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

[BattleRife]

I don't know what basis you have for saying the article (CLICK ON LINK) lacks credibility. Do you have your own XRF machine?

I do not have my own portable XRF, but I have worked for more than one company that had them, including my current employer, and I have used them occasionally. I have also worked with optical discharge spectrometers (both glow discharge and ICP), and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers.

XRF was developed as a quick and dirty field chemical analyzer. It was intended for junk yards to sort the nickel alloys from the stainless steels, and the brass from the copper, and the Cr-Mo steels from the mild steels. It is also good for checking welds in the field to make sure some lazy contractor isn't just using the first wire spool he gets his hands on, and that the forklift driver picked up the right plate from the stockyard. It is for gross alloy differences in metal composition, and while the accuracy has become a lot better over the last 20 years, it still is not considered good enough for determining if a particular sample of material meets a specific chemistry specification.

XRF is also rather sensitive to surface prep, as dirt and oxides interfere with the reading and the flat x-ray window doesn't fit well onto curved surfaces (like cartridge cases). The fact that there is no discussion of how the cases in that article were cleaned and whether they were tested as-is or crushed flat and ground smooth tells me all I need to know about the credibility of the author.

 

[Light Infantry]

Th OP makes a lot of presumptions, and obliquely suggests everyone else is stupid. An uncredited, unverified article pasted (that also cautions the reader on its own information on top of that!) on the web, is his only information. Someone is stupid/or a retard (as the OP has stated), but its not who he thinks it is.
Sadly, he is arguing with himself on a point of metallurgy, "brass is brass", which no one else is arguing about!

 

[BattleRife]

I do not get my metallurgical information from Wikipedia, I get it from the multiple metallurgy textbooks that reside within arms' reach of my computer desk. Such as Physical Metallurgy Principles, 3rd Edition, by Reed-Hill & Abbaschian.

It contains this graph, which illustrates pretty clearly why ammo makers use the 70-30 composition exclusively. It's because that composition offers peak ductility, at a strength 30% greater than unalloyed copper:

 

[steelgray]

As far as I have determined, that's the only article on the web that attempts to do some science-based analysis on the composition of the brass used in reloading cases. Of course I'd like to see more work done in this area. I think its a good attempt to answer an important question that others aren't even asking.

You don't have to hang your hat on that article. I've already said for those who remember any of your high school science, you can do you own testing - in minutes - with the equipment any reloader should already have. Specifically I said:

"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."

I also said that IMO, anyone who thinks that "brass is brass" is a re-tard. Unless that applies to you, chill.

Th OP makes a lot of presumptions, and obliquely suggests everyone else is stupid. An uncredited, unverified article pasted (that also cautions the reader on its own information on top of that!) on the web, is his only information. Someone is stupid/or a retard (as the OP has stated), but its not who he thinks it is.
Sadly, he is arguing with himself on a point of metallurgy, "brass is brass", which no one else is arguing about!

 

[rar]

I have had good luck with the Sako brass. lots of reloads with those. where it is actually made is another question. rumor has it it is made from norma

 

[I Dont Care About You]

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"

Seeing as this seems to be an issue you are interested in. Rather than ranting at the rest of us, maybe post up which brass you choose and why, and where it can be purchased and then the rest of us can follow your lead. Personally I have better things to do than worry about brass quality and where I require high quality brass, I buy Lapua products ... which are friggen expensive.

 

[BattleRife]

As far as I have determined, that's the only article on the web that attempts to do some science-based analysis on the composition of the brass used in reloading cases.

Annealing Made Perfect has done some testing, with much more credible and traceable results. You can find some chemistry tests in their Annealing Under The Microscope, Part 1.

 

[I Dont Care About You]

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.

Yep, pretty much. In 35+ years of reloading I've never had any consistent issues with a brand of brass casings.

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.

This is much more likely the reason ammo manufacturers make comments about not reloading their brass. Its just CYA and not a reflection of poor component quality.

Yup. My reloading data for 30 Herrett listed H110 max 22.0. Now it got reduced to 20 being max.

I actually think this is a function of a more litigious society less capable of accepting personal risk. I have an old copy of Waters' Pet Loads and generally the loads he worked with were hotter than what we see in modern loading manual iterations.

 

[steelgray]

I don't have a lot of “skin in the game” here – and certainly don't do this for a living. I'm also not a retired guy – and don't have the luxury of enough time to analyze all the different cases that are out there and tell you, definitively what I considered the be the best. Hopefully, that's obvious to you.

Lots of you folks are gonna have more firsthand information to draw from here, than me. However, I can offer my firsthand information that – based on some fairly accidental testing. From this, I've determined that some 30-year-old Herters brass, that I have been shooting with half a dozen different 303 British guns, has substantially better durability than the commercial 303 brass that I have used in parallel; even though the Herter’s stuff has been shot 4 times more than the commercial stuff that I have compared it to. And yes, I mean 4 times more, not 4 more times.

That caused me to section the cases of the Herters brass, together with three different brands of commercial brass (SEE LINK). At that time, I was fully expecting to find that the Herters brass was dimensionally different from the other stuff, but honestly that’s not what I found. Yes, the Herters stuff was heavier, and a number of measurements were greater than various US commercial cartridge cases that I sectioned, but I was surprised to see that the differences weren't really huge.

That left me with the question of whether the Herters brass was made with better metals. That, in turn reminded me that an earlier poster – in that former thread – who pointed-out that the Herters brass from that era was significantly different in colour from the common commercial stuff – and in spite of the fact that I consider my colour vision to be not necessarily as good as other people – once I looked into this, I realized the person was certainly right. The Herters brass is clearly less orangey-gold and much more grey. Guess what. Copper gives-off a red orange hue and Zinc gives-off a gray cast.

That gave me insights to suggest that what's really going on here is that some of the US commercial ammo vendors are basically cheaping-out by reducing the Zinc content in their cartridge cases below the prefer 30% threshold. Obviously, you can see some further evidence, to that effect, in the article that I've linked to which, for example, shows that some Remington brass has been measured, by others (with equipment that I lack) and their testing puts some Remington brass at 20% Zinc (!)

This information aligns with a lot of anecdotal information that I got from that other thread and, from my own perspective, I'm convinced that all the people who say that the newer North American commercial brass is nowhere near as good as the older brass - or current European brass are probably right. I'm entitled to my perspective on this, as are others. The only opinion here that really doesn't work for me is the one where people are effectively saying "there's nothing to see here", “brass is brass”.

Seeing as this seems to be an issue you are interested in. Rather than ranting at the rest of us, maybe post up which brass you choose and why, and where it can be purchased and then the rest of us can follow your lead. Personally I have better things to do than worry about brass quality and where I require high quality brass, I buy Lapua products ... which are friggen expensive.

 

[OkayShooter]

Well it's quite obivious that nothing is built like it used to.Things are cheaper made, nothing new. All comes down to cost savings.

 

[Light Infantry]

I do not have my own portable XRF, but I have worked for more than one company that had them, including my current employer, and I have used them occasionally. I have also worked with optical discharge spectrometers (both glow discharge and ICP), and energy dispersive X-ray spectrometers.

XRF was developed as a quick and dirty field chemical analyzer. It was intended for junk yards to sort the nickel alloys from the stainless steels, and the brass from the copper, and the Cr-Mo steels from the mild steels. It is also good for checking welds in the field to make sure some lazy contractor isn't just using the first wire spool he gets his hands on, and that the forklift driver picked up the right plate from the stockyard. It is for gross alloy differences in metal composition, and while the accuracy has become a lot better over the last 20 years, it still is not considered good enough for determining if a particular sample of material meets a specific chemistry specification.

XRF is also rather sensitive to surface prep, as dirt and oxides interfere with the reading and the flat x-ray window doesn't fit well onto curved surfaces (like cartridge cases). The fact that there is no discussion of how the cases in that article were cleaned and whether they were tested as-is or crushed flat and ground smooth tells me all I need to know about the credibility of the author.

Interesting. It makes the web article referenced virtually useless then.

 

[steelgray]

Like I said, if you don't trust the article just do your own assaying - using the specific gravity method that has been tried and true since the middle ages. As far as I'm concerned these comments aren't very significant anyway. If the same approach was applied from one case type to the next, then the results should be comparable - and meaningful.

Better yet, if you have access to an XRF machine, do your own analysis and publish it here.

Interesting. It makes the web article referenced virtually useless then.

 

[Brutus]

Lots of great input here but the OP throwing around alot of shade.

 

[Light Infantry]

Like I said, if you don't trust the article just do your own assaying - using the specific gravity method that has been tried and true since the middle ages. As far as I'm concerned these comments aren't very significant anyway. If the same approach was applied from one case type to the next, then the results should be comparable - and meaningful.

Better yet, if you have access to an XRF machine, do your own analysis and publish it here.

As others have mentioned, we really dont find this an issue, only you do. A number of us are commenting so no one relies on BS info being touted as gospel.

 

[steelgray]

Your comments are welcome but facts are stubborn things. I've already said, that the article is just one data point.

I respect that the authors have tried to answer an important question that others haven't even asked. If someone is disputing the evidence that manufacturers are using less than cartridge quality brass, in US commercial brass cases then, how about providing your own proof? How about our XRF expert?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that manufacturers are using sub-standard materials - and they should be thanking you for turning a blind eye to this.

As others have mentioned, we really dont find this an issue, only you do. A number of us are commenting so no one relies on BS info being touted as gospel.

 

[Light Infantry]

Your comments are welcome but facts are stubborn things. I've already said, that the article is just one data point.

I respect that the authors have tried to answer an important question that others haven't even asked. If someone is disputing the evidence that manufacturers are using less than cartridge quality brass, in US commercial brass cases then, how about providing your own proof? How about our XRF expert?

There is plenty of evidence to suggest that manufacturers are using sub-standard materials - and they should be thanking you for turning a blind eye to this.

You just keep repeating yourself and posing an argument that only has you in that argument. You are turning this into a shiitte show just like the 303 herters thread where you are slinging mud and insults at other posters.
Just like in that thread and in this one: other posters aren't agreeing with you, so you become argumentative for the sake of arguing.
Give it up... or continue so the mods can dump your ignorant azz out of here.

 

[steelgray]

Are you kidding me? WHO is slinging insults at posters?

You just keep repeating yourself and posing an argument that only has you in that argument. You are turning this into a shiitte show just like the 303 herters thread where you are slinging mud and insults at other posters.
Just like in that thread and in this one: other posters aren't agreeing with you, so you become argumentative for the sake of arguing.
Give it up... or continue so the mods can dump your ignorant azz out of here.

 

[Light Infantry]

Are you kidding me? WHO is slinging insults at posters?

Lol. I discerned that your source was garbage and pointed out why. You then kept repeating and arguing with yourself.

To the othe posters, thank you, I learned a few things, specifically from Battlerife.

 

[steelgray]

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

 

[jethunter]

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.

How long have you been reloading that you only now discovered some brass is better than other brass?