Armory Sponsor
Posted: 2/4/2010 6:49:33 PM EDT
|
Hello All,
Just got a delivery of FC Crimped brass that I ordered. Its all Federal, but with different headstamps. Can anyone tell me the difference in the markings? I know the numbers mean the year of production, but what would be the difference between FC 223 Rem & FC 08? Are there any years better than others? It seems that I have from 05 - 08 
|
|
Quoted: if the FC .223 is the newer stuff made in the last couple of years its GTG. the old commercial FC .223 brass with the large print is the stuff to stay away from. So I just went through the reloads I put together from a grab-bag of range brass a while back. I haven't shot any of them yet. There are about 30 or so pieces of FC brass I reloaded. 5 of them are the "older large print" FC .223. They all look good, no dents, primers firmly in pockets... I'm thinking I'll shoot them. Is there a good reason not to? BTW, all the "grab-bag" brass I reloaded will get left on the ground... I'm not buying a grab-bag of brass EVER again, too much pain... |
|
Quoted:
if the FC .223 is the newer stuff made in the last couple of years its GTG. the old commercial FC .223 brass with the large print is the stuff to stay away from. It must be the newer stuff. Have to use a magnifying glass to see the difference between 05,06 & 08's. The 08's are actually easier because the crimps are blue while the 05's & 06's are red. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
if the FC .223 is the newer stuff made in the last couple of years its GTG. the old commercial FC .223 brass with the large print is the stuff to stay away from. So I just went through the reloads I put together from a grab-bag of range brass a while back. I haven't shot any of them yet. There are about 30 or so pieces of FC brass I reloaded. 5 of them are the "older large print" FC .223. They all look good, no dents, primers firmly in pockets... I'm thinking I'll shoot them. Is there a good reason not to? BTW, all the "grab-bag" brass I reloaded will get left on the ground... I'm not buying a grab-bag of brass EVER again, too much pain... When in doubt with FC brass, it pays to measure the web. 
Weak web. Should be .185. 
Like LC brass. 
Not all webs are created equal. Look up in "Useful Threads" , my post in the FC cases thread for more info. |
|
Quoted: Thanks for the tip.Quoted: Quoted:––snip–– When in doubt with FC brass, it pays to measure the web. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg272/dryflash3/P4060138.jpg Weak web. Should be .185. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg272/dryflash3/P4060139.jpg Like LC brass. http://i250.photobucket.com/albums/gg272/dryflash3/P4060142.jpg Not all webs are created equal. Look up in "Useful Threads" , my post in the FC cases thread for more info. Well, I pulled them. The webs ranged (similar to your measurements) from 0.168 to 0.185. I've always thought it's better to toss out a piece of brass worth a few pennies than to blow up a rifle... so into the bin (or dummy round stash) they go... Edit: Ok, to be truthful, I pulled 4. The first one I forgot to put the collet into the puller and ended up pushing the bullet back into the case.... Now I have a case with a primer full of powder and a bullet floating about in it. anybody know how to get the bullet out without cutting the case apart and spraying powder everywhere?   |
|
Quoted:
Where can a I get a tool to measure the web? The whole story is up in Useful Threads, not going to retype it. 
Here is the Link, scroll down to my third post. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
Where can a I get a tool to measure the web? You need to make one. An old brass cleaning rod cut down to 2" works well. An improvement to the brass rod is hollow tubing, no hole to drill in the ends. Remember whatever you use, it must be able to fit inside the neck of a 223 case. Take a fired case with you when you go shopping. |
|
Where is it stated that there is something wrong with the thinner webs and they are not sufficiently thick? Is it just in comparison to something thicker and therefore deemed unsafe?
I have reloaded and shot thousands of rounds with this brass and never had a problem other than the primer pockets getting loose. No problem since I seat primers as a separate stage and cull out the loose ones. Yeah it sucks that you can spend all that time on prep and loose a few cases, sometimes 10% because of loose primer pockets. What I want to know is WHERE it is stated that there is a minimum safe thickness for the web for .223/5.56 brass and that in our day with lawyers and liability why Federal would ever let this so-called unsafe brass to ever hit the streets if they thought rifles would blow up in people's faces. I am not challenging anyone here, I want to know for my own piece of mind. In the meantime, send all your unwanted Federal brass are belong to me. 
ETA: Just to clarify, I am talking ONLY of the older, uncrimped Federal brass, both large and small font. The new crimped brass is GTG other than most of them being shorter than my trim length, 1.75. |
|
Quoted:
Where is it stated that there is something wrong with the thinner webs and they are not sufficiently thick? Is it just in comparison to something thicker and therefore deemed unsafe? I have reloaded and shot thousands of rounds with this brass and never had a problem other than the primer pockets getting loose. No problem since I seat primers as a separate stage and cull out the loose ones. Yeah it sucks that you can spend all that time on prep and loose a few cases, sometimes 10% because of loose primer pockets. What I want to know is WHERE it is stated that there is a minimum safe thickness for the web for .223/5.56 brass and that in our day with lawyers and liability why Federal would ever let this so-called unsafe brass to ever hit the streets if they thought rifles would blow up in people's faces.I am not challenging anyone here, I want to know for my own piece of mind. In the meantime, send all your unwanted Federal brass are belong to me. I think that all Federal needs to be concerned with is if it will work on the first firing. They aren't on the hook for what happens after that. |
|
Quoted:
Quoted:
I just used a Lee de-capping pin (put the back end in the case) and a pair of calipers.
Quoted:
Where can a I get a tool to measure the web? You need to make one. An old brass cleaning rod cut down to 2" works well. The burr on the flashole will throw off your measurement. You need holes in the end of the rod to go over the burr, or tubing. |
|
Quoted:
Pardon my ignorance, what actually is the web? Look at the pic of the LC case. It's the area between the steel rod and the bottom of the primer pocket. Is that the inside dimension of the mouth to the inside of the base? No. And why is the web's dimension so important? A member here had a case failure with a weak web blowing out in FC brass in his AR. After reading his post, I measured the webs on my FC cases. 
I had been shooting this brass in my 223 bolt rifle, and was stuck at 1" 5 shot groups @ 100 yds, lots of flyers. Not all of them were me. When I switched to brass that had constintant webs, the flyers quit. Thicker base? |
|
Quoted:
Where is it stated that there is something wrong with the thinner webs and they are not sufficiently thick? Is it just in comparison to something thicker and therefore deemed unsafe? I have reloaded and shot thousands of rounds with this brass and never had a problem other than the primer pockets getting loose. No problem since I seat primers as a separate stage and cull out the loose ones. Yeah it sucks that you can spend all that time on prep and loose a few cases, sometimes 10% because of loose primer pockets. What I want to know is WHERE it is stated that there is a minimum safe thickness for the web for .223/5.56 brass and that in our day with lawyers and liability why Federal would ever let this so-called unsafe brass to ever hit the streets if they thought rifles would blow up in people's faces. I am not challenging anyone here, I want to know for my own piece of mind. In the meantime, send all your unwanted Federal brass are belong to me. Read the link I posted, my reasons are stated there. Feel free to disregard if you like. |
|
Just to add to to the confusion, I just picked up a 2500 piece lot of FC 223 with crimped primers, no date code. While I did not measure every case I took about 100 random samples and all of the webs measured from .184 to .200. This came off a police range and was of recent production. I inquired as to the packaging and it was unknown.
There appears to have been a change in the more recent FC cases, for the better. The only anomaly I noticed on the head stamps was that some were simply marked 223 Rem and others were marked 223 . Rem. The ones with the dot were the ticker cases. The font was small style on all the brass. |
|
I should have posted this in here, but I'm catching up on reading the forum and hadn't seen this thread yet....
I grabbed a bunch of .223 from the floor on a recent range trip. 120 of them turned out to be FC headstamps. There were a few FC 08 headstamps, but most were FC 223 REM. Following the post by dryflash3 about KiethJ's measurement technique, I measured all of them to see if they were safe to reload. Here are the results: All were over .185". In fact most were over .190, with a few around .188 and .189. The minimum was .188 and the maximum was .220(!). 19 were over .200. I separated these and am undecided about whether to load them. I weighed a few sample cases from both the over and under .200 piles and the weights were around 92 grains. I'll probably weigh more before I decide. Given past discussions about FC headstamps I was pleased to see that they were all ok.After reading the dryflash3's post above, I didn't have a hole in the end of rod, so this might have thrown it off. DISCLAIMER: These results apply only to the cases I measured. I have no way of knowing the date of manufacture of these cases. |
|
Quoted:
I should have posted this in here, but I'm catching up on reading the forum and hadn't seen this thread yet.... I grabbed a bunch of .223 from the floor on a recent range trip. 120 of them turned out to be FC headstamps. There were a few FC 08 headstamps, but most were FC 223 REM. Following the post by dryflash3 about KiethJ's measurement technique, I measured all of them to see if they were safe to reload. Here are the results: All were over .185". In fact most were over .190, with a few around .188 and .189. The minimum was .188 and the maximum was .220(!). 19 were over .200. I separated these and am undecided about whether to load them. I weighed a few sample cases from both the over and under .200 piles and the weights were around 92 grains. I'll probably weigh more before I decide. Given past discussions about FC headstamps I was pleased to see that they were all ok.After reading the dryflash3's post above, I didn't have a hole in the end of rod, so this might have thrown it off. DISCLAIMER: These results apply only to the cases I measured. I have no way of knowing the date of manufacture of these cases. I have some PMP cases that have a very thick web .205 to .210. I load these 2 full grains less than LC or Win cases. (webs right at .185) Work up slowly with those .220 web cases. |
|
Quoted: Yeah, I have one... but...Quoted: anybody know how to get the bullet out without cutting the case apart and spraying powder everywhere? Get a kinetic bullet puller. The .223 collet for it is worn out and Cabelas doesn't appear to sell replacement collets. I should call them about it, but I've got a forster pulling die and I'm lazy... I ended up pulling it with a pair of pliers... |
|
Quoted:
Here are the results: All were over .185". In fact most were over .190, with a few around .188 and .189. The minimum was .188 and the maximum was .220(!). Given past discussions about FC headstamps I was pleased to see that they were all ok.After reading the dryflash3's post above, I didn't have a hole in the end of rod, so this might have thrown it off. Ditto here- I just measured a bunch of Wal-Mart Federal .223 that I've shot over the past month (100 round 55 FMJ box). My measuring rod DOES have a hole, plus I always uniform my flash holes the first time I work over brass. ALL of my large sample of Federal had a web size of .192" or above. I would say this is recent manufacture, given that it comes and goes at Wal-Mart. The other benefit of Federal is they start out short- 1.740" or there-abouts, so they don't require trimming for at least a couple reloads. I'm going to closely track how many reloads I get out of this stuff- I still suspect the primer cups will loosen before anything else. |
Armory Sponsor