Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
"Rebounding" NATO 7.62 brass???
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Teri Anne" data-source="post: 2729011" data-attributes="member: 118816"><p>During the time I did competitive shooting in the Army we shot a lot of 7.62 x 51 in various different forms. Not all NATO ammo is created the same. There was Lake City Match, where the empties were coveted due to their consistency and reload ability. The next step down was 7.62mm Ball ammunition. Both of these cartridges were loaded to be fired in the M-14 or sniper rifles. Then there was the 7.62 linked ammo which was designed to be fired from machine guns. This ammo was not loaded to the same standards as the ones fired in the M-14. There were inconsistencies in the cases, the powder charges as well as bullets used. There was not as much care taken during the loading process simply because the ammunition was designed to be fired out of a full automatic firearm so accuracy was not as much a requirement. This ammo if fired from a M60 did not get too damaged during the ejection process. The real problem came into play when fired out of Mini Guns, mostly mounted on Helicopter Gun Ships. The rate of fire of the mini guns was between 2000 and 4000 rounds per minute. Cases ejected from mini guns were usually pretty well distorted. Our uneducated and unproven theory as to why these cases did not load well was due to several factors. 1 - There were a lot of inconsistencies in the cases, they probably would have been rejects, or were rejected from match or ball ammunition production. Due to the fact that they were ripped from the chamber so fast our theory was that they were still somewhat expanded from being fired when they were literally ripped from the chamber, still hot and being dragged out causing the cases to stretch excessively especially at the shoulder. </p><p></p><p>7.62 mm brass shot from an aircraft was considered expendable. It did not have to be turned back in. Scattered around the helipads on gunnery ranges were thousands of empty cartridges that could be had for the taking and many were taken for reloading by both military and civilian shooters. I am sure that some of these cases found their way into the market as once fired cases, as did some of the better quality cases. Military cases are made heavier than their comparable civilian counterparts. This reduced case capacities somewhat but also made the cases more durable. I often got 6 to 8 reloads out of Lake City Match cases, somewhat less out of standard ball ammo and as few as two out of the cases fired in machine guns. There were some issues with the machine gun cases not chambering properly, could have been due to the shoulder issues you have mentioned.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Teri Anne, post: 2729011, member: 118816"] During the time I did competitive shooting in the Army we shot a lot of 7.62 x 51 in various different forms. Not all NATO ammo is created the same. There was Lake City Match, where the empties were coveted due to their consistency and reload ability. The next step down was 7.62mm Ball ammunition. Both of these cartridges were loaded to be fired in the M-14 or sniper rifles. Then there was the 7.62 linked ammo which was designed to be fired from machine guns. This ammo was not loaded to the same standards as the ones fired in the M-14. There were inconsistencies in the cases, the powder charges as well as bullets used. There was not as much care taken during the loading process simply because the ammunition was designed to be fired out of a full automatic firearm so accuracy was not as much a requirement. This ammo if fired from a M60 did not get too damaged during the ejection process. The real problem came into play when fired out of Mini Guns, mostly mounted on Helicopter Gun Ships. The rate of fire of the mini guns was between 2000 and 4000 rounds per minute. Cases ejected from mini guns were usually pretty well distorted. Our uneducated and unproven theory as to why these cases did not load well was due to several factors. 1 - There were a lot of inconsistencies in the cases, they probably would have been rejects, or were rejected from match or ball ammunition production. Due to the fact that they were ripped from the chamber so fast our theory was that they were still somewhat expanded from being fired when they were literally ripped from the chamber, still hot and being dragged out causing the cases to stretch excessively especially at the shoulder. 7.62 mm brass shot from an aircraft was considered expendable. It did not have to be turned back in. Scattered around the helipads on gunnery ranges were thousands of empty cartridges that could be had for the taking and many were taken for reloading by both military and civilian shooters. I am sure that some of these cases found their way into the market as once fired cases, as did some of the better quality cases. Military cases are made heavier than their comparable civilian counterparts. This reduced case capacities somewhat but also made the cases more durable. I often got 6 to 8 reloads out of Lake City Match cases, somewhat less out of standard ball ammo and as few as two out of the cases fired in machine guns. There were some issues with the machine gun cases not chambering properly, could have been due to the shoulder issues you have mentioned. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Rifles, Reloading, Optics, Equipment
Reloading
"Rebounding" NATO 7.62 brass???
Top