I've got a new M&P15 Sport II on the way. I've done quite a bit of research regarding brass vs. steel cased bullets, and I understand that steel will wear out my barrel and other components faster, but yet it is much cheaper 1000 rounds of Wolf steel is as low as 22 CPR.. Given the price of replacement parts (today's prices), it seems that the most cost-effective approach would be to go with steel. I will not be reloading.

Although I doubt this will happen, what if something happens with gun law reform and they ban "assault" rifles again - will that drive prices of replacement barrels and other parts up to the point where I could be kicking myself for buying steel?

This will be my first rifle and I will be plinking with it and perhaps using it for home defense.

Anybody else use Wolf steel cased ammo in your M&P15? How often are you seeing malfunctions?

Your brand new first rifle - what would you do?

I just bought a brand new M&P2. I will not be running steel through it.

I would use brass because I reload. In your case, if the steel cased is cheaper and serves your needs, use the steel.

AR-15's are so ubiquitous that replacement parts aren't going away any time soon.

Or, use brass and sell your once-fireds to someone for the cost differential.

I don't have a Sport II but have a few AR15s. I personally shoot brass cases ammo. I do not reload but I still choose brass cased ammo and pick up my brass so if and when I want to reload I have brass.

Luckygunner did a great write up on brass vs steel cased/bi-metal ammo. http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/bras...el-cased-ammo/

It is not just wear that is in play IMHO. There will be accuracy and reliability differences. A lot will come down to how and in what conditions you are shooting. Most people are never going to shoot out a barrel no matter what ammo they choose. If you know you are going to shoot over 10,000 rounds from this rifle then shooting out the barrel is a consideration.

Without a doubt you will wear the barrel faster with the bi-metal case. Luckygunner did a test and 6,000 of Wolf steel or Brown Bear shot out an AR15 barrel while after 10,000 of Federal Brass the barrel had a lot of life left in it.

http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/bras...-ammo/#erosion

You will also see an accuracy drop from steel cased/bi-metal jacketed ammo.



http://www.luckygunner.com/labs/bras...ammo/#accuracy

Looking at it realistically you are looking at an $80 per 1000 rounds between Wolf steel and Wolf Gold. A CHF 16" carbine barrel is $249 PSA 16" CHF M4 Carbine 5.56 NATO 1:7 Barrel Assembly - 7790521

If you can install it yourself you will be paid for a new, one might argue, better barrel than the 1/9 twist the Sport came with after 3,000 rounds of Wolf steel. Everything over that is you are ahead assuming that the the accuracy and reliability losses are not issues for you.

I do not think you will see a ban on barrels but if you want to shoot steel I would hedge your bets and after 3,000 buy a new barrel you will be ahead of the curve and still have 3,000 plus rounds left in the barrel and another $240 worth of savings, give or take.

If you look at the luckygunner article you will see that shooting brass over 10,000 rounds will cost you about $1500 more than steel. Their numbers are off because they site a $130 difference when in todays market it is really closer to $80-$90 but you are still ahead by about a $650 assuming one barrel replacement. Like others have said if you ok with the other short comings of the steel cased ammo and want the savings go for it.

For steel ammunition to really wear out a barrel, you would have to shoot several thousand rounds before barrel wear becomes a problem. Unless you plan to do a lot of shooting, steel should not be a problem as long as your chamber doesn't cause problems with stuck cases. Unfortunately, the only way to find out if your rifle will like steel or not, is to shoot steel and see what happens.

One also has to consider accuracy. Cheap ammo, especially steel cheap ammo isn't usually the most accurate. If you aren't worried about getting 1" groups at 100 yards, steel might be ok for you.

Me personally, I look to reload and I have a bolt rifle (usually a tighter chamber) that uses the same magazines, so I will not be using steel.

I shoot steel exclusively through my sport and haven't had any malfunctions whatsoever. That lucky gunner article has been around awhile now but clarifies the cons of steel case vs brass. After 6-8k rounds of steel case you'll be able to buy an entirely new rifle with the cost savings. It's impossible to predict what will happen if any ban comes around so if you are having doubts go ahead and buy another barrel and bcg.

I shoot steel Ammo so that I can afford to go to the range more often. This will, imo, serve you better than an rifle you can't afford to shoot as much. When accuracy is a concern, get brass cased ammo. If you run an optic you'll need to re-zero it with the ammo of your choice.

The only thing that prevents me from shooting Russian manufacture, steel case, bi-metal jacketed ammo are the ranges near me prohibit it's use. If I still had an AR-15 and I had a range nearby (convenient distance) that allowed steel case ammo, I'd use it all the time.

AR-15's are so ubiquitous, barrels and spare parts can be found everywhere. If you're worried about the upcoming election so much, you might as well buy a spare complete upper.

Even better... buy a 2nd rifle. 2 is 1. 1 is none.

__________________
-John

Thanks everyone. I appreciate you all taking the time to give me your points of view.

Just remember, all steel cased ammo is not equal. Hornady steel match seems to be very good out of my AR. This round uses the same copper jacketed bullet as the brass cased Hornady, not a bi-metal jacket like the cheap steel cased ammo. May not be cheaper than Wolf Gold, but is very consistent and is HP. FMJ is not allowed at many ranges in my area. It is expensive though, so have to look for deals.

Taking the reloading issue totally out of the equation (which the OP has), based on reports I've read here as well as the 10,000 round test that was run by a (blogger?) - it sure seems that choosing to shoot steel is a totally rational and perfectly fine choice.

I think the brass/steel argument comes down to personal taste and, to a lot of degree, emotion. The very thought of "steel on steel" (steel case in a steel chamber) gives me the willies - like fingernails on a chalkboard. I just grew up in an environment where firearms were things to be treated carefully and, to a large degree, were delicate. (I don't mean "carefully" from a safety standpoint - but that is true obviously as well. I mean from the standpoint that they're precision instruments that shouldn't be manhandled or mishandled. This was before ARs became popular and demonstrated that they can withstand a lot!)

So if steel is seen as an enabler of more fun and greater proficiency - go for it. The objective data show there is little-to-no down side to steel. (At least the data I've seen. The "things wear out more quickly" issue is offset by the fact the savings in ammo cost can be applied to replacing the worn out parts.)

For years I used Wolf steel lacquered case. Cheap and performed well. I have nothing but good things to say about steel case other than they don't expand and seal as well as brass so the chamber tends to get a bit dirtier. If you've been shooting of lot of steel case and switch to brass it's possible to get a stuck case in an overly dirty chamber.

I don't shoot quite as much as I used to so I stock up on XM855 and XM193 as availability and price dictates. I picked up a couple 420 cans of XM193 from MassAmmo a couple weeks ago for $138 per can.

CarMon225, note that the case being steel has nothing to do with the barrel wearing out faster. What wears out the barrel faster is shooting bi-metal projectiles. Bi-metal projectiles have a steel jacket, typically covered by a thin layer of copper.

You can have brass-cased ammo with bi-metal projectiles and you can have steel-cased ammo with copper jacketed projectiles.

The metal of the case has no bearing on barrel wear, only the metal of the projectile.

Now, there happens to be a correlation in that cheap Russian steel-cased ammo often, perhaps always, has bi-metal projectiles. But it is the projectile that matters in terms of barrel wear, not the metal of the case.

Let me add my two cents. I have 4 AR platforms, and I have never put steel case ammo through any of them. I freely admit, I am cheap ... I can make a Scotsman cringe. Virtually all of my shooting is geared towards match accuracy, and most steel case ammo doesn't lean that way. As mentioned earlier, steel cases don't flex like brass does, so you end up with a poor seal. Most of the steel case ammo traces it's origin to Eastern Bloc battle ammo, which tends to be coated with a lacquer, that if it isn't cleaned properly, leads to malfunctions.

That being said, while I wouldn't use steel cased every day, I could see stock piling some for a SHTF scenario. Currently, I do have 1500 rounds of Evansville '43 M1911 Hardball, along with a spare barrel and bushing in the event I have to resort to steel cased 45s!

__________________
Judge control not gun control!

Yes, after much more reading, and specifically, absorption, I now realize that I am combining and confusing the two separate and distinct qualities of a cartridge which I should have clarified earlier:
Steel vs. brass case
&
copper jacketed vs bi-metal jacketed projectile.

My feeling at this point is that I might go with steel case, but stay away from bi-metal jacket.

So, take for instance this:
500 round case - 223 Rem 62 Grain FMJ Wolf WPA Steel Case Ammo made by Barnaul | SGAmmo.com
It says steel case (OK), and FMJ (OK- I think), but then it says magnetic (implying steel jacket with lead core??).

yes, lead core with a steel-brass jacket.

Yes, I am. Malfunctions? Never. I have a few thousand rounds of Wolf steel through my Del-Ton without a single malfunction. I also have a few hundred rounds of it through my M&P without a malfunction. None. Zero. Not one.

I did run across one round with no primer, but of course I did not load that one into a magazine.

I usually get cases stuck in the chamber after about 100rnds w/ Wolf. I do better w/ MFS which is a zinc plated steel case.

Just got back from the range and put 140 Rounds of Bear steel 223 through my Sport 2 without a single issue...

I use steel cased in AR's only for reliability testing. Typically if it runs Tula or Wolf steel cased, it should run anything.

For regular use steel cased is kept to the AK.

For the life of me I cannot see why anyone would settle for accuracy LESS than it could be for doing anything.
What good is a firearm that is not shooting accurately? Is it fun 'spraying' bullets around wondering whether the ammunition, firearm or YOU are not worth a damn!

Steel case always rang that 10in steel plate for me just as well as brass 50-200yds shooting offhand with a red dot. Never tried match ammo in a battle rifle. Does it make a prettier sounding ringy-dingy?

So you only shoot match grade ammo 100% of the time Mr. Rockefeller?

I'm retired and probably make less $$'s than most of you [Rockefeller- not hardly ]. I would rather afford one round that I knew was going to perform as best as the rifle can do, than 2-3 that I had no idea what they were going to do. I shoot only hand-rolled ammunition with Hornady 75gr HPBT bullets. If my pocket were deeper I would try Sierra's, but the Hornady's are cheaper and work for me. I know the rifle is accurate and repeatable and my ammunition is likewise. I can call my shots.. If I miss anything I know IT IS ME at fault. What else is to ask for?

My Sport 1 has shot about 90% steel ammo its whole life (almost 3 years old). My latest, Ruger AR-556, is starting a very healthy diet of steel ammo. As I stated before, it's all in the extractor spring; bigger, more beefier, however you want to say it, is the key to shooting steel ammo. I am not a scientist and I didn't sleep at an Holiday Inn last night, but, I read a lot and watch plenty of videos on steel ammo.

Interesting post I found on another site... long read, but the gist is that the propellant used has more affect on barrel wear than the material used for the jacket. If this is correct, makes one wonder if you are going to see much difference in barrel wear between Wolf Classic and Wolf Gold, if the same propellant is used...

The classic argument: Is Steel Case Okay To Shoot? - AR15.COM

Everybody has seen this THAT article from Lucky Gunner Labs, and while it is a good article and full of good information, many people out in internet-land tend to draw conclusions that are not correct. One of the most quoted incorrect conclusions is "...steel cased ammo wears out barrels" or "…bi-metal jacketed bullets wear out barrel twice as fast as copper jacketed bullets…"

It is unquestionable that Wolf, Brown Bear and (probably) Tula steel jacketed, bi-metal jacketed ammunition will wear out a barrel faster than Federal XM193 ammunition, but the but the extra jump to "all bi-metal" vs "all copper jacketed" is not supportable. Even worse is the "steel cased ammo, wears out barrels", The type of material the case is made from has nothing to do with barrel life.

Here's why:

From the earliest day of smokeless propellant, the problem of bore erosion and wear has been a constant head-ache to owners of large number of high use guns and very expensive guns, namely the military. So, not surprisingly, they did a lot, and I mean A LOT, of research into what causes bore erosion, and how to reduce it.

There are basically two causes of bore wear - 1) heat, the flame temperature of burning propellant is anywhere from 2500 to 3000 degrees K, depending on the actual propellant (for reference, the melting point of the steel used in the barrel is 1700 degrees K), and 2) mechanical rubbing between the bullet and the barrel. Of the two, the effects of heat are probably the most damaging.

Here are some results of some US Army erosion tests done with 7.62mm Ball, M80:

Test firing.............Propellant..................... .....Jacket......No. of Rounds to.......Cause for
No...............................Type............. .....................Material....Disqualification. .......Disqualification

1..................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GM..............14,500.......... ...........V (1)
2.................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GMCS..........8,450............. ........K (2)
3................................IMR 8138M Lot 2.................GMCS........10,150.............. ........K
4................................IMR 8138M Lot 48..............GM................8,000........... ...........V
5................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GM................7,500.......... ............V
6................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GMCS..........7,850.............. ........K
7................................IMR 8138M Lot 48...............GMCS.........11,800.............. ........K
8................................WC 846 Lot AL44133..........GM..............17,300........... ...........V
9................................WC 846 Lot AL44133..........GMCS.........18,325.............. ........K

1) Velocity loss of more than 200 fps

2) Keyholing, defined as 20% or more bullets exceeding 15% yaw at 1000 inches (appox 25 meters)

The significant conclusions drawn from these results in the report this table was attached to were as follows:

1. Bullet jacket material (GM versus GMCS) does not appear to have a significant effect on barrel life. However, the GM jacketed lots all went out on velocity loss while the GMCS lots all went out on keyholing indicating that the mechanism of barrel failure was probably different.

2. WC 846 propellant is less erosive than IMR 8138M propellant.

One may note that test firings #2 and #6 differ greatly from #3 and #7, which is very puzzling as the components used were the same, and the propellant lots were the same. Also, the question of why did 8138M Lot #2 perform notably better that 8138 Lot #48, came up. In the report, the difference was written off to variations in the test barrels.

Partially in an attempt to explain the above, and also to test the usefulness of wear reducing additives, a second test was run, with stricter controls on barrel selection and more careful monitoring of various barrel parameters.

In this test several T65E1 machine guns (M1919A4s converted to 7.62mm) with chrome plated barrels were utilized. A 25 round belt was shot every 12 seconds until 500 rounds were expended. Then the barrel was allowed a 4 minute cool down period before the next 500 rounds were fired, again in 25 round increments. Bullet velocities and bullet yaw were continuously measured. Every 5000 rounds, the barrel was cooled to ambient, cleaned, measured, and samples of residue and bore fouling taken for analysis. The measuring consisted of measuring the diameter of the lands and grooves at 1 inch intervals were measured. Then the process was repeated until another 5000 rounds was shot, or the barrel failed due to keyholing or velocity loss.

The findings from the tests described in this report are summarized in the table below.

Summary of Results
.................................................. .................................................. ..................Adiabatic
.................................................. .................................................. ..................Isochoric
.................................................. .................................................. ..................AverageFlame.......No. of
Cartridge...........Bullet........................ ..........................CaC03...Mo03..........Te mp..............Rounds to
Lot No.................Design..................Propell ant..............(%)........(%)..............(K).. .................Disqual.

LC-SP-1368.......GMCS (1)..........Ball WC 846...........0.15............0.............2884.. ................10,417
LC 12923............GM (2)..............Ball WC 846............0.58...........0............2790... ...............18,042
FA-42-73...........GMCS.................Ball WC 846...........0.47...........0............2831.... ..............13,342
FA-2115..............GMCS.................Double Base............0..............1.05.........2889.. .................8,625
.................................................. ............Extruded
.................................................. ............Propellant
FA-2016..............GMCS.................Double Base............0................0.............291 2...................6,333
.................................................. ............Extruded
.................................................. ............Propellant

_______________________
1) Gilding Metal Clad Steel jacket (aka, bi-metal), the total jacket thickness is .021" with an outer gliding metal cladding averaging .003" thick. The core is a lead-antimony alloy with 2% antimony, softer that the GM bullet design. (Note: this is about the same cladding thickness as used by Wolf, Brown Bear and Tula.)

2) Gilding Metal Jacket, the total thickness of the jacket is .026". The core is a lead-antimony alloy with 10% antimony.

Note: All GM jackets bullets came from the same production lot, as did all GMCS jacket bullets.

Calcium carbonate (CaCO3) is an additive used to neutralize acid during the production of ball propellant. It has also been shown to reduce barrel wear, unfortunately, it also leads to increased fouling. WC846 made after 1969 was made with reduced CaCO3 content (less than .25%) in order to be used in the M16 without fouling the gas tube. At some point, WC864 with extremely low CaCO3 content was split-off as WC844, and WC846 with increased CaCO3 content was introduced as WC864+CaCO3 for use in 7.62mm, Ball, M80 specifically to increase barrel life.

You will note from the above table, and the before it, that there is a better correlation between flame temperatures and wear than jacket material and wear, especially if you know that 8138M has a flame temperature of 2770 to 2820 degrees K. GMCS jacketed bullet are only slightly harder on the barrel than GM jacketed bullets, but the choice of propellant can easily make up for the difference.

In the second test, measuring of the bore diameters did reveal something interesting. When a bore wears, enlarging of the throat tends to lead to velocity loss, as gas escapes around the bullet rather than pushing it down the barrel. Conversely, wear at the muzzle tends to lead to keyholing as the rifling loses its grip on the projectile before maximum velocity and maximum RPM are reached, therefore the bullet leaves the barrel with less spin than required to stabilize it

The measuring of the tested barrels showed the GMCS Jacketed bullets seem to open up the muzzle more than GM jacketed bullets, which would explain why GMCS jacketed bullets tended to keyhole. Not only did the land diameter increase, the groove diameter showed a similar enlargement. Possibly indicating a gas erosion phenomenon as the bullet nears the muzzle?

In all cases, the addition of calcium carbonate in the propellant drastically reduced the progression of throat erosion. Molybdeum trioxide did reduce throat erosion, but the fouling residue was so bad it made continued firing of the gun difficult (It formed in the recoil booster and prevented the barrel from sliding freely).

These are just two Army published reports that show that flame temperature of the propellant has a very large impact on barrel life. In fact, as a result of their years of study, the US Navy has adopted the simple solution to barrel erosion is simply reducing the flame temperature of the propellant and live with the reduced performance. This is the thinking that brought forth NACO (NAvy COol) propellant, and reduced muzzle velocity, and subsequently range.

(It is interesting to note that ball propellant, even though it is a double base propellant, burns cooler than 8138M, which is a single base propellant.)

The result shown in the Lucky Gunner test, are almost the exact same results as the results shown in the above two Army tests, namely, the relatively cool ball propellant used in M193 (WC 844, the same stuff as WC846 but with less CaCO3) will wear out a barrel in 13,000 to 15,000 rounds, and the reason for rejection will be velocity loss (if you look at the velocity chart for the copper jacketed bullets, the velocity loss will be more than 200 fps in about that time). We can only assume what powder Wolf, et al. are using, but it would seem from the results to be a relatively hot extruded propellant (double or single based) which has shown to wear out a barrel in about half the time as WC846/WC844, and the reason for rejection of the barrels is keyholing.

Basically, if you load up 15,000 rounds of 5.56 using IMR 8208 XBR (very similar to the stuff used in lot FA-2016), and shoot it from one AR, your not going to get through all of it before your barrel wears out even with copper jacketed bullets and brass cases.

Load up 15,000 rounds with WC844, in steel cases and copper jacketed bullets, and one barrel will survive it.

OP here...

Thanks all for the info and suggestions.

After quite of bit of contemplation, I decided to go with Wolf Gold (brass case with copper FMJ) to feed my brand new M&P15.

How is that Wolf Gold .223 working out for you(and others!) on your Sport II? Considering it as well.

I haven't used it myself but Wolf Gold is brass cased, so should not be an issue. It should perform similarly to bulk ammo or PMC but since every rifle is different, one can't really say if it will be great, average, or horrible for you. Most people find it to me average accuracy but a few lucky ones find it to be a cheap, accurate gold mine in their rifles. Almost as good as match ammunition for them.

Use whatever you like, all parts on an AR are replaceable. You can get a new barrel for less than $100 .

I like the sentiment but I think your numbers are a bit off. I do not think you are going to get 18,000 with a steady diet of bi-metal. Most people report 10,000 to 20,000 out of a chromed lined barrel with brass cased ammo with nonmetallic projectiles.

Bi metal shortens that life. A lot will depend on your MOA demands to determine when a barrel is shot out. Rate of fire definitely is a factor in barrel wear.

That said I would be willing to bet less than 1% of AR15 shooters in the US send more than 10,000 round down their AR15 in a lifetime.

Let's put things into perspective.

Case of IMI M855 at SGAmmo $359
Case of Wolf 62gr steel at SGAmmo $229

You can buy a 16" barrel at Primary Arms for $119 or $99 on sale.

So... if you want to keep your precious Sport barrel new, simply remove it and buy a case of Wolf, a new barrel and have money left over in your pocket.

Even really nice barrels are under $300. Barrels above that and you are going to be using match grade, or custom reloads anyway.

Not exactly an accurate price comparison because you assume the OP and others have the knowledge and the correct tools already on hand to swap the barrel. Most people buying the Sport II as their first AR15 have neither. So add to the price of that Wolf ammo the cost of tools and a vise or the cost to gave someone else install the barrel.

In the end steel case puts you ahead but IMHO it takes more than a 1000 to see "real" savings.

Why is there so many people against shooting steel ammo? To shoot it effectively from your AR, just upgrade the extractor spring. Simple! What is so hard about that? Look, I will even supply a link to BCM, which IMO, carries the best extractor spring upgrade kits. They have a single pack, and a 3-pack.

BCM SOPMOD Bolt Upgrade/Rebuild Kit

BCM Extractor Spring Uprade Kit

Chicago Deep Dish pizza v.s. New York. Chicago Cubs v.s. Chicago White Sox. Bears v.s. Packers. Ford v.s. Chevy v.s. Dodge. Honda v.s. Toyota. Trump v.s. Clinton. Dogs v.s. Cats.

It's due to human nature and the advent of low cost publishing (internet forums). It's human nature to form groups. It's human nature to want people within your group to agree with your assessment/opinion. It's human nature for some to falsely associate their self image to an inanimate object, hence leading them to feel that they will be judged by that inanimate object. The people who fall into this cycle will defend their choice, and tune out additional information or evaluate another individual's opinion because any contrary information is an attack on their perceived self image.

Low to zero cost publishing allow people to voice their opinions (good thing). Low to zero cost publishing decreases the time to and prioritization of research, fact finding, verification, and referencing. Some people are either unable, have not learned, or choose not to employ Critical Thinking skills in order to assign credibility to information spewed to them before reacting to it.

Finally, happy people don't post. Unhappy people post. Ammo will malfunction due to law of averages v.s. production volume of ammo. Since steel case deviates from the traditional ammunition casing, the automatic attribution of a failure or undesired consequence to the most glaring difference is understandable. Firearms enthusiasts who have positive experience with steel case ammo typically don't start threads.

__________________
-John

They'll need the tools to swap their handguard to free-float anyway. Geeeesh... do I have to explain everything to ya!