一直有人說(shuō)，中國(guó)為了節(jié)約銅資源，而在中國(guó)輕武器大量使用鋼殼子彈，這導(dǎo)致性能比起美國(guó)的黃銅彈殼有所下降，那么，真實(shí)情況確實(shí)是這樣的嗎？

從火藥武器誕生以來(lái)，再裝填效率和可靠性一直是火器專家考慮的重中之重。早在五百年前，各國(guó)就開(kāi)始對(duì)再裝填提出各種設(shè)想。

以上都是歷史中解決火炮/火槍發(fā)射速度采用的各種工具，不過(guò)我們大家都知道，自從金屬殼定裝子彈出現(xiàn)后，在步兵輕武器中，已經(jīng)基本淘汰了以上所有的定裝藥技術(shù)。那么，就讓我們回歸正題，看看現(xiàn)代幾種材質(zhì)的彈殼的優(yōu)劣勢(shì)。

本文主要翻譯自Brass vs. Steel Cased Ammo – An Epic Torture Test 作者??Andrew

原文地址：https://www.luckygunner.com/labs/brass-vs-steel-cased-ammo/

We conducted this testing in the Arizona desert during monsoon season. Dust storms frequently interrupted our range trials. These storms covered the carbines in fine sand and we also saw rainstorms drench the carbines in water. These storms did not affect the previously set cleaning schedule. In addition, we shot at a high rate of fire. We fired the carbines until they were too hot to touch at times during the test. These rates of fire were identical for all weapons and they continued to function very well despite the adverse conditions.

測(cè)試地點(diǎn)為亞利桑那州，遭受了多次沙塵暴襲擊，同時(shí)還遭受了沙漠特有的驟雨，不過(guò)團(tuán)隊(duì)刻意不清理步槍，一直使用全自動(dòng)模式測(cè)試，直到槍管通紅無(wú)法握持才會(huì)暫停，以此考驗(yàn)步槍在高射速、高污染環(huán)境下使用不同彈殼的性能。

At the 5,000 round mark, we cleaned the bolt carriers, upper receivers, and barrels. After we noted inconsistent cycling thanks to the aid of high speed video, we replaced the action springs ($3). We also pulled out and replaced the extractor springs ($6.99) and?gas rings ($2.19).

測(cè)試團(tuán)隊(duì)每隔5000發(fā)清洗一次槍械，并更換部分易損零件，主要是導(dǎo)氣管結(jié)構(gòu)。

測(cè)試團(tuán)隊(duì)選擇若干把同一批次步槍，修正故障后（原步槍滾筒螺母扭矩值不合適，導(dǎo)致精度由3.5moa正常水平放大到5moa），分別測(cè)試10000發(fā)黃銅殼彈（federal），10000發(fā)覆銅鋼彈（wolf），10000發(fā)鋼殼（tula），得出了以下結(jié)論：

• Federal（黃銅）: 10,000 rounds, 0 malfunctions（故障）.

• Brown Bear（覆銅鋼，烏克蘭或俄羅斯代工）: 10,000 rounds, 9 malfunctions (5 stuck cases（子彈卡?。? 1 magazine-related failure to feed（彈匣故障）, 3 failures to fully cycle（導(dǎo)氣運(yùn)作不良）)

• Wolf（覆銅鋼，烏克蘭或俄羅斯代工）: 10,000 rounds, 15 malfunctions (stuck cases（卡彈）)

• Tula（鋼殼，俄羅斯圖拉兵工廠）: DNF (6,000 rounds in alternate carbine, 3 malfunctions)

  
  

• The carbine firing Tula had a?case?stuck in the chamber after 189 rounds. This 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, we encountered 24 malfunctions total. These problems consisted of stuck cases and failures to fully cycle, or “short stroking.” At this time, we pulled the Tula carbine from the testing. The delays caused considerable problems and put the entire project’s completion in peril.

  翻譯如下：圖拉的鋼殼彈在使用大毒蛇XM15發(fā)射189發(fā)后即卡住，難以排除；使用它繼續(xù)發(fā)射300發(fā)，有24發(fā)故障，要不是卡殼，要不就是氣動(dòng)機(jī)工作不正常。

從初步結(jié)論看，似乎是黃銅殼表現(xiàn)最為理想，10000發(fā)無(wú)故障，而覆銅鋼故障率約千分之1.5，鋼殼的圖拉兵工廠版本則表現(xiàn)不良。但是需要記住的是，5.56因?yàn)殄F度較小，所有的美國(guó)軍標(biāo)子彈均是黃銅殼（federa就是美國(guó)軍標(biāo)彈），有利于抽殼；使用鋼殼后，阻力比較大，所以，美國(guó)團(tuán)隊(duì)考慮到這個(gè)問(wèn)題后，改變了測(cè)試工具：

We decided to fire the remainder of the Tula ammunition through other carbines. We cycled approximately 300 rounds 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). Stuck cases or failures to eject accounted for all?those malfunctions.

測(cè)試團(tuán)隊(duì)更換為短行程活塞的HK 416后，發(fā)射300發(fā)無(wú)故障；使用spikestactical的卡賓槍發(fā)射1000發(fā)，3發(fā)故障；又用spikestactical的中等長(zhǎng)度步槍發(fā)射6000發(fā)（不清理槍械），僅3發(fā)故障。由此可見(jiàn)，采用了制造更加精良的槍械后，發(fā)射鋼殼彈的可靠性不亞于覆銅鋼子彈。

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.

兩種覆銅鋼子彈在大毒蛇XM-15表現(xiàn)良好，棕熊牌（俄羅斯或?yàn)蹩颂m代工）2250發(fā)出現(xiàn)第一次故障，狼牌（俄羅斯或?yàn)蹩颂m代工）在4850發(fā)出現(xiàn)第一次故障。

The second half of the test started off with short stroking malfunctions from the Brown Bear carbine. This occurred at 5,200 and 5,250 rounds. High speed video showed that the bolt was barely coming back far enough to pick up the next round. It occasionally wouldn’t travel far enough to eject the spent?case. Additional lubrication did not prevent the second malfunction.

A detailed physical examination revealed previously unnoticed carbon buildup in the gas key and gas tube which had almost completely occluded those components. We inspected the other firearms. We didn’t see carbon buildup that was remotely close to that of the Brown Bear carbine. It was difficult to clean these components in the field. So, we decided to them aside in order to examine the phenomenon.

We replaced the gas tube and bolt carrier of the Brown Bear rifle with identical components. After the swap, we resumed firing without incident.

No malfunctions occurred until 7,500 rounds. We ran into five stuck cases between 7,500 and 8,200 rounds. From 7,500 rounds on, we observed a number of cases with distended and/or split necks.

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

We encountered two more stuck cases with the Wolf carbine at 5,800 and 5,850 rounds. We didn’t take actions and didn’t get another stuck?case?until the round count passed the 9,000 mark. From 9,200 to 10,000 rounds, we observed twelve stuck cases. During this time, we used a?Boresnake?to superficially clean the bore and chamber. It did not appear to have any impact 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.

覆銅鋼子彈在5000發(fā)時(shí)故障率開(kāi)始增加，9000發(fā)以上時(shí)，槍械故障率激增，9200-10000發(fā)時(shí)在大毒蛇步槍被記錄出12次卡殼故障。黃銅子彈10000發(fā)無(wú)問(wèn)題。由此可見(jiàn)，在5.56槍械上，黃銅殼可靠性明顯優(yōu)于鋼殼彈。

（當(dāng)然，美俄火藥配方，彈頭材質(zhì)也有差別）

槍彈潔凈度測(cè)試：

Is?Brass?or?Steel?Cased Ammo Dirtier?

Of particular concern to some shooters is whether or not one type of ammo is dirtier than another. Shooters often malign imported ammunition for being dirty and difficult to clean. So, we didn’t clean lower receivers of each firearm at all from the first shot to the last, in order to see which became the most filthy.

Interestingly, the dirtiest lower receiver was that of the Federal carbine. It took us significantly longer to clean the upper receiver and bolt carrier group assembly of the?Federal?carbine than the Brown Bear and Wolf carbines. Although you should keep in mind that carbon fouled the Brown Bear carbine’s gas tube and gas key so much after 5,000 rounds that it would no longer function reliably. We observed nearly the same level of buildup on the replacement key and tube after they fired just short of 5000 rounds.

AR-15采用氣吹式結(jié)構(gòu)，兩種獨(dú)聯(lián)體生產(chǎn)的覆銅鋼子彈使用的火藥在5000發(fā)后堵塞了導(dǎo)氣管，而federal則大量沉積在氣吹室，可見(jiàn)美俄配方的差異性。

精度維持（熱散）測(cè)試：

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.

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.

美國(guó)軍標(biāo)黃銅殼federal能夠10000發(fā)都維持在5moa的基準(zhǔn)水平之內(nèi)，而兩種覆銅鋼的子彈在6000發(fā)出現(xiàn)熱散，但頭4000發(fā)時(shí)覆銅鋼表現(xiàn)和黃銅沒(méi)有明顯差異。此外，5000發(fā)時(shí)兩種覆銅鋼子彈的步槍導(dǎo)氣管已經(jīng)堵塞，并且槍膛磨損嚴(yán)重，必須更換，可能是這兩種子彈被甲較硬，對(duì)膛線磨損較大（俄羅斯廣泛使用鋼背甲，而美國(guó)民用步槍一般都是設(shè)計(jì)為黃銅背甲）。所以不推薦高硬度背甲子彈連續(xù)在XM-15使用5000發(fā)。

團(tuán)隊(duì)對(duì)數(shù)據(jù)的分析：

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?steelcase. 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.

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.

這段文字可以簡(jiǎn)單解釋如下：圖拉的子彈配方采用了高燃速火藥，而且顆粒研磨程度并不均勻（國(guó)內(nèi)2015年對(duì)10式子彈評(píng)價(jià)也有類似的語(yǔ)句，顆粒大小不均是5.8子彈散步較大的原因之一），而XM-15是根據(jù)美國(guó)黃銅殼設(shè)計(jì)的步槍，因此在采用高燃速火藥的鋼殼子彈時(shí)，由于火藥燃速大，初始膛壓高，但進(jìn)入導(dǎo)氣管后氣壓急劇下降，導(dǎo)致推動(dòng)槍機(jī)力量減弱無(wú)法抽殼。不過(guò)，由于圖拉采用的是俄羅斯軍標(biāo)配方，在使用長(zhǎng)行程活塞的AK-74和短行程活塞的HK 416時(shí)，因?yàn)闅馐逸^小且靠近槍管，所以在有活塞的步槍上不會(huì)出現(xiàn)抽殼力不足問(wèn)題。

子彈膨脹性測(cè)試：

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?steeldoesn’t expand – and more importantly, contract – like?brass?means that extraction will be naturally more difficult.

黃銅形變性是鋼的1.5倍，由于美國(guó)5.56原來(lái)設(shè)計(jì)即采用黃銅彈殼，因此一般AR-15不適合換用膨脹性差的鋼殼彈，否則抽殼阻力太大。

（相比之下，國(guó)內(nèi)5.8子彈一開(kāi)始就是按鋼殼或覆銅鋼殼設(shè)計(jì)，如果貿(mào)然改成黃銅，可能導(dǎo)致抽殼力過(guò)大導(dǎo)致彈殼碎裂）

What Effect Do 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 we fired the polymer coated Tula ammunition in different rifles, the rate of extraction failures in those rifles was lower than that of Wolf.

事實(shí)證明，涂有聚合物的鋼殼子彈故障率反而是涂漆鋼的5倍。因此鋼殼涂聚合物并不會(huì)帶來(lái)任何潤(rùn)滑效果，反而會(huì)在高溫下加劇故障。