Steel-Cased 9mm And Extractor

[Jaywalker]

I ran a couple of boxes of steel-cased 9mm through my new Glock G19 Gen4. The ammo functioned well, but I have a question regarding the extractor.

It gave an odd ejection pattern. The first 10 rounds or so the pattern was erratic - two cases in a row would go to the same place, then two would go someplace else, then repeat three more times. After that, however, the pattern changed and all cases fell randomly in an area approximately three feet across and centered about four feet away at 4 o'clock.

I like that better than all the stories I've read about erratic ejection, but it makes me wonder about the effect of steel cases on the extractor. It appears that something has changed on the extractor - have the steel cases made a change that wouldn't have happened with brass?

For comparison, my new PPQ never had the paired cases I mentioned with the G19. Its pattern started and stayed about five feet out at 4 o'clock and stayed in a 5-foot circle.

[WDW]

Welcome to the world of random ass Glock 9mm ejection. It's why I now shoot Gen 4 Glocks in .40 exclusively.

[Joseph B.]

I wouldn't think it would be the extractor, but more so the ejector. Steel case ammo can damage the ejector faster than brass over a period of time. But something that would take a large amount of ammo to see significant change. Also Steel is harder than brass, as it is pulled back into the ejector, it will have a different effect than how brass will, causing a different ejection pattern than it would be with brass.

[Jaywalker]

Got it - ejector over a longer term, not extractor, and not likely after 100 rounds or so. Thanks.

[Joseph B.]

Still need to inspect and service the extractor (just like the rest of the pistol), I just wouldn't expect one to break or show excessive wear from steel case ammo. One way an extractor will get jacked up/broken is releasing the slide on a round in the chamber. The way the extractor is designed is for the round to strip off the magazine, and as it slides into the chamber, the rim of the case slides under the extractor claw. Always chamber a round from the magazine, and than top off the magazine if so inclined to do so.

[JonInWA]

I wouldn't think it would be the extractor, but more so the ejector. Steel case ammo can damage the ejector faster than brass over a period of time. But something that would take a large amount of ammo to see significant change. Also Steel is harder than brass, as it is pulled back into the ejector, it will have a different effect than how brass will, causing a different ejection pattern than it would be with brass.

I've seen and heard this though on steel-cased ammunition being unduly wearing/damaging to extractors, and I'm frankly skeptical. It's my understanding that the steel used in such ammunition is mild rolled steel, which is softer, than, say, nickle-plated cartridges-and I've never heard of anyone complaining of nickle-coated cartridge casings unduly wearing extractors.

Problems that I have experienced with older Russian steel-cased ammunition was when, back in the day, it was lacquer-coated, which would soften and leave deposits in the firing chamber, etc. under use. The contemporary production stuff has been polymer-coated for some years, solving the previous issues.

Tula ammunition I'll stay away from, but but that has to do with observed erratic loadings in my experience-within a given box-not due to any issues with the steel cartridge material per se.

Best, Jon

[Joseph B.]

I am not sure I am following your post, are you saying that steel on steel will not cause more wear from prolonged use than brass on steel? Or that its not something to be worried about? I would agree that its not something to worry about, if that is what you're trying to say.

[JonInWA]

That it's not something you need to worry about was the point I was making (or at least trying to).

Best, Jon

[Casual Friday]

If you're shooting enough to wear out an extractor and/or ejector with steel case ammo, you can afford to replace them both.

Me personally, I've probably paid to remodel a wing in the Kremlin with as much Wolf and Tula that I've ran through my pistols and AR with no discernible increase in wear.

[Chuck Haggard]

Wait, Russian ammo fixes crappy Glock ejection?


Woulda never guessed it was that simple.

[ST911]

I don't find this erratic-ejection thing of much concern until it stops the guns. Especially when reported without much meaningful definition, detail, or diagnosis. Nonetheless, it's en vogue these days, despite what many are seeing being present for years in various gun...including Glocks 9mm.

To the topic at hand: I just got a bunch (>1k) of Herters-branded TulAmmo. I'll do some extraction assessment and post results.

[Chuck Haggard]

I don't find this erratic-ejection thing of much concern until it stops the guns. Especially when reported without much meaningful definition, detail, or diagnosis. Nonetheless, it's en vogue these days, despite what many are seeing being present for years in various gun...including Glocks 9mm.

To the topic at hand: I just got a bunch (>1k) of Herters-branded TulAmmo. I'll do some extraction assessment and post results.

I agree, to a point, however a bunch of the erratic ejection I have seen that doesn't cause stoppages will be the spent brass that beats the shooter about the head, neck and shoulders.

When I have play around range time, which has been sparse lately, I have noted that quite a few Glock 9mms will do this. My two example of Glock .40 with 9mm conversion barrels do not do this.

Trying to figure out the variable, and see if it is as simple as the 9mm vs .40 ejector.

[Wayne Dobbs]

Erratic Glock ejection is not really about the ejector, but about really poor/inconsistent extractor performance. The extractor has three jobs to perform during the firing cycle. First, it must receive a feeding round of ammo from the magazine as it's stripped from the magazine by the feed rail on the underside of the slide. After receiving the round, it controls and steers it into the chamber. Second, it must do what we call it an extractor for: it must extract a fired case from the chamber in preparation for ejection and the beginning of the counter-recoil cycle. Third, it must maintain tension of the fired case against the breech face until the case contacts the ejector for ejection.

The problem we frequently encounter with the Glock platform is that while it takes care of the first job with aplomb, it can be shaky with the second and downright horrible with the third job. When you see erratic ejection, you are witnessing the result of the extractor losing tension on the fired case and therefore presenting it to the ejector at various levels of tension and various attitudes of rim positioning relative to the nose of the ejector. When no tension exists, we see various "stovepipe" and inline stoppages and when some tension is there it results in what Nyeti calls "lawn sprinkler" ejection. It's been a Glock problem for a very long time. The extractor is a critical part on any controlled feed system and Glock's is marginal at best. The gun is actually using the feed stack in the magazine to do lots of the ejector's job, since the extractor is losing tension on the case much of the time.

The 9mm fix is here: buy an HK P30! That's Nyeti's line and he does have more HKs than the law allows, but most folks aren't going to spend that much money on a plastic pistol. Randy Lee of Apex Tactical has the best fix for the 3rd and 4th Gen 9mm guns. His Failure Resistant Extractor (with new extractor depressor spring), combined with a non-LCI plunger bearing AND a 4th Gen ejector (30274) has fixed several of my Glock 9mm pistols. Randy is quick to say that some of these guns have dimension variances that defy "fixing" and Nyeti and I have seen one of these guns, which we termed "The Spawn of Satan". Randy is working on extractors for the .40 caliber pistols right now, but after lots of struggle and lots of testing the general cure seems to be here.

My guns so tweaked will all pass a very demanding extraction test 100% now.

[justintime]

I had two spawn of satans lol. I have never noticed the pattern changing with steel ammo, I would assume it is just a gun with erratic ejection. One of mine started btf issues after over 1k of shooting. Try cleaning the extractor and tunnel and see if that helps, then begin the "process"

[ST911]

gen4 G19, ~8500rds to date. It got a new RSA at ~7800rds.
177rds Herters-Tula 115 FMJ. 3x FAST, D5s at various distances, and two qual courses.
2x case ejections to the rear. 1 struck the brim of my hat.
1x case ejection striking my shooting hand.
All others weren't anything I took notice of.
No stoppages.

I've also had some similar ejection from low-end 115gr fmj training ammo, such as WWB, Blazer, etc. The steel Tula didn't seem any different than those and runs well in this gun. (I've shot much more of it than the 177 today, no notes on ejection though.)

[balance]

A lot of people believe that steel casings will damage the extractor. This is usually shot down by people saying that the steel used in steel casings is "soft" steel, but from what I've gathered on the subject, it isn't the material itself that damages the extractor, it is the strain put on the extractor to extract the casing, as steel tends to stick to the chamber more while brass casings slide out more easily, which tends to reduce the risk of issues like what the OP experienced. Generally, the easier the casing slides in and out of the chamber, the more reliable the pistols will be, which, from what I've gathered, is a reason some ammunition manufacturers use nickel plated brass for their defensive ammunition.

I've heard of reports of steel casings sticking in the chamber of Walther PPQ and H&K P30 pistols, which were otherwise reliable with brass-cased ammunition. In all three cases I've heard of this happening, the owners of the pistols needed to use a cleaning rod to punch the empty casing out of the chamber. Both models of pistols use straight-walled stepped-chambers on their 9mm models. H&K specifically states in the P30 manual that only quality brass cased ammunition should be used in the P30, for safe and reliable function. It states that the pistol was "optimized" for brass-cased ammunition.

I'm assuming the steel casings sticking to the chamber is why. This may be why the more tapered AK chamber accepts steel casings more reliably than the more straight-walled AR chamber.

[LittleLebowski]

I run steel cased through carbines and handguns. Haven't broken an extractor yet, no problems. I think it's silly to worry about a cheap part like that compared to the cost savings.

[KevinB]

I run steel cased through carbines and handguns. Haven't broken an extractor yet, no problems. I think it's silly to worry about a cheap part like that compared to the cost savings.

I mean its only your life...

You kill me bro.

[LittleLebowski]

I mean its only your life...

You kill me bro.

I don't carry with steel cased, don't worry but I think the risk from steel cased is greatly exaggerated. My 5.45 AR's extractor is working on 27k rds at this point.

Also, PM sent :D

[Chuck_S]

I've long subscribed to the duty gun - practice gun school of thought. Duty and practice pistols should match.

I put thousands of rounds -- include steel cased/jacketed -- thru my training/practice pistols. My duty/carry pistols have little wear and tear to maintain reliability. Loosing an extractor makes the pistol a one shot device.

I ran 2000 rounds of 9mm Wolf thru my Government Model (9mm, of course) in a weekend course a couple of years ago with the only bobble well after 1000 rounds. Yep. failure to extract. Quick cleaning included removing the extractor and cleaning under it and was done in a matter of minutes. Try pulling the extractor on a more modern design in that period of time.

-- Chuck

[JV_]

Quick cleaning included removing the extractor and cleaning under it and was done in a matter of minutes. Try pulling the extractor on a more modern design in that period of time.I'm pretty sure I can pull the extractor out of my Glock in less than 15 seconds.

[BLR]

Actually, there are some real pluses for steel cases and bullet cores, beyond just cost.

Even in terms of reloading.



Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

Actually, there are some real pluses for steel cases and bullet cores, beyond just cost.

Even in terms of reloading.

Sent from my SGH-T889 using Tapatalk

Enlighten me, bro.

[BLR]

Steel is a more elastic material (even the low carbon, probably leaded - though if it isn't it should be - steel used in ammunition) than aluminum or brass. Steel, IMO, has really one significant downside when compared with aluminum or brass - corrosion. That's why it is always lacquered/polymer coated/whatever. And that is where the problems arise, cases sticking in the chamber because of that coating. There are cost effective ways around that, too.

Anyway, with steel, you get a more dimensionally stable and stronger case head and rim. That is universally a good thing, to me at least. Steel is much more tolerant to out of spec/excessively loose chambers. Corrosion cracking from long term storage. Primer pockets are less prone to enlarging (first reason you can't reload Al cases). Thinning of the case web is less prone (second reason you can't reload Al). Case walls can/are be made thinner, thus increasing capacity and/or lowering chamber pressure for a given velocity. Steel cases can be reloaded far more often before a failure is seen.

The downside: you'll want carbide dies (I use those anyway).

[Wendell]

What chambering(s) can one reload using steel cases? Do some (i.e.: straight wall vs. tapered) work better than others?

[ST911]

gen4 G26, ~2000rds to date.
150rds Herters-Tula 115 FMJ fired today. Several drills rapidly fired.
Nothing noteworthy about the ejection.

[LSP972]

Steel is a more elastic material (even the low carbon, probably leaded - though if it isn't it should be - steel used in ammunition) than... brass.

Do you have documented proof of that, or is it just your opinion? Because I don't buy it for a second.

If that were true, then steel would have been "selected" for cartridge case material as soon as steel refining/manufacturing techniques caught up with advances in ammunition. The one time the US government tried steel cases (1943, .45ACP ammunition), the boxes were clearly marked "Not For Use in Combat" or something similar. And from what reports I've read, it wasn't only because the cases might/could rust.

Brass is better because, while both materials obturate enough to seal the chamber upon firing, brass "springs back" (de-expands a bit) making extraction easier. The steel usually doesn't.

I don't doubt that you have successfully reloaded steel cases. For that matter, I know folks who have reloaded Blazer aluminum cases back when they were Berdan primed, via simply running them through a carbide die and punching a new flash hole. But just because you can do something doesn't make it a good idea.

.

[BLR]

Do you have documented proof of that, or is it just your opinion? Because I don't buy it for a second.

If that were true, then steel would have been "selected" for cartridge case material as soon as steel refining/manufacturing techniques caught up with advances in ammunition. The one time the US government tried steel cases (1943, .45ACP ammunition), the boxes were clearly marked "Not For Use in Combat" or something similar. And from what reports I've read, it wasn't only because the cases might/could rust.

Brass is better because, while both materials obturate enough to seal the chamber upon firing, brass "springs back" (de-expands a bit) making extraction easier. The steel usually doesn't.

I don't doubt that you have successfully reloaded steel cases. For that matter, I know folks who have reloaded Blazer aluminum cases back when they were Berdan primed, via simply running them through a carbide die and punching a new flash hole. But just because you can do something doesn't make it a good idea.

.

You can believe whatever you like.

[LSP972]

You can believe whatever you like.

Indeed I can. But you made the statement that steel is more elastic than brass. I asked for proof of that… because it flies in the face of everything I know about reloading and cartridge case material.

.

[BLR]

Indeed I can. But you made the statement that steel is more elastic than brass. I asked for proof of that… because it flies in the face of everything I know about reloading and cartridge case material.

.

Educating you and debunking firearms mythology is not my job. You want proof - go to engineering school. You will learn all about stress, strain, strain rate, and Young's Modulus there.

The last time I got into debunking a firearms myth here, I got 20 pages of grief, was accused of making "gun store arguments," was told that "right now, everyone on the internet is laughing at you," and so on.

LL asked me a question, I should have answered it via email.

[LSP972]

Educating you and debunking firearms mythology is not my job.

But of course its not.

However, given all that grief you received last time (which I don't recall, and isn't relevant here in any event), I would think you would want to reinforce your credibility. Guess not.

Thanks, you answered my question.:rolleyes:

.

[LittleLebowski]

I will say that if 1911guy has the time to expound, I am certain that he can answer your questions, LSP972.

[JodyH]

It's my understanding that brass expands and contracts at a faster rate than steel and it's "slicker" than steel. I would think the polymer or lacquer coatings they apply for corrosion/lubricity would be hard to maintain dimensions with as well.
Probably the best steel I've run is the zinc plated stuff, but there's a fine black powder coating the cases that gets on everything.

[BLR]

My apologies for the curt and unprofessional response.

Your answer lies in the ratio between modulus and ultimate tensile strength. Brass, like most metals, hangs around 0.2%, while many steels are in excess of 1%. This is why most springs are steel, not brass. That and cost.

Brass is preferred by many for cartridge cases due to ease of forming (deep drawing brass is easier, meaning less expensive dies and machines), and less prone to corrosion (meaning no need for laquering - which is the sticking point for steel cases). Steel is also able to be reloaded more times before embrittling thru strain hardening (this is the lower fatigue limit, if you demand proof of that, start at wiki).

LSP972 - my credibility is not subject in this forum. I don't give a hoot if you or 90% of the rest of the audience here thinks I'm full of it or not. My credibility is built by publications in professional journals, and by my patents. The people on this forum whose opinion matters to me, need no further evidence of my credibility.

[Sparks2112]

LSP972 - my credibility is not subject in this forum. I don't give a hoot if you or 90% of the rest of the audience here thinks I'm full of it or not. My credibility is built by publications in professional journals, and by my patents. The people on this forum whose opinion matters to me, need no further evidence of my credibility.

I can't decide what's more amusing to me, when someone tells you you don't know what you're talking about, or if they tell Sean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

You need to call me back, FYI. I need your ransom rest skills. ;)

[BLR]

Will call after lunch. Going to be a liquid lunch today.

Dealing with students, a dept chair that says I'm not nurturing enough (though admittedly, if students had wings, I'd get no end of pleasure at pulling them off), and I don't have enough ammo for tonight. Guess which is highest on my priority list right now.

Just remember though, I am manipulating materials on the nano/atomic level to make reactive armor (among other things) ...but I'm not qualified to comment on brass, steel, or the inner workings of 1911s. ;)

[Chuck Haggard]

I really enjoy when the threads get all engineeree and whatnot. I learn something every time that happens.

[KevinB]

I really enjoy when the threads get all engineeree and whatnot. I learn something every time that happens.
Yeah...

1911Guy - not trying to call you out - but some of that is 180 from what some of our Engineers and Materials guys have told me about Brass and Steel.
Mainly obturation times. Brass as I understand it contracts faster and more uniformly than the steel.
Steel is also generally harder than brass - thus you are trying to force a harder object that is more firmly adhered to the chamber when using steel cased ammo. Russian cartridges generally have a much more aggressive taper on the case due to being steel.

[BLR]

Yeah...

1911Guy - not trying to call you out - but some of that is 180 from what some of our Engineers and Materials guys have told me about Brass and Steel.
Mainly obturation times. Brass as I understand it contracts faster and more uniformly than the steel.
Steel is also generally harder than brass - thus you are trying to force a harder object that is more firmly adhered to the chamber when using steel cased ammo. Russian cartridges generally have a much more aggressive taper on the case due to being steel.

Like everything in life, what's simple on the surface is complicated underneath.

Ordnance brass, which is 70/30 copper/zinc, is chosen because it undergoes minimal work hardening. This allows nearly full formation of the case without stress relief/annealing during manufacturing. Lots of information is available on the mechanical and chemical properties of this material. Those beneficial to to forming and those beneficial to firing are not necessarily related. Brass, generically, has a fairly low modulus of elasticity when compared to steel. Or the 2024 T6 aluminum used in cartridge cases.

The rate of contraction for brass/steel would be a Hook's law/Young's Modulus problem, but on the surface of it, I'd not tend to think there is much if any significant contraction rate difference considering chamber pressure would determine that, and the bullet leaves the barrel with pressure still applied to the case walls. Though if brass was a "faster" spring, it would be used in valve trains (like F1 cars, where that really matters). I would really expect the opposite as you described - especially if we are assuming steel is "harder."

And you are correct, steel is generally harder than brass. Unless you are talking about annealed 1018 or especially 1018 leaded steel when compare with a nickel brass. That can be butter soft, needing a B scale for a Rockwell test. Notice how Olin brass is a different hardness than ATK brass? Or Norma cases vs Hornady vs Winchester vs LC? But hardness would be more of a factor in manufacturing, not shooting, I would think.

As for the Russian case design, that has more to do with easing extraction in less than great conditions than the steel case material. A highly tapered case is historically done for adverse conditions, most notably the Holland and Holland magnums (300 and 375). And that only makes sense considering the clientele for Russian arms and ammunition. Most metals, even when taken past their yield point, will "spring" back enough to allow extraction as we accept it. In fact, unless we are talking about something really odd, like lead or zinc, there won't me much difference between them until you take into account fatigue. Though I'd love to hear whoever told you brass springs back more uniformly than steel. I would offer that is largely due to any work hardening/annealing issues (assuming a concentric case wall), rather than a material issue itself.

I suspect we use brass for two reasons. First, us reloaders wouldn't touch steel because of a tooling change, and reloaders are typically really tight assed. Second, if you are a Russian ammo plant, and make 3 cases (5.45, 7.62, and 9mm, for example) the tooling/machine cost is small compared to the material cost. If you are Starline, and make 100 different calibers, tooling quickly outpaces material costs.

I truly believe that the lacquer/paint/whatever is the source of nearly all the issues with steel. Not the steel itself.

I don't mean to indict what you were told, as it was likely a similar situation as this. I made some generalizations, and of course, some assumptions; which are by no measure 100% universal.

[LSP972]

Your answer lies in the ratio between modulus and ultimate tensile strength. Brass, like most metals, hangs around 0.2%, while many steels are in excess of 1%. This is why most springs are steel, not brass. That and cost.


LSP972 - my credibility is not subject in this forum. I don't give a hoot if you or 90% of the rest of the audience here thinks I'm full of it or not. My credibility is built by publications in professional journals, and by my patents. The people on this forum whose opinion matters to me, need no further evidence of my credibility.

Fair enough.

To be clear… you're saying that, even though steel is more "elastic" (and therefore more suitable for cartridge case material), brass is the preferred metal for that purpose because it is easier to manufacture (I'm assuming that due to your reference to "drawing")?

I have a call into an acquaintance at one of the "Big Three" ammunition firms, who has access to all their engineering data. I'll be interested to see what he says.

.

[Savage Hands]

I don't find this erratic-ejection thing of much concern until it stops the guns. Especially when reported without much meaningful definition, detail, or diagnosis. Nonetheless, it's en vogue these days, despite what many are seeing being present for years in various gun...including Glocks 9mm.

To the topic at hand: I just got a bunch (>1k) of Herters-branded TulAmmo. I'll do some extraction assessment and post results.



I'll define the erratic ejection I originally had with my early 2012 made Gen 4 G19... It went all directions including 9 o'clock a few times (How the heck did it do that?), straight up and the worse was forcefully to my right eye.

[JodyH]

Egg heads... :p

[BLR]

Fair enough.

To be clear… you're saying that, even though steel is more "elastic" (and therefore more suitable for cartridge case material), brass is the preferred metal for that purpose because it is easier to manufacture (I'm assuming that due to your reference to "drawing")?

I have a call into an acquaintance at one of the "Big Three" ammunition firms, who has access to all their engineering data. I'll be interested to see what he says.

.

I would whole heartedly encourage you to do so. Though, you'd be better off talking to an engineer, not just someone with data. After all, interpreting the data is the tricky part.

BTW, there is no need for the parentheses around drawing. It's not a term I came up with: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drawing_(manufacturing). Cartridge cases are drawn.

[Jaywalker]

1911Guy: Though I'd love to hear whoever told you brass springs back more uniformly than steel. In my case (by PM), it happened so long ago it has fallen into the category of "I've always known that steel springs back less." I thought it had been from a decades-old materials class, but it could well have been a gun writer whom I assumed knew what he was talking about. I hope this doesn't mean I now have to consider reloading steel - its two main advantages were "cheap" and "I don't have to pick them up and bring them home."

[JBP55]

Young's modulus can be used to predict the elongation or compression of an object.

Modulus of Elasticity for some common metals at various temperatures according ASME B31.1-1995 are indicated below:

metals - modulus of elasticity diagram

1 psi (lb/in2) = 1 psi (lb/in2) = 144 psf (lbf/ft2) = 6,894.8 Pa (N/m2) = 6.895x10-3 N/mm2
T(oC) = 5/9[T(oF) - 32]

Young's Modulus of Elasticity - E - (106 psi)
Metal Temperature (oC)
-200 -129 -73 21 93 149 204 260 316 371 427 482 538 593 649
Temperature (oF)
-325 -200 -100 70 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200
Cast iron
Gray cast iron 13.4 13.2 12.9 12.6 12.2 11.7 11.0 10.2
Steel
Carbon steel C <= 0.3% 31.4 30.8 30.2 29.5 28.8 28.3 27.7 27.3 26.7 25.5 24.2 22.4 20.4 18.0
Carbon steel C => 0.3% 31.2 30.6 30.0 29.3 28.6 28.1 27.5 27.1 26.5 25.3 24.0 22.2 20.2 17.9 15.4
Carbon-moly steels 31.1 30.5 29.9 29.2 28.5 28.0 27.4 27.0 26.4 25.3 23.9 22.2 20.1 17.8 15.3
Nickel steels Ni 2% - 9% 29.6 29.1 28.5 27.8 27.1 26.7 26.1 25.7 25.2 24.6 23.0
Cr-Mo steels Cr 1/2% - 2% 31.6 31.0 30.4 29.7 29.0 28.5 27.9 27.5 26.9 26.3 25.5 24.8 23.9 23.0 21.8
Cr-Mo steels Cr 2 1/4% - 3% 32.6 32.0 31.4 30.6 29.8 29.4 28.8 28.3 27.7 27.1 26.3 25.6 24.6 23.7 22.5
Cr-Mo steels Cr 5% - 9% 32.9 32.3 31.7 30.9 30.1 29.7 29.0 28.6 28.0 27.3 26.1 24.7 22.7 20.4 18.2
Chromium steels Cr 12%, 17%, 27% 31.2 30.7 30.1 29.2 28.5 27.9 27.3 26.7 26.1 25.6 24.7 23.2 21.5 19.1 16.6
Austenitic steels (TP304, 310, 316, 321, 347) 30.3 29.7 29.1 28.3 27.6 27.0 26.5 25.8 25.3 24.8 24.1 23.5 22.8 22.1 21.2
Copper and copper alloys
Comp. and leaded-Sn bronze (C83600, C92200) 14.8 14.6 14.4 14.0 13.7 13.4 13.2 12.9 12.5 12.0
Naval brass Si & Al bronze (C46400, C65500, C95200, C95400) 15.9 15.6 15.4 15.0 14.6 14.4 14.1 13.8 13.4 12.8
Copper (C11000) 16.9 16.6 16.5 16.0 15.6 15.4 15.0 14.7 14.2 13.7
Copper red brass Al-bronze (C10200, C12000, C12200, C12500, C14200, C23000, C61400) 18.0 17.7 17.5 17.0 16.6 16.3 16.0 15.6 15.1 14.5
Nickel and Nickel Alloys
Monel 400 (N04400) 27.8 27.3 26.8 26.0 25.4 25.0 24.7 24.3 24.1 23.7 23.1 22.6 22.1 21.7 21.2
Titanium
Unalloyed titanium grades 1, 2, 3 and 7 15.5 15.0 14.6 14.0 13.3 12.6 11.9 11.2
Aluminum and aluminum alloys
Grades 443, 1060, 1100, 3003, 3004, 6063 11.1 10.8 10.5 10.0 9.6 9.2 8.7

[BLR]

Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_%28engineering%29

Notice that one of the steels has a lower Modulus and UTS compared to brass.

Hmmmm. Maybe that PhD Materials Engineer knows a little something about materials engineering. ;)

[Chuck Haggard]

Start here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yield_%28engineering%29

Notice that one of the steels has a lower Modulus and UTS compared to brass.

Hmmmm. Maybe that PhD Materials Engineer knows a little something about materials engineering. ;)

I thought you guys used math, all I see is numbers and such.


I told the teacher once that he din't know nuttin, everybody knows pie are round and cake are squared.

[LSP972]

I would whole heartedly encourage you to do so. Though, you'd be better off talking to an engineer, not just someone with data.

I know cases are drawn. I was trying to emphasize your statement, not ridicule it.

And I did indeed talk to an engineer; one heavily involved in the entire cartridge development process. He bent my ear for quite a while, but these are the high points:

1. He said that the word "elastic" is a slippery term, but whatever word one uses, brass DOES obturate faster than steel; and more uniformly.

2. Steel can cause lots of other issues, among them galvanic reaction between the bullet jacket material and the steel case wall. He mentioned the exterior corrosion factor as well.

3. Steel does indeed cost less, but is harder on tooling, and combined with the other issues that can arise with steel, it is pretty much economically a wash for their (this particular firm's) production methods. Not only that, brass is just better overall from a quality control standpoint. He specifically stated that if steel made a "better" cartridge, they would not worry about the tooling costs and use it, because tooling costs are just a part of the overall picture.

My contact, who is quite a ways up the food chain at this firm, had this engineer fellow call me. Basically, with the exception of the easier production re brass and the corrosion issues re steel, what he told me is at odds with what you posted in this thread.

.

[BLR]

I know cases are drawn. I was trying to emphasize your statement, not ridicule it.

And I did indeed talk to an engineer; one heavily involved in the entire cartridge development process. He bent my ear for quite a while, but these are the high points:

1. He said that the word "elastic" is a slippery term, but whatever word one uses, brass DOES obturate faster than steel; and more uniformly. Your friends belief that the term elastic is slippery fills me with confidence on his expertise. How, exactly is that nebulous? Plastic deformation and elastic deformation are quite clearly defined.

2. Steel can cause lots of other issues, among them galvanic reaction between the bullet jacket material and the steel case wall. He mentioned the exterior corrosion factor as well. True enough, if the cartridges get wet. But the zinc in brass will do the same thing. That's what causes the whitish residue on corroded cases.

3. Steel does indeed cost less, but is harder on tooling, and combined with the other issues that can arise with steel, it is pretty much economically a wash for their (this particular firm's) production methods. Not only that, brass is just better overall from a quality control standpoint. He specifically stated that if steel made a "better" cartridge, they would not worry about the tooling costs and use it, because tooling costs are just a part of the overall picture. Um, ok. So if steel is economically a wash, why is Russian ammo almost always steel? Steel has a stigma about it. How is brass better overall from a QC stand point? Considering the absolutely massive amount of technical knowledge about steel, I find that hard to believe.

My contact, who is quite a ways up the food chain at this firm, had this engineer fellow call me. Basically, with the exception of the easier production re brass and the corrosion issues re steel, what he told me is at odds with what you posted in this thread. Cool. Did you get any insight into this, or am I just wrong? Did he happen to say how or why brass obturates faster? Or is it because some dude says?

.

You know, I had an "engineer" at a rather large firearms company explain to me how I was just so wrong when I told the design team that they ought to use bar stock for their bolt rather than forge it, since forging it gave them no additional strength. I then proceeded to tell them that heat treating after forging undid all the "grain alignment" and "toughening." They all just knew that forging was the way to go.

This reminds me of that.

I learned my lesson. Again.

[JodyH]

All I know is the vast majority of commercial ammunition is made out of brass and has been for 100 years, gotta be a sound reason for that.

[LSP972]

You know, I had an "engineer" at a rather large firearms company explain to me how I was just so wrong when I told the design team that they ought to use bar stock for their bolt rather than forge it, since forging it gave them no additional strength. I then proceeded to tell them that heat treating after forging undid all the "grain alignment" and "toughening." They all just knew that forging was the way to go.

This reminds me of that.

I learned my lesson. Again.

Whatever. All I know is, I spoke with a man who was referred to me by someone I KNOW is a high-ranking individual in this company. The phone number that called me is the same area code as the factory. So I have reason to believe he was indeed the development/production engineer he claimed to be. This firm, as stated earlier, is one of the "Big Three" ammunition producers in this country, and have been for a long, long time. Their product is well-respected and used by many. So, he being directly involved with the manufacture of huge quantities of quality ammo, am I to believe he doesn't know what he is talking about?

I don't know your pedigree, nor why some of your information is at odds with his. Don't care, really. In retrospect, I probably should have phrased my initial query to you to a bit differently; but your statement caught me off guard. You apologized for a gruff response, now I will apologize for a provocative query.

In the meantime, perhaps you should continue to reload steel cases, I'll avoid the things entirely, and we'll both be happy.

.

[balance]

This statement has me curious:


Steel, IMO, has really one significant downside when compared with aluminum or brass - corrosion. That's why it is always lacquered/polymer coated/whatever. And that is where the problems arise, cases sticking in the chamber because of that coating. There are cost effective ways around that, too.

What is the cost effective way around the lacquer coating of steel casings?

I'm also curious if this method has stopped the issue of steel casings sticking in chambers.

[BLR]

I don't know your pedigree, nor why some of your information is at odds with his. Don't care, really. In retrospect, I probably should have phrased my initial query to you to a bit differently; but your statement caught me off guard. You apologized for a gruff response, now I will apologize for a provocative query.

In the meantime, perhaps you should continue to reload steel cases, I'll avoid the things entirely, and we'll both be happy.

.

I don't reload or shoot steel. I never said I did.

My pedigree:
Bachelors in Chem Engineering, MS in Nuclear Engineering, MS in Materials Engineering, PhD in Materials Engineering.
Principal Engineer at Blackfire Engineering
Founder and Lead Engineer at SCNTE (Sustainable Carbon Nanotechnology and Engineering)

7 of my more recent publications can be found on the first page of this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bill+riehl&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=
Some more here, including some patent text:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bill+riehl+nano&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

I hold 4 patents.

Professor of Chemistry at Univ of Cincinnati, Prof of Engineering at Univ of Dayton, Guest Lecturer at Oxford University (UK).

I'm sure your friend and his "engineer" have similar, if not better backgrounds. And that the answers you were provided were well thought out, not the simple stock "I was told this by whomever" responses typical of industry that has not changed in 80 years. I'm sure the "engineer" you talked to delved into the Hoop Stress calculations he had done on brass vs steel cases, and the thickness differences of each wall. I'm sure he even told you which steel they investigated to make their determination, since he had all the data in front of him.

[LSP972]

I don't reload or shoot steel. I never said I did.

My pedigree:
Bachelors in Chem Engineering, MS in Nuclear Engineering, MS in Materials Engineering, PhD in Materials Engineering.
Principal Engineer at Blackfire Engineering
Founder and Lead Engineer at SCNTE (Sustainable Carbon Nanotechnology and Engineering)

7 of my more recent publications can be found on the first page of this:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=bill+riehl&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=
Some more here, including some patent text:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=bill+riehl+nano&btnG=&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C36

I hold 4 patents.

Professor of Chemistry at Univ of Cincinnati, Prof of Engineering at Univ of Dayton, Guest Lecturer at Oxford University (UK).

I'm sure your friend and his "engineer" have similar, if not better backgrounds. And that the answers you were provided were well thought out, not the simple stock "I was told this by whomever" responses typical of industry that has not changed in 80 years. I'm sure the "engineer" you talked to delved into the Hoop Stress calculations he had done on brass vs steel cases, and the thickness differences of each wall. I'm sure he even told you which steel they investigated to make their determination, since he had all the data in front of him.

Of course he didn't. He was dealing with a layman who wouldn't understand much of that.

But your "this reminds me of that" business works both ways.

Not long after we adopted Sig pistols, we were visited by a Sig USA branch suit with a Sig-Neuhausen German engineer in tow. When the suit asked if we had any suggestions for improvements, we made a few. The engineer scoffed and said we didn't understand weapon design. My boss asked him how much experience he had in shooting, carrying, and fighting with the P226.

Which, of course, was little, none, and none.

You have impressive creds. But I'm going with the guy who actually has hands-on time with making the stuff in question.

.

[ffhounddog]

Just to toss it out there but 45ACP and some 30 carbine ammo during WW2 was steel cased. US Military also had 30.06 in steel cases with teflon coating that was steel cased they were testing at Aberdeen Proving Ground. In the tests the teflon and steel cased worked just as well as brass cased ammo but 45-50% of it had budges on extraction firing from 1919 machine guns.

It has been used in the past just because it was not adopted does not mean it did not work. Ammo for DOD might be stored for 30-40 years, look at the old stock pf 50 cal ammo we were using in Iraq and the Stan.

I am not an Engineer nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn express.

[BLR]

So, is he a production/development engineer or a layman?

As for no experience in this particular field, I will post some pictures for you shortly. One of our projects recently finished is a lights of primer manufacturing line. I was PE on the formulating of the pellet, and second on the tooling for cup and anvil production.

Oh, I should mention I am a registered professional engineer in 27 states. I'm sure the layman is to. And I am sure the higher up has similar credentials.

[Sparks2112]

So, is he a production/development engineer or a layman?

As for no experience in this particular field, I will post some pictures for you shortly. One of our projects recently finished is a lights of primer manufacturing line. I was PE on the formulating of the pellet, and second on the tooling for cup and anvil production.

Oh, I should mention I am a registered professional engineer in 27 states. I'm sure the layman is to. And I am sure the higher up has similar credentials.

You know Bill, when engineers argue on the internet baby Jesus cries...

Why are you making baby Jesus cry Bill?

0:3D

[BLR]

Crying takes the sad out of you.

Call me, I'm going to make you sad RE: Delta Elites.

Found a P220 insert, no P226. Ordered it last night.

BTW, what is 0:3D mean???

[JodyH]

So I have reason to believe he was indeed the development/production engineer he claimed to be.

Of course he didn't. He was dealing with a layman who wouldn't understand much of that.

So, is he a production/development engineer or a layman?

I'm sure the layman is to. And I am sure the higher up has similar credentials.
I love it when someone throws down creds and then has a basic reading comprehension fail in the same thread.

[LSP972]

I love it when someone throws down creds and then has a basic reading comprehension fail in the same thread.

Yeah, I'm done with this. He said he didn't reload, either; so one wonders what he uses carbide dies for (his reference in post #24).

Interested parties can draw their own conclusions from this exchange; me, I'll continue to avoid steel cases.

.

[gtmtnbiker98]

I love it when someone throws down creds and then has a basic reading comprehension fail in the same thread.The condescending got in the way of comprehension.

[LittleLebowski]

And.....we're back to civility. Hooray!

[KevinB]

And.....we're back to civility. Hooray!

Hope I'm still here ;)


1911Guy - I'm not questioning your creds, what I was surprised about was that your comments different from what others have offered.

Secondly on a separate part, it also differs from what many people experience who run steel casings -- the fact that extractor wear shows more often than when using brass.

[Crow Hunter]

Now I don't have a dog in this fight and I will definitely defer to Dr. 1911guy about materials science.

But I am thinking there may be more that just the strength of the cases involved with the choice of brass vs steel.

Based on my infantile knowledge of firearms design, heat is a bad thing, particularly over sustained firing. One of the advantages of an ejecting case is that some portion of the heat generated in the firing is removed as the case is ejected getting that heat out of the system. The thermal conductivity of Cartridge Brass (UNS C26000) is roughly 2-3X higher than low Carbon steel according to this table. So the brass cases are more efficient at transferring heat from firing out of the system.

http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/thermal-conductivity-metals-d_858.html

I would think, that given identical firing intervals/loads that a weapon firing brass cased ammunition would be "cooler" than one firing steel cased ammo. Granted it will only be lower by a small amount as the total mass of brass being used as a heat sink is relatively insignificant but over time it would be additive.

I know in previous employment with tooling design for cutting 1040 & 1040V steels that getting the heat out of the cutting process by transferring it to the chip was very important to keeping our +/- 12 micron tolerances. If the chip wasn't blue when it hit the hopper, you did something wrong and chances were that the parts cut were not going to be the the size you thought you cut them to. :)

That being said, I don't have my materials science book in front of me, and haven't for years:o, so I don't know what grade of steel is used in cartridge cases nor do I know if it can be alloyed to increase the thermal conductivity.

I don't work in the firearms field so caveat emptor. ;)

[peterb]

I'm seeing two points of view here that don't necessarily conflict:

1) Steel, when appropriately selected and used, has the potential to be a good case material.

2) The most commonly-available steel-cased ammunition does not perform as well as good brass-cased ammunition.

Both can be true.

[BLR]

Hope I'm still here ;)


1911Guy - I'm not questioning your creds, what I was surprised about was that your comments different from what others have offered.

Secondly on a separate part, it also differs from what many people experience who run steel casings -- the fact that extractor wear shows more often than when using brass.

Ehh. I got trolled. And it was effective.

Rather than discuss the why, it became a pissing match with me being as active in it as any. Though I will say, I'm the only one who "threw down creds." And yeah, I misread something, but JodyH, so did LSP972. I never said I shot steel or reloaded it. And LSP972, carbide is more tolerant to abrasive contamination than tool steel dies. Since my presses are automated/progressive, the small increase in cost for a more tolerant to lack of cleanliness/lubrication and lower CoF for the dies seemed like a good idea. So you know, that is why most straight walled cartridge dies are carbide. Though, I'm not sure how I was more condescending than anyone else. But anyway.

As promised, some pictures (construction and operation pictures to follow in another thread if anyone is interested):


http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture1_zps164709da.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture1_zps164709da.png.html)

Iso view of a Lights Off Primer Production Line under construction.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture2_zps0e6ec571.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture2_zps0e6ec571.png.html)

Now some pics of the equipment:

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture16_zps391432ba.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture16_zps391432ba.png.html)

Extrusion and filming of the primer compound.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture19_zps7939e992.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture19_zps7939e992.png.html)

Cup production.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture3_zps2e877900.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture3_zps2e877900.png.html)

Foil meets the cups

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture18_zpsa4d95fe1.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture18_zpsa4d95fe1.png.html)

Some of the tooling

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture23_zps46c78a7c.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture23_zps46c78a7c.png.html)

Stock after the anvil is finish punched

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture27_zps4ed817ee.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture27_zps4ed817ee.png.html)

Anvils finish seated in the cups, final step is cutting the cups.

http://i1277.photobucket.com/albums/y491/feral45/Picture6_zps6d3e9f60.png (http://s1277.photobucket.com/user/feral45/media/Picture6_zps6d3e9f60.png.html)

Regarding extractor wear - sure. That's not hard to believe. Steel cased ammo is often the made in the cheapest fashion possible. Meaning alloys are inconsistent, finish (lacquer/polymer/whatever) is inconsistent, and case dimensions are inconsistent. As I said in my first post, and maybe it wasn't clear, steel as a material has some significant advantages over brass as a material. Nickel or copper washed steel cases would be better with corrosion, have stronger case heads, can obturate more elastically than brass, be lighter (20ish % IIRC), doesn't fatigue as quickly as brass, and strain hardens nicely. I am really confused as to where the obturation rate thing came from, as I've never heard of it before, and it run counter intuitively for me. A look at a stress-strain diagram indicates that brass, and most copper alloys would be more plastic than steel. In other words, like I said initially, steel as a material holds some meaningful advantages over brass. Steel ammo is often cheap stuff that can be hard on a gun. Heck, Post #24 was a pure materials discussion. The downsides to steel are the increased forces necessary in production as well as reloading, the greater abrasive wear on dies (hence the carbide die comment), the need for a finish (lacquer, copper, nickel, or whatever), and so on.

Kevin - let me ask you the question: forget what you've been told by me and everyone else about cartridge cases. Does it make sense to you that brass and steel will really expand/contract at different rates simply due to a material difference being a different material? I would suggest the physical properties govern this. I would also suggest extraction difficulties may be more of a finish issue. In other words, the lacquer/paint causing the case to adhere to the hot chamber during extraction. If brass and steel have similar yield and ultimate strengths, how could it be one obturates faster than the other? Won't that be governed by the chamber pressure? If you go to a materials handbook, or mechanical design handbook, is there mention of an obturation rate constant? Or are the governing equations based on the familiar constants of yield, ultimate, and strain rate?

My point in this is this: there are many observed issues with the use of steel cases. However, these issues are not an artifact of the steel, rather than the type (cheap) of ammunition steel is used in. I base my statements off of a review of the mechanical properties of 70/30 brass and 1018L steel, using the properties listed in Mark's Handbook and the corresponding equations.

[BLR]

Yeah, I'm done with this. He said he didn't reload, either; so one wonders what he uses carbide dies for (his reference in post #24).

Interested parties can draw their own conclusions from this exchange; me, I'll continue to avoid steel cases.

.

I said I didn't reload?

http://pistol-forum.com/showthread.php?8841-Ammo-huh

[LittleLebowski]

Secondly on a separate part, it also differs from what many people experience who run steel casings -- the fact that extractor wear shows more often than when using brass.

OK, why not just replace the sub $20 part every 5k rounds or so? Speaking of ARs and Glocks, that is.

[ffhounddog]

I would be interested in setting up a primer business but finding funds to start up is harder to get. Seems like that is where things are hard to find for reloaders and commerical remanufactuers.

[KevinB]

1911guy -- thanks for the explanation.

I'm tracking what your putting down. Very interesting.

[Doug]

OK, why not just replace the sub $20 part every 5k rounds or so? Speaking of ARs and Glocks, that is.

LL, On your 5.45 AR, is the extractor the same for 5.56? When running my 5.45AR in a class, my extractor was sheered off from a 7n6 round. S&W made me send the whole upper back and would not send me just the extractor. I seem to recall it is different. PM if more appropriate but am curious if you were able to locate extras.

PS This engineering talk is making me have fond PTSD flashbacks to engineering school and my state professional engineering registration exam years ago. Sounds like 1911guy could write a good exam question for his engineering students.

[nycnoob]

My point in this is this: there are many observed issues with the use of steel cases. However, these issues are not an artifact of the steel, rather than the type (cheap) of ammunition steel is used in.


Bill, I still do not understand. If steel is cheaper to use and can be made to the same quality, then why is it only used poorly. I would expect to see "high quality steel cased ammo".

[ToddG]

Bill, I still do not understand. If steel is cheaper to use and can be made to the same quality, then why is it only used poorly. I would expect to see "high quality steel cased ammo".

I'm not Bill, but presumably because people who opt to use steel for its cost savings aren't then going to turn around and use more expensive steel, eliminating the material cost benefit while still incurring the manufacturing cost penalty.

It's also not as simple as, "Hey that would work so let's switch." Look at aluminum cased ammo. Blazer is incredibly popular but only one major manufacturer produces aluminum-cased ammunition. Their competitors look at the margins, look at the cost of setting up a new (and different) production line, and look at the general acceptance of aluminum-cased ammo compared to brass-cased and the math tells them it's not worth the investment. Does that mean Blazer is bad? No. The fact that Win & Rem don't make aluminum-cased ammo doesn't mean Blazer is bad... but there are plenty of people who propagate the myth that it is.

[BLR]

Bill, I still do not understand. If steel is cheaper to use and can be made to the same quality, then why is it only used poorly. I would expect to see "high quality steel cased ammo".

Todd is spot on.

To say brass is better than steel, or vice versa, requires a number of assumptions. Manufacturing, raw materials, tooling, equipment, storage, and customer education all play a role. And again, saying one material has advantages over another does not mean I am saying it is far and away the best choice in all applications.

Re: Customer education -Think about how many people here knew Todd's extractor would lose tension after 5k (or whatever). When I had the gun in my hands, I thought it was over tensioned w/o being touched for how many tens of thousands of rounds? Think about the comments made in this thread - "We've used brass for 100 years. Therefore it's better." Well, yes. In many respects, brass is better. It doesn't require a coating. It has a lower CoF in contact with steel, than steel on steel. The industry is built around reusable brass. But that doesn't make it better in all respects. And my comment of steel has some real advantages quickly became Bill thinks cheap, lacquered steel ammo is better than brass.

Fact of the matter is this: Kevin's engineers and LSP972's buddy's engineer thought/think that brass obturates faster than steel. And then springs back faster. Not that the rate and effectiveness of that phenomena is governed by the yield strength, elastic limit, and plastic flow stress relationship to chamber pressure and wall thickness. And not to call all of them into question, how many looked at a stress strain curve when making that statement? Or even better, a hysteresis curve? Did they give thought to wall thickness in making their statements? A thicker case, all else equal will expand and contract less ideally. The thinner the cross section of a material, the more ideal (closer to theoretically ideal) it will behave. So wall thickness plays a significant role. The big tipping point is if the wall is less than 1/20th the radius of the cylinder (then you get to use thin wall principals).

As for the documented proof LSP972 asked for:
http://www3.nd.edu/~manufact/MPEM_pdf_files/Ch02.pdf

See page 8. Notice the shape of the yield point vs either cartridge brass (annealed/as received)? Notice how close the 1020 and annealed 70/30 track in the plastic region? Nearly everything needed to understand the brass vs steel argument in contained in that presentation...aside from the economics factor. I'd add a fatigue life chart, but I don't think anyone is going to argue brass fatigues faster than steel. Are they? Also, please note the hysteresis stress-strain plot. That is the most relevant plot for the cartridge case, as some plastic deformation happens when using both materials.

BWT, this is a great tutorial if you want to learn something on the subject and don't have a technical background.

Just because I said steel has some advantages, doesn't make me a steel advocate. It has some real advantages over brass. That doesn't make it a slam dunk in the real world. I will say this: the whole brass v steel obturation argument is baffling to me. I thought everyone knew the polymers used in most steel ammo melted on contact with the hot chambers that have residue from previous rounds, gluing themselves in. This is especially bad in straight walled cases, but tempered slightly in looser chambers with more tapered cases. While Hornady has other problems with their steel line, I do believe they made a step forward with the coating to minimize this. But like I said elsewhere, a cheap copper wash would be my starting place (but that would increase costs). By the way, the effect of the coating is worse in straight walled cases because the forces at play become predominately shear of the polymer, whereas with more tapered cases, the forces become more adhesion, which is a far weaker situation. Meaning a 556 will do worse with the coating than a 545. Significantly so.

Always apply first principals. Steel isn't wildly superior, and the advantages don't outweigh the changeover costs. As for steel winning out - it did. In Russia and China, and many other places, it did. Different design criteria lead to a different material choice being made.

[BLR]

I will also say this - much like today's CNC machines allow us to make parts that weren't cost effective 100 years ago with metals that didn't even exist 100 years ago, today's drawing and especially super-plastic forming, weren't around 100 years ago and would be interesting to explore production with those capabilities available.

Starting from scratch today (no existing tooling or machines, no bias, no reloading, and so on), it would be interesting how ammo would turn out, considering the sharp increases in the price of copper and lead in the last couple decades.

Speaking to other things that are known - how many times has it been said dropping the slide on a empty chamber batters a 1911, and especially the hammer and sear? That the round getting stripped from the magazine slows the slide down sufficiently. But no mention of the guy running a 10mm with a 22# recoil spring is made. I've been told that above myth by no less than 3 APG members, and two were industry pioneers. When I mentioned the 10mm and heavier springs, they just hemmed and hawed. Not to mention the hammer is over-cocked during the firing cycle significantly more than it will rebound if dropped on an empty chamber.

[KevinB]

Thank you very much for the education.

[ToddG]

Speaking to other things that are known

http://girlsgonegeek.files.wordpress.com/2013/11/it-is-known.jpg?w=334

[JodyH]

Thank you very much for the education.
I agree, good discussion.







finally :p

[LittleLebowski]

LL, On your 5.45 AR, is the extractor the same for 5.56? When running my 5.45AR in a class, my extractor was sheered off from a 7n6 round. S&W made me send the whole upper back and would not send me just the extractor. I seem to recall it is different. PM if more appropriate but am curious if you were able to locate extras.

PS This engineering talk is making me have fond PTSD flashbacks to engineering school and my state professional engineering registration exam years ago. Sounds like 1911guy could write a good exam question for his engineering students.

I don't think so; I'll get back with you tomorrow or tonight with a new thread.

[jkurtz7]

My own observation of steel cased ammo over about a 15 year period is this. I've never had an issue with it in any 9mm gun I've owned, that couldn't be attributed to the gun, and it was only one gun at that. My former Gen3 G26 never had a stoppage with steel, but gave erratic ejection, but so did all other ammo I ran in it.

I had an issue with steel in a Springfield 1911, but that gun had an issue with any type of ammo I tried to run through it so I got rid of the gun. In a Ruger P97, I had zero issues with Steel or brass cased ammo.

My Makarov was designed to run steel, so there has never been an issue there either.

I'll continue to buy and shoot steel cased ammo, it costs less than cheap brass cased range ammo, and the performance is the same for less $$$.

[LSP552]

1911guy,

Thanks for the educational discussion.

Ken

[nycnoob]

Iso view of a Lights Off Primer Production Line under construction.


the interesting question here, is not the physics lesson but when will this go live and I will see more ammo in the stores?

[BLR]

Been operational since Dec 2010.