Okay I know it has been asked to death, but I have a new twist on the Question. What brass is best from an Economic perspective.
It seems that many feel that Norma and Lapua is considered some of the best, while Federal is considered some of the worst with Winchester and Remington somewhere in between. Now if loading for top accuracy cost is of little object, but for general hunting and target use how much does this matter especially when considering cost of brass. Can I load Norma or Lapua brass longer with out problems? Long enough to justifiy the increase in price? With fewer problems?
The reason for my Question is that I have been loading my 30-06 using Federal brass, reused from factory rounds. So far I have been happy, but am now thinking of getting some more brass unloaded. I am not against spending a little extra money but would like to know what I am getting for it. Since I got my Federal brass for what I considered zero cost and know of no way to determine a price I have left it out.
Using the 30-06 as an example brass cost per one web page are:
So my thought is this: Provided I don't have other problems I would like to get the most bang for my buck. By my figuring if I can load Remington or Winchester brass say 5 times without neck splits or annelling can I then load Lapua brass 14 times, to makeup for the cost difference? Suppose I anneal the necks on the Winchester or Remington brass every 3 loads and get say 10 loads, could I expect to get 28 loads from Lapua annealing in the same way? Both 14 and 28 loads sounds like a lot to me and is likely not reasonable, so I assume there is something else that is used to justify use of the more expenceive brass?
Sorry for the long post.