303 Projectiles reversed to cause greater impact damage

[centurion]

The .303 round was designed lighter at the head than the tail. 

But surely any pointed round , provided it is made from the same material throughout, will be lighter at the pointed end as there is less metal there?

[ian turner]

One would expect the 'centre of gravity' to be further to the rear.

But in anycase, didn't the .303 have an alloy (or aluminium) nose-cone inside the jacket, and not a homogenous filling of lead?

[TonyE]

It certainly did. Usually aluminium, but compressed paper, ceramic and fibre tips were all approved as substitutes to save aluminium.

Regards

TonyE

[Piorun]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, Centurion. Semantically, you are quite correct but Ian and TonyE have clarified the intent in my comment. The .303 was designed to be "tail-heavy" so that there was more stored energy in the tail than the head. One can always find a balance-point but, ballistically, the designed lightness of the front-end was intended to induce tumble when the bullet started to impact. It really should have been illegal. Perhaps, thankfully, it wasn't. Yours, Antony

PS as for the magnetic effect of the British Empire, I can only assume that it wasn't that great as none of bullets were coloured pink like the maps

[TonyE]

Sorry I didn't make myself clear, Centurion. Semantically, you are quite correct but Ian and TonyE have clarified the intent in my comment. The .303 was designed to be "tail-heavy" so that there was more stored energy in the tail than the head. One can always find a balance-point but, ballistically, the designed lightness of the front-end was intended to induce tumble when the bullet started to impact. It really should have been illegal. Perhaps, thankfully, it wasn't. Yours, Antony

PS as for the magnetic effect of the British Empire, I can only assume that it wasn't that great as none of bullets were coloured pink like the maps

I would be very interested in any evidence you have that intimates that the Mark VII bullet "was intended to induce tumble when the bullet started to impact". I have never seen anything in SAC Minutes, Woolwich Annual Reports, Research Department reports or any other official paperwork that states this. It may have been a consequence, even a desirable one, but I have never seen any evidence that it was designed with this in mind.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

One can always find a balance-point but, ballistically, the designed lightness of the front-end was intended to induce tumble when the bullet started to impact. It really should have been illegal. Perhaps, thankfully, it wasn't. Yours, Antony

I dunno - I think there's maybe too much ghoulish preoccupation with 'stopping power'. Stopping power only starts when you get the bullet into the enemy, and I wonder how many of those were saved by 303s tumbling in timber or brushwood cover, and losing penetration. 7.62 does less of that, and no-one criticises its capability to interrupt aggressive activity in its victim.

Regards,

MikB

[Piorun]

I would be very interested in any evidence you have that intimates that the Mark VII bullet "was intended to induce tumble when the bullet started to impact". I have never seen anything in SAC Minutes, Woolwich Annual Reports, Research Department reports or any other official paperwork that states this. It may have been a consequence, even a desirable one, but I have never seen any evidence that it was designed with this in mind.

Regards

TonyE

With the greatest respect, Tony, I didn't think that any evidence was necessary other than the deliberate design itself. The designers of the Mark 7, almost a hollow-point bullet in all but name, must have known what would be the flesh-effect of that tail-heavy design once the spinning had stopped. Either that or they were very stupid. To design and accept the cost of making a "stuffed" bullet, as opposed to a solid projectile, surely is de facto evidence of official planning and sanction. No? Best regards, Antony

[TonyE]

I am sorry, but I cannot accept either of those arguements.

The Mark VII is in no way "almost a hollow point". A hollow point bullet expands and mushrooms on striling, something that the Mark VII does not do.

Furthermore, if one makes a statement then one should have some evidence to support it. Simply to say that something is de facto evidence to support ones point of view is, if nothing else, lacking in academic rigour.

Regards

TonyE

[Piorun]

Well, Tony. I had hoped that linguistic rigour would demand that the qualifying nature of "almost" a hollow-point be given the weight it deserved. A solid bullet is not a hollow-point. A bullet with a hollowed tip is a hollow-point. What would you call a bullet that had the back-end of its tip hollowed out and stuffed with less-dense material? I thought that "almost a hollow-point" was close enough for a non-academic Forum discussion among Pals who would understand the intent of the adjectival phrase and who understood that the then-current focus of the topic was the "balance" of the bullet. Perhaps I presumed too much. Please allow me to withdraw the phrase in the interests of ballistic nicety. Agreed - a "stuffed" bullet like the Mark 7 does not "mushroom"; it yaws or tumbles upon impact. Effect? Much the same if one is on the receiving end. Regarding evidence of intent: I stand by my statement that the professionals who designed the Mark 7 did so with every awareness of the effect of their design - and that the proof of this is the design itself. Why else design it? Needs must, we shall agree to disagree. Those at the receiving end of a Mark 7 probably don't much care. Thank you for exercising my mind Best regards, Antony

[MikB]

The designers of the Mark 7, almost a hollow-point bullet in all but name, must have known what would be the flesh-effect of that tail-heavy design once the spinning had stopped. Either that or they were very stupid.

The spinning was essential to produce the tail-over-nose 'snap' - it's this force that bends decelerating 303s so severely in sandtraps, or any equivalent resisting medium.

They certainly weren't stupid. One can dispute whether the design decision they made was the right one, as I've commented above, but stupid people don't design bullets that were instrumental in winning wars.

Regards,

MikB

[ian turner]

Of course we need look no further than our own forum for further info.... see here in Egbert's superb "Grandad's Trunk" thread in the Classic section. His grandfather was wounded in the forearm by a .303 and had kept the bullet as a souvenir. It is seen in Egbert's pictures, surprisingly the copper jacket appears to have split at the end and the aluminium 'nose cone' has now fallen out.

Link: http://1914-1918.invisionzone.com/forums/i...0572&st=300

MikB - I always thought that the spinning was induced to maintain accuracy? Is not the bending due to the decceleration of nose versus the momentum of the heavier tail?

[TonyE]

.......I stand by my statement that the professionals who designed the Mark 7 did so with every awareness of the effect of their design - and that the proof of this is the design itself. Why else design it?

Why else design it? To appreciate the reasons behind the design of the Mark VII bullet one has to look at what had happened in the recent past. Britain had fought the war in South Africa with the .303 Mark II round with a round nosed 215 grain bullet delivering about 2000 fps and had been comprehensively outshot by those Boers using the 7mm Mauser.

Following the Esher Inquiry into the performance of the army in South Africa it was decided to develop a new Mauser type rifle firing a high velocity small bore cartridge in either .256" or .276" calibre (that would eventually become the .276" Pattern 13). A new .303 round had been adopted as the Mark VI in 1904, but this was still essentially the same as the Mark II but "tweaked" by having the envelope thinned.

Aware that the other major nations of Europe had adopted pointed higher velocity bullets it was also decided to introduce a similar bullet for the .303 as an interim measure until the new rifle was available. Whatever design was adopted, it would only need to be a stopgap for a few years.

Royal Laboratory began developing a spitzer bullet in 1905 and tested a number of designs including solid brass (similar to the French Balle D) and cores made of tin. It was soon found that to produce a bullet of the requisite weight to give the desired velocity, an all lead core would result in a bullet that was too short to stabilise. The SAC had been impressed by the accuracy of the Hudson-Thomas bullets used by the American team in competition, and some of these had aluminium tip fillers.

The short all lead cored bullets would not stabilise in the Lee Enfield rifling that had originally been designed for the long 215 grain bullet (and rebarreling nearly one million rifles for an interim measure was obviously out of the question) so Woolwich began looking at composite cored bullets with a tip filler. This would give a bullet of sufficient length to stabilise and be accurate and light enough to achieve the velocity desired. A range of designs and weights were tried and in 1909 Design RL 15572E weighing 174 grains was a strong contender. (I have original Royal Laboratory drawings of a number of these bullets). A final trial was held in 1910 of this bullet together with ones weighing 160 and 150 grains, all with composite cores, and eventually Design RL 15572G(1) weighing 160 grains was approved as the new Mark VII bullet.

Unfortunately, some errors must have been made along the way as the first batches of the new ammunition failed their accuracy proof in August 1910. The bullet design was hurredly re-visited and a new 174 grain bullet to Design RL 17069 adopted in November 1910. The mark number was not advanced, probably to avoid embarrassing questions in Parliament and public, and the new bullet became the Mark VII as we know it today.

As we know, events conspired to upset these plans and the Mark VII, originally intended as a stopgap, served for the next sixty years.

My apologies for going on at some length, but you did ask why else they should design it! I am quite sure that the behaviour of the bullets was known as they were tested on animal cadavers, but the over-riding reasons behind the design were to achieve stability and accuracy at a weight commensurate with velocity.

Regards

TonyE

EDIT: I should add that if the purpose of the design was as you suggest, why did the bullet intended to be the Mark VII's successor, the .276" RL 18000C, have an all lead core? The answer of course is that the .276" bullet and rifling could be optimised to give accuracy and stability with a lead core as they were designed together.

[MikB]

MikB - I always thought that the spinning was induced to maintain accuracy? Is not the bending due to the decceleration of nose versus the momentum of the heavier tail?

Of course the rotation was for accuracy! The gyroscopic effect tries to maintain the spinning body on the same axis. Once it's forced off that axis, a strong couple is generated to bring it to equilibrium on the reciprocal, causing it to try to snap into tailfirst attitude. However, in wood or sand the stresses imposed by this due to the resistant medium it's passing through will often bend or break it - dunno about human tissue. But I think an unstable bullet tumbling at random would do less damage than one being forcefully turned over by physical effects.

Thanks TonyE for the explanation of the design decisions.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Of course the rotation was for accuracy! The gyroscopic effect tries to maintain the spinning body on the same axis. 

Or to put it in simple terms that's why rifles were invented.

[Piorun]

The spinning was essential to produce the tail-over-nose 'snap' - it's this force that bends decelerating 303s so severely in sandtraps, or any equivalent resisting medium.

They certainly weren't stupid. One can dispute whether the design decision they made was the right one, as I've commented above, but stupid people don't design bullets that were instrumental in winning wars.

Regards,

MikB

Exactly my point, MikB. My comment about stupidity was merely a rhetorical device to reinforce my contention that the tail-heavy design was deliberately intended to provide an effective replacement for the stopping results of the flattening bullets that were outlawed by the Hague Convention. Yours, Antony

[truthergw]

I was trained to fire the 303. Drilled with it and had to qualify with it before I went off to play with the big boys. I thank Tony for an excellent history and explanation of why all those rounds I loaded and reloaded into chargers and Bren magazines were the size and shape they were. A revelation to me. The notion that they were some sort of sneaky way of issuing dum dums seems a bit far fetched. Britain at that time had no need to sneak. If she had wanted to issue a particular bullet, she would have done so and declared them legal. 

[centurion]

Exactly my point, MikB. My comment about stupidity was merely a rhetorical device to reinforce my contention that the tail-heavy design was deliberately intended to provide an effective replacement for the stopping results of the flattening bullets that were outlawed by the Hague Convention. Yours, Antony

You appear to be misinterpreting (deliberately?)Tony's material. It seems abundantly clear that any tumbling was the unintentional byproduct of a need to produce a high(er) velocity round  that could be fired from existing SMLEs

[ian turner]

You appear to be misinterpreting (deliberately?)Tony's material. It seems abundantly clear that any tumbling was the unintentional byproduct of a need to produce a high(er) velocity round that could be fired from existing SMLEs

Indeed and agreed.

I am of course aware as to why rifling was invented, I was questioning the idea that the tumbling was a deliberate design. Wobbling in flight is not helping accuracy and tumbling after entry surely a by-product (I was almost going to say a spin-off...). TonyE has admirably explained the design philosophy in the meanwhile.

[MikB]

Exactly my point, MikB. My comment about stupidity was merely a rhetorical device to reinforce my contention that the tail-heavy design was deliberately intended to provide an effective replacement for the stopping results of the flattening bullets that were outlawed by the Hague Convention. Yours, Antony

Sorry old boy, I don't do rhetoric - not deliberately, anyway. That's the second time this thread you've withdrawn an assertion on the basis you didn't actually mean it. Life's too short. You wanna do that, try a literary or political website. Christ knows there are enough of those.

Regards,

MikB

[Piorun]

You appear to be misinterpreting (deliberately?)Tony's material. It seems abundantly clear that any tumbling was the unintentional byproduct of a need to produce a high(er) velocity round  that could be fired from existing SMLEs

Absolutely not - and I don't think it's polite to suggest that I would deliberately misinterpret TonyE's material. How could I? I posted my opinion before his excellent piece. I'm interpreting my own knowledge of the facts. The Mark 7 .303 yawed (tumbled) on entry. I hold the view that this was a deliberate design feature as I can see no other reason for deliberately creating a composite ("stuffed") bullet that was tail-heavy. Rotation kept is flat and stable in flight. The greater energy in the tail made it unstable as to original line-of-flight when it began to stop. As I understand it, TonyE has posited that the lack of memoranda or paper evidence of this deliberate effect is de facto evidence that it was unintentional. I disagree. Indeed, the absence of a mention implied to me that it was deliberately ommitted in order to avoid awkward questions in Parliament. Isnn't that also why the improved Mark 7 160 grain wasn't re-designated re-designated Mark 8 at the time? Regards, Antony

[Piorun]

Indeed and agreed.

I am of course aware as to why rifling was invented, I was questioning the idea that the tumbling was a deliberate design. Wobbling in flight is not helping accuracy and tumbling after entry surely a by-product (I was almost going to say a spin-off...). TonyE has admirably explained the design philosophy in the meanwhile.

Hello, Ian. At no time have I suggested that wobbling took place in flight. I gained marksman status with a .303 a long, long time ago and am fully aware that the Mark 7 ammunition had a beautiful flat and fast trajectory. The fact remains that the bullet was tail heavy because of its hollowed-out front end that was stuffed with aluminium or even wood shavings and that, therfore it yawed (tumbled) on entry. Yours, Antony

[Piorun]

Sorry old boy, I don't do rhetoric - not deliberately, anyway. That's the second time this thread you've withdrawn an assertion on the basis you didn't actually mean it. Life's too short. You wanna do that, try a literary or political website. Christ knows there are enough of those.

Regards,

MikB

Sarcasm and condescension don't suit you - or this Forum. I have not withdrawn any comment on the grounds that I didn't mean it. Those who read and understand my posts might recognise an attempt at courtesy and an acknowledgement that phrasing can be improved in the interests of polite discussion. As for the phrase on stupidity - it wasn't withdrawn. It was explained for what it was. I'm sorry that you feel compelled to write such a dismissive comment to someone who is interested in the subject and who has experienced both the practicalities of the subject and a world in which they were more than academic. With regrets, Antony

[TonyE]

First, let us be clear about the 160 grain and the 174 grain Mark VII projectiles.

The 160 grain was also a composite bullet with an aluminium tip and when that proved inaccurate it was lengthened slightly and became the 174 grain Mark VII that we know and love. There is no essential difference in the construction of these bullets. Also, in 1910, the public and political interest in the smallest detail of all things military was far more informed than it is today. Thus I can understand the War Office not wanting to draw attention to a new bullet design that had to be discarded almost before it had begun. It had nothing to do with "hiding" the purpose of the new round.

Secondly, the Mark VII (as I keep saying) was not a hollow point "stuffed with aluminium". It was a full jacketed bullet. Also, "wood shavings" is a distortion of the facts. One of the alternate fillings for the tip was wood fibre, which was a solid, close grained substance.

Of course, trying to refute your position is trying to disprove a negative. I might as well say that the Mark VII was invented by a Martian, and that the fact this is not mentioned is evidence of the truth of the claim.

Regards

TonyE

[AlanCurragh]

A few disrespectful comments here - please no more

Thanks

Alan

[centurion]

A few disrespectful comments here - please no more

Thanks

Alan

AKA Enchanted rodent

Tony's posting seems extremely responsible, no disrespectful comments unless I'm missing something. I've crossed swords with Tony on a number of occasions and he is invariably polite. In the current case he could well be forgiven for exhibiting some exasperation but he hasn't