Sorting Brass
- Thread starter 1Victor30
- Start date
Depends on how you use them. When they get too short, they'll start to headspace on the extractor hook before the case mouth gets all the way to the end of its part of the chamber. At that point it can't headspace on the mouth anymore. But don't worry too much. I've see estimates that as many as 70% of new 1911's do that anyway. It's the main reason beefed up after-market extractors are available for them. Lots of pistols have excess headspace due to their tolerances.
For shooting, I've never seen headspacing on the extractor hook have adverse impact on the precision of jacketed loads. With lead bullets, it's another story, as the shoulder in the chamber that the case mouth is supposed to rest on will swage a little distortion into soft lead that's pushing past it. The cure in that instance is to seat lead bullets out until they headspace on the bullet (assuming they will still feed in your gun at that length).
Bottom line, just load and shoot them. I've shot .45 Auto up to 0.020" shorter than SAAMI standard minimum with no issues, as long as I headspaced on the bullet. Just seat the lead bullets long until a finished round dropped into the chamber looks like the third from left, below.
For shooting, I've never seen headspacing on the extractor hook have adverse impact on the precision of jacketed loads. With lead bullets, it's another story, as the shoulder in the chamber that the case mouth is supposed to rest on will swage a little distortion into soft lead that's pushing past it. The cure in that instance is to seat lead bullets out until they headspace on the bullet (assuming they will still feed in your gun at that length).
Bottom line, just load and shoot them. I've shot .45 Auto up to 0.020" shorter than SAAMI standard minimum with no issues, as long as I headspaced on the bullet. Just seat the lead bullets long until a finished round dropped into the chamber looks like the third from left, below.
schmellba99
New member
Way to take something and blow it completely out of context. Who here has said that mixing bullets was an acceptable practice?
Is it really that difficult to believe that if you are shooting holes in paper at modest ranges with modest loads "just for fun" (some of us actually shoot just for fun), that spending umpteen hours sorting headstamps is going to be beneficial?
I can assure you that it is not beneficial to everybody.
Bad practices and not sorting headstamps on brass for pistol cases are not necessarily one and the same. It really is a rather simple concept.
I don't sort my plinking loads by head stamp, and I can assure you that they are as good or better than factory as well. They seem to make holes in paper where and when I want them to. And you are also making great assumptions that even the same lot of factory brass is somewhat uniform. I can assure you that in many cases, it is far from it outside of the stamp on the head of the case.
Time is money and money is time. And it's not always as easy as sorting them once, then shooting them in lots.
If you hang out with folks that think reloads are no good, you hang out with some close minded folks.
It all goes back to what you consider necessary. For you, obviously, hand sorting and fine inspecting everything is for whatever reason a necessary aspect to your personal style of reloading. More power to you. Maybe when I have ample free time I'll change my tune and have the same mentality.
But for now, dispensing with things like sorting by headstamp for rounds that are relegated to shooting cans or punching holes in paper at the range is not something I'll justify my time for. Especially when those holes end up in the same place whether or not that headstamp says Winchester or Remington or Speer or Nosler or what have you.
Your way is not wrong; your way is not right. Your way is your way. Just like mine and everybody else on here that does things just a smidge different.
Let us put this sorting thing into prospective. There are several things you can do to handgun brass when handloading that will not have a large effect on the accuracy. For instance, if you did not trim all the cases to exactly the same length, used small variations in powder (scoops or a powder that does not meter well),used mixed primers, used mixed brands of bullets or used different head stamps. It is not a matter of a single or even two of the elements of good handloading practice that will show a large difference in accuracy. It is a matter of the cumulative effect and its detriment to accuracy. Consistency has always been the key word in handloading.
We do what we find worth while to do. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the mind-set that seems to go with using mixed head stamps. Too much trouble to sort every time one shoots? Not likely, all the handloader would need do, is the very first and only time they examine a fired case, if it says R-P, throw it into a coffee can marked: R-P. If the case says W-W, throw it into a coffee can marked: W-W, and so on. Then when one goes out shooting, take the loads based on a single head stamp. Now if those guys who say it is too much trouble because they have too many cases, it begs the question: If you have that many cases that you claim (some claim close to or more than a thousand), is a factor in being "too much trouble", how could you be shooting so many that you could would have to dip into another brand (head stamp) and get them mixed-up again. I shoot almost every day, but only 200-300 hundred and maybe 500 in one day and I have not had to dip into a different head stamp.
In short, sorting by head stamp is one of the easiest things one can do in the handloading process that can help consistency. Unless of course it is just too much trouble when inspecting those new, once-fired range cases for damage (you do, do that don't you?), to toss a R-P to the left and an W-W to the Right.
Wow! Tires me out just thinking about it.
We do what we find worth while to do. Nevertheless, I cannot understand the mind-set that seems to go with using mixed head stamps. Too much trouble to sort every time one shoots? Not likely, all the handloader would need do, is the very first and only time they examine a fired case, if it says R-P, throw it into a coffee can marked: R-P. If the case says W-W, throw it into a coffee can marked: W-W, and so on. Then when one goes out shooting, take the loads based on a single head stamp. Now if those guys who say it is too much trouble because they have too many cases, it begs the question: If you have that many cases that you claim (some claim close to or more than a thousand), is a factor in being "too much trouble", how could you be shooting so many that you could would have to dip into another brand (head stamp) and get them mixed-up again. I shoot almost every day, but only 200-300 hundred and maybe 500 in one day and I have not had to dip into a different head stamp.
In short, sorting by head stamp is one of the easiest things one can do in the handloading process that can help consistency. Unless of course it is just too much trouble when inspecting those new, once-fired range cases for damage (you do, do that don't you?), to toss a R-P to the left and an W-W to the Right.
Wow! Tires me out just thinking about it.
Fire_Moose
New member
I agree with above with one.exception...there are never just a left and a right.
I seperate the most common for me (3-4 headstamps) and make an "other" pile.
I seperate the most common for me (3-4 headstamps) and make an "other" pile.
dahermit said:
Ok - I'll do that for you:
Some people think that it matters, other people have proven that it doesn't.
dahermit said:
I can't understand the mindset that needs to do something totally unnecessary. I don't sort pistol brass by head stamp, I don't trim pistol brass, I don't sort pistol bullets by weight, I don't weigh each charge for my pistol loads, I don't neck-turn pistol brass, and I don't worry about the jump to the rifling in my pistol bullets. All of the above actions have proven to be of ZERO consequence to the accuracy of my pistol loads, so why should I waste time performing them?
dahermit said:
Yep.
dahermit said:
How do you get the other 5 guys in your squad shooting the scenario before you pick up brass to use the same headstamp as you? Can you really persuade them to miss the next stage so they can stand around sorting brass with you?
dahermit said:
LMAO. There's probably twice that many rolling around under the seat of my car. You strike me as someone who doesn't shoot competitions and probably doesn't go through pistol brass in 5 gallon buckets.
dahermit said:
In reality, sorting pistol brass by headstamp is one of the most useless things you can do in the pistol handloading process, and has ABSOLUTELY no effect on accuracy. The only "consistency" that it helps with is the consistency of the name on the brass and the amount of time you waste.
dahermit said:
Me too!
I'll shoot a few groups with my mixed brass 9mm handloads at 25 yards next time I go to the range, you shoot a few with yours. Post some pics and we'll compare how much difference sorting makes.
Last edited:
FloridaGuy
New member
I don't sort my brass by head stamp before reloading. Sometimes I sort it when going to the range because most ranges here do not allow reloaded ammunition. So I sort it by head stamp and place it in the appropriate box and everything is good at the range.
Whoops! I never considered that competition thing where there is more than one shooter. I shoot only on my home range and shot revolver at bowling pin matches where lost brass is not a problem. I shot M1 Garand in service rifle matches, but painted my brass with machinist's red layout dye to I.D. them (keep others from claiming them).
You will not hear another word from me on the subject...not one word...two can play that game...not one word...
You will not hear another word from me on the subject...not one word...two can play that game...not one word...
schmellba99
New member
45 Auto nailed it.
If you just want to do it, more power to you - but claiming it must be done to achieve any level of accuracy is misleading at best.
I sort my rifle brass like it's going out of style - and in my bolt actions I use only one brand of brass that is trimmed to my specs with neck turned, sized to a specific dimension, cleaned and uniformed primer pocket inside and out. Why? Because it does make a difference when you are shooting at range. Is it all necessary? For me it is. For the next guy over, it may not be.
No way am I doing all of that for pistol brass, much less pistol brass that I'm going to shoot primarily at 7-15 yards, with the occasional shoot at 25 yards, none of which I'm shooting for X-ring accuracy. I want "minute of center of mass in rapid fire at that range" accuracy. And what brand is on the head stamp isn't going to make a hill of beans of difference on that level of accuracy.
So it goes right back to what your personal preference is. But rest assured, none of it is really all that necessary. Most would be surprised at factory ammo tolerances if they really paid that much attention.
If you just want to do it, more power to you - but claiming it must be done to achieve any level of accuracy is misleading at best.
I sort my rifle brass like it's going out of style - and in my bolt actions I use only one brand of brass that is trimmed to my specs with neck turned, sized to a specific dimension, cleaned and uniformed primer pocket inside and out. Why? Because it does make a difference when you are shooting at range. Is it all necessary? For me it is. For the next guy over, it may not be.
No way am I doing all of that for pistol brass, much less pistol brass that I'm going to shoot primarily at 7-15 yards, with the occasional shoot at 25 yards, none of which I'm shooting for X-ring accuracy. I want "minute of center of mass in rapid fire at that range" accuracy. And what brand is on the head stamp isn't going to make a hill of beans of difference on that level of accuracy.
So it goes right back to what your personal preference is. But rest assured, none of it is really all that necessary. Most would be surprised at factory ammo tolerances if they really paid that much attention.
schmellba99
New member
Question - since apparently this is something that is important, in your mind, to achieving consistency and any level of accuracy:
After you sort by head stamp, do you weigh each piece of brass from the same manufacturer and further sort by weight? Do you measure the volume of each case and sort by volume?
Because honestly, if you don't, the only level of consistency you are really getting by sorting by manufacture head stamp is, well, manufacture head stamp.
Schmellba99,
That's not quite the case (so to speak.) Eyeball this article, and even though it's not on topic for pistol shooting, it does show how different brass alloys can be from different makers. Not only can brass have different alloys, it can have different work hardening due to how often it has been reloaded. Both of these are factors in bullet pull, which affects start pressure which affects ignition time and velocity consistency and accuracy.
Some years ago, competitors at the National Matches observed that military match pistol ammo shot a little better than its commercial counterparts. This was tracked down to the pitch seal in the military cartridge increasing start pressure for more uniform ignition and muzzle velocity than commercial cartridges exhibited. Obviously, sorting by brand and by load history is not going to get you something the commercial match loads didn't already have, but not doing so can get you something less.
But most people aren't shooting conventional pistol matches these days. So, whether you get anything from doing it or not just depends what it is you are doing with the ammo and how.
All group size precision, whether in rifle or pistol, is part of a complex system, all the elements of which interact with one another. The late Michael Creighton pointed out that complex systems are not easily predictable. His example was the stock market. If someone claims they know what a stock is going to do three days from now, you are immediately aware that he is either a crook or a charlatan. Creighton's point was the same applies to how the environment, another complex system, will react to something we do to it, but for some reason we haven't learned to recognize those who claim to be able to say what it will do in the same light as we do stock market predictors. I'll add that same warning to elements of reloading, as interior ballistics is another complex system. We've all had our own personal experiences with it, but here's the bottom line: if you want an objective assessment of whether a particular reloading step matters to you or not, you have to test it in your own equipment to see what difference, if any, you can see it making.
Here's the reason the answer is not universal: each source of error adds some amount of random distribution or spread to the overall distribution of bullet holes on a target. They don't add linearly. That is, if you have a source of error that produces an average of a 1" group spread and another that produces an average of 2" group spread and put them together so the shooting system has both sources of error at once, you don't get a 3" group. You get just under a 2¼" average group size. This is because independent sources of error rarely both have their two worst case oppositely influenced shots (the two that wind up defining the group size) on the same two shots, and when they do, it's rarely the case that they just happen to have the same directions of influence away from the center for each of the two bullets. And those two coincidences are what it would take to get a 3" group result in my example. On average, they randomly assert their most extreme influence on randomly different shots in the string and in randomly different directions away from the group center.
In statistics you solve for the final group average by combining the standard deviations of the two, and standard deviations combine as the square root of the sum of their squares. In my example I gave a 1" average group error and a 2" average group error. So they will combine as:
Combined Average Group = √(1²+2²) = √5 = 2.24
Here's the thing: If you have a 2" source of random group error, then introduce the 1" source of error, you might not notice it made any difference, as a quarter inch one way or the other is well within normal group variance for pistol shooting. You might have to fire and measure twenty groups before you were certain you had accomplished anything at all (though there is a statistical test called a T test that will let you tell sooner). But if you have only the 1" source of error and introduced the 2" source of error on top of it, you'd notice right away, as the average group would slightly more than double.
The same thing works in reverse. If you have 2¼" groups and you do something that remedies the 1" source of error, you would have a hard time telling that you'd done anything to better your situation, even though your average score on targets would go up a little, scratching the next higher scoring ring a little more often. But if you removed the 2" source of error, you'd know right away, as group size would drop by just over half.
What happens to your 2¼" groups if you remove a ¼" source of error? Well you have:
Corrected Average Group = √5²-¼² = 2.22"
Not much, going from 2.24" to 2.22". Now you really have to shoot a lot to tell if you made any improvement. But if you had a gun shooting ¼" groups to start with, you'd instantly notice you had turned it into a one-holer. So, whether or not you see the effect of something you do to improve group size clearly depends on the cumulative effect of all the other error sources in your shooting system. In general, the more accurate the shooting system is to start with, the more easily you see the effect of an improvement.
So, this is going to come down to how accurate you and the system are. You can painstakingly go through all sorts of group shooting and measuring and statistical analysis after each attempted improvement to see if you've achieved a visible group reduction, as many people do. Or, you can do what I do, and take just one set of cases and sort them and treat them like a benchrest shooter would, load up maybe 25 to 50 and shoot just one big group. Then repeat with ammo loaded without all the special effort. If you see a clear difference between the performance of the two ammo sets, some thing or things you did with the careful loading mattered and it's probably worth taking time to find out which ones it was. If you don't see a clear difference, then other factors, like your gun, your sights, or yourself are dominating the group size, and the difference made by your careful loading work is not going to bear fruit until you address these other factors.
That's not quite the case (so to speak.) Eyeball this article, and even though it's not on topic for pistol shooting, it does show how different brass alloys can be from different makers. Not only can brass have different alloys, it can have different work hardening due to how often it has been reloaded. Both of these are factors in bullet pull, which affects start pressure which affects ignition time and velocity consistency and accuracy.
Some years ago, competitors at the National Matches observed that military match pistol ammo shot a little better than its commercial counterparts. This was tracked down to the pitch seal in the military cartridge increasing start pressure for more uniform ignition and muzzle velocity than commercial cartridges exhibited. Obviously, sorting by brand and by load history is not going to get you something the commercial match loads didn't already have, but not doing so can get you something less.
But most people aren't shooting conventional pistol matches these days. So, whether you get anything from doing it or not just depends what it is you are doing with the ammo and how.
All group size precision, whether in rifle or pistol, is part of a complex system, all the elements of which interact with one another. The late Michael Creighton pointed out that complex systems are not easily predictable. His example was the stock market. If someone claims they know what a stock is going to do three days from now, you are immediately aware that he is either a crook or a charlatan. Creighton's point was the same applies to how the environment, another complex system, will react to something we do to it, but for some reason we haven't learned to recognize those who claim to be able to say what it will do in the same light as we do stock market predictors. I'll add that same warning to elements of reloading, as interior ballistics is another complex system. We've all had our own personal experiences with it, but here's the bottom line: if you want an objective assessment of whether a particular reloading step matters to you or not, you have to test it in your own equipment to see what difference, if any, you can see it making.
Here's the reason the answer is not universal: each source of error adds some amount of random distribution or spread to the overall distribution of bullet holes on a target. They don't add linearly. That is, if you have a source of error that produces an average of a 1" group spread and another that produces an average of 2" group spread and put them together so the shooting system has both sources of error at once, you don't get a 3" group. You get just under a 2¼" average group size. This is because independent sources of error rarely both have their two worst case oppositely influenced shots (the two that wind up defining the group size) on the same two shots, and when they do, it's rarely the case that they just happen to have the same directions of influence away from the center for each of the two bullets. And those two coincidences are what it would take to get a 3" group result in my example. On average, they randomly assert their most extreme influence on randomly different shots in the string and in randomly different directions away from the group center.
In statistics you solve for the final group average by combining the standard deviations of the two, and standard deviations combine as the square root of the sum of their squares. In my example I gave a 1" average group error and a 2" average group error. So they will combine as:
Combined Average Group = √(1²+2²) = √5 = 2.24
Here's the thing: If you have a 2" source of random group error, then introduce the 1" source of error, you might not notice it made any difference, as a quarter inch one way or the other is well within normal group variance for pistol shooting. You might have to fire and measure twenty groups before you were certain you had accomplished anything at all (though there is a statistical test called a T test that will let you tell sooner). But if you have only the 1" source of error and introduced the 2" source of error on top of it, you'd notice right away, as the average group would slightly more than double.
The same thing works in reverse. If you have 2¼" groups and you do something that remedies the 1" source of error, you would have a hard time telling that you'd done anything to better your situation, even though your average score on targets would go up a little, scratching the next higher scoring ring a little more often. But if you removed the 2" source of error, you'd know right away, as group size would drop by just over half.
What happens to your 2¼" groups if you remove a ¼" source of error? Well you have:
Corrected Average Group = √5²-¼² = 2.22"
Not much, going from 2.24" to 2.22". Now you really have to shoot a lot to tell if you made any improvement. But if you had a gun shooting ¼" groups to start with, you'd instantly notice you had turned it into a one-holer. So, whether or not you see the effect of something you do to improve group size clearly depends on the cumulative effect of all the other error sources in your shooting system. In general, the more accurate the shooting system is to start with, the more easily you see the effect of an improvement.
So, this is going to come down to how accurate you and the system are. You can painstakingly go through all sorts of group shooting and measuring and statistical analysis after each attempted improvement to see if you've achieved a visible group reduction, as many people do. Or, you can do what I do, and take just one set of cases and sort them and treat them like a benchrest shooter would, load up maybe 25 to 50 and shoot just one big group. Then repeat with ammo loaded without all the special effort. If you see a clear difference between the performance of the two ammo sets, some thing or things you did with the careful loading mattered and it's probably worth taking time to find out which ones it was. If you don't see a clear difference, then other factors, like your gun, your sights, or yourself are dominating the group size, and the difference made by your careful loading work is not going to bear fruit until you address these other factors.
Unclenick, that is the best "layman" description of the statistical effects of given ammo variables on accuracy that I have ever read. No one I know that understands it as well as you has the patience to explain it anywhere near that concisely!
Excellent summary. If you're shooting something like IDPA against the clock, with a flash sight picture on iron sights out to about 25 yards on an 8" diameter A zone, then the absolute accuracy of each round (given reasonably consistent loads) is insignificant compared to the other variables.
Unclenick said:
Excellent summary. If you're shooting something like IDPA against the clock, with a flash sight picture on iron sights out to about 25 yards on an 8" diameter A zone, then the absolute accuracy of each round (given reasonably consistent loads) is insignificant compared to the other variables.
arizona98tj
New member
I agree with what 45_auto said in his last couple of posts. I've been reloading since the 70's and aside from high powered hunting loads, I do not sort, trim, weigh, count # of reloads, etc. my handgun brass.
But....to those that are adamant on sorting their pistol brass for typical range drills and such.....are you also working up specific loads for that brand of brass? If you have 9mm brass in R-P, Speer, Winchester, and S&B, you are saying you have worked up individual loads for each even though you are using the same bullet, powder, and primer for all of them?
So, for 9mm range practice loads, you might have something like:
R-P 5.0 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Win 5.1 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
S&B 5.0 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Speer 4.9 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Of course, if you are working up loads as above, then one assumes you are also making adjustments in the recipe for the pistol too, correct? The 3" sub-compact is using a worked up load that is most likely different than the 5" full sized, correct?
But....to those that are adamant on sorting their pistol brass for typical range drills and such.....are you also working up specific loads for that brand of brass? If you have 9mm brass in R-P, Speer, Winchester, and S&B, you are saying you have worked up individual loads for each even though you are using the same bullet, powder, and primer for all of them?
So, for 9mm range practice loads, you might have something like:
R-P 5.0 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Win 5.1 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
S&B 5.0 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Speer 4.9 gr Unique 115 gr RN Berry MFG plated
Of course, if you are working up loads as above, then one assumes you are also making adjustments in the recipe for the pistol too, correct? The 3" sub-compact is using a worked up load that is most likely different than the 5" full sized, correct?
Last edited:
schmellba99
New member
UncleNick -
Thanks for the physics lesson.
What you took a long time to do is point out that the opportu ity cost of the time spent versus sorting brass, for the vast majority of people, is not time well spent.
Additionally, different lots of brass from even the same manufacturer will have variables in metallurgy of the brass, quality of the fabrication and variables in tolerances. Go look at the thread concerning new Winchester brass for an example.
Sometimes I forget that on this board there are those that do not understand speaking in somewhat generalities and take everything too literal.
Mt entire argument is that while sorting by headstamp may be necessary for an individual's OCD in the reloading arena, it is not a requirement to achieve more than acceptable levels of accuracy - especially when your level of accuracy is determined by minute of man instead of 1/4 inch increments. And if you are not keeping track of individual headstamps, lots within those headstamps and have customized loads for every variable in your brass inventory, generally speaking, your time sorting by headstamp in the name of accuraccy is not time that is necessary (or in my opinion well spent).
That is all to each their own, however.
Thanks for the physics lesson.
What you took a long time to do is point out that the opportu ity cost of the time spent versus sorting brass, for the vast majority of people, is not time well spent.
Additionally, different lots of brass from even the same manufacturer will have variables in metallurgy of the brass, quality of the fabrication and variables in tolerances. Go look at the thread concerning new Winchester brass for an example.
Sometimes I forget that on this board there are those that do not understand speaking in somewhat generalities and take everything too literal.
Mt entire argument is that while sorting by headstamp may be necessary for an individual's OCD in the reloading arena, it is not a requirement to achieve more than acceptable levels of accuracy - especially when your level of accuracy is determined by minute of man instead of 1/4 inch increments. And if you are not keeping track of individual headstamps, lots within those headstamps and have customized loads for every variable in your brass inventory, generally speaking, your time sorting by headstamp in the name of accuraccy is not time that is necessary (or in my opinion well spent).
That is all to each their own, however.
Wreck-n-Crew
New member
Mostly what he said. I chose a good 100 for HP and left the rest for lead target ammo.
Schmellba,
Statistics rather than physics, but I take your point that it adds complexity that takes the fun out of shooting for some, but is part of the fun for others. That will always be the case. Different strokes, and all that.
On review, I see I left a few points out of my post. The way target rings are scored, if a bullet scratches the next higher ring, you get the higher point. In the course of a match it is common to have more than one shot that almost, but not quite, scratches the next higher scoring ring, and for which even a tiny reduction in group size would gain you a point or another X. For that reason the targets acts like a statistical improvement detector, with the difference showing up in your average scores over time and many targets.
That explains why the National Match shooters could find a difference in the small improvement made by military ammo pull consistency. While you are correct that a gun shooting 2 to 4 moa doesn't normally benefit from small ammunition improvements, the main problem is with seeing that difference in single groups. But when you put hundreds of rounds down range over the course of several matches over several days, that changes because you then have enough opportunities for the improvement to randomly cause the odd scoring ring to be scratched. A hundredth of an inch improvement may add a couple X's to a High Master score, and that can be the difference between first and third place at the Nationals.
You are correct that simply sorting headstamps will not gain you all the desired bullet pull consistency. That requires you to keep brass together by lot and by load history as well as by headstamp.
For match shooting I buy new, never-loaded .45 Auto brass in thousands from Starline or from Top Brass when they have it available. They're both about twice as consistent as other domestic brands I've measured. Each brass lot gets loaded together and used together and then reloaded together in rotation until it has been lost to the range gods or worn out and scrapped. With light target loads in .45 Auto I've had up to 50 target level reloads from a lot of brass this way. By that time necks are splitting during reloading, which means loading redos, over third of them have been lost, and they are about 0.025" shorter than when they were new. That's when I scrap the rest.
At a match the RO always gives a call to police brass. Everyone who shoots bullseye matches puts their mark on their pistol case heads with Sharpie's or Magic Markers, and range etiquette demands that any piece you pick up that belongs to someone else be returned to them. So, sorting happens in real time on the line where you have to look at the heads to give other shooters their brass back anyway. After that, just accumulate your brass in the same bag until you're ready to clean it for reloading.
Sorting brass by headstamp alone does have one positive effect I can think of, and that is to tend to keep neck wall thickness more consistent, so crimps are more consistent. Winchester and Remington and Federal all seem to have kept their case neck designs for a long time. Back in the 80's I quit collecting R-P brass for the .45 Auto because it was so thin near the mouth that after two or three reloadings, work hardening made it springy enough that the Lyman carbide sizing die I used at the time could not resize it enough to hold a bullet. Bullets would just fall in and there I would be with a primed case I couldn't load. Any number of other folks on this board have reported the same thing with R-P in this and other auto pistol chamberings.
Subsequently, I've found the Dillon dies to be tighter and that R-P is usually sized adequately by them. But that doesn't address the fact a thinner wall will produce lower crimp tension. So I finally started to keep R-P again more recently, and I toss it the bin with range foundlings for loading on a Dillon.
On the other side of the coin, I once had some Euro-brass that was too thick at the neck and reloads would not chamber. Apparently the manufacturer use 0.449" or 0.450" bullets and sized his necks accordingly. I don't recall the headstamp. I tossed it long ago.
For practice, plinking, and non-precision shooting, I'm with you, and don't segregate brass or fail to collect range foundlings for those purposes. Indeed, for shooting plates, dueling trees, presentation practice, moving and shooting courses, and so on, I prefer to use odd, old, or other expendable brass so I can lose it in the weeds and not fret about it. I put a tarp out to catch it when the situation allows, but that's usually just shooting by myself.
Statistics rather than physics, but I take your point that it adds complexity that takes the fun out of shooting for some, but is part of the fun for others. That will always be the case. Different strokes, and all that.
On review, I see I left a few points out of my post. The way target rings are scored, if a bullet scratches the next higher ring, you get the higher point. In the course of a match it is common to have more than one shot that almost, but not quite, scratches the next higher scoring ring, and for which even a tiny reduction in group size would gain you a point or another X. For that reason the targets acts like a statistical improvement detector, with the difference showing up in your average scores over time and many targets.
That explains why the National Match shooters could find a difference in the small improvement made by military ammo pull consistency. While you are correct that a gun shooting 2 to 4 moa doesn't normally benefit from small ammunition improvements, the main problem is with seeing that difference in single groups. But when you put hundreds of rounds down range over the course of several matches over several days, that changes because you then have enough opportunities for the improvement to randomly cause the odd scoring ring to be scratched. A hundredth of an inch improvement may add a couple X's to a High Master score, and that can be the difference between first and third place at the Nationals.
You are correct that simply sorting headstamps will not gain you all the desired bullet pull consistency. That requires you to keep brass together by lot and by load history as well as by headstamp.
For match shooting I buy new, never-loaded .45 Auto brass in thousands from Starline or from Top Brass when they have it available. They're both about twice as consistent as other domestic brands I've measured. Each brass lot gets loaded together and used together and then reloaded together in rotation until it has been lost to the range gods or worn out and scrapped. With light target loads in .45 Auto I've had up to 50 target level reloads from a lot of brass this way. By that time necks are splitting during reloading, which means loading redos, over third of them have been lost, and they are about 0.025" shorter than when they were new. That's when I scrap the rest.
At a match the RO always gives a call to police brass. Everyone who shoots bullseye matches puts their mark on their pistol case heads with Sharpie's or Magic Markers, and range etiquette demands that any piece you pick up that belongs to someone else be returned to them. So, sorting happens in real time on the line where you have to look at the heads to give other shooters their brass back anyway. After that, just accumulate your brass in the same bag until you're ready to clean it for reloading.
Sorting brass by headstamp alone does have one positive effect I can think of, and that is to tend to keep neck wall thickness more consistent, so crimps are more consistent. Winchester and Remington and Federal all seem to have kept their case neck designs for a long time. Back in the 80's I quit collecting R-P brass for the .45 Auto because it was so thin near the mouth that after two or three reloadings, work hardening made it springy enough that the Lyman carbide sizing die I used at the time could not resize it enough to hold a bullet. Bullets would just fall in and there I would be with a primed case I couldn't load. Any number of other folks on this board have reported the same thing with R-P in this and other auto pistol chamberings.
Subsequently, I've found the Dillon dies to be tighter and that R-P is usually sized adequately by them. But that doesn't address the fact a thinner wall will produce lower crimp tension. So I finally started to keep R-P again more recently, and I toss it the bin with range foundlings for loading on a Dillon.
On the other side of the coin, I once had some Euro-brass that was too thick at the neck and reloads would not chamber. Apparently the manufacturer use 0.449" or 0.450" bullets and sized his necks accordingly. I don't recall the headstamp. I tossed it long ago.
For practice, plinking, and non-precision shooting, I'm with you, and don't segregate brass or fail to collect range foundlings for those purposes. Indeed, for shooting plates, dueling trees, presentation practice, moving and shooting courses, and so on, I prefer to use odd, old, or other expendable brass so I can lose it in the weeds and not fret about it. I put a tarp out to catch it when the situation allows, but that's usually just shooting by myself.