Does "dirty ammo" really matter?

[Tom]

I quite often read someone's write-up on ammo, powder, or primers and they'll comment on it being clean or dirty. I'll also read about many folks being fanatics about cleaning their stuff or the opposite i.e. Glock guys like to brag about round count and lack of cleaning. I am a clean guy myself.

In the overall scheme does dirty ammo really matter?

[wwillson]

Tom,

I've certainly heard many debates at the club about when/how often to clean one's guns. I can't honestly say I've ever heard anyone debating about clean ammunition. What do you mean by dirty ammo?

Wayne

[Tom]

For instance;

http://www.practicallyshooting.com/forum...h=true#Post1277

http://www.practicallyshooting.com/forum...rch=true#Post29

My point is, if you are cleaning your gear regularly, or if you are proud of dirt (my glock reference) does it matter how "clean" the powder is?

[wwillson]

In my Remington 870, which I shoot trap with, I shoot both Hodgdon Clays & Hodgdon Longshot. Clays is about as clean a powder as you can get and Longshot is about dirty as Clays is clean. I can tell you that with the 870 it just doesn't matter how dirty the shotgun gets it just works. The only time I clean it is when the chamber gets so dirty that the hulls start sticking and won't eject easily, or when I shoot in the rain. The good old 870 gets cleaned about four times per year and fires about 7,500 rounds in an average year. I have heard that some of the autoloader shotguns are very finicky when dirty and must be cleaned often, but I can't tell from experience as I don't own one.

In my 1911's I'd say it does make a difference. I have loaded Clays for target loads and can fire hundreds of rounds between cleanings without any problems. However loading low pressure rounds of virtually any powder will build up powder residue much quicker. Loading a powder like HS-6 or Longshot for the 1911 will also build up residue much faster and will eventually start to cause problems. I have never, no matter how dirty the powder is, had problems with fewer than 200 rounds fired through any of my 1911's.

Wayne

[dnewton3]

I agree with Wayne. There is a difference between "wanting" and "needing" to clean.

I believe the weapon design and function greatly factor into the cleaninng routine. But we cannot discount the propellent residue as well. These three things combine to determine the "want" or "need" of cleaning frequency.

Glocks generally seem to function with all kinds of stuff in them (within reason). That is one reason that a little lube goes a long way in a Glock. The less oil, the less contaminants retained. As a Glock armorer, I can tell you I've seen some REALLY dirty weapons come in for a full tear down, and the junk in there can be amazing. I always ask "How did it shoot?" and the resounding answer is "Fine. Why do you ask?"

Same goes for the good ol' Rem 870; it is pratically flawless in cycle duty. It's not the fastest or the lightest or the prettiest, but by gosh it functions and cycles with absolute certaintity, and that's why it's my favorite "get off my property" gun. There is no mistaking the slaping sounds of "ker-chink/ker-chunk" when a chambering a round; it is an attention grabber that no one can ignore.

That is why I also like the AK-47S and Ruger Mini- rifles. Simple, and reliable. Not the most accurate, but these things can be run with any kind of crud in them, any kind of ammo from any third-world country, and go "bang" when you need them to.

Some weapon designs such as the 1911 can be hyper-built into fantastic target tools, but they often loose "battle readiness reliability" in the process. I'm not talking hundreds of shots, but rather thousands of shots. It seems to me that as they become more accurate, they become less tolerant of dirt and grime. Want a reliable 1911? Get a "loose" one that is accurate enough at 25 yards, and can run junk ammo. The most "reliable" 1911 I had was a Chinese Norinco. It would simply fire when my Springfield would cease, and I treated them both mercilously.

The reality is that some weapons are not the most accurate, but they are WELL more accurate than I am (and I ain't a bad shot), and they cycle with 100% reliability in the worst conditions you can reasonably expect a firearm to function. Part of this reliability comes from the fact that they can use any ammo, and are able to get rid of the propellent gasses with little retention of the residue, and what residue does stay in the weapon seems to not affect the function of the weapon greatly. So, regardless of whether or not the ammo is "dirty", some weapons just deal with the "dirt" better than others.

When it comes to weapon design and function, you have to ask at what level will they be used as a percentage of intent. In other words, will you keep it so clean that it would only see 50% of it's design tolerance for crud? As you approach the design limits of any particular weapon, you start to become more and more exclusive in key design criteria. As you approach 80% or more of design capacity, the accuracy and reliability become mutually exclusive. A Glock and a Kimber can both fire clean ammo for several thousand rounds, but at some point the Kimber will become a questionable entity where the Glock still offers 100% function. The Kimber is much more accurate, but the Glock is much more reliable. If one keeps both weapons clean, the advantage goes to the Kimber. As the conditions deteriorate, the advantage shifts to the Glock. Using "dirty" ammo only exaggerates this condition.

Bottom line? A tight, accurate gun can fire clean ammo reliably. But a well designed gun can fire ANY ammo reliably, with enough accuracy to do the task at hand.