This is a discussion on Brass vs. Steel Cased Ammo – An Epic Torture Test within the Ammunition forums, part of the M14 M1A Forum category; Comprehensive article here:
It certainly gave me pause. I have had no problems with TulAmmo in AR, Mini, or SCAR. However, I don't shoot 300/500/1K rounds back to back in the conditions of the test either.... more like 30 rounds or less over the course of a minute or two during a 3-gun stage, then the gun cools completely before the next run. I'm QUITE surprised how badly the barrels were damaged under the test conditions. I wonder what it is about the situation that creates such damage... whether it's heat or abrasion or both. Fascinating stuff.
I only saw three barrels cut, did I miss something or are the holding back information. Seems odd. If there is no comparison with all the barrels involved. I say BS. If I have missed it in the thread forget you have seen this. Packing PS. Good Guns deserve better than cheep steel ammo
Last edited by Packing a 45; January 17th, 2013 at 01:30 PM.
Reason: Wanted too add to it.
I disagree with the authors in article text bubble:
It is a commonly held belief that the coatings exist to provide additional lubricity, or “slickness,” to the steel cases. In fact, their primary purpose is to inhibit rust. As the United States Army discovered with a test of steel cased ammunition in the 1960s, uncoated steel cased ammunition was prone to rusting. Due in no small part to the coatings, we had no problems with rust during the test.
If you read that report, the rust on the lacquered steel case ammunition was worse than the uncoated! Coating on steel cased ammunition is to reduce rust and to break the friction between the case and the chamber, something that the authors ignored in their next referenced report:
Beyond these differences, though, is it possible that extraction of Tula – and possibly other ammo – could be made easier by adjusting the pressure curve? A clever test conducted by the US Army’s TACOM and presented at NDIA in 2003 may have the answer. Titled “Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons,” the test concluded that the extractor lifts off the rim of the case during initial rearward travel, but that residual chamber pressure holds the case against the bolt face until the extractor returns to the case rim.
In the referenced report the Army had failures to extract with unlubricated cases but the lubricated cases extracted. Showing that even with brass cases, breaking the friction between case and chamber improves function.
The US Army developed teflon coating for experimental steel cases in the 1950's. At the time the cost of the steel cases and coatings were higher than brass cases so the whole experiment was abandoned. But considering how expensive brass is now, I wonder if the Army will be issuing steel case for 223 and 308 in the future.