I can't tell you the brass spec, but it is harder than that used by Norma. I'd say this applies pretty well across the two companies' ranges.
Lapua 223 brasss?
- Thread starter rebs
- Start date
I can't tell you the brass spec, but it is harder than that used by Norma. I'd say this applies pretty well across the two companies' ranges.
Longtrain
Gold $$ Contributor
Yup, in a bolt rifle, that’s all I shoot. All my 223 AI’s were once straight Lapua 223.
Based on recommendations from great members here, I purchased 1000 pcs of Starline brass. Except for 60pcs that were outliers, 940ish pieces weighed within 1 grain(on FX 120). My primer pocket uniformer didn’t cut anything out of the pockets, they are consistent.
I’m very impressed to say the least and price was great. I’ll be shooting it from bolt action rifle for TR competition.
Lapua is good but IMO Starline is just as good if not better.
I’m very impressed to say the least and price was great. I’ll be shooting it from bolt action rifle for TR competition.
Lapua is good but IMO Starline is just as good if not better.
I use Lapua .223 brass for my brother's Savage 112 BVSS. I just loaded some of it for the 14th time. It shoots well and pockets remain tight. I only started annealing recently so that isn't what caused the long life of these cases.
FWIW - I don't load above the loads listed in the reloading manuals so I'm sure that helps.
FWIW - I don't load above the loads listed in the reloading manuals so I'm sure that helps.
Ned Ludd
Silver $$ Contributor
During the last three years or so, I've been trying other brands of .223 Rem brass as potential alternatives to to Lapua for F-TR loads with 90-95 gr bullets. The two primary reasons for doing this are the relatively poor brass life with Lapua and the relatively "warm" loads I have been using (3-4 firings tops, before the primer pockets become too loose to use), and cost.
What I can say at this point is that none of the brands I've tried meet the Lapua standard as a whole. They simply aren't Lapua brass, none of them. The reasons vary, including mediocre precision, the amount of work required to remove flashing and uniform the flash holes, relative thickness of the webbing (thicker webbing can sometimes help improve brass life with stout loads), and non-uniform case and neck wall thickness. The relative weights of each of these differences are not necessarily equal, and each shooter must decide for themselves which parameters are most important. For example, I place the highest level of importance on precision, with case life coming in close behind that. I can live with a little extra work cleaning up flash holes, or sorting out cases with non-uniform case/neck wall thickness, as long as the precision is acceptable.
In my hands, prepped virgin Starline brass gave precision that wasn't anywhere close to Lapua. Note that I am not trying to create any dissent here with other satisfied users of Starline brass, merely reporting my observations. The uniformity of case and neck wall thickness was not so great in the batch I tried. It also seems to be hard as nails, which may have been at least partly to blame for the observed mediocre precision. I didn't actually try this, but for users of Starline brass, my gut feeling is that precision with virgin Starline brass may benefit from annealing straight out of the box. One big plus of using Starline brass (if one can generate acceptable precision with it) is that the primer pockets will survive the stout loads F-TR shooters tend to use with the very heavy-for-caliber bullets much better than Lapua. Regardless, other F-TR shooters have been using it with success for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me if the precision improves markedly once it has been fire-formed and given a full workup. However, I haven't reached that point with it due to the mediocre precision I obtained using prepped virgin brass. Prepped virgin Lapua brass shoots very, very well, so that is the standard to which I am comparing other brands.
Lake City brass has the thickest webbing of any brand I have tested. It also seems pretty hard. As such, I would expect the primer pockets of LC to survive loads with heavy bullets much better than Lapua. The primary issue for me with Lake City brass was the really excessive (IMO) amount of flashing around the flash hole, and the number of cases with really large variance in case and neck wall thickness (i.e. non-concentric). Using a case wall concentricity gauge, I estimated I might have to cull as much as 40-50% of the cases due to this issue. When combined with the flash hole issues, this is why I didn't pursue the use of the LC brass any further.
FWIW - the one brand of brass I have tried that gave precision comparable to Lapua using prepped virgin brass was Norma .223 Rem brass. The flash holes of Norma brass definitely require a little more work than Lapua. It also has slightly thicker webbing than Lapua. However, case weight with the Norma brass is slightly lighter than Lapua, even with the thicker webbing. I believe this is because the upper case wall and neck wall of Norma brass is slightly thinner than Lapua. Not surprisingly given the relative case weights, the internal volume of the Norma brass is slightly greater than Lapua. The best news about the Norma .223 Rem brass is that it costs about half as much as Lapua, yet still generates comparable precision. I do not yet have sufficient firings on the Norma brass to make any comments about its longevity with stout loads. If the case life of Norma .223 Rem brass is only about equal to Lapua, I would still use it without hesitation due to the comparable precision and it being about half the cost of Lapua.
Testing various manufacturer's brass is one way to be certain that you have identified an alternative source of brass to Lapua that still lives up to your standards of precision and brass life. Buying one box of this brand, or one bag of that brand for testing purposes may seem a bit painful, but the cost of a single small package of brass usually isn't too bad. Further, a little testing may save one from buying a large quantity of brass that may not live up to expectations, which would be much more painful, IMO. Every rifle setup is different, so each different brand/Lot# of brass may not necessarily behave the same in different people's rifles. A little brass testing up front may help find the brand(s) that work well in a given setup, but it is not without a little cost and some time and effort. Given that for most of us brass is not a single-use item like bullets/powder/primers, I feel like the small extra effort is worth the cost, but everyone must decide that for themselves.
What I can say at this point is that none of the brands I've tried meet the Lapua standard as a whole. They simply aren't Lapua brass, none of them. The reasons vary, including mediocre precision, the amount of work required to remove flashing and uniform the flash holes, relative thickness of the webbing (thicker webbing can sometimes help improve brass life with stout loads), and non-uniform case and neck wall thickness. The relative weights of each of these differences are not necessarily equal, and each shooter must decide for themselves which parameters are most important. For example, I place the highest level of importance on precision, with case life coming in close behind that. I can live with a little extra work cleaning up flash holes, or sorting out cases with non-uniform case/neck wall thickness, as long as the precision is acceptable.
In my hands, prepped virgin Starline brass gave precision that wasn't anywhere close to Lapua. Note that I am not trying to create any dissent here with other satisfied users of Starline brass, merely reporting my observations. The uniformity of case and neck wall thickness was not so great in the batch I tried. It also seems to be hard as nails, which may have been at least partly to blame for the observed mediocre precision. I didn't actually try this, but for users of Starline brass, my gut feeling is that precision with virgin Starline brass may benefit from annealing straight out of the box. One big plus of using Starline brass (if one can generate acceptable precision with it) is that the primer pockets will survive the stout loads F-TR shooters tend to use with the very heavy-for-caliber bullets much better than Lapua. Regardless, other F-TR shooters have been using it with success for some time, and it wouldn't surprise me if the precision improves markedly once it has been fire-formed and given a full workup. However, I haven't reached that point with it due to the mediocre precision I obtained using prepped virgin brass. Prepped virgin Lapua brass shoots very, very well, so that is the standard to which I am comparing other brands.
Lake City brass has the thickest webbing of any brand I have tested. It also seems pretty hard. As such, I would expect the primer pockets of LC to survive loads with heavy bullets much better than Lapua. The primary issue for me with Lake City brass was the really excessive (IMO) amount of flashing around the flash hole, and the number of cases with really large variance in case and neck wall thickness (i.e. non-concentric). Using a case wall concentricity gauge, I estimated I might have to cull as much as 40-50% of the cases due to this issue. When combined with the flash hole issues, this is why I didn't pursue the use of the LC brass any further.
FWIW - the one brand of brass I have tried that gave precision comparable to Lapua using prepped virgin brass was Norma .223 Rem brass. The flash holes of Norma brass definitely require a little more work than Lapua. It also has slightly thicker webbing than Lapua. However, case weight with the Norma brass is slightly lighter than Lapua, even with the thicker webbing. I believe this is because the upper case wall and neck wall of Norma brass is slightly thinner than Lapua. Not surprisingly given the relative case weights, the internal volume of the Norma brass is slightly greater than Lapua. The best news about the Norma .223 Rem brass is that it costs about half as much as Lapua, yet still generates comparable precision. I do not yet have sufficient firings on the Norma brass to make any comments about its longevity with stout loads. If the case life of Norma .223 Rem brass is only about equal to Lapua, I would still use it without hesitation due to the comparable precision and it being about half the cost of Lapua.
Testing various manufacturer's brass is one way to be certain that you have identified an alternative source of brass to Lapua that still lives up to your standards of precision and brass life. Buying one box of this brand, or one bag of that brand for testing purposes may seem a bit painful, but the cost of a single small package of brass usually isn't too bad. Further, a little testing may save one from buying a large quantity of brass that may not live up to expectations, which would be much more painful, IMO. Every rifle setup is different, so each different brand/Lot# of brass may not necessarily behave the same in different people's rifles. A little brass testing up front may help find the brand(s) that work well in a given setup, but it is not without a little cost and some time and effort. Given that for most of us brass is not a single-use item like bullets/powder/primers, I feel like the small extra effort is worth the cost, but everyone must decide that for themselves.
Last edited:
Lapua 223 brass is the only thing I use I’m my custom build rifle. I have tried Winchester, Nosler and one or two others, none shoot or reload as well as the Lapua. If you are shooting for precision in a bolt action, consistency is paramount. Lapua brass is consistent. I’ve tried weight sorting, but they are generally extremely close. I’ve been checking the thicknesses of their necks and they are just about spot on, every one of them. I found the Winchester’s to be just awful. Their weights were all over the place. The Nosler premium brass was pretty good, but not up to Lapua consistency and I found that they cost more. So, I use nothing but Lapua. I anneal after every shooting, to keep things on an even keel.
AckleymanII
Gold $$ Contributor
Lapua = CIP chamber specs. Larger web dia, larger neck dia.
Do you homework on the dimensions of your chamber
I'm now on reload #24 in my bolt gun with .223 Lapua brass. The primer pockets are getting pretty loose and this maybe the last load. Last year I started with 200 pieces and I'm down to 136 due mainly to load development over pressure loads. I've pushed this brass pretty hard with 90 gr. bullets and 2750-2800 fps.
If consistency is all you want (your priority), then it's as easy to pick diamonds out of Winchester rough as Lapua rough. You may rake more Winchester in the trash, but it's way cheaper and more reliable to get down the road. And lately, there is the importance of reliable supply to learn about.
I suppose it all comes down to the cartridge and lot.
But in brown box Lapua 6BR, I've measured the very best brass, and the very worst brass, from different lots.
So I don't complain, nor brag about Lapua.
I suppose it all comes down to the cartridge and lot.
But in brown box Lapua 6BR, I've measured the very best brass, and the very worst brass, from different lots.
So I don't complain, nor brag about Lapua.
CIP chamber specs very only in conversion from Imperial to SI/Metric. Most dimensions very from 0 to 2/10,000 of an inch.
AckleymanII
Gold $$ Contributor
CIP spec reamer offer larger reamer dimensions on the reamer prints from PTG and JGS for Lapua, PMC, and Norma brass which are larger in the web and neck thickness.
CIP
CIP does not specify specific chamber reamers only the minimum chamber dimensions and maximum cartridge dimensions. Any specific reamer can have differing dimensions for any number of reasons and often do. Neck thickness is not a CIP dimension and the CIP web dimension is slightly less for the SAMMI minimum cartridge.
XTR
F-TR obssessed shooting junkie
I have not spent the time in the last few yrs with my FTR 223 that I would like to have, but I have fired a few thousand in mid range comps.
I have never used Lapua 223 brass. I shot to HM running unsorted LC brass from the early 1990s. (Mostly around 93/94 headstamps), and shot more than a few F class cleans, all running 90 vld’s.
I have no doubt that well prepped and sorted brass may actually show demonstrable improvement in precision that would be valuable to an F class shooter. To a SR shooter who is shooting at targets that are 4x larger at 600 and comparatively huge at 200 and 300 I cannot see how the effort would make a difference.
I walked off the 600 yd line at a SR match once laughing to myself after the guy scoring for me told me I might score better if I sorted my LC brass. I thought to myself I’d score better if I didnt have a 2MOA wobble.
I have never used Lapua 223 brass. I shot to HM running unsorted LC brass from the early 1990s. (Mostly around 93/94 headstamps), and shot more than a few F class cleans, all running 90 vld’s.
I have no doubt that well prepped and sorted brass may actually show demonstrable improvement in precision that would be valuable to an F class shooter. To a SR shooter who is shooting at targets that are 4x larger at 600 and comparatively huge at 200 and 300 I cannot see how the effort would make a difference.
I walked off the 600 yd line at a SR match once laughing to myself after the guy scoring for me told me I might score better if I sorted my LC brass. I thought to myself I’d score better if I didnt have a 2MOA wobble.
I've no trouble believing your words at all.
I mentioned a little 100 yard exercise I did from the bench with mixed military brass back in 2021 in this thread. (Post #25 on page 2.)
https://forum.accurateshooter.com/threads/crap-components-to-good-loads.4078940/page-2#post-38487464
The original test group was ~0.2" in Lapua brass for a four-round group, but shooting the load several times in 5-shot groups would inevitably have seen the average group size expand probably to around third of an inch.
Nevertheless, I'll stick with my Lapua 223 cases for 'F', not to mention a couple of hundred each of Norma and RWS examples I recently bought. 'Horses for Courses'!
As an aside, I measured (weights and neck thickness consistency) for Lapua and PPU 6.5 Grendel brass a year or two back, and this really was a chalk & cheese comparison. One PPU case had neck thickness varying by 0.003" at different points whilst no Lapua case exceeded 0.001" and over half were nil to 0.0005". I later batched the 100 PPUs in two 50s, one with terrible neck thickness consistency, the other merely poor. Once fireformed, I'll see if I can see any difference on the target at short range from a Howa 'Mini' 1500 Oryx.
This 100 yard target should answer OP's question concerning Lapua brass.
dgeesaman
Gold $$ Contributor
Not sure how brass composition became so important but here is PMI data I gathered this morning.
Keep in mind PMI only detects elements that are 1/2% or greater composition. Minor alloying elements and contaminants will not show up. One hit on the Lapua showed .7% Niobium but a cleaner hit was crisp Cu/Zn.
Peterson 6BR: 70.2Cu / 29.7Zn
Alpha 6BRA (pre-OCD I think): 69.9 Cu / 30.0 Zn
Lapua .223: 71.3 Cu / 28.7 Zn
To the original question: I prefer Lapua because I can fire it over and over again. For a hunting caliber where I’ll never shoot 100 pieces 20x each* I don’t care as much. Peterson and Alpha are good stand-ins for Lapua in target shooting but the jury is still out whether they are effectively equal in that use case. But for general purpose Precision shooting Alpha and Peterson are both excellent choices.
*Depends on the cartridge and the stoutness of the load. I don’t run heavy loads and I prefer well shouldered cartridges so brass growth is minimal and case head separation is minimal risk.
Keep in mind PMI only detects elements that are 1/2% or greater composition. Minor alloying elements and contaminants will not show up. One hit on the Lapua showed .7% Niobium but a cleaner hit was crisp Cu/Zn.
Peterson 6BR: 70.2Cu / 29.7Zn
Alpha 6BRA (pre-OCD I think): 69.9 Cu / 30.0 Zn
Lapua .223: 71.3 Cu / 28.7 Zn
To the original question: I prefer Lapua because I can fire it over and over again. For a hunting caliber where I’ll never shoot 100 pieces 20x each* I don’t care as much. Peterson and Alpha are good stand-ins for Lapua in target shooting but the jury is still out whether they are effectively equal in that use case. But for general purpose Precision shooting Alpha and Peterson are both excellent choices.
*Depends on the cartridge and the stoutness of the load. I don’t run heavy loads and I prefer well shouldered cartridges so brass growth is minimal and case head separation is minimal risk.
Last edited:
dgeesaman
Gold $$ Contributor
I’ve gotten that result using cheap box .222 ammo. Might have been PPU.
Upgrades & Donations
This Forum's expenses are primarily paid by member contributions. You can upgrade your Forum membership in seconds. Gold and Silver members get unlimited FREE classifieds for one year. Gold members can upload custom avatars.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.
Click Upgrade Membership Button ABOVE to get Gold or Silver Status.
You can also donate any amount, large or small, with the button below. Include your Forum Name in the PayPal Notes field.
To DONATE by CHECK, or make a recurring donation, CLICK HERE to learn how.