As to not highjack someone else’s thread, I thought I’d start another.
I have done a lot of bullet testing over the years using the Bullet Test Tube. In that testing, learned several things. First, there aint no such thing as an ‘efficient “ cartridge. They all will blow unburnt powder into the media. But over the years I have observed that when using a magnum primer or a standard, the magnum always sends less unburnt powder into the media. What does that mean ? The only thing it means for sure is that less powder gets blown into the media.
Seems in the gun industry, a piece of info like that gets twisted into several other things. But in my mind, it only means exactly what “that” test proved.
Charlie

Referencing your comment about using pistol primers in rifle cases, can all primers withstand the same pressures? I have always thought that pistol primers were designed for lower pressures and were probably not as hot as a rifle primer of equal size.

Only time I ran into trouble was in using Remington 6 1/2s in a 223. They were given to me and I had never heard that they were only for low pressure loads. They are sure not marked that way. I figured all small rifle primers could be used where that size was needed. Several of them developed pin holes and pitted the bolt face.

Also, and this might need to be another thread, what are your opinions on gas handling of the various actions? I think Rem 700s are about the safest but how about Tikka and the new model 70 Winchesters? This would be in the event of a blown primer or ruptured case.

Thanks

Anson
I’ll try to answer in the order you wrote.
I have always been told rifle primers have a thicker cup, saw several articles on this. Personally, I have not been able to prove this. But that doesn’t necessarily mean anything. As for withstanding pressure, thats a wide discussion. Mainly depends on how good the fit between the bolt face and the case, and firing pin alignment, firing pin bore size, relationship between firing pin size and bore, firing pin shape, and the force it hits the primer. And headspace. And several other things.
I am not sure any more exactly what a “hot” primer is. In my mind, a hot primer is always a hot primer. But in some loads, the pressure and speed are the same as any other. So in my mind, a primer cant be hot sometimes, and other times not.
My testing is somewhat , or you could probably accurately say, extremely skewed . I usually test in a bolt rifle that I build. Straight chamber, bolt face, firing pin correct, correct headspace, etc. I would guess this allows for things you couldn’t do in other systems. I have saw some eye openers with ammo fired in semi-auto and full auto weapons. Thats a whole different game.
As far as gas handling, a Rem 700 is fine. Kind of depends on exactly what the failure is. But any of the modern bolt designs do well.
Charlie

Another note...
Sometimes there is info put out by so called “experts” that do a small sample test, or sometimes none at all.
I have been doing this a long time. Spent a lot of time and money. And this I have learned, and told a friend recently:
I have spent enough time and money and effort and have enough recorded data to prove beyond the shadow of a doubt, that by god I dont know enough about what goes on in side a rifle barrel to advise anyone.”
My friend was somewhat “taken” by that statement. And after I studied it over, I was too.
Charlie

Charlie thanks. Would like to see more on your testing. I am in the category of the more I know the dumber I get, no need to test that theory.

Charlie.....I don't know shirt...just trying to learn.

It seems to me that this reloading deal is a lot like zyrmungy.....the art of brewing.

Pitching the exact amount of yeast to cause the desired flavors in fermentation are best an art, not really a science.

It is absolutely fascinating. IMO. Thanks for your posts

John

But my question is just how much true variation is in a primer? How subtle are these variables in comparison to the variation in powder, cases, and bullet weight.

Thanks again

FWIW, here is a fellow, James Calhoon, who sectioned and measured different primers and yes the cup thickness does get thicker between rifle and magnum rifle. Other factors vary as well such as hardness and tensile strength but these aren't easily measured by your average Joe (or James).


http://www.jamescalhoon.com/primers_and_pressure.php


BTW, Charlie Sisk knows more than he lets on. So I've been told.

When this OP makes a post, I'll read it and try to learn something 🤔

Not really related but - I hope Charlie sticks around and posts more often. I used to enjoy his knowledge.

This is a very interesting topic to me. The latest run on primers found me a bit low on LR primers, but I was able to score a case of magnum primers. For as little as I reload, they will last a long time.

I read somewhere (I think it was P. O. Ackley) that powders of a certain burn rate such as IMR 4350 perform better with magnum primers vs large rifle primers. As I have several rifles that I use 4350 for I'm going to compare the results of std vs magnum primers regarding velocity and group size.

GSP,
I have tried LR vs LR mag primers quite a bit with H4350 and H4831 (and some other slowish burning powders) in 30-06 AI, 30-06, 280, 270, and 25-06 over the years.

More times than not mag primers increased group size. Mag primers usually resulted in a small increase in group size, once in a while a much larger increase. But once in a while it did noticeably decrease group size.

As I mentioned in the previous thread I’ve had mag primers decrease ES. There have been several times when mag primers decreased ES but increased group size!
Go figure........

At this juncture—but this could change—I think regular LR primers do a good job of igniting the extruded powders I mostly use.

I talked to a tech at Alliant at some length a few years ago about RL26 and mag primers in a 270. The tech also shot a 270 and had reviewed Alliant’s pressure data and pressure curves for the 270 w/ RL26. He said there was no indication that 60g of RL26 needed anything more than a regular LR primer and the powder was easily ignited even in cold weather.

He went on to say he might think about a mag primer at a 70g charge in a bigger cartridge.

I should also add there has been plenty of times there has been no apparent change in groups with LR vs LR mag primers, although velocity will increase a bit with the mag primers.

Alpinecrick thanks for the info. I'm loading for 270,280,25-06, several 7x57's amongst others. 4350 H4831 and 4350 are some of my go to powders. I have been using H414 in a couple of the 7x57.s but will be substituting W760.

A wise man knows what he knows, and what he doesn't know.

I’ve used cci 200s with h4831 in my dads 300wm got the past 15+ years without issues in temps from 90s down to below 0. Same load and goes bang every time. On a side note-he put a cheap Nikon buckmasters scope on it when he bought it and it has held zero since I sighted it in. He told me this year he’s never touched the dials since that day. Pretty amazing for a $200 or less scope and he is not gentle with his stuff.

Craig

Calhoon is a real guru on CZ 527’s, small rounds and such. Check out his website. He’s easy to talk to, very helpful.

He, like Charlie, is someone who is meticulous with his data and info. Both are well worth ones time reading and learning. They both make our shooting and loading more interesting.

We may think about a problem, ask a question. They also do, then set about working on how to solve it. Few have the skills and equipment to do much of that. Yeah, we do appreciate them and guys like them.

DF

For those interested, y’all should read Harold Vaughns book titled “Rifle Accuracy Facts” . Mr Vaughn certainly doesn't have John Barsness writing skill, but there is a lot of good info there. I have read this book several times. Made a lot of the same test. Got a lot of the same results.
One of those test I could never understand, or maybe I couldn’t accept the results. Mr Vaughn was testing muzzle blast, and its consistency . The blast was hardly ever the same. In my mind, thats impossible.
So I did my own test. First, I developed a load in a 308 that had 6 fps extreme spread on a 10 shot group, and less than 200 psi swing on the pressure. It took a lot of brass and bullet sorting to get that ! Next I set up a bench outside in an area about 5 acres that was open and flat, grass mowed evenly. Then In an area about 20 ft diameter, I spread ground up fiberglass insulation, the kind you blow in. Spread about two inches deep. Then fired, made a little drawing of what the fiberglass did. Then waited for it all to settle, then smoothed and added until I had about two inches.
I tested this on four different occasions. Each time I would fire and record ten rounds. I dont think in all that test I ever saw the same effect twice. In my mind, thats impossible. But the test said otherwise.
Charlie

Angus
You maybe right. About a year ago I started making rhubarb wine. Seems every batch turns out different, even when I do the exact same things. BUT IT ALWAYS TASTES GOOD !

UncleAlps

BTW, Charlie Sisk knows more than he lets on. So I've been told. [/quote]

I dont know who told you that, but I wouldn’t put much stock in it. I have been looking at him in the mirror for a long time now, and he aint that smart.

But I have learned not to tell everything I know....several things I have tested, the results dont go with mainstream thinking, so its best legally, financially, and mentally to keep my mouth shut.

Charlie;
Top of the morning to you sir, I hope your Christmas was a good one and all that matter in your world are well.

Thanks so much for sharing your knowledge with us, as a lifetime student of arms and a hand loader since '81, I very much appreciate your candor and approach to some of the more puzzling aspects as well.

When you and John Barness did a test on case shape years back - as I recall it was the same action and barrel, but cut to .300 H&H and .300WSM with the same load components used other than the cases of course. Anyways at the end - as I recall how John's story put it, you'd said more or less, "As with a few things in life this had led to more questions than answers."

That to my way of thinking indicates someone who I'll both respect and enjoy learning from as they've not arrived at any preconceived destination already, you know?

Anyways for what it's worth, I very much appreciate it.

All the best to you in 2021 and thanks again.

Dwayne

BC30cal
The test you mentioned, the 300 H&H and 300 WSM. Cut the chamber for the H&H first, then the WSM. The idea was to use the same barrel in both cartridges. Both have almost exact case capacity. With the same primers, powder and charge, and bullets, same chrono, same strain gage, etc, both made the same speed and pressure and accuracy. I dont buy the whole case shape/special shoulder/ no belt idea. Here is one thing I have learned and will test against any data at any time :
Primers, gun powder, and bullets do not respond to advertising !
They will do what they do.
And another thing.....I dont think we need any more new calibers until we starting burning something other than smokeless powder. The perceived advantages of several of these new calibers, the real advantage is less than the noise in the testing.
All that coming from a man who must have at least 15 wildcats in 9.3 !
Charlie

P.S. just remebered.....that particular barrel in the test shot better in every way with Ramshot Hunter than all the other powders.

Charlie,

A few years after you ran the .300 H&H/WSM test I had some very interesting conversations with guys who run major pressure labs about case-shape affecting pressures. NONE of them had ever seen that in any of their testing--in other words, the same amount of powder room produces the same pressures and velocities, just as you found.

However, one of the guys (the oldest and most experiences) said that case shape did affect the consistency of powder burn, especially shorter cases with shoulder angles around 30 degrees, which is of course the modern ideal for "accuracy" rounds. Both shallower and steeper shoulders (including the 40-degree Ackley angle) resulted in less consistent pressures.

The notion that the .300 WSM's case-shape allowed it to produce more velocity due to "efficiency" of the powder burn was promoted by Winchester PR. Their major "evidence" was the fact that the smaller WSM case could achieve 2960 fps with 180-grain bullets, the same as the then-standard factory load for the .300 Winchester Magnum. But they apparently failed to notice (or decided to ignore) the fact that the .300 WSM required more pressure to match the .300 Winchester load. Since then, of course, SAAMI has approved even faster 180-grain loads for the .300 Winchester Magnum.

This may have been more true in Ackley's time, both the powders and primers were different than now. In general I think primers have gotten hotter as more slower and ball powders were available. But this may not be across the board for all of them.

I think JB touched on the 300 H&H/300 WSM test in one of his Gun Gack books.
Charlie I don't think we need any more calibers either. A deer is still just a deer the same as they were in the days of Jack O Connor and Elmer Keith. I drank the Creedmore Kool Aid briefly . Didn't care for the rifle it was in and wasn't impressed enough to buy reloading dies. I sold it and had a 6.5X55 built and I love it. My last three custom rifles are in classic time proven calibers. The Swede, a 38-55 on a high wall action and a 300 H&H on a #1. If it's not broken stop trying to fix it.

My understanding is that it wasn't an accuracy test; but I brought up in the past that the short powder column and 30 degree shoulder didn't seem to have a measurable effect on accuracy or getting the fuel "lit" with more "efficiency".

Everything appeared to be pretty much same/same, with the usual small uncontrollable variables.

You're my hero . . . a 9,3 Newton by chance?

Probably don't really NEED the ones we have stacked away in the safe....

But, that's a 4 letter word to a Loony...



DF

I certainly cant say we dont need more calibers. But.....I my opinion.......the 338 Win Mag necked up to 9.3 , may be the most useful wildcat I ever made when it comes to putting meat in the freezer.
Charlie

Muskegman
I wish you hadn’t mentioned that.....now I have to buy another reamer...
Charlie

Fellas, this thread right here is why I have paid my dues of enduring a lot of Campfire dreck lo these many years now. Thank you, most sincerely.

While I have zero personal use for the magnum cartridges discussed in the course of the thread, the theory is transferable to that which does interest me. As an incorrigible student of the gun, I shall follow this thread to its end.

Am I wrong in promoting the following Therom:

The straighter the case becomes.....the more footpounds of energy is produced per grain of powder burned?

Thanks

You're correct in that case capacity to bore volume ratio matters, but the max average pressure of the cartridge matters as well.

That said, If two cartridges have the same capacity and operate at the same pressure, the one that as a larger diameter bore will be more efficient, ie, "the more foot-pounds of energy is produced per grain of powder burned."

Ah, the 9.3 Norma?!?

Did you give up on the 120 Knob Creek?

Sitka
I’ll give up Knob Creek when the grass grows over me.......
Charlie

Angus
I hadn’t given that formula any thought so I cant say. But after doing a lot of testing, to me, foot pounds of energy from a bullet is a might near useless number.......aaaahhhhhh....that statement will rub some hair the wrong way, but thats what my testing has shown. Your mileage may vary.
Charlie

FPE is a useless number IMHO

THIS^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

What measurements are " needed" when comparing kinetic ordinants?

Why is the 9.3 deemed a superior ordinance?

Does temperature affect the performance of primers?

Is FPE a kinetic energy measurement?

Are metallic cartridges a kinetic ordinance ?

Thanks

Angus,

Apparently you're one of the millions of Internet users who expect a "free" definitive answer in 2-3 sentences/ Good luck.

[img]http://[/img]

I hope you decide at some point to spill the beans, Charlie!

Something I've been saying for a while: there is a small body of stuff I KNOW and a huge body of stuff I believe, and a vast gulf between the two.

When someone presents observations and conclusions, it can be tricky to evaluate the statement. I won't argue with objective observations, but conclusions are often suspect. Evidence is not always proof and human beings are funny critters.

Great thread...my little contribution-
I once mistakenly used pistol primers for handloads, When I discovered this anomaly prior to shooting, I went forward anyways...I just geared up and tried it.
I found about 30% just misfired, and the balance pierced the primer- but discharged
These were fairly stout .270 wcf loads.
I purchased a shrink wrapped package of CCI large rifle primers , it had a pistol primers within it
Oops, but oh well ...and now I can pass this info along.
Don't bother to try this yourself.
Happy New Year , folks

And here I thought everyone around this place knew everything!

I dug into the primer thing a while back and found some threads (I think over on bench rest central where several guys had cut and measured cups.

One thing that I have wondered since is:
Is there a difference between brass cups and silver cups (are they nickel brass?)

They're all brass cups

The "silver cups" are nickel-plated.

Mr. Sisk,
A Happy New Year to you sir.
I just wanted to let you know that my grandfather also made rhubarb wine. And pear wine, and strawberry wine, and dandelion wine. Your mention of rhubarb wine brought back great memories of my time with him and put a smile on my face. I thank you for that!
Best wishes,
Marty

Thanks John.
So no discernable difference in strength, malleability, plasticity, etc as there would be if it was an Ni-alloy.

But are the numbers that go into calculating FPE useless?