The luckygunner test says it all. You can balk all you want, but it was a well designed test using quality ammo.
Really? Tula is quality?
Look at the price per round of what they used, that tells a lot about the quality.
The powder in the Brown Bear and Wolf was clean, and the pressures were normal. And the cases came from ammo plants that have been specializing in steel ammunition since the dawn of time.
Did you actually read the Luckygunner article? Obviously not. Did you look at the pressure curves? they are completely different. The ammunition is not loaded to the same specification. It is not loaded with the same propellant. And other than the weigh of the bullet, they aren't the same (gilding metal vs steel jackets).
Tula has been making steel for a long time, too, you keep ignoring that fact but a quick search will find a lot of poor quality cases from Tula.
If you think US manufacturers can do any better than that, then you're delusional. Furthermore, the control ammo used represents a pretty average standard for decent .223 cartridges. You can't tell me that it was some kind of super reliable ammo that doesn't represent the average brass cased .223 or 5.56 NATO, just as you can't say that the Wolf and Brown Bear represented unreliable examples of steel case .223.
I gave facts from report that say we did. Several times. you refuse to believe them.
I should also mention that luckygunner sells steel cased ammo, so they don't have any reason to try to disparage it. All in all, I would say that was one of the most professional, objective tests I've seen. You can nitpick it, but any rational, intellectually honest person has to conclude that the results are valid, and an accurate representation of the performance you're going to get out of steel .223.
Now you are a testing expert as well?
Professional - yes.
Objective - yes.
But, it cannot and did not test steel cased ammunition against brass cased ammunition from the same factory, loaded to the same specifications and using the same quality assurances. Hell did you actually read the entire article? They stated that themselves!
You could repeat that test any way you want, but it's always going to be the same, or worse, unless you do something questionable, like use dirty control ammo. In fact, if you repeated the test with higher round counts, then it's likely that it would just look worse. How many rounds of brass would it take before a malfunction? 15,000, 20,000?
You could try and test ammunition loaded to the same specifications and using the same components other than the cases with the same level of quality assurances, and see what happens.
And again, the most common malfunctions with brass ammo are double feeds.
You have some evidence other than you stating it that? Not a week passes over on ARF.com that there isn't a string of threads describing other malfunctions that can be ammunition related.
Stuck cases are fairly rare in the overall scheme of things, at least with barrels 14.5'' and longer. Naturally, as barrel length goes down, your likelihood of extraction issues goes up. Yet, with steel cased .223, the most common malfunction by far was stuck cases. So it's not just the number of malfunctions that's important, but the type that was so revealing.
What I meant regarding 25mm cannons is, I don't know the numbers off the top of my head. Like I don't know the chamber pressure of the round, the length of the barrels, or where the gas port is located. I also don't know what the pressure levels are at any given point. These are things I'm familiar with regarding 5.56, so I know how they effect the reliability regarding extraction of spend cases.
You don't need to know those things off the top of your head. You need to know the underlying engineering principles. Which you obviously don't.
What I will say, though, and what I thought I already said, is that the gas operated cannons which do exist have very long barrels. I'm thinking like well over 100 inches. Given the caliber (the diameter of the barrel), I would say that chamber pressures wouldn't be too high. So you've got a super long barrel with normal chamber pressures!
When you start to study and design guns there is one dimensionless characteristic that keeps popping up in interior ballistics and gas system design? It's dimensionless.
Barrel length in calibers (barrel length divided by bore diameter), a 20 inch AR barrel is about 80 calibers long. A 25mm barrel 80 calibers long is about 6 feet long. Care to guess how long a Oerlikon KBA barrel is?
And, proportionally, the gas port on a KBA is closer to the chamber than a pistol length AR gas system. It is a rougher extraction cycle. Not to mention a higher cyclic rate.
Okay, I couldn't help myself. I looked up the KBA, one of the few gas operated cannons I know of, and chamber pressures for it were 60,000 on the high side, and 50,000 on the low side. Barrel length was 114 inches. So yea, it's no wonder that steel cases work with it! With a barrel that long, you can delay extraction until the pressures have dropped. Add to that, the cases are huge, meaning very beefy rims and extractors. So you can extract at ideal pressures, plus you've got a very strong rim. That means you can use whatever force is necessary to extract, and have no chance of case head separation.
Barrel length alone is not what drives rough cycling, it is the gas port location relative to the chamber and the muzzle.
16 AR barrel with mid-length gas system vs AR 16 inch with carbine length gas systems? Or, a 16" barrel with a pistol length gas system? Which is going to be rougher on the cases?
Again, the physics involved in cannons, even the gas operated ones, are so far removed from the AR15 that it's not even worth bringing into this discussion. And again, your willful ignorance of the issues surrounding this discussion are making it very difficult.
You know just stating over and over the cannon are not like any other gun doesn't make it so.
How about you explain why they are different.
What physical principle is different?
What chemical difference in the propellant makes them different?
Which one of the laws of thermodynamics change because the hole in the barrel is bigger than 1/2 inch?
Then explain how General Electric, made a 1860 black powder design shoot 20mm x 102, then with very little development turned around and made it shoot 7.62mm NATO, then again in a short time made it shoot 30mm x 173, then 5.56mm x 45 and then 25mm x 137. All of these worked almost flawlessly out of the box with very little development after the M61A1 was perfected.
Your ignorance is becoming tiresome.
(long-term brass embrittlement is a real thing, as is Soviet predilection to manufacture stuff specifically for storage; I would be surprised if steel has the same storage issues as brass, provided it is protected from oxygen)
