Debunking the Military Brass Question

[sakorick]

For years I have read and been told that military brass is thicker than commercial brass. Paul deflated this old wives tale with his cross section pictures long ago but I have done my own analysis and share it with all of you here and now. Methodology was as follows: I picked 5 pieces of 30-'06 brass at random Lake City, HXP(Greek), Win, Fed and Rem. I then weighed the lots one at a time and averaged the weight and selected one piece closest to the average. I then trimmed all 5 cases to exactly 2.485 inches and then recorded the weight each one.  I then filled each case with water and recorded the weight of each full case. On a spread sheet I calculated the averages and posted the results. My conclusion is simple. At the end of the day, as a reloader, the brand of case has become a moot point as far as I'm concerned. All number are in grains. Take a look at the numbers and you be the judge.

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Sorta blows that one out of the water Rick!
A swing of ~1.8% including the mil brass!

Now factor in the allowed >10% lot to lot powder variation (IIRC 16% was quoted by a manufacturer, cannot for the life of me remember who though).
Case variation will be of little significance especially for the 'sky is falling' brigade...

[Brithunter]

Huh ...... How dare you suggest that a devience of 1.8% won't blow groups to side of barn size!!!! :drama:

[j0e_bl0ggs (deceased)]

Yeah, I know, please accept my apologies.....:sarcoff:

[gitano]

I have no problem with people choosing to be as 'focused' as they care to be with any activity they choose to pursue. HOWEVER, when their "freedom of expression" effects my life, OR they try to MAKE it effect my life, I start getting annoyed.

WHATEVER the benchrest crowd wants to do is of no interest to me. I could hardly care less. HOWEVER, when other numbskulls start taking procedures unique to the competitive target shooting community and "insisting" that people in the Hunting community employ if they are truly "ethical" hunters, my blood pressure goes up noticeably and I - as they say in England - "get the hump".

Part of my 'problem' with the people that "insist" that ARGUE/INSIST that "military" cases are thicker, is that the argument simply fails all reasonable logic. And there isn't just one failure, there are three.

First: Since brass is denser than gunpowder,"beefier" means HEAVIER. There are people in the military whose JOB it is to weigh EVERYTHING! And there are two fundamental reasons why, 1) Armies HAVE to have their supplies SHIPPED to them. Every little bit of "extra" weight means more cost and less supplies per shipment, and 2) the more a soldier's ammo weighs, THE LESS HE CAN CARRY! Suggesting that the 'powers that be' would want their soldiers to carry less ammo is rediculous. At this point, those that argue (without data) that "military brass is beefier" would say "They're willing to "pay the price" of higher shipping and less per shipment and less rounds per soldier, so that the soldier has a cartridge that will shoot every time he pulls the trigger." Most should be able to see the ignorance of that assertion, but let me make it clear: "Thicker brass" does NOT insure in any way shape or form, improved performance. Which brings me to the second failure of logic.

Second: Military ammunition is intended to be "shot once and dropped". No one is wandering the battlefield picking up spent brass casings! They're not going to be "reloaded". Certainly not by the military. To suggest that "beefier" cases somehow increases reliability illustrates a fundamental ignorance of how firearms work. If it doesn't improve performance, then the COST of shipping and the reduction in the soldier's carried ammo is a foolish 'explanation' for the "need" for "beefier" brass.

Third: Let's DO talk about "performance". Thicker brass means less space for powder. Less powder means lower velocity. Lower velocity means: 1) Don't shoot as far, and 2) Don't hit as hard (doesn't penetrate armor). WHY would a military WANT to LIMIT the performance of their soldier's ammunition for NO REASON.

The myth that military brass is "beefier" than civilian brass is just the perpetuation of ignorance of time gone by AND today's MARKETING everything as "tactical" which somehow implies "superior performance". Bullfeathers! Furthermore, the militarization of the police in the United States means that whole bunch of people that didn't know which end of a handgun to hold onto before they became police but are now firearms "experts" by virtue of their police "tactical training", are spreading the myth both through ignorance AND their need to be "special" and "cool" and "bad".

A few years back I looked at weighing cases to estimate case capacity. I got fundamentally the same results as Rick did. Here's that thread. About 1/3rd of the way of the first post you will find four graphs. The text above those graphs explains them and the results. http://thehunterslife.com/forums/showthread.php?t=13936&highlight=Military+Brass That data, plus Rick's above, is strong evidence that weighing cases doesn't give ANY useful information about capacity.

I got tired of the "beefier" argument being constantly put forth without ANY evidence so I decided to section some different brass and actually MEASURE military and civilian brass. (Actually MEASURE what you're arguing about. What a novel idea.) I got three military cases from Lake City Arsenal, White City Cartidges, and PMC NATO brass. For the civilian cases I used Winchester and if I remember correctly, Remington Peters. Here is a picture of the sectioned heads:


Here are those same pieces in "plan" view, in the same order; the three military cases to the left and the two civilian cases to the right.


You'll notice that the "beefiest" case is the CIVILIAN one. When I did this work I actually measured the webs of each case. There was essentially no difference in the values, but I do remember that the military brass was actually a thou or two THINNER than the civilian brass. What a surprise. Again, NOT.

I've quit fighting this issue because such resistance is indistinguishable from spitting into the wind. With the exact same result: Spit in your face.

Paul