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

I used to work for a major manufacturer (CIL) that made millions of rounds of ammo a week.

I recall that a lot of attention was paid to getting high quality brass, because poor brass could cause the entire run of ammo to get scraped if it was seamy, had inclusions or otherwise bad brass.

I don't ever recall anyone ever mentioning "reloading". All the attention was on the first shot.

Brass from different manufactures is different. Some is better than others in terms of softness, annealing, weight variations, neck thickness, etc.

And brass changes from time to time. Winchester went from a 4 draw process to 5 draw (308Win) and the result was 2 different cases that looked identical.

At a minimum, you want brass all either new, or fired once and all from the same lot number.
 
Hand-loaders are so far down the food chain that it isn't even funny. If it wasn't for military contracts there would be no ammunition industry. Factory sporting center-fire is secondary, and even then 22 LR is the bread and butter. Every once in a while when the stars align we get some dribs and drabs and start thinking we own the place.
 
Dogleg said:
Hand-loaders are so far down the food chain that it isn't even funny. If it wasn't for military contracts there would be no ammunition industry. Factory sporting center-fire is secondary, and even then 22 LR is the bread and butter. Every once in a while when the stars align we get some dribs and drabs and start thinking we own the place.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do not count for much in the major scheme of things. But, I do not believe that factories deliberately go
out of their way to short-circuit those who may re-use their brass. Dave.
 
Eagleye said:
Yes, we do not count for much in the major scheme of things. But, I do not believe that factories deliberately go
out of their way to short-circuit those who may re-use their brass. Dave.
Click to expand...

IMO, this isn't intentional sabotage, it is just cutting corners in areas where they think they can profitably do so.

I'm think that the brass cartridge case manufacturers have found that processing brass with more Zinc in the alloy costs more, because processing higher grade (i.e., harder, stronger) Copper-Zinc brass alloys takes more energy (because operations have to be done at higher temperatures) and may involve more operations to complete a case - and there could also be higher spoilage etc. This would add to costs.

Further, I would guess that any given cartridge case manufacturer may have a range of case forming machines and some may be newer or more capable than others. For example, a manufacturer could have a 40 year old machine that has been pumping-out 303 British cases for years and is about ready to be retired - but its useful life could be extended by using a lesser grade of brass - with say only 20% Zinc - versus the preferred 30%. "...This old machine can still process the 20% Zinc stuff". Such an OEM could figure "why not", we'll just use those cases in factory ammo where - as far and the vendor is concerned - if the brass only lasts one firing, who can complain? After all, we sold you ammo and it worked, didn't it?

Obviously, I don't know if that is going on but I can see that. BTW: in other non-CGN posts, there are people who claim that they have written to Winchester, Remington, etc. on this stuff and have received replies, saying "we don't certify our fired brass cases from our ammunition for reuse in reloading".
 
Heres a solution. Why not contact ammo manufacturing companies.

But they don't give a #### about reloaders. It's like why does the government give money to parents with kids, but none to child free. Because future taxpayers. Majority shooters go to the store and buy their ammo, shoot and toss them into the brass bin, we are not supporting them.
 
steelgray said:
...

Obviously, I don't know if that is going on but I can see that. BTW: in other non-CGN posts, there are people who claim that they have written to Winchester, Remington, etc. on this stuff and have received replies, saying "we don't certify our fired brass cases from our ammunition for reuse in reloading".
Click to expand...

The United States is probably the most litigious country on Earth. Manufacturers have absolutely no control over what consumers are going to do with their product. They have no control over the firearms in which their ammunition is going to be fired, whether it is going to be compromised by the first firing. Of course they are not going to certify their fired cases for reuse in reloading. Similarly firearm manufacturers will void warranties if handloaded ammunition is used.

At what temperature do you think the drawing operations are performed?

There has been ammunition made in recent years that was definitely intended for single use. The manufacturer wanted to insure that it would not be reloaded. The cartridge cases were aluminum, and the primers used were a non-standard (not commercially available) Berdan style.
 
steelgray said:
IMO, this isn't intentional sabotage, it is just cutting corners in areas where they think they can profitably do so.

I'm think that the brass cartridge case manufacturers have found that processing brass with more Zinc in the alloy costs more, because processing higher grade (i.e., harder, stronger) Copper-Zinc brass alloys takes more energy (because operations have to be done at higher temperatures) and may involve more operations to complete a case - and there could also be higher spoilage etc. This would add to costs.

Further, I would guess that any given cartridge case manufacturer may have a range of case forming machines and some may be newer or more capable than others. For example, a manufacturer could have a 40 year old machine that has been pumping-out 303 British cases for years and is about ready to be retired - but its useful life could be extended by using a lesser grade of brass - with say only 20% Zinc - versus the preferred 30%. "...This old machine can still process the 20% Zinc stuff". Such an OEM could figure "why not", we'll just use those cases in factory ammo where - as far and the vendor is concerned - if the brass only lasts one firing, who can complain? After all, we sold you ammo and it worked, didn't it?

Obviously, I don't know if that is going on but I can see that. BTW: in other non-CGN posts, there are people who claim that they have written to Winchester, Remington, etc. on this stuff and have received replies, saying "we don't certify our fired brass cases from our ammunition for reuse in reloading".
Click to expand...

That's a very obvious and standard liability statement. If they certified their brass for reloading (Which would gain them nothing with regards to loaded ammunition sales) and it failed, they would be held liable (Which would cost them lots). They'd have to be pretty stupid to say anything other than exactly what they said.
 
Lapua has a cool shooting video (duration 1:33 min, worth your time), entitled: "Lapua - We never leave our brass behind". It implies their factory ammo is the same good stuff for reloading.
Link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9u6N5CvnnQ4


Not a US company as the OP stated, but just saying it is clear that Lapua produces factory ammo for reloading, and their factory ammo brass is the same reloader's brass that comes in that beautiful blue box.

And no, I do not have any intention of ever calculating what the specific gravity is for any of my brass. I have many coffee cans full of fired 30-06 Sprg and 270 Win brass from various North American brands (Win, Rem, Fed, Hornady, Barnes, Nosler,), of factory hunting and target ammo that I shot and kept from before I started reloading. I will re-load this brass (maybe anneal some), and keep shooting it until the primer pockets loosen or necks crack, and I don't care how many firings I get. I have so much of this brass I doubt I will ever run out before I am expired.

I never throw out brass to the dump. That is copper and zinc that had to be mined somewhere in the world and its worth saving and recycling, because like all metals it is a finite resource that is getting more finite, and getting more expensive. I deposit all my discarded brass into pails at my local Range, who then takes it to the scrap metal yard which earns back money for Range operations.

Since Lapua announced a 2-3 year brass availability hiatus for some of my calibers, I bought several boxes of Lapua loaded factory target ammo just for the brass, and now I have the task of shooting through it. Its going to be tedious shooting all that target ammo just to get the empty brass cases, but its a job that needs doing (hehehe!). :p
 
steelgray said:
there are people who claim that they have written to Winchester, Remington, etc. on this stuff and have received replies, saying "we don't certify our fired brass cases from our ammunition for reuse in reloading".
Click to expand...

This doesn't mean anything and it certainly doesn't mean what you think it means.

Ammunition companies are not making cartridge cases for reloaders and they certainly aren't going to accept the liability of random idiots using their product for something it was not designed for.
 
Best business practice would be to make brass for factory loads as thin and soft and bad as possible to be safely fired once.
Clearly mark on the box like cigarettes that it's not safe to reload.
Develop a better product for the reload market at a premium price, and again clearly marked 2 or 3 times only or whatever the lawyers come up with for liability .
 
Why you think when the Government sell tri walls of IVI brass, it is as scrap brass only. They make sure to let you know not to be re sold. As they don't want the liability.

Have you tested brass from pre rolled ammunition, to the unfired brass that sold for reloading, to being different?
 
FatCatsDad said:
Best business practice would be to make brass for factory loads as thin and soft and bad as possible to be safely fired once.
Clearly mark on the box like cigarettes that it's not safe to reload.
Develop a better product for the reload market at a premium price, and again clearly marked 2 or 3 times only or whatever the lawyers come up with for liability .
Click to expand...
And you would still have people trying to reload it. Warning on cigarettes are working well. How many still smoke ?
 
Wandering away from OP's question, but was always a thing that I wondered about - whether Federal Gold Medal Match ammo brass was same or different than the bulk brass from Federal, or from their other lines of various factory ammo - I never have found anyone to tell me how to tell the difference between them, if there is any, although I see CGN sellers asking a "premium" because they claim their brass for sale is from previously fired GMM factory ammo.
 
Potashminer said:
Wandering away from OP's question, but was always a thing that I wondered about - whether Federal Gold Medal Match ammo brass was same or different than the bulk brass from Federal, or from their other lines of various factory ammo - I never have found anyone to tell me how to tell the difference between them, if there is any, although I see CGN sellers asking a "premium" because they claim their brass for sale is from previously fired GMM factory ammo.
Click to expand...

Its the same garbage brass...

It blew up my ruger gunsite scout...
I have had three rifle kabooms of verious severity (completly ripped apart case with half the body left in the chamber and the next round cramed into it that was nearly an out of battery cook off, a partial case head seperation that jetisons material from the action into my face and hand, and a full head rupture that blew apart a gun.)... and all three were with federal factory ammo. The worst being with gmm. I will not run their brass through any of my rifles, shotguns or pistols. If that all that was left in the world to shoot... i would get into archery....

Gmm is competitors high end projectiles... cramed into crappy federal cases with slightly better powder metering then the cheaper federal ammo.
 
There is only one headstamp that immediately goes into the recycling bin, and that is Aquilla 223. Only because it has consistently proven to make groups dramatically worse in every load i've ever tried. I can take a proven 223 load, and roll it with Aquilla and take a 1/2 MOA shooter into a 3-4" pattern.

Edit.

Hornady had a bad batch of 6.5 Grendel brass out in the wild for a long time. Using virgin brass, even with moderate loads, case head separation became immediately apparent. https://youtu.be/qxrZ6bboPSw
 
Last edited:
You wanna see ####ty brass? This is from Higginsons, starting loads with a rifle in perfect working order. I believe the term is "inclusions"? Andrew didn't care when I showed him.




 
Snider shooter said:
One of two things come to mind. Poor quality brass straight from manufacturer or poor storage and exposed to something that attacked the brass. Was this new brass or previously fired ? Either way not good.
Click to expand...

Sold as new, unfired brass. It appeared to be absolutely mint when I got it but it failed repeatedly during load development so I ended up tossing it all. Made by Metallverken. They are apparently still selling it. I can imagine the results from an inclusion in the case head, bad to catastrophic...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom