Ha! Too bad that's a dishwasher.

Agree as dd are good but not moa and with wolf?

I have a 11.5 DD CHF barrel , on a mechanical rest - shooter completely out of the equation - it will do 3-4 MOA with wolf.

The same setup with 77 grain OTM did 1 MOA ( 5 shot group)

this was at 100 yards, with me behind the trigger - the groups are larger.

I was getting maybe 4 MOA with a Grendel build w/ 22" barrel using Wolf gold.  I didn't measure it very carefully but it did not hold a candle to Hornady 123 SST's

What Finslayer sez

Shoot it til YOUR trigger finger gets tired!

ETA: remember not so long ago when $189 got you 1000 rnds shipped ?

I miss those days

I wasn't old enough to know about "the good times." I turned 18 one year ago to the day, and that was a bad time to buy ammo anyway. - OP

 

Topic Moved

Hey I was just as suprised as you guys.  Bought 500 rounds of the wolf wpa to shoot in a class I was taking because I wouldn't get my brass cases back if I shot them.  Wanted to sight it in with those so it would be close for the training class.  Think I might have had the lead sled out that day but not sure and soon as I got a shot in the bullseye I fired 2 more and all 3 were in the bullseye.  We were like WOW too.  This was at 100 yrds.
Thing is when I first put this scope on this rifle and sighted it in at 50 yrds with pmc brass they were all about an inch or so apart.  Then I put a couple rds of 62 gn green tip throught it at 50 yrds and they were touching. But aren't they not suppose to be that accurate because of the steel core?  Have since shot all the wolf I haven't done any testing with this gun as far as accuracy goes.  Been doing alot of reloading lately but it would be fun to get some and try to recreate this again.  Might have just been the lucky but I know if I have a prop I haven't had any trouble hitting 1lb jugs of tanerite at 100 yrds.

OP, reading through the thread,

It appears to me:
1. The only issue you have with the Wolf is that the bolt does not always lock to the rear on the last shot
2. You don't really want to remove the BAD lever which most people think is causing the issue.
3. You like the price of steel cased ammo.

If I was in your situation, I would:
1. Make sure I kept my rifle cleaned and lubed.
2. Continue to shoot the wolf at the range and not worry about the bolt not locking back.
3. Take this opportunity to learn to subconsciously keep track of my round count while shooting.

I built a 5.45 rifle for cheap training, and of course all the ammo for it has been steel cased and corrosive to boot. Since I got everything tuned after assembling it, it has run flawlessly for thousands of rounds with zero stoppages and some of the ammo was pretty old surplus. The whole no steel in AR's is a myth. Now as for tula .223 I've heard lots of complaints about one batch being under powered and the next being fine. I personally would use it for training and lube the s**t out of it and see if that doesn't fix the bolt locking back and if it doesn't just rock on. Your saving a ton of money buy using steel.

No your just a brass only guy. thats not a relative comparison. if your diesel cuts off you walk if your gun misfires in wrong situation you die.  anymore smart comment.

Probably more people have died due to diesel problems than have died due to their rifle not reliably using Tula (the known worst .223 ammo available).  How many Americans do you think have died because their rifle isn't reliable with Tula?

I think the answer given was an analogy. Lighten up Frances.

I know I'd never judge ANY rifle by it's ability to digest shit ammo. I do shoot lots of steel ammo, just not Tulaammo in .223.

The worst 223 ammo has always been A-MERC, which has brass cases...and off-center flash holes, inconsistent rims, and questionable brass treatment...  But your last point is the real issue here: don't judge the reliability of a rifle on its ability to run with TulAmmo.

That particular flavor of ammo is marginal at best because of the way they make it.  The Lucky Gunner steel-versus-brass torture test article had some very interesting data on Tula, including the fact that they use a powder that is arguably too fast for a standard AR.  It generates the desired muzzle velocity, but it also generates a really weird - and possibly more importantly, a really abrupt - gas pressure curve.  Sure, the bullet will go downrange, and at a reasonable speed, but the gas pressure makes ARs stutter sometimes.  In comparison, Lucky Gunner's examination of Barnaul's steel cased offering showed it to be essentially a .223-class round, without the weird gas pressure curve issues of the Tula stuff.  Yes, both Russian brands had relatively high flame temperatures, which might increase barrel erosion a bit, but that wasn't a real issue (and Ball-type powders from Winchester have essentially the same flame temperature issues).

I will try the bad lever, I just don't see how that will change anything. I generally don't clean unless I've been shooting steel cased ammo, just because it's a bit dirtier. But I've never had an issue with not cleaning my gun. And I'm at 90 so far with the wolf. So far is say approxately 750 total.

 

Like I said, that is what I would do. You asked for tips and advice.

I do not have  BAD lever, but I have read posts in the past from people who say it causes the problem you are having.
http://www.ar15.com/forums/t_2_219/208073_.html
http://forum.snipershide.com/snipers-hide-semi-auto-rifles/62643-problem-magpul-bad-lever.html
http://www.m4carbine.net/showthread.php?81824-BAD-Lever-problems

On a simpler note:
I currently have 3 AR's -  2-20" and 1-16" - all of them are pretty KISS rifles.
In 37yrs of shooting, including numerous M16's in the army,
I have experienced virtually none of the ammo/rifle problems I see people post about.

I have shot lots of different brands of steel cased and brass ammo.

Basically all I do is what I learned in the army:
Make sure I kept my rifle clean and lubed.

and I don't mean "white glove" cleaned, just a basic USGI cleaning kit and breakfree CLP.
Nothing fancy.

YMMV

Sortta on topic:

I wouldn't say that  " The whole no steel in AR's is a myth"  but that steel cased ammunition is hard on the rifles.  Whether you can live with that or understand that you will need to replace parts more often is up to you.............

This test clearly shows the wear involved:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

Pardon my ignorance, but please explain KISS. Also, I am sure your experience(37 years) has helped you deal with issues you've had. As I mentioned earlier in the thread, I'm only 19 and although I've been shooting since I was 6, I've only been shooting ARs for about 2 years now. I guess I'd say I'm still a novice even though I put my rifle together myself piece by piece.

 

KISS = Keep It Simple Stupid
Meaning my rifles are NOT all tacticool with loads of gadgets.

and as you can see from the links I posted, there are lots of reports of the BAD lever causing the problem you are experiencing.

Once again I have to point out that much of the wear noted is due to the powder used, and not due to the material the cases are made of.  In fact it was recently suggested in another thread that steel-jacketed bullets were awful too; Lucky Gunner notes that the rounds with steel-jacketed bullets showed more barrel wear, but they didn't (correctly) associate that with the bullets, but rather the combined effect of both the bullets and the extra-hot powder used by Tula.  They did not see nearly the same amount of wear in the rifle they fired Barnaul ammo through.  And when you compare the cost of the individual parts that wind up on everybody's short list of "parts that wear out faster because of steel cased ammo" with the lower cost of quality steel cased ammo, the tradeoff is easy to see: a few inexpensive parts (that break with brass cased ammo too) versus thousands more rounds worth of shooting.

The case material is irrelevant.  Let me say that again for all concerned: the case material is irrelevant.  It's the quality of the ammunition overall that makes the difference.  Tula seems to not know what "quality means" (even in Russian), while Barnaul makes consistent, reliable steel-cased ammo all the time.  I am pretty sure that Hornady uses their primed cases for their steel-cased lines. as well.  It ain't about the case material, it's about the ammo maker overall...

What I don't understand is why you guys keep discussing how bad Tula is,
in a thread where the OP clearly says his problem is with Wolf.

Maybe I am missing something,
but how does the bad quality of Tula ammo explain why
Tula works fine in his rifle, but the Wolf he bought does not lock the bolt to the rear on the last shot?

I mention Tula because I'm responding to OTHER posters' statements about steel cased ammo in general.  And for what it's worth, the OP didn't say which kind of Wolf he was shooting: was it "bad old Wolf Black Box" (which was made by Tula), or WPA (made by Barnaul), or something else?  It kind of makes a difference in how we might be able to help him out.

Yea, a lot of people are discussing Tula.

Since the guy is 19 and just bought the Wolf, I didn't think it would be the old black boxed stuff.
But you are right.

duplicate  

Porter:
We sort of agree- that test showed clearly several things:
- the case had nothing to do with the barrel wear- you are correct- where that was an effect was the malfunctions.  The brass had ZERO in 10,000!  The various steel had much more than that.  
- the bi-metal bullet IS wearing the barrels much faster than the Federal:

The testers say this:

"The steel cases themselves don’t have any effect on the condition of the bore. The difference lies with the projectile – the soft copper jacket of the Federal ammunition simply doesn’t cause the same amount of wear as the bimetal (copper and steel) jacket of the Russian ammunition."

I agree that the powder could/might/would play a part in that but they didn't test the bi-metal bullets separately form their original powders.  Nor should they- that is how you buy it and use it- as a "set."

What I am saying to the OP and the others here is this:

Based on the linked test, steel cased ammunition is hard on the rifles. Whether you can live with that or understand that you will need to replace parts more often is up to you.

Wolf, Tula  doesn't matter.  Shoot it if you want, just understand what you are getting into.

http://i1351.photobucket.com/albums/p783/hyde097/Mobile%20Uploads/EA033463-3DB6-40E7-B562-9BE8865EBAA4_zpsnpnx2ffm.jpg



 

Hyde, that stuff should not give you problems, but there are a few things to keep in mind with all steel cased ammo.  The first is that, especially in smaller calibers, steel doesn't seal the chamber mouth as well as brass (steel isn't as springy as brass), so some gunk will seep back into the neck area of the chamber and collect.  It requires added attention to cleaning to prevent this from building up enough to slow down extraction.  If this is allowed to build up enough, it will cause stuck cases, and the first indication of something needing attention is short cycling.  A chamber brush and some solvent is good to have on hand if you're going to be shooting a lot of steel cased ammo - keep the stuff on hand at the range if you're going to be shooting plenty at one time.

One question I have is about your experience with the Tula.  You say you went through about 500 rounds of Tula - was that just before shooting the Wolf?  Did you clean the rifle after the Tula?  Clean it really well?  Tula has a second issue over Wold WPA steel cased rounds, in that it is typically less able to seal the case mouth, so it allows more gunk collection in the chamber.  One rule of thumb people give for shooting steel and brass cased ammo is that you should always clean the living crap out of the chamber after firing steel and before switching to brass.  This is because of the gunk buildup in the chamber.  If you did not really thoroughly clean your chamber after firing the Tula and before switching to Wolf, it was probably the Tula that caused the shorter stroking.  In any case, your "not going back enough to lock the bolt open" issue is the mildest symptom of this kind of gunk buildup.

TGH456E, a thorough examination of the Lucky Gunner article supports two conclusions: that there was more wear in the Tula rifle (by far) for the number of rounds it lasted than in the Wolf or Brown Bear rifles, and that steel jacketed bullets were one factor in the relatively higher rate of wear in the two surviving steel case rifles.  They do go to quite a bit of detail on the powder used in the Wolf and Brown Bear rounds, and point out that both of these rounds use powder with high flame temperatures.  In fact, in the introduction to the article they point out that they wanted to compare the effects of different case materials, different bullet construction and different powders.  They were not able to separate the effects of the Wolf and Brown Bear powder from the effects of their bullets because they only had those combinations.  If they had the ability to compare Brown Bear with bimetal bullets with Brown Bear with copper jacketed bullets, it would have said a lot more.  And Lucky Gunner actually acknowledged this limitation in their analysis of their results.

And keep in mind that US-made M80 7.62X51mm NATO rounds are spec''d for either copper OR steel jacketed bullets...today.  I would suggest that if steel jacketed bullets, per se, were substantially harder on barrels that the M80 spec would not allow them.  It tells me that Uncle Sam (and the bean counters in Ordnance Corps) don't consider steel jackets to be a problem.  

And finally, most people tend to consider all steel as identical in hardness, toughness, etc., which is completely false.  Since metallurgists can formulate steel that can be tough enough to survive thousands of small explosions within a gun barrel and at the same time craft a steel that is soft enough to use in cartridge cases, it should be obvious that even softer grades of steel can be made - soft enough to equal the engravability of gilding metal* - which is actually the case.  If those steel jackets are as soft as the gilding metal jackets on traditional bullets, how can they cause more wear than traditional bullets?  By themselves, I don't believe they can.

*Gilding metal is the name of the 95/5 copper/zinc brass alloy used in bullet jackets and usually just called "copper" jackets.  It isn't just copper, or it would turn green very quickly; the zinc prevents that.

Mr Porter (?):

My only reason for posting the test was a help the posters make an informed decision about shooting Wolf/ Tula/ Brown Bear ammunition in their AR's.  
I don't care whether they do or not- it's their rifles and their money.

But I don't see at all how you can - in third person no less- supposedly read the article and then post some of your comments.

1.  Where do they "go to quite a bit of detail on the powder used in the Wolf and Brown Bear ?"
2.  Where do they say  " both of these rounds use powder with high flame temperatures?"
3.  Where did they "acknowledged this limitation in their analysis of their results," regarding the " ability to compare Brown Bear with bimetal bullets with Brown Bear with copper jacketed bullets?"

Nowhere do they talk about those things.  They talk about port and chamber pressure, they talk about velocity, and they did test ammunition with a copper jacket- the Federal.  They talk about a lot of things but None of what you have brought up.

You brought up US 7.62 specifications.  Why?  What does that have to with this test?  They already tested a US brass cased, copper jacketed and US powder driven bullet.  The Federal they used, which worked flawlessly.

So regarding the question of reliability:

When Federal had ZERO malfunctions in 10,000 rds.  The steel cased Wolf/Bear had a total of 24 and Tula was halted at 489 total rounds because of malfunctions.    

Regarding the barrel wear they say this:

The steel cases themselves don’t have any effect on the condition of the bore. The difference lies with the projectile – the soft copper jacket of the Federal ammunition simply doesn’t cause the same amount of wear as the bimetal (copper and steel) jacket of the Russian ammunition.

That is a clear statement.

I agree that you could minimize the barrel wear by replacing the bullet with a copper jacket like Hornady does but that defeats the savings in money.
I agree that the short-stroking of the Tula ammunition could be solved by replacing the powder with another suitable one but that is more money and effort.
I agree that if you wanted the 100% reliability of the brass cased ammo- you could replace it.

But then what you have is US brass cased, copper jacketed ammunition.

I shoot the steel cased ammo but I realize what I'm doing to my rifles.............................    

PS- on your final paragraph about metals and bullets.  You have a lot of "if's" in there.  "IF" this and then "IF" that.  What isn't an "IF" or question at all is that the designers of the Federal Bullet (US) understood your comments well before you and designed a bullet with barrel wear in mind.  Clearly the Russian designers didn't or they accepted the increased barrel wear as "a cost of doing business."          

So your point is?  

I direct your attention to the Data Analysis section of the Lucky Gunner article.  The heading "Why Didn't Tula Function Well in the Test Carbine?" describes the pressure curves generated by all the different rounds used, and points out specifically "Basically, the powder burns too fast, and by the time the bullet has reached the barrel, the pressure drops."  

I was in error when I stated that Lucky Gunner had made conclusions about powder flame temperatures.  I was wrong, and should not have stated what I did about either powder flame temperatures or Lucky Gunner's conclusions, especially without carefully reviewing the article.  I misremembered their conclusions about the bimetal bullets, and should have reread the whole thing before I attributed anything to Lucky Gunner.  And I need to point out that they did make a good case for the bimetal bullets causing substantially more wear in the Wolf and Brown Bear barrels.  I'd have liked to have seen some investigation of whether the Wolf and Brown Bear bullets were consistently the correct diameter, because undersized bullets could also lead to excessive erosion, but that's another experiment to be done.

I brought up the M80 specs to point out that US M80 ammunition has bimetal bullets.  I thought I pointed that out clearly in my post.

My points were that you cannot characterize all steel cased ammo as identical or even similar.  And that when you keep in mind that M14s don't wear out after thousands of rounds, despite running a substantial percentage of steel jacketed bullets, that you can't blame all barrel wear on bimetal bullets.

And yes, I get too wordy sometimes.  I apologize for that - it's something I fall into when I'm tired and it's a very bad habit.  I should proof read more and delete even more than I do.  Sorry.

Mr Porter:
Fair enough.
I respect your post and what you're trying to say.  I hope you took no offense to my post.

My point to you though about steel jacketed bullets is this:
- I agree that different bullets can have different compositions to them- you are right- and what effect they might have on a barrel.

But I wasn't blaming "ALL" bi-metal bullets on this bore wear and neither was Luckygunner.  They only tested Wolf/Tula/Bear brands.  Which is what this thread was about.  

As far as your comment about M14/M80........ I'll point out the obvious:  Whether its steel jacketed or not, its made by US (or atleast not Russian) manufacturers.  So your comment simply reinforces my comment that US/NATO manufacturers, unlike Russian, cared about bore wear and designed their bullets with it in mind.  The Russians did not.

Luckygunner test is a clear example of that:  The Federal bullets worked great!  In accuracy, bore wear and reliability.  The 3 Russian manufacturers weren't even close to those standards.  By design or not.  

PS:  I would be careful in saying that when the Russians say "bi-metal" and then assuming if a US designed/produced steel bullet (which might have "2" metals in it) are the same.  The Russians could have a specific meaning/recipe/ design to that name that isn't shared by the US manufacturers.  You already know there are/could be endless combinations to those make ups of the bullets.  

Regardless of the meaning though, the 3 tested faired poorly against the Federal.        

No, YOU weren't calling bi-metal bullets evil things that eat up barrels, but others do, and it's patently false.  My earlier post (the one that was way too long) wasn't aimed at you, but at the people who figure that if it isn't brass cased, "made in the US of A" ammo, it's going to destroy their gun.  I'll again note that I'd like to see a solid examination of whether Wolf and Brown Bear (and Tula, while we're at it) bullets are consistently 0.224" in diameter - I'll bet that Tula's aren't as consistent as the other two's.  Federal's bullets are high quality and more expensive, thus the higher cost per round.  It has to do with the hardness of the jackets, the consistency of manufacturing processes, and the precision of the tolerances held with each bullet.  Obviously, the low-cost alternatives are going to be lower on the scale than Federal.

The term "bi-metal' was apparently invented by Wolf (which is a marketing company, not an ammo manufacturer) to identify their copper plated, steel bullet jackets.  It looks like the other Russian makers (or their importers) picket up the term and ran with it.  It's all "steel bullet jackets plated with copper to prevent rust."  Now how hard and how well treated the steel is?  That can vary by manufacturer...and I bet you know which one I think is on the bottom of the list with this group.

Finally, yes all three Russian brands fared poorly against Federal, and I don't think anyone will argue that the testing wasn't well planned and well executed.  This article is, in fact, a great example of a very well designed scientific study, including a literature review, a well designed set of investigation questions, and very well built testing processes.  I'd like to see added testing, in addition to just measuring the bullets, to determine more details about how the Russian rounds are made and how their primers and powders do or do not contribute to wear.  Since the current cost of imported, steel cased .223 is still well below that of domestic, brass cased ammunition, I would caution everyone to NOT take the Lucky Gunner tests as an indication that the Russian stuff is uniformly bad.  But it sure doesn't look good as a steady diet for any AR!

I shot about 350 rounds of the Tula and then cleaned, then another 150 and then 210 of PMC lap, then I cleaned again. Since the last cleaning I've done, I've got 90 rounds of WPA through my rifle. I really need a chamber brush, I know this. I'm not one to clean much, but I never had that problem with the Tula. What is an effective way to clean the chamber without chamber specific cleaning tools?

 

There really isn't one.  You need a brush that cleans the body AND neck section of the chamber; a bore brush does the leade OK, but the neck and shoulder areas are important, especially when firing steel cased rounds.

You need a non-turning, chamber cleaning rod, such as the ones Dewey makes. and a caliber-specific chamber brush like this one at Brownells.  You're talking about somewhere near $15 worth of tools here, not a huge financial investment.  With the brush on the chamber cleaning rod, turn the brush clockwise into the chamber by hand and then turn it 5-6 times.  That's all you need to do.  It will take some effort to remove the brush from the chamber, but just keep turning it in the same direction as you pull and it'll come out smoothly.