AR Sponsor
Posted: 11/23/2006 11:19:29 AM EDT
| How come they dont make a copper washed steel-jacket, lead core 223 for budget plinking ammo? Wouldn't that cost less than putting a true copper/copper alloy jacket on it? |
|
Yep, quite a lot less. Sellier & Bellot makes those in 55gr, its very decent ammo and relatively cheap. Some "Problems" are: a) acceptance, since its "common" Armchair-Commando™ knowledge that those bullets wear out barrels "really quick". Some faster wear -might- occur in stainless match barrels, but chromelined ones dont suffer any measurable difference in barrel life. Usually the hot gases wear out a brrel much faster than the bullets going through it. b) They do more damage to poppers, and might cause sparking when hitting rocks. Matt |
| Wolf should get on it then if S&B makes it. Maybe not replacing the black-box/mil-classic line, but maybe a 3rd line so people can still have the copper-jacket type for steel targets or tinderbox ranges while others who dont worry about that can have dirt cheap dirty ammo. |
Depends on the caliber, Wolf 223 is a copper jacketed bullet, 7.62x39 can be copper jacket or a bi-metal bullet, mild steel with a light copper coating. www.wolfammo.com/1_rifle.htm |
copper jacket STEEL CASE |
copper jacket STEEL CASE |
Yes, they do. I pulled the bullet from one of the cartridges, and it is copper washed/plated STEEL jacket bullet with a lead core. It attracts a magnet, is lead core, and does not have a steel penetrator. And no, I am not talking about the case, I'm talking about the jacket of the bullet. It says this on the box: .223 Rem 55 GR. FMJ Steel case Non-corrosive boxer primed Made in Russia It may be because this is new stuff, I dunno. I bought this a few months ago from Sportsmans guide for $99/1000. This was that fiasco where some ARFcommers orders were canceled, and there were several months backorder. Like I said, I've never heard of wolf having a steel jacketed bullet, but the stuff I bought sure as heck does. |
I thought it all did. All my poly for the last 2 years has had the copper washed steel- I had no idea they use pure copper jackets Lead core 7.62 and 223 copper washed steel jackets  |
That's what I've been seeing as well. |
|
Interesting. I'll have to eat my words. Wolf has stated that *all* their .223 is coper jacketed only... and their website also reflects this. I just checked my stash... all my Wolf poly is copper jacketed... no steel. Did they announce they were doing this? Their 7.62x39 has always been copper washed steel, or copper jacketed... depending on the lot. |
Do you have a source for that? I think we can all agree that barrels have been proven to last longer when used with cast bullets as opposed to jacketed. Lead is softer than copper by a considerable margin. Copper is softer that steel, so logically a barrel should last longer when used with copper jacketed bullets as opposed to steel jackets. I'm just applying logic to this, but I do want to see your source. |
Throat erosion occurs long before bore wear does in the .223/5.56 bore. Barrels have to be replaced because of accuracy degredation when the throat is gone... not the rifling worn in the length of the bore. The material of the jacket has no bearing on throat erosion... hot gases do. |
|
...uuuhmm, steel jackets increased wear (throat erosion) by nearly 60% in informal army tests of tracer ammunition (which have GMCS jackets). FYI, there is no written report. Common import ammo may not be loaded as hot as military trace ammo, so perhaps not quite as much wear, but it will increase wear. Now, everyone feeding ol' betsy a steady diet of steel jacket in 5.56mm, has 10,000 rounds of it downrange and gun still shoots 2 MOA....please flame away! Hotgun |
Handy that, no written report. Jacket steel is not hard like barrel steel. It is much, much milder. It has little effect on throat erosion. Hot gases erode the throat much, much more, so any effect caused be the steel jacket loses its significance in the face of propellant-caused erosion. |
Sounds like internet myth. Steel cases - yes - which allow for some gases to enter the chamber area faster.... but the jackets of the bullets arent deforming that much, that I have ever seen written up. |
The coating is VERY VERY THIN!! It wouldn't prevent steel from touching the rifling once the rifling "cut" into the jacket. I cut one of those "copper washed" bullets once. The plating or copper wash or whatever the F you want to call it was rediculously thin. I wouldn't shoot bullets like that through any of my weapons.  Anyone remember the SWISS ammo that was made with these bullets? AMMOMAN had it a few years back. Anyway... The story was that the Swiss were getting rid of the ammo due to accelerated wear on their MGs. |
Then again, riflling isn't very deep either. It was my understanding that the copper plating - albeit thin - was thick enough to prevent the steel jacket from causing wear on the barrel. I guess in the absence of hard data, we're left to speculate. |
"common" Armchair-Commando™ knowledge wins out again  IMO, Wolf is, was and will always be crap ammo. Its just since its now REALLY expensive, crap ammo that a whole bunch of people think the coyote is a purebred. |
Not necessarily. Will the harder metal cause faster wear? Possibly, but by how much? The bigger issue is that lead bullets are typically fired at much lower velocities than jacketed. Less velocity = less pressure = less throat erosion. So does the increase in barrel life come from the bullet hardness or the lower gas pressures? No hard data = pure conjecture. |
gas pressure, heat and friction all conspire to kill barrels. Not particularly "pure conjecture." There will most likely be more gas pressure, heat and friction with washed metal jacket. Question is, will additional wear be noticeable or not. Come on, think about it. If steel is cheaper than copper (which it is), why wouldn't ALL ammo makers be using steel instead of copper? |
You're right but for the wrong reason. Tracer ammo will wear out the throat faster than conventional copper jacket ammo, but not because of the steel. The tracer chemicals, usually composed of strontium salts and magnesium can burn at over 2200 degrees Celcius. Add that to the regular combustion temps and you've got some hot gases running down the throat. Case in point I knew a guy who was in the army and loaded a full mag of tracers and shot them off full auto just playing around. Upon loading another mag, chambering the round, then laying the rifle down the next round cooked off. Mind you he only mag dumped once with the tracers before the cook-off occurred; the barrel was able to reach incredible temperatures very quickly using only tracers. I've tried numerous times to mag dump several mags in a row of regular military ammo in order to try and replicate a cook-off and have never been successful. |
Tracers ignite after leaving the barrel unless you shoot some crappy gunshow reload tracers. They do not cause cook offs or erode the bore due to compound ignition. However, their salts can be corrosive to the bore. It's just not the heat that is. |
That's correct... Secret...sshhh...The big reason this (and other simple stuff) doesn't endup in a report is that the info wasn't a desired output...ie, not the reason for the test....just an interesting sidenote to folks who pay attention. There is no army requirement to fire tracers (steel jacket) 100% in a rifle. Hotgun |
They don't, there is an igniter material that burns for a short time and that lights the trace compound about 75-100 meters out of the barrel. |
That's funny, brouhaha and tatjana observed otherwise: "Tracer elements appear to light IMMEDIATELY (10-20 meters) after exiting the barrel. Much past discussion about a 50-100 meter delay (including field manual notes) seems to be inaccurate. " From here. Just speculation here, but a tracer has to ignite before leaving the barrel even if it isn't producing light yet. If it wasn't at least ignited it wouldn't burn after leaving the barrel when the source of combustion is extinguished. |
Have you ever shot tracers? M856 clearly ignites well after leaving the barrel. The source of ignition on many tracers is not the powder charge. Some older tracers were less consistent about this. |
WELL after leaving the barrel. I was shooting some a few weeks back, and I could barely get them to ignite before hitting the 200 yard GONG. |
Hey, I'm just telling you what they said. I'm sure they didn't get to be well-respected experts in this field by making this stuff up...
|
Heat and O2 exposure combine, one of which does not fully occur until it leaves the barrel. And they also often don't reach their top temp (and glow), until a little way out. Thus the argument that the "heat from the tracer" is ruining the inside of the barrel doesn't make much sense. |
| Well, obviously there's a type of "fuse" that ends up igniting the tracing compound, but that ignition shouldn't be a significant additional source of heat. The heat would translate into light, and that would be visible during the bullet's flight before the tracing compound itself ignites. In short - whatever is resposible for ingniting the tracing compound ought not contribute to significant heating as compared to the tracing compound itself burning. |
I think we might be saying the same thing... however, the "source" of the ignition is most definitely the powder charge. This is exactly why, when handloading tracers, some powders will ignite the tracer compound, and some wont. There is no other source of ignition, other than the powder charge. It may ignite an intermediate compound before the light emitting tracer material ignites, or not. But in any case, the powder is the ignition source. |
|
Tracers are usually made from a mixture of strontium salts and a metal fuel such as magnesium. This yields a bright red light. Russian and Chinese tracer ammunition generates green light using barium salts. Because tracer light is visible to other combatants, the shooter's position is often disclosed. To prevent this, most modern tracers have a 'delay element' that results in the tracer becoming visible some distance from the muzzle. Thus, the visible burning would occur only outside the muzzle. |
Yup, we're in agreement. I should have used a better word 
|
AR Sponsor