Is US factory ammo intentionally made with one-use brass?
- Thread starter steelgray
- Start date
So the manufacturers are increasing their costs by reducing the amount of a cheaper component, because... Why? Other than "you may need better forming equipment", which doesn't make sense. Their "forming equipment" was designed to process cartridge alloy brass. Manufacturers (But not all of them, because this isn't an issue with all brass?) are not re-tooling entire production lines with cheaper equipment just to accommodate a slightly different (more expensive) brass alloy. This is a weird post.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
Maybe hes been reloading for so long that he doesnt care to entertain your argument.
Who the one that if a person doesnt agree, keep trying to find posts that back up his claim without really have any exp. You also think someone with knowledge is going to waste their time with something that people don't care too much..
Its fake news because you can get more than 1 use from any brass. So it's not one time use.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
Here is a quick video that tells how you can use the specific gravity method to evaluate the gold content in a ring.
As the guy mentions, you can use very old method to determine the density of any metal or any object. Once you know the density, you just compare the number you get against a density table, The density for a brass alloy containing a blend of Copper and Zinc is as provided below.
People can establish the Copper and Zinc content in any reloading case easily and reliably with this method. When you do your testing, make sure there are no bubbles of air inside the immersed case, because that will throw off the calculations.
If possible please post your results here. Thanks
I am a bit confused by this - as if one must assume what the item is made from - gold or specific components of alloy - and then "confirm" with an S.G. test. How does one know what components are in the alloy to start with? In the case of cartridges - how does one know there is no lead or other metals in the mix to give a specific S.G. number? In the case of the "gold" 10K ring - how is it known to be 10 K (41% gold) and not some lead or other contaminants in there? I think pure gold like 24K or so? Although I have not done so, I suspect one could start with 24K pure gold - then add various cheaper elements - to end up with some alloy that has the "required" S.G. of 10K, but does not contain 41% gold? - but what do I know - I am not a metallurgist ...
Last edited:
I understand your question. The specific gravity test has been used reliably - since the middle ages - as THE way to "assay" an alloy prominently made of two metals in an alloy mix, of unknown proportions. This is the normal case for a ring made of Gold and Copper or a brass cartridge case made of Copper and Zinc. If there were other metals or materials in the alloy that contributed to the weight (mass) in a significant way, then the test isn't going to give accurate results.
What third metal do you imagine might be in a cartridge case that might be present in a large enough quantity to throw off the test?
Does anyone know of a situation where brass cartridge cases are known to include a large/ significant amount of a third metal - that is, enough of a third metal to contribute significantly to the total weight of the cartridge case? Obviously, trace amounts of this or that are irrelevant.
What third metal do you imagine might be in a cartridge case that might be present in a large enough quantity to throw off the test?
Does anyone know of a situation where brass cartridge cases are known to include a large/ significant amount of a third metal - that is, enough of a third metal to contribute significantly to the total weight of the cartridge case? Obviously, trace amounts of this or that are irrelevant.
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I do not know much about this - it likely shows in my questions. But I think, since Middle Ages, has been iron pyrites (Fool's Gold) bought and sold as if it were "real" gold. Strikes me as curious not to hear of simple S.G. test in Klondike Gold Rush - was something I read about "fire assay" - not really sure that I know what that is, but maybe also about establishing melting or boiling point of the substance. Also about whether the stuff dissolves in Hydrocholic Acid or not - gold will not, apparently, whereas most other metals will; or whether it "sticks" to mercury - gold apparently will, but most other metals will not. So leads me to think is much more than "Specific Gravity", to identify what is a particular substance? I suspect that gets even more tangled when two metals combined and held out to be a particular alloy of something?
Is no doubt to me that particular proportions of alloy result in particular S.G. or range of S.G. - but is a long way from "proving" that there is no other possible combinations that can not have that same S.G. - must be something else needed to know, to be sure what is in there, in what proportions?
Last edited:
Thanks for what I interpret to be your genuine interest in this topic. I'm sure there are ways to test for fools gold etc. but its not relevant here. Certainly the lower density of the stuff should have been a give-away - and I suspect that in most cases that was it. Early gold-diggers wouldn't have had access to digital scales (or the knowledge of how to do an SG test) and so on, but the "heft" method could have been used.
Pyrite has a specific gravity of around 5 (alot less than even Copper or Zinc), while gold has an SG of 19.3
For sure the standard assay test here works where the alloy is made up of two presumed metals. I'm not a metallurgist either but I'm sure that most folks know that not all metals can be combined into alloys. I doubt that you could make a ring made of copper and fools gold and if you did I doubt it would fool anyone.
Why don't you test your cartridge cases and report the results here. As shown in the video, it takes literally seconds (LINK)
Pyrite has a specific gravity of around 5 (alot less than even Copper or Zinc), while gold has an SG of 19.3
For sure the standard assay test here works where the alloy is made up of two presumed metals. I'm not a metallurgist either but I'm sure that most folks know that not all metals can be combined into alloys. I doubt that you could make a ring made of copper and fools gold and if you did I doubt it would fool anyone.
Why don't you test your cartridge cases and report the results here. As shown in the video, it takes literally seconds (LINK)
Last edited:
- Location
- Western Manitoba
"why don't I test my cartridge case ..."? Mostly because I do not have issues of concern with them. Second, as per the second part of my post that you did NOT quote - strikes me that something else besides S.G. needs to be known, to know what the S.G. test is actually telling you - but I do not know that.
PinkyPlinker
CGN Ultra frequent flyer
- Location
- Kenora, ON
Agreed. And for some reason the OP needed two threads about it. I guess some people really need to sling muck over nonsense.
Instead of being negative, why don't you test your brass using the method provided (LINK) and post your results here? My impression is that your goal is to be rude rather than to deal with facts.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
How many times are you going to spam your link? Accept that many don't care.
Wouldn't the test only be accurate with new un fired brass? Non contaminated brass. As powder residue and carbon could effect the tests or volume. Some chambers are greater than others. Humidity and such could tarnish the brass and pit it.
My impression is that he doesn't care. As you seem to care, why don't YOU test your brass and post the results here? School us all on brass quality.
- Location
- Nova Scotia
I entertained him, and all I got from it, is a dirty container. Followed his video to the T.
12gram case, and the suspended in RO water gave me 3grams, so my total was 4.
12gram case, and the suspended in RO water gave me 3grams, so my total was 4.
- Location
- Western Manitoba
I did watch that video - the guy did not measure the amount of water displaced - just compared total weight of the ring he tested, the tub of water, then the tub of water with ring suspended in it. I am still working on that idea - as if the ring displaced an amount of water, so the ring had some more weight than the water that it displaced - resulting in greater total weight of the tub. Not sure yet that is what Specific Gravity actually is - I thought S.G. was a particular weight per volume - maybe that was a short cut to get there?
You are right. Weighting the test case is easy; whereas establishing the weight that the immersed case adds to the vessel of water is trickier
I had two problems. First, I couldn't get my new scale to measure the vessel with the water in it without going into overload. That forced me to get my old scale working - which had been fussy after I dropped it on the ground a few weeks ago. With the old scale working again, I tried suspending the case in the water - without touching the bottom or the sides and totally immersed.
I got a bunch of readings that were wrong and eventually found the problem was that I had suspended the case by a bunch of wire bag ties that displaced too much water. Once I switched to hanging the case from a thread - as shown in the video - it worked fine.
I got a reading of 118.8 grains for a partial WW-Super case. This was a partial because I had sectioned it earlier. This actually help the job of getting an accurate reading of the immersed weight, because there was really no chance of air bubbles remaining inside - which certainly would have thrown-out results. The immersed weight came out at 14.0 grains. The ratio is 8.485 - which is the specific gravity of that case.
When we compare that to the table it equates to about 75% Copper and 25% Zinc - which means that the brass is below the quality of cartridge brass. I'm pretty sure if I did it again, I'd get slight differences - so I'd recommend that people do a few separate immersion tests and average the results.
Someone before said that he got a calculated SG reading of 4. If you are using a thread and get a crazy SG number that is too high, look out for the possibility that the case is touching the bottom or the sides or otherwise isn't fully, freely suspended and completely covered in water. If you get an error where the SG is way too low to make sense that could well be because of trapped bubbles. In that case, you could consider drilling out the primer hole - a lot - so that you can be sure that there isn't any air inside. The test doesn't care, if you modify the case - as long as the case has the same properties for both parts of the test - because its the ratio of the two parts of the test that counts.
To the guy who said that he was certain that every cartridge case on the planet is made with cartridge quality brass, I have to say "... test for yourself. You might be surprised".
I had two problems. First, I couldn't get my new scale to measure the vessel with the water in it without going into overload. That forced me to get my old scale working - which had been fussy after I dropped it on the ground a few weeks ago. With the old scale working again, I tried suspending the case in the water - without touching the bottom or the sides and totally immersed.
I got a bunch of readings that were wrong and eventually found the problem was that I had suspended the case by a bunch of wire bag ties that displaced too much water. Once I switched to hanging the case from a thread - as shown in the video - it worked fine.
I got a reading of 118.8 grains for a partial WW-Super case. This was a partial because I had sectioned it earlier. This actually help the job of getting an accurate reading of the immersed weight, because there was really no chance of air bubbles remaining inside - which certainly would have thrown-out results. The immersed weight came out at 14.0 grains. The ratio is 8.485 - which is the specific gravity of that case.
When we compare that to the table it equates to about 75% Copper and 25% Zinc - which means that the brass is below the quality of cartridge brass. I'm pretty sure if I did it again, I'd get slight differences - so I'd recommend that people do a few separate immersion tests and average the results.
Someone before said that he got a calculated SG reading of 4. If you are using a thread and get a crazy SG number that is too high, look out for the possibility that the case is touching the bottom or the sides or otherwise isn't fully, freely suspended and completely covered in water. If you get an error where the SG is way too low to make sense that could well be because of trapped bubbles. In that case, you could consider drilling out the primer hole - a lot - so that you can be sure that there isn't any air inside. The test doesn't care, if you modify the case - as long as the case has the same properties for both parts of the test - because its the ratio of the two parts of the test that counts.
To the guy who said that he was certain that every cartridge case on the planet is made with cartridge quality brass, I have to say "... test for yourself. You might be surprised".
Last edited:
- Location
- Nova Scotia
You are right. Weighting the test case is easy; whereas establishing the weight that the immersed case adds to the vessel of water is trickier
I had two problems. First, I couldn't get my new scale to measure the vessel with the water in it without going into overload. That forced me to get my old scale working - which had been fussy after I dropped it on the ground a few weeks ago. With the old scale working again, I tried suspending the case in the water - without touching the bottom or the sides and totally immersed.
I got a bunch of readings that were wrong and eventually found the problem was that I had suspended the case by a bunch of wire bag ties that displaced too much water. Once I switched to hanging the case from a thread - as shown in the video - it worked fine.
I got a reading of 118.8 grains for a partial WW-Super case. This was a partial because I had sectioned it earlier. This actually help the job of getting an accurate reading of the immersed weight, because there was really no chance of air bubbles remaining inside - which certainly would have thrown-out results. The immersed weight came out at 14.0 grains. The ratio is 8.485 - which is the specific gravity of that case.
When we compare that to the table it equates to about 75% Copper and 25% Zinc - which means that the brass is below the quality of cartridge brass. I'm pretty sure if I did it again, I'd get slight differences - so I'd recommend that people do a few separate immersion tests and average the results.
Someone before said that he got a calculated SG reading of 4. If you are using a thread and get a crazy SG number that is too high, look out for the possibility that the case is touching the bottom or the sides or otherwise isn't fully, freely suspended and completely covered in water. If you get an error where the SG is way too low to make sense that could well be because of trapped bubbles. In that case, you could consider drilling out the primer hole - a lot - so that you can be sure that there isn't any air inside. The test doesn't case, if you modify the case - as long as the case has the same properties for both parts of the test - because its the ratio of the two parts of the test that counts.
To the guy who said that he was certain that every cartridge case on the planet is made with cartridge quality brass, I have to say "... test for yourself. You might be surprised".
I sucked at school. But I cannot see how weighting a mass displacing water determines what the mass is made out of.
As for me doing the test wrong. The case wasnt touching nothing, I used only dental floss. But carbon and other impurities will add to the mass.
Test is stupid as all my 303 brass are not American.
Again, I know what you are saying. When we did this stuff, in high school science, the approach was to fill a container to the very top and then immerse the item being tested and capture the extra water that spills out - and measure the weight of the displaced water (i.e., the water that actually overflowed from the vessel). I think this may have something to do with some weird thing called the "Archimedes principle". I tried that approach too and honestly - while I think that both approaches work - the results seem easier to obtain for smaller items using the immersion method, as shown in the video. The problem with the spill-over approach - for smaller items - is surface tension; which means that you don't always get the displaced water exactly matching the volume of the item that you immersed. Life sucks.
If you get a calculated SG value that is numerically low (like 4) that might mean you have trapped bubble inside the case. I didn't have that problem because my test case had a gaping hole in one side from an earlier sectioning.
The test should work fine with any cases (North American or European). I would guess that the European ones will have a lower SG - meaning proportionally more Zinc and less Copper - which is good.
The test should work fine with any cases (North American or European). I would guess that the European ones will have a lower SG - meaning proportionally more Zinc and less Copper - which is good.
