Grump
Member
No. Civilian experience only, and I live in a VERY dry climate.
I think we're also mixing metaphors here. The carbonate fouling from early ammo (excessive stabilizers) caused gas tube restrictions that led to *inadequate* extraction and failures to eject. That's the opposite of the rusty-chamber problem, which was compounded by the ball powder ammo giving a bit too much port pressure.
Those batches of ball powder caused two opposing problems--high port pressure/fast cycling when the tube was open, and plugged gas tubes after many rounds were fired.
At 78 or whatever degrees farenheit, none. The standard was and still is 3xxx fps at 78 feet, +/- 30 fps, for all ammo without regard to powder type. Because my experience with ball powders is up to 1 fps per degree F temperature change, I would estimate that at 110 F, the ball powder stuff would be 32 fps faster than "standard", while the stick-powder ammo would be about 16 fps faster than "standard".I wonder what the velocity differences were between M193 with ball powder and M193 with stick powder?
I think we're also mixing metaphors here. The carbonate fouling from early ammo (excessive stabilizers) caused gas tube restrictions that led to *inadequate* extraction and failures to eject. That's the opposite of the rusty-chamber problem, which was compounded by the ball powder ammo giving a bit too much port pressure.
Those batches of ball powder caused two opposing problems--high port pressure/fast cycling when the tube was open, and plugged gas tubes after many rounds were fired.