Reversing Rifle Bullets to Increase Penetration?

[saberhagen427]

I think part of the problem here is that we're dealing with a cultural idea as much as with a practical technique. If reversed bullets are proven to have existed, that means that at least some German soldiers believed they were useful for something. There might have been some kind of folk ballistics which bore no relation to ballistic science.

On the other hand, if you reject the evidence of reversed bullets actually existing, you're still left with the cultural fact that at least some British soldiers believed that the Germans were reversing their bullets.

What we need is a lot of digging in the sources to find out who believed what and when.

[max7474]

Bob,

Thanks for your reply to my post on WW1 photography.......here's an entry from the diary of Captain A G Butler, MO 9th Bn AIF, at Gallipoli, concerning orders received:

"Prisoners who have improper ammunition must be tied up and reported at once and man to retain bullets which have been reversed or filed at the point. Hands tied behind their backs."

Seems that some Turkish soldiers might also have been reversing their rounds.

Good on you,

Grant

More likely filing them flat or putting a cross in the noise to creat 'dum-dum' bullets I would suspect.

Alan

[Simon R]

The Roneo Miris company conducted trials using a variety of ammunition, both standard and reversed, against a range of different gauge steels commonly used in Roneo-Miris body armours on January 24th 1916.

7mm Miris steel plates resisted standard Mauser round (no velocity indicated) up to 50 yards.

10.5 mm Miris steel plates resisted reversed Mauser bullets at 20 and 30 yards and 'concentrated fire of 10 shots in a diameter of 2"'.

11 - 11.70 mm Miris steel plates resisted French APX and US armour piercing at 30 metres.

Make of these results what you will.

[A.A.Savery]

I stumbled upon this thread just now and would like to add my slightly more lighthearted story.

When I was a lad and used to visit the fairgrounds, just like many youngsters I would attempt to win a prize on the rifle range. There were all these different things hanging down on threads and with an air rifle, which probably wasn’t all that good and also had a bent barrel, I tried to shoot them down. Now my shooting didn’t seem to be bad at all as I noticed that many times the strings would jump a little but without actually doing any damage.

My remedy was simply to reverse the pellet and this had immediate success. After winning a couple more prizes the lady on the stall took the gun off me to see how I had loaded it, promptly giving me a ticking off for putting the pellet in backwards and with the remark that it would wear out the barrel.

It’s a good thing that it wasn’t a Lee Enfield!

Tony

[grantmal]

More evidence of the Turks reversing their rounds, this time from a member of the 3rd Field Ambulance in No-Mans-Land during the May 24th Armistice at Anzac:

"....We returning all their rifles minus bolts, also all ammunition picked up and they doing same with our property. They have between 3,000 and 4,000 dead and ours about 100. Get a Turk’s bayonet and scabbard and various bullets, find some reversed in cartridge cases. Leave danger zone and stench behind half an hour before truce finishes and at 3.30 firing slowly commences."

The discovery of these reversed rounds may have prompted the order I quoted in an earlier post.

Good on you,

Grant

[Robert Dunlop]

Maybe someday someone will conduct a controlled test of this reversed bullet idea that provides data on muzzle velocity, accuracy, and penetration.

I saw an example today on the History Channel, ?part of the 'Finding the Fallen' series but I didn't see the beginning. The bullets were pulled out, reversed and pushed back into the cartridges. No effort was made to crimp the edges of the cartridges. A Gewehr '98 was set up in an enclosed firing range. A metal plate (don't know if it was steel) was placed in the line of fire, looked to be around 20 yards away. The plate looked to be around 1/2 to 3/4" in thickness. A hole was punched clean through the metal plate, in line with the point of aim. The hole was the same diameter as the round. Slow motion photography, however, showed that the bullet disintegrated immediately on impact, so the hole was caused by the transfer of kinetic energy. Very impressive and left no doubt that a reversed rifle bullet could penetrate metal plate at relatively close range. It was not possible to say, on the basis of this test, what the maximum effective range was.

Robert

[AGWR]

This is a very interesting discussion. Here is some more contemporary evidence, an extract from a letter written by an officer of the 17th Middlesex (Somme - July 1916).

'The majority of the deep dug-outs had been blown in by our heavy shells. Bits of German equipment and bits of Germans were all over the place, the latter making a nuisance of themselves, even after death, by the stench. We found many clips of German cartridges with the bullets reversed, ample evidence to show that they are still as brutal as ever. Higher up, nearer to our present front line, there are literally hundreds of dead lying – German, Britishers and horses'

Regards,

AGWR

[TonyE]

There have been some recent trials carried out for a television documentary with reversed bullets fired against armour plate. For the purposes of the tests the plate was the same thickness and hardness as that of the front plates of vBritish tanks, and reveresed 7.92mm bullets penetrated the plate easily whilst at the same range normal bullets did not.

Whether this is the same documentary Robert saw I do not know, so I will have to check with the makers before I can say more, just in case it was not.

However, I can say that the evidence I have seen is that it does work, counter intuitive as it may seem.

Regards

TonyE

[Robert Dunlop]

Sounds like the same documentary, Tony. It would be good to know which one. Thanks.

Robert

[centurion]

This is a very interesting discussion. Here is some more contemporary evidence, an extract from a letter written by an officer of the 17th Middlesex (Somme - July 1916).

'The majority of the deep dug-outs had been blown in by our heavy shells. Bits of German equipment and bits of Germans were all over the place, the latter making a nuisance of themselves, even after death, by the stench. We found many clips of German cartridges with the bullets reversed, ample evidence to show that they are still as brutal as ever. Higher up, nearer to our present front line, there are literally hundreds of dead lying – German, Britishers and horses'

Given the date the purpose is very unlikely to be armour piercing. Tanks had yet to see action and such a bullet would be useless against armoured sniper shields. The trjectory over anything but short range would be highly unreliable. One does not shoot at sniper shields from 20 yards. In any case the K round was already available and issued for this purpose. Reversed bullets in these circumstance would have only one purpose - to cause as nasty a wound as possible from a tumbling slug.

[AGWR]

Given the date the purpose is very unlikely to be armour piercing. Tanks had yet to see action and such a bullet would be useless against armoured sniper shields. The trjectory over anything but short range would be highly unreliable. One does not shoot at sniper shields from 20 yards. In any case the K round was already available and issued for this purpose. Reversed bullets in these circumstance would have only one purpose - to cause as nasty a wound as possible from a tumbling slug.

That was my interpretation also.

Regards,

AGWR

[Jack Sheldon]

For what it is worth, the German literature is peppered with references to British soldiers using Dum Dum bullets. The accusation is frequently made that the magazine cut off catch of the Lee Enfield was actually there to enable bullet tips to be broken off. I have never read a description of reversing bullets for the purposes of armour piercing and, having just written a book about Cambrai, I have come across many accounts of attempting to engage tanks with small arms. The one round they all wanted was the SmK armour piercing, which was in very short supply at the beginning of the battle. Most of the time these personal accounts just mention that their bullets bounced off the armour and that they were powerless in the face of advancing tanks.

Jack

[bierast]

As an aside unauthorised modification of weponry to inflict greater harm is against the Geneva convention and could well have got you shot - German saw back bayonet carriers may well have fallen foul of this view.

The 'sawback' Pionier bayonet was not only a standard (unmodified) factory-produced item but also I gather based on a 19th century British idea - the intention was to provide a more useful general purpose tool for cutting wood etc. (showing a surprisingly modern and realistic view of the actual uses of bayonets by soldiers in the field, i.e. mainly for other purposes than combat).

Such bayonets were in some cases modified by nervous Germans by the removal of the saw edge - out of fear of murder out of hand if taken prisoner with the 'frightful' instrument which had so inspired British propagandists.

[N White]

I ran across this a few days ago and thought it might be interesting to share. A gentleman reversed bullets and shot them into a waterbox to see what happens, as well as testing dum-dum bullets with the tip cut off. Some interesting pictures of the results.

http://www.theboxotruth.com/docs/bot32_4.htm

[centurion]

A reversed bullet could have some armour piercing effect - if it had a hard core and a softer lead outer as the outer part of the bullet would mushroom and melt acting as a lubricant for the harder core - not a characteristic of normal German bullets. Some WW2 anti tank rounds were designed to take advantage of this effect. However this depends on the round hitting more or less end on - a reversed bullet would tumble over any useful range and could well strike side on. This would create a very nasty wound but be useless against armour.

Some one once tried to used the cut off to de tip bullets - it was very difficult to do this - a good jack knife was much more effective.

As early as the American War of Independance both sides were accusing each other of cuting bullets to make them mushroom

I enclose a couple of drawings of the German saw bayonet and the British Elcho sword bayonet

[MikB]

There have been some recent trials carried out for a television documentary with reversed bullets fired against armour plate. For the purposes of the tests the plate was the same thickness and hardness as that of the front plates of vBritish tanks, and reveresed 7.92mm bullets penetrated the plate easily whilst at the same range normal bullets did not.

Regards

TonyE

I didn't see the programme, but have wondered if this might be the case - as I suggested above, because of the shorter time-period over which the energy is expended.

Arguments about poor accuracy and ballistic coefficient only have any real force where ranges are long enough for them to matter. In the FWW, sniping ranges were frequently quite short - Hesketh Prichard mentions one German sniper who was (temporarily) very successful from a concealed position only 70 yards from the British trenches. If this was in any way typical, and with British countersniping often done from steel-protected loopholes, the mod could well look to be worth trying without having to think of troops as overly prey to rumour and superstition. And of course, finding such rounds to have been made by either side would be certain of misinterpretation by the opposition, wilfully or otherwise...

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

I didn't see the programme, but have wondered if this might be the case - as I suggested above, because of the shorter time-period over which the energy is expended.

Arguments about poor accuracy and ballistic coefficient only have any real force where ranges are long enough for them to matter. In the FWW, sniping ranges were frequently quite short - Hesketh Prichard mentions one German sniper who was (temporarily) very successful from a concealed position only 70 yards from the British trenches. If this was in any way typical, It wasn't and with British countersniping often done from steel-protected loopholes, the mod could well look to be worth trying without having to think of troops as overly prey to rumour and superstition. And of course, finding such rounds to have been made by either side would be certain of misinterpretation by the opposition, wilfully or otherwise...

Sniping would be at least the width of Nomans land which was usually much wider. Sniper loop holes were as small (and well concealed) as possible requiring a very accurate shot to hit. Even at 70 yards you'd get a very unreliable shot.

[MikB]

Sniping would be at least the width of Nomans land which was usually much wider. Sniper loop holes were as small (and well concealed) as possible requiring a very accurate shot to hit. Even at 70 yards you'd get a very unreliable shot.

H-P's comments may of course be partial, but he gives frequent instances of sniping from within No Mans Land - again, I would have to say, in the majority of cases by the British - but then those are the cases he'd be most aware of. Given that a loophole itself might indeed be difficult to hit with a (typically) 2-MoA rifle even with standard SAA, hitting the shield at ranges up to 100 yards or so with a reversed bullet to cause the user to spill his tea or ersatzkaffee (depending which side he was on) might've been a practical proposition. Beyond that, I grant you it looks flaky.

Regards,

MikB

[Robert Dunlop]

When this thread began, a cogent series of arguments suggested a reversed bullet could not pierce armour. A standard German bullet can punch a hole in metal plate when reversed.

At the short range of the test, there was no evidence of ballistic instability affecting accuracy. It is not clear what the maximum effective range is. We can speculate on the distance but, given that at the outset of this discussion it seemed unlikely that even this test would succeed, H-P's comments cannot be discounted on current evidence.

The more interesting problem, IMHO, is estimating the effect of 'piercing' a metal plate. In the test, the bullet did not penetrate the metal plate. It disintegrated on impact. The kinetic energy appeared to cause the clean penetrating hole. On the far side of the plate, very small pieces of metal were scattered in several directions. No doubt these fragments could have been unpleasant but much less likely to be lethal in effect.

Robert

[Tom A McCluskey]

Rumour eh? From 1st Army's Orders September 1915.

Aye

Tom McC

[centurion]

Again dating well before tanks. The context suggests very clearly that these bullets (being lumped together with dum dum type modifications) were regarded as anti personnel. German snipers had already been issued with K rounds by this date to deal with armoured loop holes. Regardless of their short range effect on armour it seems clear that the point of the reversal was not armour piercing.

[centurion]

This issue clearly dates from as early as 1914 - see the following

Dr. Tuffier (vide Report

of the proceedings of the Academy of Medi­

cine; meeting of the 24th November, 1914)

having reference to the nature of certain

serious wounds produced by the use of "re­

versed" bullets.

In the communication which I addressed to the

Academy of Medicine on the 18th of October,

I considered it my duty to inform you that a

number of wounds which had been shown to me

and alleged to have been caused by explosive

bullets, might very well have been produced by

the bursting of an ordinary bullet on a bone;

and I added that, to be able to assert positively

the existence of explosive bullets, they must have

been found either in the cartridge belt or the

magazine of a rifle of a combatant. To-day, I

bring before you proofs of the existence, in the

German army, of rifle bullets which have been

rendered more deadly by a very simple mani­

pulation.

In the course of a mission to the north-east

front, near Arras, I observed, in the case of

casualties returned from the trenches, certain

wounds of which the orifice at the point of entry

and the deeply conical form could not be re­

conciled with the use of cylindro-conical bullets.

This perplexed me, and I took occasion to discuss

the matter with one of my colleagues of the Paris

hospitals, Dr. Potherat ( Chief Surgeon of the

7th Field Hospital of the 10th Army), who had

quite recently extracted from the hand of a

French soldier a bullet which had entered by its

lower end, which had retained its normal shape,

and of which the point remained visible above

the surface of the skin. Furthermore, certain

soldiers who had been provided with bullet-

stoppers (to all intents and purposes, shields)

told me that, in certain cases, bullets seemed to

strike the steel plate with a peculiar noise and

left upon it an unusually large mark. These

arguments were not in themselves quite con­

clusive. At the same time, however, a Captain

of Infantry declared to me that he had found

German cartridges in which the bullets had been

reversed, that is to say, with the end pointing

inwards. I followed up my investigation from

this point.

In order to understand fully that which follows,

it is necessary to be familiar with the manner in

which these projectiles are made. The French

bullet is cylindro-conical and composed of a

single homogeneous metal; the German bullet

is not homogeneous, being made of two metals

of unequal density, a very thin outer covering of

ferro-nickel, sheathing a regular cylindro-conical

leaden bullet. The hard outer covering is in­

complete; it surrounds the point and the surface

of the bullet, but does not extend to its base, and

I desire to emphasize the importance of this fact.

At this level, the leaden core is there laid bare,

as you can verify for yourselves by examining

this cartridge clip. The danger of bullets known

by the name of dum-dum lies in the fact that they

are composed of two metals (a hard outer covering

and a soft inner core) differing in density and

pliability; on penetrating the body the lead is

expelled from its casing and creates a regular

explosion in the wound. It is quite easy to

produce this explosive effect without making the

slightest alteration either in the shape or the

general appearance of the German bullet; all

that one need do is to reverse the bullet, that is

to say, to place it with its end pointing inwards,

and with the base, in which the lead is loose,

pointing outwards. Bullets fired under these

conditions strike the tissues over a surface which

forms something in the nature of a hard ring, in

the midst of which the free lead, expelled from

its sheathing, lacerates the tissues.

If you examine more closely the concavity at

the base of this bullet, you will perceive that it

makes a sort of little air chamber, which greatly

facilitates the opening up of the edges.

As for the manner in which the bullet is reversed

the German prisoners themselves have told us

how it is done. The operation is facilitated by

the fact that the bullet may be readily extracted

from its socket, in which it is not firmly embedded.

Grasping the cartridge firmly in the hand, and

inserting the point of the bullet in the end of the

rifle barrel, the soldiers are able to shake and dis­

place the bullet, which becomes detached in its

copper socket and falls out.

All they have then to do is to put the bullet

back, head foremost, into the same socket and to

press it lightly on the base; it is then fixed in

position and may be fired.

[Jack Sheldon]

A number of interesting points have come up in this discussion, though I suspect it is yet another area where it will be difficult to get at the exact truth - one way or the other. As a professional infantryman all my working life, there are a couple of aspects of the discussion which I find strange. First, I seriously doubt if any genuine sniper would tamper with his ammunition. The sniper strives above all for accuracy, which is based on consistency of ammunition and firing technique. For that reason it is not uncommon to find him issued with rounds which have been manufactured to far higher quality standards than that provided for normal infantry purposes. If we are talking about short range sniping, then putting a round through the slot in an infantry shield with a well zeroed weapon is entirely feasible. Second, nothing quoted or discussed seems to have mentioned ricochets. With millions of rounds being fired, a high proportion must have struck the ground and gone fizzing and tumbling away anything up to, say, 40 degrees either side of the point where they struck. Some men must have been hit by these rounds, which would have made exactly the type of wounds described and condemned by the medical experts.

Jack

[centurion]

Official medical reports of the war in South Africa report instances of such wounds and even of reversed bullets being recovered from victims. Ricochets were indeed suspected so its quite possible that some such wounds were so caused in WW1. However we also have a number of instances of reports of reversed rounds being recovered. Interestingly none of these seem to suggest a general German policy to use such rounds but suggest that individual soldiers (perhaps in some numbers) were producing the things on an ad hoc basis. If this was all part of some British and French propaganda exercise one would expect a more concerted accusation of official German 'frightfulness'.

Some work has been done on the ballistics of reversed bullets - these seem to indicate that if fired from relatively low velocity weapons (like a pistol) there would be a boat tailing effect that might keep them fairly stable but the same effect would severely distort the trajectory over any distance if fired from a high velocity rifle as there would be turbulence and drag. There is a very good reason for the shape of high velocity rounds. Its also possible that velocity itself would be affected - this would explain the apparent failure of such rounds to penetrate French infantry shields as reported in the French report I attached to an earlier posting.

I'd agree with Jack that any sniper worth his salt would not wish to fiddle with his rounds. Moreover there are reports that reversed bullets could damage the rifle and even cause the round to jam in firing chamber causing injury to the firer. The earliest date of the use of such rounds appears to be in 1914 so we can rule out any anti tank role in their use at that time. So why were they used?

British experience of soft nosed and hollow nosed bullets suggests that from a purely military point of view they were most effective in halting a mass charge as any man hit was very definitely hors de combat. A reversed bullet would have the same effect as the metal jacket did not extend to the base of the bullet. Britain withdrew soft or hollow nosed bullets from South Africa (accusations of their use appear to be on the mistaken assumption that any bullets made by the arsenal at Dum Dum must be expanding bullets and therefore the capture of boxes labeled Dum Dum indicated that such bullets were in use). However after heavy losses were incurred in Somaliland when full jacketed bullets failed to halt a charge and hollow points were briefly reintroduced. By WW1 higher velocity rounds had been introduced with greater stopping power and so the British hollow points were withdrawn again. One wonders if the German use of reversed rounds were intended primarily to increase the stopping power. Of course there could be some other explanation. There had been some unfounded reports of the British use of hollow points and there might have been an element of "if they're doing it to us we'll do it to them".

[Robert Dunlop]

I can't speak to use of reversed bullets for the purpose of inflicting greater injuries. I have never seen any evidence that confirms this explicit intent, but such evidence may exist elsewhere. The presence of reversed ammunition may be linked to this purpose, but there was an explicit requirement for armour piercing capability that pre-dated tanks.

Robert