Science trumps tips for new buyers and the history of a famous firearm

Congratulations to Jim H., the winner of Lucky Gunner’s Shooter & Scribe competition! Jim’s submission, “The Physics of Pistol Shooting” won by a large margin, earning nearly one-third of the total vote. Through his hard work and support of the shooting community, Jim wins a $1,000 gift card good for ammo and accessories at LuckyGunner.com!

The battle for second place was hotly contested right down to the wire. Congratulations to David M., author of “Considerations When Purchasing a Firearm“. David’s submission battled much of the week for second place with “The Gun that Changed the World” written by Ed R.

Thank you to all the Lucky Gunner’s who submitted articles as part of the competition as well as everyone who voted. We hope you enjoyed reading perspectives from other shooters and possibly even learned something.

As for our top three, we will be contacting you in the next week regarding your prizes. Once again, thank you and congratulations to everyone!

Voters cast the majority of the ballots on Saturday, March 30.

Finalists Announcement

Posted Friday, March 29, 2013

For the past month, LuckyGunner.com has asked you for entries into our first ever Shooter and Scribe writing competition. Roughly 30 days and 300 submissions later, our team has selected the following finalists that are vying for a total prize pool worth more than $1,500.

We’ve seen well written manifestos in support of certain firearms, condemnations of particular calibers, and even in-depth scientific analysis of what goes on inside the chamber of a gun. Just as we expected, shooters showed a wealth of knowledge across a myriad of topics. We hope the Lucky Gunner community enjoyed reading the submissions.

Now, it’s up to you – our Lucky Gunners – to decide what entry is worthy of the $1,000 grand prize. First place will get a $1,000 Lucky Gunner gift certificate, 2nd place earns a $500 gift card, and the 3rd place winner will receive an awesome Blackhawk! accessory gift  package.

Remember, we tried not to make the rules very rigid and we don’t necessarily endorse or agree with any of the submissions. Submissions were asked to be about firearms or ammo and not be political in nature. So, when voting we want to know what submission you found the most interesting or gave you a bit of information you didn’t know before that will help you on the range or in your home.

In total, there are eleven finalists identified by our team:

• Everything You Need to Know About the M1a
• The Gun that Changed the World
• The Physics of Pistol Shooting: Why Your Gun Works
• A Warning for Broomhandle Mauser Owners
• The Future of 7.62 NATO Rifles
• Gun Lover’s Nightmare – Choose Only One Firearm
• The Mas 36
• Considerations When Purchasing a Firearm
• 1911 vs. Hi-Power
• Right Gun, Wrong Ammo?
• Unicorns Don’t Exist: Firearms Collecting

So, here are brief excerpts from our finalists, within each excerpt you’ll see a link that takes you to the entire submission. To vote, please use the anonymous ballot at the bottom of this page.

Everything You Need to Know About the M1a

Submitted by: Cameron L.

The author says you can expect a 12-18 month wait if you’re looking to purchase a M1a rifle right now.

Our first finalist won approval from the judges and also drew an enormous amount of chatter on Facebook and Lucky Gunner’s Google+ page. Cameron L. offered a look inside the often complex, costly, and sometimes intimidating world of M1a rifles. Through his guide, shooters gain an understanding of what a M1a rifle is best suited for and what to look for if considering a purchase.

 If you want a super sub-MOA semi-auto tack driver in .308 it will be a lot cheaper and easier to get there with an AR-10 than an M1a. Getting a high quality receiver, barrel and GI parts kit can easily set you back $2,500 before it is even assembled.  Finding an experienced M14/M1a armorer to put it together for you and then match conditioning it isn’t cheap.  Not to mention the months of waiting for them to finish other projects that are ahead of yours.

The Gun that Changed the World

Submitted by: Ed R.

Many American veterans were first introduced to the AK-47 while fighting in the Vietnam War.

There are some who would argue no firearm in history has accounted for as much political change as the AK-47. In his submission, author Ed R. makes that claim and supports his case with a thorough history of the Makhail Kalashnikov invented weapon. While this submission makes no outrageous claims of the AK-47′s accuracy or sole position as a history changing gun, the article gives a great feel for both the firearm and its inventor.

Kalashnikov, a hero of the former Soviet Union and the current Russian Republic, told an interviewer at a ceremony marking the rifle’s 60th anniversary that he didn’t lose any sleep over all the havoc wrought by his invention. “I sleep well. It’s the politicians who are to blame for failing to come to an agreement and resorting to violence.

The Physics of Pistol Shooting: Why Your Gun Works

Submitted by Jim H.

A brief description of recoil force versus time after you pull the trigger.

Jim offers a detailed analysis of the physics going in inside your pistol chamber as you pull the trigger and fire each round. In-depth and scientific in nature, his analysis offers insight many shooters don’t often consider. Further, the submission serves as evidence most of us probably should have paid more attention in our high school physics classes!

You don’t have to know how guns work to shoot one, but improving your knowledge will help you make purchase decisions, read technical material, decide on modifications and talk about guns… We often do not know what we think we know, so I encourage you to read the section on Classical Mechanics.

A Warning for Broomhandle Mauser Owners

Submitted by: Farrell H.

A look at the two springs involved with the broomhandle mauser.

Farrell H. gives readers a look at the Broomhandle Mauser along with a word of caution about installing stiffer springs to handle 7.62 Tokarev ammunition. Due in part to the way the firearm handles recoil, the author suggests if a shooter wanted to provide higher spring resistence against recoil, they should work toward tweaking the main (hammer) spring of the firearm. To make his case, Farrell H. translates an original German operator’s manual and calls years of experience into play.

The 1896 design of this gun is very unusual, and was never changed throughout it’s 40 years of manufacture. The design was never incorporated in any other type of automatic pistol. So the operating function and parameters are utterly different to all other guns. That fact is often improperly understood, as people just assume it works in the same manner as all other auto-loading pistols.

The Future of 7.62 NATO Rifles

Submitted by: Marc C.

It seems the 7.62 round is getting a second life of sorts as a common platform.

As the world watches the United Kingdom and New Zealand adopt the LMT (Lewis Machine and Tool) and we see images from Iraq and Afghanistan littered with M14 upgraded rifles and M110 rifles, author Marc c. poses the question, does this mean we’ll see more 7.62 chambered rifles in the future?

Marc’s article concludes that while we’re certainly seeing a resurrection of sorts for the 7.62 round, it seems very likely the 5.56 caliber isn’t going anywhere for a while. Using a anecdotal evidence and logic from observations seen globally, Marc shares his well-informed prediction.

[5.56] does most everything the modern soldier requires from their service weapon. This major theme seen in small arms adoptions or lack of adoptions, if it does not significantly improve over the existing weapon or caliber then there is no reason to switch.  So what we are seeing here with 7.62 platforms is a small demand overblown by the speed of the internet and news media.

Gun Lovers Nightmare: Choose Only One Firearm

Submitted by: Don B.

The Winchester 1897/M97 entered military service during World War 1 with American troops.

For some, it’s like the dreadful scenario of having to choose between your children — if you were forced to only own one firearm, what would it be? In this submission, the author states his case for the 12 gauge pump shotgun. Don B. offered readers an entertaining piece, full of funny moments, a bit of Chinese language, and a brief history lesson of the firearm through its inception and early military service.

There is a 12 gauge pump for every occasion. They can be bought used for less than a “Benjamin” if you keep your eyes peeled looking for a deal, or purchased brand new and customized for as much as you would like to spend.  You can buy a base model and slowly modify it over time to your own personal preferences.

The Mas 36

Submitted by: Kurt M.

The Mas 36 shoots 7.5 ammunition, a caliber similar to .308. (Image Courtesy: www.yesterdaysweapons.com)

Ridiculed for its French heritage, the Mas 36 may be the butt of shooters’ jokes in some circles but in this article, the author stands up in defense of the rifle. The unique firearm features a forward angled bolt and the complete lack of an external safety. While it won’t win any beauty pageants, author Kurt M. says the Mas is worth owning and deserves more repsect, no matter what you think of the French military.

The Mas 36 deserves a better reputation than it has. Even if you are of the dropped once crowd, know that it wasn’t dropped because the rifle was bad. If you can get used to the unique action the Mas is a lot of fun. Oh, and I can still get ammo for it, I never had a shortage. Try shooting one, I think you’ll end with a better impression than before you did.

Considerations When Purchasing a Firearm

Submitted by: David M.

Folks lined up to buy a firearm at a gun show. (Photo Courtesy: M. Glasgow/Flickr)

Let’s face it, if you’re new to firearms making that first purchase can be an intimidating process. Pistol or revolver? Handgun or long gun? New or used? In David M.’s submission, he sets up a list of considerations prospective gun buyers can run through as they make their purchasing decision. A wealth of personal experience and answers to common questions shared on forums throughout the gun community, the author offers a good source that will hopefully encourage more shooters to become involved in the hobby.

Unless under no possible circumstance you don’t think you might need to trust your life with the firearm you are buying, reliability should be your number one concern… You can get a good idea by doing your research, but the only way to know whether your gun is reliable and with what ammo is to shoot it, a lot!

1911 vs. Hi-Power

Submitted by: Kurt M.

The LSI Citadel 1911. (Image Courtesy: AverageJoesHandgunReviews.blogspot.com)

Most gun owners are well aware of the legendary status and role John Browning played as a gun designer and innovator. When it comes to semi-automatic pistols, perhaps Browning’s two most famous handguns are the 1911 and the Hi-power. In his submission, author Kurt M. tackles the question of why each gun has been around for ages and is still beloved by a huge number of American shooters.

So, which one is better? First you need to handle both and see which one feels best in the hand, that’s the most important thing. Then ask yourself what gives you more confidence, a bigger bullet, or more bullets. That will give you the answer, but you really can’t go wrong with either one. To shoot either gun, is to love it.

Right Gun, Wrong Ammo?

Submitted by: Patrick W.

.223 typically will fire in a 5.56 chambered firearm without a problem but you could have problems if you shoot 5.56 ammo in a .223 chambered AR-15.

From the often discussed .223 vs. 5.56 debate to possibly lesser debated comparisons like .308 vs. 7.62×51, this article gives a look at the common ammunition misconceptions. In his article, Patrick W. describes the common problems that can come with shooting ammo that’s less than ideal in your firearm. Also, a word of caution about folks selling ammo and what can be an overly generous description of what guns that particular ammunition will work best with.

Consider this pearl of wisdom. Just because someone has an item for sale doesn’t make that someone an expert, it makes them a salesman. Case in point, I was at a gun show, looking for an AR upper. I spotted four at one table so I moved in for a look. The guy behind the table was telling another potential buyer that a 5.56 and a .223 were the same cartridge. By sheer coincidence, all four of his uppers were chambered in .223!

Unicorns Don’t Exist: Collecting Firearms

Submitted By: Jeremiah K.

A real life “unicorn”. A chrome Luger allegedly taken off a “high ranking German officer”.

The wild world of rare firearms collecting is fascinating but also full of fraud. In his submission, Jeremiah K. outlines some of the more common stories behind collecting firearms and why the fantastic collector’s piece you may be looking at is nothing more than a mirage. The author stresses knowing your history and if you see something that appears too good to be true, it probably is.

Gun collectors are romantics. We get drawn in by the history and lore of the pieces we are pursuing. A mismatched 1911 could have been assembled out of surplus parts in the 1950′s or one of Merrill’s Marauders, deep in the jungles of Burma, could have cannibalized five broken .45′s to make one working pistol with which to fight the Japanese… When forced to decide between likely fact and possible legend, we “print the legend.”

So what do you think? Which entry is most deserving of the $1,000 grand prize? Let us know what entry or entries you think are deserving on the ballot below. We’ll announce the grand prize winner as well as the 2nd and 3rd prize winners April 5 on the Lucky Gunner Facebook and Google+ pages.

The first time I saw Rick Grimes with his old-fashioned Colt Python on AMC’s “The Walking Dead”, my first thought was, “Great, another show with lots of guns written by people who don’t know the first thing about guns”. While subsequent episodes have not changed my mind on that specific point, as the plot has unfolded, I’ve questioned my initial assumption that Grimes’ signature revolver is an ignorant and impractical choice of weapon.

What follows is a summary of the history, factors, and circumstances that changed my mind.  For many shooting enthusiasts, I know this is a hard sell, but bear with me and let us know if you change your mind, too. For those of you who already “get it”, well… you were a few steps ahead of me.

If you have a short attention span like me and you want to get the history and technical part over with, here’s a quick summary of the Colt Python’s background and capabilities:

Want this graphic? Grab the embed code:
<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/python-final-filtered-4-e1360074294261.jpg" alt="The Colt Python's capabilities"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/colt-python" title="Read more about the Colt Python and The Walking Dead at LuckyGunner">More from LuckyGunner.com</a></p>

Initial Skepticism

Remember, it’s a Television Show

Like most firearms enthusiasts, I frequently find myself resisting the urge to yell at the screen any time a movie or TV show commits some kind of gun-related “mistake”. I definitely had that urge when I saw the pilot episode of “The Walking Dead”. There’s our hero, Deputy Sheriff Rick Grimes, joining his fellow officers to try and apprehend a couple of criminals in an intense standoff. The other cops are wielding heavy-hitting 12 gauge shotguns and period-correct Glock pistols, both currently among the most common law enforcement firearms in the United States.

Then, Rick draws his gun to join them and what does he have? A beautiful six inch stainless steel .357 magnum Colt Python.

After I spent about half a second ogling the sleek lines on this timeless classic, I reverted to ravenous shouting gun-fanboy mode and spat off a dozen reasons why that character should not and would not be carrying that particular firearm. Not only did cops stop carrying revolvers back in the 90′s, but who brings a six-shot antique with them to fight off the countless shambling hordes of undead?

Don’t worry, I’ve had a couple of seasons to get over it. If you can look past the obvious anachronism, the Python is, symbolically, a fitting weapon for our protagonist. It’s large and intimidating and makes a powerful statement. The expertise with which Rick handles the large gun shows that he is in complete control.

The revolver’s tradition and history make it a nearly perfect fit for Rick Grimes’ persona.

“Rick is John Wayne writ modern. His trusty hand cannon of a Colt – along with his gold star, big ol’ hat, and grim determination to do what’s necessary over what’s good – make him the 21st Century Duke. Rick picks up any number of different weapons over the course of his zombie killing career, but, like every classic Western hero, will always go back to his revolver,” Alex Brown, writer and reviewer of “The Walking Dead” for Tor.com said.

Despite his occasional emotional volatility and quest to cling to some kind of morality in a devastated new world, Rick’s symbol of leadership is still embodied in his larger-than-life sidearm. The short time that he doesn’t have it by his side is when he loans it to Otis; a time when Rick was absent as a leader, focused on his dying child. In early episodes, Rick is still getting his bearings and in many cases shows a desire to cling to a now outdated model of civilization.

His old-fashioned six shooter reminds us that Rick is at risk of becoming an obsolete relic of a bygone era. But Rick adapts, and his Colt remains his weapon of choice. At the end of the show’s second season, Rick gives his famous “this is not a democracy” speech, the Python at his side reinforcing that he’s still the man in charge.

The Colt Python Stands the Test of Time

Top of the line when introduced; Today, a collector’s item

This vintage advertisement run during the Colt’s introduction to shooters in 1955. (Image Courtesy: Colt)

The Python makes a great symbol, but for folks like me and my gun nerd pals, that fact by itself is just not gonna cut it. A wheel gun is still a sub-optimal choice for the apocalypse, so why am I willing to forgive the show for equipping its hero so poorly? Because the Colt Python is just plain awesome, and here is why:

The Python was first introduced in the mid-1950′s; a time when revolvers were king in the US handgun market, and the Python was developed to become the king of the revolvers. With each gun being hand-fitted by expert craftsmen at Colt, the new revolver was made to be a “premium-grade” target pistol.  It was an instant hit with citizens looking for a self-defense gun, and more important for its long-term success, cops loved it too.

The four and six inch barreled versions of the Python could soon be found in the holsters of police officers all over the country. The high price tag meant few police departments placed contract purchases for their whole force, but many officers carried their personally-owned Pythons on duty; a status symbol to mark a lawman with more sophisticated taste than the average beat-walker.

Colt also produced an eight inch barreled version of the Python that was specifically designed with hunters in mind, and shorter 2.5 and three inch models for easier concealed carry for plainclothes cops and permit-holding civilians. In the latter decades of the 20th century, America’s police force traded in their revolvers for semi-automatics that could hold three times as much ammo before reloading. Revolver sales steadily declined and by 1999, Colt stopped regular production of the Python.

Still highly regarded today, Pythons command a premium on the used market, and are prized by both collectors and serious shooters. Colt priced the Python around $125 in 1955. In today’s dollars, that’s about an $1,100 investment, making it tough on the wallet to begin with. But the last few years have seen an increase in prices on the secondary market and a used Python will run you anywhere from $1,500 for a well-used model, up to $6,000 for some of the more scarce variants.

The Python’s Mystique

To shoot the Python is to love it

The Colt Python .357 magnum revolver. (Image Courtesy: Steve Z/Flickr.com; some rights reserved).

The revolver was highly revered in its day and in many ways still is. But what makes the Python so great? Companies like Smith and Wesson and Ruger also made excellent revolvers in the same time period, many of which are still in production today and have their own loyal following. But listen to a fan of Pythons and they talk as if firing it is a transcendental spiritual experience.

Even Andrew Lincoln, the actor who portrays Rick Grimes, has a genuine appreciation for the Python. In an online Q&A with AMC, he said of the Python,

“I love my cannon… The Colt Python is like a Rolex: It will never fail you… It’s become part of my body. I had to wrestle with the props department when they took it back the last time.”

See what I mean? It sounds like the man has a romantic– maybe even religious relationship with the Python, and he doesn’t even get to fire live ammo. Handgun experts echo this kind of praise. Colt historian and author RL Wilson described the Colt Python as “the Rolls-Royce of Colt revolvers”.

According to popular opinion, there are a few characteristics of the Python that have lead to its mythical status in the world of firearms. Beyond the previously-mentioned high standard of craftsmanship, there is the caliber of ammo the Python fires: .357 magnum.

Ever since it was introduced in the 1930s, American shooters have had a love affair with the .357 magnum. There have been several larger and more powerful handgun cartridges available for many years, but .357 revolvers boast a superior balance of effectiveness, size, and controllability. All revolvers chambered in this cartridge also have the added benefit of being able to fire the weaker .38 special ammo. With significantly less recoil and lower cost, .38s are great for practice, and they aren’t half-bad for self-defense either. This adds a huge practical advantage for .357 revolvers that most other guns do not share.

But there are dozens of .357 magnum revolvers on the market; even a few whose fit and finish rivals that of the Python. The secret to the Python’s success is one that can only be appreciated by actually firing it. Any revolver shooter will tell you that of all the characteristics that distinguish a good revolver from a great one, the trigger is the most significant. A stiff, heavy, or gritty-feeling trigger will ruin an otherwise perfect revolver.

The Colt’s trigger is not only smooth, but light too, so that it requires minimal pressure from the finger to fire. This means the gun is more likely to stay on target and it’s easier to hit what you’re aiming at. The late Col. Jeff Cooper, another notable fan of the Python and grandfather of modern handgun technique, had this to say about the Python’s operation:

“Its single action release is usually superb, combining with its weight and fine sights to provide excellent controllability. The Python is expensive, and it should be.”

Other Famous Characters

Before Rick Grimes and “The Walking Dead” on Television

Rick Grimes, the protaganist in the hit AMC show The Walking Dead, stares down the barrel of a Colt Python during an episode in the show’s second season. (Image Courtesy: AMC)

The Colt Python has been showcased in film and on television before but maybe never in as bright a light as what “The Walking Dead” offers.

Denzel Washington was nominated for a Golden Globe while carrying the Python in the 2007 movie “American Gangster”, it has been featured in numerous blockbuster video games like “Resident Evil”, “Call of Duty”, and “Counter Strike”, and is a common star on television programs like “CSI: New York”, “Chappelle’s Show”, and “Starsky and Hutch”, according to the Internet Movie Firearms Database.

The iconic appearance of the Python makes it a media darling in addition to its superb real-world performance.

Colt Python Performance

Disadvantages in a Walking Dead situation

Even with its mythic status and superior handling characteristics, the Python still has several disadvantages for someone in Rick Grimes situation. But those shortcomings may be offset by a few less obvious advantages. The most apparent problem with revolvers is their low ammo capacity. Not only are you limited to six rounds with the Python, but it takes much longer to reload than a magazine-fed semi-automatic. When facing an encroaching pack of hungry undead, that’s a pretty significant problem. For purists or fans of The Walking Dead comic book series, the reloading process for a revolver would be particularly difficult for Grimes. The deputy sheriff loses his right hand in Issue #28.

Grimes, at the bottom of the image, loses his hand as part of the comic book series. Whether he’ll pay the same price in the television series is yet to be known. (Image Courtesy: Walkingdead.wikia.com)

The Python is built slightly differently than most revolvers. Internally, the Colt is much more complex, which is both a burden and blessing. The complexity leads to improved performance, fantastic when facing a life-or-death situation. However, the Colt is one of the worst revolvers to own when it comes to the accessibility of spare parts. The complicated mechanics of the firearm can be more susceptible to problems than simpler and more rugged revolver designs. Certainly in an apocalyptic situation, spare components would be tough to come by and the expertise of an experienced gunsmith would also be a rare find.

Revolvers generally require very little cleaning and lubrication compared to other options, but if you neglect regular maintenance for too long, the results can be catastrophic. If you’re shooting a semi-automatic pistol and something goes wrong, you have a good chance of being able to clear the failure in a matter of seconds. Some types of problems are easily cleared in a revolver too. But if, for example, you’ve been too busy burying your dead-undead-former best friend to clean your guns, the next time you go to blast a couple of walkers, your revolver’s cylinder might lock up due to powder fouling, and you’re going to need time and tools to get it up and firing again. For someone that puts himself in situations like Rick Grimes, any malfunction could mean death, or zombification.

The Python, like many revolvers, typically does not require as much cleaning and lubrication as pistols. (Image Courtesy: Steve Z/Flickr.com; some rights reserved)

Advantages

But let’s give Rick the benefit of the doubt and assume for a moment that he’s an absolute prodigy with the Colt Python. Perhaps he rarely misses and can reload with unlikely-but-still-humanly-possible Jerry Miculek-like speed. The low ammo capacity is still a problem, but certainly less-so when the revolver is in the hands of an expert. When you consider that the combo of the .357 magnum cartridge and the Python’s six-inch barrel gives the revolver an effective range and practical accuracy that approaches twice what you’d get out of the average 9mm pistol, the revolver begins to look like an attractive option for keeping walkers at bay. A semi-automatic rifle with a 30+ round magazine would be the best choice for survival, and a modern semi-automatic pistol provides the most rounds in the smallest package. But Rick’s Python is more portable than a rifle and more deadly at long range than the pistols and shotguns the other characters use.

Also consider the versatility of ammunition, especially in times of survival, when ammo is a hot commodity and the ability to fire anything is vital. Assuming Rick has both .357 ammo and .38 special ammo, he can adapt the gun to different situations. For picking off walkers at long-range, the magnums are ideal. When he’s expecting a close-range threat, .38s will do just fine. If stealth is required, again, .38′s provide an advantage because they make a little less noise, and if Rick has to fire, he can reduce the risk of alerting more walkers, or anyone else nearby.

Despite the availability of more modern firearms, the Python turns out to be not such a bad choice for hunting the undead.

Ultimately, a good signature weapon is more than a practical tool for the hero. It helps to define him. Whether it’s James Bonds’ sleek and sexy Walther PPK, or Dirty Harry’s “take-no-prisoner’s” .44 magnum, the notable weapons wielded by our favorite heroes help to tell their story. Over time, I think Rick Grimes’ Colt Python will become as much an icon as these other classics and they will be remembered as the man and the gun that survived the end of the world.

Normally, Lucky Gunner Labs is a place for rigorous and exhaustive testing, unique product reviews, how-to guides, and data sharing. Well, this time, they made the mistake of letting me write a post. I hope you guys enjoyed it and I hope they let me come back!

So, what do you think? Is the Colt Python a good fit for Rick Grimes or should he be wielding a different weapon? Sound off in the comments!

There are two major types of centerfire rifle cartridges available on the market today:

• Those which are loaded with steel, and
• Those which are loaded with brass

This seemingly simple variation has caused a never ending stream of argument, discussion, speculation, and questioning from new and seasoned shooters alike.  Complicating the conversation are other variables that typically get lumped into the argument without proper segmentation, such as:

• The different coating options available on the steel-cased ammo (lacquer or polymer)
• The different projectile loadings available (copper jacketed lead, the bi-metal coating that most Russian manufacturers use, etc)
• The different propellant (gunpowder) burn rates

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.  We’ve done our best.  Please keep reading to see if you agree.

Here’s what we did:

• We acquired four identical Bushmaster AR-15 rifles.  We chose the Bushmaster MOE Series AR-15 because it’s a widely available, affordable, and mass-market.  We didn’t want something too cheap and of lower quality or something too expensive and of high quality since our goal is to help the most number of people.
• We acquired 10,000 rounds each of the following ammunition (new production):
  • Federal 55gr – Brass-Cased – Copper Jacket
  • Wolf 55gr FMJ – Steel-Cased with Polymer Coating – Bi-Metal Jacket (steel and copper)
  • Tula 55gr FMJ – Steel-Cased with Polymer Coating – Bi-Metal Jacket (steel and copper)
  • Brown Bear 55gr FMJ – Steel-Cased with Lacquer Coating – Bi-Metal Jacket (steel and copper)
• We paired each ammunition type with a specific Bushmaster AR-15 and then fired all 10,000 rounds of it through that particular carbine (except for Tula; more on that below)
• We systematically observed and tested various things, including (more details below):
  • At the start: accuracy, velocity, chamber and gas port pressures, chamber cast
  • After 2,000 rounds:  accuracy, velocity
  • After 4,000 rounds:  accuracy, velocity
  • After 5,000 rounds: throat erosion, chamber cast
  • After 6,000 rounds:  accuracy, velocity
  • After 8,000 rounds:  accuracy, velocity
  • After 10,000 rounds:  accuracy, velocity, chamber and gas port pressures, throat erosion, extractor wear, chamber cast, barrel wear
• We logged every malfunction of every rifle-ammo combination
• The rifles were cleaned according to a preset schedule and temperatures were monitored and kept within acceptable limits (more below)
• We sectioned the barrels and otherwise made unique observations after the test was complete

If you’re interested in any of the following, you’ll find observations, data, and further details below:

• Which ammunition was most reliable?
• Which ammunition was the dirtiest?
• Which performed better, lacquer or polymer coating?
• Which ammunition maintained the highest degree of accuracy throughout the test?
• Which ammunition maintained the most consistent velocity throughout the test?
• Which ammunition caused the most throat, barrel, and extractor erosion/wear?
• What effect did the powder burn rates have on bolt cycling?
• How did the pressure at the gas port vary by ammunition type?
• How did the pressure at the chamber vary by ammunition type?
• Which is cheaper to use, after considering all the costs?

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.  We hope you’ll find it as fascinating as we did.  If you’re in a hurry and just want a brief overview, check out the summary video below.

Test Video Summary

View and share our 2 minute video summary.

<iframe src="http://fast.wistia.com/embed/iframe/tl9vjrkx4n?controlsVisibleOnLoad=true&endVideoBehavior=reset&version=v1&videoHeight=346&videoWidth=615&volumeControl=true&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5Bbuttons%5D=googlePlus-twitter-facebook-email&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5BpageUrl%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luckygunner.com%2Flabs%2Fbrass-vs-steel-cased-ammo&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5Bversion%5D=v1" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" class="wistia_embed" name="wistia_embed" width="615" height="374"></iframe> <p><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo" title="Copyright: LuckyGunner.com">Learn more at LuckyGunner.com</a></p>

Past Tests

A number of tests have been made public but none offer the depth of information shooters demand.

When considering an undertaking such as this, it’s a good idea to look at what had been done before. There have been a variety of tests conducted using the AR-15/M4/M16 platform over the last 55 years, and we studied as many as possible in order to determine the best course to take.

One of the more notable tests – certainly one of the most discussed – was the Army’s “M4 dust test” of 2007. 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, and how was each type of malfunction defined? 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.

A test of the MK18 10.5″ CQBR was conducted by Naval Surface Warfare Center Crane and presented at the 2003 NDIA conference. 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. The total number of malfunctions is given, but details on when and how each one occurred are not provided, perhaps due to time/length constraints. We borrowed a number of ideas and methodologies from this test, including limits on rate of fire and temperature.

A 2012 collaboration between Tulammo USA and Anderson Manufacturing compared the performance of Federal and Tula ammunition in Anderson Manufacturing carbines. Although malfunctions occurred during the testing, the number of malfunctions was not given.

The Ammunition

For the test, 10,000 rounds each of Federal, Brown Bear, Wolf, and Tula ammunition in caliber .223 Remington were used. Each brand of ammunition used a 55 grain full metal jacketed bullet with a lead core. The Federal 55gr .223 ammunition featured a solid copper jacket and a brass case, while the other three brands used a bimetal (steel and copper) jacket and a steel case. The Brown Bear ammo’s steel case was coated in a green “lacquer,” while the Tula and Wolf cases were coated with a gray polymer.

Brown Bear (left) and Wolf (right) were two of the ammunition brands used for the test.

The Rifles

Four brand new and identical Bushmaster MOE carbines, Bushmaster model BCWA3F MOE, were used. Each was produced in Ilion, New York at the same facility where Remington rifles are made.

Formerly located in Maine, Bushmaster rifles are now produced in New York.

Upper and lower receivers were of standard design and manufactured with 7075-T6 aluminum via the forging process. Receiver extension tubes were commercial pattern and had six adjustment points; receiver endplates were not staked. Buffers weighed 3.0 ounces and conformed to carbine dimensions. 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.

The reciprocating components were fairly standard AR-15 parts which proved to be up to the task.

Barrels were 16” in length, with all other exterior dimensions matching those of the military M4. Front sight bases were attached to the barrels with two taper pins driven from right to left. Barrel exteriors were parkerized after the attachment of the front sight bases.

Gas ports, located at the carbine position, were .058” in diameter. Chambers conformed to 5.56mm dimensions. The rate of twist was 1 turn in 9 inches, and both chambers and bores were chrome lined. Barrel nuts were torqued to inconsistent values: two had been torqued to approximately 5 ft/lbs, while the other two had been torqued within the appropriate range of 30-80 ft/lbs.

The use of Magpul MOE furniture enabled the attachment of sling mounting points and flashlight mounts from Impact Weapons Components designed for the MOE stocks and handguards. 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. Excessive tightening of the mounts’ tension screw did not fix the problem, and the flashlights were set aside for the duration of the testing.

Numerous optics and accessories were used during the test.

Optics used during the high volume shooting portion of the test include the Aimpoint CompM3 in GDI mount as well as the EOTech 552 and XPS 2-0. Backup sights were Magpul MBUS. One MBUS sight cracked and fell off of the carbine to which it was attached due to heating and cooling cycles that negatively affected the polymer material.

Excessive upper receiver heat did cause thermal discoloration of and cosmetic damage to the EOTech sights. Also, one CR123 battery in the XPS 2-0 ruptured – possibly due to heat – but both EOTechs, as well as the Aimpoint, remained functional at the end of the test. The manufacture date of the 552 was April of 2005; prior to the test, its battery spring “grommets” were replaced with a newer design, which markedly improved battery life.

Charging handles used during the test include the standard AR-15 type, the BCM/Vltor Gunfighter, and the Rainier Arms/AXTS Raptor. The majority of rounds (over 20,000) were fired with the Raptor charging handles installed in various weapons. No functional issues were encountered with any charging handle used during the test, and no practical differences were noted between the aluminum and steel latches of the various charging handle types. Most shooters who used the Raptors commented that they appreciated the ambidextrous design during manipulations of the firearms, especially during clearing.

The use of these accessories had no functional impact on the weapons and their use should not be construed as true modifications. With one exception, the results of this test reflect the performance of the carbines in the condition in which they were removed from the box. That exception was the correction of improper torque values found in two of the four test carbines. It should be noted that the carbines were disassembled and reassembled numerous times over the course of the test to allow for the use of Cerrosafe casts of the chambers.

The Bushmaster carbines were patterned after the military’s M4 Carbine, with a few changes such as a semi-automatic fire control group, a slower rifling twist rate, a 1.5″ longer barrel, and a lighter bolt carrier.

Only one type of ammunition was fired through each carbine, and the different colors of Magpul MOE furniture made it easier to identify which was which. Throughout the testing, we successfully avoided any “cross-contamination” – in other words, each carbine fired only the ammunition it was supposed to.

The carbine firing the Federal brass cased ammunition, serial number ARA041079, had standard black handguards and stock, the Brown Bear-firing carbine (LBM23712) had olive drab (green) furniture, and the Wolf (LBM21236)and Tula (LBM23157) carbines had flat dark earth (tan) furniture. For simplicity’s sake, the weapons will be hereafter referred to as “the Wolf carbine” or “the Federal carbine,” etc.

The carbines were put to good use.

Initial Preparations

Visual Inspection

Each firearm was broken down and inspected to ensure that it was within acceptable standards; this initial visual inspection did not  reveal any deficiencies 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 shot groups of over 5MOA, or over 5 inches at 100 yards, out of the box. It should be noted that ten shot groups were fired for all accuracy testing in this article, and the results 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, the rifles were examined.

All accuracy testing consisted of ten shot groups at 50 yards from a supported position with a US Optics scope at 17x magnification.

The upper receiver assemblies of the two problem carbines were completely disassembled in order to determine the cause of this issue. It was immediately apparent that 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 30-80 ft-lbs. Once the components were properly reassembled, ten shot group sizes shrank to approximately 3.5 MOA, which is a realistic result to expect from standard carbines firing bulk ammunition.

Other Tests

Before high volume testing commenced, other tests and observations were conducted in order to gather as much data as possible about the performance of the firearms. 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.

These tests were also conducted periodically throughout the testing – accuracy and velocity every 2,000 rounds, Cerrosafe at 5,000 and 10,000 rounds. Most of the firing was conducted at a very fast pace, with up to ten magazines (300 rounds) being fired in a row. Rates of fire did slow at times, especially when accuracy testing was being conducted. However, the rates of fire were identical for the test rifles – if one was fired 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 750 degrees Fahrenheit. Firing was periodically halted to identify the cause of a malfunction, conduct diagnostic tests, or replace parts.

Large dust storms were a regular occurrence during testing. This was the end of the second day of shooting.

Cleaning and Lubrication

A cleaning and lubrication schedule was followed – at 2,500 and 7,500 rounds, the bolt carrier group was wiped down with a paper towel, and at 5,000 rounds, a detailed cleaning was undertaken. A single drop of FireClean lubricant was applied to the cam pin hole of the bolt carrier group every 1,000 rounds, and six drops were used 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.

Brass vs. Steel Results

Which Ammo Was Most Reliable?

The data which will probably be most interesting to everyone who reads this article is how often each rifle malfunctioned. To satisfy that particular thirst, here are the basic results:

• Federal: 10,000 rounds, 0 malfunctions.
• Brown Bear: 10,000 rounds, 9 malfunctions (5 stuck cases, 1 magazine-related failure to feed, 3 failures to fully cycle)
• Wolf: 10,000 rounds, 15 malfunctions (stuck cases)
• Tula: DNF (6,000 rounds in alternate carbine, 3 malfunctions)

The Bushmaster carbine firing Federal ammunition fired all 10,000 rounds without any malfunctions.

The carbine firing Tula had a case stuck in the chamber after 189 rounds which 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, 24 malfunctions – stuck cases and failures to fully cycle, or “short stroking” – were encountered. At this time, the Tula carbine was removed from the testing, as the problems were causing significant delays.

A decision was made to fire the remainder of the Tula ammunition through other carbines. Approximately 300 rounds were fired through an HK416 (no malfunctions), 1,000 through a Spike’s Tactical carbine (3 malfunctions), and 6,000 through a Spike’s Tactical midlength without any cleaning (3 malfunctions). All malfunctions with the other carbines were stuck cases or failures to eject.

After thousands of rounds without cleaning, the internal components were… unclean.

Of the remaining three ammunition brands, the first malfunction encountered was a magazine-related failure to feed at 2250 rounds with the Brown Bear carbine. For the Wolf carbine, the first malfunction occurred at 4850 rounds – a stuck case.

It should be noted that this testing was conducted in the Arizona desert during monsoon season and was frequently interrupted by dust storms which covered the carbines in fine sand as well as rainstorms which drenched them in water. These storms did not affect the previously set cleaning schedule. In addition, the rates of fire were quite high, and the carbines were sometimes fired until they were too hot to touch. These rates of fire were identical for all weapons and they continued to function very well despite the adverse conditions.

In addition to dust storms, fairly heavy rain was also encountered during the monsoon season. No malfunctions were encountered during inclement conditions.

At the 5,000 round mark, the bolt carriers, upper receivers, and barrels were cleaned. After observation of high speed video showed inconsistent cycling, action springs ($3) were replaced, as were extractor springs ($6.99) and gas rings ($2.19).

The second half of the test started off with several malfunctions with the Brown Bear carbine – at 5,200 and 5,250 rounds, short stroking malfunctions were encountered. High speed video showed that the bolt was barely coming back far enough to pick up the next round, and occasionally not even far enough to eject the spent case. Additional lubrication did not prevent the second malfunction.

Several malfunctions were encountered with the Brown Bear carbine shortly after the 5,000 round mark.

A detailed physical examination revealed previously unnoticed carbon buildup in the gas key and gas tube which had almost completely occluded those components. The other firearms were inspected, and none exhibited carbon buildup which was even remotely close to that of the Brown Bear carbine. Cleaning of these components in the field proved difficult to impossible, and it was decided to set them aside in order to examine the phenomenon.

The gas tube and bolt carrier of the Brown Bear rifle were replaced with identical components, after which firing resumed without incident. No malfunctions occurred until 7,500 rounds, when five stuck cases were encountered between 7,500 and 8,200 rounds. From 7,500 rounds on, a number of cases with distended and/or split necks were observed.

The last malfunction with Brown Bear was a cycling issue similar to the first two, which was the 9,551st round to be fired. A change in report and recoil indicated that the round was possibly undercharged, although the projectile did exit the bore.

Nine malfunctions might sound like a lot, but out of 1,0000 rounds fired, that’s only a .09% failure rate. Or, if you’re the optimistic type, a 99.91% success rate.

Two more stuck cases were encountered with the Wolf carbine at 5,800 and 5,850 rounds. No actions were taken, and the next stuck case was not encountered until the round count was over 9,000. From 9,200 to 10,000 rounds, twelve stuck cases were encountered. During this time, a Boresnake was used to superficially clean the bore and chamber; it did not appear to have any effect on the occurrence of malfunctions.

As stated previously, the carbine firing Federal ammo functioned flawlessly from the first round to the last. There is not much else to report in terms of reliability. It just worked.

The table below summarizes the reliability of each manufacturer’s ammunition as well as mean rounds between stoppages (MRBS).

<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Reliability-table-Sunday-e1357506241973.png" alt="Reliability During 223 Torture Test"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo" title="Read about 223 ammo and LuckyGunner's Torture Test">Copyright: LuckyGunner.com</a></p>

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.

Special attention was also paid to how much effort was required to clean each rifle at the 5,000 round detailed cleaning portion of the test. Here, high-resolution photos of the lowers are available for your perusal.

Interestingly, the dirtiest lower receiver was that of the Federal 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 – although it should be kept in mind that the Brown Bear carbine’s gas tube and gas key were so fouled with carbon after 5,000 rounds that it would no longer function reliably. Nearly the same level of buildup was found on the replacement key and tube after they had seen just short of 5000 rounds.

How was Accuracy Affected?

Although end users of off-the-shelf carbines firing bulk ammo should never expect tack-driving accuracy, group sizes were checked every 2,000 rounds in order to monitor how each type of ammunition was faring. Again, these groups consisted of 10 shots at 50 yards from a supported position, using a US Optics scope at 17x magnification.

A Marine infantryman and marksmanship instructor prepares to test accuracy.

While the carbine firing Federal ammunition maintained acceptable accuracy up to and including the 10,000 round mark, 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.

Keyholing is not conducive to good accuracy or precision.

Even if we use accuracy as the only factor to determine serviceability, the Federal carbine was by far the best performer in this category. Its barrel was showing wear, but was serviceable right up to the end of the test. The Brown Bear and Wolf barrels would have required replacement at approximately 5,000 rounds, or halfway through the test.
To see accuracy results for each manufacturer at specific intervals of the testing, click through the slideshow below:

Were There Velocity Changes?

In addition to accuracy data, we have chronograph data at 2,000 round intervals. Velocity loss is another sign of a barrel becoming worn out, or “shot out.” However, in this case, it was not an exceptionally reliable indicator of barrel failure, for the Wolf and Federal velocities were fairly close to one another all the way to 10k, while the Brown Bear velocity did decrease in a more significant manner towards the end of the test. A military standard for a barrel being unserviceable is a drop in velocity of 200fps or more.

<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Muzzle-Velocity-2-19-e1357412984718.png" alt="Muzzle Velocity During 223 Torture Test"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo" title="Read about LuckyGunner's brass vs. steel torture test">Copyright: LuckyGunner.com</a></p>

Data Analysis

While the above section is essentially a factual summary of the events which occurred during testing, the following is a logical explanation for the results of the test, based on our experiments/measurements/observations as well as the work of other individuals and organizations in the field.

Why Didn’t Tula Function Well in the Test Carbine?

One of the first questions one might have after reading the above treatise is, “What happened with Tula?”

After all,  it consists of a 55 grain bimetal jacketed lead core projectile loaded in a polymer coated steel case, and this description is by no means an outlier compared to the other ammunition in the test. In terms of velocity, Tula was also in line with the other products. Tula functioned very well in a Spike’s Tactical midlength, which saw 6,000 rounds of Tula without any cleaning and only had three malfunctions.

But in the Bushmaster carbine, Tula was a no-go. In terms of functional problems, there were two major issues with Tula: “short stroking” – a failure of the bolt to fully cycle to the rear – and extraction problems. Further research and experimentation indicated that there was likely one factor which contributed to both failure types.

Chamber pressure measurements indicated that Tula had the second highest chamber pressure of any ammunition in the test when all barrels were new, and these results were verified in a separate test barrel which was used for all ammunition types. Federal was highest with a maximum average pressure of 52kpsi and Tula followed with 51kpsi. Wolf registered 47.5kpsi with Brown Bear close behind at 47kpsi.

Brown Bear’s maximum average chamber pressure was lower than that of Tula, but it functioned better overall.

Federal’s maximum average chamber pressure was the highest, and it also had a peak which occurred later than the other ammunition types.

At the beginning of the test, Wolf’s pressure curve looked very much like Brown Bear’s.

What’s really important in this case, however, is not the maximum chamber pressure number, but powder burn rate and thus gas port pressure. Whether measured in clean, fouled, new, or worn out barrels, Tula exhibited gas port pressures that were 10-20% lower than all other ammunition types.

Basically, the powder burns too fast, and by the time the bullet has reached the barrel, the pressure drops.  The rise time of Tula, defined as the time in microseconds for pressure to rise from 25% to 75% of maximum chamber pressure, is 175ms. In comparison, Federal AE223, depending on temperature, has a rise time of 260-300ms.

Couple this with the .058″ gas port used on the Bushmaster rifles – about the same as a Colt 6920 with a 16″ barrel, and just about the smallest gas port you’ll see on any 16″ carbine AR-15, and you’re bound to encounter problems. The Spike’s Tactical midlength did not have a small gas port relative to its longer gas system, and so it functioned without any short stroking issues.

The peak pressure and overall curve of Tula ammunition at the gas port were low and flat…

…while ammunition such as Wolf had higher peak gas port pressures as well as more distinct peaks.

This explains the short stroking issues, for an insufficient gas port pressure for a given gas system length and port diameter would logically cause insufficient bolt velocity – but what about the failures to extract?

Part of the answer to this question is the nature of the case material itself. When heated, steel does not expand and contract the same way that brass does – in fact, brass expands 1.5 times as much as steel. The shape of the .223/5.56 case was designed with brass as the case material; this plus the fact that steel doesn’t expand – and more importantly, contract – like brass means that extraction will be naturally more difficult.

Beyond these differences, though, is it possible that extraction of Tula – and possibly other ammo – could be made easier by adjusting the pressure curve? A clever test conducted by the US Army’s TACOM and presented at NDIA in 2003 may have the answer. Titled “Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons,” the test concluded that the extractor lifts off the rim of the case during initial rearward travel, but that residual chamber pressure holds the case against the bolt face until the extractor returns to the case rim.

In other words, if there are pressure curve issues, case extraction – made slightly more difficult by the steel case – becomes questionable, as the extractor may not return to place in time to pull the case out of the chamber. While a drop in Tula’s chamber pressure at the appropriate time is not observed, it is possible that the location of the gauge is not ideal for reading pressures against the bolt face.

We know from the rise time and gas port data that the powder does burn too fast for the system, so it is quite likely that this is a contributing factor to the rate of extraction failures.

Tula ammunition is not ideal for AR-15s with small or military spec gas ports.

To be sure, the short stroking failures are a result of low gas port pressure, which is due to a powder burn rate not perfectly matched to that which would be ideal for the AR-15 platform. If you aren’t sure if this ammunition will cycle in your AR-15, buy a few boxes and shoot one round at a time from an otherwise empty magazine. If the bolt does not consistently lock back to the rear, chances are that you will encounter problems with this rifle/ammunition combination.

What Effect Did Coatings Have On Steel Cased Ammo Performance?

A common belief is that the lacquer coating of certain steel cased ammunition will “melt” in the chamber of a hot rifle and cause subsequent rounds to fail to extract. At one point, we might have believed that.

But in this test, we saw three times as many failures to extract  with the polymer coated Wolf brand ammo (15 extraction failures) than with the lacquer coated Brown Bear ammo (5 extraction failures). Although the polymer coated Tula ammunition was fired in different rifles, the rate of extraction failures in those rifles was lower than that of Wolf.

There will be a very small number of stuck cases experienced when shooting steel cased ammunition, but we didn’t see a correlation between lacquer coatings and stuck cases.

If anything would make that lacquer coating “melt,” it would be the treatment these rifles received during the test. We shot them until they were too hot to hold – hot enough that a chambered round would cook off in ten to fifteen seconds. We also tried leaving rounds chambered before temperatures reached that point. None of this harsh treatment caused extraction problems.

We found no evidence to back up the claim that lacquer coatings melt in the chamber and cause extraction failures.

Why Did The Barrels Wear The Way They Did?

Certainly one of the most visually striking parts of this article is the inclusion of post-test barrel cutaways. The barrels were cut axially with an angle grinder and then longitudinally by the wire EDM process. This lets us see exactly how the barrels wore throughout the test – and there were significant differences.

The first answer to this question is, “Because we shot them until they got hot, and then we kept shooting them.”

Due to the position of the front taper pin and the effects of extreme heat over time, the front sight base of the Brown Bear carbine had to be cut off before the barrel could be removed from the upper receiver and sectioned.

The rate of fire definitely contributed to rapid barrel wear. Still, there were other factors which played a major role.

As indicated by accuracy testing, the steel cased/bimetal jacketed ammunition caused accelerated wear to the inside of their respective bores. While the barrel of the Federal carbine had plenty of life left, even after 10,000 rounds at extremely high rates of fire, the Wolf and Brown Bear barrels were subjected to the same rates of fire and were completely “shot out” by 6,000 rounds.

At the end of the test, the chrome lining of the Wolf and Brown Bear barrels was almost gone from the throat forward, and the barrels had effectively become smoothbores, with the rifling near the muzzles acting only as a mild suggestion on the projectiles. A throat erosion gauge could be dropped into the bore from the muzzle end with absolutely no resistance.

This is a throat erosion gauge. It’s not supposed to fit inside the muzzle.

The bottom line is that for both Brown Bear and Wolf, the lands had been completely ground down to the diameter of the grooves. What’s still visible is the differences in material, for the grooves have some chrome lining left. Longitudinal scratches are visible inside the bore, and it is believed that they were caused by the projectiles meandering their way down the bore in a casual manner before exiting and tumbling in a fairly random direction.

However, the gas port of the Federal carbine was far more eroded towards the muzzle than the Wolf or Brown Bear barrels. I believe that this is due to the excessive throat erosion and barrel wear of these two barrels – the Federal barrel maintained a good seal between itself and the bullet up to 10,000 rounds, while the Wolf and Brown Bear barrels let a significant amount of gases past the projectile, reducing the flame-cutting effect on the gas port as time went on.

Brown Bear exhibited secondary pressure spikes and ignition delays at 10,000 rounds.

At 10,000 rounds, Wolf’s pressure curves were about as ugly as they could be and still result in a functioning weapon.

Federal ammunition at 10,000 rounds exhibited minor secondary pressure spikes, but the initial rise was not vastly different than the initial testing.

The steel cases themselves don’t have any effect on the condition of the bore. The difference lies with the projectile – the soft copper jacket of the Federal ammunition simply doesn’t cause the same amount of wear as the bimetal (copper and steel) jacket of the Russian ammunition.

For this measurement, throat erosion was measured in thousandths of an inch from a specific point forward of the case mouth. At 10,000 rounds, the Wolf and Brown Bear throats had eroded to a point which could not be easily measured. The diameter of the entire bore had become enlarged.

Firing continued for the Wolf and Brown Bear carbines after their barrels had been shot out in order to collect other data and finish the test. However, Tula firing was halted at 6,000 rounds from the backup Spike’s Tactical midlength.

The data from this weapon cannot be directly compared to the others, due to differences in construction (the barrel had a midlength gas port, was manufactured via the hammer forging process, and featured “extra thick” chrome lining) and methodology (it was fired with only reliability testing in mind and saw even higher rates of fire as well as environmental abuse such as mud, water, and dirt testing). Still, general conclusions can be drawn, even if direct comparisons cannot.

The barrel of the Spike’s Tactical midlength shot acceptable groups at 4,000 and 5,000 rounds, after it saw seventeen magazines of 30 rounds dumped through it several times, but by 6,000 rounds, it too was keyholing. The changes in barrel construction did not appear to offer a massive advantage in terms of barrel life, while changes in ammo – to copper jackets only – did. Performance indicators for the Federal barrel show that it would likely have remained serviceable for at least another three to five thousand rounds when it was sectioned after 10,000.

An important factor to consider is that in the real world, barrels are wear items. They will eventually become unserviceable if shot enough. If you plan on shooting a lot, don’t get too attached to your barrel – think of it as a thing that does a job for a certain period of time at a certain cost. When that time is up, change the barrel. The AR-15 is a modular platform, and barrel changes are quite simple.

Think of it this way – if a barrel A costs 50-100% more than barrel B but only delivers the same level of accuracy for 0-50% more time, isn’t it a more financially sensible decision to shoot through more examples of barrel B?

The high speed video below offers a comparison of each firearm’s cyclic rate as testing continued.

<iframe src="http://fast.wistia.com/embed/iframe/oyxijy8z9p?controlsVisibleOnLoad=true&endVideoBehavior=reset&version=v1&videoHeight=527&videoWidth=615&volumeControl=true&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5Bbuttons%5D=googlePlus-twitter-facebook-email&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5BpageUrl%5D=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.luckygunner.com%2Flabs%2Fbrass-vs-steel-cased-ammo&plugin%5Bsocialbar%5D%5Bversion%5D=v1" allowtransparency="true" frameborder="0" scrolling="no" class="wistia_embed" name="wistia_embed" width="615" height="555"></iframe> <p><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo" title="Brass vs. Steel Torture Test">Learn more at LuckyGunner.com</a></p>  

Did The Steel Cases Break or Wear Down The Extractors?

Different wear patterns were evident on the extractors after 10,000 rounds had been fired. Given that most of the extraction failures with the steel cased ammunition brands occurred during the last half of the test, it is possible that a replacement of the extractors at the halfway point or later would have reduced the number of failures to extract. These wear patterns were not easily visible with the naked eye, only becoming obvious with the aid of macro photography.

If you regularly shoot steel cased ammunition, it might be a good idea to replace your extractor along with your barrel, or at 5000 rounds, whichever comes first. Replacement extractors are not very expensive. Changing the extractor spring at the same time would require no additional work – just set aside the old extractor and spring assembly and install the new one after popping the new spring into place in the new extractor.

Average OEM extractor springs should be replaced beginning at 2,500 rounds and no later than 5,000. Better extractor springs will not require such frequent replacement with any ammunition – the Colt “Gold” extractor springs used in each rifle starting at 5,000 rounds were still providing reliable extraction at the 10,000 round mark, and would not have required replacement after 5,000 rounds.

Which Ammo To Buy

If Federal Brass Cased Ammo Performed So Great, Why Bother Buying Steel Cased Ammo?

The performance of the carbine firing Federal ammunition in this test was undoubtedly impressive. The firing of approximately 412 pounds of ammunition with very minimal maintenance in austere conditions without a single malfunction – not to mention remaining serviceable and combat accurate from the first shot to the last – could hardly be improved upon. To many who read this report, this is all the justification they need to purchase this type of ammo.

It is hard to argue with a functionally flawless performance.

To others, the increased cost of brass cased ammunition isn’t worth it – after all, the Wolf and Brown Bear ammo had very few malfunctions, all things considered. Plus, let’s be honest – in all likelihood, most people will never shoot 10,000 rounds through their AR-15. As a company we would be excited if they did, but the use these rifles saw was far beyond what is likely to be encountered in the real world. So, for many consumers, this test will be justification that buying steel cased ammunition is a sensible decision. In many cases, it is.

Imported steel cased ammunition is a lot better than it is sometimes given credit for, especially considering the reduced price.

Although ammunition prices are volatile, the prices of brass and steel remain similar to one another – that is, brass is generally more expensive. We created a chart comparing the cost over time of each type, including ammunition and spare parts replacement costs.

The difference in price between brass and steel cased (more specifically, copper jacketed and bimetal jacketed) ammunition means that you’ll have plenty of savings with which to buy new barrels – even if you shoot so fast that you replace them every 4,000 rounds. For this chart, brass ammunition was calculated at $130 per thousand higher than steel and replacement barrels at $250 apiece.

<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Brass-vs.-Steel-Sunday-e1357509017349.png" alt="Chart indicating brass vs. steel cost comparison"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo" title="Read more at LuckyGunner.com/labs">Copyright: LuckyGunner.com</a></p>
The final decision is up to you, but now that you know some facts, you can make a better-informed decision.

Our team loves data – lots of it.  It helps us make decisions, improve the customer experience, and navigate an ever-changing landscape.  The last year has been a wild and interesting one for our team and along with our loyal customers, data is right up there on the list of things that has helped us improve and endure.  With that in mind, we thought you guys might like to come “behind the scenes” and learn from the data we have access to every day.

All the information we’ll be sharing today comes from Google Analytics – which isn’t perfect, but it’s good, consistent, and an industry standard.  We hope you’ll find it interesting and worth sharing. Please keep in mind that the percentages in the right columns below indicate that row’s percentage of the annual total. So, without further ado:

Our Customers

Many of you may be surprised that we receive more traffic from California than any other state in the Union  (even after a slight decline last year) – I know I would have guessed Texas, right?  Can anyone guess who #11 is (feel free to answer in the comments)?

Not surprisingly, it was a tough year for Microsoft and Firefox and a win for Google and Apple.

The mobile landscape has changed dramatically in the last 12 months.  We’ve gone from 13.6% of our site visitors coming from a mobile phone in 2011 to a whopping 26.9% in 2012 – and growing.  It sounds like we need to listen to our customers and make our website more mobile friendly in 2013!  Here are some other interesting stats:

Our Products

Spoiler Alert!  Before you read on, can you guess any of our top 10 products for 2012 or our top selling calibers?  Record your guesses in the comments below – and don’t cheat! ;-)

Unfortunately, we don’t have all this data for 2011 readily available so we’ll just show you the 2012 data:

<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/Best-Ammo-Calibers.png" alt="2012 LuckyGunner Sales by Caliber"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/2012-ammo-stats" title="2012 LuckyGunner.com Sales by Caliber">More Ammo Stats at LuckyGunner.com</a></p>

It’s no surprise that 9mm was #1 – don’t you own a 9mm handgun? That said, if we combined 223 and 5.56, the combined caliber would take the cake at 23.75%!

Well folks, that’s it for 2012.  Did you find something surprising or interesting?  If so, please share it with your friends.  If you’re like us, you love learning about ammunition and the people who choose to purchase it online.  We can’t imagine anything more exciting to study and pursue.

Everyone at LuckyGunner.com wishes you a happy and prosperous 2013.  We’ll be hard at work in this e-commerce laboratory trying new things, running experiments, pouring over data, and making decisions – all in hopes of delivering an even better customer experience than we did in 2012.  Please wish us luck!

As a Navy Corpsman, I had the opportunity to see the results of a number of injuries, including those involving the face and eyes. I was astounded to see how crucial eye protection, sometimes referred to as “eye pro,” was and how effective it could be. I saw a number of potentially vision-threatening fragments of metal and other debris stopped by good eye protection. In one case, a large chunk of metal hit a Marine in the face, partially penetrating the lens of his glasses and causing him to lose vision in that eye. Without that eye protection, he most likely would have been killed. 

The author, with ESS eye protection, while deployed.

Not all eye pro is created equal, though. In order to understand how one type of eye protection might be “better” than another, we need to first look at what standards various types of eyewear may meet – and then shoot at them to see which eyewear provides the best protection.

Eye Protection Review Summary

This post is pretty long. If you’re short on time, here’s a brief video summary. Also, the “Summary and Recommendations” section at the end of the article will help you understand what to look for when buying shooting glasses.

Setting the Standard

Military and Industrial Standards for Eye Protection

Some organizations have set standards for eye protection – both ANSI, which sets industrial standards, and the US military, which has standards for what types of eye protection may be used by Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, and Marines on the battlefield and in training environments.

Eyewear for shooting shouldn’t just look cool – it needs to protect the shooter’s eyes, too.

The basic ANSI standard is referred to as Z87, and you’ll see this marked in a number of locations on most eye protection marketed to shooters. However, the Z87 impact standard involves a .25″ steel ball traveling at 150fps – this is fine for protecting eyes from debris that might fall or be thrown at them, but is not extremely relevant to shooters, who are dealing with objects traveling at much higher velocities.

The ANSI Z87 standard is hardly relevant to shooters.

The military standards are much higher. MIL-PRF-31013 describes a .15″ diameter projectile of a unique design traveling at 650fps, which is much closer to the velocities that are seen in the shooting world. Not surprisingly, there are not many types of eye protection on the market which are tested to this standard – or, of those that are, not many are marketed as such.

There’s a separate military standard for goggles, involving a .22″ diameter projectile at 550fps. The military standard does call for a shape and material which would provide for more barrier penetration, however, the testing conducted for the purposes of this article significantly exceeds both military standards in terms of projectile mass and velocity.

MIL-PRF-31013 tested eyewear (top) stops threats that ANSI Z87-only eyewear (bottom) fails to stop.

Neither standard is perfect, but the military standard is far more stringent and difficult to pass than the industrial standard. I strongly recommend going beyond Z87-only eyewear for shooting purposes.

What We Tested

From Cheap to Expensive, Here’s The List

Over 25 types of eyewear were tested, from $6 eye protection made in China to $220 high-end sunglasses made in the USA. Here’s the list.

Expensive Eye Pro (over $100):  

• Oakley Radarlock
• Oakley Radar
• Oakley Flak Jacket (1 Year Old Used Lenses)
• Oakley Flak Jacket (1 Year Old Unused Lenses)

• ESS Profile goggles (6 Years Old)
• Revision Sawfly
• Smith Optics Aegis Arc
• Smith Optics Aegis Echo
• Smith Optics Director
• Smith Optics Outside the Wire

• Allen Ruger Shooting Glasses
• Beretta Shooting Glasses
• Coleman sunglasses men’s
• Coleman sunglasses women’s
• Howard Leight Vapor II
• Howard Leight 1000 Series
• Howard Leight HL100
• Ironman sunglasses
• Field & Stream Sportsman Series Youth
• “Prescription glasses #1″
• “Prescription glasses #2″
• Remington T70
• Remington Interchangeable Kit
• Remington shooting glasses (older- no model number)
• Radians Hunter
• Winchester Shooting Glasses Mens
• Winchester Shooting Glasses Womens
• Winchester Shooting Glasses Youth

Although the testing is broken down by these price categories later in the article, I also singled out some eyewear as being absolutely unsuitable for eye protection. 

It’s important to note that some of the eye protection tested was older and had been exposed to sunlight for significant periods of time. The implications of constantly using eyewear, especially that which is exposed to sunlight, will be explained in this article. 

How We Tested It

How Different Types of Ballistic Eye Protection Stack Up

Initially, I planned on testing eye protection to both military and civilian standards. However, the decidedly non-standard materials and methods used for both made it pretty difficult to duplicate exactly what the military specifies, as well as what ANSI requires.

Therefore, I used a number of common firearms with relatively low-powered types of ammunition to determine how well each type of eye pro dealt with projectiles moving at “firearm velocities,” albeit those at the lower end of the range. These low-velocity projectiles might represent, for example, a ricocheted fragment of an originally larger and faster bullet.

It’s important to note that the ammunition you see here exceeds military and civilian testing standards. This test was harsh because we wanted to find the most protective eyewear on the market – and then we wanted to see when that “best eye pro” would fail.

Therefore, I introduced a few more powerful types of ammunition and used them on the eye pro which successfully protected the face from the slower/lighter ammo. All shots were taken from 25 feet. The types of ammunition used include:    

• Federal 12 gauge 2 3/4″ #8 lead shot
• CCI .22 Short  - 29gr/710fps
• CCI .22LR Standard Velocity – 40gr 1070fps

• Fog testing
• Abrasion testing
• Fit during athletic activity

Several interesting observations were made during the course of this testing. I’ll walk you through what I discovered as I tested eye protection and how my thoughts on the use of various types of eye pro have changed as a result.

Eye Protection Quick Reference Scorecard

<img src="http://labscdn.luckygunner.com/labs/wp-content/uploads/2012/07/eye-pro-test-chart.png" alt="eye pro test chart results image"/><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/eye-protection-shooting-glasses-review" title="Read about Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses on Lucky Gunner Labs">Read more about Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses</a></p>

Unsatisfactory Eye Pro

Three Types of Eyewear You Should Not Use As Eye Protection

In the course of my testing, I discovered that there were a few types of eyewear which should not be used as eye protection:

• impact rated eye pro which has been exposed to sunlight for long periods of time
• non-impact rated prescription glasses
• non-impact rated sunglasses

For the purposes of this article, consider the ANSI Z87 to be “impact rated.” It’s not perfect, but it’s better than a lot of stuff. For example, it’s my guess that a lot of people are using eyewear which falls into the above categories as eye protection.

First, we’ll take a look at older eyewear.

I tested several different types of eye protection that I had owned for five or more years – my issued ESS goggles, some yellow-lens shooting glasses which were clearly of a previous decades’ style, some prescription glasses that had an integrated headband and were intended for “sport” use, and another pair of shooting glasses that were fairly basic/inexpensive, but had seen use for years.

Although the old, well-used ESS goggles shown here technically stopped the .22 Short bullet (visible at the top of the goggles), the lens broke and was shoved into the left “eye” of the styrofoam head, which would have resulted in injury.

Every pair of older eye protection absolutely failed to stop basic “threats” which were stopped by comparable eye protection of newer manufacture or less use.

The highest quality example of the “older” group was the ESS goggle, which passed all military ballistic testing and which I personally wore in Iraq for almost all of 2006. ESS goggles and glasses were in use by nearly every Marine and Sailor in the area, and I constantly saw how effective they were.

Even so, age – and constant exposure to UV rays from sunlight – takes its toll on polycarbonate eye protection. For this reason, I would avoid using eye protection that is more than a few years old and/or has seen a lot of sunlight. Knowledgeable military sources informed me that the life cycle of military eye pro is expected to be six months.

If You Enjoy Vision, You Shouldn’t Use Regular Prescription Glasses As Eye Pro

I think it’s also important to discuss prescription glasses. A fair number of people, including myself, wear prescription glasses, and a lot of ranges don’t see any need for protective eyewear beyond prescription glasses. Wearing eye pro that fits over prescription glasses is cumbersome and annoying, to say the least, and for the most part I’ve simply worn my prescription glasses without thinking about how well they protect my eyes.

These prescription glasses offered no ballistic protection, and, in fact, proved more dangerous to the eyes due to the flying glass shards.

Then I shot a few pairs of prescription glasses, both glass and polycarbonate. Quite frankly, I will never wear regular prescription glasses as eye protection again. It is difficult to imagine how the glass prescription lenses could have been any worse – not only did they offer little resistance to the birdshot, but small glass shards flew in various directions after the shot, including straight back into the “eyes” of the styrofoam head.

The polycarbonate lenses didn’t shatter in the same dramatic manner, but they did crack and allow many pellets to go through.

These “stylish” women’s sunglasses offered almost no protection for the eyes, allowing birdshot to pass right through their lenses – and adding bits of debris to the face, as well.

I also tested a number of cheap, off-the-shelf sunglasses, and while some stopped birdshot, others did not. If it’s not ballistic rated/tested eyewear, you shouldn’t be using it for eye protection, in my opinion.

Cheap Eye Pro

Sometimes You Get What You Pay For

<object width="615" height="461" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="flashvars" value="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651852336%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651852336%2F&set_id=72157630651852336&jump_to=" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="615" height="461" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" flashvars="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651852336%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651852336%2F&set_id=72157630651852336&jump_to=" allowFullScreen="true" allowfullscreen="true" /></object><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/eye-protection-shooting-glasses-review" title="Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses Review">See more analysis on our Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses Review</a></p> Next – “cheap,” inexpensive eye protection. This is what you’re most likely going to encounter as rental or loaner eye protection at shooting ranges across the country. You’ll also find it for sale for ten to thirty dollars, depending on how many different colored lenses are included. Despite the fancy appearance of some of this eye protection, most – not all – are tested only to Z87 standards. You’re paying more for some that might be branded with a certain firearm manufacturer’s logo, not necessarily better protection.

That said, some of the most inexpensive eyewear tested was Winchester branded, and the packaging stated that it met not only Z87 standards, but MIL-PRF-31013 as well. So not all is lost when it comes to cheap eye protection. Although the Winchester eye pro didn’t perform as well as other, more expensive, MIL-PRF-31013 tested eye pro, it was much better than most other products in the price range.

Most of the eyewear in this range did not perform well in comparison to some other types. While many of the lenses themselves stood up to #8 lead shot in terms of not allowing penetration through the lens/lenses, almost none were able to stop either a glancing blow or a perpendicular hit from a .22 Short bullet, which more expensive eye protection did without fail.

If you’re looking for eye protection and don’t want to spend much money, my recommendations would be the Field & Stream Sportsman Series and the Winchester Shooting Glasses.

Affordable Eye Pro

Sometimes, Yes, You Get What You Pay For

<object width="615" height="461" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="flashvars" value="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651748290%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651748290%2F&set_id=72157630651748290&jump_to=" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="615" height="461" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" flashvars="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651748290%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651748290%2F&set_id=72157630651748290&jump_to=" allowFullScreen="true" allowfullscreen="true" /></object><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/eye-protection-shooting-glasses-review" title="See more analysis on our Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses Review">See more analysis on our Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses Review</a></p> The eyewear in this price range is (or was, when it was produced) tested to both Z87 and MIL-PRF-31013 standards. Several of the items tested, such as the Smith Aegis and Revision Sawfly spectacles and the Smith Outside the Wire goggles, are on the Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) of eyewear specifically authorized for use by US servicemembers while deployed.

The performance of all new production APEL eyewear was outstanding. Fort example, the Revision Sawfly eye pro successfully stopped #8 lead shot – which I found that most Z87-rated eyewear did – but it stayed together as a unit after being shot in that manner.

In addition, there was very little damage to the face and eye sockets/cheek areas.

The styrofoam head protected by Revision Sawfly eye pro showed less damage than those protected by less expensive types of eye pro. The damage below the nose was caused by the shotshell wad.

The same Sawfly lens was then shot head-on with .22 Short – a 29 grain bullet traveling at 710fps, which is not powerful by modern firearm standards, but might be fairly representative of a ricocheted bullet fragment. It stopped this bullet, which was placed in the middle of the right side of the lens, with minimal damage to the cheek area.

I attempted this same feat with a 40gr .22LR bullet at 1080fps on the left side of the lens, but it did penetrate. The Revision eyewear is thus not exactly bulletproof, but it offered impressive levels of protection and performance. Similar protection was offered by the Smith Optics eyewear. I was especially impressed with the performance of the Smith “Director” sunglasses, which were the only two-piece-lens sunglasses I tested which did not lose a lens when hit with birdshot.

However, they didn’t do as well when shot with .22 Short, stopping an angled shot but losing a lens back into the eye area when hit directly with .22 Short. Still, I would not hesitate to use this design as eye protection when shooting on the range.

The Smith Optics Outside the Wire goggles proved to be more than a match for birdshot and .22 Short.

The Smith Aegis eye pro – both the standard Aegis Arc and the Aegis Echo, which is intended for use with communication headsets, offered excellent protection against birdshot and .22 Short, with no penetration of the lens and minimal damage to the styrofoam face. The Smith Outside the Wire goggles stopped birdshot and .22 Short as well, but the additional cushioning provided by the goggle design resulted in almost no damage whatsoever to the face.

Most people aren’t going to wear goggles at the range, but for a deployed military member, goggles are an excellent option in terms of protecting the face and eyes. As mentioned above, the ESS goggles tested were fairly old and definitely past their life expectancy. While they certainly offered a high level of protection when new, they should serve as an example – switch out eyewear, or at least replace the lenses, before they stop being effective as eye pro.

As long as it was in new condition, I would recommend every type of eye protection listed in this section for shooting purposes. Deployed servicemembers should pay close attention to the APEL, which is a well-researched and tested list of eye protection.

Expensive Eye Pro

With High Prices Come High Quality or Style, But Not Necessarily High Levels of Protection.

<object width="615" height="461" classid="clsid:d27cdb6e-ae6d-11cf-96b8-444553540000" codebase="http://download.macromedia.com/pub/shockwave/cabs/flash/swflash.cab#version=6,0,40,0"><param name="flashvars" value="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651832460%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651832460%2F&set_id=72157630651832460&jump_to=" /><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true" /><param name="src" value="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" /><param name="allowfullscreen" value="true" /><embed width="615" height="461" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://www.flickr.com/apps/slideshow/show.swf?v=109615" flashvars="offsite=true&lang=en-us&page_show_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651832460%2Fshow%2F&page_show_back_url=%2Fphotos%2F82720798%40N06%2Fsets%2F72157630651832460%2F&set_id=72157630651832460&jump_to=" allowFullScreen="true" allowfullscreen="true" /></object><p style="text-align:center"><a href="http://www.luckygunner.com/labs" title="Read more about Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses">Read more about Eye Protection and Shooting Glasses</a></p>  The most expensive eyewear in this test came from Oakley, and to be honest, I love Oakleys. In fact, the Flak Jackets with VR28 lenses I tested were my personal eye pro for the last year. I like the style of Oakleys, and how well they stay on my face when I run.

However, while most Oakleys are Z87 rated, they are not MIL-PRF-31013 rated. What does that mean? Well, that they aren’t as good at protecting your eyes from small, fast moving objects. The one piece lens Radar and Radarlock models offered acceptable protection from birdshot and stopped or deflected angled hits of .22 Short, but wouldn’t stop direct hits from .22 Short.

Would this keep me from using them as eye pro at the range? I’d definitely use them for a lot of athletic activities and wouldn’t feel too unsafe using them at the range, but I would not buy them specifically to use as protection while shooting.

The year-old Oakley Flak Jackets did not provide high levels of protection against birdshot.

I compared two different sets of lenses for the Oakley Flak Jackets, one which I had used in the Arizona sun for a year, and one which had not seen much use. There was a difference in performance – the unused lenses being better at deflecting angled shots of .22 Short – but in general the Flak Jackets offered less ballistic protection than I would like, and I will be using other eyewear from now on.

If you are a fan of Oakleys and would like ballistic protection too, look for specifically marked Ballistic M Frames, which are on the APEL and offer ballistic protection. However, it appears that they are only available through Oakley’s military sales program, which offers good discounts to active military personnel. I was unable to order a pair of the Ballistic M Frames and could not reach anyone at Oakley in order to acquire some.

For use as shooting eye protection only, I would not recommend any of the products tested in this section.

Absorbing Energy

Some Eye Pro Does This Better Than Others

It’s important to understand another factor when it comes to protecting your eyes. While the lenses themselves may physically prevent fragments or birdshot from entering your eyes, the forces and energy of that shot are still moving towards your face. How the lens – and frame – transmit these forces to your face will affect how much damage is done to the area around your eyes.

This is definitely preferable to having pieces of metal enter your eyeball, but if we can minimize other damage, we should. In extreme cases, the failure to properly protect the eyes from this amount of force could result in loss of vision.

While this Winchester-brand eye protection passes MIL-PRF-31013 testing, it absorbed and dissipated the energy of the shot in a manner which caused more damage to the face than other types of eye pro when subjected to similar forces. The weak nose piece might be partially to blame for this.

I cannot be certain that the forces placed upon the eye protection I tested – every lens and every shot – were absolutely equal, so I can’t definitively say that X eye pro would protect your eye sockets better than Y eye pro. But I can say that I observed less crushing, tearing, and damage to the styrofoam around the eyes with certain types of eye protection, and certain lens and frame designs, than others.

I noticed that those with solid nose pieces, broad enough to not cut into the skin and not soft enough that they folded out of the way under pressure, distributed force quite well.

More damage to the face resulted with certain eye pro types which did not have, among other things, sturdy nose pieces and lens designs which dissipated force in the most ideal manner.

In one case, the eye pro was flattened and pushed backward into the face so hard that it sliced the styrofoam head in half. This isn’t likely to happen with a real human head, but it was still unpleasant to think about.

The most gruesome example was the cheap Remington eye pro which shed both lenses back towards the eyes, one of which ended up embedding itself into the eye socket. The real-world implications of this action are unpleasant.

Trust me. You wouldn’t want to have this happen to your eye.

In all, most eye pro with separate lenses did not provide a very high level of protection (Smith Optics’ Director sunglasses were the exception). Not having tested every type, I cannot say whether this extends to all separate lens eye pro on the market. It is interesting to note, though, that almost every type of eye protection on the Army Authorized Protective Eyewear List (APEL) has a one-piece lens.

Another observation was that of the one piece lens eye pro, the versions with a thin or small bridge area invariably failed at this point. This might allow fragments or debris through and will allow more damage to the surface of the face and eyes. The versions with larger or thicker polycarbonate at this point, however, offered higher levels of protection.

Other Eye Pro Factors

There Are Other Things You Need To Think About When Buying Shooting Glasses

By now you should have an understanding of how different types of eye protection perform. There are some basic practical factors you should consider when making eye pro purchases, as well, including:

• Fit – you’ll note in the above photos that the Revision Sawfly eye pro left large gaps between the rear corners of the lens and the “cheek” of the heads. This was also true on my face as well. It would take a lucky shot to get something inside the gap, but it still made me uncomfortable. If possible, you should try on different types of eye protection to see which models offer the best coverage on your face. I found the Smith Optics Aegis models to offer a much closer fit in this regard.
• More fit – I went running with nearly every pair of eye protection tested, and those with soft rubber on the arms stayed in place much better than those without. Also, the smaller/lighter eye pro didn’t move around as much when I ran. This stuff might not matter if you’re only looking for eye protection for use at a static range. If you’re moving around, though, it’s something to think about.
• Scratch resistance – No polycarbonate is immune to scratches. Even the more expensive types, like my Oakley Flak Jackets or the Revision Sawfly, scratched when tossed in a bag with some empty cases and other metal objects and tumbled around for a while. That said, the more expensive eye pro was more resistant to scratches when dust and dirt were wiped off of the lens than the cheap eye pro, which in some cases scratched so quickly that they would interfere with accurate shooting after minimal use.

Summary and Recommendations

What You Should Look For In Eye Pro

I know that this post has been long, so if you’re looking for a simple takeaway, here it is.

Non-ballistic eye protection is fine for keeping relatively slow-moving objects away from your face. Empty cases ejected from a firearm, dirt kicked up by muzzle blast, etc. For faster-moving projectiles such as ricocheted bullets, you need high quality, tested eye pro. I would personally prefer eyewear with a single piece lens for any activity where my face might be struck by small, fast-moving objects.

Individual lenses detach from the frames once a certain level of force is reached, and they are driven back into the eye sockets – sometimes at undesirable angles – where considerable damage may be done. There are good two piece lens eye pro out there, like the Smith Optics Director, but single-piece lenses distribute force much better.

Also, a wide, comfortable, and preferably soft rubber nosepiece is critical.  This will, along with good “arms,” serve to keep the eye protection in place during energetic activity – but it will also reduce the chances of the lens being driven down or back into the face at angles or with enough force to damage the orbital bones.

A frame that connects across the top of the lens, not individual arms which attach to the outside corners of the lens, is recommended. This will reduce the chances of the lens detaching from the frame – it’s still possible, just less likely – under impact. Depending on the design, some eye pro with this design also uses the frame to absorb impact and distribute force.

You should also consider how well the eyewear fits you, both in physical dimensions and comfort – and, frankly, whether you think it looks good on you, because you’ll be more likely to wear it if you don’t think it makes you look stupid. Finally, make sure the manufacturer states that it passes MIL-PRF-31013 testing.

Take some time to find the right eye protection for you – and keep in mind that you don’t have to spend a fortune. It’s possible to buy eye protection that meets all of this criteria for as little as $40, which is a pittance compared to losing your vision.

One of the reasons why I love to fly is that it allows me incredible freedom of movement. Especially for medium range trips that might take several days worth of driving to complete – a relatively easy day in the cockpit will get me there with time to spare. This has allowed me to attend industry trade shows and business meetings on my own schedule and without the hassle of flying commercial.

In this article, I will discuss the basic legal and practical issues regarding the transportation of guns and ammunition. I am, quite fortunately, not a lawyer, and cannot give you any legal advice (especially advice relating to your local laws), but I can give you a good overview of the major legal issues – primarily because there are not many of them. In addition, I can share with you the practical lessons I have learned while flying with firearms.

Before I begin, I must add another disclaimer: this article is written only for those operating under Part 91. While Part 135 operators are also able to fly with firearms and not deal with the restrictions that major air carriers must impose, there are other issues which are not germane to a discussion of general aviation and firearms. In addition, those flying aircraft with a gross weight over 12,500lbs may be subject to other restrictions which are not covered here.

If you’re not a pilot, you might still find this article relevant – chances are you might know someone who is a pilot, and you might want to talk with them about flying somewhere to shoot. You might be surprised at how that far-away, but really interesting, shooting range or hunting spot isn’t that far away by aircraft.

Here’s a quick video overview of the legal and practical issues, but the most detail can be found in the article:

Legal Issues

Concealed Carry and Firearm Possession

First, it’s important that you know the local laws for both your departure and destination airports, as well as those for any alternates you may select. Those who live in “gun-friendly” states may not consider some of the odd restrictions which other states have in place. Furthermore, if you’re carrying a concealed weapon, you should ensure that your state’s concealed weapons permit is recognized by the state you to which you are traveling. This interactive map from USACarry should help on that front. These things might sound obvious, but in the course of the intense planning that a cross-country flight requires, it’s easy to forget the little things.

As you can see from this map, state laws on concealed carry can vary wildly.

You should be aware that you are not prohibited from traveling with firearms in your personal airplane under federal law and federal aviation regulations (FARs). In addition, you are afforded specific protections when traveling with firearms in any vehicle – as long as you comply with storage requirements. In fact, when I spoke with Lt. Tim Taylor of the Tucson Airport Authority, he said that under the law, your airplane is the same as any other motor vehicle – such as a car.

18 USC § 926A states the following:

Notwithstanding any other provision of any law or any rule or regulation of a State or any political subdivision thereof, any person who is not otherwise prohibited by this chapter from transporting, shipping, or receiving a firearm shall be entitled to transport a firearm for any lawful purpose from any place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm to any other place where he may lawfully possess and carry such firearm if, during such transportation the firearm is unloaded, and neither the firearm nor any ammunition being transported is readily accessible or is directly accessible from the passenger compartment of such transporting vehicle: Provided, That in the case of a vehicle without a compartment separate from the driver’s compartment the firearm or ammunition shall be contained in a locked container other than the glove compartment or console.

In other words, you’re allowed to travel from one state where your guns are legal to another state where your guns are legal. However, there are a few exceptions you should know about.

Diverting to an Alternate…State

If you’ve been flying for very long, you’ve no doubt encountered a situation – weather, mechanical problems, passenger issues – that required you to divert from your intended destination or en-route fuel stop. On very long trips, this might involve different states than you intended to visit, and certain states have an overzealous approach regarding firearms laws.

Law enforcement officers are more reasonable to deal with than convective activity.

Greg Revell was arrested and jailed for five days in New Jersey after he was stranded overnight by a delayed commercial flight and had to check his bags, including a firearm, with the airline again the next day. This does not directly relate to general aviation, but it is easy to see how a diverted GA flight could land you in hot water.

Mr. Revell ended up suing the NY/NJ Port Authority, and his case is currently headed for the Supreme Court. This case should serve as a warning to others – if at all possible, avoid inadvertent travel to locations where your firearms are not welcome.

Of course, if your safest and/or best choice is to land at such a place, you should take that route. The oft-used phrase “better to be tried by twelve than carried by six” takes on a unique new meaning when used in the context of aviation decision making.

On the far left is Ciudad del Juarez, Mexico. Immediately in front of the aircraft is El Paso, Texas. We don't recommend landing in Mexico with guns and ammunition.

One factor of GA is that it affords you a certain degree of independence which commercial flights do not; should you find yourself forced to land in a location where your firearms are not allowed, it may be best to not bring this fact to the attention of local law enforcement, and instead depart the area as soon as possible.

Staying Out of Restricted Areas at Controlled Airports

As you may know, it’s not allowed (under numerous laws, such as this one) for most people to possess a firearm inside the controlled area of an airport – the areas between security screening and the commercial aircraft, as well as the portion of the airport reserved for commercial aircraft operations (such as the passenger terminals). While it’s highly unlikely that any tower or ground instructions would include taxiing inside the secure area reserved for commercial aircraft operations, you should be aware that you might not be able to accept taxi instructions to certain parts of controlled airports.

General Aviation areas, where private aircraft are welcome (highlighted in green) - and restricted areas, as well as terminals, which should be avoided (highlighted in red) - are normally identified quite well on airport diagrams.

Lt. Taylor informed me that not only is the tower not going to instruct a general aviation aircraft to taxi into the area restricted for commercial aircraft only, but that there are signs directing GA pilots to the appropriate portion of the airport. Should the pilot of a general aviation aircraft inadvertently taxi into the restricted area, it would most likely be intercepted by police – and as it would technically be a violation of the law, the pilot could face serious consequences.

You may have also noticed that the federal statute above discusses keeping the firearm secured from your reach while traveling. This would seem to preclude concealed carry, but the opening sentence essentially allows the states to determine how you may carry – therefore, if you may legally carry concealed at your departure and destination airports, you are not required to remove your handgun from your person during flight.

In addition, if you must secure the firearm for transport according to state or local law, there is a provision in the federal law which states that a locked container is sufficient for this purpose. Therefore, aircraft with baggage compartments accessible during flight are still “legal” for the purpose of transporting firearms, if you lock the firearms in a container during flight. If you’d like to read more on the legal issues from a lawyer, this is an excellent article. However, as you’ll see in the next section, there are many practical considerations which you must consider.

Practical Issues

Weight and Balance

If you’ve determined that you are legal to fly with firearms, you may think that there’s nothing else to worry about – but there are several more factors to consider. Firearms and ammunition are fairly unique in their weight and dimensions.

Pilots are taught the importance of weight and balance when they’re learning to fly, but it’s a topic that can be easily forgotten about, and the fact remains that firearms and ammunition can be very heavy. If I’m traveling on business, I may only have one handgun and a small amount of ammunition. If I am flying to a planned shoot, I may have several rifles and a large amount of ammunition.

Travel for a long-range shooting match or a hunting trip might involve a variety of heavy and bulky gear.

I mostly fly solo, but if another person is along for the ride, their baggage, as well as their firearms and ammunition, may push the weight of the aircraft close to or over its max gross weight, or move the CG of the aircraft to an unacceptable point. If this is the case for you, it might be a good idea to order ammunition online and have it shipped to your destination.

Full fuel, a couple of big guys, some heavy rifles, lots of ammo - suddenly, you're over gross. Use a weight and balance calculator if you've forgotten how to calculate it by hand.

Secure That Load

Another weight consideration is that if you encounter turbulent air, are forced to make immediate changes to your course, or have a hard landing, unsecured objects in your aircraft may become missiles. The density of ammunition and the containers in which ammo is normally found could result in disorientation or unconsciousness if you were struck in the head by a flying box or case of ammo, which might have eventually fatal results. Stranger things have definitely happened in the course of aviation history.

I recommend storing larger quantities of ammunition in a location where their containers will not harm anyone inside the plane, should sudden maneuvers be required. In addition, you might wish to avoid ammo cans such as the one pictured here, because the container itself may present a hazard.

For this reason, I secure larger amounts of ammunition in soft-sided bags and attempt to keep these bags away from the passenger compartment. The baggage compartment is the best place for this, but its aft location in the Cessna singles I normally fly, as well as its maximum weight allowance, restricts me from putting a huge amount of ammunition there. Similarly, if you’re flying a twin which has baggage compartments in the wings, be sure to distribute weight evenly from side to side. If you have cargo netting, be sure to use it – if you don’t have cargo netting or some other way to tie down this stuff, find some.

If you don't have some way to secure heavy objects in your aircraft while in flight, you are unnecessarily putting yourself at risk.

If you’re flying a float-equipped aircraft, you have access to storage compartments in the floats – but water often finds its way into these compartments. If you have to keep firearms or ammunition there, sealing them inside a waterproof bag is an excellent idea. In addition, consider keeping ammunition in containers which won’t serve to contain pressure in the event of a fire. Ammunition by itself isn’t especially dangerous in the event of a fire – it’s most dangerous when inside the barrel of a gun, where the pressure is directed towards propelling the bullet to a high velocity – but inside a small metal container, this pressure can in fact be dangerous.

As far as the firearms themselves go, handguns are easy to store in a lot of bags and containers. Rifles and shotguns, on the other hand, can be quite long and awkward to store, especially in the cramped quarters of a Cessna 172. Those flying cabin-class aircraft will not face much of an issue, however, although thought should still be given to securing a long and heavy object inside the cabin.

In aircraft with controls in the rear, such as this Piper PA-12, special care should be taken to not leave cases unsecured where they could interfere with the controls.

If you’re unsure of your passengers’ intentions, you may wish to take the route of John at Aviation Mentor, who said, “If I had a passenger who wanted to carry a firearm on a flight, the only way I’d allow it would be for the firearm to be unloaded, with a trigger lock, and for the ammunition to be stored in its original packaging inside a second locked container. I’d want both the firearm and the ammunition to be secured in the baggage area such that it was not accessible in flight. And I’d want to personally be possession of the keys for the duration of the flight.”

Break It Down

Because of the size of many firearms, I prefer firearms that may be easily taken down and stored in smaller bags or containers. AR-15 rifles are excellent for this purpose, but it’s not impossible to break down other weapons. That said, bolt action rifles often pose a problem in this regard.

The Remington 700 is a favorite of mine for long-range shooting matches, but in stock form it is very difficult to disassemble and render shorter in the field. As with most things, money provides a solution: there are numerous bolt action rifles which may be taken down easily. However, few of them could be considered cheap. If you’re looking for such a rifle on a budget, the new TC Dimension is an affordable option.

Once I have packed my firearms and ammunition in the appropriate containers and stored them in the right location in the aircraft, I always secure them – with cargo netting if they’re in a baggage compartment, or bungie cords if they’re in the cabin. It’s not likely that I will need them in flight, but I will need them to stay where I put them. Why have I mentioned this twice? Because I once had to deal with an in-flight load shift – and I never want to do that again.

In some areas – such as Alaska – external storage tubes are attached to the struts of bush planes, and rifles or shotguns may be stored inside. For very small aircraft such as Cubs, this may be the only option. However, you may not wish to advertise that you’re carrying a gun – in the Alaskan bush it is the same as carrying an extra pair of socks, but in West Palm Beach it might not be socially acceptable to show off your “hardware” in this manner. Some airplanes such as one of the Cessna 180s pictured in this article have modifications to the baggage compartment which allow long objects like fishing poles or rifles/shotguns to be stowed there.

It's not pretty, but you could place fishing poles or firearms inside this tube during flight.

When I fly over remote areas, I bring a survival kit, which includes a number of things, including a firearm and ammunition. The most useful ammo (along with the appropriate firearms, of course) for this, in my opinion, consists of .22LR high velocity loads and 12 Gauge slugs, although a number of centerfire rifle cartridges would also fit the bill. I package these items along with the rest of the survival kit components, including first aid gear, food, water purification equipment, and so on, all of which I keep in a dry sack.

Another thing I consider vital for a survival kit is communications gear and other equipment designed to help others find me in the case of an emergency. I learned how difficult it can be to locate a downed aircraft with only an old 121.5 ELT while participating in search and rescue exercises and missions as a cadet in the Civil Air Patrol while I was growing up in Alaska. Because of this, I fly with devices such as a SPOT satellite messenger and an Inmarsat satellite phone.

When you’re done flying, don’t forget to close your flight plan – and grab your guns! You wouldn’t want to forget them, especially if you rent or belong to a flying club. The next pilot might be alarmed at the sight of a Glock in the map pocket – or they might not notice until they fly to a locality where it would be illegal, thus unfairly putting them at risk of arrest and prosecution.

Fly Smart

We’ve created this checklist to help you prepare for flying with firearms and ammunition. The basic principles are:

Legal

• Ensure that all firearms, ammunition, magazine capacities, and carry/storage methods are legal at departure, destination, en-route stop, and alternate airports (state and local laws)

• Do not taxi into the area of an airport reserved for commercial aircraft operations, or carry firearms into/near this area

Practical

• Perform weight and balance calculation to determine if amount of firearms/ammunition carried would render the aircraft unsafe to fly

• Secure firearms and ammunition in cases/containers and tie them down to prevent them from becoming missiles in flight

• Keep firearm/ammunition cases from interfering with flight controls or passengers/pilots

Post-Flight

• Remove firearms and ammunition from aircraft if necessary/desired

Summary

However you choose to transport firearms in your personal aircraft, remember that you’re the pilot-in-command – you make the decisions and you’re responsible for the consequences of those decisions. Research the applicable local and state laws, properly load your airplane, and fly safe.

We would like to thank the folks at General Aviation News, Cockpit Conversation, and Aviation Mentor, for their assistance by providing input on an early version of this post.

If you’re a pilot and you’ve flown with firearms in your GA aircraft, or if you’ve flown with firearms as a passenger, we’d love to hear from you. Please feel free to share your stories in the comments section below

The differences between .223 Remington and 5.56mm NATO have been hashed out many times on the internet. Unfortunately, many of the “facts” that are often thrown around are simply what someone has heard from someone else, leading to a lot of misinformation being accepted as gospel.

In order to create this article, I temporarily set aside all of my previous knowledge and opinions while several months’ worth of new research and experimentation on the topic was undertaken. In addition, extensive discussions with gunsmiths, ballisticians, and laboratory technicians were conducted.

My findings, and the opinions of many experts in the industry who deal with the topic every day, were not exactly what some might expect. In fact, many of them had already discovered what I am reporting, although my research was conducted independently.

This article is not a recitation of previously existing information. It is quite long and complicated; if you don’t have the time or inclination to read everything, a (bold ) summary may be found at the end of most sections. However, I attempted to write it in a manner which should be easily understood by all – so if you want to read the whole thing, you will come away with a more complete understanding.

Basic Knowledge

You should never fire 5.56 ammo in a .223 chamber…right? What would happen if you did?

If you’re unfamiliar with the differences between .223 and 5.56, you should understand the following basic facts:

• The exterior (physical) dimensions of .223 and 5.56 ammunition are effectively identical.
• 5.56 ammunition may be loaded to higher pressures than .223 ammunition.
• 5.56mm chambers are dimensionally larger in certain critical areas than .223 chambers.
• Given the same ammunition, 5.56 chambers will have lower pressures than .223 chambers.

How are .223 and 5.56 Ammunition Different?

The development of what has become .223 and 5.56 began many, many years ago. You can find an excellent history of this development on The Gun Zone. There is little point in restating what has already been written well.

However, it’s important to note that as military development of the 5.56mm cartridge has required higher velocities (via higher pressures), civilian development  of .223 has essentially remained frozen since December 1962, when Remington submitted the cartridge for standardization by SAAMI. You’ll note that I didn’t say 5.56 was standardized by SAAMI, and that’s because it hasn’t been. Only the dimensions and pressures of .223 Remington have been standardized.

Can you tell which of these rounds are .223 and which are 5.56? Because .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO share the same external dimensions, it can be hard to tell the difference.

Because SAAMI specifies that pressures must be measured one way and the military specifies that they must be measured a different way, a direct comparison of pressure results from one lot of 5.56 ammo (measured the US Military way) with another lot of .223 ammo (measure the SAAMI way) is not possible. It’s required to test both with the same methods, instrumentation, and chamber to see any real differences.

Theoretically, any manufacturer could make ammunition which exceeded the maximum pressure specified by SAAMI for the .223 cartridge and call it 5.56. That pressure could be exceeded by 1% or 10% – it really wouldn’t matter. It’s the functional equivalent of “+P+” ammunition – there are no official guidelines for it which ammunition manufacturers have agreed to follow, as is the case with SAAMI. You could almost consider it to be the world’s most popular wildcat cartridge, as far as SAAMI standards are concerned.

Despite this lack of SAAMI standardization, most of the 5.56 ammunition on the market is manufactured by companies that produce 5.56 for various militaries; the 5.56 they sell to civilians is essentially identical, and thus follows the requirements and maximum pressures set forth by those military clients. As you can see from this short excerpt from a 27-page specification for US Military ammunition, military requirements are very exacting.

Military requirements for ammunition are quite stringent.

But those military clients are purchasing ammunition for military rifles, which brings me to the next difference between the two: chamber dimensions.

Summary: While .223 Remington chamber dimensions and maximum pressures have been standardized by SAAMI, 5.56mm NATO dimensions and pressures have not. Partially because of this, ammunition pressures are measured differently between the two, and cannot be easily compared. Still, it is generally agreed upon that 5.56mm ammunition may be loaded to higher pressures.

.223 Chambers, 5.56mm Chambers, Everything In Between – And Beyond

If you’ve read about this topic before, you’ve been told not to fire 5.56 in a .223 chamber. The possible results from this, you may have been told, can be catastrophic – the destruction of your firearm, and, at the same time, you might be injured or killed. It’s scary, but not quite true.

.223 Remington ammunition is pressure tested in what is called a “SAAMI Minimum Spec” chamber – that is, a “worst case scenario” chamber in this regard, made to the smallest dimensions, which would result in the highest pressures with any given ammunition. In reality, the likelihood of encountering such a chamber outside a testing lab is incredibly small. Many .223 Remington chambers will see maximum chamber pressures which are several thousand pounds per square inch (PSI) lower than those seen in SAAMI test barrels.

These SAAMI specifications for .223 Remington chamber dimensions allow for a range of minor differences between manufacturers.

At the other end of the spectrum are 5.56mm NATO chambers, which will exhibit lower pressures than .223 Remington chambers with the same ammo. Sometimes, even 5.56mm dimensions are exceeded. These “5.56mm Plus” chambers are sometimes reamed (machined) intentionally to provide the most insurance against excess pressures, but other times they’re just the result of careless machinists.

In between are chambers designed to balance pressure and accuracy, for the long freebore and throat dimensions of 5.56 NATO chambers are often blamed for reduced accuracy in comparison to .223 Remington chambers. These include .223 Wylde and 5.56mm Noveske Match Mod 0. Even among these, there are differences in reamers – one company’s idea of .223 Rem is not the same as the next. Take a look at this comparison chart and you’ll see a dizzying array of differences.

This chart shows a wide variety of differences between each reamer company’s idea of .223 or 5.56 chambers – and it doesn’t show all of the variations on the market (data courtesy of AR15Barrels.com).

What all of these chambers have in common (with the exception of the Noveske chamber, which is produced by only one shop) is that they are reamed by a wide variety of machine shops and personnel who may or may not be experienced, skilled, or caring. When you buy, for example, a .223 Remington rifle, you’re probably not getting a chamber that’s identical to the others on the shelf.

The Maltese cross is used by Noveske Rifleworks to identify the proprietary 5.56mm chamber reamed in their barrels.

You’re getting one that is, if it was manufactured by a reputable company, somewhere within the range of acceptable tolerances for a .223 Remington chamber. If it was made by a company with more of an emphasis on cost savings than exact machining, it could be a minimum spec .223 chamber, or something that is closer to 5.56, or anywhere in between. Even between chambers reamed by a reputable company, differences exist, as you will see.

In addition, the pressures of different types of ammunition can vary wildly – this is, like many things I mention in this article, a topic for another day, but I saw pressures between 45,000 and 63,500psi while conducting this testing. The .223 Rem and 5.56 NATO max pressures of 55,000 and 62,000psi, respectively, do not mean that you will actually get ammunition loaded at that pressure. .223 tends to be loaded lighter and 5.56 tends to be loaded hotter – but there are exceptions to these general rules.

Summary: Instead of there being two or three or four possible chambers (.223 Rem, .223 Wylde, 5.56mm Noveske, 5.56mm NATO) and two possible pressure levels of ammunition (.223 Rem and 5.56mm NATO), there are a nearly infinite number of points between the extremes. This can result in differing pressures with the same ammunition. It’s possible to ensure that you have something closer to the chamber you want to buy via purchasing a high quality rifle (or upper receiver assembly, or barrel) from a known source.

How I Tested Maximum Average Pressures

In order to test how 5.56 and .223 ammunition behaved in different chambers, I used a .223 Remington bolt action rifle and two 5.56mm AR-15 rifles, strain gauges, and pressure monitoring equipment. All gauges were attached at the midpoint of the case, which is where SAAMI tests pressures; military/NATO pressures are measured at the case mouth. All three barrels were 20″ in length. The Weatherby Vanguard Compact .223 Remington barrel had a twist rate of 1/12 and was not chrome lined; the FN 5.56 barrels were 1/7 twist and chrome lined.

Federal XM855 ammunition and FN 20″ 5.56mm AR platform rifles were some of the ammunition and firearms tested.

Because I’ve just finished explaining how there can be a wide variety of dimensions for a given chamber, it should be fairly obvious that a small sample size of chambers for pressure testing cannot possibly represent every possible combination on the market. However, I felt that it was better to test a large amount of ammunition in a few rifles than only a few rounds in a large amount of rifles (the results were still quite educational).

Most of the ammunition tested was manufactured by Federal – AE223 and XM855. These are representative of the more popular types of ammunition on the market – 55 grain FMJBT .223 and 62gr steel penetrator FMJ SS109/M855, which is currently used by the military, although it has begun to be supplanted by other types of 5.56 ammunition. Here’s a sample pressure graph of Federal XM855 in a 5.56mm chamber, with velocities and pressures that match Federal’s specifications for the ammunition.

As pressure curves for production ammo go, these ten shots of Federal 5.56 ammo in an FNH-USA 5.56MM chamber were relatively consistent.

The observed chamber pressure for Federal XM855 5.56mm ammunition in a .223 Rem chamber exceeded .223 maximum pressures, but not by a massive amount. The ninth shot (the red line separate from the others) was an underpowered cartridge which exhibited significantly lower velocity and pressure than the other rounds, so it was excluded from the average velocity and pressure numbers for this chamber, because it would unnecessarily skew them too low.

Federal AE223 was loaded consistently and offered significantly lower pressures in 5.56mm chambers, while still cycling the actions of mil-spec AR platform weapons.

The secondary pressure spikes seen in this graph may be discussed in a future article on LuckyGunner Labs.

The secondary pressure spikes and ignition delays seen in this graph may be discussed in a future article on LuckyGunner Labs.

Because of their consistency, and because .223 Rem pressures should be at least more similar from barrel to barrel than 5.56 pressures, Hornady .223 Remington ammunition was used as a “calibration load” for the pressure monitoring equipment. In essence, it is required to use a load of known pressure to calibrate the equipment and provide a useful comparison with any other type of ammunition or chamber.

This method provides a much closer and more useful comparison than the differences between SAAMI and NATO testing methods.

How the strain gauge comparison can be useful is to see what increases in pressure result from the use of different types of ammunition in each chamber compared  to that calibration load. If we eliminate other variables and see a massive increase in chamber pressure from .223 to 5.56 in one barrel that we do not see elsewhere, we know that the dimensions of that chamber are different enough to cause that increase.

Strain gauges and a PressureTrace II system were used to collect the data shown in this article.

In order to ensure that I was getting the most accurate maximum average pressures possible, I contacted the manufacturers of a number of different types of ammunition with the results I had found. Of the manufacturers that responded, none informed me that my maximum pressure results were inaccurate (although they were understandably reluctant to disclose their proprietary data).

Summary: I tested .223 and 5.56 ammunition in one .223 and two 5.56 rifles with pressure monitoring equipment. While the results are not perfect and cannot provide absolutely equal comparisons between barrels due to chamber dimension differences, my calibration/baseline maximum average pressure results were confirmed to be accurate by several different ammunition manufacturers.

What Happens When You Fire 5.56 Ammo in a .223 Chamber?

I know most people are interested in this part – and yes, I really did fire 5.56 in a .223 chamber. I had a friend at the range with me at the time, and he stayed a good ways back when I did so. I was not concerned about what would happen, and as I expected, the results were not spectacular.

However, I was surprised about the results I saw. There was no dangerous spike in pressure from firing 5.56mm ammo in a .223 chamber. While pressures were elevated in comparison to one of the 5.56mm barrels, they were slightly below the other 5.56mm barrel.

This unexpected difference was also borne out by chronograph measurements, which showed that the Weatherby Vanguard Compact bolt action rifle fired the XM855 ammunition (all of which was from the same lot) at a velocity which was higher than the lower pressure 5.56 barrel, but lower than the higher pressure 5.56 barrel. It’s true that the .223 barrel showed about 5% more pressure for less than 1% more velocity than the lower-pressure/lower-velocity 5.56 barrel, but the difference was not astoundingly large, as some might have expected.

In fact, the higher pressure 5.56 barrel – which was in the same condition as and made on the same production line by the same manufacturer as the lower pressure 5.56 barrel – was putting out XM855 at an average velocity within spitting distance of 3200 feet per second. As my gunsmith friend has told me several times, velocity is a sign of pressure, and this second 5.56 barrel showed both increased velocity and increased pressure compared to the other two.

Does this mean that everyone should start firing 5.56 in their .223 chambers? No.

I must now go back to the “previous knowledge and experience” I mentioned that I had, for the most part, discarded when conducting this experiment. I have owned approximately sixty AR-15 barrels, with a fairly even distribution of .223 and 5.56 chambers, plus Noveske and .223 Wylde chambers. I have also owned numerous bolt action rifles chambered in .223 Remington. I have fired .223 and 5.56 ammunition in most of these barrels and rifles.

Although my results are still anecdotal, I do not recall seeing anything worse than popped primers from firing 5.56 in a .223 chamber (or 5.56 in a poorly machined “5.56 chamber” that isn’t really a 5.56 chamber). It’s important to note that most of the .223 chambers I’ve fired 5.56 in didn’t show any signs of excess pressure, although I didn’t chronograph each and every one.

If a popped primer lands inside a fire control group (where the red arrow is pointing), it could cause the weapon to stop functioning.

Popped primers are definitely a sign of excess pressure or an abnormal pressure curve, and should not be ignored. They can become wedged in some of the more important bits of an automatic rifle, causing it to stop functioning, and while this could be annoying at the range, it could also be fatal in a self-defense situation.

Summary: Velocities and pressures for 5.56 ammunition in a .223 barrel were not significantly higher than the same ammunition in a 5.56 barrel; in fact, they were in between the two 5.56 barrels. This doesn’t mean that your barrel will have the same results, and you should always be aware of pressure signs when holding metal objects containing 50-60,000psi of pressure only a few inches away from your face.

Shouldn’t Your Rifle Have Blown Up?

My greatest concern while researching, experimenting for, and writing this article was whether or not I was putting out accurate information. In order to double check my results, I consulted with over half a dozen industry professionals, all of whom have far more experience in this area than I do. They work for highly respected laboratories, companies, and organizations.

This AR-15 upper receiver was destroyed due to extreme overpressure, but this was not the result of firing 5.56 in a .223 chamber.

While I do not wish to put words in their mouths, none expressed great concern that I would have a rifle blow up in my face during the course of my experiments. In fact, most said that the actual differences are, in effect, “not a big deal.”

That said, one noted gunsmith told me about a test he had heard of, conducted by an ammo manufacturer, in which 5.56 in a .223 barrel exhibited pressures of 77,000 PSI. I have no doubt that this is true and do not wish to cast doubt on what he said – however, I am also certain that that ammo manufacturer was performing the test with a SAAMI test barrel, which, as I said before, is much “tighter” than any barrel which is likely to be encountered in the real world.

Barnes Bullets tested XM855 and AE223 in their test barrels for us, using the conformal transducer method at the midpoint of the case – the SAAMI method. Their results were slightly different from ours, which can be expected due to the different barrels and the different testing methods, as well as different lots of ammunition, but overall the results were quite similar. Note that the .223 velocities are higher because the barrel was 4″ longer.

Barnes Bullets, manufacturers of high-end hunting and defensive ammo, tested 5.56 and .223 in their 5.56 and .223 test barrels. Their results did not show excessive pressures either.

Velocities for .223 are higher than 5.56 because the .223 test barrel was four inches longer.

Encountering an undersized chamber in the real world is likely, especially if it was manufactured cheaply and with little quality control procedures. Among some companies, there is a definite “race to the bottom” which can result in subpar and unsatisfactory components. I now spend just a little more money on my guns and equipment, and get a lot more quality. If you would like to check your 5.56 chamber to see if it really is 5.56, order a .223/5.56? Gage from Michiguns.

Summary: The majority of the experts I consulted over the course of my research did not feel that there was a major difference between .223 and 5.56 chambers in terms of pressure.

Don’t Hammer Forged Barrels Have Perfect Chambers?

Without going in to too much detail about manufacturing processes which are not relevant to this article, one of the selling points that is often mentioned for hammer forged barrels is that the chambers are forged along with the rifling, meaning that they are properly sized and there are no worries about the quality of whoever reamed the chamber. In other words, a hammer forged barrel is squeezed into shape by immensely high forces over a mirror image of itself, and is thus less likely to have variances in rifling twist rate or chamber dimensions.

This is somewhat true – some manufacturers do forge rifling and chambers with one mandrel, in one process. Others forge the rifling and then ream the chamber as a separate process, much like it would be done after cut or button rifling processes. I have observed seven hammer forges in operation, and discussed the pros and cons of both methods with a number of gunsmiths, engineers, technicians, and machinists in the United States and Europe.

This hammer forged barrel cutaway has had a mandrel section placed inside the chamber to show how the barrel steel is “squeezed” over the mandrel during hammer forging.

Companies like Beretta value the hammer forged chamber and rifling because it eliminates the inconsistencies – both in the “length” of the chamber and the alignment of the chamber with the rifling, which can suffer based on the quality of the employee performing the work – that result from performing the process separately. That said, they don’t use this one-step process for every barrel they make.

On the other hand, Steyr, which has been hammer forging barrels longer than any other company, reams chambers in a separate process, in part because there can be issues with the way the barrel steel “flows” around the neck of the chamber, negatively affecting accuracy. Steyr’s focus is on precision, and employees take their time ensuring that each barrel has been forged exactly right, and each chamber has been reamed – and then polished by hand – correctly.

At this quality control station, a Steyr employee points out the standards to which each Steyr barrel is held during production.

Both companies – and many others – put out fine products. Unless you’re just looking to buy a rifle and don’t really care how it was made, you would do well to research how the rifle you’re considering was manufactured, and what the manufacturer’s intent was when making it – long barrel life? precision/accuracy? reduced manufacturing costs? – and ensure that those goals match your own.

Summary: Hammer forging chambers can help ensure that they are dimensionally correct, but so can a skilled and careful machinist with a reamer.

Which Ammo or Chamber Should I Buy?

It’s a good idea to have an understanding of all of the factors regarding this issue – and what you will use the rifle for – and make a purchase based on this knowledge. With that in mind, here are my thoughts on the four chamberings I’ve discussed in this article.

.223 Remington – Because it’s the only SAAMI standardized cartridge, it’s the only one you’re likely to find used in rifles produced by major manufacturers. I would prefer any of the other three to “regular .223.” However, you will not be at a huge disadvantage as long as you buy mostly .223 ammo. As stated above, you are not likely to encounter major problems with limited amounts of 5.56 in a .223 rifle fired out of necessity or in an emergency. Doing so at a high volume for the long term is probably not a good idea. In terms of a carbine-style AR-15, I see absolutely no reason to purchase one with a .223 Remington chamber.

.223 Wylde – Produced by a variety of smaller manufacturers, .223 Wylde can be an excellent choice if it is executed properly. I have personally had overpressure issues with improperly reamed .223 Wylde chambers. I’ve also had excellent accuracy and no pressure signs with 5.56 from properly reamed .223 Wylde chambers. As always, buying a quality product is often the best way to go.

5.56mm Noveske Match Mod 0 - Similar in concept to .223 Wylde in that it attempts to strike a balance between pressure and accuracy, it has the advantage of being produced only by Noveske, a shop known for precision and attention to detail. All of the Noveske barrels I’ve owned – about a dozen – have delivered accuracy, precision, and safe, reliable function. This comes at a price, for Noveske barrels are not cheap.

5.56mm NATO - The best bet for those looking to shoot high volumes of 5.56mm ammunition without an emphasis on tack-driving accuracy or precision, 5.56 barrels from reliable machine shops will outshoot most humans while also keeping pressures within normal limits. Cheap 5.56 barrels often disappoint.

 Summary: Buy a well-made rifle with the chamber you want based on your needs, shoot the right ammo in it, and have fun. For most people, especially those not sure of what type of shooting they’ll be doing, a 5.56mm chamber is the best all-around choice. It is my fervent hope that this article has helped you better understand the topic at hand.