303 Projectiles reversed to cause greater impact damage

[MikB]

As for the phrase on stupidity - it wasn't withdrawn. It was explained for what it was.

Sophistry as well, now.

The clear insinuation of your comments was that the design of the Mk.VII was a deliberately duplicitous device to produce a bullet which complied with the protocols of war whilst causing wounds more severe than would normally be expected of such a bullet.

Whatever their faults, I don't believe such duplicity was part of the psychological repertoire of the British of that time, and TonyE has provided a sound explanation for the facts.

Regards,

MikB

[Piorun]

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.

Regards

TonyE

I apologise for the inacuracy of my descriptions and I accept without reservation the accuracy of yours. My misuse of "shavings" was generated at the time of typing by my taking offence at the implications of another post. I could not find the right word ("fibre") and I meant no distortion by my mistake. By "hollow", I also simply meant that the full jacket covered a "compartment" or section at the front (point) that was of different composition to that at the rear. I used the word "stuffed" simply as a layman's description of putting something inside the jacket. I accept that it is an engineering inacuracy and I apologise if it mislead. It was not intended to.

Again, TonyE, I recognise and admire your technological knowledge and I appreciate your taking the trouble to share it. I simply choose to disagree with you, politely, I hope, on the motives of the designers at the time and used such evidence as I saw fit to support my view. I have the understanding, naively perhaps, that this is called freedom of speech - something that I did fight for. I had no idea that expressing myself would lead to such disharmony and discourtesy. Kindest regards, Antony

[Matt Dixon]

Everyone take a deep breath and step back. This is a thread about ammunition, please don't use it as a firing range to bicker with eachother.

[Piorun]

The clear insinuation of your comments was that the design of the Mk.VII was a deliberately duplicitous device to produce a bullet which complied with the protocols of war whilst causing wounds more severe than would normally be expected of such a bullet.

Whatever their faults, I don't believe such duplicity was part of the psychological repertoire of the British of that time, and TonyE has provided a sound explanation for the facts.

Regards,

MikB

More than insinuation. That is my argument. Deliberate,? Yes. Duplicitous? That might be seen as a pejorative word and I can't lay that on designers who are no longer about to defend themselves. TonyE's explanation is sound and factual as to manufacture and effect. We only differ, courteously, I hope, on intent. 'Nuff said.

[AlanCurragh]

Tony's posting seems extremely responsible, no disrespectful comments unless I'm missing something.

I wasn't necessarily referring to Tony

Anyway - to re-iterate what Matt said above - deep breath please, everybody

[TonyE]

Thank you Centurion. Indeed we have crossed in the past, but it has always been with respect to the other's opinion.

Enchanted Rodent (I do like that): I was not being disrespectful. I was merely trying to illustrate how impossible it was to disprove a negative.

Piorun; Let us agree to disagree and leave it at that.

Not for any reason associated with this disagreement, but simply to show their beauty, I have attached pictures of the original Royal Laboratory drawings of these bullets. They are photographs rather than scans as they are rather large, as evidenced by the 6 inch (15 cm) rule in the corner of a couple of them.

They include the lead cored 174 grn. bulet from the 1909 trials, the original 160 grn. Mark VII and an even lighter one of 150 grns with an interesting shaped aluminium filler.

Regards

TonyE

More....

..and finally.

[ian turner]

Maybe an erudite opinion to clarify - do all calibres/designs of bullets tumble/distort/fragment on impact? (or are capable of so doing?)

[Piorun]

. . . . but simply to show their beauty, I have attached pictures of the original Royal Laboratory drawings of these bullets. They are photographs rather than scans as they are rather large, as evidenced by the 6 inch (15 cm) rule in the corner of a couple of them.

They include the lead cored 174 grn. bulet from the 1909 trials, the original 160 grn. Mark VII and an even lighter one of 150 grns with an interesting shaped aluminium filler.

Regards

TonyE

I envy you your possession of such artefacts and thank you again for sharing what you have. Regarding the shape of the filler - any thoughts on reason? It is unusual. Regards, Antony.

[TonyE]

I do not know why they chose that configuration, other than to achieve the weight desired. During these trials bullets with weights varying between 140 and 194 grns. were tried with and without composite cores.

Some were even solid brass (as I mentioned earlier) and some had hemispherical bases. There were copies of the German "S" bullet and one had copper driving bands like a shell.

The drawings survive, but unfortunately not the notebooks of the men on the spot.

Regards

TonyE

[MikB]

Maybe an erudite opinion to clarify - do all calibres/designs of bullets tumble/distort/fragment on impact? (or are capable of so doing?)

That's largely determined by the relative positions of the CG (centre of gravity) and CP (centre of pressure) in the specific designs. If the CG is ahead, it makes for great stability during severe deceleration. Examples are many hollowbase designs - mostly either older, or in an older tradition - like .455 MkII and MkVI ball. Of course, the MkII was of lead and prone to distortion, and anxiety over the legality of that led to the development of the jacketed MkVI, which was unlikely to. .455 was an effective enough calibre for no practical difference in stopping power to be documented as far as I know.

The general profile of spitzers as we know them in most military rounds from WW1 onwards are prone to turnover under deceleration to a greater or lesser extent. The 303's rearward displacement of the CG made it one of those more prone to do so. The 7.62 also does so, but (anecdotally) at either greater ranges or after penetrating a greater depth of tissue - but this also resulted in favourable comments about its penetration of cover not often heard for the 303. The US 30-06 would probably behave very similarly. Some of the earlier-posted photos of French solid turned bullets also suggested very forceful turnover from the hooked deformation of the nose.

So I think the general answer to your question is yes, most of the modern, higher-velocity types do in fairly commonly-met circumstances. To prevent this would require a pretty substantial redesign in order to return to a 'leading CG' type design, probably attended by great difficulty attaining the same standard of internal and external ballistics we now consider normal.

Regards,

MikB

[Guest lithy.303]

to me it looks as though the german rounds have had the points cut off, i have read of aussie snipers using .303 rounds against turkish loop holes bu that "such ammunition was never carried but prepared for immediate use"

the only itme i have ever reversed a projectile in a case is when mesuring throat wear in a rifle

[centurion]

There is plenty of evidence  of German use of reversed bullets, this includes some German accounts. and has been quoted in this and earlier threads on the subject (although there is conflicting evidence about why they were used). The argument (reasoned discussion) was about whether British 303s were reversed. I think it's been pretty well established that the construction of the British rounds meant that the WW1 soldier would not have been able to reverse the bullet without access to a workshop. Removing the point would be easier but this would be ineffectual against an armoured loophole.

[Thunderbox]

In "The Soldier's War" by Richard Van Emden, one of his contributors, Capt Henry Kaye, 43^rd Field Ambulance, RAMC, makes direct reference to German reversed bullets:

"Hewitt (another doctor) brought down one of the German clips containing bullets reversed, of which there are many thousands in Sanctuary Wood. The odd thing is that all that have been opened contain no powder." (my emphasis)

He goes on to postulate three possible explanations:

1. That the ammo was designed to use only the cap to drive the bullet (most shooters know this is not feasible);

2. That British soldiers had whiled away their time in occupation of the German position by tinkering with the ammunition;

3. That the ammunition was a bad lot, and had been rendered deliberately inoperable.

(Incidentally, Capt Kaye scorns the suggestion that explosive or expanding ammo has been used by either side - explaining that no wounds or bullet fragments in any way resemble those caused by commercial expanding hunting ammo).

Interestingly, I think there may be an explanation related to Kaye's (2) that no-one has yet suggested. I wonder whether normal German ball ammo was being emptied of powder for use in various types of improvised grenades or flares that were commonly created by troops of both sides. This would be an entirely logical explanation: there were millions of ball rounds lying around not being used (intense rifle fire being relatively uncommon), German loose nitro powder was easily extracted - British strand cordite was not, reversing the bullets would indicate which rounds had been stripped and - if done by the Germans on their own ammo - would have preserved the remainder of the cartridge components for possible salvage and re-loading.

[centurion]

In "The Soldier's War" by Richard Van Emden, one of his contributors, Capt Henry Kaye, 43^rd Field Ambulance, RAMC, makes direct reference to German reversed bullets:

"Hewitt (another doctor) brought down one of the German clips containing bullets reversed, of which there are many thousands in Sanctuary Wood. The odd thing is that all that have been opened contain no powder." (my emphasis)

He goes on to postulate three possible explanations:

1. That the ammo was designed to use only the cap to drive the bullet (most shooters know this is not feasible);

2. That British soldiers had whiled away their time in occupation of the German position by tinkering with the ammunition;

3. That the ammunition was a bad lot, and had been rendered deliberately inoperable.

(Incidentally, Capt Kaye scorns the suggestion that explosive or expanding ammo has been used by either side - explaining that no wounds or bullet fragments in any way resemble those caused by commercial expanding hunting ammo).

Interestingly, I think there may be an explanation related to Kaye's (2) that no-one has yet suggested. I wonder whether normal German ball ammo was being emptied of powder for use in various types of improvised grenades or flares that were commonly created by troops of both sides. This would be an entirely logical explanation: there were millions of ball rounds lying around not being used (intense rifle fire being relatively uncommon), German loose nitro powder was easily extracted - British strand cordite was not, reversing the bullets would indicate which rounds had been stripped and - if done by the Germans on their own ammo - would have preserved the remainder of the cartridge components for possible salvage and re-loading.

But why reverse the bullet after emptying the round? If British troops used captured German rounds wouldn't they just throw them away after removing the bullet and emptying the round? If done by German troops reversing the bullet on an emptied round would make it very difficult to remove again if you wanted to refill the round. Does not compute

[Thunderbox]

But why reverse the bullet after emptying the round? If British troops used captured German rounds wouldn't they just throw them away after removing the bullet and emptying the round? If done by German troops reversing the bullet on an emptied round would make it very difficult to remove again if you wanted to refill the round. Does not compute

Both sides were busy salvaging metals; scrapped small arms and arty ammunition was especially valuable for the war effort because copper & nickel had to be imported - UK through a submarine war and Germany through blockades and sanctions..

If British troops had emptied the rounds, its quite feasible that it had been in response to a local order to backload any captured metals salvage that was certified "FFE" - free from explosive. Bored soldiers wouldn't need much compulsion to empty rounds for official scrap, since they could lark around with the resulting powder (ask any junior officer who has had to garrison a captured ammo dump....LOL). A line company could easily account for "thousands" of rounds.

If the Germans had extracted the powder because they needed it for some reason, then there was no reason why the case and bullet could not be returned together to be refilled - easy to pull the bullet, resize the case neck and reload. British cordite .303 could not be so reloaded, as the case was of course necked after insertion of the propellant strands.

I guess we will not get to the bottom of this until more unit documentation comes to light.

[centurion]

Both sides were busy salvaging metals; scrapped small arms and arty ammunition was especially valuable for the war effort because copper & nickel had to be imported - UK through a submarine war and Germany through blockades and sanctions.. 

If the Germans had extracted the powder because they needed it for some reason, then there was no reason why the case and bullet could not be returned together to be refilled - easy to pull the bullet, resize the case neck and reload. British cordite .303 could not be so reloaded, as the case was of course necked after insertion of the propellant strands.

Copper and nickel were much less of a problem for Britain than Germany. Whilst the blockade was an issue, much more serious for Germany was the fact that the Allies controlled most of the sources for these. A reversed German round would be very difficult to extract as there was nothing to grip onto (look at some of the photos) - much better to send the case and extracted round back separately. However there is considerable evidence of German troops with reversed rounds about their person and one German account of them being fired.

I've have seen no account of the Germans being short of explosive so why dismantle bullets anyway?

[MikB]

I've have seen no account of the Germans being short of explosive so why dismantle bullets anyway?

Especially since nitrocellulose propellant is extremely difficult to obtain worthwhile results from in any other explosive role...

Regards,

MikB

[SiegeGunner]

Especially since nitrocellulose propellant is extremely difficult to obtain worthwhile results from in any other explosive role...

What would igniting a fine trail of it along the seam of a garment do to lice and eggs ...?

[centurion]

What would igniting a fine trail of it along the seam of a garment do to lice and eggs ...?

Sounds a bit like burning the house down to roast a pig

[SiegeGunner]

I won't try it then ... I'm sure I've seen something of that sort mentioned somewhere - but I can't remember where.

[MikB]

Sounds a bit like burning the house down to roast a pig

Worse than that, I'd think - you could spend a helluva long time placing the granules carefully in the seam and then find you just burn out the stitching. If you've got tools capable of doing that, like pointy tweezers for example, you'd probably spend less time removing the vermin directly with 'em...

Regards,

MikB

[kiwianzac]

Hey, Piorun and Aurel, don't apologise!

I wasn't trying to invalidate anyone's comments, just come back to the question of 303s.

I don't believe the soldiers of either side were infected with the modern cynicism that would lead them to reverse bullets so as to cause more horrific wounds. If they reversed them, it would be for a more legitimate purpose such as piercing armour (whether on a tank or on a loophole) or breaking up sandbag cover.

I think we've all learned more than we knew before as a result of the sharing of knowledge these threads provoked.

I would still be interested if there's any real evidence that a practical method of reversing 303s was in circulation - and if so, how the hell it was done without defeating any chance of firing it with enough accuracy to engage, say, a loophole 100 yards or so away.

Regards,

MikB

Although not aimed at the sniper plates per se, I've read several NZ diaries from Gallipoli in which the soldiers stated they tampered with their rounds to better damage the Turks sandbags especially around known points of interest. Wasn't exactly clear as to how they modified them but suspect (from doing the same thing myself to shoot deer and pigs here in NZ) they hacked the projectile tip.

As an aside, reversing a spitzer type projectile is fairly commonplace here in NZ particularly with a 7.62/.308W fired subsonic through a suppressor, certainly accurate to 100m and rather a nasty wound resulting.

[SiegeGunner]

As an aside, reversing a spitzer type projectile is fairly commonplace here in NZ particularly with a 7.62/.308W fired subsonic through a suppressor, certainly accurate to 100m and rather a nasty wound resulting.

Why, and what for ?

[centurion]

Why, and what for ?

Its done in the US by some so called 'hunters', I've seen reports of animals incurring horrific but not immediately fatal wounds

[SiegeGunner]

Do they have anything to shoot in NZ bigger than a red deer? And why would you want to put a big messy hole in a carcass shot for meat?