The brass height is a holdover from the old days when you could reasonably judge the power level of the shell from the brass height. Low brass was low power, target loads, etc. Now days they do not need the brass reinforcement of the hulls like they did with the old paper shells, but they still seem to make most of the better field loads with high brass. In the two loads you mentioned, the differences are likely better components, such as harder plated shot, better wads, maybe cleaner powder, etc. If you shot some patterns, you may have been able to see a difference. Repeat, M A Y. With marketing hype and pricing these days, if you don't have a lot of experience and/or don't do some homework, you run the risk of spending more than you really need to, or run the risk of buying shells that don't produce the result you need at the range you need.

 

Thank you for all the input on the differences. I really appreciate it.
What is M A Y?

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

The differrence is the height of the brass...which is probably not even brass, but brass-washed steel. Otherwise, Virginian pinpointed the other differences. I believe his "M A Y" simply referred to "may"...as in maybe, might, etc.

 

I have found to be true on shot size #6 and smaller. When looking at size #5 and larger I have yet to find any loads with low brass shells. I guess I am old school...I will always buy the high brass if the price is close. Today you have too check what is on the box and compare so you don't spend any more money than you need...besides you could get 2 boxes for the price of one on what you found.

Virginain is correct in shooting them and see how they pattern...could be a world of different between them due to whats inside.

Happy hunting....Signalman

 

I have found to be true on shot size #6 and smaller. When looking at size #5 and larger I have yet to find any loads with low brass shells. I guess I am old school...I will always buy the high brass if the price is close. Today you have too check what is on the box and compare so you don't spend any more money than you need...besides you could get 2 boxes for the price of one on what you found. Virginain is correct in shooting them and see how they pattern...could be a world of different between them due to whats inside. Happy hunting....Signalman

I have some 1250fps 15 pellet 3" 00 buck Federal Power Shok that are low brass.

 

I always use high brass loads when hunting Pheasant, Partridge, Snakes, Crows, Fox, Bobcat, and Groundhogs.
I 99 % use high brass loads, but also I buy them by the flat and the price comes way down.
I use high brass on waterfowl also. ( NON TOXIC OF COURSE )
The 1 % low brass that I use is on rabbits, dove, woodcock etc.
As said by other people on the forum the height of the brass means nothing the plastic of today can take 2 1/2 or 4 drams of powder it don't matter.
On all the Remington Express and Winchester Super X High Brass that I use it still looks like brass at the base of the shells.
Have to take a magnet to one to find out, but never had a problem ejecting any of them.
I do hear about alot of people having trouble ejecting cheap target loads ( LOW BRASS ) from their shotguns.
I always use the Winchester AA Super Sport or Remington Premier Nitro Sporting Clays when I go to clay ranges with my friends and cannot use hunting loads there.
No problem ejecting them.
I have always liked the extra powder and shot in the so called. (HIGH BRASS LOADS )
I am from the old school and think that way.
Try them both and see what you like.
Good Luck and keep shooting.
Fred

 

The high brass so called [mainly brass plated steel] shells,look cool if nothing esle,think of the how much money is generated off of these shells,just for appeal?

 

Gosh, I know the answer to the question but now I'm confused. :shock: (Not really)
High-brass verse low-brass is pretty much explained by Virginian but I will add;
Brass has come and gone as the metal used in the cup and it's true that most, today, are brass washed steel but steel was used in WWII also, as well as further back to reinforce the paper bases (Remington's circa 1905). Some companies still use brass in some gauges. I've found a number of 28's still have brass. :?
Modern plastics are strong enough to be used without metal cups, as ACTIV, Herter's and other's, like Winchester, have tried (all-plastics).
Winchester has tried several times, recent and way back, to use low brass with shot sizes bigger than #6. I have several examples of #4 and #5 shot, some in steel shot, with low brass in 12 and 20 ga. Here is an example of Western Xpert shells with 9-pellets of 00 buckshot! These are milspec from WWII and were used in combat as well as other applications. I have no idea what velocity they were supposed to have but they were effective, according to veterens that used them and told me their experiences.

 

Wow. Thanks for ALL the info here.
I'll shoot both where I can evaluate the patterns and determine if and what the pattern differences are.

Outdoor Hub mobile, the outdoor information engine

 

The brass height is a holdover from the old days when you could reasonably judge the power level of the shell from the brass height. Low brass was low power, target loads, etc. Now days they do not need the brass reinforcement of the hulls like they did with the old paper shells, but they still seem to make most of the better field loads with high brass. In the two loads you mentioned, the differences are likely better components, such as harder plated shot, better wads, maybe cleaner powder, etc. If you shot some patterns, you may have been able to see a difference. Repeat, M A Y. With marketing hype and pricing these days, if you don't have a lot of experience and/or don't do some homework, you run the risk of spending more than you really need to, or run the risk of buying shells that don't produce the result you need at the range you need.

Virginian: said it all, I reload all my hunting load with low brass hulls.

 

ditto
I’ve loaded and fired many hundred of hunting loads in low brass hulls. They work great.

 

HIgh brass looks sexier. I doubt there is any difference in a shell that could be made either way.

 

Similar thread back in 2015
Heavy Loads - How Are They Defined? | Shotgun Forum (shotgunworld.com)

 

High brass. Low brass. It makes no difference with today’s plastic hulls. It’s a holdover from the days of paper hulls. Usually see the high brass on more expensive field loads. The difference in price is the difference between cheaper “promo” shells with lesser quality components and the premium shells made with higher quality components. The ballistics can be the same but the more expensive shells with better shot should pattern better. But no guarantee.

 

Last year , I tried to find low-base 5's for my 16 ga. Lucky to find any 16 ga.
One of the other hunters on that trip couldn't find enough 5's to finish the day, so he used a few 3' steel duck loads. That one bird was a bit too close. What a mess!

 

Pointer "Long Brass" in the 1912 Sears catalog

 

As others have said, back in the day, High-brass shells were typically large pellet (#6 to #2) heavy hunting loads (Hi-power, Super-X, Nitro, Magnum, Duck and Pheasant, etc.) and Low-brass shells were generally small shot (#7.5 to #9) clay target or small game loads.

Brass (yes, steel in most cases today) height is basically irrelevant to the ammunitions down-range performance.

The previous terms of "High-brass" and Low-brass" shouldn't be confused with the terms "High-base" and "Low-base". The later terms refer to the internal height of the hull's base. Basically, High-base hulls had less internal hull volume than a Low-base hulls. I'm not aware of any High-base hulls now days but there may be someone still using them.

 

Most of the above is moose doo-doo. Back in the day, shells such as UMC's high brass ARROW shell was offered in 12-gauge with loads from 2 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1-ounce of shot to 3 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4-ounce of shot.

Meanwhile their low brass NITRO CLUB shell was offered in 12-gauge with loads from 2 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1-ounce of shot to 3 1/4-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4-ounce of shot.

Same thing in the 1915 Western Cartridge Co. catalog. The high-brass RECORD shell was offered in 12-gauge with loads from 2 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1-ounce of shot to 3 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4-ounce of shot.

Meanwhile their low-brass FIELD shell was offered in 12-gauge with loads from 2 1/2-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1-ounce of shot to 3 1/4-drams of bulk smokeless powder pushing 1 1/4-ounce of shot.

In 1922 when Western brought out their progressive burning smokeless powder, high velocity, loads, Super-X, they put them up in their FIELD shell

When they brought out the 12-gauge, 3-inch, Super-X with 1 3/8-ounce of shot, late 1923 or early 1924, it was put up in the high-brass RECORD shell --

Perhaps that lead to the high-brass being heavier/better loads began?

 

As did the no brass Activ shells

About Activ Hulls

 

I wonder sometimes it the Activ hulls would not be something that could be or should be resurrected? It seems that new hulls are sometimes hard to find for independent ammo companies.

I have heard, that a new company here in Lakeland, FL (Troy) has everything ready to load the various gauges but has been on hold for new hulls for months.

I guess the dies equipment, etc to make Activ style hulls or someone would be doing so.