Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Site Notices
9/22/2017 12:11:25 AM
Posted: 6/12/2002 1:03:37 PM EDT
I have shot many mixed brand .223 bullets through several .223 rifles. My primary .223 is a mini-14 which is "not bad"(I do not own an ar15, because I live in california, however i use my freinds ar's in oregon all the time.)
Anywho...I am a pretty decent shot, but cant pinpoint any rifle, even at 25 yards, with .223 WOLF ammo.
Since I am not an expert bullet reloader, or know anything about ballistics, why does this happen with WOLF? Does anybody have any similiar stories with WOLF? or maybe any other kind of ammunition?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:07:30 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 1:09:09 PM EDT by fastang50]
I'd like to be able to give you an accuracy report on Wolf, I've fired it in my AR once, the problem is that I ripped the back of the case off and spent the rest of the afternoon trying to figure out how to get it out! Same day a buddy was shooting Wolf in his .223 contender and bent the extractor when he opened it, finished his day too. Not the kind of report you were looking for but I thought I'd thow in my experience with it. If it feeds and functions for you it should be great blasting ammo.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:11:20 PM EDT
Im pretty much making up my mind in saying that I dont like it.
I had a similiar experience, after firing a wolf round through it, The casing somehow expanded in the barrel, it took alot of work to get that thing out.

Also, why the dark shell, and red ink?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:26:44 PM EDT
How many licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop??

How many rounds of Wolf ammo does it take before your weapon grenades itself??

How many horror stories about Wolf ammo does it take to get to the center of a retards brain??

There is so much quality ammo out there that is comparably low priced to the com bloc crap that there is absolutely "no" excuse to feed your weapon that garbage.

I've had an M16/AR-15 in my paws for almost ten years now and I've never had a catastrophic stoppage, bent extractor or stuck case.

Guess what, I've never used Wolf nor do I mention the name Wolf around my gear. But I guess it's just a coincidence.

Wakeup Wolf Trolls!!


Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:29:04 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 1:34:40 PM EDT by shaggy]
Here we go again on Wolf...



The cases are dark because they're steel, not brass, and the red is sealant to protect the powder and primer from moisture. I've run a few cases through my M16 in full auto, never had a problem. Even with a short (11.5")upper in full auto and all the problems those entail, its run great for me...even when good SS109 wouldn't (and there were several members of this board present to witness it last summer). Wolf certainly isn't the most accurate stuff out there, but its good cheap stuff for just having some fun. A lot of people have problems with Wolf, but at least in my experience, if you have a mil-spec chrome lined chamber (5.56 not .223), a chrome lined barrel, and keep your weapon relatively clean, you should be fine.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:37:48 PM EDT
The phrase "Chrome or go home" fits very well here. I have fired several thousand rounds of Wolf through my Colt AR. My barrel and chamber are chrome. I have had only a few (less than 10) minor problems. These were failure to cycle problems. I had far more problems with that Malaysian stuff a few years back.

If you look hard enough, you will find that someone has had a problem with every ammo manufacturer on the planet at one time or another. Many guys at Knob Creek shoot Wolf through their M16s all day long. I have never personally seen any of the Wolf related problems, but I think that is because of the chrome chamber and bore.

If all you want to do is put rounds down range, then Wolf is good for that. For precision shooting, use something else.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:48:11 PM EDT

Last Sunday I put over 500 rds of Wolf .223 fmj
through my nib SAR 3- mostly rapid fire-
NO malfs of any kind !

Eat your hearts out
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 1:56:06 PM EDT
why consider wolf ammo when you can buy 1000 rounds of X193 for 160.00 to your door and have reusable brass to boot
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:08:02 PM EDT

Originally Posted By sniped:
why consider wolf ammo when you can buy 1000 rounds of X193 for 160.00 to your door and have reusable brass to boot



Dammit I don't know how many times this has to be said!!

Sorry if I come off mean but I got to rant!

There's many companies that sell top qual surplus ammo for the same price.
Costs is almost identical to wolf but here's what you get.

1. Good ammo, not shit ammo

2. Mil-spec ammo! Frangible above 2700fps and loaded hot!

3. You are running brass through your weapon
(brass, you know, the stuff you weapon was DESIGNED for)

4. You can reload some of the Mil-spec brass as well.

5. Twice the accuracy of the cheap stuff.

6. You won't get flamed on this board.

So as you can see, there's no reason you can't hop on the bandwagon and order some good mil-spec ammo from a seller that has good prices.
Lake city XM193 and South African M193 is the best ammo IMO.

Good day Sir.

Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:12:24 PM EDT
The only rifle I use Wolf ammo in
is my mak-90.
I think it works great in AK's because
of loose tolerances(less accuracy but
superior reliability),but would not put
it through my AR or Ruger Ranch.
Use only BRASS cased ammo in your
AMERICAN MADE RIFLE!
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 2:16:47 PM EDT
thanks for the replies. I hardly use wolf, I just wanted a technical explanation as to why wolf sucks so bad, and why I cant do anything with it.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:02:57 PM EDT
I would never put that crappy ammo in any of my ARs. Why anyone would spend thousands on a rifle and who knows how many more times that on accesories and then put wolf ammo through it? You are not shooting a surplus $40 rifle. And I probably wouldn't put wolf in that either. There are so many bettter choices for a few dollars more.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:20:18 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 3:21:39 PM EDT by shaggy]

Originally Posted By LE6920: Why anyone would spend thousands on a rifle and who knows how many more times that on accesories and then put wolf ammo through it? You are not shooting a surplus $40 rifle.


Why? Because it works just fine. I am always amazed at the number of people who will confidently declare a product to be crap without ever having tried it themselves. Certainly some people have problems with it, but I think they need to take an objective look at the equipment they're using rather than just assuming its the ammo. My stuff runs great with good quality brass ammo, but it also runs fine with Wolf and Barnaul. Why - 5.56 and chrome. For going to machinegun shoots and just dumping mags its fine and I'd rather not spend the extra $60/case for cheap blasting ammo.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:20:26 PM EDT
Although I am convinced not to use Wolf ammo I do have a question.

Since the surplus is mil spec based on the comments here - the ammo faq leads me to believe that it wouldnt be prudent to use lots of it in a .223 (not the 5.56 mil spec) rifle. According to the faq its ok to use .223 in a 5.56 mil spec rifle - but not so great the other way around. The 5.56 is a hotter load and could cause damage(?).

Whats the scoop here?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:28:26 PM EDT
I use the Wolf shit for the AK's
Never my AR's.
I listen to what these here had to say a long
time ago.
If you want a fairly cheap brand buy the South African .223
I have 5,500 rounds stashed and have shot at
least that much through both pre and post ban
AR's.

Try ammoman for the source.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:36:42 PM EDT
I would venture that I shoot only Wolf or Barnaul in my Bushy. Chrome is good. Never a malfunction, FTF or FTE. It works just fine and I get reasonable accuracy, better than the only other thing I have tried which was SA milsurp. I hate paying too much for ammo, and wolf and barnaul seem to be just about right for me. When I bought the Bushy I fully expected it to be finicky, and not very reliable compared to my SAR-3. I was very wrong. It has been a trooper and I am very happy with the purchase. I figured if it couldn't handle wolf I would have cleaned it, put it up, and sold it after the 2004 ban. As it is, its a keeper.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:40:04 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By LE6920: Why anyone would spend thousands on a rifle and who knows how many more times that on accesories and then put wolf ammo through it? You are not shooting a surplus $40 rifle.


Why? Because it works just fine. I am always amazed at the number of people who will confidently declare a product to be crap without ever having tried it themselves. Certainly some people have problems with it, but I think they need to take an objective look at the equipment they're using rather than just assuming its the ammo. My stuff runs great with good quality brass ammo, but it also runs fine with Wolf and Barnaul. Why - 5.56 and chrome. For going to machinegun shoots and just dumping mags its fine and I'd rather not spend the extra $60/case for cheap blasting ammo.



Shaggy did you happen to mis my reply and most everyone else's?

I've been through 500 rounds of wolf when I first bought my AR without an issue. (except I almost puked the first time shoot it)

The point is why buy this smelling steel cased ammo when better mil-spec ammo can be had for not much more money?

I'm always amazed at the number of people can't figure out the difference between quality and a dollar amount.

Lets make an analogy here for those that still don't get it.

Lets say your choosing with engine to put in your car.

Engine A is a V8 with lots of power, gets 20 miles to the gallon and costs $1000 dollars.

Engine B is a V6 with alittle power, gets 15 miles the gallon, and costs $900 dollars.

Which one do you choose?


Link Posted: 6/12/2002 3:46:08 PM EDT

Originally Posted By candide1:
Although I am convinced not to use Wolf ammo I do have a question.

Since the surplus is mil spec based on the comments here - the ammo faq leads me to believe that it wouldnt be prudent to use lots of it in a .223 (not the 5.56 mil spec) rifle. According to the faq its ok to use .223 in a 5.56 mil spec rifle - but not so great the other way around. The 5.56 is a hotter load and could cause damage(?).

Whats the scoop here?



If you have a weapon that can shoot 5.56 and .223, shoot 5.56. NATO spec ammo is loaded hotter, and uses M193 or SS109 as a bullet.
Refer to the Ammo FAQ if you don't know what the benefits of M193 or SS109 vs. commercial ammo.

If you have a weapon that shoots only .223, shoot only .223.

The 5.56 round is alittle different.
The neck is alittle longer, it just barely doesn't fit right in a .223 only chamber.
Just barely doesn't count when your dealing with internal combustion.

Link Posted: 6/12/2002 4:05:25 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/12/2002 4:06:31 PM EDT by shaggy]

Originally Posted By MurderSHO45:
Shaggy did you happen to mis my reply and most everyone else's...



Yeah, I read your reply, but let me point out a few things. First, the difference between a case of Wolf and the brass you're using as a comparison is about $60/case. Thats 60% more. For a few cases I don't mind spending more; I stash brass for SHTF ammo. For cheap shooting ammo,however, Wolf should run fine in a good weapon. I see no reason to spend 60% more for cheap blasting ammo. At a MG shoot, I can easily cut through a case in a day. I'd much rather have that $60 in my pocket at the end of the day than all over the ground and up in smoke. Second, lets talk about reloading. I don't reload - I simply don't have the time, so getting reloadable cases isn't that big of a deal to me. Certainly I save my reloadable brass for such time that I may decide to start, but like a lot of MG shooters, I don't bother with reloading...especially for rifle calibers. Additionally, I don't let anyone shoot reloads through my weapons. Machineguns and reloads are a bad mix - I've seen quite nasty things happen to very expensive weapons on reloads. At least with Wolf I have some recourse if my MG has a KB due to bad ammo; I don't if it happens with a reload. So what do I get for that extra 60%? Brass I don't really do anything with? The satisfaction of knowing that I could dump a mag into a car door with a bit more accuracy?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 4:17:58 PM EDT
Those mini 14's have no problem with the dirty wolf ammo they just gobble it on up. I haven't had a misfire or jam yet with my mini on wolf thats the only ammo I run.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 4:54:10 PM EDT
OK you still really don't get it do you??

$60 dollars a case?

The best I've seen wolf is for $100-$115.

you can pick up SA for Same if not less then that!!

XM193 lake city can be had for $160-$170.
SA is plinking, XM193 is for storing or accurate shooting.

When you start talking about MG blasting, things change alittle bit there.
MG is WAY different topic all in its self, considering the whole point is dump as much rounds downrange as possible. Totally different man.

You start talking about how all good rifles should shoot wolf no problem, then proceed to say that if you get a KB, wolf would be responsible where if you were using reloads, you'd be responsible. Ummm OK.

Link Posted: 6/12/2002 5:05:59 PM EDT

Originally Posted By shaggy:

Originally Posted By LE6920: Why anyone would spend thousands on a rifle and who knows how many more times that on accesories and then put wolf ammo through it? You are not shooting a surplus $40 rifle.


Why? Because it works just fine. I am always amazed at the number of people who will confidently declare a product to be crap without ever having tried it themselves. Certainly some people have problems with it, but I think they need to take an objective look at the equipment they're using rather than just assuming its the ammo. My stuff runs great with good quality brass ammo, but it also runs fine with Wolf and Barnaul. Why - 5.56 and chrome. For going to machinegun shoots and just dumping mags its fine and I'd rather not spend the extra $60/case for cheap blasting ammo.




I could also go find some 80 octane to put in my truck, works just fine, a few knocks and pings here and there but no problems.

Wrong, think i'll take care of my stuff.

Just personal preferance I guess. I like to train with the exact ammo that I may have to use. Builds confidence and consistency.

If I had a MG and had to buy ammo, i'd get the super Dillon and reload the ammo myself. You can probably load up to 1000 rounds an hour, on the DIllon 1100, cut that down for safety and figure a few thousand rounds in an afternoon and NO CRAPPY wolf down the barrel.

Hey if it works for you, go for it.

Is Wolf gonna buy you a new MG when it blows up?
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:20:27 PM EDT
Okay, here we go again..

1- Nobody is forcing anyone to shoot this,or any brand of 5.56..Nobody. If you don't like it, or the possiblility of causing excessive wear/lacquer fouling/funky smells eminating, to YOUR weapon, then DON'T USE IT.

2- Accusing somebody of being lacking in mental facilities because they use this ammunition is not only fallacious logic, but simply rude.. Just because your weapon has a problem with it, and theirs does not is not a personal affront..

3- Steel cased ammo has a history in the U.S. Military, predating the common application of this technology by ComBloc countries. Hatcher has even made a comment, as to how it is safer in his opinion in 1911's than brass casings.. Steel cased USC.30, and 1911 Ball were quite common in my experience til a decade and some ago..

4- Analogies to running low octane fuels in high performance engines on this subject are quite amusing.. but fiction. How does one draw the relationship between a variable oxygen/fuel ratio combustion, and a fixed oxygen /fuel ratio combustion? (Consider that one can use Anti Detonant Injection on a reciprocating mill, to allow the consumption of lower octane fuels that would otherwise detonate..)

5- Lacquer.. Yes it's there.. No, I can't get it to melt. Oxidize, yes, but not soften to weapon jamming glue as often described.. This incldes tests in a number of calibers, and a number of weapons..
-(My primary AR is a Colt R6700CH. It has NO problem with the 55,or 62 grain Wolf ammo. Shoots it accurately? No, compared to the Portugese, or Malaysian ammo I've tried..But good enough for fun shooting.)

Consider that much of the German WW2 era munitions were both steel, and lacquered..The MP-44, I last shot fired old (1945) seel cased, lacquered munitions with no problems..
SO why is this occuring with AR-15's? (Other than the ones I've tried this ammo in, I might add..)

6- To anyone who is having problems with this stuff in Arizona, I'd love to meet at Ben Avery range one weekend to document what is happening..Leave the rumors at home..Let's discuss facts.WHY does it cause stoppages in some weapons, and not others?

Meplat-(NOT employed by Wolf, in any way, shape or form.)
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 6:24:55 PM EDT
I'm sick of this topic, so here's all I'm gonna post:

Q. Is Wolf-brand (or other steel-cased) .223 ammo okay to shoot in my AR15?

Please do a search and you'll find more than you want to know.

Link Posted: 6/12/2002 8:01:07 PM EDT
I think you all know where I stand.
Link Posted: 6/12/2002 10:36:37 PM EDT

Originally Posted By Meplat:
Okay, here we go again..

1- Nobody is forcing anyone to shoot this,or any brand of 5.56..Nobody. If you don't like it, or the possiblility of causing excessive wear/lacquer fouling/funky smells eminating, to YOUR weapon, then DON'T USE IT.

2- Accusing somebody of being lacking in mental facilities because they use this ammunition is not only fallacious logic, but simply rude.. Just because your weapon has a problem with it, and theirs does not is not a personal affront..

3- Steel cased ammo has a history in the U.S. Military, predating the common application of this technology by ComBloc countries. Hatcher has even made a comment, as to how it is safer in his opinion in 1911's than brass casings.. Steel cased USC.30, and 1911 Ball were quite common in my experience til a decade and some ago..

4- Analogies to running low octane fuels in high performance engines on this subject are quite amusing.. but fiction. How does one draw the relationship between a variable oxygen/fuel ratio combustion, and a fixed oxygen /fuel ratio combustion? (Consider that one can use Anti Detonant Injection on a reciprocating mill, to allow the consumption of lower octane fuels that would otherwise detonate..)

5- Lacquer.. Yes it's there.. No, I can't get it to melt. Oxidize, yes, but not soften to weapon jamming glue as often described.. This incldes tests in a number of calibers, and a number of weapons..
-(My primary AR is a Colt R6700CH. It has NO problem with the 55,or 62 grain Wolf ammo. Shoots it accurately? No, compared to the Portugese, or Malaysian ammo I've tried..But good enough for fun shooting.)

Consider that much of the German WW2 era munitions were both steel, and lacquered..The MP-44, I last shot fired old (1945) seel cased, lacquered munitions with no problems..
SO why is this occuring with AR-15's? (Other than the ones I've tried this ammo in, I might add..)

6- To anyone who is having problems with this stuff in Arizona, I'd love to meet at Ben Avery range one weekend to document what is happening..Leave the rumors at home..Let's discuss facts.WHY does it cause stoppages in some weapons, and not others?

Meplat-(NOT employed by Wolf, in any way, shape or form.)




I didn't say it was unreliable ammo, I said it fuction flawlessly through my AR.

The point of discussion is why buy wolf, when Mil-spec surplus can be had for same price or alittle more.


Link Posted: 6/13/2002 1:05:20 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 6/13/2002 11:48:16 PM EDT by sfoo]
Out of the 8000+ or so rounds I have through one of my rifles, 5500 have been wolf(4.5k) or JSC barnaul(1k).

So far, out of that number, i've had 6 (six) malfunctions that were directly attributed to ruskie ammo (ie, not a double feed or weapon issue), all of which were FtF (solid primer hits, no bang). This particular rifle is a bushy with a chrome chamber, cut for 5.56mm not .223. Sum total paid for this rifle was roughly $550.

I've paid usually $100/1k wolf or JSCB. For the other stuff, the best deal I ever got was $129 on some south african stuff that I had 8-10 malfs in a single case in.

Average price for non-Ruskie 223 was about $160, as mentioned. 5.5 * 60 = $330, minus a few for other deals is roughly $300 saved. I don't reload, so there's no cost savings there for me. That's about half the cost of the rifle saved so far in the ammo it's shot. By the time I'm in need of a new upper for this rifle or spare or replacement parts, my ammo buying will have more than paid for it.

So, to answer your question, I buy wolf cuz it's cheap and fills my needs. Of course, if I was to want a match gun that would shoot 2moa or less, and use for serious competition work, would I shot wolf? no. Of course not. But for plinking, non-match, or combat type shooting, wolf works just fine, thank you very much.

Now, to pose a few questions back, does it fill yours? Do you have a real, honest, first hand account of using wolf ammo? If so, please provide it. Otherwise, skip the "I heard from a buddy..." crap. Sure, even Troy's ammo faq has some unkind words for Wolf/JSC. Ask him how much of it he's actually used personally though.

Link Posted: 6/13/2002 3:31:32 AM EDT

Originally Posted By MurderSHO45:
I didn't say it was unreliable ammo, I said it fuction flawlessly through my AR.

The point of discussion is why buy wolf, when Mil-spec surplus can be had for same price or alittle more.





So if there is no problem with the ammo then why not just buy the Wolf? If the ammo is reliable and no one has yet to prove increased chamber ware or it breaking guns then if it is $5 a case cheaper then why not buy it. $5 saved is still $5 saved.

If the Wolf didn't work for someone then I would say buy something else, but if it does work then why not buy it?
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 8:46:31 AM EDT
sfoo, if you actually read all my posts you would see that when I first bought my AR, I bought wolf for it.

I said I put about 500 rounds of wolf, that is probably a lowball number, maybe almost 1000 rounds. It worked fine, had a few FTF's.

My SA experience seems to be different then your's, I've almost finished one 2700 tub of it and I kid you not, I have not had one "dud".

Both ammo functions flawlessly in my AR (if I can get this carrier key screw issue worked out) yet again I'll say SA can be had for the same price as wolf, but has M193 characteristics.
M193 surplus is the ammo I would use if I ever had to defend myself with so that what I practice with. This is coming from a person who didn't have a mechanical issue with wolf, I would think my opinion would be more valued then the dills that talk shit about wolf and have never used it.

I guess we feel different about the wolf topic, we should just leave it at that.
I'll shut up now.
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 9:04:57 AM EDT
so basically what im gathering is that some people dont have a problem with it, yet some people do.
It seems that the people who shoot wolf flawlessly are only shooting ar's, while the people who are having problems with it are shooting mini-14's. hmmmmm.......
Link Posted: 6/13/2002 5:19:48 PM EDT
Murder- I did not direct that post specefically at you.. (when did I quote any comment you made regarding reliability?)

However, to answer your comment/question..
I DO buy a variety of surplus 5.56, including U.S. M-193, M-855, and M-856.. I do like to know what works in the weapons I own..

The Wolf made fodder I find perfectly satisfactory for close in practice, and general fun shooting (Per my post, and earlier ones I've made regarding this subject..)

I've never said this was the greatest ammo made, just that I find it interesting that I have had little problems with it, and the majority of the shooters I personally know have never had stoppages with this ammo..

Given the choice, I'd buy nothing BUT M-855, and M-856, but it's a bit pricey for the quantities I can go through in a weekend..The Wolf stuff serves fine for me in this regard..

Meplat-
Top Top