., etc. Suffice it to say that Hatcher was considered an expert in all aspects of small arms and ballistics.
We all know that cartridges such as the .45 ACP, .380 ACP, 9x19mm, etc., being "rimless" cartridges, headspace on the case mouth, right? Ergo, it behooves us to ensure that our casings for these cartridges should be of uniform length for optimum performance, right? Perhaps, in a perfect world, but not the reality for most shooters. According to the reloading manuals, the rim of the .45 ACP case mikes 0.4800", the case body 0.4762"above the groove,so it is not entirely accurate to call it a "rimless" cartridge.
Quoting Hatcher on the topic .....
"The true rimless cartridge has a head which is no larger that the body of the cartridge is at some point further forward. It has a groove or cannelure cut around it just forward of the rim, for the extractor to hook into As the rim is no larger than the body, it cannot be used to limit the forward motion of the cartridge when it is seated in the chamber., and this must be accomplished in some other manner. With the.45 ACP cartridge, this is done by leaving the the forward end of the cartridge, that is the mouth, square, instead of crimping it into the bullet as is dome with most other pistol or revolver cartridges. A square shoulder or ledge is left at the front of the end of the chamber and the mouth of the case seats against this square ledge."
In the foregoing, he has described the best of all possible worlds re: the headspacing of "rimless" pistol rounds. However, reading on .....
"It is quite possible to fire the .45 ACP cartridge in the .455 Webley & Scott Self Loading Pistol, even though with his gun and cartridge combination there is about 1/8" excess headspace. If the cartridges are loaded into the chamber singly, they go in so far that neither the firing pin nor the extractor can reach them, and they will not fire; but if they are loaded from the magazine, they can rise up under the extractor hook and this holds them close enough to the breech block so that the firing pin can strike the primer, and they fire, extract, eject and reload just as if they were intended for this gun, in spite of the 1/8" excess headspace. I have fired many rounds of this ,45 ACP ammunition through the .455 Webley & Scott Self Loading Pistol."
"Likewise the 9mm Short, or .380 ACP cartridge, which is .080" shorter than the proper 9mm Parabellum cartridge, may be fired from the magazine in the Luger (P-08) or the P-38 , but this little cartridge has insufficient power to eject and reload, so the slide must be pulled back by hand after each shot. I have fired many of these cartridges in both these guns with no trouble as long as they feed up from the magazine. If loaded in the chamber by hand, they will not fire because the extractor will not catch them at all in the Luger, and only part time in the P-38."
"I have also fired the .455 Webley Revolver Cartridges Mark II in the .45 caliber Colt New Service Revolver with an excess headspace of .037", and I have fired the .455 Automatic Webley & Scott Pistol Cartridge in this same Colt New Service .45 with an excess headspace of .025". Likewise, in trying everything I could think of, I have fired quite a few .45 ACP in a Colt New Service Revolver caliber .455 with an excess headspace for this combination of .051"."
Note the following which should be underlined for effect:
"In all of the above shooting, accuracy was excellent, and no bad results of any kind were observed. The only trouble to be expected was a possibility of hangfires or misfires from having the primer too far away from the firing pin, but even this did not occur."
To sum up Hatcher's thoughts on the matter:
"Headspace, like that when we fire the .380 ACP cartridge in the Luger pistol is really never any greater than the distance the extractor lets the case go away from the face of the bolt. Without the extractor holding it, the case might go quite a way in, but when it is held by the extractor, it cannot go very far, and this limits the headspace, and holds the cartridge close enough so that the firing pin can set off the primer."
Wiley Clapp (ex-USAF Armorer and gun writer) writes about a friend that delights in torturing him with pics of one hole targets fired at 25 yds from a known accurate 1911 using a Ransom machine rest - loaded with range pick up brass!
So much for that "myth".
My .45 ACP brass is never sorted. It is a mix of GI, Norc, Federal, a lot of it range pick ups. It has never been trimmed. OAL is uniform and rounds are taper crimped. My guns function flawlessly with it, but it does make itself known over a chronograph. Loads that make IPSC Major in some cases score low in others, so it behooves me to (a) sort accordingly or (b) load to ensure Major with all cases. That or declare Minor and carry on.
We all know that cartridges such as the .45 ACP, .380 ACP, 9x19mm, etc., being "rimless" cartridges, headspace on the case mouth, right? Ergo, it behooves us to ensure that our casings for these cartridges should be of uniform length for optimum performance, right? Perhaps, in a perfect world, but not the reality for most shooters. According to the reloading manuals, the rim of the .45 ACP case mikes 0.4800", the case body 0.4762"above the groove,so it is not entirely accurate to call it a "rimless" cartridge.
Quoting Hatcher on the topic .....
"The true rimless cartridge has a head which is no larger that the body of the cartridge is at some point further forward. It has a groove or cannelure cut around it just forward of the rim, for the extractor to hook into As the rim is no larger than the body, it cannot be used to limit the forward motion of the cartridge when it is seated in the chamber., and this must be accomplished in some other manner. With the.45 ACP cartridge, this is done by leaving the the forward end of the cartridge, that is the mouth, square, instead of crimping it into the bullet as is dome with most other pistol or revolver cartridges. A square shoulder or ledge is left at the front of the end of the chamber and the mouth of the case seats against this square ledge."
In the foregoing, he has described the best of all possible worlds re: the headspacing of "rimless" pistol rounds. However, reading on .....
"It is quite possible to fire the .45 ACP cartridge in the .455 Webley & Scott Self Loading Pistol, even though with his gun and cartridge combination there is about 1/8" excess headspace. If the cartridges are loaded into the chamber singly, they go in so far that neither the firing pin nor the extractor can reach them, and they will not fire; but if they are loaded from the magazine, they can rise up under the extractor hook and this holds them close enough to the breech block so that the firing pin can strike the primer, and they fire, extract, eject and reload just as if they were intended for this gun, in spite of the 1/8" excess headspace. I have fired many rounds of this ,45 ACP ammunition through the .455 Webley & Scott Self Loading Pistol."
"Likewise the 9mm Short, or .380 ACP cartridge, which is .080" shorter than the proper 9mm Parabellum cartridge, may be fired from the magazine in the Luger (P-08) or the P-38 , but this little cartridge has insufficient power to eject and reload, so the slide must be pulled back by hand after each shot. I have fired many of these cartridges in both these guns with no trouble as long as they feed up from the magazine. If loaded in the chamber by hand, they will not fire because the extractor will not catch them at all in the Luger, and only part time in the P-38."
"I have also fired the .455 Webley Revolver Cartridges Mark II in the .45 caliber Colt New Service Revolver with an excess headspace of .037", and I have fired the .455 Automatic Webley & Scott Pistol Cartridge in this same Colt New Service .45 with an excess headspace of .025". Likewise, in trying everything I could think of, I have fired quite a few .45 ACP in a Colt New Service Revolver caliber .455 with an excess headspace for this combination of .051"."
Note the following which should be underlined for effect:
"In all of the above shooting, accuracy was excellent, and no bad results of any kind were observed. The only trouble to be expected was a possibility of hangfires or misfires from having the primer too far away from the firing pin, but even this did not occur."
To sum up Hatcher's thoughts on the matter:
"Headspace, like that when we fire the .380 ACP cartridge in the Luger pistol is really never any greater than the distance the extractor lets the case go away from the face of the bolt. Without the extractor holding it, the case might go quite a way in, but when it is held by the extractor, it cannot go very far, and this limits the headspace, and holds the cartridge close enough so that the firing pin can set off the primer."
Wiley Clapp (ex-USAF Armorer and gun writer) writes about a friend that delights in torturing him with pics of one hole targets fired at 25 yds from a known accurate 1911 using a Ransom machine rest - loaded with range pick up brass!
So much for that "myth".
My .45 ACP brass is never sorted. It is a mix of GI, Norc, Federal, a lot of it range pick ups. It has never been trimmed. OAL is uniform and rounds are taper crimped. My guns function flawlessly with it, but it does make itself known over a chronograph. Loads that make IPSC Major in some cases score low in others, so it behooves me to (a) sort accordingly or (b) load to ensure Major with all cases. That or declare Minor and carry on.
turbo_bird
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kamloops, BC
I've got one 1911 chambered in 460 Rowland, which is a slightly longer case than 45acp, similar to a 44 mag vs 44 special. This gun has no issue firing regular 45 acp loads with a regular recoil spring vs. the 28 lb one for heavy loads. I also never sort or trim my 45 acp brass, and it works fine as long as I have an appropriate overall length.
Kristian
Kristian
For busting this one, again I refer to "Hatcher's Notebook", the chapter on "Explosions & Powder Fires".
At every range clean up, I gather up the live rds I find on the ground and chuck them into a burn barrel. This causes some to run for the hills. What happens is there is a "Pop!" as the primer explodes and the gas escapes from the weakest point of the case. The loudest are .22 RF, believe it or not. Someone else threw an "empty" spray bomb into the fire and this time I ran. It put the fire out!
So what does the General have to say about it .....
"In an exhaustive series of experiments, I took various cartridges for both rifle and pistol, loaded with smokeless powder and with black powder, and placed them base downward in a lead melting pot that was arranged to be heated by electricity. On top of the pot I laid a piece of cardboard, with the cartridge standing on it's base underneath so the bullet was pointing directly at the cardboard. The the heat was turned on until the cartridge exploded.
In no case did the bullet pierce the cardboard, or even dent it deeply."
Did you get that? "In NO case". Pretty definitive. The General obviously had a lot of time on his hands between wars to conduct this another such experiments at public expense, but I digress ....
"I took a high speed .22 LR cartridge and suspended it by looping a wire around the case just behind the bullet. I then arranged a small birthday candle on a sliding piece so it could be pushed precisely under the rim of the cartridge. Lighting the candle, I placed a corrugated cardboard box over the arrangement and pushed the lighted candle under the cartridge rim, at the same time starting a stop watch.
It took 10 seconds for the cartridge to go off. No piece came through the cardboard box. When the box was lifted, it was found that the bullet had made a very slight dent in the cardboard. The case was blown to fragments, and the head of the case was stuck into the cardboard with just sufficient force to cause it to break the outer surface. Had this fragment struck flesh, it would have broken the skin. Such a piece would be dangerous to eyesight."
OK - my bad. I won't ever throw .22 LR rounds into an open fire again. A burn barrel, maybe .....
The General continues:
The experiment was repeated with a .22 Short of the type with a very light, frangible bullet, with a muzzle velocity of about 1600 fps. This cartridge took 15 seconds to go off. The bullet made a deep dent, about half way through the corrugated cardboard. The head of the case made a dent about half as deep as that made by the bullet, or about 1/32". Two slivers of brass from the case made en edgewise penetration of about 1/8" and just broke the far surface of the cardboard.
The main piece of the case struck a small piece of wood that was lying inside the cardboard box, and penetrated the boards about 1/16" and stuck in it. Again, this fragment would have broken skin, but at a few feet distance, it's velocity could have been much reduced, so that a person would have to be quite close to the explosion to be in any danger of injury."
Hatcher conducted tests with 12 ga, .45 ACP and .30-'06 rounds as well, igniting them with the electrodes of an electric welding torch. Here's what happened:
"On closing the switch, the pop of the primer was heard, followed by the rattle of shot inside the cardboard box. I found that the end of the roll crimp had opened up, and the shot was scattered all around, together with the wads and some unburned powder. There were no marks on the inside of the box, and no scorch or burn on the cloth wrapped around the cartridge, and the soap on which the cartridge had been placed was not dented or bruised."
Hatcher repeated the experiment with a .45 ACP cartridge:
"There was only a dull pop, something like a champagne cork being pulled, and again, there was no bruising of the soap or scorching of the cloth. The bullet made a slight mark on the wall pf the cardboard box, just a little polished place that could not be called a dent. Most of the powder was lying around unburned, and the empty case had not even moved out of the wire loop."
Whodathunkit ? Now the .30-'06 experiment:
"Next cartridge fired was a .30-'06. This made a dent on the soap about a quarter of an inch deep. That would have been a mean bruise. We found that the cartridge case had bursrt open and thrown some bits of brass around, and had left a smoky smudge about an inch long on the cloth. The only damage suffered by the cardboard box was a slight mark where the bullet had struck."
But what if the cartridge had been loaded with black powder, you ask? We've all seen the Cowboy movies where someone throws a handful of BP rounds into the campfire and bullets fly all over the place.
"Next we tried a .32 caliber pistol cartridge loaded with black powder. It went off like a firecracker, and there was no damage."
I was once gifted with a belt of .303 ammo and sundry other small arms munitions by an RCAF Weapons Tech at Wainwright, Alberta. He was there to destroy ammo from a defunct RCAF Auxiliary Squadron. Why? Because the base had an incinerator for the purpose thereof. The ammo he was burning included ball, incendiary, tracer, armour piercing, etc. Calibres included .303, .30-'06 and .50 BMG.
No puppies died and no birds fell from the sky.
The .303 ammo mentioned above was cordite loaded. I don't know how that would have behaved under the conditions of Hatcher's experiments.
At every range clean up, I gather up the live rds I find on the ground and chuck them into a burn barrel. This causes some to run for the hills. What happens is there is a "Pop!" as the primer explodes and the gas escapes from the weakest point of the case. The loudest are .22 RF, believe it or not. Someone else threw an "empty" spray bomb into the fire and this time I ran. It put the fire out!
So what does the General have to say about it .....
"In an exhaustive series of experiments, I took various cartridges for both rifle and pistol, loaded with smokeless powder and with black powder, and placed them base downward in a lead melting pot that was arranged to be heated by electricity. On top of the pot I laid a piece of cardboard, with the cartridge standing on it's base underneath so the bullet was pointing directly at the cardboard. The the heat was turned on until the cartridge exploded.
In no case did the bullet pierce the cardboard, or even dent it deeply."
Did you get that? "In NO case". Pretty definitive. The General obviously had a lot of time on his hands between wars to conduct this another such experiments at public expense, but I digress ....
"I took a high speed .22 LR cartridge and suspended it by looping a wire around the case just behind the bullet. I then arranged a small birthday candle on a sliding piece so it could be pushed precisely under the rim of the cartridge. Lighting the candle, I placed a corrugated cardboard box over the arrangement and pushed the lighted candle under the cartridge rim, at the same time starting a stop watch.
It took 10 seconds for the cartridge to go off. No piece came through the cardboard box. When the box was lifted, it was found that the bullet had made a very slight dent in the cardboard. The case was blown to fragments, and the head of the case was stuck into the cardboard with just sufficient force to cause it to break the outer surface. Had this fragment struck flesh, it would have broken the skin. Such a piece would be dangerous to eyesight."
OK - my bad. I won't ever throw .22 LR rounds into an open fire again. A burn barrel, maybe .....
The General continues:
The experiment was repeated with a .22 Short of the type with a very light, frangible bullet, with a muzzle velocity of about 1600 fps. This cartridge took 15 seconds to go off. The bullet made a deep dent, about half way through the corrugated cardboard. The head of the case made a dent about half as deep as that made by the bullet, or about 1/32". Two slivers of brass from the case made en edgewise penetration of about 1/8" and just broke the far surface of the cardboard.
The main piece of the case struck a small piece of wood that was lying inside the cardboard box, and penetrated the boards about 1/16" and stuck in it. Again, this fragment would have broken skin, but at a few feet distance, it's velocity could have been much reduced, so that a person would have to be quite close to the explosion to be in any danger of injury."
Hatcher conducted tests with 12 ga, .45 ACP and .30-'06 rounds as well, igniting them with the electrodes of an electric welding torch. Here's what happened:
"On closing the switch, the pop of the primer was heard, followed by the rattle of shot inside the cardboard box. I found that the end of the roll crimp had opened up, and the shot was scattered all around, together with the wads and some unburned powder. There were no marks on the inside of the box, and no scorch or burn on the cloth wrapped around the cartridge, and the soap on which the cartridge had been placed was not dented or bruised."
Hatcher repeated the experiment with a .45 ACP cartridge:
"There was only a dull pop, something like a champagne cork being pulled, and again, there was no bruising of the soap or scorching of the cloth. The bullet made a slight mark on the wall pf the cardboard box, just a little polished place that could not be called a dent. Most of the powder was lying around unburned, and the empty case had not even moved out of the wire loop."
Whodathunkit ? Now the .30-'06 experiment:
"Next cartridge fired was a .30-'06. This made a dent on the soap about a quarter of an inch deep. That would have been a mean bruise. We found that the cartridge case had bursrt open and thrown some bits of brass around, and had left a smoky smudge about an inch long on the cloth. The only damage suffered by the cardboard box was a slight mark where the bullet had struck."
But what if the cartridge had been loaded with black powder, you ask? We've all seen the Cowboy movies where someone throws a handful of BP rounds into the campfire and bullets fly all over the place.
"Next we tried a .32 caliber pistol cartridge loaded with black powder. It went off like a firecracker, and there was no damage."
I was once gifted with a belt of .303 ammo and sundry other small arms munitions by an RCAF Weapons Tech at Wainwright, Alberta. He was there to destroy ammo from a defunct RCAF Auxiliary Squadron. Why? Because the base had an incinerator for the purpose thereof. The ammo he was burning included ball, incendiary, tracer, armour piercing, etc. Calibres included .303, .30-'06 and .50 BMG.
No puppies died and no birds fell from the sky.
The .303 ammo mentioned above was cordite loaded. I don't know how that would have behaved under the conditions of Hatcher's experiments.
Last edited:
To carry on with the ballistic "myth busting" .....
Like the previous topic, this one has nothing to do with Sweeney's list or even the .45 ACP. We've all heard the hype about errant bullets leaving the range and how dangerous they are to the public well being. And what about those millions of machinegun rounds fired at or by aircraft? A Dr. F.W Mann spent a lot of time and money on an experiment shooting .30-40 Krag rounds from a vertically plumbed Winchester M95 from a boat landing in a pond 440 x 200 yards in size on a perfectly calm day.
"Eight shots were made from this carefully plumbed position, and any returning bullets would surely make a splash that could be seen, or if striking the surrounding pine grove, the day was so still they could be heard. However, not a splash was seen on the water nor a sound heard of any one of the returning eight bullets."
General Hatcher was aware of this experiment and an earlier experiment conducted by British ballistician Benjamin Roberts in which lead balls were fired from a smooth bore gun with a bore of .92". He calculated that these balls rose three quarters of a mile in height. They landed not nearer than a hundred nor further than 150 yards from the gun.
Another experimenter, John W. Hicks, conducted similar experiments from a boat with the British .303 Mk VI bullet, which when fired vertically had a return time of 48 to 51 seconds. He reports: "Not one of the returning bullets fell within a hundred yards of the boat. Some of them fell a quarter of a mile away and others were lost altogether."
Yet another Brit, Mr. R.L. Tippins two series of about 30 shots of Mk VI ammunition from a Maxim machinegun. "We had no overhear cover, but trusted to the wind to carry them far enough away to miss us.. The bullets fell on shallow water and mud on the shore, between 100 and 200 yards way. We did not see where the first lot fell. We heard them come back in regular sequence, timing them with a stop watch and the time of flight was over 50 seconds and less than 60 seconds as we could not ascertain that the sounds we heard were really that of the bullets. There was a critical angle that determined whether the bullets struck the ground base first or point first."
The British military concluded that their .303 Mk VII bullet when fired vertically rises to about 9,000', taking 19 seconds to go up, and 36 to come down, a total time of flight up and down; total 57 seconds. Hatcher conducted a similar experiment to determine if such bullets would be dangerous to a soldier. He had built a platform in a shallow inlet at Miami Station, covered by a tin roof. They used meterological balloons to determine wind drift. A machine gun was first used then they switched to a heavy barrel "Mann" gun.
"Out of more than 500 shots fired, after adjusting the gun so as to bring the shots as near as possible to the platform, only four shots hit hit and one more fell into the boat. One of the shots that hit the platform was a .30-'06 150 gr. flat based bullet which came down base first, bouncing into the water after striking the edge of the platform. It left a mark about 1/16" in the soft pine board. Two more bullets struck a pail of water, leaving a barely perceptible dent in the bottom of the pail having landed on it's side. Another stuck the edge of the thwart of the boat leaving a shallow dent.
When a bullet is fired vertically, it reaches a point where it has only 32 feet per second of upward velocty left. It will take this slow moving bullet another whole second to rise 16 feet and come to a stop. Then it will start to all, and it will take another second for it to fall 16 feet. Thus there is an interval of 2 seconds during which the bullet is poised 9,000 feet above the earth, and during which time it moves only 16 feet up and down.
It was concluded from these tests that the return velocity of a 150 grain bullet was about 300 feet per second which corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Previously the Army had decided that on the average, an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard."
So it would appear that the Red Baron cruising in his triplane at 9,000 feet or more need have no concern about Tommy Aitkins rattling away at him with a .303 Lewis gun, Vickers MG or the Doughboy with a Chauchat or BAR.
But how far will they shoot horizontally, you ask ..... ?
"By shooting along the beach in Florida before WWI, I had become convinced that the 4,700 yard maximum range given in the handbooks for the .30'-06 service ammunition was incorrect, I could never get a bullet to go anything like that far."
He does not say how far he was able to determine his bullets actually went. Nor does he speculate or determine how much energy a horizontally fired bullet has at it's extreme range.
Like the previous topic, this one has nothing to do with Sweeney's list or even the .45 ACP. We've all heard the hype about errant bullets leaving the range and how dangerous they are to the public well being. And what about those millions of machinegun rounds fired at or by aircraft? A Dr. F.W Mann spent a lot of time and money on an experiment shooting .30-40 Krag rounds from a vertically plumbed Winchester M95 from a boat landing in a pond 440 x 200 yards in size on a perfectly calm day.
"Eight shots were made from this carefully plumbed position, and any returning bullets would surely make a splash that could be seen, or if striking the surrounding pine grove, the day was so still they could be heard. However, not a splash was seen on the water nor a sound heard of any one of the returning eight bullets."
General Hatcher was aware of this experiment and an earlier experiment conducted by British ballistician Benjamin Roberts in which lead balls were fired from a smooth bore gun with a bore of .92". He calculated that these balls rose three quarters of a mile in height. They landed not nearer than a hundred nor further than 150 yards from the gun.
Another experimenter, John W. Hicks, conducted similar experiments from a boat with the British .303 Mk VI bullet, which when fired vertically had a return time of 48 to 51 seconds. He reports: "Not one of the returning bullets fell within a hundred yards of the boat. Some of them fell a quarter of a mile away and others were lost altogether."
Yet another Brit, Mr. R.L. Tippins two series of about 30 shots of Mk VI ammunition from a Maxim machinegun. "We had no overhear cover, but trusted to the wind to carry them far enough away to miss us.. The bullets fell on shallow water and mud on the shore, between 100 and 200 yards way. We did not see where the first lot fell. We heard them come back in regular sequence, timing them with a stop watch and the time of flight was over 50 seconds and less than 60 seconds as we could not ascertain that the sounds we heard were really that of the bullets. There was a critical angle that determined whether the bullets struck the ground base first or point first."
The British military concluded that their .303 Mk VII bullet when fired vertically rises to about 9,000', taking 19 seconds to go up, and 36 to come down, a total time of flight up and down; total 57 seconds. Hatcher conducted a similar experiment to determine if such bullets would be dangerous to a soldier. He had built a platform in a shallow inlet at Miami Station, covered by a tin roof. They used meterological balloons to determine wind drift. A machine gun was first used then they switched to a heavy barrel "Mann" gun.
"Out of more than 500 shots fired, after adjusting the gun so as to bring the shots as near as possible to the platform, only four shots hit hit and one more fell into the boat. One of the shots that hit the platform was a .30-'06 150 gr. flat based bullet which came down base first, bouncing into the water after striking the edge of the platform. It left a mark about 1/16" in the soft pine board. Two more bullets struck a pail of water, leaving a barely perceptible dent in the bottom of the pail having landed on it's side. Another stuck the edge of the thwart of the boat leaving a shallow dent.
When a bullet is fired vertically, it reaches a point where it has only 32 feet per second of upward velocty left. It will take this slow moving bullet another whole second to rise 16 feet and come to a stop. Then it will start to all, and it will take another second for it to fall 16 feet. Thus there is an interval of 2 seconds during which the bullet is poised 9,000 feet above the earth, and during which time it moves only 16 feet up and down.
It was concluded from these tests that the return velocity of a 150 grain bullet was about 300 feet per second which corresponds to an energy of 30 foot pounds. Previously the Army had decided that on the average, an energy of 60 foot pounds is required to produce a disabling wound. Thus service bullets returning from extreme heights cannot be considered lethal by this standard."
So it would appear that the Red Baron cruising in his triplane at 9,000 feet or more need have no concern about Tommy Aitkins rattling away at him with a .303 Lewis gun, Vickers MG or the Doughboy with a Chauchat or BAR.
But how far will they shoot horizontally, you ask ..... ?
"By shooting along the beach in Florida before WWI, I had become convinced that the 4,700 yard maximum range given in the handbooks for the .30'-06 service ammunition was incorrect, I could never get a bullet to go anything like that far."
He does not say how far he was able to determine his bullets actually went. Nor does he speculate or determine how much energy a horizontally fired bullet has at it's extreme range.
Last edited:
I'm really straying from the title of this thread, but from the number of recorded hits, people seem to be reading what I'm posting. So, another "myth" to bust, this one to do with the strength of rifle barrels. General Hatcher's experiments on same ....
"In the course of experiments on receivers some years ago, I used pressures up to 130,000 pounds without any apparent ill effects on service rifle barrels. The late Sir Charles Ross, whom I knew very well, had told me about his experiments on the thickness of barrels, and I had read some remarks by Newton on the same subject, but I couldn't get sufficiently authentic facts to satisfy me. So I collected some first hand information by turning a Springfield barrel to 1/8" wall thickness and firing it with regular and high pressure cartridges.
As the results were not visible, I turned the barrel down so that it was only 1/16" thick over the chamber. It held three regular service cartridges perfectly. Then I ran a 75,000 pound round (blue pill) through which blew a piece out of the side, as can be seen in the photograph." [Sorry, don't know how to post that, but it's an eye opener]
"As the thickness of the regular barrel is 5/16" of an inch at this point, it is plainly evident that the strength should be sufficient."
Needless to say, this is not something anyone should attempt to duplicate art home. He was aware that there were a lot of gunsmiths making sporters out of surplus rifles, so he wanted to know what to tell them.
He also conducted experiments with bore obstructions and tested the strength of Springfield receivers to destruction after reported failures due to faulty heat treatment within a known serial number range. That's a whole other topic.
In his experiments, he tested all the then current military rifles for strength an concluded that the Japanese Arisaka was stronger and safer than the Springfield, but the champ was the M1 Garand.
" In trying to determine the ultimate strength of the gun, Mr. Garand built up progressively higher proof loads in increments of 5,000 pounds pressure, from the regular proof load of 70,000 lbs, to the extreme pressure of 120,000 lbs per square inch. At this latter pressure, cracked left lugs on the bolt began to be encountered. A gun in which the bolt had the left lug cracked by one of these excessive high pressure overloads was then fired an endurance test of 5,000 rounds of service ammunition, using the cracked bolt, which showed no further deterioration.
The U.S. M1 Rifle thus has perhaps the strongest action of any military shoulder rifle in existence."
I like my M1 Garand even more now !!!!
"In the course of experiments on receivers some years ago, I used pressures up to 130,000 pounds without any apparent ill effects on service rifle barrels. The late Sir Charles Ross, whom I knew very well, had told me about his experiments on the thickness of barrels, and I had read some remarks by Newton on the same subject, but I couldn't get sufficiently authentic facts to satisfy me. So I collected some first hand information by turning a Springfield barrel to 1/8" wall thickness and firing it with regular and high pressure cartridges.
As the results were not visible, I turned the barrel down so that it was only 1/16" thick over the chamber. It held three regular service cartridges perfectly. Then I ran a 75,000 pound round (blue pill) through which blew a piece out of the side, as can be seen in the photograph." [Sorry, don't know how to post that, but it's an eye opener]
"As the thickness of the regular barrel is 5/16" of an inch at this point, it is plainly evident that the strength should be sufficient."
Needless to say, this is not something anyone should attempt to duplicate art home. He was aware that there were a lot of gunsmiths making sporters out of surplus rifles, so he wanted to know what to tell them.
He also conducted experiments with bore obstructions and tested the strength of Springfield receivers to destruction after reported failures due to faulty heat treatment within a known serial number range. That's a whole other topic.
In his experiments, he tested all the then current military rifles for strength an concluded that the Japanese Arisaka was stronger and safer than the Springfield, but the champ was the M1 Garand.
" In trying to determine the ultimate strength of the gun, Mr. Garand built up progressively higher proof loads in increments of 5,000 pounds pressure, from the regular proof load of 70,000 lbs, to the extreme pressure of 120,000 lbs per square inch. At this latter pressure, cracked left lugs on the bolt began to be encountered. A gun in which the bolt had the left lug cracked by one of these excessive high pressure overloads was then fired an endurance test of 5,000 rounds of service ammunition, using the cracked bolt, which showed no further deterioration.
The U.S. M1 Rifle thus has perhaps the strongest action of any military shoulder rifle in existence."
I like my M1 Garand even more now !!!!
Most of us have a stockpile of powder, primers, etc. in our homes which may be of concern in the event of fire or accidents. So, what if ..... Hatcher wanted to know.
"One-lb cans of powder such as are used by handloaders do not constitute and particular fire hazard. I assembled a number of 1-lb cans of small arms powders, including both black and smokeless, and nitroglycerine as well as nitrocellulose varieties, in both rifle and pistol granulations.
Taking along the powder, matches, kindling wood and several witnesses, we went out into a safe place in the country, piled up a small stack of sticks and placed on top of them a 1-lb can of IMR 4895. I lit the pile and stepped back to await results. The fire flamed up quickly and it was 1-1/2 minutes before the can burst open with a very mild report, and with a yellowish white flame about 4 feet in diameter and lasting about 1-1/2 seconds. The can was bulged and the bottom seam was opened about half way around. The pile of sticks was not disturbed.
Next we tried a a container of 11 ounces of Bullseye powder, a nitroglycerine powder of very fine granulation, used in pistol and revolvers. This can was made of cardboard in several layers, and had a crimped on metal bottom and top with a screw lid. [I remember those! In fact, I still have one] This can stood in the flames for a minute and 45 seconds before it opened up and gave out a bright yellowish white flame about three feet in diameter. There was practically no noise at all; only a soft hissing sound. again the pile of sticks was undisturbed.
It was then tried on several other types of small arms powder, with practically identical results. Powders included Red Dot, Hercules 2400, Dupont 3031, 4064 and 4676.
We tried the one powder we had some doubts about, black powder. We tried both Dupont Fg and FFg in the usual Dupont oval cans of flattened elliptical section, about 5-3/4" high, 4" high and 1-3/4" thick, with a screw top. After five minutes on the fire, the can exploded with a heavy dull thud and a dense cloud of smoke rose up in a mushroom shape. The can was blown about 35' to one side and was opened up nearly flat. Even so, the pile of sticks was not disturbed."
Sobering thought for those of us who reload for our BPCRs with BP! But what about loaded cartridges in bulk, you ask .... ?
"A freight car with the entire floor covered with cases of .22 cartridges was subjected to such rough treatment that many of the wooden cases were broken open or shattered, but there was no explosion. Firing a .30 caliber rifle bullet into cases of blank cartridges used for actuating stud drivers and similar powder operate tools resukted in a small burst of flame at the instant of impact, but no explosion or fire occurred though the case weas burst open and the cartridges scattered from the impact of the bullet.
A standard shipping case containing 500 12 ga shotgun shells had two .30 caliber bullets fired into it from a distance of 50'. Both bullets penetrated into the first and second cartons nearest the point of entrance, causing several of the cartridges in these two cartridges to burn. There was no communication of fire to the rest of the cases.
A case of 10,000 .22 cartridges was fired into by a .30 caliber rifle from a distance of 100 yards. The case was burst open by the impact, but no explosion occurred.
A fiberboard case containing 500 12 ga shotshells was placed on a metal rack over a pile of kindling wood and the wood ignited. The burning continued until the case and all the shells had burned. At no time did any of the shells explode with violence. No propelling of shot charges could be detected.
In other tests, a large number of metallic cartridges and shotgun shells were burned in a fire of oil-soaked wood. The cartridges exploded from time to time, but there was no general explosion or propulsion of shot or bullets with any great force or to any great distance. Throughout the tests, the experimenters remained within 20' without any injury.
This test showed that small arms ammunition, whether metallic cartridges or shot shells, when involved in a fire will not explode simultaneously, but piece by piece; that the bullets or shot are nor projected with any great velocity; and the material of which the cartridges or shells are made will not fly more than a few feet."
There is a video on the net where similar tests were conducted on pallets of loaded ammunition and stacks of ammunition on shelves as they would be in a distributor's warehouse. The conclusion were the same as Hatcher's - it's not a great problem.
"One-lb cans of powder such as are used by handloaders do not constitute and particular fire hazard. I assembled a number of 1-lb cans of small arms powders, including both black and smokeless, and nitroglycerine as well as nitrocellulose varieties, in both rifle and pistol granulations.
Taking along the powder, matches, kindling wood and several witnesses, we went out into a safe place in the country, piled up a small stack of sticks and placed on top of them a 1-lb can of IMR 4895. I lit the pile and stepped back to await results. The fire flamed up quickly and it was 1-1/2 minutes before the can burst open with a very mild report, and with a yellowish white flame about 4 feet in diameter and lasting about 1-1/2 seconds. The can was bulged and the bottom seam was opened about half way around. The pile of sticks was not disturbed.
Next we tried a a container of 11 ounces of Bullseye powder, a nitroglycerine powder of very fine granulation, used in pistol and revolvers. This can was made of cardboard in several layers, and had a crimped on metal bottom and top with a screw lid. [I remember those! In fact, I still have one] This can stood in the flames for a minute and 45 seconds before it opened up and gave out a bright yellowish white flame about three feet in diameter. There was practically no noise at all; only a soft hissing sound. again the pile of sticks was undisturbed.
It was then tried on several other types of small arms powder, with practically identical results. Powders included Red Dot, Hercules 2400, Dupont 3031, 4064 and 4676.
We tried the one powder we had some doubts about, black powder. We tried both Dupont Fg and FFg in the usual Dupont oval cans of flattened elliptical section, about 5-3/4" high, 4" high and 1-3/4" thick, with a screw top. After five minutes on the fire, the can exploded with a heavy dull thud and a dense cloud of smoke rose up in a mushroom shape. The can was blown about 35' to one side and was opened up nearly flat. Even so, the pile of sticks was not disturbed."
Sobering thought for those of us who reload for our BPCRs with BP! But what about loaded cartridges in bulk, you ask .... ?
"A freight car with the entire floor covered with cases of .22 cartridges was subjected to such rough treatment that many of the wooden cases were broken open or shattered, but there was no explosion. Firing a .30 caliber rifle bullet into cases of blank cartridges used for actuating stud drivers and similar powder operate tools resukted in a small burst of flame at the instant of impact, but no explosion or fire occurred though the case weas burst open and the cartridges scattered from the impact of the bullet.
A standard shipping case containing 500 12 ga shotgun shells had two .30 caliber bullets fired into it from a distance of 50'. Both bullets penetrated into the first and second cartons nearest the point of entrance, causing several of the cartridges in these two cartridges to burn. There was no communication of fire to the rest of the cases.
A case of 10,000 .22 cartridges was fired into by a .30 caliber rifle from a distance of 100 yards. The case was burst open by the impact, but no explosion occurred.
A fiberboard case containing 500 12 ga shotshells was placed on a metal rack over a pile of kindling wood and the wood ignited. The burning continued until the case and all the shells had burned. At no time did any of the shells explode with violence. No propelling of shot charges could be detected.
In other tests, a large number of metallic cartridges and shotgun shells were burned in a fire of oil-soaked wood. The cartridges exploded from time to time, but there was no general explosion or propulsion of shot or bullets with any great force or to any great distance. Throughout the tests, the experimenters remained within 20' without any injury.
This test showed that small arms ammunition, whether metallic cartridges or shot shells, when involved in a fire will not explode simultaneously, but piece by piece; that the bullets or shot are nor projected with any great velocity; and the material of which the cartridges or shells are made will not fly more than a few feet."
There is a video on the net where similar tests were conducted on pallets of loaded ammunition and stacks of ammunition on shelves as they would be in a distributor's warehouse. The conclusion were the same as Hatcher's - it's not a great problem.
I wouldn't find fault with his findings. The cousins and I used to fart around with fire and gunpowder... put a bottomless tin clad wooden trunk over a fire ( out in the sticks in winter ), chuck in a dozen or so 22 shells and tuck & cover.
Rapid reports as the cartridges cooked off...upon examination the inside of the trunk was spackled with twisted brass. A 30-30 cartridge was tried ( kids ) and it was not anything noteworthy.
Not like the movies, that's for sure
Rapid reports as the cartridges cooked off...upon examination the inside of the trunk was spackled with twisted brass. A 30-30 cartridge was tried ( kids ) and it was not anything noteworthy.
Not like the movies, that's for sure
easyrider604
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Greater Vancouver, BC
I like this thread!
Glad to hear it. My intention was to dispel some of the "everyone knows ...." bull sh!t that many take as gospel. I couldn't find a better reference than "Hatcher's Notebook" as the General spared no effort or expense to prove/disprove the myths and legends around small arms and ammunition. He covered a wide range of topics, including machineguns and naval artillery. If you haven't got a copy, find one. It will keep you entertained and informed for a long time.
I'm on my 2nd copy as I loaned out the first one and it didn't come back to me. My current copy stays home in "social isolation".
In conversation with some who knows it all, I ask what they know that General Hatcher didn't. I get blank stares and hear - "Who's General Hatcher?".
But - I'm out of topics he covered that I think would be of general interest. Anyone got some questions the General could answer .... ?
mudgunner49
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
9mm is as effective as .45???
I think that one has been beaten to death innumerable times !!! Jeff Cooper buried that one long ago.
So many variables to take into account - bullet type, velocity, what and where it hits, etc., etc.
But - no horse is so dead that it cannot continue to be beaten. Have at 'er, my friend!
So many variables to take into account - bullet type, velocity, what and where it hits, etc., etc.
But - no horse is so dead that it cannot continue to be beaten. Have at 'er, my friend!
