corrosive vs noncorrosive ammo - long term reliability?

[marktx]

At a gun show last weekend I overheard a dealer giving a rather long winded spiel about corrosive ammo being much more reliable over long periods of time. Sounded like just another B.S. artist trying to sell his stock of corrosive ammo but for all I know there could be some truth behind it. Anybody have some tech on the subject?

 

[Vaarok]

Used to be true with the stability of early stainless priming compounds, nowadays I dunno but doubt it.

 

[elmerfudd]

The corrosive part of the ammo is the primer and I understand that corrosive primers have a longer shelf life. This is supposedly one of the reasons why the commies continued to use it.

 

[Jim Watson]

In the development of noncorrosive primers, that was true. Early mixes did not have as long a shelf life as the old reliable chlorate formulation. But that is not a factor unless you are comparing ammo made well before WW II. The US Army stayed corrosive until they could be sure of stability in noncorrosive and made the switch in the early 1950s. But that was largely because of WW II, demanding mass production of a standard item. The styphnate primers common now came out in the late 1930s, as I recall. M1 Carbine ammo always was noncorrosive.

 

[Slamfire]

I doubt it. I have fired off some 50 year old plus non corrosive ammo. If it was stored correctly, and the powder is still good, darn near anything will go bang.

If it was made poorly, stored poorly, it will go bang by it self!

 

[benEzra]

The other thing is, pretty much any corrosive ammo you buy now is going to be decades old already, compared to noncorrosive that is new production. 40-year-old corrosive ammunition may be somewhat more reliable than 40-year-old noncorrosive ammunition, but not more reliable than 5-year-old noncorrosive ammunition, I suspect.

 

[Ash]

As mentioned, corrosive primers do have longer shelf-life than non-corrosive in the current view. I would trust 50 year old corrosive more than I would 50 year old non.

Today, though, non-corrosive primers should be equally reliable for long term storage. This is a bit irrelevent, though, because there really is a very limited number of corrosive rounds out there, almost always Communist (or Pakistani) and limited to a very small handful of calibers.

Ash

 

[Gary G23]

I don't have a clue but I read somewhere that the Ruskies use corrosive ammo because it is more reliable in cold weather.

 

[CBS220]

The most common reason for corrosively priming ammo is that it lasts longer. I would also assume that it is, or used to be, cheaper to use corrosive primers.

Ammo that was produced with corrosive primers even up to recent times seems to make me think that the "longer-life" theory is true...

 

[Art Eatman]

I was meddling around with my father's old .220 Swift, last weekend up at Whittington. Well inside of one MOA. Easy to hit the ram and the antelope at 300 and 400 yards, in spite of a 30 mph wind.

Some of his reloaded ammo. 1975 vintage.

Art

 

[Z71]

Don't know about that?

I found some ancient Winchester "Staynless, The Leader" .22 long rifle ammo in my father in laws house after he died. I have no idea how old it is, but I'm guessing it's pretty old ammo.

I shot up a box of it and it worked fine.

 

[Ash]

Ah, but is it non-corrosive or corrosive?

Ash

 

[aka108]

Recently fired some 6.5 Swedish mfg in 1924. Wish I could find some more as it the best I've ever used. Corrosive of course and handled the storage years gracefully.

 

[packnrat]

was the use of corrosive also as a way to aid in keeping the bore "cleaner" longer in the field of battle?

not just dirt but copper, lead, and gunk. a all over help, not to replace cleanning.

???


.

 

[Ash]

No, corrosive primers don't actually attack the metal directly, they leave salts down the bore which attracts water, which causes the rust. The salts are no more cleansing than the residue left from non-corrosive primers. Indeed, corrosive primers require more cleaning than non-corrosive.

Ash