Just how good is Starline brass?
- Thread starter jski
- Start date
FrankenMauser
New member
Unless the author is testing in a laboratory, or at least with 'Pressure Trace' or a similar system, there's no way of knowing what the real chamber pressure is.
I'd call BS on that.
What issue was it? I want to look it up.
That being said...
I have found Starline brass to be incredibly variable with neck tension and 'softness'/annealed state.
Some cartridges are pretty good, right out of the bag/box (such as .32 H&R and most 'standard' revolver cases). Some are WAY too soft, such as .32 S&W Long. Others are so incredibly work-hardened (like .458 SOCOM), that they need remedial measures before they can be used as intended.
I'd call BS on that.
What issue was it? I want to look it up.
That being said...
I have found Starline brass to be incredibly variable with neck tension and 'softness'/annealed state.
Some cartridges are pretty good, right out of the bag/box (such as .32 H&R and most 'standard' revolver cases). Some are WAY too soft, such as .32 S&W Long. Others are so incredibly work-hardened (like .458 SOCOM), that they need remedial measures before they can be used as intended.
Kevin Rohrer
New member
How does the case effect both velocity and pressure?
Case-wall thickness affects pressure. Thinner walls mean less pressure and theoretically higher velocity due to greater powder capacity.
But that would also mean that the case needs to be made of higher strength brass so it doesn't rupture. I don't know if such a substance exists.
Case-wall thickness affects pressure. Thinner walls mean less pressure and theoretically higher velocity due to greater powder capacity.
But that would also mean that the case needs to be made of higher strength brass so it doesn't rupture. I don't know if such a substance exists.
Higher-volume cases permit higher volume loadings which can easily produce higher velocities at lower pressures
-- (at the expense of more powder I might add)
Case-in-point is the classic 22-250 vs 220 Swift debate. The Swift easily matches the 22-250 at 10% lower pressure... just add powder (
)
As to
-- (at the expense of more powder I might add)
Case-in-point is the classic 22-250 vs 220 Swift debate. The Swift easily matches the 22-250 at 10% lower pressure... just add powder (
)As to
Fully-enclosed cartridges case/walls -- as in revolvers that Pearce mentions -- can be made out of plastic. It's the steel cylinder/chamber that contains the pressure.
I believe the point in question is how does one achieve higher velocities at significantly lower pressures with the same load by using different brass? I'll admit that I'm stumped.
Seems to me that smaller case volume with the same load would deliver higher pressure and higher velocity while larger volume with same load would deliver lower pressure and lower velocity. I guess I shouldn't have slept through class that day.
"Case-wall thickness affects pressure. Thinner walls mean less pressure and theoretically higher velocity due to greater powder capacity. "
But on a practical basis, if you have an established load, e.g., 30 gr H110 with a 180gr JHP in .44 Magnum, and you buy Starline brass just to use in addition to other cases, that thinner wall will produce less velocity with the same load, no?
The amount of loss in that example may be small, but I think it would produce chronograph velocity variation, extreme spread, mean average deviation, etc. Of course, if you've identified the Starline brass as the culprit, you can always increase the charge to match velocity of the other cases, if you're so inclined.
But on a practical basis, if you have an established load, e.g., 30 gr H110 with a 180gr JHP in .44 Magnum, and you buy Starline brass just to use in addition to other cases, that thinner wall will produce less velocity with the same load, no?
The amount of loss in that example may be small, but I think it would produce chronograph velocity variation, extreme spread, mean average deviation, etc. Of course, if you've identified the Starline brass as the culprit, you can always increase the charge to match velocity of the other cases, if you're so inclined.
Gary Wells
New member
Starline cases seem to be the case of choice for bulls-eye & precision handgun shooters everywhere. However, most of the fore mentioned shooters use their cases only once for long line & competition match shooting. This pretty much off of Bullseye-L-Forum.
They must be using the new Alliant powder - Pixie Dust.
If the claims were true everyone in the industry would be racing to produce a product that matches this new "Wonder brass" and Starline would be marketing the heck out of it.
I'd say the premise in the OP quote is false. It's likely some other unknown variable entered into the testing that produced that statement.
My experience with Starline brass suggests it's softer and more apt to stretch than some other brands. Whether that's better, worse, or insignificant depends on the application.
My experience with Starline brass suggests it's softer and more apt to stretch than some other brands. Whether that's better, worse, or insignificant depends on the application.
Another explanation is a lower volume case produces higher pressure and velocity, but because the brass is heavier to reduce internal volume, it may show fewer pressure signs. Someone asserting the pressure is lower based on such signs does not understand how variable they are and that cases are not calibrated pressure gauges.
In principle, the kinetic energy of a bullet equals the work done accelerating it (work and kinetic energy have the same units; energy may be thought of as stored work, and work thought of as withdrawing from a store). If two bullets go the same velocity they have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same amount of work was put into accelerating them. Work is force times the distance over which the force was applied. Force is proportional to pressure, but for the bullet traveling in the barrel, the average pressure is what will determine its total kinetic energy after it exits the bore. Therefore, if the bullet goes faster, its kinetic energy is higher and therefore the average pressure it experienced in the barrel was higher. That higher average can be achieved by raising the peak pressure or by increasing the pressure in the barrel after the peak, as by using a slower powder. Indeed, you may be able to raise the late barrel pressure enough with a slow enough powder that the peak is actually lower. The problem is that slow powders tend to burn less efficiently and less consistently at lower peak pressures than faster powders do, so this isn't always a happy solution.
In principle, the kinetic energy of a bullet equals the work done accelerating it (work and kinetic energy have the same units; energy may be thought of as stored work, and work thought of as withdrawing from a store). If two bullets go the same velocity they have the same kinetic energy and therefore the same amount of work was put into accelerating them. Work is force times the distance over which the force was applied. Force is proportional to pressure, but for the bullet traveling in the barrel, the average pressure is what will determine its total kinetic energy after it exits the bore. Therefore, if the bullet goes faster, its kinetic energy is higher and therefore the average pressure it experienced in the barrel was higher. That higher average can be achieved by raising the peak pressure or by increasing the pressure in the barrel after the peak, as by using a slower powder. Indeed, you may be able to raise the late barrel pressure enough with a slow enough powder that the peak is actually lower. The problem is that slow powders tend to burn less efficiently and less consistently at lower peak pressures than faster powders do, so this isn't always a happy solution.
jski, until we can get some feedback on the methodology underlying the pressure and velocity claims about Starline brass, I'm going to ignore that whole subject.
As far as the cases themselves, my experience has been a single manufacturing defect out if more than a thousand cases I have encountered. Their 30 carbine brass, what I am most familiar with, have good dimensional consistency and nice soft necks which suits me since I use them to form 5.7 mm Johnson brass and I don't have to anneal it afterwards.
As far as the cases themselves, my experience has been a single manufacturing defect out if more than a thousand cases I have encountered. Their 30 carbine brass, what I am most familiar with, have good dimensional consistency and nice soft necks which suits me since I use them to form 5.7 mm Johnson brass and I don't have to anneal it afterwards.
Brian Pearch, in the article “Starline Brass” Aug 2017 Handloader;, expands on his claim, stating that an ammunition company and a powder laboratory found that Starline brass allowed standard velocities, but at pressures as much as 10,000 psia below maximum average guidelines. Whatever that means.
A claim like that should have been challenged by the Gunwriter and the publication which prints it. This is an extraordinary claim, that you can at the same time keep to a standard velocity standard but greatly reduce pressure just by a changing the brass manufacturer. As someone wise said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. We don’t know what is behind all this hoopla, and if we did, I am certain that there is some clever trickery going on behind the scenes.
One of the first things to require is an explanation of how this works. Something I have noticed about frauds is that their claim is not fleshed out in detail. Frauds suggest some top level idea and let the public fill in the details. If the public compared their operational theories, there would be 300 million different silly theories out there, and it would become obvious that the initial claim was not based in reality. We do know that changing case volume will alter pressure, as for example, greater case volume will drop pressure somewhat and we know greatly reduced case volume will greatly increase pressure. Maybe they are altering case volume and using a greater volume of slow burning gunpowder, something like that. The article said nothing about the characteristics of the gunpowder being used, what was stated is simply smoke and mirrors.
There is always the potential that someone’s instrumentation is messed up. Happens all the time, this is why in science extraordinary claims have to be independently verified by test, before the science community accepts things. Anyone remember Cold Fusion, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann–Pons_experiment The half life of a research article is seems to be around three to four years. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-research-article/ This is due to a problem called non-replicability. Psychology is particularly bad, less than half of all psychology studies have replicable results, http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/09/low-replicability.aspx, . Papers slowly stop being cited as researchers figure out the conclusions are spurious and the results can’t be duplicated. But, no one is actively debunking studies because debunking is unprofitable. The situation is similar in the gun press, instead of correcting wrongful impressions, the gun press just sort of ignores the claims they made, even it if was last month. They don’t ask the corporation for sufficient proof, Handloader should have printed data backing up the claim, but as gun magazines always do, the sources are non attributable and the data never presented.
I recall the wildcat era in which gunwriters uncritically repeated the super high velocity nonsense by wild cat cartridge creators. American's want the most horsepower and the fastest, most powerful cartridges. The claims of the period were that certain characteristics of wildcat cartridges created higher velocities. This fizzled once shooters were able to buy cheap chronographs. The claimed velocity increases just did not show up over the chronographs. There were velocity increases, but maybe 25 to 50 fps at most, if pressures were kept to industry standard. But, the wild catters were claiming velocity increases at least several hundreds of feet per second above what a standard cartridge could do. We have not gotten to cheap and easy pressure gages, but it is beginning to be understood that the great wildcatters, such as P.O Ackley and Weatherby really got their higher velocities by operating pressures 10,000 to 20,000 psia above industry standard pressures. At the time Ackley was claiming that the secret was straight walled cartridges, Weatherby claimed it was because his venturi shaped shoulder burned the powder efficiently. Gunwriters accepted these claims, repeated these things as fact. Some still do.
The article was just another making the gun community aware of a new or improved product. These are written so we will think it is “news” when it is an advertisement. I model in print media gun articles as advertisements, and in print gunwriters as low paid temps for corporate advertising bureaus. I think the claims of the article reinforce my impression that gun writers are shills for the industry. They don’t have the critical analysis skills to challenge what industry tells them, and they don’t want to, because it might affect advertising revenue. There is a Darwinian selection process in place: industry selects writers who will work for cheap, someone who can write an interesting story which sells product, and repeat uncritically everything the advertising department tells them. There is very little difference between a gun writer and a trained seal. They will both get up on a box and bark for a fish.
The whole article Starline Brass is a nice puff piece, Starline does make good brass, they are now branching into rifle brass, but I don't believe that Starline brass transcends physics without more definite proof.
A claim like that should have been challenged by the Gunwriter and the publication which prints it. This is an extraordinary claim, that you can at the same time keep to a standard velocity standard but greatly reduce pressure just by a changing the brass manufacturer. As someone wise said, extraordinary claims need extraordinary evidence. We don’t know what is behind all this hoopla, and if we did, I am certain that there is some clever trickery going on behind the scenes.
One of the first things to require is an explanation of how this works. Something I have noticed about frauds is that their claim is not fleshed out in detail. Frauds suggest some top level idea and let the public fill in the details. If the public compared their operational theories, there would be 300 million different silly theories out there, and it would become obvious that the initial claim was not based in reality. We do know that changing case volume will alter pressure, as for example, greater case volume will drop pressure somewhat and we know greatly reduced case volume will greatly increase pressure. Maybe they are altering case volume and using a greater volume of slow burning gunpowder, something like that. The article said nothing about the characteristics of the gunpowder being used, what was stated is simply smoke and mirrors.
There is always the potential that someone’s instrumentation is messed up. Happens all the time, this is why in science extraordinary claims have to be independently verified by test, before the science community accepts things. Anyone remember Cold Fusion, Stanley Pons and Martin Fleischmann? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fleischmann–Pons_experiment The half life of a research article is seems to be around three to four years. https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2013/12/18/what-is-the-lifespan-of-a-research-article/ This is due to a problem called non-replicability. Psychology is particularly bad, less than half of all psychology studies have replicable results, http://www.apa.org/science/about/psa/2015/09/low-replicability.aspx, . Papers slowly stop being cited as researchers figure out the conclusions are spurious and the results can’t be duplicated. But, no one is actively debunking studies because debunking is unprofitable. The situation is similar in the gun press, instead of correcting wrongful impressions, the gun press just sort of ignores the claims they made, even it if was last month. They don’t ask the corporation for sufficient proof, Handloader should have printed data backing up the claim, but as gun magazines always do, the sources are non attributable and the data never presented.
I recall the wildcat era in which gunwriters uncritically repeated the super high velocity nonsense by wild cat cartridge creators. American's want the most horsepower and the fastest, most powerful cartridges. The claims of the period were that certain characteristics of wildcat cartridges created higher velocities. This fizzled once shooters were able to buy cheap chronographs. The claimed velocity increases just did not show up over the chronographs. There were velocity increases, but maybe 25 to 50 fps at most, if pressures were kept to industry standard. But, the wild catters were claiming velocity increases at least several hundreds of feet per second above what a standard cartridge could do. We have not gotten to cheap and easy pressure gages, but it is beginning to be understood that the great wildcatters, such as P.O Ackley and Weatherby really got their higher velocities by operating pressures 10,000 to 20,000 psia above industry standard pressures. At the time Ackley was claiming that the secret was straight walled cartridges, Weatherby claimed it was because his venturi shaped shoulder burned the powder efficiently. Gunwriters accepted these claims, repeated these things as fact. Some still do.
The article was just another making the gun community aware of a new or improved product. These are written so we will think it is “news” when it is an advertisement. I model in print media gun articles as advertisements, and in print gunwriters as low paid temps for corporate advertising bureaus. I think the claims of the article reinforce my impression that gun writers are shills for the industry. They don’t have the critical analysis skills to challenge what industry tells them, and they don’t want to, because it might affect advertising revenue. There is a Darwinian selection process in place: industry selects writers who will work for cheap, someone who can write an interesting story which sells product, and repeat uncritically everything the advertising department tells them. There is very little difference between a gun writer and a trained seal. They will both get up on a box and bark for a fish.
The whole article Starline Brass is a nice puff piece, Starline does make good brass, they are now branching into rifle brass, but I don't believe that Starline brass transcends physics without more definite proof.
"...the case effect both velocity and pressure..." It doesn't. Gun rag writers have been making unsubstantiated claims about everything they promote for eons.
"...the case of choice for bulls-eye & precision handgun shooters..." Because it's relatively cheap and is heavily marketed. Midway wants $21.49 per 100 for .45 ACP brass, when they can get it from Starline, availability is "mixed" and $24.29 per 100 for Hornady on sale.
"...Thinner walls mean to greater powder capacity..." And little else. Loads are the same regardless of who made the case.
"...higher strength brass..." That'd be bronze. Had an age and everything. Except, of course, bronze doesn't have the elastic properties brass has. The elastic properties being why brass is used in the first place.
"...the case of choice for bulls-eye & precision handgun shooters..." Because it's relatively cheap and is heavily marketed. Midway wants $21.49 per 100 for .45 ACP brass, when they can get it from Starline, availability is "mixed" and $24.29 per 100 for Hornady on sale.
"...Thinner walls mean to greater powder capacity..." And little else. Loads are the same regardless of who made the case.
"...higher strength brass..." That'd be bronze. Had an age and everything. Except, of course, bronze doesn't have the elastic properties brass has. The elastic properties being why brass is used in the first place.
Both brass and bronze are alloys of copper, but while brass is an alloy of mostly copper and zinc, bronze is typically an alloy of copper and tin.
Brass properties can be modified by changing the percentage zinc (more zinc = harder/stronger with less corrosion resistance) and/or by adding small amounts of other metals. It should also be noted that alloys of copper and aluminum and copper and silicon are often referred to as bronze as well.
In general bronze is harder, stronger, and more corrosion resistant than brass. Brass is more malleable and cheaper than bronze (tin is more expensive than zinc).
Not sure anyone is producing bronze for reloadable cartridge cases.
Brass properties can be modified by changing the percentage zinc (more zinc = harder/stronger with less corrosion resistance) and/or by adding small amounts of other metals. It should also be noted that alloys of copper and aluminum and copper and silicon are often referred to as bronze as well.
In general bronze is harder, stronger, and more corrosion resistant than brass. Brass is more malleable and cheaper than bronze (tin is more expensive than zinc).
Not sure anyone is producing bronze for reloadable cartridge cases.
condor bravo
New member
Yes I would say that Handloader and Rifle are definitely credible publications and I see no reason to condemn the article. It is well presented and to summarize, Brian Pearce is pointing out the results of tests conducted by an ammunition manufacturer and a powder lab. Not something he made up himself. I would suggest that anyone could write to Wolfe Publications at Prescott, Az and present your case or objections to the author. I'm really not sure from the posts who is taking the blame for the wrath created by the article, the author or his sources of information or Wolfe Publications. I don't see that the author either agreed or disagreed with the test results. Seems to me much ado about nothing.
Last edited: