09-24-2022, 11:52 AM
Guys,
I've been reading this thread, and, while neither lover nor hater of Lapua, do not see this as some kind of endemic example of that brass' behavior. Matter of fact, 1 failure in this guy's rifle would not point, IMO, to the rifle itself either. If either the rifle or the brass were some kind of cause, I would expect more than just one failure. And from what I can tell, any faint lines talked about in other cases would not be indicative either unless those lines are appearing in the same spot and orientation as the failed case. Is that the case?
From shooting safety's perspective, a so-called "proven load" is only "proven" insofar as it is one combination of several parts and variables. ANY time you change one of the components, you should back your charge down -- some kind of meaningful amount, and build back up.
Without more instances/evidence of case damage and case failures, I would class this as a single occurrence, and put most of the weight/cause on the individual case itself. Even in a quality mfr (and Lapua is at least, a quality mfr) can have single incidents of failures. Lze, if Lapua were a "bad" mfr or one that everyone should avoid, again I think in the world of competitive and recreational shooters, I would expect there to be a much higher percentage of problems reported... with the millions of grendel loads being shot, even a 1% -- or a 0.1% -- rate would provide literally hundreds of fails. And doubtless some industry and mfr attention.
In my industry there are a few companies have a full-fledged metallurgy lab (others have access if they want it), and that kind of exam would be needed of this case in order to arrive at defendable conclusions.
You can steer clear of Lapua or any other mfr as you wish and no worries... but nothing on here that I've seen would sway me one way or the other. I don't have any Lapua and don't plan on getting any -- the cost/benefit is something I don't see in that brass for what I'm doing -- but I don't begrudge anyone else who thinks/acts differently on it. Only brass I have a negative view on is Federal in the grendel... and if I have some decent loads with it, I will shoot at unfired or 1x, it but it's too soft to keep in any kind of reloading rotation.
If you pit the flame/temperature/pressure of the powder against any brass, the brass will lose if the time in contact is long enough.
OP my advice to you is (and to any other newbies to this cartridge), like I stated earlier, when you change ANYTHING in your "proven" recipe, back off and build back up. Preferably over a chrono. This was your warning shot across the bow - take heed. The eyes/face/fingers you save will be your own. The rifle, with the new load combo in its chamber, does not care a whit about your opinions of your so-called "proven" load!!!
Never assume anything.
I've been reading this thread, and, while neither lover nor hater of Lapua, do not see this as some kind of endemic example of that brass' behavior. Matter of fact, 1 failure in this guy's rifle would not point, IMO, to the rifle itself either. If either the rifle or the brass were some kind of cause, I would expect more than just one failure. And from what I can tell, any faint lines talked about in other cases would not be indicative either unless those lines are appearing in the same spot and orientation as the failed case. Is that the case?
From shooting safety's perspective, a so-called "proven load" is only "proven" insofar as it is one combination of several parts and variables. ANY time you change one of the components, you should back your charge down -- some kind of meaningful amount, and build back up.
Without more instances/evidence of case damage and case failures, I would class this as a single occurrence, and put most of the weight/cause on the individual case itself. Even in a quality mfr (and Lapua is at least, a quality mfr) can have single incidents of failures. Lze, if Lapua were a "bad" mfr or one that everyone should avoid, again I think in the world of competitive and recreational shooters, I would expect there to be a much higher percentage of problems reported... with the millions of grendel loads being shot, even a 1% -- or a 0.1% -- rate would provide literally hundreds of fails. And doubtless some industry and mfr attention.
In my industry there are a few companies have a full-fledged metallurgy lab (others have access if they want it), and that kind of exam would be needed of this case in order to arrive at defendable conclusions.
You can steer clear of Lapua or any other mfr as you wish and no worries... but nothing on here that I've seen would sway me one way or the other. I don't have any Lapua and don't plan on getting any -- the cost/benefit is something I don't see in that brass for what I'm doing -- but I don't begrudge anyone else who thinks/acts differently on it. Only brass I have a negative view on is Federal in the grendel... and if I have some decent loads with it, I will shoot at unfired or 1x, it but it's too soft to keep in any kind of reloading rotation.
If you pit the flame/temperature/pressure of the powder against any brass, the brass will lose if the time in contact is long enough.
OP my advice to you is (and to any other newbies to this cartridge), like I stated earlier, when you change ANYTHING in your "proven" recipe, back off and build back up. Preferably over a chrono. This was your warning shot across the bow - take heed. The eyes/face/fingers you save will be your own. The rifle, with the new load combo in its chamber, does not care a whit about your opinions of your so-called "proven" load!!!
Never assume anything.
"Down the floor, out the door, Go Brandon Go!!!!!"