Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles Selecting the right large rifle primer

Is there a big difference between large rifle primers? I just ordered a kit to change my Savagd 10ML from 209 to LRP so who makes them and who makes the best for the powders I burn, R7, H322, IMR 4198, AA2015, IMR 3031, VV 133. The only thing I know is I will get better combustion an. More consistency. And that I will probably need to rework my loads some. Is there a source maybe a manual that will help fill in the gaps.

You may want to post this on the muzzloader forum to get to the guys who use lrp's for that.

In a standard rifle case, I"d use a CCI200 behind most of the stick powders you mentioned above.

In a muzzle loader, that's a whole different can of worms. If I wanted something hotter, I'd start with a Winchester Magnum Primer.

I imagine you will probably have to try a few different one's and see what works for you.

YES - and IF you have access I'd suggest Fed 210 M (?)

I think that's the right designation. Personally I've never had any outlet that stocked them but I've read plenty here on the 'fire' about them.

Jerry

Not many muzzleloaders have the ability to use rifle primers just trying to find out where to start. It's more like reloading than muzzleloading. I'll try cci 200 and go from there. Thank you

One word of caution on the CCI's.

They are a hard primer, and I don't know how hard the hammer drop is on your muzzle loader. If it's very far to the range, also take something softer along, such as some Winchester or Federal primers.

Kinda hard to beat 210M's by Federal. powdr

decoydog

I do not have or have ever owned a black powder rifle "BUT" they say a picture is worth a thousand words. The photo below also came from the same links below on testing primers.

I know these photos are small rifle primers "BUT" Remington ran Lake City Army Ammunition plant from 1941 until 1982. And the military loaded a lot of Winchester powder using Remington primers to light off harder to ignite ball powder.

Makes you wonder "WHAT IS" a bench rest primer.







The links below will show both small and large rifle primer photos, and may help you make your decision. And you can see above why Remington primers are also called "Baby Flame Throwers" and were rumored to be the backup ignition system on the Space Shuttle.

Large Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 30-06 Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html

Small Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 6BR Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-small-rifle-primer-study.html

biged -

That's 'enlightening' - pun intended.

I would really like to see a lot more comparisons in that fashion.


NOT TO DISPUTE anyone here.


YEARS AGO <note> in the 80s I did a lot of PRIMER velocity comparisons FROM @ 80 F Down to 30 F.

Rem 9 1/2s both std & mag lost MORE vel than CCI or WW. That is an OLD test and focused on temp sensitivity.


MAY NOT BE THE SAME today.

FWIW -

Jerry

AN ADDENDUM:

Not related to any other primers but.....

WW std rifle primer, AND WW mag rifle primers.


PLEASE NOTE -

When WW FIRST introduced the Mag R P I bought a brick. I already had WW std R Ps.

I used the 7 MM RM and IMR 4350 for the test comparison.

Over an O 33 graph w/10' spacing (5' from first screen and 5' to MIDDLE of screens)


***There was NO discernable difference in VELOCITY.*** Can't speak to pressure I didn't have any way to compare pressures.

I RE-emphasize that's when WW FIRST introduced the WMRP.


I haven't retested PLUS WW has made other changes since then.

Might be interesting for you to do your test PLUS today's primers I suspect will be different.

Jerry

You are correct sir, and it wasn't his test. Those photos have been floating the inner web for a few years.
As usual he posts what isn't his work, or his actual experience. Poser at best. Larry Root most likely.

EXCUSE ME ! !

Maybe I mis-understand ? If not YOU are FULLl of CRAP !!!!

I have not seen any pics that you reference.

I have my graph records and they are on OLD paper. If you'd like to see them I can post them.

I can reference 'several' posters here that know I am not L R.


OTOH - if I misunderstand, please enlighten me and pardon me.

If I don't misunderstand-- you can take a flying LEAP !!!

jwall
Jerry
3100guy

Jwall, these pics have been on the internet for about 10 years, and posted here on the fire about a 100+ times.

Okay - Fair Enuff: >>>THANKS Antelope Sniper>>>

What confused me was his quote of MY tests and then the comment per authenticity of the test. HOPE THAT makes sense.
Today is my first time to see 'those' pics. Again, I'd like to see pics comparing TODAY's PRIMERS!

HEY SWIFTY ! ! !

Think I got it straight. Consider me enlightened.
Sorry for the Mis Understanding.

Jerry.

Beware that some of the unplated WLR & WLRM primers were made undersize and fit loose in good primer pockets.

They forgot to allow for the thickness of the plating and they are out of spec.

Chit happens. No offense taken.

I agree. If I had the right set up, I think it would be fund to do some similar testing with new production primers.

Thank You Very Much.

Jerry !

There was a fairly broad test of primers published in Shooting Times quite a few years ago - a Rick Jamison test I believe. What that test showed, if I remember correctly, was that the "fire' that was expelled did not correlate directly with either pressure nor ignition characteristics. There are other factors involved - and they can vary a lot in the pressure they make depending on application.

As i recall, he discovered those "fires" can burn at significantly different temperatures, so a big cold fire might not ignite as well as a small hot fire, making those pictures much less meaningful.