Brass Brands vs. Accuracy - Article

I am in complete agreement with vic. After reading the test conditions several times, I honestly do not understand why it appeared in this periodical. I suppose their test criteria is substantially lower than PS magazine.

This is a test that, if done properly, would require significant resources. The number of components, and the real impact of the variations in those components would require a very large sample population in order to the minimize the effects of the other components on the desired result of determining the effect of change ONLY the cartridge case. You must not dismiss the possibility of a synergistic effect of one component or another, with any one of the cartridge cases tested (in other words, for some reason, if one case or another has a real, measurable, affinity to a different brand of powder... the results would be horribly skewed... as just one of many examples I can think of). Considering this, the mathematics of determining the minimum sample size alone would be an ambitious undertaking.

In this test, at face value, the test conditions were far too limited (several test rifles should have been used), the test sample population was ridiculously too low, no base-line was used, and the performance of the actual test (if it was described in it's entirety) was not adequately controlled. Actually, I think vic was being quite kind in his description of the test. My statistics professor would have called the whole test, "...statistically meaningless". There is quite a difference in trying to derive some sort of scientific accuracy in a properly structured test, and simply relating the results of a poll. This sort of test would fit right in with the methodology of some of the Philadelphia gun control polls I have read... it is an opinion and, as such, is flawed from the outset.

Just for the record, I have found Lake City Match (in .308) were the most consistent in construction and resultant accuracy. My sample group was > 10,000.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VG, you aren't understanding. We're saying that the few groups he posted don't prove anything. It could be completely luck or chance that it preformed well. More testing is needed to make an accurate suggestion.

Read this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confidence_interval


Further, as Ackman has posted below, one would need to work up the most accurate load for each headstamp. If the most accurate load in Winchester were worked up, it may indeed be more accurate than the most accurate load found in Remington brass. There is simply too much left to test. This is precisely why I don't pay much attention to gun rag articles. More often than not, the writer doesn't know what they are doing and make suggestions based on faulty or incomplete information.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tyler,

Normally, I would agree with your assessment of the gun-rags. There is one periodical, however, that is an exception. To-date, I have found quite a bit of information worthy of high regard in the pages of Precision Shooting Magazine. For those who have read it, they know that the conclusions are presented in such a fashion as to include the supporting facts, data, and in most cases, the mathematics. This is atypical of the shooting press, to say the least. But to guys like me (my wife calls it, "... an engineer thang"), it allows us to follow the process leading to the conclusions. When the methodology, science, and data are all clear and compelling, all of us benefit from the work.
 
Absolutely. PS and the Varmint Hunter are the only mags I put much faith in.
 
Give it up, VG. You will never, ever change the minds of the "neener, neener, neener I can spend more money on my stuff than you can" crowd. :D No matter the conditions of his tests, nor the size of his samples, they would be flawed because they did not agree with the perceptions of the stool shooters. As if a 500 yard groundhog feels better about being shot with a bullet from a Lapua case than a Remington.
I read the article and, truth be told, was surprised that the Rem brass outperformed the Lapua brass. But not too. Not enough to gloat, anyway. :) I have said before that, with some sweat equity, Rem brass can be made into some good match brass. And I'm not gonna pay $50 for Pdog brass when I can get Rem brass for $20. If I'm gonna shoot a factory match however, I will usually reach for some Lapua brass.
The fact remains that, even though you couldn't contain your glee in making your post, this is the factory room that was set up so we common folks wouldn't bother the BR shooters, yet it has been the BR shooters that have flamed you and, by extension, the author of the meaningless article. ;)
In case no one has noticed, Lapua has upgraded their .223 tooling and now the headstamp on their .223 brass reads .223 MATCH. With a higher price, of course.
 
To me it would have been more interesting test if the powder charges were adjusted to produce the same average velocity in each brand of case or as close as possible.
 
Zediker claims in his book "Handloading for Competition" that the biggest difference in brass is the amount of prep work needed. Remington and Winchester will need more of course. The finicky reloader may also sort the cases by weight and/or capacity.

I'm just starting to handload for rifles so I am prepping my brass by hand just to eliminate variables and learn aspects.
 
beemanbeme said:
Give it up, VG. You will never, ever change the minds of the "neener, neener, neener I can spend more money on my stuff than you can" crowd. :D
Click to expand...

I don't see where anybody 'flamed' anyone. Nobody "neener neenered" anyone nor mentioned wealth, the majority certainly are not affluent money bags. However most benchresters are very intelligent types and don't suffer fools. It was simply pointed out that there are many flaws in the test and that it was statistically meaningless.

It is ignorant drivel like was quoted above that keeps many knowledgeable shooters from divulging and sharing information on many of the other non benchrest boards.
 
Marc said:
I don't see where anybody 'flamed' anyone. Nobody "neener neenered" anyone nor mentioned wealth, the majority certainly are not affluent money bags. However most benchresters are very intelligent types and don't suffer fools. It was simply pointed out that there are many flaws in the test and that it was statistically meaningless.

It is ignorant drivel like was quoted above that keeps many knowledgeable shooters from divulging and sharing information on many of the other non benchrest boards.
Click to expand...

Good post, Marc.
 
This ain't my first rodeo, Marc. I've been around too long to believe that holier-than-thou post. To someone that didn't know better, it sounded good though. I particularly like the part about how you were an absolute fount of information just waiting to be divulged except for the rudeness of us non-benchrest shooters. :rolleyes:
 
beemanbeme said:
This ain't my first rodeo, Marc. I've been around too long to believe that holier-than-thou post. To someone that didn't know better, it sounded good though. I particularly like the part about how you were an absolute fount of information just waiting to be divulged except for the rudeness of us non-benchrest shooters. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Bud, no matter how you try to cut it, there is no statistical evidence in the article. There is no proof of anything in the article except with that particular load in that particular lot it happened to shoot better.

If it rains today and rains next Monday, does it always rain on Mondays? That is the kind of logic you'd use to accept that article as some kind of truth that Remington brass is better than X brand brass.
 
beemanbeme said:
This ain't my first rodeo, Marc. I've been around too long to believe that holier-than-thou post. To someone that didn't know better, it sounded good though. I particularly like the part about how you were an absolute fount of information just waiting to be divulged except for the rudeness of us non-benchrest shooters. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Rodeo??...Holier than thou??.....See what I mean, try to educate others that an article has holes in it and your met with narrow minded drivel such as the quoted poster offers. If you want those with knowledge to share, you need to be willing to open your mind and listen.

I've learned and am still learning and always will learn tons of information from these guys, haven't met a single one of them that wasn't willing to share information with anyone who listens and seriously wants to learn. I will continue to shoot with my third hand used gun and all my used equipment given to me for by those fountains of knowledge who will help any neophyte shooter who shows an interest. Maybe I can't afford a hundred thousand dollar motorhome and can't buy hummer barrels by the dozen but those same guys who can have let me stay in their motor homes and let me shoot their guns, helped me turn my necks, tune my load etc etc.

I can say in all the years I've dabbled in benchrest that I've never met anyone as negative about the sport as you..
 
I spent this mid-day mortifying Varmints with one rimfire Rifle and two factory/hybrid Rifles. Often at long distance and the Varmints in question were of the very small type!
I was well pleased with my centerfires (one in 204 Ruger and one in 17 Remington Fireball) performances accuracy wise!
After checking my loading log (to VERIFY my memory!) it turns out that neither centerfire was load tested to anywhere near the extent some of you folks are implying HAS TO BE DONE!
And as a result of your implications it now begs the question of each of you, just EXACTLY how many 5 shot groups does the owner of a factory/hybrid Rifle have to shoot before he can achieve a level of certainty about the accuracy capability of a particular brand of brass?
10 groups, 20, 50, 100 groups?
Again, I am rather certain that the authors testing was enlightening, indicative and informative!
I mean at SOME point the owner of a factory/hybrid type Rifle must settle on an accurate loading and USE IT!
Either on targets or Varmints but testing ad infinitum is not something I am willing to do nor would any shooter I am familiar with?
Ever hear someone say "I am buying this factory/hybrid Rifle and I plan on just testing it to death"?
I certainly haven't!

Tylerw02: Indeed there is evidence in the article - if you choose to ignore it completely OR to decide to make a conclusion that is EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of the articles evidence well then YOU are off on your own!
If you wish, you could state, that the articles evidence is not strong enough to convince you completely - that firing Remington brass in a 223 is always going give you the best accuracy of any brass!
I would agree with that.
But to deny the articles results, and having just a modicum of experiences of your own in this regard SHOULD lead you to the same conclusion I came to!
And that was (is!) that very good accuracy can be obtained with non-premium brass!
I know - I done it, countless times!
AND the author did so as well!
Or maybe some of you are actually denying his test results (i.e. he's lying!)?
Sheesh.
Hold into the wind
VarmintGuy
 
Well this is benchrest central and many benchrest guys shoot factory rifles and this is the place those benchrest guys go to discuss them so you have to expect that the knowledge they put in practice with their benchrest rifles carries over to their group shooting, varmit and big game reloading adventures with their factory rifles. We also use non premium brass, ordinary bullets, powders, barrels on our store bought rifles, at least I do. I've worn out barrels group shooting countless combinations of brass, primers, powders and bullets of all types and have come to the conclusion that most any brass, primer,powder and bullet combination may work out to be the best load in a particular rifle, and hands down outshoot the lapua brass, boutique bullet, match primer load combination. I thought everyone knew that.

What we are saying is that an article with one very limited test of a particular load with the only difference being the brass only concludes that that combination happened to be the one that worked best in that rifle, thats not surprising at all but it does not mean it will apply in a blanket situation with all other loads and rifles. The next test he does the same way with another load in another rifle may prove that winchester, federal or whatever brass performs best and Lapua may finish dead last in that particular rifle. Next test lapua may finish first.

The reason Lapua brass is the overwhelming choice of benchresters and other anal shooters it that we find a load that works with it because it is the brass that generally is most uniform in weight, concentricity, metalurgical properties batch to batch, year after year and when sized correctly is still shooting when the others have loose primer pockets and cracked necks. Yes I have also had remington, winchester, federal and other brass that has been good and been reloaded an astounding number of times and has offered fantastic accuracy but I have also had many batches of it that was junk after a couple loadings. Not that Lapua dosen't screw up on occasion cause they do but it happens less in my experience at least so far than any of the others.
 
VarmintGuy,

I'm explaining to you how statistics are conducted. One can't just shoot a few groups with a brand of brass and say, "oh its just as accurate brass as X brand." One can't say its inaccurate by the same standards.

No matter how you try to cut it, his results have no statistical significance. In the real world his results are what you call "anecdotal evidence." There is no control group or load development. He just shot a load and it happened to shoot best in that brass. That doesn't mean the brass has more accuracy potential than any other kind. Repeat this with me, it is "ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE" rather than "STATISTICAL DATA." All that it says is that in that particular rifle, with that particular shooter, with powder of that particular lot, and in those particular conditions, that particular lot of brass shot better than the other brands with the given particular lot. That is not statistical evidence to make any general statement about the accuracy potential of any brand.

I'm not saying any brass is better than any other. I'm not saying acceptable results can't be had with cheaper brass. Most of the brass I use is Winchester and Hornady with some Federal and Remington thrown in. I use NORMA in my 6.5-284. The difference here is that I can look at this objectively and you are hellbent on taking this anecdotal evidence as gospel.

Please, Varmintguy, before you take this gun rag writer's anecdotal evidence as truth, learn a little about statistics. Read the other link I gave you, then look at this one:

http://onlinestatbook.com/chapter8/mean.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
VarmintGuy said:
And as a result of your implications it now begs the question of each of you, just EXACTLY how many 5 shot groups does the owner of a factory/hybrid Rifle have to shoot before he can achieve a level of certainty about the accuracy capability of a particular brand of brass?
10 groups, 20, 50, 100 groups?
Click to expand...

Simple question with a simple answer--a minimum of 30. For statistical testing that is what you need to ensure that the average group size of your test groups will closely approximate the true long-run average group size with a high degree of certainty.

One thing is certain--five, 5-shot groups are inadequate for statistical testing. That is what the author of the HANDLOADER used in his tests and he found that the average group size among the 5 brands of brass was not significantly different at the 95% level of confidence.

You indicated that you were unwilling to fire a large number of groups for testing. Me too. I base my results on less than 30 groups and so does nearly everyone else. But we should be aware that we may be fooled if we settle for only a small number of groups.

I think your main point is that you believe that you can get satisfactory groups for varmint hunting from non-premium brass. Me too. That has been your experience and my experience agrees. But this is not the same as saying that if you want to squeeze the last bit of accuracy out of your loads you should stick with non-premium brass.

The Handloader article demonstrated that Remington brass can produce small groups, at times smaller groups than premium brass. It did NOT prove that Remington brass will CONSISTENTLY produce smaller groups than premium brass in the long-run.

If you are satisfied with 1/2 MOA and can get that with Remington brass, great. There is no further reason to argue.

If you want to consistently get the smallest groups possible, there is a lot of evidence that premium brass will outperform non-premium brass in the long-run.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I have actually had excellent results with an old lot (about 12 yrs old) of Remington .223 brass. It performed very well in my old 700VLS.

A few years ago I realized I had this lot of 100 sitting around and resized and shot in my new 700LTR. The results were very surprising , the best groups I have ever fired to that point. Very possible this lot was not the norm for Rem brass but I was impressed enough that I ordered another batch for my SPS Varmint last year.

I still have about 4 lots of Lapua too. One I am saving for my custom rifle if I ever get around to having it built.
 
I agree with everything Vicvanb said.

Further to that, unless you are testing the effect of brass in a highly accurate custom rifle then any observations are of doubtful value. In a factory rifle, even a very good one, the level of reliable, repeatable, consistent accuracy simply is not good enough to prove very much of anything.

I have had better accuracy in some factory rifles using premium brass than I have when using cheap stuff but the difference is small and if I am honest with myself I am sure a bit of brass sorting and a neck skim would allow the cheap stuff to shoot with the premium stuff, in a factory rifle.

If the rifle is capable of sub 0.20 groups then you can really start to see how small things in a load can effect the accuracy potential. For example I have never had a situation where a primer could not be made to shoot in a certain load until I had a custom PPC. However in that situation "not shooting" meant that the best groups with that primer were in the 0.30 range no matter what I did with powder and seating depth then a switch back to 205M's resulted in an instant 0.18.

Overall I think that this thread has progressed into a pointless discussion saying nothing that the majority of the people that post here already know !!

Another one of those things that VG gets his teeth into and just won't let go ! Like usual VG it just isn't that important, sit back and relax, life is to valuable to waste time defending a pointless arguement on the internet !!

Bryce
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ah, Ah, Ah Marc. You used the terms ignorant and drivel one too many times. So I'm going to tell you what an piece of organic fertilizer you are. You've called me several other choice comments so yes this is a personal attack on you! Too bad you didn't have someone read the entire post to you. And explain it. The entire thing was rather tongue in cheek. A poke at many of the elitist snobs that try to buy their way into the winner's circle in Bench Rest and at VG for his glee in gloating over one article. I even made the remark in there that if I were shooting a match, I would reach for the Lapua. I also mentioned that I was surprised by the outcome. But you missed all that. Just couldn't get past the neener, neener part, huh. I must have touched a really raw nerve. Pretty narrow minded on your part. Even stupid. Maybe that intellligence that you attribute to Bench Rest shooters past you by. Maybe that's why you're a "dabbler" instead of a hot property that has his rifles and equipment furished. Maybe you don't share your knowledge because you don't have any.
 
Come on kids, play fair !!

No need for any of that crap here ................
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top