A video discussing rumors/myths about steel-cased ammo. The Brownell's gent is also in it.

Joined
Sep 15, 2007
Messages
9,378
Location
The Mid-South.
If nothing else, it can't hurt to ask questions. Many of us questioned the numerous myths years ago.
Apparently the broader anxieties and repetition of "hearsay" originally began due to the use of corrosive primers, which Ended years ago.

Social conformity and the desire to "fit in" might also be a factor? Luckily most of us don't overheat barrels, which also is reported to be bad using purely copper-jacketed bullets in US ammo.

The Brownell's gent mentions ARs at 4:50. He no longer gets any complaints about such ammo. Maybe people decided to clean their guns more often?


 
Last edited:
great thnx!

Just before the 4:50 MARK, HE does DOES discuss potential extractor wear, ruff chambers sometimes = crud build up etc. So, it's not all a fait accompli everything is hunky dory, my AR is now an AK. But the overall jist is, go for it

BTW, I HATE his extra neat organized gun safe 😣 haha
 
Last edited:
Steel is a poor material for the 5.56/223 round as that material was never a consideration for the original cartridge. In fact, the 223 round was not so much “designed” as it was a wildcat. The guys who came up with the round wanted a certain velocity at a certain range. I read the 1971 Guns & Ammo article The 223 is here to stay by Robert Hutton. Robert Hutton was technical editor of Guns and Ammo magazine and must have been very wealthy as he owned a big piece of real estate in Topanga Canyon California. It was called Hutton’s Shooting Ranch. Hutton’s article documents how he developed the 223 round. If you have any sort of technical background, it is apparent he is an amateur and his cartridge represents what an amateur would do. He took an existing cartridge, necked it up and down, blew the shoulder out, changed shoulder angles, he had a chronograph, got the velocity he wanted at distance. The crowning achievement in the article was punching holes in the wobble pot at 500 yards. That is about all the lethality testing Hutton did, punching holes in a helmet. He used the Powell Computer, a paper slide rule, to estimate pressures. He did not pressure test his cartridge he did not have a pressure curve. This cartridge was then adopted as the US service round.


No doubt Hutton meant well in creating a wild cat that could be a potential service round. But this also shows what happens when "back yard mechanics" create things. Hutton did not have the analytical capability to thoroughly study cartridge case design. William Davis, the Government Technical Expert at the Icord hearings, said on the History Channel that the technical data provided the Government on the 223 round did come with a pressure curve. These guys developed a cartridge and never thought of documenting what the pressure curve looked like. Pressure curve is absolutely critical to the timing of an automatic weapon. How long energy is available, the maximum pressure and how fast it drops off is fundamental to the design of a automatic gas mechanism.

oMRSvid.jpg


AnNpROa.jpg


This is from Chinn's Machine Gun series.

OvuSHJk.jpg


Hutton did not look at case hardness, taper, expansion or contraction. A professional would have looked at the expansion and contraction of the case in the chamber and adjusted case taper, thickness, and established case hardness in the sidewalls and case head. You would have to work with manufacturing to determine realistic hardness parameters throughout the case, but this is important as it affects the Young’s Modulus. As it turns out, the brass case 223 drags on extraction, there is not enough clearance between the case and chamber. Steel case is even worse. I have seen many failures to extract steel case ammunition on the firing line with AR15’s.

n4SMzxy.jpg


It turns out the 223 is fairly straight tapered. This was a fad, highly promoted by P.O Ackley, and widely copied. I am not a fan of very straight tapered cartridges. The one and only advantage of a very straight taper is maximizing the amount of powder you can get in the case. The wildcat era of the late 1940’s through the 1960’s was all about high velocity, and only high velocity. It was very one dimensional thinking, ignoring other aspects of cartridge design that are very important. One of the things you trade off for a straight case is that the cartridge does not “steer” well during feeding. Anyone can test this, which shape feeds better into the end of the tube, a taper, or a straight cylinder? Alignment to bore is important for feeding with all cartridges, but the really straight ones are going to jam up more often when alignment gets slightly out of whack. Straight cartridges will drag on extraction because the case walls are relaxing off the chamber walls in a straight line, not a diagonal. It turns out portions of the 223 case are still sticking to the chamber walls during extraction and a major reason for extractor lift. Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003/smallarms/din.ppt This is very undesirable as jams will get you killed in combat. Lots of good American Boys died in Vietnam with jammed M16’s in their hands. Ideally, the case will be fully relaxed off the chamber walls during unlock and there will not be any resistance between case and chamber during the residual blowback period. If you look at good case design, the Russian 7.62 X 39 and the recent Chinese service cartridge, both have more case taper than the 5.56 Nato and both were designed with steel as a case material. Both have nice thick rims, which is also important for machine gun rounds.

As an example of the well thought out nature of these Chinese rounds, the 5.8mm operates at a much lower pressure than the US service round. It only generates a 41,500 psi (284 MPa) chamber pressure which is marginally higher than that of the old single-base propellant used by the vintage 7.62x39mm and much lower than the 5.56mm M855/SS109’s 55,000 psi (380 MPa). The current pressures of the latest 5.56 rounds have been kept out of public view, but it seems to be in the range of 62,000 to 65,000 psia. Considering the proof round is 70 kpsia, the Army is operating its cartridges at pressures that are guaranteed to crack bolt lugs very quickly. You see, the AR15 was designed for a 50 kpsia round, not a 65 kpsia round. Lower pressures means fewer failures to extract when the weapon gets hot, or the Trooper is in a hot environment. It is always true that doing the job at lower pressures is better than doing the job at higher pressures.

HhVuFR6.jpg



The Russians took into account the material characteristics of steel as a case material, examining the expansion and contraction, along with the production technology, aiding the excellent function design of SKS's and AK47's. As such, these steel rounds are outstanding in feed and extraction. The 5.56 was created without spending any time or effort on alternatives, alternate materials, anything. As such, given the fact the case shape is not optimum for brass, it most certainly is not optimal for steel.

The 5.8mm’s corrosive powder is not particularly hot either. It only generates a 41,500 psi (284 MPa) chamber pressure which is marginally higher than that of the old single-base propellant used by the vintage 7.62x39mm and much lower than the 5.56mm M855/SS109’s 55,000 psi (380 MPa). A non-reloadable Berdan primer is used to prime the 5.8mm cartridge’s propellant.

1gfvWmb.jpg


Hutton did not spend time and money examining issues such as pressure curve, contraction or relaxation. Rifles and cartridges that did not go through an appropriate development will have issues with case materials. The AR15 and 223 Remington are an example. You can read all the issues they created here:

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/index.html

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.
Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys
Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program
Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.

So what you read, in lots of posts on forums, is shooters having issues with steel cases in their AR15’s. That is all due to the cartridge being a wildcat and the developers not examining steel as a case material, and adjusting case parameters for reliable function.

Oiling steel cases will help extraction function by breaking the friction between case and chamber, and also solvating lacquer. Might as well oil the steel rounds in your machine cannon:

Handbook on Weaponry - Rheinmetall - 1982

11.4.2 Ammunition for Automatic Cannons

Automatic cannons are usually understood to be automatic weapons with a caliber of from 15.24 mm on up. Based on the caliber and the design, automatic cannon ammunition must, strictly speaking, be included with artillery ammunition.

Brass or steel cases are used as cartridge cases for automatic cannon ammunition; the steel case has come to predominate in Germany. Through the use of serviceable slide varnishes and longitudinal grooves of the cartridge chamber, a uniform extraction process can be achieved. The slide varnishes were especially developed for the exterior varnishing of cartridge cases. The two measures noted here make it possible to fire continuous fire with “dry” ammunition, i.e. not oiled, where normal lacquers are used, unoiled steel cases have a tendency to jam.


Page 549

I believe the longitudinal grooves Reinmetal is referring to are the flutes found in the HK91 and in a number of German pistols. These flutes are essential to floating the upper 2/3’rds of the case off the chamber walls, precisely to break friction between the case and chamber.

PB9SaEH.jpg
 
The Brownell's gent mentions ARs at 4:50. He no longer gets any complaints about such ammo. Maybe people decided to clean their guns more often?

Sounds to me more like a lie. There is always someone who will complain about something. When someone says things like that, I figure they are in sales not customer service…
 
It turns out portions of the 223 case are still sticking to the chamber walls during extraction and a major reason for extractor lift. Understanding Extractor Lift in the M16 Family of Weapons www.dtic.mil/ndia/2003/smallarms/din.ppt This is very undesirable as jams will get you killed in combat. Lots of good American Boys died in Vietnam with jammed M16’s in their hands. Ideally, the case will be fully relaxed off the chamber walls during unlock and there will not be any resistance between case and chamber during the residual blowback period. If you look at good case design, the Russian 7.62 X 39 and the recent Chinese service cartridge, both have more case taper than the 5.56 Nato and both were designed with steel as a case material. Both have nice thick rims, which is also important for machine gun rounds.

http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/index.html

Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 4 Appendix 4 Ammunition Development Program.
Report of the M16 Rifle Review Panel Volume 7 Appendix 6 review and analysis of M16 System Reliability.
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 5 Procurement
Report of the M16 Review Panel Appendix 7 Vietnam Surveys
Report of the M16 Panel appendix 10 the small arms program
Report of the M16 Review Panel Summary Report.

So what you read, in lots of posts on forums, is shooters having issues with steel cases in their AR15’s. That is all due to the cartridge being a wildcat and the developers not examining steel as a case material, and adjusting case parameters for reliable function.

Oiling steel cases will help extraction function by breaking the friction between case and chamber, and also solvating lacquer. Might as well oil the steel rounds in your machine cannon:

Handbook on Weaponry - Rheinmetall - 1982

11.4.2 Ammunition for Automatic Cannons

Automatic cannons are usually understood to be automatic weapons with a caliber of from 15.24 mm on up. Based on the caliber and the design, automatic cannon ammunition must, strictly speaking, be included with artillery ammunition.

Brass or steel cases are used as cartridge cases for automatic cannon ammunition; the steel case has come to predominate in Germany. Through the use of serviceable slide varnishes and longitudinal grooves of the cartridge chamber, a uniform extraction process can be achieved. The slide varnishes were especially developed for the exterior varnishing of cartridge cases. The two measures noted here make it possible to fire continuous fire with “dry” ammunition, i.e. not oiled, where normal lacquers are used, unoiled steel cases have a tendency to jam.


Page 549

I believe the longitudinal grooves Reinmetal is referring to are the flutes found in the HK91 and in a number of German pistols. These flutes are essential to floating the upper 2/3’rds of the case off the chamber walls, precisely to break friction between the case and chamber.
If you read Appendix 4, Ammunition Development Program, and "Product Improvement Test of 5.56mm Cartridge Case with Optimized Hardness Gradient," you will find that most all of the extraction difficulties in the 1965-69 period were due to improper, or sub-optimal case hardness, resulting in lower yield strength.

As to steel cases, steel has both a higher modulus of elasticity (steeper slope of the stress-strain curve) and a higher yield strength, so if the strength characteristics of the case are designed properly, you can get the same clearance, and there is no need for lubrication. In fact, if there is an interference, lubrication will be useless as the relaxed diameter of the case wants to be bigger than the diameter of the chamber and squeeze all the oil out.

lU7qm2s.png


No modern automatic cannon uses lubricated cases, and fluted chambers are also rare, even though steel case ammunition is much more common in these applications.

NATO Standard 25mm X 137 is almost exclusively steel, 27mm X 145 is typically steel, the old French 30mm X 113 DEFA is steel, and the 30mm X 137 can be found in steel.
 
I wonder what the analytical capabilities of Olin-Winchester were at the time. Were they reading Guns & Ammo?
Somehow Winchester designed the Light Rifle for .224 Win that was almost identical to .223 Rem. It is one-way interchangeable, the AR would take .224 W but not vice versa. Picture looks like the case is very close but the Winchester bullet is seated deeper for a shorter OAL and shorter base to ogive so either the magazine or the chamber throat were limiting.
 
If you read Appendix 4, Ammunition Development Program, and "Product Improvement Test of 5.56mm Cartridge Case with Optimized Hardness Gradient," you will find that most all of the extraction difficulties in the 1965-69 period were due to improper, or sub-optimal case hardness, resulting in lower yield strength.
Most? Is this discounting the extraction problems that happened due to ball powder?

As to steel cases, steel has both a higher modulus of elasticity (steeper slope of the stress-strain curve) and a higher yield strength, so if the strength characteristics of the case are designed properly, you can get the same clearance, and there is no need for lubrication. In fact, if there is an interference, lubrication will be useless as the relaxed diameter of the case wants to be bigger than the diameter of the chamber and squeeze all the oil out.

I would say, given enough case to chamber interference, case extraction will require sticking a rod down the barrel and mechanically knocking the case out. I am sure you would agree, that it is not a good idea to design and field a case, a powder, and a chamber that requires a rod to extract the round. From what I read, the pressures at unlock with the Vietnam era ball powder were too high. The case was sticking to the chamber. Colt representatives in the field, were advising troops to oil their rounds! There was not much they could do otherwise, as the ball powder in the issue cartridges was inappropriate for the mechanism.

I do think this a stinker. The Ichord reports show the Army Ordnance Bureau sequestered stick powder ammunition for acceptance testing at Colt Firearms. This was to ensure that the M16's coming off the line would have a lower failure rate than if ball powder cartridges were used in final acceptance. The Ordnance Department had a lot of love for Colt and was doing all it could to maximize Colt profits. Of course, the guys in the field were using the ball powder cartridges.

(I do have concerns about the 80 kpsia round, and how that will turn out in the field. )


No modern automatic cannon uses lubricated cases, and fluted chambers are also rare, even though steel case ammunition is much more common in these applications.


Unfortunately, my cannon collection is small. Always wanted a Napoleon but don't know if the neighbors would complain about a 12 pounder pointed at their house! And I don't know everything about all cannons. I do know sintered teflon technology was used in the 1950's in Navy tests on their Oerlkion 20mm rounds, along with experiments with fluted chambers. The Navy tried various combinations of waxes, sintered teflon, chamber flutes, and oil. They got the highest cyclic rate with sintered teflon and oil. I don't know why sintered teflon technology was dropped. I do know the Oerlikon's were using oilers in Vietnam, which ended the practice of pre greasing rounds. I would assume, that today there are telfon coated steel case artillery rounds. The technology is over 70 years old, teflon would protect the case from rust, and ease extraction.

You probably have the classified and unclassified reports on US experiments on small arm steel cases. I am aware of a teflon coated US Army steel case 30-06, from an American Rifleman dope bag article . Don't know why that dead ended, but I will bet, it was because the USA was rich at the time, a major copper producer, and brass was the best cartridge case material. You can probably search your classified document lists and find if steel case and sintered teflon technology has been explored again, as the US is no longer rich, and copper prices have been going up. It makes sense to me, that DoD should be examining steel case technology, especially since Chile and Peru are the major copper producers. Wartime importation of strategic materials has been a problem in the past, (given that ships have to travel in oceans with sharks and torpedos) and I don't see why it won't be a problem in the future.

Today, Wolf uses sintered teflon on their 223 ammunition. (I assume it is sintered teflon) Notice that Wolf calls the stuff a polymer and does not call it a lubricant. This is what Wolf used to say:

Superior Reliability: The application of the polymer creates a precision uniform coating around the casing. It produces a bullet with persistent, uncompromising, stable dimensions thus leading to smooth reliable extractions.

Better Functioning: The superior lubricity improvement eases wear in gun chambers and alleviates excessive operational and maintenance issues associated with rapid firing. The development of this polymer represents a break-through in the field of tribology, and incorporates the most recent chemistry in terms of lubricity improving molecules.


This is what they say now:

Polyformance ammunition will not disappoint! Wolf coats all of their ammunition with a polymer coating to ensure smooth feeding and extraction putting the shooters mind at ease with less jamming. The coating on the ammunition allows for the ammunition to have a lengthier long term shortage time in comparison to different manufacturers

I am certain they have stopped alluding to Polyformance as a lubricant because the the extreme reactions they got from those who fearmonger that greases and oils will "increase bolt thrust". But, the fearmongers have real limitations: Firstly to them, lubrication is not a principle, lubrication is grease and oil. For example, they don't recognize the wax coating that Pedersen put on his cartridges is a lubricant, because to them, waxes are not greases and oils. Therefore to one of these, coating a case with teflon does not increase bolt thrust because telfon is not a grease or oil and therefore is not a lubricant. Calling a dry film lubricant a polymer, instead of a lubricant, won't cause angry reactions, because the the angry types don't know that oil, grease, wax, are all polymers.

Most 22lr ammunition is coated with a wax. Eley tried sintered teflon on "Edge" but it did not shoot as well as the older greasey waxed Eley Red and Black box. I was also told the pistol ammunition has a "vegetable based" lubricant for better low temperature performance.

Based on my experiences firing tens of thousands of lubricated cases, in various mechanisms from FAL's, to 1911's, (if I considered 22lr, the round count would be in the hundreds of thousands) case lubrication will increase extraction reliability. Of course, at some pressure level, the case will end up an interference fit in the chamber, and that's when the shooter has to break out a rod, and knock the case out.
 
I wonder what the analytical capabilities of Olin-Winchester were at the time. Were they reading Guns & Ammo?
Somehow Winchester designed the Light Rifle for .224 Win that was almost identical to .223 Rem. It is one-way interchangeable, the AR would take .224 W but not vice versa. Picture looks like the case is very close but the Winchester bullet is seated deeper for a shorter OAL and shorter base to ogive so either the magazine or the chamber throat were limiting.

Looks like you have an itch you can't scratch.
 
Not to dismiss the concerns of those who worry about the effects of shooting the occasional steel-cased cartridges through their precious firearms, but this still strikes me as just another issue that we gun folk tend to way overthink, much ado about nothing. It's great that our lab rats with all their fancy charts and graphs have figured out that they don't want to shoot the stuff, but for most of us who've shot a lot, and shot a bit of the steel cases, we're not at the point where we've fired so much of it that we're ruining our rifles and pistols.
 
Steel case extraction problems in ARs has to do with out of spec 5.56 chambers, which allows carbon buildup on the chamber walls, which can case steel cases to get stuck hard in chambers.

When the 1994 federal assault weapons ban ended in 2004 there was a rush by manufacturers to get guns built and sold. Many barrels from that time that were stamped 5.56 actually have .223 chambers. In addition there are 5.56 barrels that are just out of spec because of no QA.
 
Most? Is this discounting the extraction problems that happened due to ball powder?
You don't even read your own sources. That is sad.

"The Twelfth Memorandum Report on the ARI5 rifle-ammunition system, prepared by Frankford Arsenal in October 1964 identified the hardness of cartridge cases as a significant factor in functioning and in the occurrence of certain defects that sometimes are observed in the firing of service weapons . . . This had been clearly established . . . where extensive engineering tests had disclosed a relationship between case hardness and cartridge performance.

. . . reported difficulties in case extraction with Federal Cartridge Company 5.56mm ammunition, experienced by the Marine Corps in Vietnam and by the United States Combat Developments Command Experimentation Command (USACDCEC), Fort Ord, California, . . . The Frankford Arsenal examination of the Federal cartridges determined that the sidewalls were softer on these cartridges than on known patterns of earlier Federal lots. Federal Cartridge Company was requested to either adopt the new Frankford Arsenal proposed hardness pattern or to revert to its own original pattern.

Additional testing is now being conducted by Frankford Arsenal to determine the effect hard and soft cases have on extraction from Vietnam-conditioned weapon chambers."


4-6 through 4-9 of your report.

As to what to what the "additional testing" revealed, we refer to the bible for the M16: "The Black Rifle" by Stevens and Ezell, which explains:

"Failures to extract which required that the case be pounded out of the chamber by a cleaning rod, seconds or minutes after firing, were certainly not due to early opening of the bolt [ball powder having a higher cyclic rate] . . . Stoner's clear inference was accepted by the subcommittee and the extraction failures in Vietnam were also popularly ascribed to the higher cyclic rates produced by the Army's perfidious introduction of ball powder. This unfortunately succeeded in diverting suspicion away from a much more plausible cause of the malfunctions, which was lax case hardness specifications compounded by chamber corrosion."

(TBR, Steven & Ezell, pg 217-218)


And, if you read Section E. in its entirety (pg 4-30 to 4.-50, your report) where does it ever blame extraction issues on the choice of WC846? As to fouling, we can read this:

"The test plan required a 1,000-round fouling test on each lot of cartridges with all testing to be conducted at Lake City Army Ammunition Plant."

and

"The two government-owned commercially-operated (GOCO) ammunition loading plants at Lake City (LCAAP) and Twin Cities (TCAAP) began loading with IMR propellant 8208M during late 1966 and early 1967. The initial nineteen propellant lots supplied by Dupont showed little improvement over previous IMR propellant, insofar as meeting the velocity-chamber pressure specifications. In addition, certain propellant lots failed to pass the 1,000-round fouling test."

So, the DuPont stick propellant was the one fouling things . . . .


I would say, given enough case to chamber interference, case extraction will require sticking a rod down the barrel and mechanically knocking the case out. I am sure you would agree, that it is not a good idea to design and field a case, a powder, and a chamber that requires a rod to extract the round. From what I read, the pressures at unlock with the Vietnam era ball powder were too high. The case was sticking to the chamber. Colt representatives in the field, were advising troops to oil their rounds! There was not much they could do otherwise, as the ball powder in the issue cartridges was inappropriate for the mechanism.

I do think this a stinker. The Ichord reports show the Army Ordnance Bureau sequestered stick powder ammunition for acceptance testing at Colt Firearms. This was to ensure that the M16's coming off the line would have a lower failure rate than if ball powder cartridges were used in final acceptance. The Ordnance Department had a lot of love for Colt and was doing all it could to maximize Colt profits. Of course, the guys in the field were using the ball powder cartridges.
Again I refer you to "The Black Rifle" noted above (pg 217) . The Ichord Committee, which was made of three lawyers with little to no understanding of engineering took the word of Eugene Stoner as gospel. and never looked back.

And the final reason the propellant CANNOT be the problem is from around 1965 to sometime in 2011 5.56mm ball ammunition has been loaded with the same basic ball propellant formulation, yet around 1967-68 most all the reliability issues with the M16 had died out. So, how can you blame the propellant for 3 or 4 years of problems when it has been basically unchanged for 45 years?

Unfortunately, my cannon collection is small. Always wanted a Napoleon but don't know if the neighbors would complain about a 12 pounder pointed at their house! And I don't know everything about all cannons. I do know sintered teflon technology was used in the 1950's in Navy tests on their Oerlkion 20mm rounds, along with experiments with fluted chambers. The Navy tried various combinations of waxes, sintered teflon, chamber flutes, and oil. They got the highest cyclic rate with sintered teflon and oil. I don't know why sintered teflon technology was dropped. I do know the Oerlikon's were using oilers in Vietnam, which ended the practice of pre greasing rounds. I would assume, that today there are telfon coated steel case artillery rounds. The technology is over 70 years old, teflon would protect the case from rust, and ease extraction.
The Oerlikon FF cannon is a 1930 design, hardly a modern gun, the Mk4 Mod 4 was the last U.S. production variant, this modification introduced a fluted chamber. The Mk 16 20mm gun mount used an M3 or and M24 20mm, these had the oiler. (the only major difference between the M3 and M24 20mm is the M3 is percussion primed, and the M24 is electric primed. And the Oerlikon FF, the M3, the M24, Navy Mk 12, and the M61 Vulcan all use a different size/type ammunition. The FF - 20mm x 110RB; the M3 - 20mm x 110 (percussion), the M24 - 20mm X 110 (electric), the Navy Mk 12 - 20mm 110 Navy (larger head dia than the other two), and the Vulcan uses 20mm X 102.

The Navy's Mk 12 20mm was the last U.S. cannon with a fluted chamber, and with the Mk 11 Mod 4 barrel that feature was eliminated.

As I stated, nobody is using fluted chambers in auto-cannon, and the only reason they might feel the need for a Teflon coated case is to ease the feed chute wear. Some of the revolver cannon actually use gas extraction/ejection. Some gas is used to work the action, and some gas is directed into a fired chamber and the empty and the spent case is literally blown out of the gun.
 
Last edited:
My experience is that not all steel case ammo is equal, some of it's out of spec or use slow burning powders that just don't play well in 5.56 out of ARs. But most of it is fine. If your rifle can't run it, no big deal.
For pistol calibers, the biggest issues I see are feeding issues in the mags. Steel case just isn't as slick as brass and sometimes takes more effort to feed from a mag. I've fixed that by adding a stronger magazine spring.
I stopped buying steel case .223 many years ago but still have some I run thru a Saiga .223 AK. But budget brass usually performs better.
I also prefer any steel case in a lacquor coat, provides more rust protection and feeds easier than poly coat, which is what most of your .223 & pistol calibers come in.
 
Back
Top