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

A.Sniper & Swifty -

Since we don't have the equipment to do similar tests as those posted.....

And I'm a recreational shooter and MOSTLY hunter....

IMO the best thing we can do is the Temp Sensitivity test.

FIRST off - I did those tests of mine before 1986 because I was living in Hammond La. and moved back to Ark. in March '86.

I wish I was as smart as it MIGHT appear but alas,.."The reason" I got interested in that was because of "Bob Hagel". His book has a chart/listing of powders/cart which he tested for POWDER t. sens.

Studying his test I realized he used CCI primers exclusively. So I used the primers that I WAS using for several diff. cartridges. I noted that there was INconsistency in my test. So I RE DID my test using W W primers. 'At THAT TIME' they WERE only 1 kind. Standard AND Mag primers in 1.

Well...that opened my eyes ! ! The W W primers beat ALL the others as far as Temp. Sens.
[ NOTE - I used IMR powders, WW powders, H 380 & H 450 so it was NOT just one powder]


Fast forward to today...It's obvious that W W has made some changes. Today they are NOT nickel plated and I don't know what other changes they have made.

It's EASY to do, as I expect y'all know. Just remember to leave the ammo AND rifle in COLD temp immediately before doing the test.

I could buy the other brands of primers for the tests but I'm happy w/the accuracy and results of the primers I have on hand. Also NO ONE is paying me or supplying primers for such tests.

It would be nice for 'some' Gun Writer to do this sort of testing today. Also 'some' Gun Writers live in areas of colder Winter temperatures.
( 2 HINTS ) <GRIN>

Jerry

The Winchester literature at one time referred to their products being used in this regard.

cci benchrest primers have shot better in almost every rifle i've owned in the past 15-20 years. in a long range handgun they make a world of differents in group size.hotter is not always better. in all my years of hunting i've had 2 misfires in hunting rifles,both had federal primers in them.

Using my fingers I count seven years, "BUT" the links are a very good read with plenty of info.

Primers - Large Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 30-06 Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
This article was originally published in the September, 2008 issue of Precision Shooting
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-large-rifle-primer-study.html

Primers - Small Rifle Primer Study
A Match Primer Study in the 6BR Cartridge
By Germán A. Salazar
This article was originally published in the June, 2008 issue of Precision Shooting
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/2009/06/primers-small-rifle-primer-study.html

I would agree with you on the older WW standard / mag primer working with the more temp unstable powders of the time such as H-380, RL22/MRP, H-4831,and H-4895 being more consistent for a hunting round especially in cold weather. Most of my tests were done with a 25.06, 243 Win, 22.250, and 220 Swift.

For the 25 with RL22/MRP I found that the WW and the Federal standard gave excellent results with the heavier bullet weights ie. 110 -120 in the 3/4 - 1" range which was more than acceptable for the purpose. With the 243 in the 85- 100 range the results with 4831, H-4895 were the same.

However for the lighter varmint rounds I found that the CCI standard primers gave me a more consistent grouping with 380 in the 250 and Swift, and with 4895 w/70-75 grain bullets in the 243. If I was going for pure accuracy in the varmint calibers I switch to a BR or gold medal match primer.

Unfortunately I have not really done any testing on the variances of the large rifle primers since about 05 as I have been into shooting and testing accuracy of the 223 in a pair of Coopers since about 07, and my loads for the others have been pretty much been settled.

Hope this helps.

Okay Guys - this has been one of THEM days. Day long story - very short. I went with a neighbor/friend to his deer lease today. --You would have to have been LOST to stumble upon me. Truck trouble - NO PHONE service - Finally found service -- Cousin came and hauled us IN. EXHAUSTED.

SRW - have you tested the br primers for COLD wx use ?

biged - THNX for the links - will check them out.

SWIFTY -


Thnx and I understand your whole response.

I also found that 'some' other primes gave tighter groups but as you said, for the purpose, WW std/mag were acceptable and fared better in 'cold' wx.

If I did a lot of varmint shooting I'm sure I would use other primers for certain applications.

Not to quote my earlier post, I'm primarily a deer hunter and I want my loads to stand up better in 'cold' Wx.


Thank You and your response does indeed help.

Jerry

jwall,

A long-time employee of a major firm that makes a variety of primers once pointed out that photos of primer flash tell us nothing of the tmeperature or duration of the flash, each of which is just as important (if not more so) than the length.

I have done a bunch of cold-testing of primers and powders, mostly of loads that worked well when developed in temperatures of 65-75 degrees. Almost any primer works with SOME powders in cold weather, especially larger-granule extruded powders, which are easier to ignite than smaller-granule extruded powder and, especially, spherical powders. This is one reason I generally use magnum primers with sphericals, sometimes even in very small rounds, especially if they produce more accuracy in warmer temperatures.

One thing I've discovered in these cold tests is that some factory ammo doesn't use large-rifle primers particularly suited to the powder used. Have had repeated hangfires in cold weather with factory ammo loaded with spherical powder.

The reason Winchester LR primers work so well in a lot of combinations in cold weather is they're about the "hottest" standard LR primer, at least according to some pressure tests. But these days I often use CCI 250's for cold-weather shooting, as they became the hottest commonly available LR magnum primer around 1990 when CCI switched to a different compound.

Thank You M D:

1. Okay, seems to be one of those things that doesn't always add up to what it 'looks like'. Vedddy Interesting. Those pics sure look impressive any way.


2.As I said, I know that WW has made 'some' changes in their primers but certainly don't know 'how much'!!

I have used CCI 250s in the past but not recently, even not since 1990. I really appreciate YOUR info on this subject.
I'll know what to do when I need more primers.

THNX abunch!

Jerry

The links not only show photos they also provide chamber pressure, velocity, SD and ES. And these two links have provided more information on primers and there effects than the vast majority of data you will find anywhere else on the net. And this information was first published in Precision Shooting Magazine and read by thousands of competitive shooters. And the chart below shows that the (soft) Russian PMC LR produced the lowest SD and ES and one of the lowest chamber pressures. Therefore a picture is worth a thousand words, and even more when backed up with statistical data.



"A careful study of the primer flash photos and the related data in Table 1 will show that the correlation between flash size and pressure which we have previously noted is neither exact nor universal, but it is a strong one. Generally speaking, a lower level of visual flash corresponds to a lower level of pressure and velocity. Other statistical measures, however, notably the standard deviation (SD) of both pressure and velocity do not necessarily follow the same trend. Perhaps we’re seeing the need for more flash in a larger case."




The Rifleman's Journal is a wealth of information, written by a world class competitive shooter and all you have to do is read.

The Rifleman's Journal
Index of Articles
http://riflemansjournal.blogspot.com/p/articles-index.html

Have been in plenty of pressure labs, and none of the techs at the best place that much faith in results from strain gauges. They say strain gauges are useful for certain purposes, such as comparing average pressures from factory ammo and handloads in the same barrel, but not for the sort of statistical analysis indicated. It's sort of like the difference between a Shooting Chrony and a lab-level Oehler. I am sure a bunch of people will object to this statement, but that is what the boys who actually work with piezo-electronic equipment have told me.

And if you look in any reloading manual and a specific firearm is listed for the reloading data a strain gauge was use to gather the pressure readings. And when a universal receiver with a pressure test barrel is used with a transducer the max load is much lower because the test barrel has a minimum SAAMI diameter bore.

So tell us all Mule Deer why so many manuals like Lyman, Hornady, Sierra, etc. use strain gauges for their data.

Or like I said in another posting the Hornady manual lists 23.2 grains of H355 and a 55 grain bullet as max. And the same load in the Sierra manual with H335 and 55 grain bullets lists 27.5 grains as a max load. And why the manuals say to start low and workup when using the loading data.

So tell us more about strain gauges and load data in the very manuals we all use.

Or like I said in another posting the Hornady manual lists 23.2 grains of H355 and a 55 grain bullet as max. And the same load in the Sierra manual with H335 and 55 grain bullets lists 27.5 grains as a max load. And why the manuals say to start low and workup when using the loading data.

And just what the hell does this statement have even an inkling of relevance to a large rifle primer????

Ignore button time.

He came here to instruct, not listen dammit.....

You have it partly right, but may have misunderstood why, unless I'm not following what you meant. There's nothing wrong with the accuracy of strain gages - for measuring strain. They are very accurate when done right.

The disconnect is in correlating strain measurements to pressures. You can strain gage a barrel and record data when you fire it, but you aren't measuring pressure, you're measuring strain. Drawing a correlation between strain and pressure on that particular barrel is an estimate at best, because you don't know what the pressure really is. That's why this method can be useful for comparing a known load to something new, but not so good for absolute pressure measurements.

Disclaimer - I don't work for an ammo or powder company, but am one of the "boys" that work with strain gages and other instrumentation on a regular basis.

We'll let's see here. The Hornady Data I have lists a maximum load of H335 at 23.2 grs. Darned if I can find any data for H355......
Then, according to our new expert, the loads and velocities from sporter barrels are always higher because they use strain gauges whereas folks like Nosler who use pressure barrels and transducers are "much lower" due to SAAMI spec barrels.
I happen to have Nosler's data for H335 and 55 gr. bullets as well. They list 25.0 grs. of H335, and a bit more velocity than does Hornady. Hornady's rifle has a 26 inch barrel while the Nosler had a 24, BTW.
How about primers ? Hornady's data uses the uses the WSR primer which I've been led to believe was designed for pressures in the .22 Hornet and the .218 Bee. The Remington 7 1/2's used by Nosler are designed for much higher pressures of the 5.56 Nato round. Hmmm.
For the record, Hornady lists H335 with a maximum of 23.2 grs. all right, but that includes all five of their 55 gr. bullets. My money says this is the maximum for one of them, not all of them.
Nosler lists a maximum of 25.0 grs. for their one 55 gr. bullet.
Sierra lists a maximum load of 25.7 grs. of H335 for all seven of their 55 gr. bullets in an AR-15. In a bolt action, they list 27.5 grs.
Speer lists a maximum of 26.0 grs. for the three 55 gr. bullets they sell.
What this tells me, after a mere 57 yrs. of handloading rifle ammo, is that rifles, bullets used them, and other components all vary some. The other thing is that we need some idea where to expect the top end. The real value being in getting reasonable performance w/o causing problems for us from overly hot loads. E

You are right cant argue that point.
But still have yet to see one iota of his experience or testing. its always something he has read, not Done.
His demeanor in such a short time just pizzed me off.

It doesn't take long to tell the "been there done that" guys from the wannabe's.

you guys are making this way too hard.

the correct primer is the one you can get in sufficient quantities to support your needs. it is really that easy.

Ahh, the simplistic approach.
Not embracing the full value of looneyism in having multiple combinations of components and loads that will carry you through times of shortages.
I once used that approach, and it came back and bit me in the ass.

Big Ed,

Yes, a number of bullet and loading companies use strain gauges, but they’re also members of SAAMI. This means they exchange information with other members of SAAMI, and if they run into oddities they can check with a couple of major companies that use piezo equipment, both of which account for that vast majority of powder distributed in the U.S. They do check pretty often, and in fact one of the bullet companies you list has had one of those piezo labs do their testing, rather than use a strain gauge. One of those piezo labs, in fact, is kept very busy testing loads for a variety of companies, not just the loads they publish for their own powders.

One of the heads of one of those major labs said “with strain gauges there are too many layers to result in anything more than general pressure comparisons.” And yes, he has more experience with strain gauges than any of the hobbyists who buy a Pressure Trace and suddenly think they have a ballistic laboratory to provide THE TRUTH, rather than the fiction the big companies show in their data.

In that guy’s opinion, strain gauges are reasonably useful for general pressure comparisons. He specifically mentioned comparing the pressure of handloads to factory ammo, giving the home handloader a reasonably useful indication of the pressure of their loads, certainly more accurate than guessing from traditional “pressure signs.” But the results aren’t accurate enough to work up factory ammo, or obtain very accurate standard deviation numbers for analysis.

The other problem with German’s results from his strain-gauge experiments is they often involve a very limited number of cartridges, and usually cartridges of a very limited type, usually relatively small in capacity. The indications he got from the primer test are NOT valid for all rounds, because some definitely benefit from much hotter primers, however you want to define “hotter.” This is even true of some pretty small rounds, with some powders.

The comment about primer flash photos was made by a guy with as much time (several decades) in professional pressure labs as the guy who provided the comments on strain gauges. He helped design AND improve a bunch of different primers over the years, for all sorts of cartridges, both civilian and military rounds, instead just taking their photos and running a very limited test with one type of round.

German is also the guy who came to the conclusion, through strain-gauge tests, that Reloder 17 was “a new paradigm in powder performance.” He tested it in one small cartridge, the 6xc, against a small number of other powders, and RL-17 did what he said. But a LOT of powders will also outperform others by a considerable margin in certain rounds, and that doesn’t mean they’re magic.

His “news” that Reloder 17 resulted in an extra 200 fps at the same pressures as other powders was instantly all over the Internet. And a lot of people believed it, because there wasn’t any professional pressure testing of Reloder 17 available at the time. Handloaders working up loads with traditional pressure signs often DID get lots more velocity, because traditional pressure sign usually don’t show up until around 70,000 PSI. (I know this from work done in a professional piezo lab.)

When professionally tested data for RL-17 finally appeared, it turned out it was a good powder, but certainly no new paradigm. In a few rounds it does gain as much as 100 fps over other powders, but even some other new Alliant powders, such as 4000 MR, get more velocity at the same pressure in other rounds. Even old powders like RL-19 and 22 will sometimes beat 17 in particular applications.

Don’t get the idea from all this that I don’t like German’s work. I have been reading it for years, and do find much of his information interesting and useful—as far as it goes. But like the primer test and his conclusions about RL-17, it’s often very limited in scope.

I was very glad when Denton posted the information about the minimal differences in pressures recorded with SAAMI and CIP systems, because I was thinking about posting the same information. I was actually in the Western Powders lab right after they’d just finished up their tests on all that, and the head ballistician found there was less than 1000 PSI difference in the two methods. But if I would have posted that, instead of Denton, you would have instantly gone ballistic, as they say.

The Internet is a great resource for information, but it is far from the only resource. I have spent days in various pressure labs around the country, and even worked briefly in a couple, both strain and piezo, to get a better grasp of what’s goes on. I’ve also spent hours and even days talking to the various techs in those labs, including the head guys, and learned things they’ll never post on the Internet, because they’re far too busy testing pressures day after day, year after year. They’re not running Pressure Trace tests with a few cartridges and powders and then posting the results.