pistol Archives - Talking Guns

talking-guns-talkingguns-talkingguns.net-steel-vs-brass1.jpg

By Mike Millsap

Ammunition is a crucial component in firearms, and its casing plays a significant role in
determining the overall accuracy, reliability, and longevity of the firearm. When it comes to
centerfire ammunition, two of the most common materials for casings are brass and steel.
While steel-cased ammunition has become a popular, lower-cost option, brass-cased
ammunition continues to dominate the market, especially among enthusiasts, military
personnel, and law enforcement agencies. This article explores the reasons why brass-
cased ammunition is considered superior to steel-cased ammunition in most
circumstances.

Introduction: A Brief Overview of Steel vs. Brass-Cased Ammunition
Ammunition cases, or shell casings, are an essential part of any centerfire cartridge. These
casings house the primer, powder, and projectile, and play a critical role in the firing
process. Historically, brass has been the material of choice for cartridge casings, but in
recent years, manufacturers have begun to use steel as a cost-saving alternative.
Steel-cased ammunition is often favored by budget-conscious shooters due to its lower cost
compared to brass. This is particularly evident in calibers like 9mm, .223 Remington,
7.63×39, and .308 Winchester, where steel-cased ammo is widely available. However, brass
casings have maintained their popularity for several key reasons, including better
performance, durability, and compatibility with a wider variety of firearms.

This article will examine the various factors that contribute to the superiority of brass over
steel, including reliability, performance, ease of reloading, and the overall impact on
firearm longevity.

Material Properties: Comparing Brass and Steel
To understand why brass is generally considered superior to steel for ammunition cases, it
is important to look at the fundamental properties of both materials.

Brass: Composition and Characteristics
Brass is an alloy composed primarily of copper and zinc. It is widely used in ammunition
casings because it possesses a combination of desirable mechanical properties:
• Ductility: Brass is highly ductile, meaning it can be easily shaped without breaking.
This makes it ideal for manufacturing smooth and reliable casings.
• Corrosion Resistance: Brass resists corrosion better than steel, making it more
durable in different environmental conditions.

• Strength and Elasticity: Brass is strong enough to withstand the pressure
generated during firing, but it is also elastic, which means it can expand and contract
without cracking or warping.
• Workability: Brass is relatively easy to machine and form into complex shapes,
making it ideal for mass production of ammunition.

Steel: Composition and Characteristics
Steel, on the other hand, is an alloy made primarily of iron and carbon, with additional
elements such as chromium and manganese. Steel offers several advantages in terms of
strength and hardness but also has some inherent limitations when compared to brass:
• Hardness: Steel is harder than brass, which makes it more resistant to wear.
However, this can be a double-edged sword when used in ammunition cases.
• Brittleness: Steel tends to be more brittle than brass. While it can be very strong, it
is more likely to fracture or crack under extreme pressure or stress.
• Corrosion: Steel is more prone to rusting than brass, especially if it is not properly
coated with a protective layer such as lacquer or polymer.
• Less Ductility: Steel is less ductile than brass, meaning it is harder to shape and
form into the precise specifications required for ammunition cases.
Reliability: How Steel and Brass Perform in Firearms
One of the most important considerations when comparing steel-cased and brass-cased
ammunition is their reliability in firearms. Reliability refers to how well the ammunition
functions during shooting and how often it causes malfunctions, such as jams, misfeeds, or
failures to eject.

Feeding and Ejection
Brass casings are more reliable in feeding and ejecting from firearms due to their ductility
and elasticity. Brass expands when fired, creating a tight seal with the chamber and
preventing gases from leaking around the casing. This results in consistent pressure and a
smoother firing cycle. After firing, brass contracts, allowing it to easily be ejected from the
chamber without binding.

Steel-cased ammunition, however, does not expand and contract in the same way as brass.
Steel is less elastic, so it may not form as tight a seal in the chamber. This can lead to the
“sticking” of the casing inside the chamber, especially in firearms that are not well-
maintained or have tight tolerances. In addition, steel casings are often coated with a
lacquer or polymer finish to prevent rust, which can create additional friction and make
feeding and ejection less smooth.

As a result, steel-cased ammunition is more likely to experience feeding issues and failures
to eject. These malfunctions can be frustrating for shooters, especially in high-stress
situations where reliability is paramount.

Firing Consistency

The consistency of firing is critical for accuracy and performance. Brass casings tend to be
more consistent in terms of dimensions and pressure tolerance. This consistency
contributes to reliable ignition and uniform firing behavior, which is essential for
maintaining accuracy and reducing the likelihood of jams or misfires.

Steel-cased ammunition, while generally reliable, may suffer from less consistency due to
the variations in steel alloy composition, the coating used, and the manufacturing process.
As a result, shooters may experience more variation in the performance of steel-cased
ammo, especially in long-range shooting or high-volume shooting environments.

Impact on Firearm Longevity
The longevity of a firearm is another critical consideration when choosing between steel
and brass-cased ammunition. Over time, repeated use of certain types of ammunition can
affect the wear and tear on a firearm, particularly the chamber and extractor.

Wear and Tear on the Chamber
Brass is more gentle on a firearm’s chamber because it expands and contracts smoothly
during the firing process. The elasticity of brass allows it to create a tight seal in the
chamber without causing excessive friction. This minimizes the wear on the chamber walls
and reduces the risk of excessive buildup of carbon or other residues.
Steel, due to its hardness and brittleness, can cause more wear on the chamber over time.
As steel expands less than brass, it may not form as tight a seal, which can lead to the
buildup of carbon and other debris in the chamber. In addition, steel casings are more
likely to leave behind small fragments of material during the extraction process, leading to
more frequent chamber cleaning and maintenance.

Extractor and Ejector Damage
Steel-cased ammunition can also cause more wear and tear on a firearm’s extractor and
ejector mechanisms. Because steel is harder than brass, it can create more friction during
the extraction process. This additional friction can increase the likelihood of extractor
damage or failure, especially in semi-automatic firearms that require frequent extraction
cycles. Over time, this can lead to malfunctions and more expensive repairs.

In contrast, brass is less abrasive and less likely to cause damage to the extractor or ejector.
As a result, firearms that primarily use brass-cased ammunition generally experience fewer
maintenance issues in these areas.

Reloadability: The Cost Advantage of Brass
One of the key advantages of brass-cased ammunition is its reloadability. Reloading
involves cleaning and reusing spent brass cases to create new rounds. This is an
economical option for serious shooters who go through large quantities of ammunition.
The reloading process also allows for greater customization of ammunition, including
changes in bullet weight, powder charge, and primer type, which can improve performance
and accuracy.

Steel-cased ammunition, on the other hand, is typically not reloadable. This is due to the
hardness of steel and the coatings often applied to the casings. The steel is more difficult to
resize and reform after firing, and reloading it can be more time-consuming and costly.
Additionally, the coatings used on steel casings can make it difficult to clean the cases
effectively, further reducing their viability for reloading.

For shooters who prioritize cost savings and are willing to put in the effort to reload, brass
is the clear choice. While steel-cased ammo is initially cheaper, it offers little long-term
value for reloading purposes.

Environmental Impact and Sustainability
Another important consideration is the environmental impact of brass vs. steel
ammunition. Brass is a recyclable material, which means that spent brass casings can be
collected and reused in the production of new casings. This makes brass a more sustainable
choice in the long term, especially for shooters who recycle their spent casings.
Steel is also recyclable, but it is less commonly recycled for ammunition production due to
the added complexity of removing coatings and other contaminants. Additionally, the
mining and processing of steel have a higher environmental footprint compared to copper
and zinc, which are used in brass. Therefore, while both materials have some
environmental impact, brass is generally considered to be a more eco-friendly option.

Conclusion: Why Brass-Cased Ammunition Is the Superior Choice
While steel-cased ammunition offers a more affordable initial cost, brass-cased
ammunition is the superior choice in terms of reliability, performance, firearm longevity,
and reloadability. The ductility, corrosion resistance, and consistency of brass make it ideal
for ammunition casings, while steel’s hardness and brittleness introduce several
challenges, including increased wear on the firearm, feeding and ejection issues, and
limited reloading potential.

For shooters who prioritize long-term value, reduced maintenance, and the ability to
reload their ammunition, brass remains the gold standard. While steel-cased ammunition
may serve as a budget-friendly option for casual shooters or those looking to shoot high
volumes of ammunition, it falls short when compared to the overall benefits of brass.

References:
• McPherson, G. (2008). Fundamentals of Firearm Ballistics. Paladin Press.
• Hatcher, J.S. (1935). Hatcher’s Notebook: A Manual of Firearms Knowledge. Stackpole
Books.
• Brownells. (2021). The Basics of Reloading Ammunition. Brownells Guides.
• Tann, S. (2014). The Science of Ammunition: Case Materials and Ballistics. Springer.

talkingguns.net-talking-guns-talkingguns-Tailhook-MOD-2-e1547595422391.jpg

By One Shot D and Erik Wenzel

There was a time in the not so distant past where AR15 platform pistols were looked on with nothing short of disdain. They were the subject of ridicule and relegated to nothing more than a range toy. They were said to ineffective, useless, and complete nonsense. Those days are over now. Gentlemen the age of the braced AR15 platform pistol is upon us, and it’s here in a major way.

So what changed? Why has the trend began to swing to the complete opposite side of the pendulum? People could make a strong argument for the renewed interest of pistol pattern platforms being due to new chamberings in cool guy calibers; .50 Beowulf, .458 SOCOM, .450 bushmaster, and 300 blackout ring the immediate obvious bells. Others could make a case for the myriad of new stabilizing braces that are available to the market. I align with the latter and for good reason. Simply put a pistol brace on an AR15 platform makes it a completely different animal, and I have two contenders for the best braces available as of the time of this writing.

The two braces that I am going to outline for consideration today are going to be the Sig brace SBA3 and the Gearhead Works Tailhook Mod 2. As we move forward with the article, lets assume that everyone is aware of the white letter the BATFE published outlining their opinion on the definitions of use in regard to the occasional shouldering of the braces “from time to time, as necessary.” and look at both the intended use of the pistol braces and the “time to time” use. Up first in the Tailhook Mod 2.

The Tailhook Mod 2 is, in my personal opinion, the more sturdy of the two. I’m going to spare you the details of weight, positions available, and total extended length, as I am a firm believer in everyone’s ability to complete a google search, but I will tell you about the feel of the brace. When used strictly as a stabilizer, there is an arm that releases via a button on the side of the brace next to the length adjustment which bottoms out making a contoured 90 degree angle. This arm is then placed under the forearm of the person operating the pistol and used as a means to counterbalance the weight of the pistol. I have found this method of operation to be extremely stable and serviceable. When shouldered, the brace is extremely stable and very easy to adjust. I was easily able to find a length of pull that accommodated both a correct cheek weld and eye relief. I found the brace to be a smidgen on the heavy side, and with a shorter barrel and rail length up front the brace lent itself to a little rear heavy on the balance. When that weight placed on the shoulder however, it had the pleasant effect of making the pistol easy to swing and more importantly easy to stop when on target.

The SBA3 is different in some aspects and similar in others. The big differences are in the composition of the brace material, and the weight. The SBA3 is made of a sturdy rubber composition as opposed to the Tailhooks solid polymer. When used strictly as a brace, there is a strap that is intended to tighten around the forearm of the operator when the hand is placed in the brace. Being lighter weight, this brace has the opposite effect in regards to the balance point of the pistol. It tends to lend itself towards a forward balance point and without it shouldered, all the weight feels like its on the end of the barrel. On the other hand, when shouldered it feels strikingly similar to a traditional carbine stock. The biggest differences with the SBA3 and the Tailhook Mod2 is in the attachment of the brace to the actual pistol itself. The SBA3 uses a standard carbine buffer tube, and has another position of adjustment. I found this to be advantageous when finding the perfect fine adjustments to my eye relief and cheek weld. Another advantage comes if and when the owner of the pistol chooses to pony up the bacon to Uncle Sam and register their pistol as an SBR. This simply requires $200 and a wait of up to 9 months, and when your stamp is safely in place, affixing your choice of carbine stock. I find this to be an interesting capability, and something that I may consider doing in the future.

So which one is better? Quite simply put, I am going to take the easy answer and say, “Depends on what you want to use it for.” For me as it sits today, I have the Tailhook Mod 2 on a 300 blackout pistol with an 8.5” heavy contour barrel. I find it to be very capable at balancing the weight of the stocky barrel up front, and it makes for a very compact and well balanced pistol. Conversely, I have an SBA3 on an 11.5” 556 pistol. I find that paired with the thinner contour of the barrel, and the skeletonized forend the SBA3 is sufficiently heavy to balance the pistol while refraining from adding to the overall weight. In summary, both braces are different in their characteristics, but you’d be hard pressed to find a better alternative to complete your AR15 Pistol.

pistol Archives - Talking Guns

Why Steel-Cased Ammo Falls Short

Tail Hook or SBA3