Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
BCM
User Panel

Page AR-15 » Ammunition
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Site Notices
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Link Posted: 8/5/2017 8:19:46 PM EDT
[#1]
I wish I lived in an America where more "shooters" complaining about steel cases and bi-metal bullets were actually able to speak from experience with regards to wearing out barrels.
Link Posted: 8/5/2017 8:27:18 PM EDT
[#2]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The chamber doesn't wear.  Cases, steel or brass will have no real impact on the gun; the bullets will.  bi-metal (steel jacketed) bullets are rougher on rifling than softer copper jackets.
View Quote
This is not an attack on you.  

Do you have any data, aside from the Lucky Gunner tests, which did not have any way to separate the effects of the bullets from the effects of the nasty Russian powder?  

US ordnance testing with US-made bimetal bullets (the 7.62 NATO M80 round can have bimetal bullets) showed that powder has a far more substantial effect on barrel wear than any type of bullet.

You'll see this pointed out in a number of threads here, including earlier in this thread.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 3:29:34 PM EDT
[#3]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The chamber doesn't wear.  Cases, steel or brass will have no real impact on the gun; the bullets will.  bi-metal (steel jacketed) bullets are rougher on rifling than softer copper jackets.
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
The chamber doesn't wear.  Cases, steel or brass will have no real impact on the gun; the bullets will.  bi-metal (steel jacketed) bullets are rougher on rifling than softer copper jackets.
See:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/694470_Barrel_quality_vs_ammo_quality_.html&page=1

Erosion - the enlarging of the internal diameters, both bore and groove, from all causes as a result of shooting ammunition.

Everybody has seen this THIS article from Lucky Gunner Labs, and while it is a good article and full of good information, many people out in internet-land tend to draw conclusions that are not correct. One of the most quoted incorrect conclusions is "…bi-metal jacketed bullets wear out barrel twice as fast as copper jacketed bullets…"

It is unquestionable that Wolf, Brown Bear and (probably) Tula steel jacketed, bi-metal jacketed ammunition will wear out a barrel faster than Federal XM193 ammunition, but the but the extra jump to "all bi-metal" vs "all copper jacketed" is not supportable.

Here's why:

From the earliest day of smokeless propellant, the problem of bore erosion and wear has been a constant head-ache to owners of large number of high use guns and very expensive guns, namely the military. So, not surprisingly, they did a lot, and I mean A LOT, of research into what causes bore erosion, and how to reduce it.

There are basically two causes of bore wear - 1) heat, the flame temperature of burning propellant is anywhere from 2500 to 3000 degrees K, depending on the actual propellant (for reference, the melting point of the steel used in the barrel is 1700 degrees K), and 2) mechanical rubbing between the bullet and the barrel. Of the two, the effects of heat are probably the most damaging.

Here are some results of some US Army erosion tests done with 7.62mm Ball, M80:

Test firing.............Propellant..................... .....Jacket......No. of Rounds to.......Cause for
No...............................Type............. .....................Material....Disqualification. .......Disqualification

1..................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GM..............14,500.......... ...........V (1)
2.................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GMCS..........8,450............. ........K (2)
3................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GMCS........10,150.............. ........K
4................................IMR 8138M Lot 48..............GM................8,000........... ...........V
5................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GM................7,500.......... ............V
6................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GMCS..........7,850.............. ........K
7................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GMCS.........11,800.............. ........K
8................................WC 846 Lot AL44133..........GM..............17,300........... ...........V
9................................WC 846 Lot AL44133..........GMCS.........18,325.............. ........K

1) Velocity loss of more than 200 fps

2) Keyholing, defined as 20% or more bullets exceeding 15% yaw at 1000 inches (appox 25 meters)

The significant conclusions drawn from these results in the report this table was attached to were as follows:

1. Bullet jacket material (GM versus GMCS) does not appear to have a significant effect on barrel life. However, the GM jacketed lots all went out on velocity loss while the GMCS lots all went out on keyholing indicating that the mechanism of barrel failure was probably different.

2. WC 846 propellant is less erosive than IMR 8138M propellant.

One may note that test firings #2 and #6 differ greatly from #3 and #7, which is very puzzling as the components used were the same, and the propellant lots were the same. Also, the question of why did 8138M Lot #2 perform notably better that 8138 Lot #48, came up. In the report, the difference was written off to variations in the test barrels.

Partially in an attempt to explain the above, and also to test the usefulness of wear reducing additives, a second test was run, with stricter controls on barrel selection and more careful monitoring of various barrel parameters.

In this test several T65E1 machine guns (M1919A4s converted to 7.62mm) with chrome plated barrels were utilized. A 25 round belt was shot every 12 seconds until 500 rounds were expended. Then the barrel was allowed a 4 minute cool down period before the next 500 rounds were fired, again in 25 round increments. Bullet velocities and bullet yaw were continuously measured. Every 5000 rounds, the barrel was cooled to ambient, cleaned, measured, and samples of residue and bore fouling taken for analysis. The measuring consisted of measuring the diameter of the lands and grooves at 1 inch intervals were measured. Then the process was repeated until another 5000 rounds was shot, or the barrel failed due to keyholing or velocity loss.

The findings from the tests described in this report are summarized in the table below.

Summary of Results
.................................................. .................................................. ..................Adiabatic
.................................................. .................................................. ..................Isochoric
.................................................. .................................................. ..................AverageFlame.......No. of
Cartridge...........Bullet........................ ..........................CaC03...Mo03..........Te mp..............Rounds to
Lot No.................Design..................Propell ant..............(%)........(%)..............(K).. .................Disqual.

LC-SP-1368.......GMCS (1)..........Ball WC 846...........0.15............0.............2884.. ................10,417
LC 12923............GM (2)..............Ball WC 846............0.58...........0............2790... ...............18,042
FA-42-73...........GMCS.................Ball WC 846...........0.47...........0............2831.... ..............13,342
FA-2115..............GMCS.................Double Base............0..............1.05.........2889.. .................8,625
.................................................. ............Extruded
.................................................. ............Propellant
FA-2016..............GMCS.................Double Base............0................0.............291 2...................6,333
.................................................. ............Extruded
.................................................. ............Propellant

_______________________
1) Gilding Metal Clad Steel jacket (aka, bi-metal), the total jacket thickness is .021" with an outer gliding metal cladding averaging .003" thick. The core is a lead-antimony alloy with 2% antimony, softer that the GM bullet design. (Note: this is about the same cladding thickness as used by Wolf, Brown Bear and Tula.)

2) Gilding Metal Jacket, the total thickness of the jacket is .026". The core is a lead-antimony alloy with 10% antimony.

Note: All GM jackets bullets came from the same production lot, as did all GMCS jacket bullets.

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is an additive used to neutralize acid during the production of ball propellant. It has also been shown to reduce barrel wear, unfortunately, it also leads to increased fouling. WC846 made after 1969 was made with reduced CaCO3 content (less than .25%) in order to be used in the M16 without fouling the gas tube. At some point, WC864 with extremely low CaCO3 content was split-off as WC844, and WC846 with increased CaCO3 content was introduced as WC864+CaCO3 for use in 7.62mm, Ball, M80 specifically to increase barrel life.

You will note from the above table, and the before it, that there is a better correlation between flame temperatures and wear than jacket material and wear, especially if you know that 8138M has a flame temperature of 2770 to 2820 degrees K. GMCS jacketed bullet are only slightly harder on the barrel than GM jacketed bullets, but the choice of propellant can easily make up for the difference.

In the second test, measuring of the bore diameters did reveal something interesting. When a bore wears, enlarging of the throat tends to lead to velocity loss, as gas escapes around the bullet rather than pushing it down the barrel. Conversely, wear at the muzzle tends to lead to keyholing as the rifling loses its grip on the projectile before maximum velocity and maximum RPM are reached, therefore the bullet leaves the barrel with less spin than required to stabilize it

The measuring of the tested barrels showed the GMCS Jacketed bullets seem to open up the muzzle more than GM jacketed bullets, which would explain why GMCS jacketed bullets tended to keyhole. Not only did the land diameter increase, the groove diameter showed a similar enlargement. Possibly indicating a gas erosion phenomenon as the bullet nears the muzzle?

In all cases, the addition of calcium carbonate in the propellant drastically reduced the progression of throat erosion. Molybdeum trioxide did reduce throat erosion, but the fouling residue was so bad it made continued firing of the gun difficult (It formed in the recoil booster and prevented the barrel from sliding freely).

These are just two Army published reports that show that flame temperature of the propellant has a very large impact on barrel life. In fact, as a result of their years of study, the US Navy has adopted the simple solution to barrel erosion is simply reducing the flame temperature of the propellant and live with the reduced performance. This is the thinking that brought forth NACO (NAvy COol) propellant, and reduced muzzle velocity, and subsequently range.

(It is interesting to note that ball propellant, even though it is a double base propellant, burns cooler than 8138M, which is a single base propellant.)

The result shown in the Lucky Gunner test, are almost the exact same results as the results shown in the above two Army tests, namely, the relatively cool ball propellant used in M193 (WC 844, the same stuff as WC846 but with less CaCO3) will wear out a barrel in 13,000 to 15,000 rounds, and the reason for rejection will be velocity loss (if you look at the velocity chart for the copper jacketed bullets, the velocity loss will be more than 200 fps in about that time). We can only assume what powder Wolf, et al. are using, but it would seem from the results to be a relatively hot extruded propellant (double or single based) which has shown to wear out a barrel in about half the time as WC846/WC844, and the reason for rejection of the barrels is keyholing.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 5:41:44 PM EDT
[#4]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

See:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/694470_Barrel_quality_vs_ammo_quality_.html&page=1
View Quote
Excellent info thanks for posting :)
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:11:09 PM EDT
[#5]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I'm newer to centerfire rifles. My current ar barrel is a nitrided 16" 1/8 mega arms barrel. It has around 1000rds through it and is ~1 moa with my handloads. I'm still trying to get a little better groups. I'm trying hornady 75gr bthp-varget-cci 400 and have had some good groups (3/4 moa) when doing load development.  I am not pushing them very fast, not close to max pressure, but fast enough.  

About how long do you think it will be until groups start growing?  It will probably get a lilja 6.5 grendal barrel when the mega 5.56 starts going.  I don't shoot a lot, but should I start saving up money yet?  If it starts shooting good ammo at over 5-6" groups at 300 yd it's junk to me  It will shoot 55gr sp loaded over cfe223 3-4" at 300 yd. 1+ moa with cheap handloads is ok.

I want a cheap sbr plinking rig with a red dot that will hopefully be about 3moa from a rest.

I'm not a snob, I'm just curious what to expect for life of my "precision" AR.  Some people would say a 1 moa gun isn't precise, some would say $255 for just a barrel is crazy. I'm a little of both worlds. I want a 1" group at 200 yards, butI don't want to pay for it.
View Quote
How long a barrel will last is hard to answer........................
I think you are on the right idea.............. just keep shooting until accuracy drops off.  

FWIW..........I shoot alot of Service Rifle and the Krieger barrels I shoot get replaced at around 5000rds.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:17:01 PM EDT
[#6]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I hate when people use that stupid test to "prove" their point


The most important part that everyone convincingly leaves out is the firing schedule.

If you don't shoot the same schedule, then you wont get those results
View Quote
No the Testers are quite clear on how they treated the rifles.......... all the rifles.
They are also quite clear about the "firing schedule" and how all the rifles were shot the same.  

They were clear that despite the pace of shooting, firing schedule whatever you want to call it...........there was a difference in the condition of the rifles.
The Russian ammunition destroyed the barrel and the US did not.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:31:57 PM EDT
[#7]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Case material is essentially irrelevant.   Hornady's excellent line of steel cased ammunition uses Barnaul-made Berdan primed steel cases, and you're not going to see anybody rending their garments about Hornady ammo destroying their guns.  (That's mild sarcasm there...but it's true.)

Where it counts, within the chamber, the steel in cartridge cases is as soft as brass, and as such cannot wear your chamber any more than brass does.  The steel of the case body MUST be soft in order to seal the chamber at all.

You MIGHT wear out an extractor in fewer rounds because of steel cases, but I would guess that it would be in 10,000 rather than 15,000 rounds of brass cased ammunition.  Lucky Gunner's testing was also done with a very "lax" cleaning concept, and it's quite common for steel cased ammunition to cause gunk buildup in chambers - which is easily dealt with by simply cleaning the chamber.  Sticking cases put WAY more stress on extractors, so how much of their "more frequent failures" was due to "hygiene issues" and how much of it was due to the case material?  We'll probably never know.

Research by US military ammunition plants points to flame erosion as being far more significant in barrel wear than ANYTHING else, including tests with US-made bimetal bullets.  The M80 7.62x51mm NATO ammunition spec calls for either traditional brass jacketed bullets OR copper washed/plated steel jacketed bullets; the ammunition plant guys had plenty of stuff to work with, so they weren't just theorizing on this.

With that said, most steel cased ammunition available here is made in Russia, with various brands having widely differing levels of consistency and reliability.  For example, Barnaul-made ammunition has been extremely consistent and reliable for me, whether in the form of "Monarch Steel" .223 and 9mm, Barnaul-labeled 7.62x39 and .223, or other Barnaul-made label.  Barnaul makes Hornady's steel cases, as I mentioned earlier, and I think Hornady did a lot of research before they settled on their products.

Finally, NO Russian made, steel cased ammunition sold in the US is made to even the same accuracy requirements as the bulk M193 or M855 made by the billions of rounds by Lake City.  Those are both essentially required to meet or exceed a maximum 4MOA accuracy standard (it's worded differently in the two specs, but it works out to be pretty much the same thing).  

I would expect that for basic "trigger time" practice ammunition, steel cased stuff would be OK, and I've used this kind of ammunition for exactly that purpose.  But handloaded .223 can be made for a lot less per round than even the cheapest steel cased stuff (after a not-too-harsh initial investment in equipment), and it can be made to be VERY accurate, even with bulk components.  If you seriously want to save money in a cost-per-round sense, this is the most effective way to do it.
View Quote
While I agree with several of your points, I do not on several.....

I thought the whole idea of "The polymer coating on the case is melting and causing jams" was instead debunked by the idea that the steel cases were NOT expanding as a brass case would.  So instead of sealing as well as brass that instead the steel would not.  So that would allow carbon etc to get in the chamber, more so than brass.  
But you have decided that isn't the case...............?  

Next.......... comparing Russian 223 bimetal ammunition to US 308 ammunition is an impossible comparison.
They are made by different companies, using different components: brass, powder bullets,to different standards, fired in different rifles................
There is no comparison...................
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:34:42 PM EDT
[#8]
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:36:15 PM EDT
[#9]
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:38:15 PM EDT
[#10]
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:39:37 PM EDT
[#11]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

See:
https://www.ar15.com/forums/t_3_118/694470_Barrel_quality_vs_ammo_quality_.html&page=1
View Quote
Yes.......... the US tests you have qouted numerous times now are absolutely a definitive test of US 308 ammunition.  
But as you point out.............. we are talking about Russian 223 ammunition.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:40:22 PM EDT
[#12]
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:40:59 PM EDT
[#13]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


No the Testers are quite clear on how they treated the rifles.......... all the rifles.
They are also quite clear about the "firing schedule" and how all the rifles were shot the same.  

They were clear that despite the pace of shooting, firing schedule whatever you want to call it...........there was a difference in the condition of the rifles.
The Russian ammunition destroyed the barrel and the US did not.  
View Quote
The one thing everybody seems to miss about that Lucky Gunner test is four random Bushmaster (aka "hobby grade") carbines fired 36,000 rounds at a pretty punishing rate of fire with no weapons related malfunctions.  I really don't see how "higher rated" makers could do much better.

And, the one shooting brass cased ammo showed almost no wear.  The ones shooting steel didn't seem all that worse for the effort, the steel cases didn't mess up the extractor or bolts enough to cause malfunctions or anything like that.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:44:21 PM EDT
[#14]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
I wish I lived in an America where more "shooters" complaining about steel cases and bi-metal bullets were actually able to speak from experience with regards to wearing out barrels.
View Quote
They do, in this thread as a matter of fact, but you dismissed it as a poor barrel.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 8:47:18 PM EDT
[#15]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Yes.......... the US tests you have qouted numerous times now are absolutely a definitive test of US 308 ammunition.  
But as you point out.............. we are talking about Russian 223 ammunition.
View Quote
Except for the fact that the data is exactly the same.

The # rounds to barrel rejection - same.

The # rounds to velocity loss - same.

The nature of barrel rejection (velocity loss vs keyholing) - same.

I have run test where I knew the root cause was the same and didn't get results that matched as well as these do.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 9:09:02 PM EDT
[#16]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



While I agree with several of your points, I do not on several.....

I thought the whole idea of "The polymer coating on the case is melting and causing jams" was instead debunked by the idea that the steel cases were NOT expanding as a brass case would.  So instead of sealing as well as brass that instead the steel would not.  So that would allow carbon etc to get in the chamber, more so than brass.  
But you have decided that isn't the case...............?  

Next.......... comparing Russian 223 bimetal ammunition to US 308 ammunition is an impossible comparison.
They are made by different companies, using different components: brass, powder bullets,to different standards, fired in different rifles................
There is no comparison...................      
View Quote
A few things:

1) The type of coating used on steel cases is very important.  Studies of the lacquer used on 25mm cases (all steel, and from multiple countries) showed that there are some types of lacquer that will build up in the chamber and eventually lead to extraction problems, the trick is to not use those types of lacquer.  This is a quality control issue with steel cases.

2) Unlike brass, steel cases need to be heat treated to achieve the proper spring in the neck.  The case neck will always expand enough to form a seal, at 50,000 + psi, it has no choice (it ain't anywhere near strong enough not to), but the question is will it spring back enough for extraction, or will it stick?  Once again this is a quality control issue for steel cases.

3) In any case these are reliability issues that can be dealt with through proper quality control.  Give the variation in bullet weights and muzzle velocity from most Russian ammunition, I dare anyone to say they have good quality control.

4) Again, all of this is a reliability issue, not a wear issue.  Steel cases will wear extractors faster than brass, but not anywhere as fast as some make it out to be.  20,000 round through two Bushmasters and they were still extracting and ejecting just fine (20 failures to extract in 20,000 rounds, 0.1% failure rate), and no other parts (other that the barrels) "wore-out".

In short, there is nothing inherent about steel cases, or steel jackets that make them less reliable or more prone to damaging your weapon, if they are made correctly.  Frankford Arsenal made hundreds of thousands of steel cased rounds that passed all reliability and weapon interface tests with good results.  In one test, the 5.56mm steel cases actually showed higher reliability than brass in the M16.

However, ammunition made with poor quality control will always be crappy ammunition.  If you don't like steel cased Russian ammunition because its crappy, that's fine, but it's not crappy because its steel cased, its crappy, because it crappy ammunition, it wouldn't be any better if the cases were brass.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 9:29:16 PM EDT
[#17]
Doesn't lucky gunner sell ammo? I would imagine their profits are based on % mark up. They probably mark steel and brass up the same % ammount, but brass costing more would bring more dollars in, correct?

I would want to sell more brass ammo to.

Test might be a little biased.

Idk though.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 9:34:25 PM EDT
[#18]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Doesn't lucky gunner sell ammo? I would imagine their profits are based on % mark up. They probably mark steel and brass up the same % ammount, but brass costing more would bring more dollars in, correct?

I would want to sell more brass ammo to.

Test might be a little biased.

Idk though.
View Quote
However, their test showed the exact same results as tests run by the Army.
Link Posted: 8/10/2017 10:31:15 PM EDT
[#19]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:



While I agree with several of your points, I do not on several.....

I thought the whole idea of "The polymer coating on the case is melting and causing jams" was instead debunked by the idea that the steel cases were NOT expanding as a brass case would.  So instead of sealing as well as brass that instead the steel would not.  So that would allow carbon etc to get in the chamber, more so than brass.  
But you have decided that isn't the case...............?  

Next.......... comparing Russian 223 bimetal ammunition to US 308 ammunition is an impossible comparison.
They are made by different companies, using different components: brass, powder bullets,to different standards, fired in different rifles................
There is no comparison...................      
View Quote
First, YES the "polymer coating melting" (just like lacquer melting) was debunked - the stuff used on Russian ammunition that was imported to the US does not melt, (neither the lacquer nor the polymer), so it can't be "sticking" the cases in chambers.

But the same point led to more research.  SOME brands of steel cased ammunition seem to have much more gunk build up than others.  I'd thought that this was due to different springiness of the steel, but I have since been educated about the springiness issue.  It's not that the cases don't expand fully, it's that they don't spring back as well as brass.  The chamber gunk probably comes from the nasty Russian powder having more graphite (or something else that's very sooty), and isn't necessarily related at all to chamber obturation.

I certainly CAN compare bimetal bullets (not ammo) across different manufacturers to the extent that there was extensive and well documented testing of the effects of US bimetal bullets and various US powders, and that the testers found enormous impacts from higher "flame temperature" powders versus minimal impacts from cooler powders, and that these impacts were similar whether they used gilding metal jacketed bullets or bimetal bullets.
Link Posted: 8/11/2017 12:42:09 PM EDT
[#20]
I run a lot of steel case ammo. If I wear out the barrel I'll just put a new one in. Not a big deal.

I've taken steel case ammo to training classes without problem....but I also bring a spare rifle and enough brass ammo to complete the class just in case. Never had to use it though.
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 11:51:07 AM EDT
[#21]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
First, YES the "polymer coating melting" (just like lacquer melting) was debunked - the stuff used on Russian ammunition that was imported to the US does not melt, (neither the lacquer nor the polymer), so it can't be "sticking" the cases in chambers.

But the same point led to more research.  SOME brands of steel cased ammunition seem to have much more gunk build up than others.  I'd thought that this was due to different springiness of the steel, but I have since been educated about the springiness issue.  It's not that the cases don't expand fully, it's that they don't spring back as well as brass.  The chamber gunk probably comes from the nasty Russian powder having more graphite (or something else that's very sooty), and isn't necessarily related at all to chamber obturation.

I certainly CAN compare bimetal bullets (not ammo) across different manufacturers to the extent that there was extensive and well documented testing of the effects of US bimetal bullets and various US powders, and that the testers found enormous impacts from higher "flame temperature" powders versus minimal impacts from cooler powders, and that these impacts were similar whether they used gilding metal jacketed bullets or bimetal bullets.
View Quote
GHP:

Well you and Landers can argue all you want about steel cases and their coatings.................  be my guest.  

But 2 things:

-Can we just call your "research" what it is............ you read some threads on the internet and they made sense to you?  So "Power ranger 101"  made some comments and you liked them.  Because, and please correct me if I'm wrong..............  there are no published articles or any meaningful tests of anything you are talking about.  But please.......... show me where someone has tested the "springiness"  of Russian 223 cases.................  

-Except for Sanders comment that the US tests show that not ALL bimetal bullets cause excessive wear on bores, there is no comparison.  You've made that clear by your own comments:  The Russians don't use US 308 bullets and they don't use US powders in the 223 ammunition we are talking about.  You have no idea what the Russian flame temperature is or isn't.  You certainly have no way of comparing that to US powders.  

You are, in effect, saying that since both a Geo Metro and a Dodge Diesel Pick Up have 4 wheels and are driven down US streets that they are the same.  Russian 223 and US 308 ammo both go bang and launch a bullet down range.  But after that they are made entirely different, under different standards and for different reasons.  So you certainly can't make all these minute comparisons................


GHP, Please answer one question for me:

What powder, by name, do any of these Russian companies use in loading the 223 ammunition we are talking about?  
Do you know?
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 12:32:44 PM EDT
[#22]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


GHP:

Well you and Landers can argue all you want about steel cases and their coatings.................  be my guest.  

But 2 things:

-Can we just call your "research" what it is............ you read some threads on the internet and they made sense to you?  So "Power ranger 101"  made some comments and you liked them.  Because, and please correct me if I'm wrong..............  there are no published articles or any meaningful tests of anything you are talking about.  But please.......... show me where someone has tested the "springiness"  of Russian 223 cases.................  

-Except for Sanders comment that the US tests show that not ALL bimetal bullets cause excessive wear on bores, there is no comparison.  You've made that clear by your own comments:  The Russians don't use US 308 bullets and they don't use US powders in the 223 ammunition we are talking about.  You have no idea what the Russian flame temperature is or isn't.  You certainly have no way of comparing that to US powders.  

You are, in effect, saying that since both a Geo Metro and a Dodge Diesel Pick Up have 4 wheels and are driven down US streets that they are the same.  Russian 223 and US 308 ammo both go bang and launch a bullet down range.  But after that they are made entirely different, under different standards and for different reasons.  So you certainly can't make all these minute comparisons................


GHP, Please answer one question for me:

What powder, by name, do any of these Russian companies use in loading the 223 ammunition we are talking about?  
Do you know?  
View Quote
1) By the way, most all US made M196 tracer was made with steel jackets since the late 1960s, There have never been any reports of this stuff causing accelerated barrel wear during ammunition lot acceptance (100% tracer usage during acceptance testing), except when they switched to propellants other than the relatively cool WC 846/WC844.  Hmmm, sounds similar to the LG test, and the .308 test.

2) You continually ignore the fact that the LG test exactly matched the US Army test.  So, I ask you why two tests, that show almost the exact same results, should have those result come from two different root causes?  

And your analogy is a very poor one.  A better analogy would be we have two vehicles, that both go the same distance with the same amount of similar fuel, ergo, they get the same gas-mileage.
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 12:35:31 PM EDT
[#23]
Link Posted: 8/13/2017 9:49:46 PM EDT
[#24]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
GHP, Please answer one question for me:

What powder, by name, do any of these Russian companies use in loading the 223 ammunition we are talking about?  
Do you know?  
View Quote
NOBODY knows, other than the actual loading plants, and they're not going to share names of non-canister grade powders anyway.  You also won't get a US ammunition manufacturer that does the kind of volume Tula and Barnaul do to tell you what powders they use either.  Like Lake City, they use bulk powders that aren't "canister grade" consistent, and have to fairly continuously tweak the loads to get standardized velocitys.

What I do know is that I've seen posts here from people who have chrono'd Tula and other Russian ammunition, and they've been able to show that Tula .223 meets the specs Tula publishes.  I've also seen published reports that went farther, with information on gas port pressure curves for Tula .223, showing that the curve is significantly different from any other ammunition.  Like what Lucky Gunner published, for example.  Go take a look at the graphs that go with their torture test.

Also, I have never found a US-available powder that had anywhere near the ammonia smell that most Russian powders have.  I don't know if it is something about the specific chemicals they put into the powder, or about the nitrocellulose they start with, or something else, but WOW that stuff is pungent!
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 12:10:34 AM EDT
[#25]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
They do, in this thread as a matter of fact, but you dismissed it as a poor barrel.  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
Quoted:
I wish I lived in an America where more "shooters" complaining about steel cases and bi-metal bullets were actually able to speak from experience with regards to wearing out barrels.
They do, in this thread as a matter of fact, but you dismissed it as a poor barrel.  
And I stand by my statement, given how many barrels I've ran bimetal bullets through. Do you think it's normal for a barrel to last 5k rounds using bimetal bullets? I have gotten twice that, two times using surplus 5.45 ammo in an AR.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 5:14:49 AM EDT
[#26]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

1) By the way, most all US made M196 tracer was made with steel jackets since the late 1960s, There have never been any reports of this stuff causing accelerated barrel wear during ammunition lot acceptance (100% tracer usage during acceptance testing), except when they switched to propellants other than the relatively cool WC 846/WC844.  Hmmm, sounds similar to the LG test, and the .308 test.

2) You continually ignore the fact that the LG test exactly matched the US Army test.  So, I ask you why two tests, that show almost the exact same results, should have those result come from two different root causes?  

And your analogy is a very poor one.  A better analogy would be we have two vehicles, that both go the same distance with the same amount of similar fuel, ergo, they get the same gas-mileage.
View Quote
I'm not ignoring anything............ I simply disagree with your thoughts on the subject.  You are making assumptions (and suggesting they are fact) about things that you cannot possibly know.

You continually make comparisons between the US powder and Russian powder.  Even GHP admits that there is no way of knowing what the Russian powder is.  None.  Not at all.  You have no idea how hot, cool Russian powder is or isn't.  You have no idea of what it is made of.  None.  

So, to use your words...............  you have no idea whether the "fuels" are similar or not.  There is no way you can- The Russians certainly aren't saying and as GHP points out neither are the US companies.  And you don't have the means to test them- so you can't either.  And since the "vehicles" are so dissimilar (the primer, case and bullet are not the same at all) you certainly can't point any one component and make any comparisons...................  Or the fact that a Geo Metro and a Dodge Diesel PU both drive down US roads doesn't mean they are the same in any way.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 10:33:57 AM EDT
[#27]
If a round causes consistent and extreme erosion of the throat of a barrel, that powder burns hot.  The throat on the LG Tula rifle was eroded so severely that it cannot have been damaged only by bullet friction.  And bullet friction cannot cause the pitting seen in the LG post-mortem images of the Tula barrel.  However the erosion seen in those pictures is consistent with poorly controlled plasma cutting...  I don't need a calculator to add that 2+2 thing.

Further, if you look at the pressure curves that LG published, you will see a direct correlation between how goofy the pressure was compared to the velocity, and how the barrel eroded.  That says there's something particularly awful about the Tula powder even when compared to the Barnaul powder (which also seems hot but not nearly as bad).

You believe that bimetal bullets are severely damaging to barrels, and that nothing else is as bad.  I'm not going to change your mind.  But I feel that there's a solid and logical chain of data-driven conclusions based on the Lucky Gunner tests AND on Ordnance Department tests that implies far more contribution to barrel damage from powder effects than from bullets.  

I also have no difficulty swapping out a barrel that I manage to shoot out, and my calculations tell me that I can save enough money to afford to replace a barrel after only a few thousand rounds, so even if I do wear out a barrel with cheap Russian ammunition it's not going to be a problem.  The only non-wear part of an AR is the serialized lower receiver, and that's not going to be affected by what bullet or powder go through that barrel.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 1:59:31 PM EDT
[#28]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


I'm not ignoring anything............ I simply disagree with your thoughts on the subject.  You are making assumptions (and suggesting they are fact) about things that you cannot possibly know.

You continually make comparisons between the US powder and Russian powder.  Even GHP admits that there is no way of knowing what the Russian powder is.  None.  Not at all.  You have no idea how hot, cool Russian powder is or isn't.  You have no idea of what it is made of.  None.  

So, to use your words...............  you have no idea whether the "fuels" are similar or not.  There is no way you can- The Russians certainly aren't saying and as GHP points out neither are the US companies.  And you don't have the means to test them- so you can't either.  And since the "vehicles" are so dissimilar (the primer, case and bullet are not the same at all) you certainly can't point any one component and make any comparisons...................  Or the fact that a Geo Metro and a Dodge Diesel PU both drive down US roads doesn't mean they are the same in any way.
View Quote
I am not suggesting any assumptions are fact.  I am stating that the data (all of it, the numbers, the photographic evidence, the observations, etc) presented shows a very good correlation.

It walks like a duck, it quacks like a duck, there is a very good chance it is a duck.

But according to you - even though the LG barrels, shooting Russian ammunition, show evidence of gas erosion at the throat (typical of hot propellant), they lasted about as long as the ones in the Army tests shooting hot propellant, and wore out in the same manner (keyholing), the root cause of the wear is completely different.  

And, continued stating of the truck-car non-sequitur doesn't help your argument.
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 3:02:54 PM EDT
[#29]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If a round causes consistent and extreme erosion of the throat of a barrel, that powder burns hot.  The throat on the LG Tula rifle was eroded so severely that it cannot have been damaged only by bullet friction.  And bullet friction cannot cause the pitting seen in the LG post-mortem images of the Tula barrel.  However the erosion seen in those pictures is consistent with poorly controlled plasma cutting...  I don't need a calculator to add that 2+2 thing.

Further, if you look at the pressure curves that LG published, you will see a direct correlation between how goofy the pressure was compared to the velocity, and how the barrel eroded.  That says there's something particularly awful about the Tula powder even when compared to the Barnaul powder (which also seems hot but not nearly as bad).

You believe that bimetal bullets are severely damaging to barrels, and that nothing else is as bad.  I'm not going to change your mind.  But I feel that there's a solid and logical chain of data-driven conclusions based on the Lucky Gunner tests AND on Ordnance Department tests that implies far more contribution to barrel damage from powder effects than from bullets.  

I also have no difficulty swapping out a barrel that I manage to shoot out, and my calculations tell me that I can save enough money to afford to replace a barrel after only a few thousand rounds, so even if I do wear out a barrel with cheap Russian ammunition it's not going to be a problem.  The only non-wear part of an AR is the serialized lower receiver, and that's not going to be affected by what bullet or powder go through that barrel.
View Quote
When and where did I ever say that?  
Quote me..................  I never said that.............in all these goofy threads you and I have bounced around....................

I'll say this again...........My opinion is this:

There is increased wear on AR15 barrels by the Russian 223 ammunition.  It is due to a combination of the power and bullet used by the Russian companies.  After that.......... since no one at all, in any sort of way.......... has attempted to separate those 2 components and test them individually....... you can't blame either one more or less.  So all this commentary about US powder being hot, cold blah blah and somehow using US 308 bullets to prove something about Russian 223 bullets is pointless.  They are apples and oranges.  Instead if you are convinced the Russian powder is blame...........  step up like LG did and do your own testing.

In the mean time, since you can't custom order Russian ammunition with your own powder, accept the fact that the ammo is hard on your barrel for some reason.    

(Well if those @#$% Russians lied and have been using Corrosive primers......that is another minute concern).............  

I'll say this again too:
If You want to shoot Russian ammo, go ahead.  If it shoots well for you- I'm happy for you:  Rock on!
If it wears out your barrel.......... replace it and Rock on!
If you don't want to shoot it........... Shoot US stuff................ that's right.......... Rock on!

More Shooting............ less talking.   :)
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 6:10:53 PM EDT
[#30]
If you read what was written, you would have seen that steel jacketed bullets do cause a different wear pattern:



And, compare the gas port erosion pictures.  Two things cause port erosion, temperature and pressure, the pressures are comparable, so that leaves, what?
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 8:08:11 PM EDT
[#31]
My first AR, a Stag from 2009, has around 4500 rounds through it. I have only ever had 3 malfunctions, 2 of which were stuck Wolf Polyformance cases and the 3rd a stuck Silver Bear case. Due to this, I stopped buying/shooting steel cased ammo after the 3rd stuck case. Many folks have no issues. I choose to spend my money on brass cased ammo. For me, it's not so much about barrel wear, but issues with stuck cases. Barrels are consumable items.

Obviously, YMMV
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 8:14:13 PM EDT
[#32]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When and where did I ever say that?  
Quote me..................  I never said that.............in all these goofy threads you and I have bounced around....................

I'll say this again...........My opinion is this:

There is increased wear on AR15 barrels by the Russian 223 ammunition.  It is due to a combination of the power and bullet used by the Russian companies.  
View Quote View All Quotes
View All Quotes
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
When and where did I ever say that?  
Quote me..................  I never said that.............in all these goofy threads you and I have bounced around....................

I'll say this again...........My opinion is this:

There is increased wear on AR15 barrels by the Russian 223 ammunition.  It is due to a combination of the power and bullet used by the Russian companies.  
I'm saying that since the data indicate that there is something like a 99.999% contribution of powder only to barrel erosion, and your posts consistently indicate that you think that the bullets have a much greater than 0.001% contribution to this erosion, that it appears to be that you believe the bullets are substantially harder on barrels than the evidence indicates.  Indeed, I have not quoted you; I have come to a conclusion based on your indirect statements.  If I'm misinterpreting your statements (see the above 99.999 versus 0.001%), then I apologize.

Quoted:
(Well if those @#$% Russians lied and have been using Corrosive primers......that is another minute concern).............
Corrosive primers do not cause erosion, even if you let your barrel sit dirty in humid conditions.  Corrosive primers cause rust.  RUST CAN severely damage a barrel, but it doesn't look like erosion, it looks like rust.  There has been at least one case of Ukrainian-made ammunition with (oops!) corrosive primers being imported to the US; the result was rusted barrels, nothing more.

Quoted:
I'll say this again too:
If You want to shoot Russian ammo, go ahead.  If it shoots well for you- I'm happy for you:  Rock on!
If it wears out your barrel.......... replace it and Rock on!
If you don't want to shoot it........... Shoot US stuff................ that's right.......... Rock on!

More Shooting............ less talking.   :)
I TOTALLY agree with you here!
Link Posted: 8/14/2017 8:17:14 PM EDT
[#33]
I need to also point out that the original question, whether or not polymer coated steel casings wear a chamber more than brass, has been completely and irrefutably answered; they do not.  There's a possibility that your extractor may fail a little earlier with steel cases (on the order of at 10,000 rounds versus 15,000 rounds), but otherwise there's little evidence of anything else being damaged by case material.
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 5:02:03 AM EDT
[#34]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:

I'm saying that since the data indicate that there is something like a 99.999% contribution of powder only to barrel erosion, and your posts consistently indicate that you think that the bullets have a much greater than 0.001% contribution to this erosion, that it appears to be that you believe the bullets are substantially harder on barrels than the evidence indicates.  Indeed, I have not quoted you; I have come to a conclusion based on your indirect statements.  If I'm misinterpreting your statements (see the above 99.999 versus 0.001%), then I apologize.


Corrosive primers do not cause erosion, even if you let your barrel sit dirty in humid conditions.  Corrosive primers cause rust.  RUST CAN severely damage a barrel, but it doesn't look like erosion, it looks like rust.  There has been at least one case of Ukrainian-made ammunition with (oops!) corrosive primers being imported to the US; the result was rusted barrels, nothing more.


I TOTALLY agree with you here!
View Quote
Wow this is a new one for you.............  you are explaining to me my own position on this.........  

So No...............  

My position is what I wrote already.....................

There is increased wear on AR15 barrels by the Russian 223 ammunition. It is due to a combination of the power and bullet used by the Russian companies. After that.......... since no one at all, in any sort of way.......... has attempted to separate those 2 components and test them individually....... you can't blame either one more or less. So all this commentary about US powder being hot, cold blah blah and somehow using US 308 bullets to prove something about Russian 223 bullets is pointless. They are apples and oranges. Instead if you are convinced the Russian powder is blame........... step up like LG did and do your own testing.

There is nothing "indirect" in my statements and there is no need for you to come to a "conclusion" for me, I can spell it out all by myself............

Where did I say Corrosive primers cause erosion?  
Where...............?  
You need to stop assuming what I'm saying and simply read it.
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 5:24:22 AM EDT
[#35]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If you read what was written, you would have seen that steel jacketed bullets do cause a different wear pattern:

http://labscdn2.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tegauge.jpg

And, compare the gas port erosion pictures.  Two things cause port erosion, temperature and pressure, the pressures are comparable, so that leaves, what?
View Quote
Are you directing this at me or GHP?
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 3:48:53 PM EDT
[#36]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:
If you read what was written, you would have seen that steel jacketed bullets do cause a different wear pattern:

http://labscdn2.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/tegauge.jpg

And, compare the gas port erosion pictures.  Two things cause port erosion, temperature and pressure, the pressures are comparable, so that leaves, what?
View Quote
Interesting picture.  That looks like the Brownell's throat erosion gage I measure my bore (throat) wear with.  Is it?  I never thought of seeing what would happen if it was put in the muzzle, so I just now went to the shop and tried my gage in the muzzle of 4 used, but not fired a lot bbls (maybe 2000rds in the most used one).  It would not enter the muzzle on any of them.  Therefore, if it's the same gage, that certainly is a WORN BBL in that pic!
Link Posted: 8/15/2017 9:03:04 PM EDT
[#37]
Discussion ForumsJump to Quoted PostQuote History
Quoted:


Wow this is a new one for you.............  you are explaining to me my own position on this.........  

So No...............  

My position is what I wrote already.....................

There is increased wear on AR15 barrels by the Russian 223 ammunition. It is due to a combination of the power and bullet used by the Russian companies. After that.......... since no one at all, in any sort of way.......... has attempted to separate those 2 components and test them individually....... you can't blame either one more or less. So all this commentary about US powder being hot, cold blah blah and somehow using US 308 bullets to prove something about Russian 223 bullets is pointless. They are apples and oranges. Instead if you are convinced the Russian powder is blame........... step up like LG did and do your own testing.

There is nothing "indirect" in my statements and there is no need for you to come to a "conclusion" for me, I can spell it out all by myself............

Where did I say Corrosive primers cause erosion?  
Where...............?  
You need to stop assuming what I'm saying and simply read it.
View Quote
Mea culpa.  My bad.  Oops. Etc.

I made a serious mistake in reading your posts as if you were one of a number of people whose positions have nothing to do with data and have plenty to do with their own biases.  Reading carefully, I see that your points are scientifically solid; nobody has done tests on this particular ammunition to see what each component's contribution actually is.  I agree.

I think that if you had simply said "we don't have any way to separate the effects of bullets and powder with this ammunition," I may have been less inclined to read your posts negatively.  And I should have clearly stated "my opinion is" when dealing with my opinion about bimetal bullets.

I assumed that your mention of corrosive primers indicated that you lumped primer salts in with the various "nasty Russian components" that would cause barrel wear.  The context in your post did not make it clear to me (late in the evening) what your point was with that.

I personally believe based on the volume of data and strength of the processes used that the Ordnance tests indicate that it is unlikely that bimetal bullets have a strong effect on barrel wear compared to the effect that powder has.  This is an opinion based on incomplete and extrapolated data (different powders, different bullets, different caliber, etc.).  I do not see how much different copper plated steel jackets can be, from each other, regardless of who made them, but that is not a scientific position, merely a possible lack of information on my part.
Link Posted: 8/23/2017 9:24:55 PM EDT
[#38]
For the science folks, how hard would it be to test the temperatures that different powders burn?

And besides available technology/resources is there a reason to have a hotter burning powder?

Anecdotally, I have read that the Combloc powders and corrosive primers have a good shelf life and work well in cold/arctic conditions.
Link Posted: 8/24/2017 7:08:24 PM EDT
[#39]
Testing powder burn temperature is pretty hard.  It can vary depending on a number of factors, including loading density, available volume, and bullet pull/bore resistance.  Basically it's an advanced ballistics lab task.
Page / 2
Next Page Arrow Left
Page AR-15 » Ammunition
AR Sponsor: bravocompany
Close Join Our Mail List to Stay Up To Date! 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.


By signing up you agree to our User Agreement. *Must have a registered ARFCOM account to win.
Top Top