Home Forums Reloading Big Game Rifles What's the best improvement you've seen using Math Grade primers ?

Been rooting around the web for info on using match grade primers - some swear by them others say don't bother -some say waste of money others say the opposite .?.

Math was never my forte.




P

Tried them a long time ago, didn't see any appreciable difference in accuracy.

Gave up on buying CCI BR primers as I never saw 20 bucks per 1000 difference between them and standard CCI. I still use Federal GM primers at times only because they are only about 4-5 bucks per 1000 difference between them and standard CCI or standard Federal. Again no appreciable difference that I can tell so most of my primer use is plain old CCI.

Maybe mathman will chime in

I asked jb the same question in the 3,5, and 10 shot group thread and all i heard was crickets chirping. Must have meant, he hasnt noticed a damn difference either. I bought 5000 br4's a while back for cheap and i havent noticed much of a difference in them compared to cci400 primers. Ive burned through 2500 of those in the last 6 months. Loads are all sub moa with them, but so are the ones with the cci400.

When I chronoed the two I saw maybe a 1 to 2 point reduction in sd and es, but no difference in velocity or grouping. I would have to fire up my laptop to get exact numbers, but the slight gain didn’t result in anything meaningful to justify 20 bucks difference.

Apple pie times the radias squared!


I have seen any improvement, but don’t own any target quality rifles. Using them makes me think I’m doing something to improve my loads.

Thanks I won't bother thinking about it again.
Plain old cci 200's have been fine .
Yeah $20 difference - that's nearly a box of bullets

Changing primers can change results in different rifles with different chamberings and different loads.
A generalization is inaccurate advise.

Sometimes you see a change and sometimes you don't.

I have a 7x57 that hates CC! 200's and a .30/06 that loves them. You can't guess, you have to try them and see how the results average out.
Both like Federal 210's but I only knew that after checking.

Sir, I wasn’t trying to discourage you from trying. I still shoot BR primers, but have gone to Federal GMM for large rifle. My BR2 are gone and won’t be replaced. The GMM works just as well as BR2 in 22.250, 220 Swift, 243 and 25.06 they are just cheaper. For small rifle I still have a box of BR4 to go through and they won’t be replaced either as GMM works just as well. I was really impressed with the Remington 7 1/2 BR. For the cost they are a damn good primer.
Performance to cost was the determining factor, and the CCI BR’s don’t justify it.

Being not far from the hood, I get Meth grade primers. They are the bomb

The only difference between cci 400 and BR is that the BR has a thicker cup

Thats good info, im sure the op will appreciate. I may just try those gmm and rem 7 1/2 BR as well. Thanks!

Literally

The one thing still not overabundant seems to be Federal Large Rifle Match primers. Could be they're good? They're definitely more mathy.

only br or match primers I use are Remington 7 1/2, 1. because Remington dont make regular small rifle primers. 2. I bought 25000 3 years ago for $16.00 a thousand. Between standard and match primers never seen a big advantage in a factory built guns.

I used to use a lot of the BR-2 "just because" and the price difference was small. I don't recall when the price gap jumped but that was it for me and the BR-2.

In the case of Federal primers, the only difference between match and regular primers, is that match go through one more inspection process than "regular" primers, nothing more.

Have you done any shooting with the S&B large rifle primer?

You would have to ask the benchrest guys, but for me shooting HP for 20 yrs, tried everything when first compeating to increase scores...all came down to the nut behind the bolt. Ended up using plain ol R-P 9 1/2`s.

If you're asking me, no.

Always been a Federal user, generally use match for match shooting, regular for the rest, although 7 1/2's for a lot of SR usage too due to price & toughness for some applications.

Anyone trust Winchester yet?

NOPE..

I have..on my 2nd brick. Can`t say they are any more accurate than US stuff. but they were a lot cheaper. Think I bought my first one for $21 at Cabela`s...their up to 28 now.

I got a brick of large pistol and a few hundred small pistol left and that will be it for WW around here.

I tried a box of the CCI BR about 10-12 years ago - didn't show any improvement that I could see on paper .

I think I still have half a box - I'll try them in my 280AI 180gr berger Hybrid load - can't hurt .

I've read similar reports of neck turning brass - one LR shooter on youtube can't fire a round without a turned neck - another [Sam Millard Panhandle Precision] says he never got any improvemet in any barrel/cartridge . More than one way to skin a cat I reckon .

I wouldn’t expect geometric improvement.

Back in the day when i was shooting benchrest competitively, I played with primers a bit in the heavy varmint .222. And, yes, the match grade primers made a difference. It wasn't much, but it was there.I never noticed much difference in normal hunting rifles.

I have had a handful of rifles that could/did tell the difference, but only in ignition ( vertical stacking), never in velocity. Now, "magnum" primers, yeah, sometimes in ignition but always in velocity. As said...you have to try them. For me and Match primers....I use them because its just one more variable out of the way...

I haven't had any problems with the ones I'm using. I also called Winchester to make sure they weren't on the bad list. So far so good.

I had my very first reload that didn’t go boom a couple weeks ago. CCI primer, I pulled bullet, it had powder in case. At least I was shooting at pigs in a trap.

I've only ran one test loading with different primers. It was interesting.

6mm Rem. Ran H4831 charges with 4 different primers. CCI 200, CCI 250, Fed 210, and Fed 210M.

Was surprised the Fed 210 and Fed 210M varied as much from each other. 200 fps slower, and a bit higher extreme spread. That was it for the Fed210.

CCI 200 was just worse than the Fed 210 in every way. If this test is any indication, I have no idea what I'll ever do with the 1000 CCI 200's on my shelf. A bit slower than the lagging Fed 210, really bad ES. Measuring cases indicated even at the slower fps, the case was showing similar pressure to the Fed 210M.

CCI 250 was really as much encouraging as the CCI 200 was disappointing. By far had the lowest extreme spread. But velocity was a little lower than the competitive Fed 210M.

I tested the CCI 250 - a large rifle Magnum Primer once before against a Large Rifle primer. Interesting thing is - the 250 was slower on that comparison too, not by much, but it was slower than the Large Rifle primer I was comparing to.. But the consistent velocities is where the CCI250 really shined that time too.

I ended up going with the Fed 210M with my 6mm, but I could have selected the CCI 250. CCI 250 actually did nudge it out by just a little - it's just that I have a few thousand more Fed 210 M primers than I have CCI 250 primers.

For me, on one intentional test, on this one gun of mine, with varied loads. It's CCI 250 first choice followed closely by Fed 210 M - toss up choice. Fed 210 is a reasonable and acceptable option - if never tested side by side to anything I'm sure you'd never be disappointed with Fed 210 performance.

The CCI 200 had no business at all in final load inclusion. It was comparatively bad in every way. Didn't expect that. Slow, with wide ES, and on top of that seemed pressure was higher at the slow velocity.

I'll test primers again on another load development. Didn't expect such drastic difference. And I'll be including a larger number of primer brands and models in my testing, load development. I was surprised the results were so drastically different.

*

Seems some guy from CCI thought the same thing. Not a bad read.
http://www.shootingtimes.com/editorial/ammunition_st_mamotaip_200909/100079

We tested loads at both maximum normal pressures and at the starting loads (some labs calculate start loads — we shot them). Standard primers caused no ignition issues at the max load but posted higher extreme variations in pressure and velocity in the lower pressure regimes of the start loads. In extreme cases, the start loads produced short delayed firings — probably in the range of 20 to 40 milliseconds but detectible to an experienced ballistician. Switching that propellant to a Magnum primer smoothed out the performance across the useful range of charge weights and completely eliminated the delays.

If I've recommended a Magnum primer in reloading data I've developed, it's because my lab results show it's needed.

using cci br my 22 hornet went from 1 1/4 to 3/4 inch . over all a good response.

The explanation I've seen in print more than once is that the primers are "grouted"'by the employees that have been the most consistent at that task. No difference otherwise; the inspections weren't mentioned IIRC. Same goes for CCI, except for the little "B" on the cups.

After a considerable dearth in the supply, I scored some thousands of the 210 Match, enough to last my needs. Bought a brick of the CCI BR2 with my teeth clenched before that, but likely never again. Don't know if the match stuff helps in my hunting rifles, but can't hurt.

They swapped me out two for one, or a little better. This was a couple of years ago now, I believe. No issues, and I load for 5 people with multiple rifles.




P

I had not heard there was a problem with Winchester primers. Is so, would someone be kind enough to provide some details on what the problem was and how to tell which ones had the problem? I think I have a stash of older Winchester primers that would be good to check out.

Thanks!

So then , is the 250 a magprimer only when comparing it to the 200 ?

Maybe Email Winchester and give them the Lot# on your primer boxes , they'll know if that Lot of primers had problems .

Sometimes it is, but I don't think you can generalize like that.

With hunting rifles only the 17 Rem gets the Rem 7&1/2. With my shooting I can't tell a difference with match primers in a hunting rifle. Might be a different story if I was a benchrester. But I have seen significant differences between standard and magnum primers in more than a couple of different loads.

One of the handloader digests from years ago was titled something like accuracy by the inch where a guy documented each step in his quest for accurizing a 222 varmint model 700. Although primers were way down the list they did take a couple of tenths off the average group size. He got down to a consistent 0.2 - 0.3 groupings with a factory rifle which is impressive.