Steel cased ammo damages your extractor: myth or reality?

it would seem that is a better design.

No, but most with few exceptions (like the CZ75) were very simple crude designs created for durability and reliability.

Click to expand...

I think this is the test 444 was mentioning:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/#reliable

Thank you

sent from my mind using telepathy

That is in fact the test I was referring to.

Very interesting and enlightening.

444 said:

I have posted on countless threads over the years, posting about the 10s of thousands of rounds of steel case ammo I have fired with no problem what-so-ever.

However, within the last month or so, someone posted a link to a test run by a group of people, I think they were in Arizona, doing a torture test of AR15s running three different brands of ammo. It was very professionally done and had very high resolution pictures of the various parts of the guns during and after the tests.
This caused me to totally change my mind about steel cased ammo. It was obvious that the steel cases caused FAR more wear than brass cased ammo, and bi-metal bullets caused FAR more damage to the barrels than a copper jacket.

Someone will probably post a link to that test.

And I am man enough to admit that I have been wrong for 10+ years.

Click to expand...

Actually, the LuckyGunner test doesn't show anything of note about the extractor or chamber wear with steel cases. It notes in one sentence that there is something to see, but the high res photo of all three extractors does not show anything of significance. Regardless, we are still talking about a $5 part -- you could buy a new extractor with every 1,000-round case of ammo and still save $200 or $300 per case.

It shouldn't cause any paradigm shift in thinking about using steel cases, although there may be something to their results about the bimetal jacket bullets.

Besides, your statement about "been wrong for 10+ years" is also off base. You don't change 10 years of experience based on ONE test; the LuckyGunner test is simply one datapoint in a sea of a lot of other datapoints. Scientific evaluation doesn't change hypotheses when there is a single input of new data; the new data MUST be interpreted given all of the other currently-existing data.

Well............yes and no.

It changed my thinking in the fact that it does cause increased wear. And that wear has been documented to my satisfaction.

However, I agree with you, as does the authors of that test: the ammo is so much cheaper it is more than worthwhile to keep shooting it. Yes, you can simply replace the extractor and it is no big deal at all.

The only thing that changes for me is that I am not going to shoot it through ALL my uppers. I am going to dedicate a few of my uppers to use with steel cased ammo and bimetal bullets. However, this probably isn't an issue to me anyway. I used to burn though thousands of rounds of Wolf ammo. I shot over 10,000 rounds of Wolf though one upper. I have shot 2000 rounds of Wolf though one gun in five days several times. But, I have been off the AR15 kick for a number of years. I rarely ever shoot them. That could change of course at any time.

It's just something to be aware of. And in my opinion it answers the question of the OP conclusively. Yes, it does damage the extractor. Whether or not you care is another question.

The Lucky Gunner tests had sustained rated of fire that aggravate barrel wear. But in any event in only a couple of cases you saved more than enough to buy a replacement extractor and barrel. Your experience with Wolf seems to support the idea that if the barrel temperature is kept "reasonable" the increased wear from the bimetal bullet jackets is not a big deal.

Yes, it does damage the extractor.

Click to expand...

The Lucky Gunner tests would seem to offer strong evidence to the contrary.

444 said:

Yes, it does damage the extractor.

Click to expand...

Where does it specifically say -- and show evidence of -- that in the LuckyGunner test?

I shot over 10,000 rounds of Wolf though one upper.

Click to expand...

And you never noticed the accuracy loss and keyholing that began at 6000 rounds according to the luckygunner test?

the Brown Bear and Wolf carbines exhibited significant accuracy loss by the 6,000 round mark. It is quite possible that this first started occurring earlier than 6,000 rounds, because groups at 4,000 were well within standards of 5MOA or less, while some shots at 6,000 “keyholed,” or impacted the target sideways.

Click to expand...

I've got several AR's that the kids and grandkids have easily put more than 10,000 rounds of cheap Wolf and Tula steel cased ammo through. Can't say that I've shot them for group size lately, but on the other hand I don't recall the last time they missed a clay bird sitting on the 100 yard berm. I believe that the clays are just over 4" in diameter, which is well within the luckygunner 5MOA accuracy standard. Seems that they haven't lost enough accuracy to notice.

That spec 5moa seems so crazy to me if I had a gun that shot 5moa I would throw it in the swamp. Lol

sent from my mind using telepathy

It's fine to shoot. I run it through my suppressed Glocks and my wife's Sig. Aside from the fact that you can't reload it, there's no real difference between it and brass.

Lots of people say this. I've yet to see 1 person prove this. Its always "I read it on the internet" type thing.

I had the extractor claw in my Glock 21 break at the end of a half case of steel-cased ammunition. This was annoying because it happened during a match and I did not have a spare.
I'm not entirely sure this was the fault of the ammunition, but that was the only time I have ever had such a problem and it was also the only time I ever used steel-cased ammunition.

In my experience it really depends on the gun, or more specifically the design. Some designs handle steel case just fine. Others due to idiosyncrasies in the way the gun accomplishes the cycle of function do not handle steel cased ammo, and will tend to malfunction or wear/break parts prematurely.

A fellow competitor in IDPA shoots a Beretta 92 and "regularly breaks an extractor between 750-1000 rds. of steel cased ammo."
With the same gun, he said he"had 3500-5000 rds. of brass before he switched to steel cased."
That was enough to make me stay with brass and aluminum cased and away from steel unless I have no choice.

i wonder if the few Europeans (who are allowed to own guns) sit around and ask if their less costly guns can handle brass cased ammo

Lol. Most guns can handle both but it is un deniable that the steel it dirtier. The steel case harder on the gun and in my opinion worst of all the bimetal jacketed bullets much harder on the barrel. But if your ok with loss of accuracy and replacing parts it is cheaper overall

sent from my mind using telepathy

We know that steel cases don't expand as much as brass (less ductile) and therefore fouls the chamber more quickly. Add in the goofy case coating and that stuff is like super glue. So yea, it absolutely is harder on your extractor. How do I know firsthand? A friend of mine got a steel .223 case stuck in his AR. We pulled so hard that the extractor jumped over the rim. Case was still stuck.

You can be obtuse about it if you want, but the proof is evident.

Bovice said:

You can be obtuse about it if you want, but the proof is evident.

Click to expand...

Yep...there's plenty of proof that steel does no undue wear or damage to your firearms.

I reload (and shoot, of course) steel cases in 45ACP and 223 Rem. Based on the hypotheses that some folks say there is "proof" to support, my pistols, rifles, and reloading dies should have been worn down to dust or chewed to bits by now.

bovice said:

You can be obtuse about it if you want, but the proof is evident.

Click to expand...

A little research may lessen your "obtuseness".

Did you read the luckygunner test of brass case ammo versus 3 types of steel case ammo? Are you just obtuse? Allow me to quote it for you:

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/#reliable

Which Ammo was Dirtiest?

Of particular concern to some shooters is whether or not one type of ammo is dirtier than another. Imported ammunition is often maligned for being dirty and difficult to clean, and so the lower receivers of each firearm were not cleaned at all from the first shot to the last, in order to see which became the most filthy.

Interestingly, the dirtiest lower receiver was that of the Federal (brass ammo) carbine. The upper receiver and bolt carrier group assembly of the Federal carbine also took significantly longer to clean than the Brown Bear and Wolf carbines

Click to expand...

bovice said:

A friend of mine got a steel .223 case stuck in his AR. We pulled so hard that the extractor jumped over the rim. Case was still stuck.

Click to expand...

I've been running the monthly high-power match at my local range for over 15 years. I would estimate that I see a stuck case that has to be rodded out (extractor won't pull it out, just jumps the groove) about 2 or 3 times a year. So far I've NEVER seen a steel case stuck, it's always been brass. Does that prove anything?

The cost savings of shooting low cost steel cartridge ammo will pay for a new extractor in the long run. I would be careful of the quality of the steel cartridge ammunition as it would be a poor choice for a firearm that cannot be replaced if there is a KB or excessive barrel wear on barrels that cannot be replaced (only on certain bullets).

I can actually tell u from personal experience that I have shot thousands of russian Wolf rounds in my 9mm and 45 pistols (Glock, Sprnger GI, CZ 75b) and I have never replaced a barrel or an extractor in any of them.

MagnunJoe said:

I can actually tell u from personal experience that I have shot thousands of russian Wolf rounds in my 9mm and 45 pistols (Glock, Sprnger GI, CZ 75b) and I have never replaced a barrel or an extractor in any of them.

Click to expand...

me too

The example of the blowback cannon is not valid since in a blowback gun of any kind, the extractor does not pull the case from the chamber; the case pushes itself out of the chamber. The extractor serves no purpose except to extract an unfired round or provide a pivot point for the ejector. The reason the cases in that old cannon needed to be lubricated was that the breechblock mass was not enough to hold the breech closed until chamber pressure dropped. For that reason, the rear of the case tried to back up while the thinner case walls were still held to the chamber wall; that pulled the case apart. Similar problems have been encountered in other blowback or delayed blowback guns and the problem resolved either with lubricated cases (the Pedersen rifle) or with fluted chambers (Tokarev or H&K rifles).

Jim

If i remember correctly, one of the things the lucky gunner testers were supposed to be looking at was extractor damage, but i dont recall them mentioning much about it in the results. Maybe thats been covered above, i didnt read every post