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.

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.

Mule Deer

Over 75% of the reloading data in reloading manuals comes from strain gauges. Strain gauges glued to the barrels of the firearms listed in these very manuals. You also forgot to tell your following here that a cartridge of a known chamber pressure is test fired to calibrate the strain gauge and get more accurate readings.

Then you tell us using a transducer "there was less than 1000 PSI difference in the two methods" between the SAAMI and CIP methods. "BUT" the chamber pressure for the .223 using a SAAMI transducer is 55,000 psi and the CIP transducer reads 62,000 psi. And that's 7,000 psi and it makes me wonder who you are trying to bullshit.

Mr. Salazar used the very same strain gauge type testing used in the reloading manuals. These manuals list the type firearm used in the testing and the strain gauge is glued to the barrel for these pressure readings. You criticize Mr. Salazar but what testing have you done and then written about it? What primer tests have you done. What powder and pressure testing have you done, and then you say you spent a few days visiting testing labs and now an expert. Show me your body of work and the testing you have done that surpasses Mr. Salazar's body of work.

Then you say all these ammunition manufactures and reloading companies are members of the SAAMI. Guess what, membership to the SAAMI is voluntary, along with following SAAMI guidelines. And in Europe it is mandatory to belong to CIP and manufactured firearms and ammunition must pass CIP standards.

Now open a few reloading manuals and see how many universal receivers and transducers are used and how many specific firearms are listed where strain gauges are used.

Bottom line, I never heard of you until I came to this forum, and here you are criticizing people more widely read and known than you are. All I have seen is you having one big ego trip starting with how to neck size to you sounding off here.

Forgive me if I do not genuflect and kiss your ring.

Gee, Ed, if you’d actually read anything outside your Google-world you might have read some of my stuff about pressure-testing, including exactly how it’s done and some of my results. Oh, and yes, I have mentioned here and there that “reference ammo” of known pressure is used to calibrate either kind of electronic pressure equipment.

Just for the record, how much time have you spent in professional pressure laboratories?

And no, I wasn’t talking about the difference between SAAMI and CIP pressure standards, but how the difference between the SAME ammo tested in SAAMI and CIP barrels is less than 1000 PSI. You do have a reading comprehension problem, which became apparent when some of your links included information contradictory to what you were claiming.

Carry on. You’re occasionally entertaining, though you do tend to clog up threads.

Someone should just "genuflect and kiss " his own damn rosy ring.

I only use CCI's and have never had a problem...

Mule Deer

Your still side stepping the issue, over 75% of the load data in our reloading manuals comes from strain gauges.

And you say.......




Then because you think the world revolves around you and don't like seeing information that isn't yours you bad mouth German Salazar and the links I posted.

And Google is a wonderful tool, the whole world is your library and at your fingertips and many more people should use it. You can even Google rifle primer tests, the problem is mule dear if anyone does they will not find anything written by you. And you have the nerve to criticize a world class competitive shooter researching the effects of primers on accuracy.

I feel sorry for the people in this cloistered forum where only your opinion matters Mule Deer. You have a small following of hecklers that drink your purple Kool-Aid Mule Deer. And I'm not one of them, and anyone wanting to learn more about reloading would be better off at Accurate Shooter.

http://www.accurateshooter.com/ and they will not see your name there either.........I wonder why.

Are all these places that use strain gauges reporting concrete pressure numbers in their publications? Or are they developing their max loads to a measured amount of strain to match the strain produced by SAAMI reference ammunition which was developed and checked in a professional lab with piezo transducers?

Big Ed,

The big reason the majority of published handloading data (I wouldn’t put it at 75%) is strain-gauge is because strain-gauge systems are cheap compared to piezo systems. It definitely isn’t because strain-gauges are more accurate, because they aren’t. But they do work reasonably well for comparative pressure readings, as noted before, especially if somebody with piezo equipment provides reference ammo.

Strain-gauge equipment, however, does not provide the sort of shot-to-shot accuracy required to do extensive statistical work, just as a cheap light-screen chronograph with a 1-foot spacing doesn’t provide anywhere near the shot-to-shot accuracy of an Oehler 35P. The AVERAGE reading from the cheap chronograph will probably be very close to the Oehler’s, but the velocity of specific shots will be very different. I know this from testing many chronographs against an Oehler 35P. The difference between a strain-gauge and a piezo test is similar.

Yes, Google is wonderful thing, and I use it often, but it is not the sum of all knowledge. You tend to abuse it. This thread was started by somebody wondering what large rifle primer might work best in a muzzleloader. The test you keep posting was with very different powders than he’ll be using, and in the .30-06, not a muzzleloader. And before you even got that far, you felt compelled to post another test of SMALL RIFLE primers. It appears to me that for whatever reason, you simply must show the world how much you “know,” even if it’s irrelevant to the question at hand and somebody else did the research.

No, you won’t find much about my primer tests on the Internet because I only write for two websites, this one and my own. The reason? I make my living as a writer, and the Internet doesn’t pay nearly as magazines and books, even in this day and age. The Internet is a complement to print media, but so far hasn’t replaced it, despite predictions to the contrary.

You asked about my body of work. I have been getting paid for writing magazine articles and books for over 40 years now, and making my entire living as a writer for over 30. Over 1600 of my article have appeared, a few in state and regional publications but 98% in national publications. These weren’t just shooting publications but hunting, fishing, sports, wildlife, history and general-interest magazines, including Sports Illustrated and National Geographic.

I did a little gun writing in the 1980’s but really got started in the early 1990’s, after deciding to diversify a little. It turned out several editors liked my stuff, and their readers liked it as well, and by around 2000 the majority of my income came from shooting-related writing.

The list of magazines I’ve published articles about firearms-related topics in includes (but isn’t limited to) American Rifleman, Guns, Handloader, Petersen’s Hunting, Rifle, Sports Afield and Shooting Sportsman. I’ve served as a staff writer and columnist for all of those except Guns & Ammo, and right now do the optics and rifle-handloading columns for Guns and the rifle column for Sports Afield. Have also contributed to annual publications such as Handloader’s Digest, the Hodgdon Annual Manual and Gun Digest.

In addition to those magazine articles I’ve written 12 books and co-authored three, and my magazine articles have been reprinted in several books as chapters. (Oh, and reprinted in magazines published in other countries from Japan to South Africa.) Nine of the 15 books I’ve authored or co-authored involved guns or shooting optics, and right now I’m finishing up a rifle handloading book about the size of the average Gun Digest, which will appear around November 1st.

I haven’t gotten rich but make a better-than-average living, and have managed to collect a few nice guns and hunt around the world, taking just about every kind of game ever dreamed about when young. Have received several awards for my work, but the one that meant the most came from an organization of North American writers, for excellence in lifetime achievement. I happened to be the youngest recipient of the award, and it was very nice to get the approval of my peers.

Maybe this doesn’t measure up to having a blog on the Internet, but you asked.

mathman

The SAAMI reference ammunition is fired in a pressure test barrel and the chamber and bore are at minimum SAAMI dimensions. Meaning because of the minimum chamber and bore dimensions their results are the highest possible pressures you will ever see.

Now on the flip side of this if you have a worn milsurp rifle with a fat and long chamber and a worn barrel the pressures will be much less.

In the back of the Speer #14 reloading manual there is an article "Why Ballisticians Get Gray" and all the varibuls of testing. And why pressure testing is not an exact science and it is based on many variables.

Below is from Pressure Trace II Rifle Chamber Pressure Testing Hardware & Software (strain gauges)

https://www.shootingsoftware.com/pressure.htm

"PressureTrace will generate PSI estimates without calibrating the system to a factory load!
Using factory ammo or a load reference with known pressure to verify results is always recommended but we recognize each chamber will produce different pressures and wildcatters may have nothing for comparison. PressureTrace uses both thick and thin wall open vessel algorithms to provide reasonably accurate pressure estimates from barrel, chamber and brass dimensions. Unlike other products PressureTrace does not require a large correction "fudge" factor for pressure held by the brass but the system can still be calibrated to match other pressure systems. For safety, NEVER exceed the loads in a reputable load manual."

Bottom line, a transducer is only accurate in the chamber and barrel it is tested in, and strain gauges are accurate enough to use in over 75% of the load data in our manuals. And if the manual states a model 70 Winchester was used for testing then a strain gauge was glued to the test barrel. And if the reloading companies use strain gauges for testing their bullets and powders what are we arguing about?

Do you have Quickload software, to get accurate reading from Quickload you need a chronograph. Then you must tweak the burn rate in Quickload until the two velocities match. And even then it is still an estimate. And this is because of all the various firearms will not generate the same chamber pressures.

And all the reloading manuals tell you to start low and workup for safety. Because no two rifles are the same and all the different components we use. And since we don't live in Europe CIP doesn't have anything to do with us with our SAAMI and pressure readings.

If the manual says a Model XXX was used for testing, without saying explicitly for pressure testing, it could very well be a sporter used to velocity test ammunition developed in a dedicated pressure gun.

I think Speer does this for one example.

Mule Deer

German Salazar is a world class competitive long range shooter and you Mule deer are not. You write about hunting, rifle rest, etc.

And your ego makes you think you know more about reloading than Mr. Salazar, and that's where you are wrong. And this pissing contest started over neck sizing where you are behind the times. And if I can get .001 or less runout when neck sizing and you can't then you are doing something wrong. And the end result of you and your insulting buddies is in the last post OP that he made. And who can learn anything here with all the insults and name calling. And if you think this is a first class site for reloading information your very wrong. This forum is a circus full of clowns patting themselves on the back and nothing more.


If you were such a great reloader Mule Deer why didn't you tell the OP in the "Cratered and Pierced Primers - Advice Needed" posting to use a thicker primer.

In the November issue of "Rifle" magazine is the first time I remember seeing your name because of being at this site. But I skipped over Rifle Rests" and went directly to Mike Venturino and "Interesting Rifles". So Mule Deer my preferred reading material doesn't deal with what you write about or your name might have stuck. You see Mule Deer in 1992 I was injured at work and could no longer hunt. And I took up collecting milsurp rifles and my favorite was the No.4 Enfield rifle.

So the real problem here is you never wrote about hunting or shooting a Enfield rifle and Mike Venturino did. And I really never heard of you before coming to this site. And then you tell me my advice on neck sizing dies was wrong. Now imagine someone saying you don't know how to pull the handle on your reloading press Mule Deer. The OP in the neck sizing posting removed his expander and half his runout disappeared. And you had the audacity to tell me I was wrong.

And German Salazar is a world class compeditive shooter and you just write about hunting and shooting. So I can assure you are not in his class or share his shooting ability or awards. Now get over yourself and realize you are not the only person in the world who knows how to reload.

Yes, Speer does exactly that, at least in most cartridges, and so does Hornady.

It’s plainly stated in the 9th Hornady Handbook (the most recent) on page 71: “When possible, loading data was fired in a special firearm designed to measure pressure….The barrel and chamber dimensions are carefully produced to exact SAAMI specifications. Data is generated until a maximum pressure, determined by SAAMI, is reached. These various loads are then text fired in commercially available firearms for velocity.” There is no mention of strain gauges, and a “special firearm designed to measure pressure” is obviously not a factory rifle with a strain gauge attached.

This section also mentions their method of primer selection, and says, “In larger cases with slower powders, magnum primers were used. These generally produce a hotter flame of longer duration and are useful for consistently igniting large charges of slow powders.” Please note there is no mention of flame length.

Big Ed,

I don’t comment on all threads, especially one where the answer is so obvious that several people will suggest it shortly—like the one on cratered primers.

I did not say you were wrong about neck sizing dies. I stated what the basic problem was with neck-sizing dies, and you felt compelled to suggest testing, which proved that exactly what I stated was happening. The rest of your “solution” to the problem involved uniforming brass and playing with the expander ball, techniques common to ALL sizing dies.

Gee, I’ve written about handloading and hunting with Enfield rifles in Handloader, but not in Rifle, so I guess that disqualifies me. I do experiment with dozens of cartridges to get them shooting the best they can, for whatever purpose, whether punching holes in paper or shooting long-range gongs, targets or varmints. If none of that is any interest to you, frankly I don’t care. If a writer’s heart gets broken because some keyboard commando doesn’t rear his stuff, then he’s never going to have a career.

I admire German, and as noted in an earlier post have gotten some interesting information from his writing. But as I also pointed out with specific examples, he often jumps to conclusions based on relatively little or even faulty data, which has nothing to do with his skill with a rifle.

And if you go to the bottom of page 71 it says the following.

"The vast majority of the data in this book was derived from the use of strain gauges."

So Mule Deer you forgot to tell us you are using selective editing to make yourself look good by leaving out some of the very important facts. And that being "The vast majority of the data in the Hornady reloading manual comes from the use of strain gauges. And you said I had a reading comprehension problem and your problem is you do not read "ALL" the information provided. And then you have the nerve to try and blow smoke up our backsides.

Mule Deer I wonder what would happen if I sent all the links here with your comments and your buddies saying douche, dickhead, [bleep], etc. what the publishers would think of you. And your ability to control a forum with your name all over it.

To the rest of you if you want to learn more about reloading then go to Accurate Shooter. You will not be dealing all the BS you have here in this three ring circus with all the clowns.

Good Bye Mule Deer, I have seen this "act" too many times with one person dominating the stage.

If I read anything you wrote about the Enfield rifle and reloading for it didn't impress me. And that's because I know more about reloading the Enfield rifle than you do.

I even have a great sense of humor and at Accurate Shooter I told them I was getting wide variations with my MagnetoSpeed and my No.4 Enfield rifle.



The smart ones said the cosmic rays were bouncing off the duct tape and causing the bad readings. And the others just didn't get it.

And in closing Mule Deer you will never know as much about the Enfield rifle as I do. And that's a fact because you have never read what I wrote in forums about the Enfield rifle or have all the manuals for its care and feeding.

So tell me Mule Deer what is Enfield bolt head timing. Don't worry I'm retired and have plenty of time. Now all you have to do is Google the subject.

Or just read this posting here, Steve Redgwell and I are "old buddies" from way back.

60s/65s in my 222
https://www.24hourcampfire.com/ubbth.../10385204/60s/65s_in_my_222#Post10385204

Big Ed,

Gosh, you're right! I didn't read enough of the Hornady info, probably because I've been proof-reading too much to get this book out.

Will check out your Enfield info. Am sure it will be interesting.

So what, you like your Enfields.

BFD.

Do Enfields kill deer better. Maybe I should go to your web site Big Ed because guys like me need to learn more about reloading and how to shoot. Do your Endfields do this?I'll hang out here. We have Big Stick for fun and Mule Deer for knowledge.

Goodbye Mule droppings, you keep your idiot friends.

I have better things to do than argue about neck sizing and strain gauges.

You just keep wading through this cesspool of fecal debris you helped create.

So reminds me of a little teenager who stomps his foot and screams statements as if the louder he is the more right he is.

oops, think I repeated what I said a week ago or so.

And if anyone clicks on your name and then your posts they will find nothing but insults and nothing to expand anyone's mind about reloading.

Bottom line, these forums are a cesspool of big mouth turds who just smell up the forum and add nothing to the knowledge base.

I can see why no one ever told me to come here, its just a group of mutual backslapping loudmouth idiots. And the shame of it is no one is stopping these people from dragging these forums and this webpage down the drain.

If you don't like it here, feel free to leave.

Wish he would. Ooops my bad . So informative. Quit quoting the pecker head and I won't miss him.

What can I say about a bunch of Yo-Yos that are below my level of intelligence.
I'm traveling at the speed of light and you clowns are not even potty trained yet.

So your Enfield puts 5 250 grain bullets in one hole at 200 yds or not. I'm a fxcking plumber and figured that out before the internet. Talked to people who hunted Africa. Get lost dipshit.

I thought this thread was about primers, what about getting back to the point of thread. Rio7

"Little Larry" (because he's half Larry Root, half Little Twig) doesn't know anything about primers. Since he would be unable to sufficiently stroke his ego by returning to a discussion on primers, he couldn't possibly let that happen.

Now eddie, I stay quiet to learn things, never have much to add, but guys like you though, well just easy pickins really. I am not above a free bash now and again.

I started reading this thread to learn more about primers, as primers have had a affect, on some reloading I have been doing lately. Rio7

Rio, Primers can have a huge effect.

What kind of issues are you seeing?

Sniper, I have been messing around with a 6.5 X 284, using all CCI primers, and IMR-4350, 142 gr Bullet,I have found when I change primers that it has a big effect on the groups I am getting, and some difference on the speed I am getting, CCI-200 shoots great, MLR shoots good not great, 250 Magnum and BR-2 shoots patterns.
What I don't know is why??? Rio7

Rio, that's exactly what I would expect.

In my experience, a small to medium charge of an easy to ignite stick powder like IMR-4350 Performs best with a cool primer. In these instances, my favorite is the CCI-200. Imagine you are just giving the powder a nice consistent small flame, as opposed to scattering it with a flame thrower.

On the other hand, hard to light ball powder tend to need the flame thrower....you don't want to be on the edge where it's trying to decide how well it's going to light for you.

With stick powder, my general preference is CCI 200 up to an "06 size case. Bigger then that I will switch to a magnum primer. I've had good luck with the WMRP, so that's my typical goto primer in something like a 338WM with 4350.

It is interesting to note I can shoot submoa groups with both CCI 200 and WMRP in the .270 Win, however the POI will shift a full foot vertically with the Winchesters shooting higher. I've repeated this phenomena in multiple rifles.

Sometimes getting a load to group is all about the primer. In my STW I'm shooting a heavy charge of a surplus ball powder. I've tried about every primer you can imagine, and the only one that give me good groups are the FED 215's.

Bottom line is primers do matter, and for best results you do need to match your primer to your purpose.

Why is because you forgot what Dennis Hopper said in the movie "Easy Rider". Your getting bad vibes man, your getting bad vibes. Meaning changing primers changed the way your barrel vibrates. And I bet antelope_sniper didn't think I "node" that.



There are two ways to change barrel vibrations, change the up pressure at the fore end tip or vary the amount of powder with your existing primer.

And from the same people who brought you the "Strain Gauge" method of chamber pressure testing.

Barrel Harmonics, Pressures and Timing (expanded 12/24/04)
https://www.shootingsoftware.com/barrel.htm

That's just funny.

Maybe someday you will do enough shooting to understand why.

And yet another troll goes on ignore.