Reversing Rifle Bullets to Increase Penetration?

[centurion]

Strange, reading about the various trials of armoured piercing bullets between the wars and during WW2 it would appear that lead would not behave like that (totally disintegrate). A solid bullet like that used in some more modern rounds might. The optimum design would appear to be a soft metal outer with a hard core and a flattish area at the nose. The flatish area stops the bullet from richoceting off if there is an angled strike, on impact the lead at first (for a nano second or so) flattens, ensuring that the hard core hits at a suitable angle, and then melts acting as a lubricant for the hard core to penetrate the armour.

[TonyE]

There are few monobloc AP bullets made these days for small arms, and although materials have changed and improved the design you describe of a jacketed lead sheathed hard core is no different to say the British AP Mark VIIW of 1917/18. It does work.

I cannot think of any modern AP bullets that have a flattish nose, although there is evidence that AP performance can be improved if the core has a flat or even concave tip, as this seems to punch through the target material better. Over the years just about every shape of core has been tried, but in the end the two factors that matter are striking velocity and mass of the core, which is why depleted uranium has been used in rounds as small as 7.62mm. Also why the US played with the SLAP program of saboted AP bullets.

Regards

TonyE

[centurion]

And a reversed German WW1 bullet would have no hard core and a lower velocity than a normal bullet.

[centurion]

Geting back to the question of were reversed bullets used?

Lieutenant-Colonel D. W. MacPherson, O.C.

2nd Canadian Field Ambulance, reports in his

War Diary :

FESTUBERT

" 22 . 5 . 15 . 6.30 p.m. . . . Germans using T gas again in this section, and rumours that dum-dum

bullets are being used. ..."

"24.5.15. . . . Attacking the Germans, who are using gas and dum-dum bullets, or bullets

reversed in cartridge. A clip was brought into our Dressing Station to-day and I examined it, and confirmed it. ... Wounded coming in have very nasty wounds, the worst I have seen yet."

From the History of the CAMC

[Tom A McCluskey]

Part of Soldier Soldier, From Ballads of Battle (sold out in 1916). A Poem by Joseph Johnstone Lee, 4th (City of Dundee) Bn The Black Watch:

SOLDIER, SOLDIER

Soldier, soldier, charging on the foe.

With your comrade's dying cry to urge

you as you go.

Soldier, soldier, stilly lying dead,

With a dum-dum bullet through your

dunder head.

Soldier, soldier, with a smile of grace.

Breaking through the grime and grit on

your blood-swept face.

Soldier, soldier, sound will be your sleep,

You will never waken, though you hear

her weep.

Aye

Tom McC

[Robert Dunlop]

Wounded coming in have very nasty wounds, the worst I have seen yet."

Very interesting. The two quotes provide further confirmation that clips of reversed bullets were found. They do not provide proof of widespread use as dum-dums. Indeed the opposite can be inferred. Assuming the MO's observations of wounds is correct, and further assuming that the wounds were caused by reversed bullets, it is intriguing that the 24th marks a day on which he has seen such wounds, ie this was noteworthy to him because it contrasted with previous experience.

We should bear in mind that, with respect to the severity of the wounds, this would not be the first time that a doctor saw what he wanted to, the very reason why we have double-blind randomised controlled clinical trials.

So these quotes provide further evidence that bullets were reversed and that whole clips were found. There is a suggestion that on one day, wounds were more severe. The assumption at the time appears to have been that the wounds on this day were caused by the use of reversed bullets.

Robert

[centurion]

Very interesting. The two quotes provide further confirmation that clips of reversed bullets were found. They do not provide proof of widespread use as dum-dums. Indeed the opposite can be inferred. Assuming the MO's observations of wounds is correct, and further assuming that the wounds were caused by reversed bullets, it is intriguing that the 24th marks a day on which he has seen such wounds, ie this was noteworthy to him because it contrasted with previous experience.

We should bear in mind that, with respect to the severity of the wounds, this would not be the first time that a doctor saw what he wanted to As he was a Lt Col commanding a unit covering a sector one can be reasonably certain that he is reporting on what the doctors under him were finding so this is likely to reasonably widespread, the very reason why we have double-blind randomised controlled clinical trials. Just how would you do that - be serious! Note that the official report on wounds in the South African war describes wounds caused by reversed bullets in some detail as do other reports from French doctors in 1914 (see earlier postings) One has to assume that these would have been read and noted.

So these quotes provide further evidence that bullets were reversed and that whole clips were found. There is a suggestion that on one day, wounds were more severe. The assumption at the time appears to have been that the wounds on this day were caused by the use of reversed bullets. Reading too much into it. He says wounds were worst so far. Doesn't necessarily mean that his doctors may not have seen some dum dum wounds before (recognised as such or not). I fear you may be committing the fault you insinuate the Lt Col may be committing and this would not be the first time that a reader saw what he wanted to

What we do know is that there are reports by doctors and in soldiers letters of clips of reversed bullets being found in 1914, 1915 and 1916 so whatever the scale of use it was certainly persistent and used as an anti personnel measure. French doctors in 1914 removed such bullets from soldiers.

[Robert Dunlop]

French doctors in 1914 removed such bullets from soldiers.

The evidence supports the presence of clips of reversed bullets. It would be good to see the quote about the French experience in 1914. How did they know that they were removing bullets that had been fired when reversed?

Robert

[centurion]

The evidence supports the presence of clips of reversed bullets. It would be good to see the quote about the French experience in 1914. How did they know that they were removing bullets that had been fired when reversed?

Robert

Already posted in this thread F Doc

[Robert Dunlop]

Thank you. In the quote referred to, the physician was discussing wounds 'alleged to have been caused by explosive bullets'. He postulated that 'on penetrating the body the lead [from a the interior of a reversed bullet] is expelled from its casing and creates a regular explosion in the wound.' In this context, it is important to note that the bullet 'extracted from the hand of a French soldier... 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'. The latter description does not mean that the bullet was reversed before firing. In addition, there was a distinct lack of explosive effect.

The quote is far more important in establishing why armour-piercing capability was required before the introduction of tanks:

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.

Robert

[centurion]

Thank you. In the quote referred to, the physician was discussing wounds 'alleged to have been caused by explosive bullets'. He postulated that 'on penetrating the body the lead [from a the interior of a reversed bullet] is expelled from its casing and creates a regular explosion in the wound.' In this context, it is important to note that the bullet 'extracted from the hand of a French soldier... 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'. The latter description does not mean that the bullet was reversed before firing. In addition, there was a distinct lack of explosive effect.

The quote is far more important in establishing why armour-piercing capability was required before the introduction of tanks:

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.

Well it certainly indicates that reversed bullets were remarkably ineffective for this purpose (can't have it both ways). A large mark is what you'd expect from a mushrooming lead core from the base of the round.

You are quoting selectively

The Dr had already dismissed explosive rounds at the begining of his presentation and made it quite clear that he was investigating the source/cause of wounds that clearly could not have been made by pointed rounds

The bullet from the hand would be a spent round - hence no dum dum effect (otherwise there would have been no hand to extract it from) The dum dum effect of reversed bullets is adequately described in the official report of wounds in South Africa. In the latter case no unfired reversed rounds were found - in 1914 they were

[Robert Dunlop]

Well it certainly indicates that reversed bullets were remarkably ineffective for this purpose (can't have it both ways). A large mark is what you'd expect from a mushrooming lead core from the base of the round.

I am not sure what you mean by 'can't have it both ways'. All I have done is pass on information from a demonstration that showed reversed German WW1 ammunition penetrating steel plate at short range, noted that armour-piercing was a requirement before the introduction of tanks, and then question that reversed bullets were primarily used for their dum-dum effect. Thanks to Jack's post, we know that even specialised armour-piercing bullets were not uniformly successful. I had highlighted the possibility of reversed bullets not having a particularly significant effect if and when they did penetrate armour. But we don't know, and I want to keep an open mind on this in case new evidence comes to light, one way or the other.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

The Dr had already dismissed explosive rounds at the begining of his presentation and made it quite clear that he was investigating the source/cause of wounds that clearly could not have been made by pointed rounds

That was my understanding too. The selective quotes were not intended to convey otherwise, merely to limit the size of the quote. Thank you for ensuring that there can be no misunderstanding on this.

The bullet from the hand would be a spent round

My interpretation as well. Without any other facts, that is all we can say IMHO. It is certainly not evidence that the bullet was reversed before firing.

The information from the South African conflict is interesting but does not help us come to a definitive conclusion on the use of reversed bullets in WW1.

Robert

[centurion]

I am not sure what you mean by 'can't have it both ways'. All I have done is pass on information from a demonstration that showed reversed German WW1 ammunition penetrating steel plate at short range, noted that armour-piercing was a requirement before the introduction of tanks, and then question that reversed bullets were primarily used for their dum-dum effect. Thanks to Jack's post, we know that even specialised armour-piercing bullets were not uniformly successful. I had highlighted the possibility of reversed bullets not having a particularly significant effect if and when they did penetrate armour. But we don't know, and I want to keep an open mind on this in case new evidence comes to light, one way or the other.

Robert

I've not seen any indication that the rounds fired were German WW1

[centurion]

The information from the South African conflict is interesting but does not help us come to a definitive conclusion on the use of reversed bullets in WW1.

It shows that the effect of reversed bullets was well documented and would be known to the military medical profession - this means that they would be more likely to recognise such wounds and hence lends greater credibility to medical reports to the effect that such rounds were in use.

[centurion]

Just to add to the earlier Canadian diary quotation - it refers to the Battle of Festubert. Of this battle the History of the Royal Canadian Medical Corps says

The total number of wounded handled in the combined Field Ambulances was 996 Canadians of all ranks, and 111 British. Some of the wounds were very severe – were, in fact, the worst seen by our Medical Officers up to this point. The extensive laceration and the huge size of the wound of exit indicated that the enemy in certain of his battalions employed illicit projectiles; and this suspicion was verified by the discovery in the captured trenches of clips in which all the bullets had been reversed in their cases. A diagram showing the effect of a revesed bullet was enclosed. The first wound is caused by a normal buillet, the second by a bullet with reduced velocity and the last by a reversed bullet

Thus the observations on the wounds came from quite a number of doctors.

[Robert Dunlop]

From my personal experience in forensic pathology, I would respectfully suggest that these diagrams are highly misleading. They show a scenario where a bullet is passing through the femur and creating an exit wound. It is entirely possible for a conventional bullet to cause the damage seen in the third diagram, especially when the femur is struck by the bullet.

Robert

[centurion]

Well I guess that the Canadian military doctors who produced the diagram had some practical experience.

[tintin1689]

I very much hesitate to contribute to such a learned debate

I only put my bit in because I noticed the thread title after having just read a book about one of the Italian Saharan Companies on the Libyan/Egyptian border just before the last war.

In one of the chapters the author visits the infirmary after the Saharans have ambushed some slave traders in a rocky defile. A soldier is brought in with a very bad wound to the arm and the doctor says that such severe wounds are often seen after combats in rocky places due to ricocheting bullets entering the body blunt end first.

How many of these wounds detailed here could have been due to similar causes, especially in the type of terrain fought in during the South African War?

[Robert Dunlop]

The issue is not the practical experience of the Canadian physicians. Dr. Tuffier's report highlights the problem:

"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..."

A bullet fired in the conventional way, without any tampering to cause the dum-dum effect, may 'burst' on contact with bone and cause effects that seem like the bullet has 'exploded'.

The diagram on the right represents a precise entry wound with significant soft tissue destruction, comminuted fracture of the femur, and a large irregular exit wound. This can be explained by the effects of a conventional bullet. It is not incorrect to say that the wound might have been caused by a reversed bullet. It would be incorrect to say that this was the only cause.

Robert

[bob lembke]

What about looking at this from another angle? Aside from the significant effect on accuracy, and certainly a much reduced range, I find it hard to believe that bullets reversed in the trenches would be at all reliable in a Mauser in terms of feeding reliably, and it would seem that there would be a great danger of mis-fires, of feeding jams, and possibly even of a bursting rifle, or at least a mis-fire that would seriously jam the rifle's action. Or perhaps the reversed and probably un-crimped bullet simply falling off the case in handling or chambering. What infantryman would risk these effects in combat to gain a possibly marginally more severe wound at the cost of a severely disminished probability of actually hitting someone. Would not a square hit from a 8mm (over .31 caliber) usually effectively put a soldier out of action? Certainly when he was charging toward the enemy. The whole idea seems odd. There were some tests by a Pal or two; did they actually feed the rounds, or chamber them by hand. I would think that a NCO would knock the stuffing out of someone doing such a risky thing.

Bob Lembke

[centurion]

I have seen comments that reversed rounds were certainly unpopular in some quarters for precisely the reason that Bob mentions - there could be feed problems and the like (as I think I've already mentioned) and in addition fouling of the lands reducing the life of the rifle. There is an account by a German deserter of not liking the ideas of using a dum dum because of the worry of what would happen if found in possesion (but also mentioning that some individual soldiers did make them). However there are too many accounts in diaries letters etc of rounds with reversed bullets being found discarded or in some cases on wounded soldiers to rule out them being used at all. There are also some British medical papers by surgeons from Hospitals such as Barts that describe wounds from this cause and in one case contain a photo of an offending reversed round. Its worth noting that the Turks also appear to have used them as Bean reports reversed rounds being found at Gallipoli.

I suspect that the Canadians may have had the right of it when they indicate that some German units tended to use them rather than it being a generic German army usage. I think that Bob might well be right in respect of many units. Why use them - well as I've said who knows? but the traditional use of the dum dum was as a man stopper. There is a report on small arms wounds that suggests that the majority of pointed rounds made a clean wound with entry and exit being similar in size (like the first one in the diagram shown before) whilst the remainder did cause a larger exit wound with considerable damage to the bone and flesh (as in the second one) this was often because the round tumbled after impact or because it wasn't pointed (some KuK and French) rounds had a flat rather than pointed end but the real horrors were the reversed rounds which usually acted as a dum dum. In the case of the clean wound some soldiers (especially with the adrenaline rush of combat) would keep on coming. Its worth noting that at Festubert the Germans were on the defensive.

Its worth noting that accounts of reversed rounds being found seem to dry up after 1916.

[wulsten]

Interestingly, i found a reversed German bullet in France last year, looking at my diary the base of the bullet was numbered DM 3 16 s67, dont know if this means anything etc. (and before you say i left it there)

[truthergw]

I have fired a .303 but am not in any sense an experienced rifleman. I wondered about chambering a round the wrong end first. I think it would slow down reloading. In another thread,which is still running, it is mentioned that there are extensive medical records of the German Army still extant. Is there any mention of German casualties being caused or exacerbated by dum-dums, reversed rounds, explosive bullets etc. ? I know that both sides accused each other of this in the Boer War and I wonder if it was one of those things which people believed without question. I have known soldiers and non-soldiers do things out of bravado and it may be that these rounds were examples of that. If a man was convinced that the enemy were using dum dums he may do the same. Finally, I can think of no way for any doctor to know from examining a wound whether that bullet left the muzzle backwards or not.

[gew98]

It's quite established that a reversed S patrone bullet will not feed in the 98 action. As the cartridge rim needs to get under the extractor and is stopped dead by the **** end of the bullet not being able to negotiate the feed ramp machined into the receiver.

The Enfield action is less sensitive to this due to the extractor snapping over the cartridge rim as the round is seated in the chamber in the advent it does not get around it from the go.Though the feed ramp in the receiver still won't like a reversed bullet's contour.

As well when you pull an S patrone bullet from it's crimped in position you will actually stretch and deform the neck of the brass casing which will further compound any feed problems. The 303 Mk 6 or 7 round would be little different in that as well.

Having recovered many FMJ bullets from game animals I have seen that most high velocity bullets that are pointed and light for their respective calibers tend to tumble and **** end if any length of travel in the animal happen and or if bone mass is hit.

Maybe in all this was done for better wire cutting abilities as that would make greater sense. As one could take the time to make sure with hands on to feed the cartridge through the action into the chamber on the gew98 - you cannot drop the round in and close the bolt or you will break the extractor.