Why isn't all ammo steel cased?

Status
Not open for further replies.

SkunkApe

Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2002
Messages
748
Location
Louisiana
I'm curious as to the relative advantages and disadvantages of brass and steel ammunition cases.

I know that brass is reloadable, and easier to form than steel, but more costly for raw materials. What else?

Seems like one would be better than the other, and we'd see all manufacturers adopt it as a standard. But instead we see (I think) U.S. military using brass cases while the Russians used steel?

Why?
 
Okay. You're thinking about the casing, rather than the bullet... Okay...

Steel is harder to form, and doesn't provide as good a seal when you pull the bangy thing on your boomstick. Brass is easier to form, and your boomstick will last longer.

USSR, China, etc., tended to make a LOT of cheap items, and they weren't concerned about the precision that our folks tended to demand.
 
Brass being easier to form...

Is better because it it easer to get uniform case wall thickness, which gives you more consistent accuracy. Also, brass being softer and more "elastic" is more gentle on the walls of the chamber. It is also easier to get more uniform neck tension, which, once again leads to better accuracy. In semi autos, brass is much more gentle on extractors.
 
People reload their brass casings, steel casings, while I heard you can reload them, it's generally not worth it.

Steel is hard on extractors

Steel cases dont expand much to fit the chamber walls.

Steel cases need lacquer or some kind of coating on them to keep from rusting.

Steel casings is great for stuff you're gonna just go blast with, and it's good for militaries, because they dont reload their cartridges, but most guns were made with brass cases in mind, and they expect the brass cases to expand a little.
 
From a manufacturing viewpoint, steel is a LOT harder on punches, head bunters, forming dies, and all the rest of the ammunition tooling. For a military, cost is pretty much no object and the savings gained by not using expensive copper more than outweigh the manufacturing problems. In wartime, when copper is desperately needed for other uses, primarily electrical wiring, steel is a good alternative for cartridge cases.

But for peacetime and commercial use, as long as brass is available and reasonably inexpensive, its advantages far outweight the savings to be gained by using steel. There may be some concern for the reloader in commercial manufacture; there is little or none in military production.

P.S. I think that very shortly we will see steel used, not in cartridge cases, but in pennies, as was done in 1943. The other, less acceptable, alternative is to drop the penny altogether, as even the copper plated zinc ones cost more to make than their value.

Jim
 
Plastic ammo

I saw some 5.56 the other day that had a 1/2 inch brass base with the rest of the cartridge being made out of some sort of plastic. Is this stuff any good?
 
There have been a lot of experiments, but I think what you saw was either blank ammo or a low pressure training ammo.

Jim
 
Brass is still favored over steel in this country for most *small arms* cartridges. But look at some cannon casings, and you'll notice that most stuff over 20mm now uses steel casings (or aluminum).

You'll also notice few steel casings before WWII. The big changeover, for this country and others, happened around 1942-43. In the US, every single caliber was at least prototyped in steel, even if the decision was made to not change over to steel casings in production.

Using steel may have a lower initial raw material cost, but the steel used for cartridge casings needs to be especially pure (think about the consequences of a defect or flaw). This somewhat offests the intuitive materials savings.

As has been mentioned here, steel is a bit rougher both on the tooling used to make the cartridges as well as the wear points on weapons. On the other hand, instead of ripping through a cartridge rim, a suitable extractor might instead extract a tougher steel case. But this increase in reliability only occurs if the extractor itself doesn't fail!

People *do* reload steel cartridges. In fact, one cannon shooter tells me that 40mm L/60 Bofors steel casings last indefinitely in single-shot designs, whereas brass casings split after five reloadings.

I have it on good authority that it's not smart to reload *aluminum* casings. I think the feeling is that we're lucky we can even use aluminum for *one* firing, and there may some irreversible damage to the aluminum case upon firing. Some protective interior coatings as well, I believe, to inhibit ignition of the aluminum metal itself... Anyhow, aluminum is relatively valuable compared to steel.

Look at a modern *wrapped* 105mm howitzer casing to see the cost savings using simple sheet steel gets you. A very (relatively) cheap design compared to a drawn brass case.

Brass casings absorb more heat from the chamber, due to their greater weight, higher specific heat, and better conductive properties. This is important in automatic weapon design, where you want to eject as much excess heat as possible with the spent casings.

Brass is much more self-lubricating than steel. However, all steel ammo has some sort of corrosion-resistant finish (from zinc chromate to paint). Graphite was a popular US military coating for aluminum casings in the 1940's through 1970's. Teflon was also common, especially to ensure weapon functioning in Arctic conditions. Aluminum is also usually anodized, and steel is sometimes graphite coated as well. Coatings costs do offset the base material savings vs. brass, which is usually left uncoated.

Steel casings also give a roughly 25% weight savings vs. brass casings, in weight-critical applications. In my collection I've got an experimental steel casing for the GAU-8/A program that has a thin wall and the head heavily grooved to reduce the weight. Even then, it's only slightly heavier than a standard aluminum casing.

Another reason for choosing steel over brass in automatic cannon has to do with the stresses the ammunition has to withstand during cycling. For instance, 20mm "Vulcan" ammo is typically brass, but was adopted for Gatling guns and revolver cannon that carefully and gradually chamber their ammunition. The 20mm "Navy" Mk 100 ammo is almost dimensionally and functionally identical to Vulcan, but was designed for Hispano designs with reciprocating bolts and for the advanced Marquardt gun that actually *shot* its ammo into the chamber. Thus Vulcan ammo is almost always found as brass-cased, but Mk 100 ammo is steel-cased.

On that same note, the GAU-8/A Gatling and GAU-9/A revolver gun use aluminum casings for the critical weight savings, and the guns don't beat up the ammo during chambering. 40mm grenade launchers, such as the M79/M203 and the Mk 19 use aluminum casings because the chamber pressure is so low as to not present any problems.

The Soviet "Richter Rattler" auto-cannon uses super-thick telescoped steel casings to save some weight on the gun components themselves, but the weight is of course offset by the very heavy ammo weight.

Don't forget that there are many designs that use *plastic* ammunition! The Dardick "Trounds", Hughes "Lockless", the "folded" ammo designs, and many blanks or target practice rounds use plastic casings. Two words for ya: "shotgun shells". Once all-drawn brass, now made with a minimum of metal. Once commonly made of *paper*! I've even got a punt gun casing the size of a flashlight - 12 oz of shot launched by 2-1/2 oz of black powder - with a carboard hull.

The ultimate is, of course, *caseless* ammo. One problem with caseless ammo is sealing the breech, which has been long-solved with bag-gun artillery pieces. In small arms with automatic fire, the sealing problem gets a bit trickier.

I think the reasons for choosing steel or brass (or aluminum) are highly complex. Perhaps the thing to remember is that a military weapon is designed and developed as a *system*, and changing ammo parameters may put you outside of the zone of reliability.
 
There have been a lot of experiments, but I think what you saw was either blank ammo or a low pressure training ammo.

The stuff I saw was real 5.56 with real bullets. It's some kind of hybrid round, but it's not blanks or training ammo.
 
I saw some 5.56 the other day that had a 1/2 inch brass base with the rest of the cartridge being made out of some sort of plastic. Is this stuff any good?

This is the ammo made by Natec. Developed to save the military weight. Don't use it in any gun with a fluted chamber (HK's, etc.) or you'll rip the metal cartridge case head off and leave a stuck plastic case body in the chamber.
 
http://www.gunbroker.com/Auction/ViewItem.asp?Item=66748049

My uncle had a box of PCA 5.56 sitting around a year or two ago...one of these days I need to ask if he still has it. SAR did a short article on the stuff last year I believe, and came to the conclusion that firing it in a fluted chamber resulted in a mess requiring a significant amount of time to fix (I think they said something like an hour of cleaning to get the plastic out?).

Tried to find out more information, but their website seems to be down, and some reports from two years ago suggest that the company might be out of business?

What is this 20mm Marquardt, and how did it work? I can't find anything about it online anywhere :(
 
Quote:
I saw some 5.56 the other day that had a 1/2 inch brass base with the rest of the cartridge being made out of some sort of plastic. Is this stuff any good?

This is the ammo made by Natec. Developed to save the military weight. Don't use it in any gun with a fluted chamber (HK's, etc.) or you'll rip the metal cartridge case head off and leave a stuck plastic case body in the chamber.

I assume my Bushmaster can handle it then. Anybody have any experience with it?
 
Wes Janson wrote:

What is this 20mm Marquardt, and how did it work? I can't find anything about it online anywhere

This could actually be covered in two or three separate threads, but here's the quick answer. I can do no better than the beautifully succint prose of George Chinn, so here's a quote from "The Machine Gun", Vol III pg. 165:

"After the end of hostilities with Germany in 1945, the Navy Department sent Frank R. Marquardt, a naval technician, to Europe to investigate German aircraft machine gun development. After reviewing the status of the German revolver gun development, Marquardt became interested in the possibilities of obtaining high firing rates with low weight by use of a rotating chamber. He felt that the single barrel, five chamber, revolver guns under development were unneccessarily compromised to make use of conventional recoil absorbing, gas operating, and mechanical ramming mechanisms as a result of the German anxiety to meet an urgent requirement."

These revolver guns were, of course, the Mauser MG-213 and derivatives. To quote Chinn again (Vol III pg. 47):

"The German gas-operated gun MG-213, upon which the development of all models of the revolver-type of automatic cannon developed by the United States was based, is a gas-operated, belt-fed, electrically fired, pneumatically charged weapon which fires at a rate of approximately 1,200 rounds per minute. By changing certain parts, it may be converted from a 20mm to 30-mm weapon;..."

The US M39[A1] Revolver cannon (which everybody and their dog worked on at one point or another) was a direct descendent of the MG-213. Chambered in 20mm Vulcan, it managed only about 750 rpm. But it had the advantage of minimal "spin-up" time, due to its lower rotational inertia comapred to multi-barrelled Gatling guns.

SO, Marquardt came up with an extremely advanced design to counter the known problems with conventional revolver cannon.

1) He used two barrels to effectively double the rate of fire.

2) One barrel started the firing burst, and the other ended it, leaving the first barrel with a round chambered ready to start firing again.

3) In the middle of a burst, both barrels essentially fire simultaneously.

4) The barrels fire out-of-battery, to keep the reciprocating parts floating instead of being hammered back-and forth in recoil and counter-recoil.

5) He used an eight-chambered cylinder, with at all times two chamber positions empty and available for through-cooling if required.

6) Instead of abrubtly starting and stopping the cylinder rotation to index it, he used the cylinder's rotation to store recoil energy like a flywheel, and then recovered the cylinder's roatational energy in order to operate the gun - thereby slowing the cylinder gradually.

7) In the first version constructed, Marquardt used "projectors" to *fire* the ammo (complete loaded rounds) into the chamber, rather than waiting for a mechanical reciprocating mechanism to load it. The projectors were essentially sleeves that held the 20mm rounds. The projectors, which were linked into a belt, each had an electric 20mm cartridge primer in the base. The primer launched the 20mm round forward into the appropriate cylinder chamber. Ramming forces were so intense that in some tests, the *neck* of the cartridges were fully engraved by the rifling!

8) The projectiles were initially designed with a conical flange. The flange helped seal the cylinder gap (as did an obturating sleeve). The flange also helped prevent projos from being pulled out of their casings by momentum as the round slammed home in the chamber. Finally, in early designs the projos were spun up by a short length of rifling, and then the flange was swaged down by the smooth bore to reduce the projos' aerodynamic drag.

9) Marquardt used a pneumatic accumulator to store energy not only to charge the gun, but also for buffering and ejecting. A clever system self-regulated the ejection force of empty casings and dud rounds.

10) The gun was mainly made out of aluminum. Prototypes were made out of titanium.

11) The rates of fire of the adopted versions were about 4000+ rpm, much higher than the rates of simpler revolver cannon. Short bursts were fired in some tests at over 5100 rpm. Not bad for only two barrels!

The Marquardt was adopted by the US Navy as the Mk 11 Gun. Mod 0 used a unique (brass!) case with no extractor groove or rim (smooth bottom!). Later versions became more conventional, and used the 20mm "Navy" Mk 100 series ammo (when it became clear that this ammo was going to be mass-produced for the Mk 12 Hispano guns).

The Marquardt was only fielded in an external gun pod. As a buddy of mine said, "there wasn't anybody smart enough to work on the gun!".

Ammo and projector cups are very rare today (I paid $400 recently for a projector to go with the $400 single round of early Marquardt ammo in my collection).

Skunk Ape wrote:

Especially FIFTYGUY. Wow.

Thanks! :eek:
Actually, "Steel vs. Brass" is a hot topic among us cannon shooters. There are plenty of anecdotes supporting once side or another. Sometimes you don't have much choice as to what kind of casings you can scrounge up, and sometimes it's hard to find any casings at all! As a result, we're intensely concerned with what types are OK to shoot, and how many times they can be reused. I personally like to keep my pretty brass casings for display, and shoot up the grungy steel casings instead.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top