Weapon *Life Expectancy*

Yea, I don't know much about that stuff. I shot a lot, but never wore a gun out. It's interesting info.
Jug, did you say that your Ma Deuce was manufactured in 1945 and is still being used? That is pretty amazing seeing how it's a MG used for business, not leisure. The AC Spark plug bit was tasty too.

 

You also have to remember that most weapons had "plain" steel barrels and a steady diet of corrosive ammo.

 

I did indeed. As far the internals are concerned I would assume that they had been reworked over time; but, that is what was stamped on the receiver.

 

The receiver plates will outlast us all as the firing stress is imparted to the internal parts. Browning knew what he was doing. IIRC the Depot stamps the receivers with the date and Arsenal that performed the overhaul(s).

 

I think the barels were '63 and '72 dates. One of the 'Upgrades' they sent me one day were plastic handles to replace the wooden ones on the trigger plate and charging handle, I didn't have the heart to replace them as they were still in good good condition. The Bolt, Buffer assembly and accelerator were somewhat newer as they still had the majority of their parkerazation. I personally replaced the firing pin and recoil springs from packages dated 1983.

 

Any clue who the subcontractor was for those parts?

 

I do not.

 

That says a lot about the quality of the ammunition. No misfires in 20,000 rounds implies a failure rate of less than 0.005%.

As an on-topic aside, the German "Paris Gun" of World War I was subject to extreme barrel wear. So much so that each shell was individually machined to a different size, numbered, and fired in sequence. Effectively, it was "re-calibered" after each shot.

 

I have to remember back to what my dad used to tell us about maintaining the large guns they used and how they were prepared for their voyage by sea to their destinations. The gun crews had to apply coats of cosmoline to the inside and outside parts of their guns before shipment and had to remove the same each time they moved from one locale to another by sea. This was highly unpopular to perform but necessary for metals that most weapons were made of. The Salty sea and its environment will quickly take its toll in rust and corrosion to any bare metal guns of the day. I had no idea of how difficult this may be until I purchased a surplus weapon that had been stored in cosmoline. Of course the large guns received greater attention even receiving a wrap over the layer of cosmoline. I will only say that removing the cosmoline from my small arms rifle took hours to completely remove using many different kinds of penetrating oil to remove the waxy deep penetrating cosmoline. I would tell you that it left its permanent mark on my cleaning rags and clothing to work with this preservative and fully understand the soldiers dislike of working with cosmoline. But it is a very effective preservative for metal. If I recall correctly they did do some sort of similar preservation of their small arms as well so a lot of work was done just cleaning.

 

I too understand how difficult it is to remove that stuff. And like it or not, the very best "solvent" to use is simple gasoline. "Back in the Day" we didn't understand how the "lead" could be absorbed through our skin, so we didn't use the rubber glove protection we should have. We were too "macho" to worry about our skin drying out a little, and had no clue about the lead being absorbed.

Today with the "unleaded" gasoline, the risk would be lower, but I would still use rubber/latex gloves to protect myself from the stuff. Just a "tip" from an old fart who has pulled a lot of cosmoline off of a bunch of stuff. Not just rifles and such, but replacement parts for jeeps and GMAC deuce 'n a half trucks too.

 

The risks are probably much higher - modern "unleaded" is filled with aromatics, and added volatiles to actually make it burn after all the new anti-knock additives have been added! Some of these are mildly carcinogenic themelves....hey, the good peepul campaigned to get the tetrra-ethyl lead taken out!...and I believe Benzene is back in the mix...

I note only one person mentioned corrosive ammo....or rather the corrosive affects of various burnt propellants. This is the REAL killer of older weapons....

 

I should have defined the risk as "lead poisoning" having decreased. The other things they are putting in the fuel to replace the tetra-ethyl are some pretty nasty chemicals. Today even regular pump gas contains at least 10% ethanol, and that is a real problem for many "non-ethanol" designed engines. The seals, hoses, and gaskets cannot withstand the crap at that level. It also increases the risk of water separation in the winter months if you don't burn your tank nearly dry every time.

BTW, the risks of harm from lead are widely misunderstood, and many "myths" surround the substance even today. It was MUCH worse than people would admit from the twenties on when it was first put into commercial products.

See:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/ethylwar/#myths

and especially this section:

http://www.radford.edu/~wkovarik/papers/ethylconflict.html

 

I'm still thinking that the barrel of the Browning would've been completely shot out after less than 10,000 rounds, and at 20,000 rounds it would've been spitting rounds everywhere..

During WW2 the barrels of bolt action rifles were expected to last around 6,000-7,000 rounds before they were worn out, a figure that usually took years to reach with these rifles. In one long burst I'd expect the barrel to be worn out a lot sooner.

Ofcourse a special barrel with a lower twist rate could've been used to lower the wear on the barrel, but they didn't even use chrome lining back then, so even a 10,000 round long burst should've rendered any barrel competely shot out.

 

No where does the barrel condition come into the picture in this "test", only the reliability of the action itself is tested. At least that is how I read the statement. Shot out or not, the barrel wasn't what was being tested.

 

I went to Radford & VA Tech for Pharmacy. Such a tiny town. I never could convince the Arsenal to let me sign-out some 40mm ammo for... QA, yeah, that's it.

re: barrel life
Plain steel barrels suffer serious erosion, thus shortening its life, if you continue firing through a hot barrel. That's why the Germans were meticulous about changing MG barrels after every 250rds.

 

That test was on the water cooled "heavy" Browning remember, and no where does it say there was ONE LONG CONTINUOUS belt with thousands of rounds on it. That seems a rather silly interpretation, since at the time it would have used cloth webbing belts, and belts would need to be changed to keep firing.

I suspect what is meant by "continuous" is that the weapon itself wasn't taken apart, cleaned, cooled, or adjusted. Simply belt after belt fed into it. This would allow a short "break" as each new one was loaded would it not? And wouldn't the statement remain true?

 

I can certainly believe that the action would last for 20,000 rounds easy. I'm just saying that the barrel would be completely shot out rather quickly if they just kept on shooting and shooting, where the only breaks taken were to feed in another belt (10-20 sec to feed a new belt?).

 

As I say, that was all that was tested. The action reliability, not the barrel. That would be outside of the test and of no import to the test itself since that wasn't the focus.

 

My comments are regarding air-cooled weapons. Water-cooled are a different story. As long as you had water, a Browning M1917 could handle 20,000+ rounds in an afternoon of fun. That's why the barrels aren't easy to change.

 

And that model only ran at between 400 and 600 rounds per minute I think.