@@nicholashodges201 Usually you're safe to keep using them as long as they're not split, frayed and hold their crimp. I'll use shells probably 3-4 times before hucking em just because I had a weird experience where the entire hull came apart from the brass rim and since then I wanted to avoid some sort of catastrophic failure in the future.
I think some of it comes down to tradition as well, manufactures seem to use high brass hulls on their magnum or more expensive hunting loads because as you said, the old paper magnum hulls used high brass. I think they also look more expensive/higher quality when the brass is taller. Good Video and great info, Thanks
Only problem with low brass is it tends to fail to eject more than high brass. I have a basic Mossberg and it runs through either just fine. I have a friend with a Stevens, another with a Benelli and both have problems with low brass ejection.
VR60 won't feed low brass. The plastic bulges. Both brass hold the plastic, but at different LENGTHS. Therefore equating to different bulge drag outcomes. If the plastic wouldn't bulge, all these guns would feed.
@@gu1l7y5p4rkfiles You hit the nail on the head for why high brass shells are better and stronger. Stronger by sense they provide safety and chamber grip that will release, whereas a low brass does not do this. However, I've seen a lot of low brass that is not sized right (crimped against the hull) and will not feed because the top of it hits the chamber and stops the feeding. You may want to look and see if this is what's happening.
I have loaded shotgun for years, Most of what I have used was low brass, just the way things turned out. Never have noticed a change in powder weight depending on high or low. Weight of shot is what denotes powder charge not high or low brass.
my 1100 just refuses to cycle low brass but i will feed my side x side low brass all day i feel its deformation after firing if you got an idea on what i can do to fix it i would love to stop pampering my 1100 on prem ammo
I notice on my pump shotgun if I like use low brass shell and rapid fire the low shell will jammed on me and I have to like wait the shell to cool down before I can extract it but if i rapid the fire high brass once it want jam on me I dont no! I’ve just start noticing it now
I love high brass shells for their look. I'll let the low brass shells sit on the ground at the range (They collect and sell or scrap used brass off the ground), but I retrieve all my very high brass shells. I just really like the way thay look.
I think I still have some paper hi brass shells in my safe. Always wondered what the difference was. I never felt an increase in recoil shooting either out of my old single shot.
Never knew it was a strength argument…I always heard high brass would cycle more reliably than low brass in a semiautomatic…my great grandfathers browning light 12 would only cycle high brass
The cycling thing isn't something I've done a whole lot of testing on as I don't own any seni*auto shotguns. I know some law enforcement services have actually moved away from SA shotguns to pump action for this reason, but it had to more to charges/pressures.
I know this is going to be debated. But in older A5 actions the high brass cycles reliably but if you have low brass there’s not enough for the extractor to grab to hold the shell to pull it tight to the bolt
@@rifleman522 I’m continuing to argue as a 60 year old friction ring doesn’t do it’s job correctly. I collect Ithaca model 900 ( better designed a5 ) and if the friction rings are wore no dice
Hello, I am new to shotshell but have reloaded rifle and pistol for years. So what the information states is that no matter the brass height it is possible to load magnums in either one
I remember the transition from paper to plastic. I always associated high brass with Buck, Slugs and magnum shells. It carried over into the plastic shells. When I started reloading is when I found that there is no difference other than the height of the brass. And like you demonstrated, I learned that with my Lyman Manuel. I was a little shocked at first because it was just something I always believed. I was also relieved to find that as long as the hull is sound, I could load what ever I needed regardless of the brass.
Huh. I was kind of wondering about this, looking among various shotgun shells I have lying around. I'm not a reloader (not yet, anyway, one of these days I'd love to learn it, though), but the one thing I have been aware of hulls-wise is apparently reloaders hate steel vs brass, because it's much harder to work with, and rusts, but manufacturers commonly substitute it for brass because it's cheaper. The only actual thing high brass hulls DO have, I guess, is that there's a lot of brass, therefor...more valuable? By a marginal amount, anyway?
I guess; the work required to separate the brass from the rest of the hull for recycling makes it pretty low profit I imagine. The spent primers would need to be removed, plus the plastic tube and basewad removed. I'm sure there are machines that shred them up for that purpose but I can't imagine a backyard scrapper making much off it.
Set an empty one of each on a board and shoot each 3/4 of an Inc. up with a bb gun I assure you the high brass is stronger, doesn't necessarily mean it performs different just that it's stronger, also they're not brass they're brass plated steel
This video is spot on with it's conclusions. The idea that high brass was "better, stronger, faster, more powerful" does indeed come from the paper hull era. I only have one issue - namely that the high brass, low brass issue is referred to as a myth. It WASN'T a "myth" during the era of the paper hulls. During the paper hull era, the high brass/low brass issue was real. The fact that plastic hulls nullified everything doesn't make the original understanding a myth, merely an outdated one.
One could argue that high brass shells have more cost put into them and more mass, which might lead to less splitting of the brass sections after numerous reloads, but I have seem plenty of high brass split as well. Just not as many separated heads as low brass. Just my experience.
all i know is my remington 1100 will not cycle low brass for shit my thought is it deforms somehow but i have no idea but i have found the longer the brass the smoother and easier the ejections i have also found that steel caps dont cycle good either regardless of the length i honestly think the best part about high brass is more uniformity
I couldn't really say without seeing it. I'd try several different brands of ammo if I were you. A lot of folks gravitate towards the budget-friendly bulk shells in 100 packs (which is fine), but they don't always have enough power to cycle SA.
I’m not saying you’re wrong and it makes total sense... but why does the manual on my Kel-Tec KSG 12 gauge say recommended high brass only? I’m guessing for chambering the round easier?
I've heard anecdotes about some guns extracting shells more reliably but again, I've never witnessed it for myself or been able to duplicate it in testing. Ironically I own a KSG myself and use almost exclusively low-brass without issue.
Great presentation. On the subject of Shot Shells, why do they call Shells 2.75 inch, when they really are 2.50 inches long? Same with 3 inch shells they are 2.75 inches long.
That's an excellent question. The reason is hulls are measured prior to crimping. So if you take a fired hull and measure it, you'll see its 2.75, etc. This is also why not every brand of shells is the same "loaded" height; even though the hull is 2.75, different manufacturers will crimp them to slightly different heights.
I reload and use high brass for magnum loads low brass for lower power. I also use different colors for different things. Red for buckshot, orange for slugs and I have not decided what to use for birdshot because this year is the first year I'm bird hunting and I've only ever used birdshot for plinking so I just buy ammo for that
The original Winchester AA hulls, which are low brass, ( actually brass or cadmium plated steel, as are most ) are as strong as any ever made. When they were introduced, it was demonstrated that the only reason for the brass head was to give the extractor something stronger than a plastic rim to grip, other than that, strength wise it was totally unnecessary, and could be loaded with the heaviest dram equivalent powder and shot loads in use.
@@jungleno. So is gunpowder, but cadmium plating is used on hundreds of everyday products, including shotgun shells, bolts and nuts. They kinda expect people to have enough brains not to injest it.
Seems to me like the best way to put this to rest would be to reload a batch of 25 to 50 magnum-powered slug or 00 buckshot loads on low-brass hulls and shoot them and reload them a bunch of times and show pictures of the hulls after each firing.
Thanks for stating the facts over fiction! Not sure why BPI offers both 8 mm and 16 mm brass, but in either case you can't get any of their FIOOCHI or CHEDDITE hulls in either size! Very frustrating!
Awesome video just started loading for shotgun good information to know way to back up your claims with facts. That's one thing Iv learned after reloading is theres alot of myths and misconceptions people believe and pass along.
My god are there ever... If I had a dollar for every 'fact' someone passed on to me that turned out to be nonsense I'd be relaxing on a beach somewhere rather than making TH-cam videos ;)
in your reference to Lyman’s 5th edition quote regarding high/low brass not impacting ballistics; ballistics and strength of hull are two different things. Also, good researching requires multiple authentic and credible resources. I would agree that Lyman is very credible, requoting Lyman edition after edition doesn’t go far enough.
I quoted Lyman and Ballistic Products; it's also worth noting several of the different editions of Lyman's publication have employed different researchers and editors.
Buck an8r, If you've ever shot a muzzle loading rifle you'll notice that a Hull(or brass case) is not the critical component. The chamber contains the pressure.
The main question you forgot to answer (or cover for that matter) is does it have the same amount of gun powder? I’m assuming by the fact that you said they have the same power that they should have the exact same gun powder. But you should probably I have covered it in the video that both have the same amount of gun powder; right?
No, you're missing the point of this comparison. We're not comparing commercially purchased loaded shells in high and low brass because no manufacturer (none that I'm aware of at least) produces the same ammo in both styles. They will be different loads. Instead we are comparing the hulls specifically, and the way they perform when loaded identically.
I don't buy into this at all just because of tests I've done myself in the field ... felt recoil .. effective killing distance etc ... same gun same brand same shot size and payload ... I've noticed more felt recoil from high brass shells of the same brand and shot size and Payload and had animals die instantly from a high brass shell but had to do follow up shots with low brass shells on the same type animal at the same distance .. so for me on those merits I find it somewhat hard to dispell that higher brass equals more power ... I've even cut them apart and weighed powder charges and there was more in the high brass then low .. and if there was no difference then why would anyone who stocks them both charge more for the high brass then the low brass by almost double...
You are totally missing the point of the video. When you buy new factory shells, yes manufacturers typically put higher velocity and shot weights in high brass shells. What he is saying is a high brass shell is not needed, you could put the same charge of powder in a low brass shell and be fine. This video is mainly for reloaders, is it safe to reload a hot buckshot load in a low brass shell.
weird,,,, i wonder why they kick harder thoo lol, i have shot .. winchester low brass 12 gauge 2shot with 1 1/8 ozshot and remington hi speed steel 2shot with 1 1/8 ozshot (high brass) both of them 2 3/4 inch shells, and the high brass kick so much harder
@@TATVCanada samething with the winchester super x high brass shells, (walmart) ,,, they kick alot harder then the low brass ones,,, but maybe its just me and im imagining it.
It really all depends on what they're loaded with. The hulls themselves are no stronger, but the powder charge can certainly be higher from shell to shell.
That's an excellent question! I think it comes down to the actual operation of the firearm/'cycling'. The brass is obviously much harder and holds up better to the extraction process in the firearm. Interestingly enough though, there actually are all-plastic hulls out there. I've never held one in my hand, but I've seen folks discussing and posting pictures of them online before.
The have been several all (or nearly all) plastic hulls out on the market at one time or another. The most successful were made by ACTIV. www.ballisticproducts.com/bpi/articleindex/articles/activ_info1/activhulls.htm ACTIV brand loaded shot shell were readily available from most of my local gunshops and "big box" stores in the 1980s. Reloading data was included in all of the popular reloading manuals at the time. ACTIV shot shells came in a variety of loading, including buckshot and slugs. There was no functional difference between an ACTIV hull and a high brass hull from anyone else. In my experience, ACTIV hulls reloaded with 1 1/8 oz of shot, to a velocity 1200 fps, would hold up just as well as the Remington unibody hulls or Winchester AAs. They were also very smooth cycling and I've personally never had a failure to extract from sticking in the chamber or from damaged rims. Aside from the ACTIVs, there was also an all plastic hull called a Wanda. (Sorry, no link, but if you google "Wanda shot shell," you'll find them. I have no experience with them, but if research a little, you'll find that they don't have a great reputation. I have a few fired examples in my collection and the plastic is very brittle. They used shot card instead of a fold crimp like the ACTIVs.
Its always funny when i show up to the duck blind with my buddies and uncase my over under .410, then i show them my tss loads ive made on 2.5" fiocchi hulls with a tiny 8mm brass height, and proceed to absolutely demolish ducks and gesse far beyond what thier 12ga shotguns firimg steel are capable of. It gets a LOT of funny looks. Needless to say, 4 out of 7 guys this fall also made the switch to shooting a .410 along side of me. Its a fun day.
What really matters is if it's a tapered hull, or one or two piece hull. Brass is just jewelry. Anyone remember the Activ brand shotshells? No external brass at all
I left a few comments here to others responses, but I want add this because I just remembered it. I have a shogun that rips the brass off the end of a low brass hull when fired. This is due to having too much head space. However, when a high brass shell is shot through it, it never once has ever done that or even stretched the hull out of place. *That in itself shows the High brass shell is **_STRONGER_** than the low brass.* I think you're confusing power with strength. They are not the same thing. High brass shells are definitely stronger.
Activ and the Wanda company loaded a mostly plastic shell back in the day with no brass/steel head at all. I've loaded heavy 1-1/4 and 1-1/2 oz loads in the Activ shells with zero issues. I use those to dispel the high brass = more strength myth to people.
Honestly its ridiculous the price difference. I went to fin feather and fur and picked up a box of Winchester super X #6 shot for squirrel and rabbit, low brass, 1255 fps. $11.99 for 25. Next to it was the same exact ammo but high brass and 1333 fps. $19.99 for 25! Im using a stevens 301 so honestly it will shoot anything, but that price difference is ridiculous
The customer expects to see high brass on high end shells. That's why it is there. Much in the same way you see flutes on plastic shells like the old paper ones. The customer expects to see it. Compression formed hulls need very little brass to work. Just enough for the extractor to get hold of. Paper base hulls need more to keep the hull from coming apart under pressure. Active and eclipse shells had no meatal base at all and worked just fine. One day you will see no brass at all on shotgun shells.
I’ve been thinking about those all plastic no brass shells I used to see scattered all over the ground as a kid. I’ve not seen one in many years. It sorta proves the point that no brass is needed at all for pressure containment purposes yet brass would be better for extraction purposes. The high brass being an indicator that the shell is loaded with a tall charge makes sense. I wouldn’t want to load a “tall” charge in a Damascus or welded wire barrel or a 1897 Winchester and high brass “indicators” signifying the hull is loaded with a more powerful charge as an indicator only. A burgundy turkey load indicating it’s a turkey load is only an indicator that that is what it is does not mean it’s high grade pressure resistant plastic it’s just color coded to show it’s a turkey load.
I love this, and I salute your scholarship. However, Lyman doesn't say high brass isn't stronger, it says, "don't worry about it, it doesn't matter", in more elegant language. To prove high brass is no stronger than low brass, you would have to perform a test that broke through both hulls under the same internal pressure. Lyman does not provide that data. Saying there is no need for high brass because the gun contains the charge is not the same as saying low brass is as strong as high brass. If you truly want to put this matter to rest, you would have to prove that plastic is as strong as brass. I don't see that here.
Makes you feel better when you pay 20 bucks for a box of shells. I can load 3/4 to 1 1/2 oz in a 2 3/4 12 gauge hull. Pressure has to remain with in a safe range no matter the load. Many 7/8 oz TH load s are higher pressure that heavy loads. But they all have to fall within the specifications.
The most important aspect for me is if the hull is unibody construction or compression formed type. That's the reason why use remington hulls or the old AA's ones. I throw away the newest AA crap plastic base wads winchester make these days.
Yes. And as a public service announcement I can attest from personal experience to the fact that Federal hulls with fiber base wads should only be reloaded once and tossed. I've had several that I've reloaded twice and experienced base wad separation.
I'd like to make a very important distinction. As a loader you know (and thank you for citing your sources) that the high brass is not necessary for higher power loads. Not anymore anyway. You also state, and we all more or less know, that manufacturers use the height of the brass base to distinguish a hotter or more powerful load. Some may conflate the two circumstances as the same thing. A high brass base is not necessarily indicative of a more powerful load in hand loaded shells, or even in factory ammo, BUT it most likely is an indicator in factory ammo. If you have a factory shell in your hand, and the base is low, that shell will most likely be low power. Likewise a high brass base is most likely a more powerful shell. The brass, like the hull color, is a pretty good indicator of what you have. Necessity does not always drive reality.
Wow!! This is a shocker of a revelation!! "...and the truth will set you free" lol For the first time ever, I feel confident about reloading 1oz slugs in low brass hulls and letting them wizz at 1500 fps :) not to even mention all low brass target shot shells waiting for some heavy slugs to be pushed in. Thank you for this video, thank you truckloads :)
Well that ends my concerns, i have loads of hulls from the local trap range but have plenty of sporting loads on hand, might aswell put those hulls to use and make some buck for punching holes in junk in the desert
Ejection problems was the only reason for high brass shells. If they only made low brass shells half of gun owners wouldn’t be able to use them in there shotguns. Point being my 1148 Remington automatic wont eject low brass shells. So you make high brass shells and you can sell to the whole population.
Great video.....But I have a question as a newbie. Would brass height make a differance if you used a black powder substitute such as Pyrodex? Also, I would love to see a video using blackpowder substitute such as Pyrodex (or something else that you personally would use) Like I said, I'm a newbie :) Ya gatta start somewhere
Then why are my high brass better than 2 1/2 inch shells and have more recoil I've patterned both of them and the 3 inch high brass is clearly the winner in my book they work better on game and target shooting than the 2 1/2 in shells
Proof is in shooting both hi and low. Not history lessons. Hi brass most likely holds the plastic from expanding and squeezing itself upon firing and openening up in the chamber as much as low brass does. So it's smoother. I myself don't have issues in my Benelli m104 but new pumps do. Weak extractors, burring before the barrel Chambers etc. Not ballistics.
I have been hand loading shot shells for 50 years and a shot shell does not matter how it it is made the only purpose of it is to hold all the components together
I have tested this personally and highbrass will shoot further and go in deeper in a catalog that low brass I shoot doves a lot and high brass are better
I don't know what to tell you; your findings contradict those of every major shotshell reloading data and equipment manufacturer in North America. If you can prove it, I'd say write a reloading manual and cash in.
I am now the 13,666 viewer of this and was going to purchase a TON of high brass to shoot out of my double barrel. Appreciated of this sudden random insightful knowledge from the TH-cam Algorithm. Thanks for the knowledge my friend in arms!
Low works perfectly out of my O/U and always has. Guns like shells and literally everything else marketed to men is always pushing some new crap as being better. Most guys are very stupid and think the next best thing will help them kill more, driver faster, or attract more game.
Once in a while something new comes out that does improve things, but overall I can't fault your logic. I generally figure if something has existed for a hundred+ years, it's been pretty well perfected. I think a lot of folks would do well to remember that people have been taking animals with firearms for a long, long, lonnnnnnnng time, and using equipment a lot simpler than we have today.
Shotshells are built so strong. they do not even require a metal cup on its butt. Back in the 50s or 70s, Alcan and i believe winchester produced no brass hulls. But, nobody trusted them and no one bought them so they were manufatured with the brass cup.
There were a few companies that made 100% plastic hulls, as in every single part... I forget who but it could even have been one of the companies you mentioned.
12 ga plastic shells tested at ballistics products and the 12 ga from hell club can be run to 18,000 psi untill they stick deform and melt. Next 8 gauge industrial shotshells are 3 times thicker in plastic then 12 gauge anthing and can and are run up to 25,000 Psi before they stick deform or melt, next the 12 gauge from hell club (Rob Garnick) has run all 12 ga brass shell slug loads up to 65,000 psi in a giant BMG falling block action with fireformed 3.85'' long 12 ga BMG Brass with 1050 Grn slugs going 3,200 fps thats 23,875 Foot pounds of energy! etc. etc. in the end 12 ga 3.5'' are high base brass and give you more room in length because of there 3.5'' long cases and fit a longer progressive sabot wad collum which will give more speed! . THE ULTIMATE DANGEROUS GAME PLASTIC SHELL LOAD in 12 gauge that will work in a Modern Factory 3-1/2’’shotgun- take a empty primed Plastic hull Federal or Remington (don’t use Fiocchi shells they don’t seal as well) 3.5’’long + 60 grns of steel powder + (2) BPGS SEAL+ 1 FLEX SEAL+ ¼’’ cork+ RSS SABOT W/ 500 grn Hornady XTP bullet inserted into the SABOT, THEN ROLL CRIMPED WITH A ROLL CRIMPER AND A HAND DRILL FOR a PLASTIC SHELL! THAT’S IT! This will give you 2,650 +fps and 7,795 FOOT LBS OF ENERGY, The secret is the wad Column of seals, the harder it is pushed the better it seals to a point and you’re not engraving a bullet you’re slipping a plastic sabot down a bore making for super speed! All components can be purchased from ballistics products (This load is similar to the old 30-06 plastic SABOT loads that were 4,300-4,400 + FPS but can suffer with bad accuracy past 50 yards!) This load uses the same principle as the militaries 20mm Vulcan plastic Sabot rounds, It slips on plastic, not engraving metal on the lands of the bore creating less friction making for much higher speeds than normal
It could be a mix of both. I have often seen high end bird hunting loads and magnum loads share the same brass height. You'll never see cheap target ammo with anything but the shortest brass section they can get away with.
Okay. If you load your own ammo you can load however much you want. If you buy a low brass shell it's going to have less powder which means less strength. Me, sitting at my range right now can tell you that I'm getting a higher fps and recoil on high brass ammunition
Same people that believe the earth is flat. You think that paper thin piece of brass or brass plated steel will withstand 9,000+psi? Then what about the plastic or paper making up the the rest of the hull?
I actually disagree and oh boy do I have proof galore. High brass is a huge difference. I'm an alchemist shooter and my results are almost complete opposite of what you said. Let's collab because I don't mind being wrong
I've got to respond now even more since I just got heckled. None of the 13mm Brass you show in this video is considered High Brass, especially in the old days. High brass was higher, and even todays high brass is higher as well. Consider the .410, How many have you ever seen in a low brass? It's rare, very rare. Most 410's are loaded with volatile powder, and is mostly considered unstable. Precaution is a must. If low brass was safe, then why don't they load them all with it. At 3:58, causing *no ballistic differences* is not the same meaning as providing for greater safety. Also, you quote from books that are long out dated. Lyman also uses the same data from those in the 5th addition where the powder is still available. Lyman, and many other shotshell reloading manuals and other data show the use of wads that aren't even made for the shell they list it in. They show tapered wads being used in straight wall shells, and straight shell wads in tapered cases. When a tapered wad is used in a straight wall shell, the powder will go around the seal. When it comes time to shoot, you never know what will happen, all the way up to an exploding barrel. Yet they list them as safe. Testing conditions are not the same as actual conditions where a shell is moved and in and out of boxes and vests and getting shaken around moving powder past the seals each time. They also show and list many shells that cannot even be loaded with the components they have listed. This can cause shell rupture or even a bad discharge resulting in wad jamming in the barrel. Or again, worse. You cannot always go by what is printed in them as fact and safe loads. If one load is safe in one manual, then why isn't considered safe in another? Many of them produce higher pressures than listed as well. Do you even know how to check a shotgun shell for pressure signs? They are not like metallic, but they have pressure signs just as well. *Yet you consider them an expert?* Clearly you are ignorant on this subject. So excuse me while go shoot some 5.56 in my old .223 rifle. But I'll bet you believe that myth as well.
This is not a reloaders issue. Reloaders know this. Non reloaders are the ones who purchase high brass shells because they think they are better or whatever!
The Lyman shotshell reloading manual 5th edition has this information, chapter 3 page 23. Talks about low and high brass. This information in the video is correct.
I've been reloading for over 20 years and been studying a lot to. There is not visible problems using a low brass although if pick a once fired hull and put it in your shotgun, especially low brass, it'll fit in the chamber freely. That means that during the combustion the hull expanded because of the gases and it turned back almost close to its shape. The only reason because I believe that higher brass should perform a bit better is because when the combustion starts in a high brass the hull expands a little less keeping the gases behind the wad, when in a low brass the plastic expands a bit more letting the gases to go beside the wad losing performance. That's why, I believe, a lot of guys like to use tapered hulls like Winchester or Remington with a high base wad to keep those gases tight behind the wad. And those hull compare to other like Cheddite Fiocchi Federal have much more hard plastic which resist better to the expansions. I don't use Win or Rem I like my European stuff. But again there is not enough different to tell, it's just my personal preference.
I've been reloading and casting 30 years myself. Every hull ever made is going to expand to the inside diameter of the chamber regardless of construction. The over powder cup on the wad is designed to contain powder, combustion and pressure. That's why you should match the wad to the hull. Some wads(like Winchester pink, white and grey) are made for tapered hulls. Others(like Federal) are made for straight wall and cheddite hulls. Winchester wads can be used in SOME straight wall hulls resulting in a less than snug fit and you will get an insignificant amount of powder migration.
For reloaders, I doubt low brass shells withstand high pressure loads repeatedly without deforming over time and sticking in eject on doubles. As for the "debate" ...I dont think there is much of a debate in that issue. The real problem is how most factory loads are too heavy for most upland hunting
Hi John, I probably load 90% of my shells with low-brass and I can honestly say I've never had any problems with deformed heads or failures to eject from break-action guns. None of the literature I've referenced has ever mentioned it, either, but if you've experienced these issues I'd be interested to hear about them.
@@TATVCanada yeah I've had reloaded low brass shells stick in my over and under chamber. They still eject by hand they just don't fly out. I never thought the plastic would be a problem with a heavier charge and low brass shells so to that point I totally agree. I guess my only question that I'm a bit doubtful about is that manufacturers are only loading high brass or low brass for appearances. I doubt that because most hunters out there are not old enough to have shot paper shells. I don't know of any manufacturer loading the heavier charges in a low brass shell. Seems to me that there's got to be some reason in addition to marketing. The cost of the extra brass is actually significant at scale. Maybe not... But I think the real misnomer in shotshells is more to do with the need for heavier loads and a misunderstanding of what is an effective load for most upland game and small game. In my opinion most hunters shoot way too hot of a load. And I think pellet size is more important for knockdown power than velocity... For example... hard to kill birds like Hungarian partridge a number 6 shot with a lighter charge is going to do a lot better than the seven and a half "high brass".
Interesting; have you tried using MEC's supersizer with them? I wonder if maybe your sizing ring is worn? The main reason I think manufacturers still like to use high brass hulls for some loads isn't so much that people still remember paper hulls (you're quite right, I can't imagine many people do), but because they've come to be associated with 'magnum power' due to their prior use with paper hulls. To clarify, even if people don't remember why they were originally used, they're so used to seeing magnum shells in high brass, they just assume it's a power thing. In terms of the extra cost, again, I don't dispute your reasoning. Brass is definitely more expensive than plastic and low brass hulls must certainly be cheaper to make. Where it's worth their while is that high brass hulls are usually reserved for the more premium shells, which command a much higher price. You'll never see a 100 round bulk pack of high brass shells for clay busting, the margins are just too low. Take a look at the higher priced shells like slugs, or premium buck or birdshot though, where folks are paying $0.85-$1+ per round, and it starts to make sense. Those shells are way, way more profitable for the manufacturers, and if an extra half cent's worth of brass helps sell them, they're happy to pay it.
I've got a pretty good mix of low-recoil as well as max pressure loads, depending on what I'm using them for. When loading slugs with published data, I almost always max them out. Buckshot I tend to load light (for quick followup shots), birdshot somewhere in the middle.
Still teaching 4 years later. Definitely thought high brass was special because thats what my dad would say they were more powerful. Then started to wonder what the deal was when most all modern shells being loaded with low brass and having high velocitys. Good to know the rest of the story and facts.
*I CHALLENGE YOU AND I HAVE PROOF!* At 2:49 you made a mistake. Powders often burn through shell hulls. I've experienced it many times, and i'm sure others have as well. I've had some shells that have burned up in the chambers. All it takes is a leaky brass/hull connection, or cracked hull. A higher brass section will divert more gases away from breech due to chamber seal, while a lower one seals above the brass with the hull and blows back to the breech. Higher brass also expands and helps hold in the chamber to prevent brass/hull separation and backward flowing gases. Now for the challenge. I reload steel and other shells that require somewhat of a brute force to make closure because of the components used. Low brass shells typically collapse under this pressure and create a bulge in the hull at the top of the brass. Therefore, I use high brass, and I mean as high as available to load these shells to prevent hull collapse. Therefore, high brass shells are stronger because they cover more of the hull area, and bring in a better safety factor. The strength in a shell isn't always about shooting them, it also includes loading them. Now, I challenge you to prove me wrong.
![Stuff You Should Know About Buckshot [Part 1]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/3haq5BFh7qs/mqdefault.jpg)
I'v been reloading 12 gauge slugs and 00 buck for years with low brass hulls with no problems what so ever .
Amen.
Thanks for the information!
Any impact on the overall lifespan for reloading low vs high brass? Just getting started w reloading, kind of overwhelmed by opinions
@@nicholashodges201 Usually you're safe to keep using them as long as they're not split, frayed and hold their crimp. I'll use shells probably 3-4 times before hucking em just because I had a weird experience where the entire hull came apart from the brass rim and since then I wanted to avoid some sort of catastrophic failure in the future.
What about feeding and extraction?
I think some of it comes down to tradition as well, manufactures seem to use high brass hulls on their magnum or more expensive hunting loads because as you said, the old paper magnum hulls used high brass. I think they also look more expensive/higher quality when the brass is taller.
Good Video and great info, Thanks
Marketing definitely plays a big part in shotshells as they're so hard to differentiate from competing brands.
Only problem with low brass is it tends to fail to eject more than high brass. I have a basic Mossberg and it runs through either just fine. I have a friend with a Stevens, another with a Benelli and both have problems with low brass ejection.
I have a Fabarm OU that won't eject low brass
VR60 won't feed low brass. The plastic bulges. Both brass hold the plastic, but at different LENGTHS. Therefore equating to different bulge drag outcomes. If the plastic wouldn't bulge, all these guns would feed.
@@gu1l7y5p4rkfiles You hit the nail on the head for why high brass shells are better and stronger. Stronger by sense they provide safety and chamber grip that will release, whereas a low brass does not do this.
However, I've seen a lot of low brass that is not sized right (crimped against the hull) and will not feed because the top of it hits the chamber and stops the feeding. You may want to look and see if this is what's happening.
100%FACTS!👍👍👍
Great video, well done and looks like you've done your research. We need more quality videos like yours in our reloading community.👍👍
Much appreciated!
Do high brass rounds cycle better in semi auto shotguns?
It really seems to depend on the shotgun. I've never noticed a difference on either of mine, but I only own 2 semi-autos.
YES!
I have loaded shotgun for years, Most of what I have used was low brass, just the way things turned out. Never have noticed a change in powder weight depending on high or low.
Weight of shot is what denotes powder charge not high or low brass.
my 1100 just refuses to cycle low brass but i will feed my side x side low brass all day
i feel its deformation after firing if you got an idea on what i can do to fix it i would love to stop pampering my 1100 on prem ammo
I notice on my pump shotgun if I like use low brass shell and rapid fire the low shell will jammed on me and I have to like wait the shell to cool down before I can extract it but if i rapid the fire high brass once it want jam on me I dont no! I’ve just start noticing it now
YEP!💥👍👍👍
I love high brass shells for their look. I'll let the low brass shells sit on the ground at the range (They collect and sell or scrap used brass off the ground), but I retrieve all my very high brass shells. I just really like the way thay look.
Yeah they are pretty cool-looking, no argument there.
95 percent of them are not brass but brass plated steel.
How stupid
@@jungleno. what ? Thanks for the info I thought they were brass as well I just bought my first firearm that is a savage 320 security
I think I still have some paper hi brass shells in my safe. Always wondered what the difference was. I never felt an increase in recoil shooting either out of my old single shot.
Never knew it was a strength argument…I always heard high brass would cycle more reliably than low brass in a semiautomatic…my great grandfathers browning light 12 would only cycle high brass
The cycling thing isn't something I've done a whole lot of testing on as I don't own any seni*auto shotguns. I know some law enforcement services have actually moved away from SA shotguns to pump action for this reason, but it had to more to charges/pressures.
I know this is going to be debated. But in older A5 actions the high brass cycles reliably but if you have low brass there’s not enough for the extractor to grab to hold the shell to pull it tight to the bolt
You have to adjust the rings on the recoil spring to cycle low brass on the old A5’s. TH-cam search or google will explain it.
@@rifleman522 I’m continuing to argue as a 60 year old friction ring doesn’t do it’s job correctly. I collect Ithaca model 900 ( better designed a5 ) and if the friction rings are wore no dice
Hello, I am new to shotshell but have reloaded rifle and pistol for years. So what the information states is that no matter the brass height it is possible to load magnums in either one
Correct.
I remember the transition from paper to plastic. I always associated high brass with Buck, Slugs and magnum shells. It carried over into the plastic shells. When I started reloading is when I found that there is no difference other than the height of the brass. And like you demonstrated, I learned that with my Lyman Manuel. I was a little shocked at first because it was just something I always believed. I was also relieved to find that as long as the hull is sound, I could load what ever I needed regardless of the brass.
You have to tip your hat to the marketing folks; they've done a great job raising us to believe the hype.
Huh. I was kind of wondering about this, looking among various shotgun shells I have lying around. I'm not a reloader (not yet, anyway, one of these days I'd love to learn it, though), but the one thing I have been aware of hulls-wise is apparently reloaders hate steel vs brass, because it's much harder to work with, and rusts, but manufacturers commonly substitute it for brass because it's cheaper.
The only actual thing high brass hulls DO have, I guess, is that there's a lot of brass, therefor...more valuable? By a marginal amount, anyway?
I guess; the work required to separate the brass from the rest of the hull for recycling makes it pretty low profit I imagine. The spent primers would need to be removed, plus the plastic tube and basewad removed. I'm sure there are machines that shred them up for that purpose but I can't imagine a backyard scrapper making much off it.
Set an empty one of each on a board and shoot each 3/4 of an Inc. up with a bb gun I assure you the high brass is stronger, doesn't necessarily mean it performs different just that it's stronger, also they're not brass they're brass plated steel
This video is spot on with it's conclusions. The idea that high brass was "better, stronger, faster, more powerful" does indeed come from the paper hull era.
I only have one issue - namely that the high brass, low brass issue is referred to as a myth. It WASN'T a "myth" during the era of the paper hulls. During the paper hull era, the high brass/low brass issue was real. The fact that plastic hulls nullified everything doesn't make the original understanding a myth, merely an outdated one.
One could argue that high brass shells have more cost put into them and more mass, which might lead to less splitting of the brass sections after numerous reloads, but I have seem plenty of high brass split as well. Just not as many separated heads as low brass. Just my experience.
all i know is my remington 1100 will not cycle low brass for shit
my thought is it deforms somehow but i have no idea but i have found the longer the brass the smoother and easier the ejections
i have also found that steel caps dont cycle good either regardless of the length
i honestly think the best part about high brass is more uniformity
Some won't, that's absolutely a valid concern.
Get rid of that 1100
@@garysh3580 why would i do that its a good gun just needs tuned and im not the guy to do it
Why does my semi auto 12 only function with hi brass ? Powder ?
I couldn't really say without seeing it. I'd try several different brands of ammo if I were you. A lot of folks gravitate towards the budget-friendly bulk shells in 100 packs (which is fine), but they don't always have enough power to cycle SA.
Junk gun
Thank you for your perfect answer!!
My pleasure.
I always wondered about this. Just getting into reloading 12 gauge, so happy to learn. Thanks
My pleasure.
I’m not saying you’re wrong and it makes total sense... but why does the manual on my Kel-Tec KSG 12 gauge say recommended high brass only? I’m guessing for chambering the round easier?
I've heard anecdotes about some guns extracting shells more reliably but again, I've never witnessed it for myself or been able to duplicate it in testing. Ironically I own a KSG myself and use almost exclusively low-brass without issue.
Great presentation. On the subject of Shot Shells, why do they call Shells 2.75 inch, when they really are 2.50 inches long? Same with 3 inch shells they are 2.75 inches long.
That's an excellent question. The reason is hulls are measured prior to crimping. So if you take a fired hull and measure it, you'll see its 2.75, etc. This is also why not every brand of shells is the same "loaded" height; even though the hull is 2.75, different manufacturers will crimp them to slightly different heights.
@@TATVCanada Thanks for the info.
So, you don't have to keep the power below the brass line?
Nope! Just follow your load recipe and you'll be just fine.
Although you speak in millennial and I don’t understand it great job. Very well thought out
I'm not a millennial but thanks all the same ha ha.
I reload and use high brass for magnum loads low brass for lower power. I also use different colors for different things. Red for buckshot, orange for slugs and I have not decided what to use for birdshot because this year is the first year I'm bird hunting and I've only ever used birdshot for plinking so I just buy ammo for that
So you're saying I don't have to load low brass in my old double barrel shotgun?
Not familiar with your gun of course, but it should accept any shell that meets SAAMI specs.
The original Winchester AA hulls, which are low brass, ( actually brass or cadmium plated steel, as are most ) are as strong as any ever made. When they were introduced, it was demonstrated that the only reason for the brass head was to give the extractor something stronger than a plastic rim to grip, other than that, strength wise it was totally unnecessary, and could be loaded with the heaviest dram equivalent powder and shot loads in use.
I think you mean Chrome plated. Cadmium is toxic.
@@jungleno. So is gunpowder, but cadmium plating is used on hundreds of everyday products, including shotgun shells, bolts and nuts. They kinda expect people to have enough brains not to injest it.
Unlike most days, I think I learned something today. Thanks
Glad to hear you found it useful.
Seems to me like the best way to put this to rest would be to reload a batch of 25 to 50 magnum-powered slug or 00 buckshot loads on low-brass hulls and shoot them and reload them a bunch of times and show pictures of the hulls after each firing.
100%FACTS!👏👏👍👍👍
Thanks for stating the facts over fiction! Not sure why BPI offers both 8 mm and 16 mm brass, but in either case you can't get any of their FIOOCHI or CHEDDITE hulls in either size! Very frustrating!
Awesome video just started loading for shotgun good information to know way to back up your claims with facts. That's one thing Iv learned after reloading is theres alot of myths and misconceptions people believe and pass along.
My god are there ever... If I had a dollar for every 'fact' someone passed on to me that turned out to be nonsense I'd be relaxing on a beach somewhere rather than making TH-cam videos ;)
in your reference to Lyman’s 5th edition quote regarding high/low brass not impacting ballistics; ballistics and strength of hull are two different things. Also, good researching requires multiple authentic and credible resources. I would agree that Lyman is very credible, requoting Lyman edition after edition doesn’t go far enough.
I quoted Lyman and Ballistic Products; it's also worth noting several of the different editions of Lyman's publication have employed different researchers and editors.
Buck an8r, If you've ever shot a muzzle loading rifle you'll notice that a Hull(or brass case) is not the critical component. The chamber contains the pressure.
I always thought that since buckshot and slugs had high brass that it was required.
Nope!
straight and to the point, just the way I like it and my question answered perfectly. Thank you.
My pleasure.
I finally found a video that precisely answered the question I was thinking of.
Glad to hear it.
Just because someone says it but NOT proves it with action😂😂😂
The main question you forgot to answer (or cover for that matter) is does it have the same amount of gun powder? I’m assuming by the fact that you said they have the same power that they should have the exact same gun powder. But you should probably I have covered it in the video that both have the same amount of gun powder; right?
No, you're missing the point of this comparison. We're not comparing commercially purchased loaded shells in high and low brass because no manufacturer (none that I'm aware of at least) produces the same ammo in both styles. They will be different loads. Instead we are comparing the hulls specifically, and the way they perform when loaded identically.
I don't buy into this at all just because of tests I've done myself in the field ... felt recoil .. effective killing distance etc ... same gun same brand same shot size and payload ... I've noticed more felt recoil from high brass shells of the same brand and shot size and Payload and had animals die instantly from a high brass shell but had to do follow up shots with low brass shells on the same type animal at the same distance .. so for me on those merits I find it somewhat hard to dispell that higher brass equals more power ... I've even cut them apart and weighed powder charges and there was more in the high brass then low .. and if there was no difference then why would anyone who stocks them both charge more for the high brass then the low brass by almost double...
You are totally missing the point of the video. When you buy new factory shells, yes manufacturers typically put higher velocity and shot weights in high brass shells. What he is saying is a high brass shell is not needed, you could put the same charge of powder in a low brass shell and be fine. This video is mainly for reloaders, is it safe to reload a hot buckshot load in a low brass shell.
I know when I shoot low brass the gun kicks a lot less than when I shoot high brass.
On American hulls it might make no difference but on foreign straight wall hulls I think there is a bit more support
weird,,,, i wonder why they kick harder thoo lol, i have shot ..
winchester low brass 12 gauge 2shot with 1 1/8 ozshot
and remington hi speed steel 2shot with 1 1/8 ozshot (high brass) both of them 2 3/4 inch shells, and the high brass kick so much harder
Well for one thing they're two different brands.
@@TATVCanada samething with the winchester super x high brass shells, (walmart) ,,, they kick alot harder then the low brass ones,,, but maybe its just me and im imagining it.
It really all depends on what they're loaded with. The hulls themselves are no stronger, but the powder charge can certainly be higher from shell to shell.
Why do we use brass at all if plastic is just as strong?
That's an excellent question! I think it comes down to the actual operation of the firearm/'cycling'. The brass is obviously much harder and holds up better to the extraction process in the firearm. Interestingly enough though, there actually are all-plastic hulls out there. I've never held one in my hand, but I've seen folks discussing and posting pictures of them online before.
The have been several all (or nearly all) plastic hulls out on the market at one time or another. The most successful were made by ACTIV.
www.ballisticproducts.com/bpi/articleindex/articles/activ_info1/activhulls.htm
ACTIV brand loaded shot shell were readily available from most of my local gunshops and "big box" stores in the 1980s. Reloading data was included in all of the popular reloading manuals at the time.
ACTIV shot shells came in a variety of loading, including buckshot and slugs. There was no functional difference between an ACTIV hull and a high brass hull from anyone else.
In my experience, ACTIV hulls reloaded with 1 1/8 oz of shot, to a velocity 1200 fps, would hold up just as well as the Remington unibody hulls or Winchester AAs. They were also very smooth cycling and I've personally never had a failure to extract from sticking in the chamber or from damaged rims.
Aside from the ACTIVs, there was also an all plastic hull called a Wanda.
(Sorry, no link, but if you google "Wanda shot shell," you'll find them. I have no experience with them, but if research a little, you'll find that they don't have a great reputation. I have a few fired examples in my collection and the plastic is very brittle. They used shot card instead of a fold crimp like the ACTIVs.
Thanks for covering the topic!
Its always funny when i show up to the duck blind with my buddies and uncase my over under .410, then i show them my tss loads ive made on 2.5" fiocchi hulls with a tiny 8mm brass height, and proceed to absolutely demolish ducks and gesse far beyond what thier 12ga shotguns firimg steel are capable of. It gets a LOT of funny looks. Needless to say, 4 out of 7 guys this fall also made the switch to shooting a .410 along side of me. Its a fun day.
What really matters is if it's a tapered hull, or one or two piece hull. Brass is just jewelry. Anyone remember the Activ brand shotshells? No external brass at all
I've heard of them but never had a chance to get my hands on any.
I exclusively reload the low brass dark grey Winchester AA hulls for 3 gun for my Stoeger M3k. Zero issues.
Those are actually my preferred hulls as well, though they're getting harder to come by.
All I can say is well done and thank you.
Much appreciated!
Idk.. Them low brass don't punch the old shoulder like high brass do... Sooo🤔
I left a few comments here to others responses, but I want add this because I just remembered it. I have a shogun that rips the brass off the end of a low brass hull when fired. This is due to having too much head space. However, when a high brass shell is shot through it, it never once has ever done that or even stretched the hull out of place. *That in itself shows the High brass shell is **_STRONGER_** than the low brass.* I think you're confusing power with strength. They are not the same thing. High brass shells are definitely stronger.
Activ and the Wanda company loaded a mostly plastic shell back in the day with no brass/steel head at all. I've loaded heavy 1-1/4 and 1-1/2 oz loads in the Activ shells with zero issues. I use those to dispel the high brass = more strength myth to people.
Very true!
Honestly its ridiculous the price difference. I went to fin feather and fur and picked up a box of Winchester super X #6 shot for squirrel and rabbit, low brass, 1255 fps. $11.99 for 25. Next to it was the same exact ammo but high brass and 1333 fps. $19.99 for 25! Im using a stevens 301 so honestly it will shoot anything, but that price difference is ridiculous
That's ludicrous.
You are right. It makes absolutely no difference. I use low brass bird shot brass to load a warn 12 pellet 00 buckshot load. Zero stress on the cases.
The customer expects to see high brass on high end shells. That's why it is there. Much in the same way you see flutes on plastic shells like the old paper ones. The customer expects to see it. Compression formed hulls need very little brass to work. Just enough for the extractor to get hold of. Paper base hulls need more to keep the hull from coming apart under pressure. Active and eclipse shells had no meatal base at all and worked just fine. One day you will see no brass at all on shotgun shells.
High brass shells will resist deformation in a box magazine better over time than low brass.
I’ve been thinking about those all plastic no brass shells I used to see scattered all over the ground as a kid. I’ve not seen one in many years. It sorta proves the point that no brass is needed at all for pressure containment purposes yet brass would be better for extraction purposes. The high brass being an indicator that the shell is loaded with a tall charge makes sense. I wouldn’t want to load a “tall” charge in a Damascus or welded wire barrel or a 1897 Winchester and high brass “indicators” signifying the hull is loaded with a more powerful charge as an indicator only. A burgundy turkey load indicating it’s a turkey load is only an indicator that that is what it is does not mean it’s high grade pressure resistant plastic it’s just color coded to show it’s a turkey load.
there is a steel disk in the base
ballisticproducts.com/bpi/articleindex/articles/activ_info1/activhulls.htm
I love this, and I salute your scholarship. However, Lyman doesn't say high brass isn't stronger, it says, "don't worry about it, it doesn't matter", in more elegant language. To prove high brass is no stronger than low brass, you would have to perform a test that broke through both hulls under the same internal pressure. Lyman does not provide that data. Saying there is no need for high brass because the gun contains the charge is not the same as saying low brass is as strong as high brass. If you truly want to put this matter to rest, you would have to prove that plastic is as strong as brass. I don't see that here.
Makes you feel better when you pay 20 bucks for a box of shells.
I can load 3/4 to 1 1/2 oz in a 2 3/4 12 gauge hull. Pressure has to remain with in a safe range no matter the load. Many 7/8 oz TH load s are higher pressure that heavy loads. But they all have to fall within the specifications.
The most important aspect for me is if the hull is unibody construction or compression formed type. That's the reason why use remington hulls or the old AA's ones. I throw away the newest AA crap plastic base wads winchester make these days.
Yes. And as a public service announcement I can attest from personal experience to the fact that Federal hulls with fiber base wads should only be reloaded once and tossed. I've had several that I've reloaded twice and experienced base wad separation.
I'd like to make a very important distinction.
As a loader you know (and thank you for citing your sources) that the high brass is not necessary for higher power loads. Not anymore anyway. You also state, and we all more or less know, that manufacturers use the height of the brass base to distinguish a hotter or more powerful load. Some may conflate the two circumstances as the same thing.
A high brass base is not necessarily indicative of a more powerful load in hand loaded shells, or even in factory ammo, BUT it most likely is an indicator in factory ammo. If you have a factory shell in your hand, and the base is low, that shell will most likely be low power. Likewise a high brass base is most likely a more powerful shell. The brass, like the hull color, is a pretty good indicator of what you have.
Necessity does not always drive reality.
Every double 00 buck shell Ive ever fired has been high brass, so its easy to make the assumption that high brass equals high power.
Wow!! This is a shocker of a revelation!! "...and the truth will set you free" lol
For the first time ever, I feel confident about reloading 1oz slugs in low brass hulls and letting them wizz at 1500 fps :) not to even mention all low brass target shot shells waiting for some heavy slugs to be pushed in. Thank you for this video, thank you truckloads :)
Glad you found it useful!
Well that ends my concerns, i have loads of hulls from the local trap range but have plenty of sporting loads on hand, might aswell put those hulls to use and make some buck for punching holes in junk in the desert
Waste not, want not!
Ejection problems was the only reason for high brass shells. If they only made low brass shells half of gun owners wouldn’t be able to use them in there shotguns. Point being my 1148 Remington automatic wont eject low brass shells. So you make high brass shells and you can sell to the whole population.
Great video.....But I have a question as a newbie. Would brass height make a differance if you used a black powder substitute such as Pyrodex? Also, I would love to see a video using blackpowder substitute such as Pyrodex (or something else that you personally would use) Like I said, I'm a newbie :) Ya gatta start somewhere
Nope; powder type makes no difference. I don't actually shoot black powder so I'm probably not the best person to provide information on Pyrodex.
Thanks, I never knew.
Glad you found it useful!
Then why are my high brass better than 2 1/2 inch shells and have more recoil I've patterned both of them and the 3 inch high brass is clearly the winner in my book they work better on game and target shooting than the 2 1/2 in shells
You should contact Lyman and BPI to let them know you've disproved all their findings.
You must like be bes in your meat or your a losey shot
So in Paper shells it matters, to protect the chamber from plasma burning.
I've been living a lie! O well, learn something new every day... liked
Glad you found it interesting.
Thank you for clearing it up
Glad to hear you found the video useful, thanks for the comment.
👏🏼👏🏼👏🏼 Everyone needs to watch this video!!
16mm vs 8mm brass height
Proof is in shooting both hi and low. Not history lessons. Hi brass most likely holds the plastic from expanding and squeezing itself upon firing and openening up in the chamber as much as low brass does. So it's smoother. I myself don't have issues in my Benelli m104 but new pumps do. Weak extractors, burring before the barrel Chambers etc. Not ballistics.
I have been hand loading shot shells for 50 years and a shot shell does not matter how it it is made the only purpose of it is to hold all the components together
Appreciate you sharing your insights with us; we have a lot to learn from folks like you.
Very informative. Thanks, man.
Glad you found it useful.
I have tested this personally and highbrass will shoot further and go in deeper in a catalog that low brass I shoot doves a lot and high brass are better
I don't know what to tell you; your findings contradict those of every major shotshell reloading data and equipment manufacturer in North America. If you can prove it, I'd say write a reloading manual and cash in.
Palmer's Guns & Gear do you also think the Earth is flat?
i agreed . low brass doesn’t have enough recoil to cycle semi auto shotguns but with high brass those are work great
That is a powder / load charge difference, not a height of brass difference.
Some cheap hulls won’t fit another primer after being de primed but yeah you’ll be fine with most. Thanks for the upload.
I haven't really encountered that, although I know it's a problem with a lot of European hulls when mixed with north American primers.
Yep.. I ran into problems with fiocci.
Jesten Aguirre, Use Cheddite, Fiocchi or Rio primers and you won't have that problem.
Cheddite can be substituted for Winchester.
@@jungleno. thanks bud
I am now the 13,666 viewer of this and was going to purchase a TON of high brass to shoot out of my double barrel.
Appreciated of this sudden random insightful knowledge from the TH-cam Algorithm.
Thanks for the knowledge my friend in arms!
While the info in this video is, I believe, mostly accurate. You still might want to stick with high brass for cycling/reliability reasons.
Glad you found it useful.
13.. 666... TON...... she dyes em Black Black Black Bkack Number 1? Hahaha ;)
Thanks for info!
Low works perfectly out of my O/U and always has. Guns like shells and literally everything else marketed to men is always pushing some new crap as being better. Most guys are very stupid and think the next best thing will help them kill more, driver faster, or attract more game.
Once in a while something new comes out that does improve things, but overall I can't fault your logic. I generally figure if something has existed for a hundred+ years, it's been pretty well perfected. I think a lot of folks would do well to remember that people have been taking animals with firearms for a long, long, lonnnnnnnng time, and using equipment a lot simpler than we have today.
Marketing, if the customer thinks high brass is more powerful, give them high brass and charge more.
Shotshells are built so strong. they do not even require a metal cup on its butt. Back in the 50s or 70s, Alcan and i believe winchester produced no brass hulls. But, nobody trusted them and no one bought them so they were manufatured with the brass cup.
There were a few companies that made 100% plastic hulls, as in every single part... I forget who but it could even have been one of the companies you mentioned.
12 ga plastic shells tested at ballistics products and the 12 ga from hell club can be run to 18,000 psi untill they stick deform and melt. Next 8 gauge industrial shotshells are 3 times thicker in plastic then 12 gauge anthing and can and are run up to 25,000 Psi before they stick deform or melt, next the 12 gauge from hell club (Rob Garnick) has run all 12 ga brass shell slug loads up to 65,000 psi in a giant BMG falling block action with fireformed 3.85'' long 12 ga BMG Brass with 1050 Grn slugs going 3,200 fps thats 23,875 Foot pounds of energy! etc. etc. in the end 12 ga 3.5'' are high base brass and give you more room in length because of there 3.5'' long cases and fit a longer progressive sabot wad collum which will give more speed!
.
THE ULTIMATE DANGEROUS GAME PLASTIC SHELL LOAD in 12 gauge that will work in a Modern Factory 3-1/2’’shotgun- take a empty primed Plastic hull Federal or Remington (don’t use Fiocchi shells they don’t seal as well) 3.5’’long + 60 grns of steel powder + (2) BPGS SEAL+ 1 FLEX SEAL+ ¼’’ cork+ RSS SABOT W/ 500 grn Hornady XTP bullet inserted into the SABOT, THEN ROLL CRIMPED WITH A ROLL CRIMPER AND A HAND DRILL FOR a PLASTIC SHELL! THAT’S IT! This will give you 2,650 +fps and 7,795 FOOT LBS OF ENERGY, The secret is the wad Column of seals, the
harder it is pushed the better it seals to a point and you’re not engraving a bullet you’re
slipping a plastic sabot down a bore making for super speed! All components can
be purchased from ballistics products (This
load is similar to the old 30-06 plastic SABOT loads that were 4,300-4,400 + FPS but can suffer with
bad accuracy past 50 yards!) This load uses the same principle as the
militaries 20mm Vulcan plastic Sabot rounds, It slips on plastic, not engraving
metal on the lands of the bore creating less friction making for much higher
speeds than normal
He is correct. You will ware out the crimp or loose the hull before any other part wares out.
I’ve never really thought high brass was more powerful. I’ve always considered high brass rounds better quality and most are a little more expensive.
It could be a mix of both. I have often seen high end bird hunting loads and magnum loads share the same brass height. You'll never see cheap target ammo with anything but the shortest brass section they can get away with.
Guess you thought wrong
@@garysh3580 yep always learning……but quality does vary.
Okay. If you load your own ammo you can load however much you want. If you buy a low brass shell it's going to have less powder which means less strength. Me, sitting at my range right now can tell you that I'm getting a higher fps and recoil on high brass ammunition
But the fact that people believe using a higher brass when loading their ammunition makes it stronger is mind blowing. People are so dumb
well sead and thank you.
Same people that believe the earth is flat. You think that paper thin piece of brass or brass plated steel will withstand 9,000+psi? Then what about the plastic or paper making up the the rest of the hull?
Lol bet this guy will never lose an argument
I won't challenge you bro
I actually disagree and oh boy do I have proof galore. High brass is a huge difference. I'm an alchemist shooter and my results are almost complete opposite of what you said. Let's collab because I don't mind being wrong
Well...where's your proof?
I've reloaded and shot hundreds of both 00 buck and slugs on low brass straight wall and tapered hulls with no problem.
I've got to respond now even more since I just got heckled. None of the 13mm Brass you show in this video is considered High Brass, especially in the old days. High brass was higher, and even todays high brass is higher as well. Consider the .410, How many have you ever seen in a low brass? It's rare, very rare. Most 410's are loaded with volatile powder, and is mostly considered unstable. Precaution is a must. If low brass was safe, then why don't they load them all with it.
At 3:58, causing *no ballistic differences* is not the same meaning as providing for greater safety.
Also, you quote from books that are long out dated. Lyman also uses the same data from those in the 5th addition where the powder is still available. Lyman, and many other shotshell reloading manuals and other data show the use of wads that aren't even made for the shell they list it in. They show tapered wads being used in straight wall shells, and straight shell wads in tapered cases.
When a tapered wad is used in a straight wall shell, the powder will go around the seal. When it comes time to shoot, you never know what will happen, all the way up to an exploding barrel. Yet they list them as safe. Testing conditions are not the same as actual conditions where a shell is moved and in and out of boxes and vests and getting shaken around moving powder past the seals each time.
They also show and list many shells that cannot even be loaded with the components they have listed. This can cause shell rupture or even a bad discharge resulting in wad jamming in the barrel. Or again, worse.
You cannot always go by what is printed in them as fact and safe loads. If one load is safe in one manual, then why isn't considered safe in another? Many of them produce higher pressures than listed as well. Do you even know how to check a shotgun shell for pressure signs? They are not like metallic, but they have pressure signs just as well.
*Yet you consider them an expert?*
Clearly you are ignorant on this subject.
So excuse me while go shoot some 5.56 in my old .223 rifle. But I'll bet you believe that myth as well.
This is not a reloaders issue. Reloaders know this. Non reloaders are the ones who purchase high brass shells because they think they are better or whatever!
The Lyman shotshell reloading manual 5th edition has this information, chapter 3 page 23. Talks about low and high brass. This information in the video is correct.
I've been reloading for over 20 years and been studying a lot to. There is not visible problems using a low brass although if pick a once fired hull and put it in your shotgun, especially low brass, it'll fit in the chamber freely. That means that during the combustion the hull expanded because of the gases and it turned back almost close to its shape. The only reason because I believe that higher brass should perform a bit better is because when the combustion starts in a high brass the hull expands a little less keeping the gases behind the wad, when in a low brass the plastic expands a bit more letting the gases to go beside the wad losing performance. That's why, I believe, a lot of guys like to use tapered hulls like Winchester or Remington with a high base wad to keep those gases tight behind the wad. And those hull compare to other like Cheddite Fiocchi Federal have much more hard plastic which resist better to the expansions. I don't use Win or Rem I like my European stuff. But again there is not enough different to tell, it's just my personal preference.
I've been reloading and casting 30 years myself. Every hull ever made is going to expand to the inside diameter of the chamber regardless of construction.
The over powder cup on the wad is designed to contain powder, combustion and pressure. That's why you should match the wad to the hull. Some wads(like Winchester pink, white and grey) are made for tapered hulls. Others(like Federal) are made for straight wall and cheddite hulls. Winchester wads can be used in SOME straight wall hulls resulting in a less than snug fit and you will get an insignificant amount of powder migration.
For reloaders, I doubt low brass shells withstand high pressure loads repeatedly without deforming over time and sticking in eject on doubles. As for the "debate" ...I dont think there is much of a debate in that issue. The real problem is how most factory loads are too heavy for most upland hunting
Hi John, I probably load 90% of my shells with low-brass and I can honestly say I've never had any problems with deformed heads or failures to eject from break-action guns. None of the literature I've referenced has ever mentioned it, either, but if you've experienced these issues I'd be interested to hear about them.
@@TATVCanada yeah I've had reloaded low brass shells stick in my over and under chamber. They still eject by hand they just don't fly out. I never thought the plastic would be a problem with a heavier charge and low brass shells so to that point I totally agree. I guess my only question that I'm a bit doubtful about is that manufacturers are only loading high brass or low brass for appearances. I doubt that because most hunters out there are not old enough to have shot paper shells. I don't know of any manufacturer loading the heavier charges in a low brass shell. Seems to me that there's got to be some reason in addition to marketing. The cost of the extra brass is actually significant at scale. Maybe not... But I think the real misnomer in shotshells is more to do with the need for heavier loads and a misunderstanding of what is an effective load for most upland game and small game. In my opinion most hunters shoot way too hot of a load. And I think pellet size is more important for knockdown power than velocity... For example... hard to kill birds like Hungarian partridge a number 6 shot with a lighter charge is going to do a lot better than the seven and a half "high brass".
@@TATVCanada but are you reloading with hotter powder charges?
Interesting; have you tried using MEC's supersizer with them? I wonder if maybe your sizing ring is worn?
The main reason I think manufacturers still like to use high brass hulls for some loads isn't so much that people still remember paper hulls (you're quite right, I can't imagine many people do), but because they've come to be associated with 'magnum power' due to their prior use with paper hulls. To clarify, even if people don't remember why they were originally used, they're so used to seeing magnum shells in high brass, they just assume it's a power thing.
In terms of the extra cost, again, I don't dispute your reasoning. Brass is definitely more expensive than plastic and low brass hulls must certainly be cheaper to make. Where it's worth their while is that high brass hulls are usually reserved for the more premium shells, which command a much higher price. You'll never see a 100 round bulk pack of high brass shells for clay busting, the margins are just too low. Take a look at the higher priced shells like slugs, or premium buck or birdshot though, where folks are paying $0.85-$1+ per round, and it starts to make sense. Those shells are way, way more profitable for the manufacturers, and if an extra half cent's worth of brass helps sell them, they're happy to pay it.
I've got a pretty good mix of low-recoil as well as max pressure loads, depending on what I'm using them for. When loading slugs with published data, I almost always max them out. Buckshot I tend to load light (for quick followup shots), birdshot somewhere in the middle.
Interesting
Still teaching 4 years later. Definitely thought high brass was special because thats what my dad would say they were more powerful. Then started to wonder what the deal was when most all modern shells being loaded with low brass and having high velocitys. Good to know the rest of the story and facts.
Well that answered my question
Glad to hear it.
*I CHALLENGE YOU AND I HAVE PROOF!* At 2:49 you made a mistake. Powders often burn through shell hulls. I've experienced it many times, and i'm sure others have as well. I've had some shells that have burned up in the chambers. All it takes is a leaky brass/hull connection, or cracked hull. A higher brass section will divert more gases away from breech due to chamber seal, while a lower one seals above the brass with the hull and blows back to the breech. Higher brass also expands and helps hold in the chamber to prevent brass/hull separation and backward flowing gases.
Now for the challenge. I reload steel and other shells that require somewhat of a brute force to make closure because of the components used. Low brass shells typically collapse under this pressure and create a bulge in the hull at the top of the brass. Therefore, I use high brass, and I mean as high as available to load these shells to prevent hull collapse.
Therefore, high brass shells are stronger because they cover more of the hull area, and bring in a better safety factor. The strength in a shell isn't always about shooting them, it also includes loading them.
Now, I challenge you to prove me wrong.