Cost not an issue, which is the better brass in 9.3x62 caliber only.
RWS or Lapua?

Allen

Allen,

Folks don't appear to falling all over themselves to give up an answer on this one.....

For my $0.02 worth I CANNOT comment on Lapua since I've never used it although from what's been said here appears that those who select Lapua brass for whatever cartridge are well pleased with it.

In my 9.3x62 I've used RWS, Norma and Geco brass and connot tell any difference between the three. All have provided great case longevity but to qualify that I don't push the evelope much with this (or any other) cartridge case for that matter. Right about 2300+ fps is the magic ticket for this cartridge and 250 grain bullets for my way of thinking.

Some of my 9.3x62 brass has been loaded so many times it leaves me scratching my head (some - up to 8 x's) without loose primer pockets and no other apparent signs of case issues, the RWS included but I take great pains to ensure Shellholder, Dies & OAL are adjusted to chamber of my Boomer.

Thanks Gerry,

Yes, this this dose not seem to be a hot toppic I guess.

Allen

I looked at the question but couldn't figure out why there would be a difference in brass that would only pertain to one specific cartridge.

I like the uniformity and quality of Lapua brass for match ammo but I don't know why the specific 9.3x62 brass would be different from any other chambering.

Have only used Lapua brass in 7.62x39mm, but I am using RWS in all my 9.3x62mm and .270 WCF handloads I am taking to South Africa next month. RWS seems to be the best, but you pay for it.

Fjold,
I guess I should have explainded more.

I remember reading about someone having trouble with Lapua or RWS in one caliber in particular. I thought it was in 9.3x62. The case mouths were very thin or something.

It was unusual as the brand of brass (I can't rember which one) was known for very high quality and it was only in that one caliber as having the problem.

Maybe my memory is what is bad !

Allen

I'm not going to comment on 9.3x62 brass, but I will make a comment about RWS and Lapua brass in general.

It is not unheard of, to have either Lapua or RWS brass to be a tad heavy in dimensions either on the rim or the groove. Either may cause the brass not to fit a standard (in your case .30-06 size) shell-holder. Sometimes you can fix this by using a slightly larger shell-holder - e.g. one dimensioned for the 6.5x55.

Other than that, normally both Lapua and RWS make excellent brass. I have never experienced either brass with thin case mouths.

If it was me, and given that the Lapua brass can be had quite a bit cheaper than the RWS:

http://www.brunoshooters.com/Merchant2/merchant.mv?Scre...Product_Code=4PH9050

vs.

http://www.huntingtons.com/cases_rws.html

I'd buy a few Lapua to try out. If they lived up to my expectations (which I'm sure they would), I'd rush back to buy another 500 - Lapua is known for ceasing production of what would normally be considered popular calibers such as the .270 Win or the .222 Rem.

- mike

Good question, and one that is right on point for me!

I have 200 Lapua cases, and about 300 RWS cases right now. All are virgin cases.

Total runout on the RWS case necks averages .0015". On the Lapua it is .0018". Both are awesome.

The RWS cases are slightly heavier, and very slightly thicker in the neck.

I believe you could reload either case a bazillion times without a problem. Just anneal the necks every five or six reloading cycles.

The biggest issue will be if your sizing die is straight enough to maintain the incredibly small runout that these cases come with.

The Lapua are a bit cheaper; they come in boxes of 100. The Lapua cases are obviously annealed as the last step in their manufacture; the RWS cases are polished.

For the cases I have on hand the Lapuas are better in the cost department, and the RWS are very slightly better in the quality department.

This is one of those rare instances where you cannot make a wrong choice.

I don't shoot a 9.3x62 but have used RWS brass in 9.3x74R & .404jeffery, excellant stuff. I find the 9.3x74R brass much thicker than Norma. I have used Lapua in 06 & .243 for making 338-06 & .260ai, also exc. stuff. Very uniform & seems to last longer than Norma also.

I would like to see a simple test where someone used the same load in both cases and compared accuaracy.

fred,
does the RWS being thicker reduce power capacity much?

Allen

I have reloaded for many years RWS cases for my Lw-Drilling and my double rifle, both chambered in 9.3 x 74 R. The cases last for ages as in this caliber you're working with moderate pressures only. You can't go wrong with RWS, but you'll spend a fortune if you use their components for target shooting. As I am reloading this caliber for hunting purposes only, the investment is limited. For mass consumption I am using Lapua cases (6.5 x 55, .308).

quote:

Originally posted by AllenBosely:
fred,
does the RWS being thicker reduce power capacity much?
Allen

About 2gr but the cases last waaaay longer.

Both are excellent and you cannot go wrong eithe way. I have used a ton of both, still do.

I prefer RWS brass to any brass on the market but don't use a lot of it because of the price and its not that much better than Lapua.

Too thick? so what!! Thick brass last longer and it gets the same velocity with less powder. Same can be said comparing Rem Brass to WW. Rem gets the same velocity with less powder.

Chuck the conflab of hi tech, therory, and conversation, both are good high quality brass, get the best price and buy that one.

1=LAPUA, 2=RWS and 3=Norma.
I currently use RWS because I have a stack of it and although its great I would pick Lapua over it today.
ozhunter.