Added: Jannine Tennyson - Date: 25.11.2021 05:56 - Views: 21731 - Clicks: 4300
This seemingly simple variation has caused a never ending stream of argument, discussion, speculation, and questioning from new and seasoned shooters alike. So, our team set out to test and determine what differences you can expect when shooting brass vs.
Complicating the conversation are other variables that typically get lumped into the argument without proper segmentation, such as:. Our team decided to try something ambitious and daunting: to provide the best resource and data available to answer these questions once and for all through objective experimentation and observation.
We realize this is a lofty and borderline arrogant goal. Please keep reading to see if you agree. What follows is a mind-numbing heap of charts, tables, graphs, images, and data to catalog the entire test, plus a careful analysis of everything we found. Learn more at LuckyGunner. When we considered an undertaking like this, we wanted to investigate what tests others conducted before us. We studied as many as possible in order to determine the best course to take.
Much of the public domain information about the test was lacking — were all rifles of new manufacture? Did all firearms use the same magazines? What qualified as a malfunction? How do we define each type of malfunction? What were some of the details relating to how each rifle functioned, such as cyclic rate of fire?
We sought to address each of these concerns in our test. Although the public domain report is rather concise and also focuses on why the weapon itself was created, it contains a lot of useful data such as throat erosion and cyclic rate. We borrowed a of ideas and methodologies from this test, including limits on rate of fire and temperature. Each brand of ammunition used a 55 grain full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. The Federal 55gr. The other three brands used a bimetal steel and copper jacket and a steel case. We used four brand new and identical Bushmaster MOE carbines this brass vs.
Bushmaster manufactured each in Ilion, New York at the same facility where they make Remington rifles. Upper and lower receivers were of standard de and manufactured with T6 aluminum via the forging process. Receiver extension tubes were commercial pattern and had six adjustment points; receiver endplates were not staked. Buffers weighed 3. Fire control groups were semi-automatic and trigger pull weight varied between 8 and 10 lbs.
Bolt carrier groups were machined for semi-automatic use only; gas keys were properly staked. We attached front sight bases to the barrels with two taper pins driven from right to left. We parkerized the barrel exteriors after the attachment of the front sight bases. Gas ports, located at the carbine position, were. Chambers conformed to 5. The rate of twist was 1 turn in 9 inches, and both chambers and bores were chrome lined.
The sling mounting points and flashlight mounts remained attached to the firearms without issue throughout the entire test. However, flashlights of the correct diameter installed in the mounts in accordance with provided instructions did not stay in the mounts. So, we set aside the flashlights for the duration of the testing. One MBUS sight cracked and fell off of the carbine to which it was attached. We believe heating and cooling cycles negatively affected the polymer material and caused the cracking.
Excessive upper receiver heat did cause thermal discoloration of and cosmetic damage to the EOTech sights. Both EOTechs, as well as the Aimpoint, remained functional at the end of the test. This markedly improved battery life. We fired the majority of rounds over 20, with the Raptor charging handles installed in various weapons.
Our testing team did not encounter any functional issues with any charging handle used during the test. Our team noted no practical differences between the aluminum and steel latches of the various charging handle types. Most shooters who used the Raptors commented that they appreciated the ambidextrous de during manipulations of the firearms, especially during clearing.
We do not believe our use of these accessories had any functional impact on the weapons. You should not be construe the inclusion as true modifications. With one exception, the of this test reflect the performance of the carbines in the condition in which they were removed from the box. That exception involves improper torque values that our team corrected in two of the four test carbines. We disassembled the carbines and reassembled them numerous times over the course of the test. This allowed us to make Cerrosafe casts of the chambers.
We only fired one type of ammunition through each carbine. Different colors of Magpul MOE furniture made it easier to identify which rifle was which. The carbine firing the Federal brass cased ammunition, serial ARA, had standard black handguards and stock. We broke each firearm down and inspected it to ensure it was within acceptable standards.
Our initial visual inspection did not reveal any deficiencies we deemed serious enough to be addressed prior to the beginning of the test. During the first range trip, however, serious accuracy issues were noted with two carbines — the Federal and Brown Bear weapons. Both rifles shot groups of over 5MOA, or over 5 inches at yards, out of the box. We fired ten shot groups for all accuracy testing in this article.
The are not directly comparable with three or five shot groups. Because these groups were much larger than they should have been with any factory new ammunition, we examined the rifles. Our team completely disassembled the upper receiver assemblies of the two problem carbines in order to determine the cause of this issue. We immediately saw the problem related to improper barrel nut torque values. The barrel nuts, which slide over a collar on the barrel and thread onto the front of the upper receiver, required less than 5 ft-lbs to break loose.
Proper torque values for this part are ft-lbs. Once we properly reassembled the components, ten shot group sizes shrank to approximately 3. This is a realistic result to expect from standard carbines firing bulk ammunition. Before we started high volume testing, we conducted other tests and observations in order to gather as much data as possible about performance.
These tests include but are not limited to chronograph velocity testing, Cerrosafe measurements of internal chamber and bore dimensions, chamber and gas port pressure testing, and high speed video of bolt velocities and cycle times. We conducted these tests periodically throughout this project. Our team measured accuracy and velocity every 2, rounds and Cerrosafe at 5, and 10, rounds. We fired these rifles mostly at a very fast pace. It was not unusual for our test team to fire up to ten magazines rounds in a row. Of course, we did slow our rate of fire at times, especially when accuracy testing was being conducted.
However, we kept the rates of fire consistent across all rifles — if we fired one quickly, so were the others. Although the shooting was fast and hectic, we did not exceed certain temperature and rate of fire limits. The barrels did not exceed degrees Fahrenheit. Firing was periodically halted to identify the cause of a malfunction, conduct diagnostic tests, or replace parts. At 2, and 7, rounds, we wiped down the bolt carrier group with a paper towel. At 5, rounds, we gave each rifle a detailed cleaning. We applied a single drop of FireClean lubricant to the cam pin hole of the bolt carrier group every 1, rounds, and used six drops after each of the aforementioned cleaning intervals.
Certain small parts were replaced as needed, and they will be discussed later in the article. After all initial tests were complete, the bulk of the shooting commenced. The data which will probably be most interesting to everyone who re this article is how often each rifle malfunctioned. To satisfy that particular thirst, here are the basic :. Copyright: LuckyGunner. The carbine firing Tula had a case stuck in the chamber after rounds. This proved exceptionally difficult to clear, even with the use of a steel cleaning rod after the rifle had cooled.
Over the next three hundred rounds, we encountered 24 malfunctions total. We decided to fire the remainder of the Tula ammunition through other carbines. Stuck cases or failures to eject ed for all those malfunctions. Of the remaining three ammunition brands, the first malfunction encountered was a magazine-related failure to feed at rounds with the Brown Bear carbine. For the Wolf carbine, the first malfunction occurred at rounds — a stuck case. We conducted this testing in the Arizona desert during monsoon season.
Dust storms frequently interrupted our range trials. These storms covered the carbines in fine sand and we also saw rainstorms drench the carbines in water. These storms did not affect the ly set cleaning schedule. In addition, we shot at a high rate of fire. We fired the carbines until they were too hot to touch at times during the test.
These rates of fire were identical for all weapons and they continued to function very well despite the adverse conditions. At the 5, round mark, we cleaned the bolt carriers, upper receivers, and barrels. The second half of the test started off with short stroking malfunctions from the Brown Bear carbine. This occurred at 5, and 5, rounds. High speed video showed that the bolt was barely coming back far enough to pick up the next round.
Additional lubrication did not prevent the second malfunction. A detailed physical examination revealed ly unnoticed carbon buildup in the gas key and gas tube which had almost completely occluded those components. We inspected the other firearms. It was difficult to clean these components in the field. So, we decided to them aside in order to examine the phenomenon. We replaced the gas tube and bolt carrier of the Brown Bear rifle with identical components.Wolf ammo ar 15
email: [email protected] - phone:(412) 307-9592 x 5449
Brass vs. Steel Cased Ammo – An Epic Torture Test