Brass Brands vs. Accuracy - Article

V

VarmintGuy

Guest
Over the recent DECADES I have entered into the brand of brass vs. accuracy "discussion" literally hundreds of times.
My observations and submissions to these "discussions" have always been tentative in nature, or not strongly expressed, might be a better way to put it.
I have done a sizeable amount of shooting of MANY calibers with several kinds of brass PER caliber.
And I have seldom (never?) traced down a significant lack of accuracy to the brand of brass I was using and then changed from it.
In the latest issue of Handloader Magazine (page 70) is an informative and very interesting article on the effects of brands of brass on accuracy!
The author has done some considerable testing of this, brands of brass vs. accuracy situation, with a proven and accurate Cooper Varminter in caliber 223 Remington!
The results were VERY surprising to me!
It seems the author got his best aggregate average accuracy in his 223 Remington Cooper Rifle using REMINGTON brass! Thats right the Cooper shot better with Remington brass than with any other brand of brass tested - INCLUDING LaPua brass!
In short the Remington brass aggregate average group size was .444" and the LaPua brass aggregate average group size was .594"!
All other brass brands aggregate averages were in between the Remington and the LaPua brands!
That the LaPua brass was the worst (accuracy wise!) brass tested was one thing that surprised me!
I use LaPua brass and have produced excellent (in my opinion) accuracy when I have done so.
I am lucky enough to own and shoot many calibers of which I have several Rifles in that same caliber - in these instances I use a different brand of brass for each Rifle. I also use nickel plated brass to further dedicate a type/brand of brass to a particular Rifle.
I am satisfied with the accuracy in these instances or I would make changes.
Still I am surprised at the quantified difference in accuracy the author obtained with the different brands of brass in his testing!
Over the past several decades I have countless times interjected into these type discussions that I obtain "pleasing accuracy" when I use Remington brass for instance.
My comments, again, have always been a bit less forceful than maybe I should have made them?
This is not a Ford vs. Chevy type situation its now been quantified and the results were surprising and very interesting to me!
I don't know how many times I have heard folks denounce Remington brass for any number of reasons - but this test sure casts doubts on their denunciations - accuracy wise anyway!
The difference between group averages from Remington at .444" to LaPua at .594" is .150" or about 20% or 25% better (I'm doing the math in my head - don't hold me to those percentages!).
I feel a little "vindicated" after reading this article and considering its results!
Brass brand does have an effect on accuracy it seems and as in "every Rifle is an individual" (when it comes to accuracy) it seems every brass brand "is an individual" (when it comes to accuracy).
Interesting.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
No Significant Difference?

The test involved five, 5-shot groups from each brand of brass (5 brands). The author computed a mean group size for the five groups for each brand and ran a Student's T-test to look for significant differences among mean group size. At the 95% confidence level there were no significant differences in mean group size among the five brands. At the 90% level, Remington brass had a smaller mean group size.

For statistical testing the minimum sample size is considered to be about 30 groups. With a sample size of 5 groups your chances of detecting differences that are real are much less. To be confident that the differences are real you should not drop below 95% confidence level.

Shooters often accept that small differences in group size that they see are real based on small sample sizes. Often, the differences are not significant and increasing sample size would reveal this.

The best interpretation of the results in the HANDLOADER article is that none of the 5 brands produced significantly smaller mean group size than other brands.

If the author repeated the test in exactly the same way it is equally likely that any one of the 5 different brands would produce the smallest mean group size at the 90% level of confidence and that there would be no significant differences at the 95% level.
 
"Vindication is in the eye of the beholder"................Or "some folks will grasp any straw for validation".


Varmintguy, if it makes you feel better then DO IT!!! YOU make yourself happy, that's all that counts ;)


(Now when your ideas start WINNING something then you'll gain credibility not just validation of your experiences)


al
 
Vicvanb: Are you saying there is no sense at all in the authors test results?
Or are you saying that even though the authors testing showed the Remington brass was more accurate than the LaPua brass that in fact the LaPua brass IS more accurate?
I took his testing to show that the Remington brass made groups 20% to 25% smaller than the Lapua brass groups!
Am I wrong?
It sure seems to me that the average of all groups fired clearly pointed to the Remington brass having the edge on accuracy in his Rifle.
Or maybe you are saying that after firing several hundred 5 shot 5 group aggregates the results would then indicate something completely different than was quantified in the article?
Maybe ones Rifle barrel would need to be replaced before you were convinced that EITHER the Remington brass shot AS accurately or more accurately than the LaPua brass?
Seems then that the testing would have to start OVER.
My point being that yes vindication is in order due to the fine showing the Remington brass made accuracy wise - or maybe based on the results of this testing you DISAGREE with that?
Everything was just a "fluke" for this testing.
Maybe the editors of the magazine should not have published an article so probably flawed?
I have made accuracy decisions based on less testing than the author did in regards to his article. And I have been rather happy with the results for quite a number of years now.

Alinwa.: Are YOU saying the results of the authors controlled testing IS also diametrically the opposite of what they were?
The article has nothing to do with making me or anyone else feel good! It was an impartial testing of several types of brass in one control Rifle.
The results speak for themselves and if you care to denounce them then go ahead BUT be prepared to do so with some rational basis. Not based on some mean spirited indignation.
He-he, thats not a very rational contention you would have then.

Long live cheap brass!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
What he is saying is that there is no statistically significant difference per scientific method and means of evaluation. That is to say a larger sample would be needed and likely one including different lots of each brass. The results are beyond the confidence invertible; that is to say one cannot say with 95% confidence that the variance isn't natural variance by chance rather than an attribute to differences in brass.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VarmintGuy said:
I took his testing to show that the Remington brass made groups 20% to 25% smaller than the Lapua brass groups!
Am I wrong?
Click to expand...

No you are not wrong. The test results showed the average group size (five, 5-shot groups) was smaller for Remington brass than for the other brands.

But this does not prove that in the long run with many groups fired that Remington brass would produce the smallest groups. The key terms are "long run" and "many groups." Five, 5-shot groups will not reliably give you an average group size that is the same as for 30 or more groups.

If you go to the range with 2 rifles and shoot one 5-shot group with each and then compare group size to determine which is the most accurate rifle, what could you conclude if one group was 0.250 inches and the other was 0.251?? What about 0.250 vs. 0.300? What about 0.250 vs. 2.500?

At best, you might be safe to assume that 0.250 beat 2.500. But what would you accept short of that? Maybe 0.250 vs. 0.750?

The fact is that we all get fooled from time to time with one really good group that does not represent the long run average performance of the rifle. The only way to assess the long run average is to shoot a large number of groups. If you want to precisely nail it down, you must use some statistical tests.

If you don't, you need to set your own standards for what you will accept. As with one group, if you fire 30 groups with two rifles and the average group size is 0.250 vs. 0.251 are you content to say one is more accurate? Probably not. What about 0.250 vs. 0.300?

With regard to the HANDLOADER article, I would not conclude that Remington brass produces smaller groups than the other brands. It would take more testing and a much larger number of groups to prove that claim.
 
I'm still gonna use Lapua if it's made for the caliber I developing a load for, it might be higher in $ BUT it's a hell've alot more constant in every way I can measure, I think you get what you pay for,,,, sometimes saving a nickel on brass might cost you more in primers, powder, bullets, range and brass working time than it's worth
 
The brand or even the lot of brass can result in differing internal dimensions which can definitely affect grouping and POI. However you CAN'T say that Remington brass will always be more accurate. It was more accurate in that particular load for that particular rifle. Change powder or bullets and you might find another brand that works better than the Remington. I can tell you that Lapua is MOST DEFINITELY more consistent on average than Remington. My experimentation over the years has shown that different brands of brass that weight the same generally don't show a lot of difference in grouping or POI, but different brands or lots of brass that vary considerably will frequently show changes.
 
If the test involved using the same load in all the brass types then the results mean nothing.

The load suited the Remington brass better than it suited Lapua or any of the others. To really test the effect of the brass he'd have needed to fine tune the load to suit the capacity of the various makes of brass. Then and only then would the mechanical aspect of the different brass, as it relates to concentricity, become a significant part of the test, even then at around the half MOA mark the rifle may not have been good enough to show the value of the better concentricity brass.

It'd be like testing one load with 10 different primers and declaring the best accuracy to be attributable to the primer and calling that the best primer. It was the best primer for that load only and in another load the order of preference might be very different. Even if you took the same basic load and fine tuned to suit the primer you might end up with the same accuracy from various primers only it would take a subtle change in the load to achieve it.

Over the years I have had a few ocassions to switch to "premium" brass having started load testing with more commonly available USA made brass. In each case loads fine tuned for the "premium" brand have outshot the loads tuned for the "lesser" brass. I can only attribute this to better case neck concentricity of the Lapua and Norma brass I used. The difference wasn't great but there was a difference. Most recent was a 22-250AI, started with Winchester and swapped to Norma. Capacity was identical and the preferred load was identical also but the Norma shot about 0.100 better over many groups over quite a period of time.

Recently I tested a benchrest 6PPC with Federal 205M's and CCI BR4's. With a mid range window loading they were interchangeable and both shot as well as each other. At a hot load (drop tubed into the case) the BR4's simply would not shoot as well, I could not tune out the vertical in that load no matter what I did with powder or bullet seating. I swapped straight back to the 205M's and instead of 0.35ish groups spread vertical the test group was a 0.18 ! Only a 1.2 grain change in powder weight and the primers had a totally different bahaviour when compared to each other.

Bryce
 
Last edited by a moderator:
BJS6: I assume your 6mm PPC was of the full blown BR type custom Rifles?
This is the factory/hybrid forum and the author was using a factory/hybrid type Rifle for his testing!
And his testing showed that Remington brass shot better than the LaPua brass - did, it, NOT?
I was interested and entertained by his testing and his findings - they back up my long held contention that GOOD accuracy is obtainable in factory/hybrid type Rifles (in factory offered calibers) with common brands of brass?
Do you agree?

CWPINST: I see no one posting or intimating THAT "Remington brass will always be more accurate"!!!
Me thinks you mispoke or misread someones posting!
My experimentation over the years has shown me the same thing as you post - weight of brass is of importance for more uniform accuracy!
I quit sorting brass by weight for my factory/hybrid type Rifles long ago - I still get good and often times excellent accuracy.
Would you concur that the good accuracy obtained by the author with the Remington brass maybe showed the Remington brass was "relatively" uniform?
Or are you ALSO completely disregarding the authors results as "bassackwards" to reality?

Tyler02: What if the "95% confidence" theorum was in effect, and there in fact was a 5% chance that the testing results were wrong! The results the author got were indeed wrong!
And then would you not have a 50% chance that the Remington brass might shoot even BETTER with the next batch of tests?
I simply am not willing to discount as "upside down" the authors testing regimen and results - so it will coincide with some pre-obtained biases!
The Remington brass performed VERY well in this test and that coincides with results I have obtained since I began reloading 48 years ago!

And no (for you "jump to unsubstantiated conclusion types"!) I am NOT saying that Remington brass is the best brass on the planet - I am saying you can get good and often times VERY GOOD accuracy in your factory/hybrid type Rifles using non-premium brass!
I know - because I have done it!
Long live cheap brass!
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
Varmint guy,

That bit of my post that mentioned the 6PPC was just a little snippet of information tacked on the end for sake of example of what component switching can do. The rest of my post, that you appear to have ignored, was relating more directly to factory/hybrid rifles and the gist of your comments. Yes it was a custom BR rifle.

Sure, pretty much any brand of brass will produce "good" accuracy in an accurate factory type rifle, so what. I didn't question that, my point was that the test was fundamentally flawed if he used the same load in all the brass like I assume he did, I didn't see the test.

All he has done is to test what brass his arbitrary load suited best in terms of the capacity of the brass working better with the powder load chosen. The results might indicate that Remington brass can shoot as well or better than Lapua brass but that isn't necessarily an accurate representation of what is likely to happen in the real world where people tune loads to get the best from the components.

In a nutshell, if he used a different load the order of best accuracy may have been very different.

You may be able to get good or very good accuracy with average brass but if you spend some time on load tuning and know what you are doing you can probably get even better accuracy from the same rifle with premium brass if the rifle is a good shooter. That is something that most people recognise already !!

Another example, factory rifle this time, Cooper 6PPC, accurate enough to give some meaningful results: I had some Sako and Norma 6PPC brass and also made some from Lapua 220 Russian. They all held different volumes of powder. If I optimised a load for the Lapua it would be potentially dangerous in the Sako brass and if I optimsed a load for the Sako brass it would not shoot as well in the Lapua brass. That despite the fact that Lapua 220 Russian is exceptional brass and the Lapua cases were neck turned while the others were not. I started off with the Norma brass which held a smidge more powder than the Lapua. When I switched to Lapua the accuracy was not as good until I dropped the load a touch to suit the lower capacity brass and at that point the accuracy was better, probably due to the better necks on the neck turned brass.

Bryce
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VG,
I don't see what the beef is about. Remington makes quite good brass on occasions. Every experienced handloader knows that. Truth be known, I have probably used more of it over the past 30 years than all other brands combined. It should come as a surprise to no one that one particular load with Remington brass in one particular rifle shot better than the same load with Lapua. It is just a tuning thing. That is all......so why would a person even bother to write an article like that unless he was trying to insinuate something? It is just a normal occurrence, so what? You seem like a knowledgeable guy so I was a little surprised to see that you were surprised with the outcome of the article.
 
Isn't this one of those bull session subjects that nobody's ever going to test in a way even approaching a statistically sound method?

How many rifles, barrels, shooters etc etc would we need to be confident that the outcome wasn't slewed? Who has the bucks?
 
What were the wind conditions he was shooting in? Were they the same for all samples. Does he know how to read windflags and mirage or did he even use any. This would have to be shot in a tunnel with absolutely identical temp/humidity/lighting/atmospheric pressure conditions for the entire test to have any signifigance. Did he use multiple different lots of rem/win/fed/laupa/etc brass, i.e., the next lot of brass purchased at a different store in another state/different lot may have completely different results. If he tried a different primer/powder/bullet combination for all the loads the results could be very different. His test is too generalized to mean anything. Did he use multiple rifles? The one he used may have a preference for one or another type of brass of a specific lot number? The sample size is way too small to mean anything. Its one of those articles that leave you wondering why you read stuff like that but then Handloader and other similar mass appeal magazines are designed/edited to appeal to the lowest common denominator, they don't want to confuse readers with articles that take longer than 15 minutes to read.
 
The test is invalid. To do the test properly a rifle would have to be fired from a mechanical fixture in a test tunnel completely isolated from environmental variables, including temperature changes over the test period. The sample would have to be significantly larger than that reported, say 100 rounds per load at the minimum.

A rifle fired from a benchrest by a shooter using aimed fire for individual shots is prone to psychological and physiological variables prejudicial to the result. When added to environmental variables the result is rendered useless. Each result is only a measure of that particular series, and not relative to all subsequent series using similar components. I doubt that the result would be repeatable.

In a system that depends on mechanical force and chemical reaction, the variables between all factors are too complex to attribute any differences to any one component. While general trends can be observed, absolutes can not be determined. The difference between the results listed is insignificant for practical purposes given the variables. In order to reach the absolute accuracy in test protocol one would have to be able to fire the same primer, bullet and powder charge more than once!

It would seem that we have reached the theoretical limit of accuracy with modern rifles and ammunition using mechanical ignition. I would be happy with any of the groups fired, although I use ten shot groups in all my testing, rather than five. But it did make for an interesting, albeit less than useful, article. The article serves more as a commentary on gun magazine topic selection, and the need to generate controversy, as a means of maintaining circulation.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think a better test of brass would be a dimensional and metalurigacal test. What one wants from brass is consistency from piece to piece, lot to lot, year after year. i want my brass to have the same size primer pockets, same depth primer pockets, same size flash hole and web thickness, same case and neckwall thickness and hardness of brass to give you consistent neck tension, case capacitys that are equal, etc.
 
You folks sure are tough on yourselves and each other. What we need in this forum is a "Casual Benchrester" forum as a subset of the Factory/Hybrid section. I'll bet there's a bunch of people out there like me who go to the range to have fun and enjoyment. I shoot my factory Savage .308 and my reloaded ammo to do the best I can. I have used information from forum members far more experienced than myself as far as the equipment and techniques I use. I've set my goal as less than 1 MOA-and try my best to get 1/2 MOA-at any given range with this factory rifle. I have concluded, after a lot of load testing, that most accuracy is due to the gun and the kind of day I'm having. Inaccuracy is dependent on either me or the Kansas wind or both. Some days are diamonds-some are stones. I really get a bang (pun intended) out of shooting less than a MOA at 500 meters but I don't always get that result-oh well-tomorrow's another day. Like Dirty Harry said, "A man's GOT to know his limitations.

I know that most forum members are into the last .001 inch and that my attitude is different. But at age 62, on the verge of semi-retirement-that .001just doesn't matter as much anymore. Sure makes my fun more fun, but its almost painful watching you folks go after one another. You guys lite off your flames-I'm going shooting.

Best Wishes,
Pete
 
Last edited:
So What?

So what? I read the article too. To get completely valid results he would have worked up the most accurate load with each headstamp and compared them.....then shot a whole bunch more groups. But it doesn't matter. This wasn't meant to be definitive, just a looksee that was more than cursory but not in-depth. He wasn't trying to prove anything or make it into something it wasn't. He just wanted to satisfy some curiosity and get an idea about if there were any differences. He also knows how much you can draw from those numbers and stated his conclusions right there for anyone to read.

The results weren't any surprise. All that brass is capable of shooting just fine. The reason for me choosing one headstamp over another is longevity.....some brands are just stronger than others. In .378" size, Remington brass isn't real strong and primer pockets get loose much quicker than with other brands. That's what makes it crappy. It also was no surprise that brass with uniformed primer pockets was no more accurate than unprepped cases.

Varmintguy, you love to confront with long boring dissertations. Feel vindicated if it's that important. At least you haven't demanded that someone "prove" something. Not yet. But it's probably coming.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top