BEE-L Archives

Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology

BEE-L@COMMUNITY.LSOFT.COM

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
James Fischer <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Informed Discussion of Beekeeping Issues and Bee Biology <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 20 Feb 2024 15:23:58 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (19 lines)
> An official in the Office of Price Administration....

Google can find incorrect information in the blink of an eye, if one searches specifically for an phrase expressing the incorrect information itself.

Pencil-necked paper-pushers like the "Office of Price Administration" were/are unlikely to even know how to fire a weapon, let alone know what's actually used in ammunition manufacturing.

The link below is to a far more authoritative document from 1915 that more thoroughly addresses the subject. Even in 1915, paraffin was well known as less sticky, and therefore more useful for "bullets" than beeswax.

Yes, there were MANY military applications of beeswax, but the common misconceptions (a) that beeswax was intended to somehow "lubricate" the gun barrel and (b) that actual beeswax was used in common post WWI ammunition persist because beekeepers continue to repeat misinformation.

Pure beeswax was a poor idea even in the days of paper cartridges, but until paraffin, it was the best substance available for the task.

[ https://drive.google.com/file/d/1gd1STXQGpeBsK4QnBb7dJ3n3a8xVeI2a/view?usp=sharing ]

             ***********************************************
The BEE-L mailing list is powered by L-Soft's renowned
LISTSERV(R) list management software.  For more information, go to:
http://www.lsoft.com/LISTSERV-powered.html

ATOM RSS1 RSS2