Reversing Rifle Bullets to Increase Penetration?

[TonyE]

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)

Presumably you mean the markings on the base of the cartridge case? The bullet itself is only likely to have the logo "DM" stamped in the exposed lead of the core.

Are you saying you found a complete unfired cartridge with the bullet reveresed, i.e. with the pointed end of the bullet inside the case?

The headstamp means:

DM= Deutsche Waffen und Munitionsfabriken

3 16= March 1916

S67= S patrone with 67% copper in the brass.

Regards

TonyE

[wulsten]

Yes the bullet was unfired the end reversed into the case and the markings were on the bottom of the case, i have a pic somewhere, but cannot locate at the moment

[centurion]

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.

There is no evidence that dum dums were used in the 2nd Boer (South African) War. There were accusations that the British were using such bullets (mainly voiced by anti British elements in the USA - some of these were repeated almost verbatim in an Irish Republican web site this year) In fact all soft point and hollow point rounds were withdrawn from the country by the British Army, however jacketed rounds were supplied to some troops from the manufacturary at Dum Dum, these were no different from jacketed bullets from any other source but the name on the ammo boxes raised the rumour (a bit of a PR own goal by the British Army). The Boers broke a number of the conventions of warfare of the time but I've seen no accusations of the use of dum dums.

With regard to WW1 I agree that there is no way a surgeon could determine if it were a ricochet or actually fired that way but if the doctors are reporting a sudden rise in the incidence of such wounds and at the same time reversed bullets are being recovered from enemy positions and prisoners then a reasonable inference can be made.

What evidence there is suggests that the use of such rounds was not official German (or Turkish) policy but the work of individuals. The Canadian history I've quoted suggests that some German units may have been particularly prone to this practice. Does anyone know which units were facing the Canadians at Festubert?

[centurion]

I have found a German reference to the use of reversed rounds in 1915 - not for armour piercing but in some respects almost the reverse.

Auch am 2. August lebhafte, beiderseitige Feuertätigkeit.

Um die Englischen sandsackbarrikaden wirksam zu zerstören, hatten sich unsere Jäger

insofern ein Sprenggeschoss konstuiert, als sie das S-Geschoss verkehrt

herum in die Patronenhülsen steckten.

Auf diese weise war die wirkung des in viele splitter gehenden geschosses gegen die

sandsackaufbauten der Engländer allerdings enorm.

Was jedoch die Gewehrläufe und gar Waffenmeister und Bataillon dazu sagten, war eine andere Frage.

Es gab böse Laufaufbauchungen und somit unbrauchbare Gewehre.

Diese Scherze wurden also sofort abgestoppt."

(Geschichte des 18. Reserve-Jäger-Batallions)

Translation:

Also on the 2nd August we had a brisk exchange of fire.

To more effectively destroy the English sandbags our riflemen constructed a type of exploding bullet by removing the S-bullet and reversing the bullet in the case.

Although the effect of this fragmenting bullet on the English sandbags was enormous, the effect of this bullet on the barrel, not to mention our armourers and Battalion (staff), was an other question entirely.

The barrels were severely ringed, making the rifles useless.

This fun was therefore immediately terminated.

History of the 18th Reserve Jaeger Battalion

The dum dum effect on a sandbag would to blow a big hole in it

[MikB]

That was really interesting, Centurion - dunno about others, but I certainly hadn't thought of that as an objective to be gained by reversing bullets. If you wanted to breach a substantial sandbag barrier without involving artillery it could be a working technique - but you'd need a lot of reversed rounds and potentially damage a lot of weapons.

HP in 'Sniping In France' recommends protecting sniper positions with sandbags filled with stones, and it occurs to me that that could've been a countermeasure against techniques like this one.

Regards,

MikB

[Robert Dunlop]

With the introduction of trench warfare, the entire Western Front became a parallel series of fortified positions. The enemy was rarely seen, remaining protected behind parapets that included sandbags, especially in the low lying areas of northern France and Belgium. Metal plates of various descriptions appeared very early on, in addition to the pre-existing armour plates for some machine guns and the occasional appearance of mountain and field guns in the front line. HP describes and illustrates how armour plates were integrated into parapets. Shields were used to protect snipers and permit observation, from the Belgian coast to the Swiss border. Examples of personal body armour made an appearance. Various experiments were carried by all sides whereby men carried, pushed or wheeled metal shields of different descriptions. A few attacks were made using these devices. The tank was merely an extension of the process of trying to protect men against small arms fire. Prior to the appearance of the tank, there was every reason to encourage the development of an alternative to the conventional bullet for 'armour' piercing, especially given the limited supply of armour-piercing bullets.

There are some descriptions of clips of reversed bullets being found in captured German trenches. Occasional examples are discovered even today. So far in this discussion, it has not been established how widespread these discoveries were. For the moment at least, it cannot be assumed that the practice of reversing bullets was systematically carried out. Thanks to centurion's efforts, we have one example of the explicit use of reversed bullets. In the case of the 18th Reserve Jäger Battalion, the modification was made to 'pierce' non-metallic 'armour'.

All sides accused their opposites of using dum-dum, explosive or other destructive anti-personnel rounds. There is no doubt, in my mind at least, that the impact of a reversed round can inflict serious soft tissue and bone damage in a human. This site hints at the use of reversed bullets to bring down big game animals in preference to conventional rounds, probably because of this effect (for anyone interested in the effect of different manipulations of bullets, then follow the link to 'First Page' bottom right). There is also no doubt that bullets fired in the normal way will cause extensive damage, especially if they strike bone and tumble. The bones of young fit men are the thickest and strongest, especially the long bones in the legs. It is not inevitable that a bullet contacting bone will cause severe damage, but it is likely. I recall one case where a high velocity bullet struck the rib cage at an angle and then tracked around the outside of the rib cage and exited through a clean hole almost on the opposite side. If anyone was seeking 'evidence' that the enemy was using non-conventional rounds for dum-dum effect, then there would be no shortage of nasty wounds caused by normal bullets.

Physicians and surgeons are not above seeing what they want or are expected to see. No disrepect is meant, we all do it, mostly sub-consciously. This is why clinical trials have to be conducted in such a way as to prevent the physician or surgeon knowing what is being used, inactive 'sugar' pills (placebos) versus active tablets that look exactly the same for example. I would be very surprised if we could find clear unequivocal evidence of wounds being caused by reversed bullets merely from the examination of the wounds. But the variety of medicine teaches that we should remain open to such a forensic deduction being possible.

Can we exclude the use of reversed rounds for their dum-dum effect on men? No, IMHO. It is entirely possible, indeed quite likely, that some individuals on all sides would stoop to this or similar measures. We definitely should not regard such behaviour on the part of a few individuals as being 'German' or confined to German soldiers! The presence of clips of reversed bullets does not establish their use as 'dum dums', though one could imagine that in the horrendous circumstances of close quarters fighting, some individuals might use such clips if nothing else was to hand. The relatively few detailed descriptions of this type of fighting really make me shudder. The 'up close and personal' aspect is truly chilling, as men are driven by the sense of self-preservation, fear, adrenalin, anger - all of the most primitive and raw emotions - to kill, or be killed.

Robert

[centurion]

Its not proper statistical evidence but the number of reports that I have located of reversed bullets being found is greatest in 1915. There are some in 1914 and also in 1916 but I have seen none from 1917 or 1918. This would suggest that the practice petered out probably after the Somme (which also suggests that, contrary to some publications, it was not an anti tank measure). It may have been suppressed due to pressure within the German army or because of measures such as shooting prisoners found in possession of them (or both). Interestingly the majority of accounts of these rounds being found in German trenches appear in soldiers letters and diaries rather than official publications.

Was it a purely German practice? Well apart from Bean's noting of reversed rounds being found in Turkish positions at Gallipoli all the first hand accounts I've seen refer to German positions or prisoners but then reading only English I cannot be sure at all that there are no accounts of other troops on either side using them. It would seem unlikely that the French would, not because of any moral superiority but because they did not used jacketed ammo and would not achieve the same effect. I have seen on various forums an account of British snipers using them against German sniper shields but since these have all been word for word the same as an account on other forums of German snipers using them against British sniper shields (and neither have any 'audit trail') I have treated these with a table spoon of salt. I'd be interested to see any German accusations of British use of reversed rounds.

There are accusations of American troops in the Philippines using reversed rounds against the Moros but there is no corroboration

There are accounts on a number of gun forums of reversed rounds being used by hunters (in the USA). Given the apparent glee with which the results are posted all I can say is that there appear to be some deeply unpleasant people in this world

[gew98]

Its not proper statistical evidence but the number of reports that I have located of reversed bullets being found is greatest in 1915. There are some in 1914 and also in 1916 but I have seen none from 1917 or 1918. This would suggest that the practice petered out probably after the Somme (which also suggests that, contrary to some publications, it was not an anti tank measure). It may have been suppressed due to pressure within the German army or because of measures such as shooting prisoners found in possession of them (or both). Interestingly the majority of accounts of these rounds being found in German trenches appear in soldiers letters and diaries rather than official publications.

Was it a purely German practice? Well apart from Bean's noting of reversed rounds being found in Turkish positions at Gallipoli all the first hand accounts I've seen refer to German positions or prisoners but then reading only English I cannot be sure at all that there are no accounts of other troops on either side using them. It would seem unlikely that the French would, not because of any moral superiority but because they did not used jacketed ammo and would not achieve the same effect. I have seen on various forums an account of British snipers using them against German sniper shields but since these have all been word for word the same as an account on other forums of German snipers using them against British sniper shields (and neither have any 'audit trail') I have treated these with a table spoon of salt. I'd be interested to see any German accusations of British use of reversed rounds.

There are accusations of American troops in the Philippines using reversed rounds against the Moros but there is no corroboration

There are accounts on a number of gun forums of reversed rounds being used by hunters (in the USA). Given the apparent glee with which the results are posted all I can say is that there appear to be some deeply unpleasant people in this world

The basic mechanics of pulling the bullet and reversing it compromise the cartridge - given.

The german example you note of the bulged bores is a prime example. Being the small bearing surface of the S patrone , that when it is forcibly "pulled/twisted" from the cartridge case and reinserted it is not secure in the case.It can either drop into the case interior or 'fall' forward into the throat of the chamber/barrel which would cause the bulging as noted in the german account.

Of course as stated this cartridge modification does not allow use of the magazine - given. Strictly very attentively hand loaded so as not to jam the action or break the extractor.

I find your account of numerous "accounts" of reversed bullets for hunting on USA gun forums a bit odd. I frequent loads of such forums and never hear of such things...let alone with 'glee' as you put it.

The reversing of a 30/40 krag 230 grain bullet during the phillipino moro uprising would have been very impractical at the least. The long bearing suface of the bullet and the long neck of the case would require alot fo force to do such not counting the likelihood of case neck and bullet damage which would more than like cause chambering problems -both of which without any proper tools would be hard to do with any merit. The 230 grain .30 caliber bullet was never questioned for it's stopping ability, it's weight and it's bullet jacket composition being a soft cupronickel alloy. One would likely have safer results cross cutting or nipping the tip just right - too much and you risk blowing the lead core out and leaving the bullet jacket lodged in the bore as happened in early versions of the british .303 dum-dums.

I am aware of an example during WW2 where a soldier asked his father to send him a couple boxes of 220 grain 30-06 soft point hunting cartridges. These were received and used with good effect on japanese tree bound "snipers".

Anyhow to me it was proven long ago that period reversed FMJ bullets have zero merit in penetration of hard targets. That in the german example given it did frag sandbags , and likely fairly effective cutting wire are the best origins of this cartridge field modification.

[centurion]

I find your account of numerous "accounts" of reversed bullets for hunting on USA gun forums a bit odd. I

Please do not misrepresent me I never said there were numerous accounts of reversed bullets being used for hunting if you read my posting properly I said "There are accounts on a number of gun forums of reversed rounds being used by hunters (in the USA)." the word numerous was never used. I think I've seen two or three.

[truthergw]

I think Robert Dunlop has made a very good summary so far. I believe we are agreed that there was no official use of rounds which had been tampered with, quite the reverse (!). In those circumstances I doubt if we are going to get corroborating evidence any better than that which has been presented by Centurion. I think we can safely say men did carry them and presumably, used them. It does not seem to have been widely practised. It would not be the only practice which was talked about much more than it was actually followed. Soldiers are very open to believing the worst of an enemy.

[MikB]

Was it a purely German practice?

Whilst I've never tried to dismantle a German service 7.92 round using the rifle muzzle in the manner described in an earlier post, I think Tommy would've had great difficulty reversing a 303 bullet in this way without damaging it beyond effective use.

Not only were the older Mk.VIIs stab-crimped well below the casemouth, making it more difficult to open the crimp, but the bullets were also gummed into the neck with a very tough and adhesive varnish-like sealant.

I haven't done the measurements, but I strongly suspect that you also couldn't get the bearing surface of a reversed bullet supported in the caseneck without stuffing the point through the pasteboard wad and in amongst the cordite sticks. Doing that mightn't much further change the performance of the round, but would be physically difficult to do safely without some proper tools.

So, for these reasons alone, I doubt if Tommy found this a handy practice. Besides, when he wanted loopholes pierced, he could call HP or one of his chums with their 333 Jeffrey or 470 NE.

Regards,

MikB

[59165]

Thank you very much for reporting on this trial. It helps to ground the discussion. When you say 'a bit naff', how was this manifest? Could you hit targets? If yes, was there no penetrating power? Thanks again.

Robert

Sorry,Robert.

I've just seen your post.

In 'naff',I meant that over even only 200 meters,the ball was entering the target at between 2 & 4" off bullseye compared to normal rounds.Penetrating power cant be properly gaged because of the age of the bullets used.The nickel/lead 303's are slightly decayed & will splinter when fired normally.

Whenever I shoot my .303's,I use period(1916/17)bullets interchanged with 1960's/70's cases(as the primers rarely work on the old uns).I have an inertia hammer for bullet removal,I keep the cordite & replace the modern powder with this so I basically have an original 303fired from an '18 dated SMLE.

With the reversed,I had to reload the new powder as with the cordite charge,there wasn't room for the bullet to reseat itself enough for easy loading.Hope you can follow that?Its not very well explained,easier when you see it.

Penetrating power was a bit less,for obvious aerodynamical reasons but the Germans wouldn't have had some of the loading problems I had as they used powder.

I will endeavour to go kill a sand bag as I think that would prove to be the best use of these reversed jobbies after reading all these posts.

Dave.

[59165]

I haven't done the measurements, but I strongly suspect that you also couldn't get the bearing surface of a reversed bullet supported in the caseneck without stuffing the point through the pasteboard wad and in amongst the cordite sticks.

Regards,

MikB

Exactly my point. I was responding at the same time as you

[centurion]

I think Robert Dunlop has made a very good summary so far. I believe we are agreed that there was no official use of rounds which had been tampered with, quite the reverse (!). In those circumstances I doubt if we are going to get corroborating evidence any better than that which has been presented by Centurion. I think we can safely say men did carry them and presumably, used them. It does not seem to have been widely practised. It would not be the only practice which was talked about much more than it was actually followed. Soldiers are very open to believing the worst of an enemy.

I agree with almost all of this except that given the number of occasions in 1915 when there are reports by individual soldiers of finding clips of reversed bullets in captured German positions (and apparently not in single examples) then it may have not been such a rare practice at this time. At the end of 1915 the French government made a formal protest about the use of reversed bullets.

Incidentally, to answer some previous comments, it seems that it was possible to use the magazine if you didn't mind having to knock the bolt down with a stick (or a kick from a boot) when it stuck as it very frequently did. For some reason the Nagant M1891 was a much better rifle for using clips of reversed rounds (and I've seen a suggestion that captured Nagants may have been used for this purpose). The bulging of the bore appears to be caused by lead from the unjacketed blunt end being deposited in the lands and building up so that as more rounds are fired there is more pressure on the side of the barrel. It wouldn't happen immediately.

[MikB]

In 'naff',I meant that over even only 200 meters,the ball was entering the target at between 2 & 4" off bullseye compared to normal rounds.

Thank you for that - it really is only a 'bit naff'. Some have been suggesting a man-sized or shield-sized target would be quite out of the question at 100 yards or so, but the result you've obtained suggests that the difference in accuracy would only be really apparent in high-grade riflemen at ranges up to a couple of hundred. Even the top 'Marksman' rating only called for a 4" group at 100 yards.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Whilst I've never tried to dismantle a German service 7.92 round using the rifle muzzle in the manner described in an earlier post, I think Tommy would've had great difficulty reversing a 303 bullet in this way without damaging it beyond effective use.

Not only were the older Mk.VIIs stab-crimped well below the casemouth, making it more difficult to open the crimp, but the bullets were also gummed into the neck with a very tough and adhesive varnish-like sealant.

I haven't done the measurements, but I strongly suspect that you also couldn't get the bearing surface of a reversed bullet supported in the caseneck without stuffing the point through the pasteboard wad and in amongst the cordite sticks. Doing that mightn't much further change the performance of the round, but would be physically difficult to do safely without some proper tools.

So, for these reasons alone, I doubt if Tommy found this a handy practice. Besides, when he wanted loopholes pierced, he could call HP or one of his chums with their 333 Jeffrey or 470 NE.

Another factor could be that during 1915 (when reversed rounds seem to have been most prevalent) the British Army was most often attacking and the Germans defending. If you are using a reversed round as a form of man stopper then having it ready to halt a charge seems plausible. On the other hand it is likely to be of little value to an attacker (and British troops were usually forbidden to stop to return fire before they reached the enemy trenches).

[Robert Dunlop]

IMHO, from the evidence produced so far, the use of reversed bullets to stop infantry during an attack seems the least likely application. This situation required rapid fire of significant quantities of ammunition. Soldiers on all sides were trained to deliver these high volumes of fire. Creating sufficient numbers of clips of reversed bullets would not have been a technical problem, but the firing thereof most certainly would have been, with the greater likelihood of jams, etc. Not something that most soldiers would bet their lives on is my guess, but just a guess. If large numbers of clips were being adapted, then the evidence of their presence would have been much much greater. I have mentioned a possible exception, where close quarters fighting was taking place as the result of a successful (at least initially) assault. Then an occasional soldier might use reversed bullets, perhaps deliberately or because a clip of the same was the only thing immediately to hand. Purely supposition on my part though.

Robert

[Robert Dunlop]

In 'naff',I meant that over even only 200 meters,the ball was entering the target at between 2 & 4" off bullseye compared to normal rounds.

Dave, many thanks! You have made a really helpful contribution. I do understand your explanation, thanks. Look forward to hearing how the tests against sandbags go.

Robert

[Pete1052]

Yesterday on an American gun forum I started a thread on the supposed use of reversed bullets during the Great War and asked whether anyone had heard of it. So far the thread has been viewed by nearly 300 persons and has received 12 replies. Nobody had heard of the phenomenon except for one guy, who said he has a book which mentions reversed bullets having been found among captured German ammunition. Except for him nobody had heard of the military use of the stuff. One knowledgeable guy said it was probably one of the myths of the war, even if it was believed to be true by soldiers at the time. "Bill" wrote the following:

At the end of World War II, hunting ammo was scarce, and GI ammo was common. Various experiments intended to modify GI ammo were common.

Filing off the tip and drilling a hole to produce a "hollow point" bullet was one common trick. If you filed off too much tip, the jacket would sometimes stick in the barrel with only the lead core coming out. Pulling the 150 grain GI bullet and re-seating it backwards was another. I have tried both, though never shot an animal with either.

Using wet clay as a target, both appeared to expand much more than the standard ball round, and accuracy seemed to be about normal out to 100 yards out of my M1903.

[centurion]

I can provide links to a number of gun forums were this has been discussed ad nausem - mainly on the basis of very little evidence. There are so many gun forums in the USA!

[MikB]

Another factor could be that during 1915 (when reversed rounds seem to have been most prevalent) the British Army was most often attacking and the Germans defending. If you are using a reversed round as a form of man stopper then having it ready to halt a charge seems plausible.

Dunno. In resisting a charge, I reckon having rounds that you know will shoot and feed reliably would count for much more. Though, as Robert suggests, in a pinch you'd use whatever was under your hand at the time.

When you're trying to discourage the enemy's sniper, or spoil his sandbag cover to expose him to yours, a little experimentation might be more of a practical proposition.

Regards,

MikB

[centurion]

Dunno. In resisting a charge, I reckon having rounds that you know will shoot and feed reliably would count for much more. Though, as Robert suggests, in a pinch you'd use whatever was under your hand at the time.

When you're trying to discourage the enemy's sniper, or spoil his sandbag cover to expose him to yours, a little experimentation might be more of a practical proposition.

Regards,

MikB

I've been trying to produce a chronological list of reports of finding reversed bullets which I'll post when I've sorted out what may some duplicates. However some reports do cover finding clips spread around trenches and on the person of numbers of ordinary soldiers which do suggest they were involved in more than just sniper or counter sniper work.

[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'

Regards,

AGWR

Do you know the man's name? There is a very similar (even to the stench) account in a letter wrtitten by Alan Menzies Hiller but in May 1915 and I'd like to determine for certain if these are duplicate or seperate accounts.

[AGWR]

Do you know the man's name? There is a very similar (even to the stench) account in a letter wrtitten by Alan Menzies Hiller but in May 1915 and I'd like to determine for certain if these are duplicate or seperate accounts.

It was an officer called Capt JC Clark. He served with the 17th Middlesex and the 13th Middlesex.

Kind regards,

AGWR

[centurion]

It was an officer called Capt JC Clark. He served with the 17th Middlesex and the 13th Middlesex.

Kind regards,

AGWR

Thanks - two seperate accounts.