PDA

View Full Version : Frangible: Damaging to barrels?



c4v3man
10-19-2011, 05:06 PM
I've spent more than a few hours researching frangible ammunition, since due to a move, I am no longer as close to BLM land, which I used to practice on. I purchased a new M&P 9mm, and was thinking about trying out the only indoor range in town, which is a few minutes away from where I live, as opposed to 30-40 minutes each way to get to BLM. They only use lead free frangible rounds, and the expense is about double that of regular ammunition. Honestly the price isn't a huge concern, I'm more concerned about the potential damage in the barrel from the use of sintered rounds? The reports I've read vary from damage due to the lead-free primers, which seems to be a non-issue nowadays due to changing the primer crimping and flash hole, but the bullets themselves seem to be damaging to barrels. One report talked about a competition shooter, who would begin to see a slight degradation in performance over 2000 rounds as opposed to over 10,000 rounds with standard fmj cartridges. Another police department had a report that indicated that barrels showed significant damage, with some barrels even becoming smooth, completely eroding the rifling. Another report for an indoor training area indicated that barrels needed to be replaced every 6 months.

I was curious of the opinions of others here as to the long-term ramifications of using frangible ammunition, especially in regards to pistols (as opposed to .223 chambered rifles, etc). Would be interesting to see the next 50,000 round pistol test conducted using frangible ammunition, to see how it affects wear and tear.

Link referenced (http://www.policemag.com/Blog/Firearms-And-Tactics/Story/2007/05/Frangible-Ammunition-for-Training-and-Safety-The-Good-and-The-Bad.aspx) above discussing barrel wear in military application.

Link referenced (http://www.xdtalk.com/forums/general-sa-xd-xd-m-talk/64343-frangible-ammo.html#post980752) above in relation to competition shooter wearing out barrels in 2,000 vs 10,000 rounds.

Tamara
10-19-2011, 07:30 PM
Well, I don't think all frangible ammo is made out of the same metals, for starters, which would make it hard to generalize.

John Hearne
10-19-2011, 09:36 PM
Although, it doesn't directly answer your question, I understand that there are some potentially serious health consequences to frangible. Apparently, the various metals in frangible are far worse for you than any lead round.

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 12:33 AM
Well, I don't think all frangible ammo is made out of the same metals, for starters, which would make it hard to generalize.
Fair enough, but I guess the question is since frangible rounds (and I'm referring to fully frangible rounds, not jacketed rounds with frangible materials on the inside) are designed to break upon hitting anything harder than itself, isn't it likely to leave granular residue inside the barrel, since the barrel itself is harder than the bullet? I've read where some shooters claim to be able to see a puff of smoke/frangibles at the end of the barrel when firing that looks different than traditional rounds.


Although, it doesn't directly answer your question, I understand that there are some potentially serious health consequences to frangible. Apparently, the various metals in frangible are far worse for you than any lead round.
I hadn't heard that directly, although I did read a post where they were complaining about the instructors using respirators during the course of fire, and how others were complaining about coughing, headaches, etc when being exposed to the rounds enough. My question regarding that would be that if it's more toxic, is only toxic if you're near where the bullet disintegrates, such as close range hard targets, or indoor simulations in enclosed areas (simulation apartment, etc).

This study (http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf&AD=ADA487506) would seem to indicate that simply being near where the weapon is being fired will expose you to more of certain substances, to be sure. The question then becomes whether or not pistol rounds (with obviously less powder, and at a lower velocity, and I believe a smaller primer if you're using a caliber that uses a small pistol primer) are similar enough to this study, which appears to be using a M16 (although I didn't look too closely at the weapon, so please don't hassle me too badly if I'm incorrect).


I guess the problem is that while the health benefits can be seen as documented, I haven't personally seen a study indicating that barrel wear is higher. It's all based on what "some guy on the internet said". I know it seems hypocritical to then ask a forum, full of "guys from the internet" for their experience/opinions, but I'm curious just the same.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 07:00 AM
Other than putting a half-case or so of PMC Green through my previous M4gery, my only serious exposure to frangibles was at that 3-day Todd Jarrett course at Blackwater. Since one of the sponsors of that shindig was International Cartridge, all the ammo was their "Green Elite" training ammo, which, to my understanding, uses a sintered and plated bullet.

I'd imagine that the plating would be enough to prevent the projectile from doing anything bad to the bore, and certainly the pistol's accuracy wasn't affected to any noticeable degree by the case, case-and-a-half of ammo put through it that weekend. (Because there's nothing that'll pile up a round count faster than shooting Other People's Ammunition. :cool: )

Shooting steel from retention distances is weird, and I doubt I'd make a hobby of it: You can feel the grains of the disintegrated projectiles coming back at you, like dust in the air on a windy day out west or at the beach... As John referenced, depending on the exact blend of powdered metals used to make the bullets, there could be shit in there that you really don't want sitting in your lungs in particle form.

On the other hand, you would probably need to do a LOT of shooting under those conditions for any serious exposure, and most people frankly just don't shoot that much. (For instance, I find myself a lot less worried about my blood lead level now that I don't work at an indoor range and am currently not reloading. It's hard to get significant buildups with my only exposure being weekly outdoor range sessions.)

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2011, 07:26 AM
I shoot several thousands of rounds per year of frangible rifle and pistol ammunition, and have yet to see any accelerated wear from it.

ToddG
10-20-2011, 08:20 AM
I've seen a number of pistol barrels that were completely ruined in less than 5,000 rounds of shooting frangible ammunition. The debris that explodes into the gun each time it's fired also has a more deleterious effect than normal ammunition. At the very least, I would get a dedicated "frangible" barrel and be as responsible as possible to clean it after every single range session. Better yet, a dedicated training gun would be a smart move.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 08:50 AM
I've seen a number of pistol barrels that were completely ruined in less than 5,000 rounds of shooting frangible ammunition. The debris that explodes into the gun each time it's fired also has a more deleterious effect than normal ammunition.

A particular brand/type? I know the chalky-looking bullets PMC uses appeared different in makeup from the plated ones from the ICC stuff. Obviously both you and Sean M have a shitload more experience with frangibles than me, and you're reporting differing results, and I'm wondering if that could be a factor.

ToddG
10-20-2011, 08:58 AM
Speer and Winchester.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 09:06 AM
I have no experience with either. Do they not use any kind of plating or coating to keep shit from ablating off the base of the bullet when fired or something?

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2011, 09:15 AM
The pistol stuff I use is jacketed. The rifle is a partially jacketed round. I got a few cases each of the Extreme Shock rifle and pistol frangible rounds awhile back, and I would describe the pistol stuff as kind of jacketed, the rifle stuff was not jacketed in any way, shape, or form.

ToddG
10-20-2011, 09:19 AM
It's not the projectile.

The material used in the primer to replace the normal lead-based compound becomes extremely hard and sharp under the heat and pressure of ignition. That sends a gazillion tiny diamond-hard particles down your barrel at high speed as well as blowing them all over the gun. In time, it can turn a barrel into a smooth bore and accelerate wear throughout the action.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 10:31 AM
The material used in the primer to replace the normal lead-based compound becomes extremely hard and sharp under the heat and pressure of ignition. That sends a gazillion tiny diamond-hard particles down your barrel at high speed as well as blowing them all over the gun. In time, it can turn a barrel into a smooth bore and accelerate wear throughout the action.

Okay, that's an important detail to me, because knowing it's not the bullet but the primer means that even cartridges loaded with conventional bullets but "Non-Toxic" lead-free primers car bork up a gun...

How festive. :eek:

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 10:55 AM
It's not the projectile.

The material used in the primer to replace the normal lead-based compound becomes extremely hard and sharp under the heat and pressure of ignition. That sends a gazillion tiny diamond-hard particles down your barrel at high speed as well as blowing them all over the gun. In time, it can turn a barrel into a smooth bore and accelerate wear throughout the action.

I think I read that somewhere else as well.

Well, I guess that answers my question as to whether or not I'll ever go there. It's a shame, they indicated they were fine with working from a holster, which many ranges seem to prohibit. Guess I'm headed out to BLM!

DocGKR
10-20-2011, 11:06 AM
Some unjacketed frangible bullets along with some lead free primers can cause the premature barrel erosion mentioned, as well as pitting on the breach face and bolt. Keep in mind that just because ammo is frangible/RRLP does not necessarily mean that it uses a lead free primer.

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 11:29 AM
Some unjacketed frangible bullets along with some lead free primers can cause the premature barrel erosion mentioned, as well as pitting on the breach face and bolt. Keep in mind that just because ammo is frangible/RRLP does not necessarily mean that it uses a lead free primer.

It's advertised as a lead-free range, and I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that they are lead-free primers, unjacketed frangible rounds, as they would want the reduced ricochet ability of those rounds. From what I've read, jacketed frangible rounds still have ricochet potential, since the jacket commonly stays intact, and as such would be of limited use on and indoor firing range.

DocGKR
10-20-2011, 11:43 AM
Lead free range ammo typically has lead free primers, but often use jacketed bullets with a non-lead core.

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 12:20 PM
Lead free range ammo typically has lead free primers, but often use jacketed bullets with a non-lead core.

NON TOXIC LEAD-FREE FRANGIBLE AMMUNITION
Only lead-free, frangible ammunition
will be shot at our range facility.
Sold at our Range Counter

http://safeshotindoorrange.com/Home.aspx

JV_
10-20-2011, 12:43 PM
http://safeshotindoorrange.com/Home.aspx

$25 / BOX for 9mm? No thanks.
http://safeshotindoorrange.com/Prices.aspx

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 01:17 PM
$25 / BOX for 9mm? No thanks.
http://safeshotindoorrange.com/Prices.aspx
It's actually $22 per box of 50 according to the guy on the phone, apparently they don't update their site that often.

Yeah, it's high, but it's gotta be tough to run an indoor range in an area where there's so much open land. For 100 rounds, it's not too bad, but obviously if you're going through 500 rounds in a practice session, it's going to hurt a little. Considering it's the only indoor range in a city of 200,000+, that really tells you something...

Besides your time is worth something, and a 5 minute drive (maybe less) vs 30 minutes each direction means and extra $20 for ammo might be justifiable.

I just can't justify permanently damaging my firearm on top of all that... It's a shame.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 01:17 PM
It's advertised as a lead-free range, and I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that they are lead-free primers, unjacketed frangible rounds, as they would want the reduced ricochet ability of those rounds. From what I've read, jacketed frangible rounds still have ricochet potential, since the jacket commonly stays intact, and as such would be of limited use on and indoor firing range.

Seriously, there is no realistic "ricochet potential" worth worrying about on a 25-yd indoor range, no matter what backstop they are using. (And a good air-handling system will minimize lead exposure unless you actually work there. With our CA-compliant air-handling system, we only worried about people who might spend hours per day out there, and only then if they weren't scrupulous about washing their hands and such when they came off the range. The only employee we had whose blood level went into the scary zone was also a lifetime bullseye shooter and reloader, and his blood level was scary on his first LL check after employment, so you can guess where most of that lead level came from...)

HCM
10-20-2011, 04:59 PM
Frangible tends to have higher pressures and can acelerate wear. We have seen broken extractors in SIG P-229 .40's around the 2000 round mark with lead free frangible 40.

Several military small arms instructors have reported cases of "copper dust fever" - flue like sysmptoms resulting from after prolonged exposure to zinc / copper dust from frangible 5.56 rounds.

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2011, 05:21 PM
I think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made between "Frangible", and "Non-Toxic, Lead Free Frangible" .

Like I said, I shoot a metric shit ton of "Frangible" ammunition every year and have never experienced any issues described. That said, it has never claimed to be "Non-Toxic" or "Lead Free".........pretty sure it is fully leaded, and it has proven to be plenty toxic.

If there are issues with "Non-toxic, Lead Free Frangible", then we probably should differentiate between the two, as there seems to be quite a difference.

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 05:25 PM
I think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made between "Frangible", and "Non-Toxic, Lead Free Frangible" .

Like I said, I shoot a metric shit ton of "Frangible" ammunition every year and have never experienced any issues described. That said, it has never claimed to be "Non-Toxic" or "Lead Free".........pretty sure it is fully leaded, and it has proven to be plenty toxic.

If there are issues with "Non-toxic, Lead Free Frangible", then we probably should differentiate between the two, as there seems to be quite a difference.

What specifically do you shoot, as a representation of a frangible, leaded round, that has not caused noticeable damage to your firearms?

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2011, 06:06 PM
I don't have the specific round name/number in front of me. DocGKR can maybe help out with the exact round, bullet weight, manufacturer, etc. Olin/Win produces the 9mm, Black Hills makes the newer 5.56 stuff, not sure who supplied the older, but still used design.

Sorry I can't provide better/more detailed info, I just don't have the resources available at this time.

DocGKR
10-20-2011, 06:24 PM
Sean is likely shooting the 5.56 mm BH produced Mk255 Mod0 62 gr RRLP load, which is indeed frangible, but uses a conventional primer.

http://i42.tinypic.com/35i0v43.jpg

Odin Bravo One
10-20-2011, 06:26 PM
That is one of them, Doc, do you recall who made the older stuff? I still shoot it a lot as well, and I know it has a standard primer as well. Pretty sure Win/Olin makes the 9mm.........

Tamara
10-20-2011, 06:46 PM
Yup. There's a big difference between frangible projos used to minimize the dangers of backsplash at close ranges in a shoothouse or when shooting steel and "lead-free/green" ammo that may or may not use frangible projectiles but does use LF primers...

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 06:50 PM
The RRLP round is a jacketed round, which (not being a jack&$$, just pointing out) was specifically excluded in the first part of my thread. Honestly I don't think I'd have a problem shooting a jacketed frangible round, since the explosion is being contained by a jacketed solid surface, and as such is less likely to disintegrate on it's way out of the barrel.

Thank you for posting the info anyways, it's good to know that such rounds can likely be considered "safe" to use in regards to wear and tear.

Tamara
10-20-2011, 06:53 PM
The RRLP round is a jacketed round, which (not being a jack&$$, just pointing out) was specifically excluded in the first part of my thread. Honestly I don't think I'd have a problem shooting a jacketed frangible round, since the explosion is being contained by a jacketed solid surface, and as such is less likely to disintegrate on it's way out of the barrel.

As Todd pointed out, I'm not sure the problem is the frangible projectile, but rather the lead-styphnate-free primers.

c4v3man
10-20-2011, 07:40 PM
As Todd pointed out, I'm not sure the problem is the frangible projectile, but rather the lead-styphnate-free primers.

Fair enough, I guess I just cant wrap my head around a non solid bullet being fired from a gun... Would think it would leave ' kitty litter' in the barrel, which would only make a bad situation worse in a lead free cartridge...

Tamara
10-20-2011, 08:01 PM
Fair enough, I guess I just cant wrap my head around a non solid bullet being fired from a gun...

A sintered projectile is every bit as solid as the MIM hammer that busts the cap.

c4v3man
10-21-2011, 12:33 AM
A sintered projectile is every bit as solid as the MIM hammer that busts the cap.

As you said it's a non-issue since the primer is apparently the highest contributor to higher wear in these lead free rounds as earlier established.

HCM
10-21-2011, 10:46 AM
I think there is a very important distinction that needs to be made between "Frangible", and "Non-Toxic, Lead Free Frangible" .

Like I said, I shoot a metric shit ton of "Frangible" ammunition every year and have never experienced any issues described. That said, it has never claimed to be "Non-Toxic" or "Lead Free".........pretty sure it is fully leaded, and it has proven to be plenty toxic.

If there are issues with "Non-toxic, Lead Free Frangible", then we probably should differentiate between the two, as there seems to be quite a difference.

Excellent point.

At my old address, our trainees were using .40 that was both lead free and Frangible (CCI Clean Fire ? with a 125gr bullet). No accelerated barrel erosion was noted, but the lighter bullets require higher pressure for proper cycling and is therefore harder on the weapons. We were routinely replacing the extractors on trainee's weapons before sending them out to the field.

At my current address, we use a military range. Our hosts use use regular, lead primed, frangible in 5.56 (unknown type) due to berm / impact area safety issues. In addition to the metal dust inhalation issues, they are reporting accelerated wear/ parts breakages in Beretta 92's shooting lead primed frangible

EricP
10-22-2011, 04:10 PM
It's not the projectile.

The material used in the primer to replace the normal lead-based compound becomes extremely hard and sharp under the heat and pressure of ignition. That sends a gazillion tiny diamond-hard particles down your barrel at high speed as well as blowing them all over the gun. In time, it can turn a barrel into a smooth bore and accelerate wear throughout the action.

Was this Sig's ammo? I shot there once and when I was finished the inside of the gun looked like it was gold plated. It literally took hours to remove it.

ToddG
10-24-2011, 02:07 PM
Was this Sig's ammo? I shot there once and when I was finished the inside of the gun looked like it was gold plated. It literally took hours to remove it.

It's quite consistent across the major brand leadfree primers I've seen.