Why not plastic handgun shells, like shotgun shells?

It's interesting that the author in that link assumes the colors other-than-white were rare, since he never saw one "in the wild". At one point in time, my "collection" had at least 50 of the plastic .38 cases... ...mostly black (not shot shells, though most of the shot shells were black, as well). There were even a few of the red and (light) blue cases in the mix, and orange under a different brand.

Perhaps I just happened to clean up after the only shooter in the Western U.S., that had some of the other colors...

I also find it interesting, that those photos don't show anything, and the author never says anything about the printing that was present on the cases I had (I distinctly remember the USAC head stamp on the white, black, and red cases). The plastic body had been printed in black, for white, red, and blue cases; and had been printed in white, for black cases. All it was, was the type of bullet. I don't recall if they used abbreviations or full words, but it would have been something like, "158 GR SWC" or "158 GR RN".



But, as I said before; they became very brittle over time. The cases (and pieces) were slowly thrown away, until the last 15-20 were just aluminum case heads floating around in a bag of plastic chips. ...Which was unceremoniously tossed into the trash can.

Plastic cases can be acceptable for single-use loads, at a (seemingly) low price, in low pressure cartridges. But they don't hold up well, over time; and most types are not reloadable.

The plastic-cased .223 stuff is another example of the issues plastics present. They had to mold the case neck around the bullet (with an extra-deep cannelure), to keep the neck thin enough to chamber. The case was then charged from the rear, and had the case head "snapped" into place. That's why many shooters that used it had quite a few case heads pull off; leaving the plastic body in the chamber of their rifle. Poor reliability is not an attribute most people look for in ammunition. ....And chambering one of the plastic cases in a hot rifle is a whole 'nother problem.
 
More than just plastic rounds

I have several boxes of the loaded USAC plastic .38 shells, boxes of FMJ wad cutters bullets for reloading the plastic hulls, along with literature and samples they handed out at plastics manufactures conventions in the 80s. Company was based out of Tacoma WA, but a current web search does not even show the address existing anymore. My dad who was in the whole sale plastic biz brought me back several boxes of six that they were handing out as samples!! Those were the days! I also have different styles of bullet, all the heel type the company made as well as the hand re-loading tools to go with. Thinking of doing another Combat Handguns article about them some time…

Fired several boxes of the loaded rounds out of a mod S&W 36 and as I recall they were a handful! Combination of substantial powder load and heavy 158 grain slug.
 
Currently, the US military is experimenting with plastic rifle cartridges in the LSAT project. It's reportedly going quite well.
Reports vary because development seems to have stalled. Also, the LSAT ammo is case-telescoped and not backwards compatible with existing weapons.
 
I could see them used in low-pressure revolver rounds as mentioned before...but I can't see them working in semi-autos due to headspacing and feeding issues....
 
I would also imagine you'd have heat issues - one of the great things about brass is that it takes away some of heat energy from the gun when it's extracted.
 
On some hot shotgun shells the brass comes up higher because there is more pressure. Also on a shotgun shell you don't have to worry about bullet setback since there is nothing to be pushed back into the case when it is chambered. Plastic may not hold a bullet in the case as tightly as brass.
 
I recently bought a bag of used red plastic .38 SPL and .45 acp shells designed to fire the accompanying black plastic bullets, propelled by a primer only (I think they might work with wax bullets, too. One day I may find out). Too cheap to pass up.

A number of them are cracked/split. I cannot imagine them holding up to an actual powder charge.
 
I've been shooting those all-plastic rounds for a few years now. They shoot real well out of my Glock 7. I saved up for over a month to get that gun and I love it :D

-cls
 
People talking about reloading are missing the point, the rounds would be so cheap you wouldn't need to reload anymore/it wouldn't make sense to reload anymore.
 
People talking about reloading are missing the point, the rounds would be so cheap you wouldn't need to reload anymore/it wouldn't make sense to reload anymore.
When I reload the bullet seems to be the most expensive component and not the case.
 
"People talking about reloading are missing the point, the rounds would be so cheap you wouldn't need to reload anymore/it wouldn't make sense to reload anymore."

Uhm no, not necessarily. In one of the links above prices for the USAC ammo was noted, and it was more expensive at that time than comparable Remington ammunition. Not tremendously more expensive, but more expensive.
 
^^ True Mike but the ads from the company played up the fact that you could reload the .38 spl. rounds with a simple hand tool while waching TV and that that reloading would average out much less costs over the life of the rounds.
 
ammo_shotshell.gif


As you can see the powder is still circled by brass. The shot weather its buck or birdshot is contained by the crimp at the end of the shell. A shotgun shell is low pressure and when it ignites and pushes the wad/shot out the pressure is not enough to tear through the plastic.

ammo-pistol-custom-cutaway.jpg


A 9mm bullet lets say has a powder in half the shell and the other half has the bullet encased and usually crimped in place. a pistol or rifle bullet will have more pressure and would basically rip right through a plastic shell.
 
As you can see the powder is still circled by brass. The shot weather its buck or birdshot is contained by the crimp at the end of the shell. A shotgun shell is low pressure and when it ignites and pushes the wad/shot out the pressure is not enough to tear through the plastic.
In more than 90% of modern shot shells, that base is steel or aluminum. It's no longer brass. And several companies make shot shell hulls that are 100% plastic. They have no metal base. As has been discussed in earlier posts, the pressures are low enough that proper plastics don't need the steel/aluminum reinforcement. Much of the reason modern shells still have a metal base is not for pressure containment, it's for appearance and extraction. ;)


A 9mm bullet lets say has a powder in half the shell and the other half has the bullet encased and usually crimped in place. a pistol or rifle bullet will have more pressure and would basically rip right through a plastic shell.

I hope you mean a "9mm cartridge". 9mm bullets typically don't contain smokeless powder. ;)
 
Yes, cartridge. :rolleyes:

Anyway, there is a reason why high brass is used on rounds like 00buck or sabot slug ammo and low brass is used on birdshot. It depends on the amount of powder and is defiantly NOT there just for looks. You are 100% correct that its needed for extraction as well.

Are you saying the brass on these 2 shells are for looks since the height doesn't matter and isn't needed?

WSProdLG_remington12B00.jpg
H1218.jpg
 
I've heard tell that the "high-brass" "low-brass" thing is simply supposed to be an operator aid vice providing a significant amount of structural strength.

That being said, not all "plastics" are of the cheap variety used to line shotgun shells.
 
It depends on what it is. Some semi-auto shotguns will only cycle with high brass. There is also the visual effect of identifying the round but there is also the structural strength depending if the ammo is of cheaper make.Maybe more modern ammunition can be okay with plastic shells but it does ID the power of the round as well.

I guess it comes down to powder since it was used for many years for structural strength but that was with blackpowder and since smoke-less powder needs less volume to get the same effect, lower brass could be used but I wouldn't trust a 100% plastic shell if for nothing else but extraction. Everything said is right and wrong but it depends on the type, quality and era of shotgun shells being used.

In any case I'll end my shotshell discussion there since at this point its not pertaining to the original question and I can get back to the OP......

As far as handgun rounds go,

Brass is used since it expands when fired causing the chamber to seal. Yes, steel and aluminum are used and have been for many years but brass has many advantages over other materials. It goes back to its original dimensions and has a natural lubricity so that it can be easily extracted from the chamber. After awhile the plastic would gum up the works especially if a round was left in the chamber after many shots where fired. Extraction would be a big problem as well. Those problems would be more apparent with hotter loads.
 
"True Mike but the ads from the company played up the fact that you could reload the .38 spl. rounds with a simple hand tool while waching TV and that that reloading would average out much less costs over the life of the rounds."

I can reload regular brass with a Lee hand tool, as well, which don't cost a lot and which allows me to use regular bullets.

Ads can play up anything they want as a supposed advantage. Often times the advantage.... isn't.
 
Back
Top