• This Forum is for adults 18 years of age or over. By continuing to use this Forum you are confirming that you are 18 or older. No content shall be viewed by any person under 18 in California.

Thickness of Newer Lots Of Lapua 220 Russian Brass vs Older Lots.

I think yall may soon learn it doesnt take as much neck clearance as you thought too.
Dusty, the current trends have been to err on the side of more clearance rather than not enough.

Years ago, I strived to keep the clearance at just about .001. This was because I fell for all of that stuff that came out of the Houston Warehouse. I was even reading ehere shooters turned their necks, fired them, then turned them again in a effort to get that clearance just right.

Later, I found out it was better, especially when shooting in the upper load window, to get more generous. Now I shoot for .002 over the loaded round.

The problem with this latest brass is it is darned near “zero” With a flat base bullet.

After talking to you last night, I decided to sit down and check a bunch of this new stuff for variations in the wall thickness. They are not that great. Some are as thin as .014 on one spot, and as much as .015 in another spot. I machined a mandrel in my lathe, and pushed several up onto it to check them with my “tenth” indicator. Sure enough, all exhibited between .0006 and .001 runout.

Maybe some of those guys that got laid off at Remington during the bankruptcy went to work for Lapua.o_O
 
Dusty, the current trends have been to err on the side of more clearance rather than not enough.

Years ago, I strived to keep the clearance at just about .001. This was because I fell for all of that stuff that came out of the Houston Warehouse. I was even reading ehere shooters turned their necks, fired them, then turned them again in a effort to get that clearance just right.

Later, I found out it was better, especially when shooting in the upper load window, to get more generous. Now I shoot for .002 over the loaded round.

The problem with this latest brass is it is darned near “zero” With a flat base bullet.

After talking to you last night, I decided to sit down and check a bunch of this new stuff for variations in the wall thickness. They are not that great. Some are as thin as .014 on one spot, and as much as .015 in another spot. I machined a mandrel in my lathe, and pushed several up onto it to check them with my “tenth” indicator. Sure enough, all exhibited between .0006 and .001 runout.

Maybe some of those guys that got laid off at Remington during the bankruptcy went to work for Lapua.o_O
I only measured a couple this morning from my gold box and they varied as much as .0006-.0008 in thickness measuring around the neck. They are not concentric from the ID to the OD.
 
Dusty, the current trends have been to err on the side of more clearance rather than not enough.

Years ago, I strived to keep the clearance at just about .001. This was because I fell for all of that stuff that came out of the Houston Warehouse. I was even reading ehere shooters turned their necks, fired them, then turned them again in a effort to get that clearance just right.

Later, I found out it was better, especially when shooting in the upper load window, to get more generous. Now I shoot for .002 over the loaded round.

The problem with this latest brass is it is darned near “zero” With a flat base bullet.

After talking to you last night, I decided to sit down and check a bunch of this new stuff for variations in the wall thickness. They are not that great. Some are as thin as .014 on one spot, and as much as .015 in another spot. I machined a mandrel in my lathe, and pushed several up onto it to check them with my “tenth” indicator. Sure enough, all exhibited between .0006 and .001 runout.

Maybe some of those guys that got laid off at Remington during the bankruptcy went to work for Lapua.o_O
I did exactly the same thing with a few new 220R cases this morning using my Mit .0001 indicator. They were closer to .015 than not on the ones I checked. I didn't check them all around but should've.
 
All I know is if I went to a no turn neck, the same thing would happen to me. Good luck Jackie.

Seems like my old necks were .017 maybe? Blue box from many years ago.

I lied, more like .0151...bought in 2010 at the Kansas City Nationals for .70@ Just got into this thousand last year. When I bought them I'd forgot I had an unopened box of a thousand back home.

I really took a beating on that price......
 
Last edited:
Okay here is 2 pieces of brass that I necked up to 6mm, showing what it started at and ended up being. So yes we are off .001 too .0015 to large for no turn.
 

Attachments

  • 20221227_164731.jpg
    20221227_164731.jpg
    3.2 MB · Views: 50
  • 20221227_164632.jpg
    20221227_164632.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 51
  • 20221227_164607.jpg
    20221227_164607.jpg
    2.9 MB · Views: 49
  • 20221227_164520.jpg
    20221227_164520.jpg
    3 MB · Views: 50
Even my no turn chamberings get turned twice just for this reason. Out of the box brass is not suitable for match use no matter what chambering. Neck turning with my motor and 21st century neck turner is not ever an issue for me
I have no problem with using this brass in a match.
It's Lapua 6.5 Grendel brass though. I'd call it very good. Might improve it just a little but I've paid for neck turning that wasn't as good as this was out of the box. Unfortunately, as this thread proves, it's not all equal.


link to thread
 
After talking to you last night, I decided to sit down and check a bunch of this new stuff for variations in the wall thickness. They are not that great. Some are as thin as .014 on one spot, and as much as .015 in another spot.
That brings up another probably irrelevant point: The un-turned neck walls taper continuously to the case mouth. So thickness where everyone seems to position their ball mic (mid-neck) would be thicker than at the case mouth, and thinner than near the shoulder junction. I use a stop on my ball mic to regulate the ball's position below the mouth. To compare my neck walls with someone else's on the forum, we'd both need to both sample at the same depth, wouldn't we?

CIMG6621-2.jpg
-
 
Last edited:
Let’s not forget the original topic of discussion.

Bart Sauter has had a championship year shooting non turned 6PPC made from Lapua 220 Russian In a .273 neck chamber. I’m sure, like me, this got the attention of a lot of shooters.

So, I decided to give it a go. I borrowed a .273 piloted neck reamer and reamed out the neck of a known decent barrel. Everything was right on track until I opened the boxes of new Lapua 220 Russian, necked them up to fireform only to discover that the loaded round had, for all purposes, zero clearance in the neck.

In short, this will not work in a .273 neck chamber. Something is amiss. Something is obviously different from what Bart is using.

It turns out that for what ever reason, Lapua suddenly started making the necks thicker. Or at least thicker than what ever Lot of brass Bart is using.

The simple answer is, get a .275 neck reamer and hope Lapua stays with the current wall thickness of the necks on their 220 Russia.

Many are going to say….,,”why not just turn necks”?

Well, think of it this way. If you can make a non turned neck 6PPC competitive, (remember Bart Sauter), wouldn’t it be nice to be able to just stick primers and powder in, seat some junk bullets, fireform, do it again and then take them to the Match? heck, I could go for that. Just toss the darn things after each Two Gun Event.………

“But, but, but, but, don’t you HAVE to shoot turned necks to be competitive”? ……..,Which brings us back to the 1000 pound gorilla in the room, Bart Sauter.
 
Jackie, I'm curious what the neck thickness would measure after you chambered and fired a couple. -Al
Al, when we shoot our regular turned neck cases, the wall thickness stays uniform Through numerous firings.
Heck, I have 30 BR cases with possibly 20 firings, and they still measure the same wall thickness As they did when first turned.

I think all these newer cases need to be used out of the box is a .274 or .275 neck chamber.
 
Jackie, the reason I mention it is that the Lapua cases I have here have a definite 'funnel' shape to the inside by pin guage.
I think most factory brass does.

I kinda hope Bart joins this conversation. He’s the one that seems to be making this work.

One thing he said he does when Eric Cortina interviewed him was he segregated his cases not by weight, but by the velocity it actually produced. he loads all the cases and uses his LabRadar to see what the case does in actual application.

That seems like a rather interesting idea.
 

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.

Forum statistics

Threads
166,303
Messages
2,216,300
Members
79,555
Latest member
GerSteve
Back
Top