User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 8:36:49 PM EDT
[#1]
Bimetal jackets do wear barrels a little faster. 8k seems about right for degradation of accuracy on a non-chrome lined barrel in 5.56/.223.
The sig 551 should have chrome lined barrels, at least mine did. In that case you should probably get 10,000 to 15,000 rounds before erosion is a problem, Also fast shooting can wear barrels at an accelerated rate. I'd get the barrel replaced and shoot on. Only you can decide if the accelerated wear is worth the cost savings in ammo. On higher end rifles or ones that shoot really well (sub moa) I usually avoid budget ammo and shoot only match or quality milspec rounds. Ar15's are easy to change barrels on so the wear is less important. I avoid Russian ammo for philosophical reasons and also for the reason that they also tend to cause more malfunctions like occasional stuck rounds or light primer strikes, that bothers me more than additional barrel/extractor wear honestly. It really is not that much more wear in the grand scheme of things. Also have you cleaned the bore thouroughly and checked the crown? That can be a problem sometimes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 8:45:32 PM EDT
[#2]
It's generally expected that AR barrels are consumables and that you save enough money shooting the cheap ammo to pay for barrel replacement earlier. AR barrels are easy to swap. How do I know? I just did it on the one I built less than 2 years ago. It was one of those fancy stainless steel Wylde barrels and it was keyholing by 1400 rounds! The barrel manufacturer is replacing it but in the meantime I put a nitrided steel barrel on it. Yeah I shot about 700 round bimetal of that 1400, but barrel mfg says there was a defect with the barrel. Meanwhile I'm not going to buy any more bimetal.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/27/2016 10:10:46 PM EDT
[#3]
the ammo won't wear it any faster unless you are firing at fast rates repeatedly...
odd that after 8k a chrome lined barrel has degraded that fast to be honest what style of shooting are you doing? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 9:31:00 AM EDT
[#4]
Lucky Gunner Labs did a barrel wear and accuracy test on bi metal jacketed 5.56 ammo. I post the link a lot so people can get educated and crunch the numbers for themselves. There is cost effectiveness point for shooting bi metal bullets and replacing barrels. It really works and you can save money if your situation puts the math is in your favor but only you can do your math. link. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 2:49:14 PM EDT
[#5]
Like mentioned, the germen version of the 551 does not come with a chrome-lined barrel.
Due to the construction barrel replacement can't be done by the average gunsmith next door. I've emailed Sig about a replacement and they would charge ± 1300$ for the job. I totally agree, for the AR15 the math with cheaper ammo is simple as you can easily change worn barrels. And since it has been asked above, if you're unfamiliar with IPSC, think of it as 3-Gun with only one gun. Goes along with high round counts in short time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 5:35:39 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Like mentioned, the germen version of the 551 does not come with a chrome-lined barrel. Due to the construction barrel replacement can't be done by the average gunsmith next door. I've emailed Sig about a replacement and they would charge ± 1300$ for the job. I totally agree, for the AR15 the math with cheaper ammo is simple as you can easily change worn barrels. And since it has been asked above, if you're unfamiliar with IPSC, think of it as 3-Gun with only one gun. Goes along with high round counts in short time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 5:39:36 PM EDT
[#7]
A couple of years ago you could get one for maybe 2300.
Now the MRSP is 4200$ Sig obviously has decided, that they wanna make poo poo onto the german market. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 8:25:37 PM EDT
[#8]
This has been discussed before but I'll give you my opinion:
I thought the test was a valid one. Shooting the different ammunition under the same conditions, it was clear the bi-metal bullets were accelerating wear in the barrel. As others have pointed out, and you read in the article, with AR's the easy fix is to replace the barrel. Regardless, I've never been happy with the bi-metal ammunition and so stay away from it. It isn't accurate and with the wear on the barrels, that was enough for me. I stay away from it. For you ...... Can you buy "regular" ammunition without the bi-metal jacket? Your other option (which is hard, time consuming and expensive) is to pull the bullet and replace it with another.......... |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/28/2016 9:58:48 PM EDT
[#9]
Could you drive it or send it over the border to Switzerland and get it replaced by a store over there? A weekend trip could possibly be arranged and the Swiss are pretty cool about guns.
You could also upgrade to a SAN barrel which would last longer and be just as accurate. Tons of 550-551 barrels over there. It would also increase the value I would think. Since its a service rifle there, i am sure lots of armorers around who could do it. Assuming its legal, that's what I would do. He is right the 551 is not a simple replacement, it requires a jig and press I think. Importing a new upper from the USA maybe? Sig 551 uppers go cheaper here than a new barrel there. Importing means a long wait and probably extra fees though. 1300.00 is pricey. Ask one of the Swiss forum members to hook you up with a smith and barrel. Drive it over for a comp and perform the necessary "repair". The San barrel should last 10,000k even bimetal. It should also be noted that the swiss and germans dropped bimetal and cupronickel jackets from their service ammo exactly for this reason. GP90 and m193 both had hard jackets that ate barrels. The swiss added Chrome onto their hammer forged barrels and went to tombac jackets, they immediately saw a 30-40% increase in service life. Let me us know how the replacement goes. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 9:21:50 AM EDT
[#10]
Quoted:
I've decided to avoid bi-metal jacketed ammo in all my firearms from now on. How do you deal with this? And how was the general opinion on the mentioned test? I hate that article, lots of assumptions people throw around and link that as their "proof" in illogical arguments. firing schedule has more to do with it than bullet composition, people who shoot steel, generally do so fast and will wear a barrel quicker. If you want to shoot fast, get a nitrided barrel and replace when the accuracy drops off you want more accurate longer, don't shoot fast |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 3:54:15 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryI've emailed Sig about a replacement and they would charge ± 1300$ for the job.
Jebus! I have a 556 Classic Swat that looks just like it, and I paid HUNDREDS less than that for the whole thing brand new!! Sig is out of their mind. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 5:09:42 PM EDT
[#12]
I appreciate the words of comfort, but I have already overcome the grief about my 551s death.
Replacing the barrel with some CL swiss one is not possible. The barrel and the bolt define a machine gun / assault gun in germany, irrespective of the remaining mechanical surroundings. Actually they define the complete weapon. Everything else is irrelevant from a legal view. Thats why we can buy USGI M14 receivers for as lilttle as ... I dare not to speak out loud the price tag. Anyway. Swiss BBLs are made for FA rifles, hence a swiss barrel would turn my 551 into into a assault weapon. As it has been pointed out, the steel-jacketed ammo from S&B certainly never delivered any remarkable precision, not even when the barrel was new. Good enough for IPSC though. I dig the statement about the firing schedule, this probably quickened the wear, crappy ammo and lots of it fast. But since this is 80% of my shooting from now on I'll stay away from bi-metal. Btw I came over to the dark side two weeks ago and bought an AR15. We'll see how she does. |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 9:17:12 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I appreciate the words of comfort, but I have already overcome the grief about my 551s death. Replacing the barrel with some CL swiss one is not possible. The barrel and the bolt define a machine gun / assault gun in germany, irrespective of the remaining mechanical surroundings. Actually they define the complete weapon. Everything else is irrelevant from a legal view. Thats why we can buy USGI M14 receivers for as lilttle as ... I dare not to speak out loud the price tag. Anyway. Swiss BBLs are made for FA rifles, hence a swiss barrel would turn my 551 into into a assault weapon. As it has been pointed out, the steel-jacketed ammo from S&B certainly never delivered any remarkable precision, not even when the barrel was new. Good enough for IPSC though. I dig the statement about the firing schedule, this probably quickened the wear, crappy ammo and lots of it fast. But since this is 80% of my shooting from now on I'll stay away from bi-metal. Btw I came over to the dark side two weeks ago and bought an AR15. We'll see how she does. Man I thought our country had some real stupid legal laws but that is the worse. I would think you could put a 551 Swiss barrel on it and no one would be the wiser but then again you live there and know the system. Outwardly they would look the same right, or does your barrel have a different profile? |
|
|
|
Posted: 11/29/2016 11:08:17 PM EDT
[#14]
The Swiss rifles have a Nitrided bore and Swiss issue 5.56 ammo is steel jacketed.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 11/30/2016 5:54:01 AM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man I thought our country had some real stupid legal laws but that is the worse. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Man I thought our country had some real stupid legal laws but that is the worse. It is hard to beat Germans when it comes to bureaucracy. Quoted:
Outwardly they would look the same right, or does your barrel have a different profile? German version as sold by Sig Sauer has a bull barrel profile without muzzle threads. Original comes with thinner profile, bulge and FH |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 9:03:17 PM EDT
[#16]
Lucky Gunner's "torture test" didn't bother to use S&B ammunition. Their "bimetal" rounds were all loaded in Russia, using Russian powders. These powders appear to have a substantially higher erosion rate in barrels than US powders. S&B's powders are comparable to Western European powders, and I would doubt that their powders were any worse than any you can find in the States.
As for barrel wear just because of bimetal bullet jackets, I do not believe ANYONE has done anything like a scientific study to see what effect ONLY such bullets (and not these bullets with Russian powder pushing them) might have on barrels. I know that a substantial quantity of US-made 7.62 NATO ammunition has bimetallic bullet jackets - it's at least 50% of M80 production according to what I've read. Machine guns wear out barrels pretty quickly anyway, but the M14 rifle isn't that kind of machine gun, and I would seriously doubt that Big Ordnance would put up with issue ammunition that damages those expensive M14 barrels... As for how such wear might happen, most people assume that "steel is steel." Steel is a HUGE range of alloys that are based on iron with carbon in it. You can find steel that is almost soft enough to scratch with your fingernail, and steel that is so hard that is is used to make tool-steel tools. Bullet jacket alloy, because it has to behave like the gilding metal in traditional "copper" jackets, so it is essentially a pretty soft alloy. Soft steel like that will probably wear hard ordnance-grade barrel steel at about the same rate as gilding metal, maybe just a little bit faster. So yes, this has been discussed (ad nauseum, it seems), but I cannot find any hard evidence that the Lucky Gunner tests, or any other "tests" using most bimetal bullets, has isolated the bullet's construction from the effects of Russian powder. I think the biggest thing that wore your barrel is firing rate. I'm pretty sure that SIG will help you out with this issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/1/2016 10:17:15 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The Swiss rifles have a Nitrided bore and Swiss issue 5.56 ammo is steel jacketed. Correct on the nitride, I just checked my American 556 which has a chrome bore but my swiss 553 does not. Never shot it so I never really looked to hard at it. However, the original GP90 was cupronickel and steel, they now use tombac. Swiss Tombac is easier on barrels then even copper. RUAG and SwissP often brag about it at military arms conventions. I have some 2014 GP90 and it is not attracted to a magnet. The older gp90, gp11, and new 9mm ball all have steel in them though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 2:11:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hate that article, lots of assumptions people throw around and link that as their "proof" in illogical arguments. firing schedule has more to do with it than bullet composition, people who shoot steel, generally do so fast and will wear a barrel quicker. If you want to shoot fast, get a nitrided barrel and replace when the accuracy drops off you want more accurate longer, don't shoot fast Sir: The issue here is this. That test, which I think is a valid and productive one, shoot the different ammunition under the same conditions. EACH RIFLE AND AMMUNITION were SHOT THE SAME. But for some reason............. the rifles that shot the US ammuntion didn't have a shot out barrel. So, the US ammunition didn't burn out the barrels like the Russian ammunition did. The US ammo which was shot just as quickly as the Russian stuff............. If you repeated the same test but took 10yrs to do it........ the results would be the same. Why? Because those rounds being firing are still being fired. That steel bullet is still being forced down the bore at high pressure. The powder is still being burned, the bullet is still going down the bore and all the resulting erosion being done. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 2:22:42 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lucky Gunner's "torture test" didn't bother to use S&B ammunition. Their "bimetal" rounds were all loaded in Russia, using Russian powders. These powders appear to have a substantially higher erosion rate in barrels than US powders. S&B's powders are comparable to Western European powders, and I would doubt that their powders were any worse than any you can find in the States. As for barrel wear just because of bimetal bullet jackets, I do not believe ANYONE has done anything like a scientific study to see what effect ONLY such bullets (and not these bullets with Russian powder pushing them) might have on barrels. I know that a substantial quantity of US-made 7.62 NATO ammunition has bimetallic bullet jackets - it's at least 50% of M80 production according to what I've read. Machine guns wear out barrels pretty quickly anyway, but the M14 rifle isn't that kind of machine gun, and I would seriously doubt that Big Ordnance would put up with issue ammunition that damages those expensive M14 barrels... As for how such wear might happen, most people assume that "steel is steel." Steel is a HUGE range of alloys that are based on iron with carbon in it. You can find steel that is almost soft enough to scratch with your fingernail, and steel that is so hard that is is used to make tool-steel tools. Bullet jacket alloy, because it has to behave like the gilding metal in traditional "copper" jackets, so it is essentially a pretty soft alloy. Soft steel like that will probably wear hard ordnance-grade barrel steel at about the same rate as gilding metal, maybe just a little bit faster. So yes, this has been discussed (ad nauseum, it seems), but I cannot find any hard evidence that the Lucky Gunner tests, or any other "tests" using most bimetal bullets, has isolated the bullet's construction from the effects of Russian powder. I think the biggest thing that wore your barrel is firing rate. I'm pretty sure that SIG will help you out with this issue. Yes.... there is a test that shows the effects of bimetal bullets. The Lucky Gunners test. Those bores show erosion (Well not the US ammo tested ones) ALL ALONG the bore. So what you're saying is that the Russian powder is so #$%^ up that not only it blew out the throat but all along the bore? So you're saying that the Russian powder made those rifles "smooth bores" as the Lucky Gunner editors called them? Sir: I can agree with you that certain powders (and for sure what ever the Russian powder is) can erode the throat quicker than others. But that idea doesn't explain the conditions of the entire bore. The bullet causing accelerated wear does. You keep bringing up the M80 7.62 bullet in your responses. Why? It's apples and oranges, Sir. A US made (or under US specifications) 7.62 bullet has NOTHING to do with a Russian made 223 bullet for the commercial market. The basic problem is this..... The copper jacket of the Russian bullets is too thin and exposes the steel inside to the steel of the barrel under firing conditions. At that point it is steel on steel, under pressure. Unless you can tell me that the US M80 bullets do the same............ which you can't............ the comparison is pointless. But Wolf bimetal bullets are available as components now............. Buy them and repeat the test................ pick your powder and test it. Post the results. BTW..... the OP indicates that "SIG will help" him out but at a cost of 1300.00 Euros? Dollars? You realize he is in Germany? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:13:07 PM EDT
[#20]
I could see it going at 8000 rounds. That's a decent amount, especially if shooting cheap ammo with bimetal bullets. While bimetal is softer than hardened steel, it's not a binary effect. It just means the hardened still erodes at a slower rate than the softer bimetal, but it still erodes. I know everyone likes to say the Lucky Gunner test is BS, because some people have shot plenty of bimetal rounds with no ill effect. Well, ok - but you still can't deny it's a pretty scientific test, and it trashed those barrels. 8000 rounds is well past where most of the bimetal ammo shots in Lucky Gunner tore up those barrels. And then there is this, where the rifling engages the bullet (zoom in of a cut-way of a fired bimetal pistol round):
And while I'm on it, I've always been a bit iffy on the "oh but you can buy a new BBL with the savings" line. You're not going to be picking up a SIG BBL for $200 (+installation), I'm pretty sure of that. But even if one neglects sig, and is sourcing $100 AR Barrels, that's a pretty serious commitment that's not realistic to expect people in general to be doing, as very few .223 rifle designs have barrels that just pop on. And the only 1 know of that does (AUG), is a $500 barrel. I will say, it's rather telling that people who professionally run high-round count rifles for revenue, even if machine-gunning at 15 yards, - don't touch the cheaper bimetal bullet ammo. There's probably a reason for that. If you shoot 300 rounds a year, are so financially strapped to the point that you must be hitch-hiking to even get to the range, then yea OK, save a few pennies a shot with the bimetal I guess. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:25:30 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sir: The issue here is this. That test, which I think is a valid and productive one, shoot the different ammunition under the same conditions. EACH RIFLE AND AMMUNITION were SHOT THE SAME. But for some reason............. the rifles that shot the US ammuntion didn't have a shot out barrel. So, the US ammunition didn't burn out the barrels like the Russian ammunition did. The US ammo which was shot just as quickly as the Russian stuff............. If you repeated the same test but took 10yrs to do it........ the results would be the same. Why? Because those rounds being firing are still being fired. That steel bullet is still being forced down the bore at high pressure. The powder is still being burned, the bullet is still going down the bore and all the resulting erosion being done. You don't seem to understand that when barrels get hot, the flash temp from the combustion of the powder momentarily exceeds the melting point for steel. Barrels wear MUCH, MUCH faster when you cook them like that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:27:02 PM EDT
[#22]
Sir: I can agree with you that certain powders (and for sure what ever the Russian powder is) can erode the throat quicker than others. But that idea doesn't explain the conditions of the entire bore. The bullet causing accelerated wear does. Yes, that the checking pattern, the gator-hide cracking, is evidence of temp related effects, not abrasion from the steel jacket. That is from the barrel being cooked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 3:29:23 PM EDT
[#23]
I know everyone likes to say the Lucky Gunner test is BS, because some people have shot plenty of bimetal rounds with no ill effect. Well, ok - but you still can't deny it's a pretty scientific test, and it trashed those barrels. Yes, I can deny it is a pretty scientific test. They did not isolate the effects of the powder from the jackets for starters. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 4:37:58 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't seem to understand that when barrels get hot, the flash temp from the combustion of the powder momentarily exceeds the melting point for steel. Barrels wear MUCH, MUCH faster when you cook them like that. I'll agree with that - definitely. I still think bimetal is a sketchy idea too though. Scandinavia made up some "lead free" 5.56 ammo this decade, and it had a steel core bullet (as in, the whole bullet). Tore up their barrels like nobodies business (one of our Scandinavian forum members was involved, and posted more than once about it). All kinds of other problems, with metal-fume induced illness etc. Their solution was to repackage that crap as Carl Gustaf .223 and sell it on the American Market. They dumped it and never looked back. Possible they had extra hot powder too, they were trying some sort of new formulation to be consistent with Europe's ridiculous chemical regulations - so who knows. The other data point that would be interesting is HXP M2 Ball. That has a bimetal bullet, but a brass casing and "modern" powder. Problem there is roundcount is generally low, and most guns used are already worn out - so it's hard to find good actual data. One item worth nothing, is that it seems there's a strong correlation between "saved money on bullet by using steel jacket" and "saved money on ammo by using shitty powder". If you have the steel jacket, it probably means the later too - would be my default guess until proven otherwise. Point being - I'm not surprised that a rifle being fed bimetal ammo, is experiencing accelerated barrel wear. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 4:41:15 PM EDT
[#25]
Well, from a hardcore scientific standpoint in fact there is too much bias in that test.
You would have needed several different subgroups for bullet jacket composition, types of powder, slow vs high rate of fire, and each with two groups for comparison. If this test had been intended to be published, it would have failed already at the cleaners of any namable journal. But otoh Luckygunner don't claim themselves to be on the same level of validity as maybe The New England Journal of Medicine. With regard to steel jacketed NATO ammo, I doubt barrel wear is of any concern to any government. There is plenty of old and newer 308 MEN surplus around here and all of it is steel jacketed. And a quick look at their (current) production line shows plenty of their bullets are bi-metal. Same with the (now discontinued) DAG. And SIG is not going to help me out, because for the 1300 $ they would have charged me, I bought a WW 20". I've accepted the fact that firearms, like almost everything else, are consumables. If copper-only-jacketed ammo is a possible way to stretch the life-span of one of them a little, that's ok. The good thing is, even in Europe there is enought different ammo in the same price range that probably delivers the same grade of decent plinking accuracy and is not bi-metal. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 7:47:17 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And SIG is not going to help me out, because for the 1300 $ they would have charged me, I bought a WW 20". $1300 for a new BBL?!? Holy crap. Note to self - Germany would be a good country to invade, as they can only likely afford 10 rifles that they'll all have to share. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:19:45 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't seem to understand that when barrels get hot, the flash temp from the combustion of the powder momentarily exceeds the melting point for steel. Barrels wear MUCH, MUCH faster when you cook them like that. No.... I understand that entirely. What I continue to point out is that the rifles were shot under the same conditions. Hot, extremely hot, flash temp whatever you want to call it. But the US ammunition didn't destroy the barrels like the Russian stuff. So why is this complicated? The Russian stuff burns out barrels. Whether you shoot it fast or slow, the erosion will occur. The difference between the wear fast vs slow is inconsequential to the effect of the powder and the bullets. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:21:48 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, that the checking pattern, the gator-hide cracking, is evidence of temp related effects, not abrasion from the steel jacket. That is from the barrel being cooked. Yes.... and thelack of any rifling is due to the bullets removing them. Again if these effects were solely temperature related, Why didn't the US barrels end up destroyed like the Russian ones? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:26:02 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes, I can deny it is a pretty scientific test. They did not isolate the effects of the powder from the jackets for starters. Can you buy TULA, WOLF or any of this ammunition using another bullet or powder? No. So they tested the ammunition as it was available and used by shooters in the US. In that, it is directly connected to what the average US shooter would do........ buy factory ammo and shoot it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/2/2016 9:51:16 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes.... and thelack of any rifling is due to the bullets removing them. Again if these effects were solely temperature related, Why didn't the US barrels end up destroyed like the Russian ones? Cooler burning ball powder could easily be an explanation. Russian powder uses a triple-base power that includes nitro-glycerin. Burns very hot. But the shit will light off at 50 below zero. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 2:28:37 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
$1300 for a new BBL?!? Holy crap. Note to self - Germany would be a good country to invade, as they can only likely afford 10 rifles that they'll all have to share. No, there are millions of firearms here. But we are easy to invade, because self defence is regarded as even worse than child abuse, and firearms and ammo have to be stored away separately, so it takes you half a day to get your crap together. Is it worth to invade? Nah, a bunch of griping starry-eyed idealists with ugly cars and exhaust problems. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 3:52:49 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lucky Gunner's "torture test" didn't bother to use S&B ammunition. Their "bimetal" rounds were all loaded in Russia, using Russian powders. These powders appear to have a substantially higher erosion rate in barrels than US powders. S&B's powders are comparable to Western European powders, and I would doubt that their powders were any worse than any you can find in the States. As for barrel wear just because of bimetal bullet jackets, I do not believe ANYONE has done anything like a scientific study to see what effect ONLY such bullets (and not these bullets with Russian powder pushing them) might have on barrels. I know that a substantial quantity of US-made 7.62 NATO ammunition has bimetallic bullet jackets - it's at least 50% of M80 production according to what I've read. Machine guns wear out barrels pretty quickly anyway, but the M14 rifle isn't that kind of machine gun, and I would seriously doubt that Big Ordnance would put up with issue ammunition that damages those expensive M14 barrels... As for how such wear might happen, most people assume that "steel is steel." Steel is a HUGE range of alloys that are based on iron with carbon in it. You can find steel that is almost soft enough to scratch with your fingernail, and steel that is so hard that is is used to make tool-steel tools. Bullet jacket alloy, because it has to behave like the gilding metal in traditional "copper" jackets, so it is essentially a pretty soft alloy. Soft steel like that will probably wear hard ordnance-grade barrel steel at about the same rate as gilding metal, maybe just a little bit faster. So yes, this has been discussed (ad nauseum, it seems), but I cannot find any hard evidence that the Lucky Gunner tests, or any other "tests" using most bimetal bullets, has isolated the bullet's construction from the effects of Russian powder. I think the biggest thing that wore your barrel is firing rate. I'm pretty sure that SIG will help you out with this issue. I whole heartedly agree with this. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 4:54:23 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Cooler burning ball powder could easily be an explanation. Russian powder uses a triple-base power that includes nitro-glycerin. Burns very hot. But the shit will light off at 50 below zero. I think that's the point TGH456E is trying to make, whether it's the bullet composition or the powder composition doesn't really matter, as you can't get one without the other, at least as far as the LG ammo in question. It's either one factor or the other, or a combination of both, but the effect is the same. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 9:37:50 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I think that's the point TGH456E is trying to make, whether it's the bullet composition or the powder composition doesn't really matter, as you can't get one without the other, at least as far as the LG ammo in question. It's either one factor or the other, or a combination of both, but the effect is the same. Yes.... you are correct. Several posters here are convinced the issue is with the powder................. Ok, explain to me how, if it were just the powder, the ENTIRE BORE of the "Russian" rifles are shot? A gage would drop freely down the muzzles with no resistance. The bullets in the accuracy tests WERE KEYHOLING after 6000rds. They cut the barrels in half and the rifling was gone. So the Russian powder is so #$%^ corrosive that it ate the entire bore? (And chrome lined bores at that?) No. Could the type of powder cause excessive wear at the throat? Yes. Could the type of powder cause short stroking that some of the Russian ammo is known for? Yes. It's the bullet though that wore down those bores, not the powder. Heavy Metal suggested the test wasn't a good one as they didn't separate the effects of the powder and bullet. Why would they do that? That isn't how you buy it and it isn't how it's used............... Last time I looked you couldn't pick and choose what powder/bullet you got when you bought your Tula/ Wolf Russian ammunition. The Russian ammo is bought because it's cheap. It's cheap because it's made with cheap components that poorly paid workers carelessly assemble. The fact it eats barrels is off set by the fact, if you shoot it thru AR's in the US, you can easily and cheaply replace the barrels. But if you aren't shooting an AR or as the OP found out living in another country, those barrels might be ALOT more than the savings...... |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 10:01:33 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes.... you are correct. Several posters here are convinced the issue is with the powder................. Ok, explain to me how, if it were just the powder, the ENTIRE BORE of the "Russian" rifles are shot? A gage would drop freely down the muzzles with no resistance. The bullets in the accuracy tests WERE KEYHOLING after 6000rds. They cut the barrels in half and the rifling was gone. So the Russian powder is so #$%^ corrosive that it ate the entire bore? (And chrome lined bores at that?) No. Could the type of powder cause excessive wear at the throat? Yes. Could the type of powder cause short stroking that some of the Russian ammo is known for? Yes. It's the bullet though that wore down those bores, not the powder. Heavy Metal suggested the test wasn't a good one as they didn't separate the effects of the powder and bullet. Why would they do that? That isn't how you buy it and it isn't how it's used............... Last time I looked you couldn't pick and choose what powder/bullet you got when you bought your Tula/ Wolf Russian ammunition. The Russian ammo is bought because it's cheap. It's cheap because it's made with cheap components that poorly paid workers carelessly assemble. The fact it eats barrels is off set by the fact, if you shoot it thru AR's in the US, you can easily and cheaply replace the barrels. But if you aren't shooting an AR or as the OP found out living in another country, those barrels might be ALOT more than the savings...... I hear what you are saying - and am in the "bimetal bullet is not as good as copper" camp - by far. But in all fairness, here is the heat-map of an AR barrel after it's warmed up. To me, it look like the entire barrel got cooked, so I guess it's not that crazy to think then that the entire barrel would be affected. I think an analysis of the area right at the gas block, vs the rest of the barrel might be telling, as that has the heat sink there, and should in theory be a little cooler, so if the heat-damage theory is correct, I would imagine there would be slightly less erosion there. Though it might take a good instrument to tell. 
On another angle - it seems almost certain that there is DOD research report somewhere, where someone lab tested this - because indeed there is steel jacketed M2 ball ammo, etc.. The trick will be to find it. Considering nominal US ammo spec is copper jacket vs steel jacket, there's apparently some kind of advantage to copper. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 10:25:45 PM EDT
[#36]
Several posters here are convinced the issue is with the powder................. Ok, explain to me how, if it were just the powder, the ENTIRE BORE of the "Russian" rifles are shot? A gage would drop freely down the muzzles with no resistance. The bullets in the accuracy tests WERE KEYHOLING after 6000rds. They cut the barrels in half and the rifling was gone. So the Russian powder is so #$%^ corrosive that it ate the entire bore? (And chrome lined bores at that?) Enough throat wear will produce bullets that keyhole. It does not require the rifling to go all the way to the muzzle. Three or so inches of throat erosion and it will start to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/3/2016 10:27:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hear what you are saying - and am in the "bimetal bullet is not as good as copper" camp - by far. But in all fairness, here is the heat-map of an AR barrel after it's warmed up. To me, it look like the entire barrel got cooked, so I guess it's not that crazy to think then that the entire barrel would be affected. I think an analysis of the area right at the gas block, vs the rest of the barrel might be telling, as that has the heat sink there, and should in theory be a little cooler, so if the heat-damage theory is correct, I would imagine there would be slightly less erosion there. Though it might take a good instrument to tell. http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/uzi1.jpg On another angle - it seems almost certain that there is DOD research report somewhere, where someone lab tested this - because indeed there is steel jacketed M2 ball ammo, etc.. The trick will be to find it. Considering nominal US ammo spec is copper jacket vs steel jacket, there's apparently some kind of advantage to copper. There is also a shit-ton of steel-jacket 7.62 M80 ball too. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 1:48:02 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I hear what you are saying - and am in the "bimetal bullet is not as good as copper" camp - by far. But in all fairness, here is the heat-map of an AR barrel after it's warmed up. To me, it look like the entire barrel got cooked, so I guess it's not that crazy to think then that the entire barrel would be affected. I think an analysis of the area right at the gas block, vs the rest of the barrel might be telling, as that has the heat sink there, and should in theory be a little cooler, so if the heat-damage theory is correct, I would imagine there would be slightly less erosion there. Though it might take a good instrument to tell. http://www.brassfetcher.com/images/uzi1.jpg On another angle - it seems almost certain that there is DOD research report somewhere, where someone lab tested this - because indeed there is steel jacketed M2 ball ammo, etc.. The trick will be to find it. Considering nominal US ammo spec is copper jacket vs steel jacket, there's apparently some kind of advantage to copper. Lazy............... cool picture of a heated barrel. But......................... sit down and follow this line of questions............ In Lucky Gunners test........... They used the same magazines in all the rifles? Yes. The used the same rifles for the test? Yes. The same shooters? Yes. The same range? Yes. The same conditions? Yes. The same ammunition for each brand? Yes. The same heating/ cooling? Yes. But for some crazy unknown reason.............. the Russian were destroyed by around 6000rds but the US ammunition fired rifles were still working after 10,000rds. What o' what could be the difference? Lets think this thru ................ What could possibly explain that fact.................. everything else was the same but what? That's right............ the ammunition (which crazy enough .... those crazy fools were testing in the first place) .................. So all other factors being the same (including the heating up of the rifles) the Russian stuff destroyed the barrel and the US stuff didn't. PS................ as I mentioned to GHP......... there is no point to you finding a picture or M80, M2, M2X300 what ever bullet. The rifles here and what we are talking about is 223/5.56 rifles. The problem with the Russian bullets is the copper jacket is too thin, unlike US bullets. Find a picture of the Russian bullet they use in this ammo and a US M193 bullet and we can talk. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 1:58:58 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Enough throat wear will produce bullets that keyhole. It does not require the rifling to go all the way to the muzzle. Three or so inches of throat erosion and it will start to happen. Sir: With all due respect................ This makes no sense whatso ever. But ok.............. I'll ask... So you believe that in a rifle barrel, it's only the first 3 or so inches of the entire barrel that provide the twist needed to stabilize the bullet? So that (since we are talking about AR's here) since the 1960's........... all these barrel makers have been wasting their time rifling the rest of the bore? Wow. But then what caused the entire length of the bores in this test to erode? You have yet to answer this question directly. Just answer that question............ |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 2:01:42 PM EDT
[#40]
Never mind.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 2:35:55 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sir: With all due respect................ This makes no sense whatso ever. But ok.............. I'll ask... So you believe that in a rifle barrel, it's only the first 3 or so inches of the entire barrel that provide the twist needed to stabilize the bullet? So that (since we are talking about AR's here) since the 1960's........... all these barrel makers have been wasting their time rifling the rest of the bore? Wow. But then what caused the entire length of the bores in this test to erode? You have yet to answer this question directly. Just answer that question............ To answer your last question first: Look at those lucky gunner pics again. Notice the gator hide cracking? That is from heat and the erosive effects of the powder, not the projectile. A barrel that dies over a long time with limited rapid fire will NOT look like that. It will look like that only in the first third of the bore. What lucky gunner did was a destructive test. It didn't simply accelerate the death of the barrel, it changed the way it dies. The same forces that caused that ate the rifling out. When the barrel heats and expands, gas blows around and past the projectile, it does not form an obtruding seal. When it does this, it starts blowtorching the rifling. When you get the interior bore surface temp of the steel near a thousand degrees and you add hot gas on top of it, shit happens that does not happen with a cooler barrel. And yes, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE by people with shooting experience that a barrel will start to keyhole when there is still plenty of rifling left. This isn't my opinion, it is observed fact that is know to many, many, many people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 2:53:44 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes.... there is a test that shows the effects of bimetal bullets. The Lucky Gunners test. Those bores show erosion (Well not the US ammo tested ones) ALL ALONG the bore. So what you're saying is that the Russian powder is so #$%^ up that not only it blew out the throat but all along the bore? So you're saying that the Russian powder made those rifles "smooth bores" as the Lucky Gunner editors called them? Sir: I can agree with you that certain powders (and for sure what ever the Russian powder is) can erode the throat quicker than others. But that idea doesn't explain the conditions of the entire bore. The bullet causing accelerated wear does. You keep bringing up the M80 7.62 bullet in your responses. Why? It's apples and oranges, Sir. A US made (or under US specifications) 7.62 bullet has NOTHING to do with a Russian made 223 bullet for the commercial market. The basic problem is this..... The copper jacket of the Russian bullets is too thin and exposes the steel inside to the steel of the barrel under firing conditions. At that point it is steel on steel, under pressure. Unless you can tell me that the US M80 bullets do the same............ which you can't............ the comparison is pointless. But Wolf bimetal bullets are available as components now............. Buy them and repeat the test................ pick your powder and test it. Post the results. BTW..... the OP indicates that "SIG will help" him out but at a cost of 1300.00 Euros? Dollars? You realize he is in Germany? You are wrong about the Lucky Gunner test. The ONLY bimetal bullets they shot were pushed by Russian powder. None of them were propelled by any other powder. There is NO way to isolate the effects of the powder and of the bullets. On the other hand, bullets do not erode leades or muzzles, and Lucky Gunner's folks noted significant erosion. How does a bullet erode anything? If it were the bullet, would it not ONLY be bore wear? I keep bringing up M80 bimetal ammunition because it's loaded with US powders and there is no issue with excessive wear in M14 rifles. I pretty much said that earlier. Bimetal bullets are lumped together by folks who blame all sorts of things on them. There is no real, functional or mechanical difference between M80 bimetal bullets and Wolf/Tula/etc. bimetal bullets. I have no time and certainly not the money to conduct the kind of extensive testing that would demonstrate that the bullets themselves are not the villain in the Lucky Gunner test. But by the same token, nobody has conducted tests to prove they are. So concluding that one of two different mechanisms was responsible, without evidence to that effect, is logically and scientifically indefensible. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 3:01:28 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It's generally expected that AR barrels are consumables and that you save enough money shooting the cheap ammo to pay for barrel replacement earlier. AR barrels are easy to swap. How do I know? I just did it on the one I built less than 2 years ago. It was one of those fancy stainless steel Wylde barrels and it was keyholing by 1400 rounds! The barrel manufacturer is replacing it but in the meantime I put a nitrided steel barrel on it. Yeah I shot about 700 round bimetal of that 1400, but barrel mfg says there was a defect with the barrel. Meanwhile I'm not going to buy any more bimetal. So the bimetal had nothing to do with it, why avoid? More for me lol. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 4:09:46 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
To answer your last question first: Look at those lucky gunner pics again. Notice the gator hide cracking? That is from heat and the erosive effects of the powder, not the projectile. A barrel that dies over a long time with limited rapid fire will NOT look like that. It will look like that only in the first third of the bore. What lucky gunner did was a destructive test. It didn't simply accelerate the death of the barrel, it changed the way it dies. The same forces that caused that ate the rifling out. When the barrel heats and expands, gas blows around and past the projectile, it does not form an obtruding seal. When it does this, it starts blowtorching the rifling. When you get the interior bore surface temp of the steel near a thousand degrees and you add hot gas on top of it, shit happens that does not happen with a cooler barrel. And yes, it is COMMON KNOWLEDGE by people with shooting experience that a barrel will start to keyhole when there is still plenty of rifling left. This isn't my opinion, it is observed fact that is know to many, many, many people. Heavy: If the test was a destructive one................ Why didn't the US rifles..........destruct? In the Russian bores....... there WAS NO RIFLING left. None. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 4:23:48 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heavy: If the test was a destructive one................ Why didn't the US rifles..........destruct? In the Russian bores....... there WAS NO RIFLING left. None. You don't understand what destructive test means. It means you are pushing something to the point of failure. Who knows,? They could have been very close to the point where the federal ammo fed rifle started to keyhole and just stopped short. They should have kept going till they reached that failure point. The lucky gunner test wasn't scientific, it did not include a statistically significant sample size and lacked proper controls for arriving at a meaningful conclusion. It would have been very interesting to see the test repeated where they took weeks to fire that many rounds, a more representative firing schedule. I suspect the outcome would have been radically different. And my speculation is it was what GH Porter said, the powder. If there is an inherent problem with steel, why doesn't US and NATO steel jacketed ammo show abnormally destructive effects on their host guns as GH Porter asked? Like he said, there are other sources of steel-jacketed ammo besides the eastern block. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 4:25:00 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You are wrong about the Lucky Gunner test. The ONLY bimetal bullets they shot were pushed by Russian powder. None of them were propelled by any other powder. There is NO way to isolate the effects of the powder and of the bullets. On the other hand, bullets do not erode leades or muzzles, and Lucky Gunner's folks noted significant erosion. How does a bullet erode anything? If it were the bullet, would it not ONLY be bore wear? I keep bringing up M80 bimetal ammunition because it's loaded with US powders and there is no issue with excessive wear in M14 rifles. I pretty much said that earlier. Bimetal bullets are lumped together by folks who blame all sorts of things on them. There is no real, functional or mechanical difference between M80 bimetal bullets and Wolf/Tula/etc. bimetal bullets. I have no time and certainly not the money to conduct the kind of extensive testing that would demonstrate that the bullets themselves are not the villain in the Lucky Gunner test. But by the same token, nobody has conducted tests to prove they are. So concluding that one of two different mechanisms was responsible, without evidence to that effect, is logically and scientifically indefensible. Yes.... again.......... the Russian ammunition can only be bought that way.............. They make it with their powder and their bullets. Just like Federal does. So why would they test it another way? You are stuck with the powder and the bullet they load it with. And those 2 things ruin barrels................. Yes.......... you do keep bringing up M80 projectiles and I keep saying they have nothing to do with this. The issue here is the thickness of the jacket vs the grooves in the bore. We aren't shooting or testing M14's or 308 ammo. The test was with AR's shooting 223. Ok.............. so a test is done................ same rifles, conditions, shooters, magazines, protocols. Everything is the same but the ammunition. The Russian ammunition destroyed all their barrels. Destroyed them. The US ammunition didn't. Not the chamber, bore, rifling, nothing. The logical conclusion is 223 Russian ammunition destroys AR barrels. The fact that YOU dismiss the test because they didn't isolate the powder vs bullet doesn't make it "scientifically indefensible." It means, for some unknown reason, you are looking for reasons to ignore their findings. Because again............ your can't custom order 223 Russian ammo............ you buy it and shoot it as is. And that is exactly what they did in their test. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 4:30:52 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You don't understand what destructive test means. It means you are pushing something to the point of failure. Who knows,? They could have been very close to the point where the federal ammo fed rifle started to keyhole and just stopped short. They should have kept going till they reached that failure point. The lucky gunner test wasn't scientific, it did not include a statistically significant sample size and lacked proper controls for arriving at a meaningful conclusion. It would have been very interesting to see the test repeated where they took weeks to fire that many rounds, a more representative firing schedule. I suspect the outcome would have been radically different. And my speculation is it was what GH Porter said, the powder. If there is an inherent problem with steel, why doesn't US and NATO steel jacketed ammo show abnormally destructive effects on their host guns as GH Porter asked? Like he said, there are other sources of steel-jacketed ammo besides the eastern block. So now you're guessing.............. "Well the Federal would've failed at 10,001 rds..............." A Destructive test isn't destructive when one ammunition isn't destructive to the rifle .................... And I've said the powder is to blame too................. but you deny any function of the bullet in this. Which is why I've asked you repeatedly to explain the lack of rifling along the bore of the Russian ammo.......... and you ignore it. Because NATO and their specs ARE NOT the same as Russian commercial ammunition. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 4:37:12 PM EDT
[#48]
So now you are guessing. Explain the difference between Russian mild steel and NATO mild steel.
IF they had continued shooting till it failed, there would be no guessing required regarding the failure point. The test was flawed as designed. Therefore, any conclusion from the results is guaranteed to almost certainly be flawed as well. Look at this pic: Edit: Won't let me hotlink, its the one in the lucky gunner article about 3/4ths of the way down showing the gas port. See that checking forward of the gas port? that is way beyond what you would expect to find in a barrel shot out under a normal firing schedule. The test wasn't representative of the conditions that 99+ percent of end users would ever experience, it was done that way so they could start and finish it in one weekend. |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 6:06:13 PM EDT
[#49]
So where are we?
Is the consensus that?: The Russian bi-metal ammo (whether the bullet or the powder) will wear out a barrel faster and should be avoided, unless you're in a place that the barrel is easily replaced and for little money it should be avoided. But, there is some American bi-metal ammo that doesn't wear barrels as fast, possibly due to better powder or thicker copper jacket. Is that about right? |
|
|
|
Posted: 12/4/2016 6:07:24 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Yes.... again.......... the Russian ammunition can only be bought that way.............. They make it with their powder and their bullets. Just like Federal does. So why would they test it another way? You are stuck with the powder and the bullet they load it with. And those 2 things ruin barrels................. Yes.......... you do keep bringing up M80 projectiles and I keep saying they have nothing to do with this. The issue here is the thickness of the jacket vs the grooves in the bore. We aren't shooting or testing M14's or 308 ammo. The test was with AR's shooting 223. Ok.............. so a test is done................ same rifles, conditions, shooters, magazines, protocols. Everything is the same but the ammunition. The Russian ammunition destroyed all their barrels. Destroyed them. The US ammunition didn't. Not the chamber, bore, rifling, nothing. The logical conclusion is 223 Russian ammunition destroys AR barrels. The fact that YOU dismiss the test because they didn't isolate the powder vs bullet doesn't make it "scientifically indefensible." It means, for some unknown reason, you are looking for reasons to ignore their findings. Because again............ your can't custom order 223 Russian ammo............ you buy it and shoot it as is. And that is exactly what they did in their test. I'm not ignoring anything. I'm saying that there are two factors, the bullets and the powder, that contributed to the erosion of those barrels. The Lucky Gunner tests did nothing to isolate the two - and that wasn't their point. Their point was that a steady diet of Russian made ammunition and a horrendous firing schedule will wear out rifles. They were (according to their statement of purpose) actually looking at steel cased ammunition versus brass cased ammunition. They failed to establish any connection between mechanical malfunctions and case material, though they did find that the Russian made ammunition wore out barrels from "faster" to ludicrously fast (in the case of the Tula ammunition). They support this point with the evidence of their tests. What their tests did not do, despite what their writers suggested, was place the blame for that wear on the bimetal bullets. As you stated, the only way to prove it was the bullets would be to conduct a similar test, but with something like "Mexican Match" ammunition - replace the Russian powder with US powder and repeat with ludicrous rates of fire. What so many people seem to not notice when citing the Luck Gunner tests is that, while the Wolf, Tula and Brown Bear rifles all wore out, they wore out at different rates. If it was just the bullets, and all three used bimetal bullets, why did they wear differently? And how did the bimetal bullets wear the chrome lining of those barrels more on the lands than in the grooves? How could those bullets still be propelled through the barrel if they weren't at least somewhat sealing the bore? Could it be that the lands were exposed more to the erosive properties of the powder gasses? That remains to be seen. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
