Which is the better brass; Lapua or RWS?
MTM said:If for no other reason Lapua is much more prevalent in the States and, I suspect, less expensive. If you are a competitive shooter loading 1000 to many more thousands of rounds a year that becomes very important. For hunting perhaps less so. RWS certainly has a good reputation but I have never seen or handled any.
+1 - it is also dimensionally more consistent than Lapua brass.dkhunt14 said:RWS is a very hard brass and will take more pressure then Lapua and the pockets hold up better. Matt
amlevin said:You needn't "suspect" that Lapua's less expensive. In .308 it's about $0.75 per case and the RWS runs $1.85 per.
JRS said:+1 - it is also dimensionally more consistent than Lapua brass.dkhunt14 said:RWS is a very hard brass and will take more pressure then Lapua and the pockets hold up better. Matt
Elwood said:I can't give any comparisons between RWS and Lapua in the same case caliber, but I did use RWS 7x57 brass to form into 6mm Crusader brass (6mm AI) and I have never had such consistent measurements for concentricity and neck wall thickness as the RWS, in fact my recent batch of Lapua 6.5x284 brass has been pretty poor.
The RWS primer pockets held up amazingly well in the 6mm Crusader which was shot to near full max and I had 15 to 17 firings out of two lots of cases.
riflewoman said:In my experience brass can probably be ranked in decreasing order of quality:
Lapua,
Pre 70s Winchester
Winchester
Federal
Norma
Remington
Fiocchi,
PPU
Any military including LC and IMI.
YMMV