This topic has probably been discussed before, but has anybody done some work in this area and was there a difference noted? Specifically F-210M and standards..

Depends.

Sometimes things don't turn out the way the rule of thumb says it is supposed to. In fact, for me I think empirical results defy the theory more often than support it. An example .. I used to own a fairly accurate Ruger 77 RL in .257 Roberts. It would shoot well with either the Federal 210M or Federal 215, but not with the standard 210.

I'm at a point in life where time is my most valuable commodity. Way too much to do, way too little time. Wasting time trying to save $4 on a carton of primers makes no sense at all. Same with bullets and brass. I buy the "best" I can obtain, whether it's match primers and brass over standard or premium bullets over cup 'n' core bullets, so that my time is spent with the highest possible probability of success, the highest probability of finding a good enough load fastest.

So for me, I grab match primers whenever they're available.

Tom

Money is not the issue as I have plenty of both on hand. As to the 210 v 215 issue, I can tell you pretty much without exception (except the 257 Weatherby) if the powder charge is 80gr or less, 210s afford me greater accuracy.

The is no difference between 210's or 210 Match primers, except match go through 1 more inspection process.

I've visited both the Federal and CCI primer factories, and the match/benchrest versions are made more consistently than the standard versions. The priming compound is spread into the cups by workers who've been tested to do it more consistently, and the cups themselves are punched from the same batch of brass in a certain production lot, so they'll be more consistent as well. With the standard primers the batch of cup brass may be changed during production of the same lot.

But otherwise they use the same type and amount of priming compound, and the same cup thickness, as the standard versions. Whether they make any measurable difference in a certain rifle depends on the accuracy level of the rifle (and of course the shooter). In most factory big game rifles there's normally no difference in performance.

jorge we have found the biggest variable by far in hand loading is the bullet, seating depth is in second place, a real distant third is powder choice, and almost not on the charts is primer choice. Unless you are shooting extreme long range precision, or bench rest, primers are of next to no concern.

Well, that means a lot to me. I prefer to shoot with primers that have been inspected a lot.

Thanks MD, Ingwe, et al for the responses.

jorge,

I should add to ingwe's primer observation that there are some instances where primers make a noticeable difference. The most common is with spherical powders, or charges over about 60 grains with extruded powders. The other observation I've made personally is that rifle primers become far more important the smaller the case. Have seen this numerous times with the various Hornet rounds, and to a lesser extent in other cases almost as small, such as the .221 Fireball.

aalf is correct, just an extra visual inspection. I would never spend the extra on match primers over the standard ones on my BR rifles or hunting rifles.

I've shot a lot of match primers. I don't see any difference in my group size or score between them and standard primers. I still buy them for my long range ammo.

Mike Venturino had an interesting write up back in the late 70's in Handloader regarding primers and his two favorite 222 loads.


22 LR ammo also seems to go through similar nuances with regards to inspection, sorting and who/what is employed to do both. It does have a bearing on 22 ammo, sometimes, not always, but across the board the odds favor the "extra" attention.

For example, Norma Tac-22 and Match-22, for all intents are the same load. I use both, but on average the Match-22 is more consistent, at least as far as accuracy goes. If I was bored enough to clock every round at the muzzle and in front of the target, I would make a guess the Match-22 to be more consistent. The targets, especially the ones 100 yds. and beyond, really illustrate the difference.

Said another way, I'll take the "Match" 22 ammo over the Standard.

My observation as well, John. The most telling results came with my 338 Winchester. The load data called for F-215 primers and on the advice of a friend of mine who related a conversation he had with someone at Federal, he recommended the 80grain threshold for magnum type primers. It has worked precisely like that for me in all calibers tested except the 257 Weatherby. J

Must be different Federal folks that came to some of our BR Nationals and Super Shoots I guess. They need to get on the same page.

Because? they said the opposite?

You know. I've got some knife sharpening to do. It really doesn't matter to me what your choice may be. I'm only relating what the Federal folks told us at those matches. MD was told something different. I ain't trying to piss on your boots.
Now back to my knife sharpening.

Actually, I wasn't "told" something different. My comment was based on results seen in my own handloading. A good example is 200-grain Ballistic Silvertips in my .338 Winchester Magnum with around 65-67 grains of Reloder 15 (exacly how much depends on the lot). With Federal 215's they make little cloverleaves. With non-magnum primers they shoot into about 1-1/4 inches.

Have also gotten better far accuracy with magnum primers when using spherical powders in pretty small cartridges, including the .22 Hornet and .220 Swift. Magnums don't always result in finer accuracy with sphericals, but they're worth a try.

Then again, the old adage of every rifle is different applies as well..

My observations are along the same lines as JB et al. Haven't seen a noticeable difference between standard and match primers( though I use them fairly often just because....the price difference isn't earth shaking), but I've seen major changes between using standard and magnum primers, when using ball powder, or slow extruded. I'm not a long range guy, having never fired a shot at a big game animal beyond 300 yards or so. How it affects accuracy beyond that, I can't speak to.

Jeff

I don't bother trying different primers much anymore, except with smaller cartridges. 308s, 303s, 30-30s, even my 225 never seemed to care which primer I used. But oh, my Hornets were finicky! To a lesser extent, my 222s. I haven't played around too much with primers yet in my 6x45mms, but I suspect there will be some preferences. I just buy a bunch of Winchester primers every few years and am done with it.

I have compared cci 200's to cci BR-2's in several rifles and have not been able to see any real difference. In fact, in my most accurate 308, the 200's shot a little better but so little that it was insignificant. It might just as well have been the luck of the draw; a flawed bullet or a screw-up by the operator. The same rifle positively hate Federal 210 Match and group size is 50& greater than with CCI's. My Silohette rifle doesn't seem to care much but I don't expect nearly as much out of it and it doesn't shoot nearly as well as the 308 "F" class gun.
I once shot in a BR match (back in the seventies) with a pretty good 6x47. I had gotten some Federal Match small rifle primers to try and I started out by shooting a group with CCI's on the sighter and firing the for-record group with the Federals. It is a testament to my stupidity that I followed this road through the warm-up and two record targets. We were shooting at 200 yd and I would fire a group of 3/8 or less on the sighter, then move up and fire a solid .7 for record. When I finally caught on and switched things around, I had already dug myself a pretty deep hole and lost the 200 yd stage. I was lucky to hold on for the grand agg.
With the next rifle I built, my first PPC, I tested CCI's Federals, and Remington SR Match. This rifle, built on a Wichita action, showed a marked preference for the Remingtons and I used them in it always. GD

Accuracy being one thing, I have always used magnum primers when I knew the ammo was going to be used in colder temperatures, when using ball powders and when there was a lot of compression of the powder. Wrong or right this has worked for me.

I think the differences between 210 and 210M's are well covered on this thread. But I can give you something to chase down regarding other works done on primers.
1) Bob Jensen was a highpower competitor and is famous for having loaded the hundreds of thousands of 308 rounds shot in the 1992 Palma matches. Lesser know is how fanatical he was about primer selection. He made a rig to test the force of primers by shooting and chronoing a pellet propelled by primers. He found that the gentler primers proved to be the most accurate at long range. At that time (1970's and 80's) he had found that the RWS primers were the most gentle and most accurate in the 308 at long range. I also recall him writing that each primer lot was a beast unto itself (meaning you need to test each lot). He was striving for a sigma of 7fps to minimize vertical dispersion.
2) Creighton Audette was a gunsmith, competitor, experimenter, ballistic scholar and writer. His last work before passing was published in Precision Shooting and was detailed analysis of primers and the differences between them. There were fascinating spark photographs showing what the flames looked like.
3) German Salazar repeated and updated some of Audette's work (complete with photograph of the flames).

One gist I culled from the various writings was that magnum primers tended to have more "brissance" to better ignite the larger charges.