Is US factory ammo intentionally made with one-use brass?

steelgray

Regular
Rating - 100%
37   0   0
There are some who think that “brass is brass”. In fact, not so. Brass is an alloy of Copper and Zinc (plus potentially a small amount of other stuff). Copper is really soft, but has some great properties for ammo cartridges – including its ability to respond to forces and pressures by stretching and springing back. Adding zinc to the mix makes the resultant alloy stronger and the strongest brass will have more than 39% Zinc. However, adding more than 30% Zinc can make it harder to form the cases – requiring extra heat and forces – adding to manufacturing costs. Balancing out these considerations, cartridge brass is supposed to be 70% Copper and 30% Zinc (see Wikipedia CLICK ON LINK).

As noted, while it is possible to make cartridge case with more than 30% Zinc – you may need better forming equipment and you’ll incur more production costs (even though the cost of the material itself – Zinc – is actually cheaper than Copper).

Various CGN posts have established that not all factory ammo brass is created equal. People report that some newer brass, used in commercial US ammo, is almost useless for reloading; inasmuch as many people have said that their once fired cases seem to suffer head separations after a few reloadings. Lots of folks get sucked into the belief that this situation is because there is something wrong with their gun – and its “bad headspacing” – but knowledgeable shooters are increasingly recognizing that is probably just a cover story for the fact that the brass in their factory ammo isn’t made to last for much more than the original firing.

There are stories from other non CGN posts where people claim that they have written to Remington, Winchester etc. about this and have been specifically told, by such OEMs, that their factory ammo cases aren’t intended to be reloaded. This is starting to make sense. Its looking likely that US ammo manufacturers are using sub-grade brass – with WAY less than 30% Zinc for making ammo where strength is less important. For example, an ammo maker with a worn-out, or less powerful case forming machine might choose to deploy this to make cases for 303 British ammo and compensate for the limitations of that machinery by feeding it with sub grade brass containing say, only 20% Zinc (or less!).

Is this the problem with the particular type of once fired cases that are giving you grief? To find your answer you could go to Oak Island and get them to test the metallurgy of your cartridge cases, using their XRF (“X-Ray Fluorescence Spectrometer”) machine. If Marty and Rick say “no”, you could send your cases to another lab. You might find the results are interesting, as shown, for example, in this article (CLICK ON THIS LINK ).

If neither of these options works for you, you could get an idea of how much Zinc is in the alloy mix for your brass by just looking at it. If the stuff is a really pretty, honey gold colour – with a lot of red shades – sorry, but your brass is probably LOW-grade stuff – with too much Copper and not enough Zinc. If your cases have more of a gray color, it is going to have more Zinc content. Otherwise, if you remember any of your high school science classes – and remember what “density” is – and if you know how to measure density – you can figure-out the quality of your brass, using a container of water to measure the volume of the material that makes-up the case and a scale to figure-out the weight of that displaced water.

Hint: if the specific gravity of the brass in the cases you are using is less than 8.392, your brass is at least standard cartridge quality. If it is more than that – sorry, but your brass is soft JUNK – that was probably never intended to last more than one firing.
 
Last edited:
I think it really explains the rise in the amount of folks annealing their brass, trying to get the most out of subpar product. I find Winchester brass lately has been trash. Federal and Hornady so-so. Nosler has been good, but ouch.
 
What is the point of this rant?

Brass is what it is and we, the end users, can't do anything about that. You can rant till you turn blue and its not gonna change a damn thing.
 
I've not run into this soft, useless brass. Really, it's the cheapest component, even if you only get say five firings, it's pennys per shot.
Manufactures, may get away with poor brass during this ammo crisis. However, the small amount they save will not equal the reduced market share in the future when better brassed factory choices are available.

Years ago I preffered WW, Winchester. Now remington factory brass is considered better. Course there are boutique cases more desire and 0ricey; lapua, nosler, another tier down Peterson, star line, and in their own mind hornady.
 
No, you don't have to accept the status quo. You need to figure-out what brass is better and what brass is worse and vote with you wallet.

Vendors will gladly sell you junk with WAY less than 30% Zinc content, if you let them.

They are actually hoping that you are stupid enough to think that "brass is brass" or "Brass is what it is"

What is the point of this rant?

Brass is what it is and we, the end users, can't do anything about that. You can rant till you turn blue and its not gonna change a damn thing.
 
Cartridge brass is 70Cu-30Zn. I have never seen any credible evidence that any plant, anywhere on earth, is deviating significantly from this alloy for brass cartridge cases.

Yes, I have seen the post you linked. No, I do not consider it credible.

The theory that US ammo makers are intentionally making their brass non-reloadable is best met with howls of laughter.
 
I never paid attention too much. I grab a handful from the container and prep them for sizing. Shoot till it breaks, toss and grab another handful.
 
I don't know what basis you have for saying the article (CLICK ON LINK) lacks credibility. Do you have your own XRF machine? If not, you can test the proportions of Copper and Zinc in your own cases - in minutes - by the assay method. You can do that using nothing more complicated than a glass, cup, or beaker to measure the water displaced by your cases and a reloading scale - to establish the relative weight of the displaced water, versus the weight of the cartridge case. If the specific gravity of the brass in the cases you are using is more than 8.392, your brass is low quality junk.

Cartridge brass is 70Cu-30Zn. I have never seen any credible evidence that any plant, anywhere on earth, is deviating significantly from this alloy for brass cartridge cases.

Yes, I have seen the post you linked. No, I do not consider it credible.

The theory that US ammo makers are intentionally making their brass non-reloadable is best met with howls of laughter.
 
Last edited:
Inserts tinfoil hat.

Umm you ever think. Ammo companies say that as they don't want people not to reload. So they can force people to buy factory ammo. And firearm companies say that as they don't want people to run reloads. Whatever to deny warranty.

Alot of companies deny warranty if you reload.
 
Inserts tinfoil hat.

Umm you ever think. Ammo companies say that as they don't want people not to reload. So they can force people to buy factory ammo. And firearm companies say that as they don't want people to run reloads. Whatever to deny warranty.

Alot of companies deny warranty if you reload.

Dont forget the liability factor as well. Something goes wrong, and its never the idiot shooter's fault, its always the ammo. "But, but, but it was factory ammo!!!" When in most cases it wasnt.
 
In all the year's of shooting, the mantra was that you were to get 3-5 reloads and the brass was done from an optimal performance point of view, specifically for any full powered case with a shoulder.

Some brass is better than other. I'm way past 15-20 reloads on my 9mm IVI brass. I know guys who shoot commercial brass and they are lucky to get 7-10 reloads.
 
I don't know what basis you have for saying the article (CLICK ON LINK) lacks credibility.

I'll stop you right there. An unidentified lab, 6 unidentified experts, various disclaimers on the data posted. I dont even think the author identifies himself. But its posted on the internet so it must be true right? I could quote parts of the article to highlight these points, but I'm not wasting my time and it would just get more and more embarrassing. .

I'm skeptical at best.

Edit to add: (I just checked the date of the article, and I will scale the age back a bit). it seems that one of the experts could be pushing 90+ years of age at least and providing a recollection only, with no actual data.
 
Last edited:
It is part of the gun control conspiracy. Single use brass reduces the amount of unregulated ammunition. Ammunition distributed for retail sale can be tracked. It will also gut the reloading components and tools industries.
Ammunition manufacturers are complicit in this conspiracy - they are manufacturing enormous quantities of ammunition for government and institutional customers, so producing single use ammunition for the civilian market isn't hurting them.
 
I'll stop you right there. An unidentified lab, 6 unidentified experts, various disclaimers on the data posted. I dont even think the author identifies himself. But its posted on the internet so it must be true right? I could quote parts of the article to highlight these points, but I'm not wasting my time and it would just get more and more embarrassing. .

I'm skeptical at best.

Excellent points! Great to be reminded of what credibility should actually require! Bravo!

If they were really going down the road of making cases we couldn't reuse (and I'm sure they're working on it) we would be seeing a lot more aluminum and steel cased ammo. At the same time reloading components are a big market in the US and elsewhere and shooters are a very conservative thinking bunch that aren't going to accept some changes easily. They do vote with their wallets and they vote for bass cased ammo that is reloadable.

Without the chemical analysis I suspect that much of the difference between brands is more about production methods and the details of their annealing and drawing steps.
 
What is the point of this rant?

Brass is what it is and we, the end users, can't do anything about that. You can rant till you turn blue and its not gonna change a damn thing.

Exactly. No manufacturer build gun to save brass. It’s a consumable.
The culprit for short brass longevity is those reloader oversizing , over pressure load taken from who know were on the net.
All those new calibers have max pressure above what was accepted in the past to obtain the performance they claims.

Brass have never been so well made, precise with better tolerances than ever in the past. Been reloading for 45 years, I can compare what was then and what we got now avail to us now.
 
Exactly. No manufacturer build gun to save brass. It’s a consumable.
The culprit for short brass longevity is those reloader oversizing , over pressure load taken from who know were on the net.
All those new calibers have max pressure above what was accepted in the past to obtain the performance they claims.

Brass have never been so well made, precise with better tolerances than ever in the past. Been reloading for 45 years, I can compare what was then and what we got now avail to us now.

Yup. My reloading data for 30 Herrett listed H110 max 22.0. Now it got reduced to 20 being max.
 
hornady bass has been super soft for years
federal is crap as well, to thin and soft.


win and rem was always 6-8 reloads for most ussers.

you want tough reloadable brass thats cheap, ivi, lake city, ppu... and that seems to be because of nominal case thickness off the get go.
.. 8-12 is what i see...

luppa and norma are king, its not uncommon to get 20± out of case on non barrel burners like .308.
 
Yes & no. Who here hasn't been disappointed with loose primer pockets one or two reloads or handloads federal brass in 308 & 30-06?
As mentioned here already Winchester bottlenecked rifle brass is a bit thinner than we like especially the neck area.
For sure superior brass, Lapua followed quickly by Remington in the necked rifle calibers.
Some older brass was kind of surprising too. For example older Norma brass casings in the H&H magnum calibers primer pocket looseness appeared just as quickly newer Federal. But newer Norma casings seem cured.
Some of the best brass quality for me was Weatherby H&H magnum. I have converted more that a few for my 458x2inch American wildcat.
 
I don't say there's any kind of conspiracy involved. It's just business. People who think that “brass is brass” presumably think that this is some kind of metal called “BRASS” that appears in the periodic table – like copper, nickel, tin, lead, etc.

THERE ISN’T!

Brass is an ALLOY made of an essentially infinite combination of metals – and even non-metals. Please read the Wikipedia article (SEE LINK). It is for this reason that some brasses are better than others, for cartridge manufacture.

An industry convention has emerged that a mix of 30% Zinc and 70% Copper is adequate for cartridge manufacture. More Zinc in the mix would make cases even more durable, but this strong harder brass is harder to draw into case. Brasses that are 50%/ 50% and above (like beta brass – which is about 50–55% Copper and 45-50% Zinc) are so strong that you can only cast the stuff into jewelry and faucets, etc.

Processing harder brasses into cartridge cases – like the Lapua cases – as analyzed in the article etc. (SEE LINK) has to be done at a higher temperatures – requiring more energy and this probably also takes more operations and yields a higher rate of waste, etc.

Importantly, Lapua 2010 "brown Box” 6mm Br (which is 62% Copper and 36% Zinc as analyzed, in the article) would be WAY more durable than any case made with standard cartridge brass, but you can bet it has to be made with more heat – in the drawing and blanking processes and they'd be using really new, strong, modern equipment.

Far from there being some big conspiracy (which I never suggested!), I think that manufacturers are just dealing with the reality that they only have so much production equipment to make cases. Accordingly, they probably use their better equipment to make cases which are sold as new reloading cases and they also probably use their best equipment to make factory ammo cases for really high pressure rounds. That leaves their older, less-powerful, retirement-age equipment to “soldier on”, intentionally deployed to use lower grade brasses (which is probably all they can handle anymore) to produce cases for lower power pressure cartridges where – from the perspective of the OEM – they can still do an acceptable job.

From the manufacturer's perspective, sure those 303 British loaded ammunition cases – now made with let's say only 20% Zinc in the brass – aren't going to have much useful life in them, after the first firing, but as long as the cartridges don't fail on the first use, who can complain? After all, you bought it as ammo – and it worked, didn't it?

No conspiracy – it's just business, baby. However, you can vote with your wallets and not buy stuff that isn't designed to last. And that's why facts matter. And that why, IMO, people who say that “brass is brass” are re-tards.


It is part of the gun control conspiracy. Single use brass reduces the amount of unregulated ammunition. Ammunition distributed for retail sale can be tracked. It will also gut the reloading components and tools industries.
Ammunition manufacturers are complicit in this conspiracy - they are manufacturing enormous quantities of ammunition for government and institutional customers, so producing single use ammunition for the civilian market isn't hurting them.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom