Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst ... 234
Results 31 to 33 of 33

Thread: Lucky gunner's 10,000 round test of Brass vs steel cased. Good read.

  1. #31
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post
    I've never seen or heard of a normal carbine class where rounds were cooking off, have you? The only time I've seen cook-off was with multiple mag dumps or suppressed guns with a mag or two less on the same mag dump line. I was unaware I needed to suggest a different course of fire in this discussion...

    Since you seem to be bent on it, I would base everything off of temperature in order to compress the timeline of 10k rounds. We know steel will wear faster than brass but we also know that the higher the temp the faster the wear. In order to get a solid basis for temperature guidelines I'd have someone measure the temps during an average carbine class. Get the readings from a few people for each drill, start temp and end temp, and try to keep things within those ranges during the 10k round test. I'd also choose a better gun to start with but also try and throw in a Noveske N4 and perhaps one of the S&W melonited barrels, if those are still produced.

    That's not 20/20 though, I'd think that's common knowledge.

    My guess would be that the steel case guns wouldn't see keyholing within 10k and the accuracy degradation wouldn't be nearly as bad. I'm basing this off of personal experience with my brass and steel case guns, and that of friends I shoot with who have greater steel case round counts than I do from a few guns. I do know that my steel case N4 barrel has been stellar with Wolf and Brown Bear only. It's been some time since I've A-B'd it with the brass case upper that closely matches.
    It's not that I'm bent on it, complaining about something without a solution gets everyone no where. And I also don't disagree with your suggested change to the testing protocol. But they did it the way they did it with controls in place. I don't think it's something that should be ignored or since it didn't fit a pre designated series of testing protocols the information is useless. Heat is the worst killer of parts in a gun. All of it. Heat kills engines faster, and honestly I can't think of something more catastrophic in regards moving parts or firearms than heat/friction. It will definitely accelerate wear. I'm not disputing that. But again, I don't think this test is out of the realm of an actual scientific test. Maybe outside the realm of practicality, but the data provided and the lessons learned are relevant in my opinion.

  2. #32
    Member orionz06's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Pittsburgh, PA
    Quote Originally Posted by navyman8903 View Post
    It's not that I'm bent on it, complaining about something without a solution gets everyone no where.
    Sure, but this was how long ago?

    Quote Originally Posted by navyman8903 View Post
    And I also don't disagree with your suggested change to the testing protocol. But they did it the way they did it with controls in place. I don't think it's something that should be ignored or since it didn't fit a pre designated series of testing protocols the information is useless.
    The information is quite useful, just not for a wide range of shooters here. That's the contention. Said changes would bring it closer to applying to us.

    Quote Originally Posted by navyman8903 View Post
    Heat is the worst killer of parts in a gun. All of it. Heat kills engines faster, and honestly I can't think of something more catastrophic in regards moving parts or firearms than heat/friction. It will definitely accelerate wear. I'm not disputing that. But again, I don't think this test is out of the realm of an actual scientific test. Maybe outside the realm of practicality, but the data provided and the lessons learned are relevant in my opinion.
    How relevant is a big one. If we assume the average P-F shooter will shoot a few cases a year those numbers indicate that the average shooter here would see some pretty severe degradation before the end of their first summer. I don't think that's the case at all though. At the time of the article there were several folks on other forums claiming much higher round counts, on par with the useful life of a barrel seeing brass only. Care is needed to keep an eye on the extractor but even then the steel case is rather soft (for steel).
    Think for yourself. Question authority.

  3. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by orionz06 View Post


    How relevant is a big one. If we assume the average P-F shooter will shoot a few cases a year those numbers indicate that the average shooter here would see some pretty severe degradation before the end of their first summer. I don't think that's the case at all though. At the time of the article there were several folks on other forums claiming much higher round counts, on par with the useful life of a barrel seeing brass only. Care is needed to keep an eye on the extractor but even then the steel case is rather soft (for steel).
    I think if you had started with this we wouldn't have beat around the bush so much. I also don't disagree with what you're saying here. And I think with this test in the history books, any further testing would require what you're suggesting, which I think is completely warranted. I also think both can exist simultaneously. I also think we can agree that doing mag dump after mag dump will also cause advanced wear on your rifle like is indicated in the lucky gunner test.

    That's my point. It's not a universally applicable test, and it isn't a one size fits all test. But it's good info nonetheless. That's what I'm getting at. I'd be just as interested to see a test you're describing as I was to read the results of this test.

User Tag List

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

TLG 1970–2016 RIPRampageForTheCure.org